Electronic Records Archives
Benchmark Report on
Records Lifecycle Management
for the
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Final
August 15, 2003
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Benchmarking Project ES-1
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Scope
1.3 Site Selection
1.4 Benchmarking Project Team
1.5 Team Process
1.6 Project Calendar
1.7 Objectives Benchmarked
2.0 BENCHMARKING INTERVIEW RESULTS
2.1 Site A
2.1.1 Relevance To NARA
2.1.2 Relevant Findings
2.1.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.1.4 Lessons Learned
2.2 Site B
2.2.1 Relevance To NARA
2.2.2 Relevant Findings
2.2.3 Legal and Business Environment
2.2.4 Lessons Learned
2.3 Site C
2.3.1 Relevance To NARA
2.3.2 Relevant Findings
2.3.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.3.4 Lessons Learned
2.4 Site D
2.4.1 Relevance To NARA
2.4.2 Relevant Findings
2.4.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.4.4 Lessons Learned
2.5 Site E
2.5.1 Relevance To NARA
2.5.2 Relevant Findings
2.5.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.5.4 Lessons Learned
2.6 Site F
2.6.1 Relevance To NARA
2.6.2 Relevant Findings
2.6.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.6.4 Lessons Learned
2.7 Site G
2.7.1 Relevance To NARA
2.7.2 Relevant Findings
2.7.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.7.4 Lessons Learned
2.8 Site H
2.8.1 Relevance To NARA
2.8.2 Relevant Findings
2.8.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.8.4 Lessons Learned
2.9 Site I
2.9.1 Relevance To NARA
2.9.2 Relevant Findings
2.9.3 Legal And Business Environment
2.9.4 Lessons Learned
3.0 SITE ANALYSIS
3.1 Common Themes
3.2 Critical Success Factors
3.3 Barriers to success
4.0 Conclusions
APPENDIX A: BENCHMARKING QUESTIONS
Group 1 Questions:
Group 2 Questions:
Group 3 Questions:
Group 4 Questions:
Group 5 Questions:
Group 6 Questions:
Group 7 Questions:
Group 8 Questions:
Group 9 Questions:
Group 10 Questions:
Group 11 Questions:
APPENDIX B: The Benchmarking Code of Conduct
Definitions
Etiquette and Ethics
Benchmarking Protocol
Short Words to the Wise
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Benchmarking Sites
Table 1-2: Number of Benchmarking Sites Questioned by Objectives
Table 1-3: Matrix of Question Groups Asked by Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Benchmarking Project
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) performed a condensed benchmarking project in support of the Records Lifecycle Business Process Reengineering (BPR) activity currently being performed. The goals of the benchmarking project were to identify best practices in a few targeted areas of the records lifecycle. A Benchmarking Team was assembled to develop benchmarking objectives and questions, identify benchmarking sites appropriate for those objectives, conduct interviews and analyze the results of the benchmarking project.
Because of the time available for benchmarking in the overall BPR project, the team had only three months to conduct all of these activities. This limited the number of sites the team could contact and limited the impact the benchmarking project was able to have on the BPR TO-BE model. The Benchmarking Team feels that benchmarking is a very worthwhile activity and that NARA should continue to benchmark additional organizations to continue to uncover best in class processes and identify new ideas for managing the records lifecycle.
Several common themes emerged from analysis of the benchmarking interviews. Because the benchmarking sites all have different legal, regulatory, and business environments from NARA's not all of these ideas would work equally well at NARA. Some of the best practices the Benchmarking Team identified reinforced ideas that were developed and discussed in the Records Lifecycle BPR. Other best practices reveal that other well-run archives are using a model of the appraisal and scheduling processes that is quite different from the one NARA is considering.
The major conclusions of the project are as follows:
- Several sites use functional analysis of an entire agency or department at a time to create coherent, agency-wide disposition authorities. These sites also tend to maintain the integrity of the schedule by doing regular updates to the schedule as a whole rather than adding and subtracting series as changes come up.
- Several sites had realized benefits from reorganizing their work to focus their time and energy on the appraisal and description of potentially permanent records.
- Implementation reports and a regular cycle of schedule updates and reviews help keep schedules relevant and encourage improved compliance.
- Appraisal discussion groups may provide benefits in consistency of scheduling and in closer cooperation and understanding among reference, processing, and appraisal archivists.
- Archivists can improve the quality and timeliness of records retention schedules by managing the scheduling process or even doing the inventorying and scheduling themselves.
Document Change Control Sheet
Document Title: Benchmark Report - Records Lifecycle Management
| Date | Filename/Version # | Author | Revision Description |
| 8/01/03 | N. Efrom | Baseline document | |
| 8/05/03 | M. Phillips | Final draft document | |
| 8/15/03 | M.Sonnier | Final document |
Benchmarking has been defined as the process of identifying and learning from the best practices anywhere in the world. It is a powerful tool in support of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) and Total Quality Management (TQM). Through benchmarking new perspectives can be obtained on specific problems, processes, and issues. By benchmarking, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) can see how other organizations have "thought outside the box," and learn from their experiences.
1.1 Purpose
NARA is conducting a Records Lifecycle BPR project as an important step in an effort to improve the lifecycle management of records throughout the Federal Government. This BPR is focused on positioning NARA to function effectively in the e-government environment.
The Records Lifecycle BPR will provide the agency with a coherent, end-to-end high-level view of the "AS-IS" and "TO-BE" records lifecycle processes, and views at more detailed levels of many essential processes that need to be reengineered in the near future to enable NARA to:
- Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of records lifecycle processes;
- Improve wherever possible the quality of the work produced by records lifecycle processes;
- Rationalize the capture and flow of data relating to records;
- Wherever possible decrease time and effort needed by agencies and NARA to conduct business, specifically: decrease turnaround time on the development, submission and approval of records schedules, with the goal of approving records schedules at the time they are submitted;
- Enable NARA to provide access to records at the time they are accessioned whenever possible;
- Enable NARA to take physical custody of electronic records as soon as agencies are willing to transfer them;
- Increase the speed and ease with which customers can gain access to records, products, services, and information; and
- Evaluate costs and benefits of potential process changes.
1.2 Scope
This benchmarking study covered a small group of high-priority areas within the Records Lifecycle BPR project. Most of these topics were related to the scheduling and appraisal processes, but the benchmarking study also touched on strategies for ensuring compliance with recordkeeping requirements and streamlining the review of archival materials for sensitive information.
1.3 Site Selection
The sites were selected from corporations and government organizations that were identified as leaders in the benchmarking study's target areas. Each organization faces some of the same challenges NARA does. Among the criteria the team used for selecting organizations were that they schedule, appraise, and provide access to records, and that they handle large volumes of data in a variety of formats.
The Benchmarking Team brainstormed a list of over 30 organizations that seemed to share functions with NARA and had reputations for being innovative, well-run institutions. Because of the very short timeline for benchmarking, the team winnowed the list down to the fourteen best matches for the benchmarking objectives. The team sent simultaneous cover letters and Benchmarking Questionnaires (see Appendix A, Benchmark Questions) via e-mail and mail, and then followed up with the sites by e-mail and telephone to request their participation. The team was able to set up dates and times for telephone or on-site interviews with nine of the fourteen sites.
The participating benchmarking site population consisted of the nine organizations listed in Table 1-1, Benchmarking Sites.
| Organization | Method | Type of Organization |
| Site A | Survey/Telephone | National Archives |
| Site B | On-Site | State Archives |
| Site C | Survey/Telephone | State Archives |
| Site D | Survey/Telephone | State Archives |
| Site E | Survey/Telephone | State Archives |
| Site F | On-Site | Government Agency |
| Site G | Survey/Telephone | Government Agency |
| Site H | Survey/Telephone | Private Company |
| Site I | On-Site | Non-governmental Agency |
This report does not link any profile to the names of NARA's benchmarking sites to protect their privacy. This is one of the guidelines established by the Benchmarking Code of Conduct (Appendix B), which laid the ground rules for this study.
1.4 Benchmarking Project Team
The Benchmarking Team (BMT) consisted of the following individuals.
- Lewis J. Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the United States. Dr. Bellardo was the executive sponsor of the program and provided oversight and guidance to the team.
- John Martinez, NPOL. Mr. Martinez led the benchmarking team, organized the benchmarking activities, participated in the benchmarking interviews, and assisted the team with other points of contact.
- Meg Phillips, NRPBC. Ms. Phillips participated in the benchmarking interviews and assisted in writing the benchmarking report.
- Donna Read, NRABR. Ms. Read participated in the benchmarking interviews.
- Michael Senseny, NHP. Mr. Senseney participated in the benchmarking interviews.
- David Lake, NPOL. Mr. Lake participated in the benchmarking interviews and assisted in writing the benchmarking report.
- Russell Loiselle, NPOL. Mr. Loiselle participated in the benchmarking interviews and assisted in writing the benchmarking report.
- Neil Efrom, Consultant, Wizdom Systems, Inc. Mr. Efrom coordinated the benchmarking activities, participated in the benchmarking interviews, and assisted in writing the benchmarking report.
- Steve Kroll, Consultant, Wizdom Systems, Inc. Mr. Kroll was the consulting project manager for the Lifecycle BPR project.
- Roger Willis, Executive Consultant, Wizdom Systems, Inc. Mr. Willis provided guidance for the project.
1.5 Team Process
The members of the BMT divided into several subteams of two or three people each. Each subteam took responsibility for establishing contact with a group of benchmarking sites and conducting the interviews with those sites. Several of the site organizations have established benchmarking points of contact to facilitate the initial contact. The benchmarking sites often pulled together a panel of staff experts in the processes NARA was investigating, allowing the Benchmarking Team to benefit from many perspectives and opinions on the target processes. The Benchmarking Team members divided responsibilities so that one person played the role of interviewer, one took notes, and (if there were three) one moderated the discussion, keeping the interview on track and on time.
The Team knew that site visits could provide particularly rich information about a site, but financial and time constraints prevented the team from conducting more than three site visits. The rest of the interviews were conducted over the telephone. For both kinds of interviews, the Benchmarking Questionnaire that had been sent to the sites in advance served as an outline for the conversation. This ensured that the interviews covered all the assigned topics for each site and that all the interviews covered the material the same way. Telephone interviews took between one and three hours to complete, and site visits averaged around three hours.
1.6 Project Calendar
The general benchmarking requirements were established in March and April of 2003. The majority of the time was devoted to selecting and validating the benchmarking sites. Site profiles and questions were developed in March and April, and benchmarking sites were finalized at the beginning of May. Requests for participation were sent to the chosen sites on May 2, 2003.
The first benchmarking interview took place on May 19 and the final benchmarking interview took place on June 5. The interviews were spread over a period of several weeks to accommodate all participants' schedules.
Beginning the week of June 2, 2003, the BMT began to analyze the notes and materials that had been collected during the site visits for presentation of relevant findings to the BPR Process Redesign Team. However, because the BMT began to analyze its findings during the last week the BPR Process Redesign Team met together to model the To-Be, the benchmarking findings could not fully inform the modeling. The BMT presented its preliminary findings to the group, but the Process Redesign Team did not have time to analyze and discuss all the possibilities suggested by the benchmarking process.
The team found that it took months to prepare for the benchmarking interviews. This time was spent on refining the interview questions, identifying the proper point of contact for a given benchmarking activity with a site, exchanging information, and clearing calendars for meetings. One of the lessons learned was that it might take a site four or more weeks to get an official decision to benchmarking from its management. At the time of writing, there are a couple of sites that volunteered to participate with whom the BMT still hasn't been able to coordinate an interview time. With more time, the BMT could have benchmarked these sites as well. The BMT felt that benchmarking was a very worthwhile exercise and that NARA should continue to use this tool to keep abreast of trends at other organizations. In order to get the most benefit from benchmarking in the future, though, the BMT recommends allocating more time to the process. It also felt that the benchmarking project could have had more influence on the BPR if it had happened earlier in the BPR schedule.
1.7 Objectives Benchmarked
The team selected six subject areas for detailed investigation in the participating organizations. The six objectives of the benchmarking project are listed in Table 1-2, Number of Benchmark Sites Questioned by Objective.
Table 1-2: Number of Benchmarking Sites Questioned by Objective
| Objective | Organizations Benchmarked |
| Identify how other organizations handle different types of media and how they minimize the number of individual processes to handle them. | Sites F, G |
| Identify how other archival organizations minimize the records scheduling approval cycle. | Sites A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Identify how other archival organizations streamline routine scheduling activities | Sites A, B, C, D, E, F |
| Identify how other organizations coordinate simultaneous approval. | Site G |
| Identify tools and techniques used to maintain and maximize other agencies' and departments' compliance with requirements. | Site A |
| Determine how organizations specifically identify the location and nature of sensitive information. | Site A |
| Determine best practices for minimizing the impact of records management on people who create, use, and maintain records. | Site I |
Table 1-3, Matrix of Question Groups Asked by Site, illustrates the sets of questions posed for each organization. Each group of questions corresponds to a particular objective or subject area. The associated benchmarking questions can be found in Appendix A.
Table 1-3: Matrix of Question Groups Asked by Site
| Site | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I |
| Group 1 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Group 2 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Group 3 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Group 4 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Group 5 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Group 6 Questions | X | X | |||||||
| Group 7 Questions | X | ||||||||
| Group 8 Questions | X | ||||||||
| Group 9 Questions | X | ||||||||
| Group 10 Questions | X | ||||||||
| Group 11 Questions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
2.0 BENCHMARKING INTERVIEW RESULTS
The results of the benchmarking interviews with each site are outlined in this section. The site profiles are outlined as follows:
- A non-attributable business description,
- The relevance to NARA,
- A summary of what the benchmarking site is doing differently from NARA,
- A description of the legal and regulatory environment surrounding that organization, and
- A summary of the lessons learned from that organization.
2.1 Site A
Site A is a national archives responsible for identifying and preserving records of permanent value in the government and making those records available to the public.
2.1.1 Relevance To NARA
Other national archives, like site A, share many of NARA's mandates and challenges.
2.1.2 Relevant Findings
Site A conducts appraisal at a level of aggregation much higher than the traditional series. It uses functional analysis to identify and appraise records, doing a top-down analysis of each organization to find out what its mission, main programs and functions are, and then looking for the records through which those functions are performed. The appraisal is focused on identifying permanent records - this site does not schedule records at all but gives governmental departments blanket permission to destroy everything that it does not identify as permanent.
Site A is working with departments and agencies to create a disposition authority that covers all or most of the organization at once. By using a memorandum of understanding (MOU), Site A develops a customized project plan that will work for each agency. By using customized MOUs Site A is trying to introduce more flexibility into its appraisal process, developing strategic partnerships that meet the needs of both the agency and the archives. This approach replaces a system that proved too rigid and too dependent on the quality of pre-existing records and information management within agencies.
Site A has created a fully searchable document management system for all of its disposition authorities. Although the project to convert its legacy disposition documentation into a single searchable database was a long and labor-intensive process, this site has found the resulting tool to be invaluable. Staff members now have at their fingertips all the information they need to conduct appraisals and advise their agency customers. This system will also help Site A send out report cards for each department telling them how many valid disposition authorities they have, how many are outdated but usable, and how many are revoked and can no longer be used. Finally, it lets the agency know how to initiate a project to create new authorities.
This site has twenty full-time staff involved in reviewing documents for sensitive information. This process appears to work very smoothly. The public is informed about what to expect from the review process by a clear, explicit, and detailed web page.
Site A completed 24 Records Disposition Authorities (RDAs) this year. (The trend is to creating fewer but more powerful and comprehensive RDAs to cover an agency.) It takes around 30 days to develop and approve an RDA for a small agency, 45 days for a medium-sized agency, and 90 days for a large agency.
2.1.3 Legal And Business Environment
Site A's mission is to identify permanent records for the archives, then to preserve and provide access to those records. Site A authorizes destruction of non-permanent records, but it is not involved in retention scheduling.
Site A is in the midst of significant administrative changes that should increase its profile as a knowledge institution.
A recent legislative change will give the Archivist the power to "compel" agencies to transfer records at risk to the archives, a power he had not had in the past. The Archivist has also been given the formal role of leader in improving information management for the government as a whole, a role that provides evidence of this site's leadership in its government and a role that will provide a platform to promote and advance the archives' goals.
2.1.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- A fully searchable document management system for disposition and appraisal documents has helped improve appraisal processes and provides staff with ready access to the information needed to advise agencies. Site A reports that creating this tool was its most effective performance improvement.
- Functional appraisal of each agency as a whole allows archivists to ensure that they are capturing adequate documentation of the most important activities of government.
- Providing reports to agencies on the state of their disposition authorities (listing which are current, which are out of date but usable, and which are revoked) will help to trigger interest in updating the authorities.
- MOUs allow the archives to work with each agency to come up with an appraisal project plan that works for both organizations, while ensuring that high-level management of the agency will provide sufficient support for the appraisal project.
- Site A reported that a previous Business Process Reengineering effort merely tinkered with its appraisal process and that this was a mistake. The tinkering delayed the radical restructuring the process needed.
2.2 Site B
Site B is a state archives that is responsible for issuing RDAs, which authorize entities in state and local government to legally dispose of those records identified as temporary after an approved retention period and to transfer other records, which Site B appraises as permanent, to the state archives.
2.2.1 Relevance To NARA
Site B is responsible for scheduling and appraisal of government records.
2.2.2 Relevant Findings
Since the late 1990s, Site B has been using a functional approach to determining disposition authorities for state agencies. It uses a Records Disposition Authority (RDA) that provides disposition authority for all records for an entire agency. There are three sections in a complete RDA:
- History, context, and functional analysis of the agency;
- Appraisal of permanent and possibly permanent or questionable records; and
- Listing of all records with their approved disposition.
Site B started using RDAs in the late 1990s instead of traditional retention schedules because staff members found that they were spending a lot of time filling out appraisal worksheets for every record series and generating more paper than they needed. Now they focus their appraisal on only potentially permanent records. Many temporary dispositions are also now applied at a level higher than the series level.
Site B begins an RDA project by requiring a formal letter from the head of the agency requesting Site B's assistance in developing an RDA. This ensures that the project has high-level support within the agency. Site B staff next provides kick-off training for the agency staff who will be inventorying agency records. While agency staff inventory records, Site B staff members research the history and functions of the agency. When Site B receives the inventory, staff members review the suggested dispositions, appraise potentially permanent records, and write up the RDA. A State Records Commission reviews and approves each RDA.
Site B schedules a yearly review of every agency with an approved RDA. In preparation for this, the agency is provided with an annual implementation report - a checklist or questionnaire which asks about records management training in the agency, changes in the functions or activities of the agency that might require an update to the RDA, any other changes needed in the RDA, the volume of records destroyed in the agency, and which records were transferred to the archives. These questionnaires are summarized for the Records Commission. Site B is planning to have the Commission send letters to the agency heads on whether their agency is doing well or doing poorly in the management of their records.
Site B has an excellent Web site for disseminating information, and all RDAs are available from that site.
In 2000/2001, the last year for which actual numbers and not projections were provided, Site B approved 23 Records Disposition Authorities. Site B reports that the process of creating and approving an RDA for a small agency takes an average of 90 days, a medium sized agency takes 90 to 120 days, and a large agency takes 180 to 270 days. Because the group with approval authority, the State Records Commission, meets quarterly, 3 months or 90 days is the shortest time possible for approval of an RDA.
2.2.3 Legal and Business Environment
Site B has suffered from staff cutbacks in recent years.
Site B's state has an unclear public records law that gives citizens the right of access to state records in principle, but leaves implementation decisions to the discretion of individual agencies and departments.
Records Disposition Authorities are approved by the State Records Commission which has the final authority to determine which records are permanent or temporary and to approve retention periods. The Commission meets quarterly, so there are only 4 times a year when RDAs can be approved. There is no comment process such as the Federal Register process. The members of the Commission are the Director of Site B (Chair), the Chief Examiner of the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, and two professional historians appointed by the heads of the history departments of prominent universities in the state. These Commissioners represent the various stakeholders in records retention issues and serve a similar purpose to a public comment period. Having these figures involved on the Commission has had the side effect of ensuring that some of the most powerful figures in state government (and people with enforcement power) are very well educated about records management and expect to see proper records management built into agency infrastructures. The Examiner, for example, includes the lack of an RDA in agency examination reports and sends those agencies to Site B to correct the lack.
2.2.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Creating an RDA using a functional analysis for an entire agency or department at a time allows archivists to easily determine whether they are capturing adequate documentation of the activities of the agency for permanent retention.
- Yearly updates of the RDAs for each agency keep the RDAs current while maintaining the integrity of the RDA as a complete picture of the records of an agency and allowing for functional appraisal of the agency's documentation as a whole.
- Yearly reviews of recordkeeping practices in the agencies at the time of the update provide regular reminders to agency staff of their records management responsibilities and thereby encourage good records management practices.
- Site B does full appraisals and creates appraisal documentation only for potentially permanent records, in contrast to its former practice of treating all records alike and generating a significant volume of unnecessary paperwork.
- Site B requires a letter requesting assistance in developing an RDA from the director of each government agency it works with. This provides an opening to educate high-level management about recordkeeping responsibilities and ensures management support for the process.
2.3 Site C
Site C is a state archives that is responsible for creating records retention schedules for state and local government entities, including appraising records for potential permanent value and authorizing records identified as temporary for destruction at the end of their approved retention periods.
2.3.1 Relevance To NARA
Site C is responsible for the scheduling and appraisal of government records.
2.3.2 Relevant Findings
Overall, Site C's scheduling and appraisal processes are among the most similar to NARA's of the sites the team interviewed.
Site C, however, does make a distinction between the way it handles temporary and potentially permanent records. It only "appraises" potentially permanent records, meaning that these are the only records staff members are likely to inspect, and these are the only records that generate an appraisal report. The appraisal report is written for the whole schedule covering all the permanent records submitted by the program unit at that time. For temporary records, Site C "analyzes" the schedule, and may clarify questions with phone calls or e-mails. Analysis results in an "analysis memo" which is a much shorter document than an appraisal report and covers all temporary records submitted by the program unit at one time. Although Site C's scheduling strategy calls for creating schedules for entire program units at a time and these are still being done, Site C does accept updates to existing schedules whenever the unit submits them.
Potentially permanent records also go through an additional level of approval. Every month an appraisal discussion group, consisting of all professional archives staff that choose to attend, meets to discuss and vote on all the appraisal reports of potentially permanent series that came up in the preceding month. The reports are supplied beforehand and the group discusses the records, eventually reaching consensus about whether the records are archival or not. This decision is fed back into the schedule.
The whole schedule, instead of being open for a public comment period, is then sent to the Attorney General and the State Comptroller for objections. They have 30 days to ask questions or raise objections. They sometimes ask questions for clarification, but objections requiring changes are very uncommon. Silence is approval. After this 30-day comment period, the schedule is sent to the Archivist for signature, after which point the schedule is approved and ready for implementation.
In 1999, the last year for which such statistics were kept, Site C approved 85% of disposition requests within 90 days of submission. Between 20 and 25 appraisal reports go to the appraisal discussion group each year. Site C tracks the number of series it approves rather than the number of schedules. It approves around 250 series a year.
2.3.3 Legal And Business Environment
Budget cuts have decreased the number of staff available to do scheduling and appraisal. Although staff members reported that their current process works well and that they have no backlog, staff members do not actively encourage agencies to submit schedules as they once did because they would not be able to keep up with the increased workload.
This state archive is functioning in a political climate that stresses less regulation. If the law does not require the retention of a record it is viewed as excessive regulation to have a retention schedule that requires an agency to keep it. This doesn't seem to affect the archives ability to appraise records as permanent, but it influences the attitude toward other retention periods, encouraging Site C to set temporary retention periods as short as possible.
2.3.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Appraisal discussion groups help gain consensus about which records should be permanent and probably lead to more consistent appraisal decisions.
- Site C does full appraisals and writes appraisal reports only for potentially permanent records, writing shorter analysis reports to cover temporary records. This ensures that Site C spends most of its time working on high priority records.
- Site C is particularly proud of its non-bureaucratic, flexible approach to approving disposition requests, an attitude that leads to excellent service to its customers.
2.4 Site D
Site D is a state archives that is responsible for creating records retention schedules for state and local government entities, including appraising records for potential permanent value and authorizing records identified as temporary for destruction at the end of their approved retention periods.
2.4.1 Relevance To NARA
Site D is responsible for the scheduling and appraisal of government records.
2.4.2 Relevant Findings
Site D switched from traditional series-based scheduling to functional scheduling in the 1990s. Before the change, records management staff found that it took "forever" to schedule an agency's records, the process was painful, Site D was dependent on the agency's motivation and skill to complete a schedule, and the schedules that resulted were not used by agency staff.
Site D's current process starts with developing and signing an interagency agreement with an agency for conducting a scheduling project in that agency. Site D staff members then schedule 1-hour appointments with each program area. In those meetings they get descriptions of the business functions the area performs and an inventory of the records generated by the function. Archives staff uses this information to develop a functional schedule covering the entire agency. The schedule contains rich description of the functions and no description of the series. The series are merely listed with the dispositions that were agreed upon by records management and agency program staff.
For records series that might be permanent, Archives staff fills out an appraisal worksheet. This captures much more detailed information about potentially permanent series for use in appraisal, and ultimately for description and reference. This system was worked out in conjunction with reference archivists, who were afraid that the new functional scheduling would not capture the needed information for archival records. An appraisal team of 3 or 4 archivists reviews all the appraisal worksheets and determines which records should be permanent.
After schedules are approved, Archives staff members write a report on the state of recordkeeping in the agency with recommendations for improvement. They sit down with representatives of the agency to discuss the report.
Site D cites many advantages to their new process. Site D is no longer dependent on the initiative or skill of agency staff to create a schedule. The agencies are now doing better records management because they understand the functional schedules and how to use them. Use of the reimbursable state records center has increased since the introduction of the new schedules, which Site D believes is evidence of better records management implementation in the agencies.
To ensure that the Archives handles only complete agency schedules and the schedules stay up-to-date, Site D has instituted a 5-year update cycle. Records management staff tracks which schedules are due for update and initiates the process of updating the schedule. Since archives staff takes the old schedule as a starting point and only updates what has changed, updates take only a third the time it took to develop the initial schedule.
Site D has an excellent web page and reports that it relies heavily on the web because it has such a small staff. It needs to make the best possible use of technology to increase the staff's reach. All schedules are available on the Internet.
Site D develops and approves between 20 and 30 complete agency schedules each year. Small agency schedules take around 90 days, medium-sized agency schedules take from 90 to 180 days, and large agency schedules take from 180 to 270 days. A 90-day schedule takes less than 100 staff hours.
2.4.3 Legal And Business Environment
Because this site reports to the Secretary of its State, its archives and records management information is closely integrated with other state information. Site D, in addition to its archives responsibilities, also produces an official state directory and online fact book about government in the state. The archives' holdings from and retention schedule for each department and agency are linked from the main department or agency page in this directory.
2.4.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Functional appraisal of each agency as a whole allows archivists to ensure that they are capturing adequate documentation of the most important activities of government.
- Updates of the schedules at regular 5-year intervals keep schedules current while maintaining the integrity of the schedule as a complete picture of the records of an agency and allowing for functional appraisal of the agency's documentation as a whole.
- By conducting full appraisals and creating the associated appraisal documentation only for potentially permanent records, Site D saves time, effort, and paperwork over sending all records through the same process.
- Providing reports to agencies on the successes and weaknesses of their records management programs at the end of the scheduling process probably contributes to good records management implementation.
- By taking responsibility for the scheduling and appraisal processes, Site D improved the quality of schedules and the speed with which it could develop them. This probably leads to better control of its own time and workflow and easier planning for upcoming work.
- Cooperation between appraisal and reference archivists leads to descriptions on appraisal worksheets for permanent records that are useful as archival description when the records are accessioned.
- A three or four person appraisal team goes over the appraisal worksheets to reach consensus on which records should be permanent, which ensures that all archives stakeholders have input into appraisal and may lead to greater appraisal consistency.
2.5 Site E
Site E is a state archives that is responsible for creating records retention schedules for state and local government entities, including appraising records for potential permanent value and authorizing records identified as temporary for destruction at the end of their approved retention periods.
2.5.1 Relevance To NARA
Site E is responsible for the scheduling and appraisal of government records.
2.5.2 Relevant Findings
Site E provides an inventory form which agency staff members use to inventory their records and suggest minimum retention periods. Site E produces the schedules, and sends them to the agency for approval. In the early 1990s, the state records law was changed to allow Site E to issue general records schedules. This change has been very helpful in streamlining the scheduling and appraisal processes.
Site E is doing traditional scheduling at the series level and all series go through all the same processes.
Site E once had an appraisal review group but sending schedules through the group proved to be a bottleneck in the process and the group was eliminated.
Last year, Site E approved 91% of schedules within 14 days. It approves between 360 and 420 schedules a year.
2.5.3 Legal And Business Environment
Site E is experiencing budget cuts that have resulted in a 25% reduction in workforce. This has forced staff to be more reactive than proactive in scheduling. They are having trouble keeping up with the volume of schedules they currently get. Site E stated that they are starting to see electronic records come in, and that they are just beginning to look at how to process them.
The state records law requires that the state Archivist and the director of the agency being scheduled approve schedules. Approval of a financial review board has also been required by law, but the board has generally "rubber-stamped" the schedules it reviewed. At the suggestion of the board itself, legislation was recently passed to eliminate the board from the process. Its members recognized that they did not add much value to the approval process.
Site E is also seeking a change in the records law that would allow it to issue general records schedules without going through the legislative approval cycle.
2.5.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Use of general records schedules has helped in streamlining of scheduling and appraisal processes.
2.6 Site F
Site F is a federal agency that develops and enforces regulations under existing laws. Site F is responsible for researching and setting standards for a variety of programs and delegates responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where certain standards are not met, Site F issues sanctions and takes other steps to assist in enforcement.
2.6.1 Relevance To NARA
Site F has a good records management program, including useful guidance and online tools. Managing records and information is essential to Site F's operation and it is a leader in good retention schedule development and implementation.
2.6.2 Relevant Findings
Site F reported that even with their well-developed records management program, following records management procedures is not part of the organizational culture.
Site F has an extensive records management training program. It recognizes the importance of high-level management advocacy of records management and would like to improve in this area.
Site F has a thorough process of internal review of schedules before the schedules are submitted to NARA. This site expressed frustration with NARA's scheduling process because of the time it takes and the apparent lack of NARA understanding of Site F's internal approval processes. In fact, Site F expressed the opinion that NARA should focus on permanent records and let agencies determine how long to keep temporary records based on agencies' own needs.
The total number of schedules in effect at Site F has been reduced from 600 to 550 in the past year through an effort to weed out old, unused, or duplicative schedules. Site F creates between 2 and 10 new schedules each year. When a new record series is identified, Site F will try to find a way of covering it using existing schedules rather than try to get a new schedule approved by NARA.
Site F issues instructions for migration and copying of databases in the retention schedules. Often reformatting and migration of electronic data is not done until it is necessary to transfer the data to NARA.
2.6.3 Legal And Business Environment
Site F's records management processes are governed by Federal recordkeeping laws and regulations and NARA guidance. Site F is also subject to congressional and public scrutiny and therefore has a business need for records management.
2.6.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Site F places a high priority on easy access to up-to-date schedule information as a means of streamlining all aspects of schedule creation and implementation.
- Site F stresses the need for end-user training, management support, and integration of records management into the organizational culture in order for records management practice to match records management policy.
- Site F reports that there is a lack of understanding within Site F of NARA's scheduling process and within NARA of Site F's scheduling process that contributes to Site F's frustration.
2.7 Site G
Site G is a part of a Federal agency responsible for archiving and providing access to scientific data generated by its parent agency.
2.7.1 Relevance To NARA
Site G accessions, maintains, and provides access to large amounts of data over time.
2.7.2 Relevant Findings
Site G is an intra-agency permanent archive, dealing only with its associated temporary archives. This organization creates and distributes schema for describing the data during the development of new information systems.
Site G is using a standard information package based on the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model to capture necessary metadata about its data sets. Site G is storing its information on Digital Linear Tape (DLT).
2.7.3 Legal And Business Environment
Because of Site G's position within the larger organization, it is only responsible for the preservation and maintenance of permanent data.
2.7.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below:
- Site G is encouraging data creators to use acceptable data formats and schema, and to generate Archival Information Packets at the time of document creation.
- Site G could not name an organization that has done an exemplary job of handling different types of data in a variety of formats.
2.8 Site H
Site H is focused on defense, government and commercial electronics, and business aviation and special mission aircraft.
2.8.1 Relevance To NARA
Site H manages large volumes of records and data.
2.8.2 Relevant Findings
Site H oversees records management for a large, diverse organization with a records management staff of only four people. The site has compiled a single records management policy proving disposition instructions for seventy broad functional areas. Site H has successfully standardized its records management policy for a company that was built out of several acquisitions of separate, geographically dispersed companies. Site H has also successfully integrated its business processes with an offsite storage and information management vendor.
2.8.3 Legal And Business Environment
Site H was formed from the merger of several previously separate organizations. The records management group, from one of the predecessor companies, now operates the records management program for the entire company.
2.8.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Setting standard records retention policies for categories of records across the entire organization is an important first step in allowing a small staff to administer a records management program for a very large organization.
- It is beneficial to develop a standardized method of interaction across many business lines between an organization and an offsite storage vendor to ensure a more efficient flow of records and information.
2.9 Site I
Site I is a regional multilateral development institution focused on helping accelerate regional economic and social development.
2.9.1 Relevance To NARA
Site I limits the impact of records management on its day to day operations, through processes as well as the use of electronic systems.
2.9.2 Relevant Findings
Site I has implemented an electronic document management system to better control document creation and capture processes and improve communication.
Site I instituted a quality control program, but it is managed by multiple groups. The lack of consistency caused by this segmented approach has caused some confusion and duplication of effort.
2.9.3 Legal And Business Environment
The culture at Site I supports document management. Version control is an issue as documents are produced in multiple languages with multiple software programs.
2.9.4 Lessons Learned
The lessons learned appear in the list below.
- Electronic systems by themselves do not solve records management problems.
- The lack of a coordinated or centralized quality control program can create confusion and provide results that are counter to the aim of improving quality.
3.0 SITE ANALYSIS
The benchmarking team consolidated the individual interview notes and material, and looked for key points and lessons learned from each. Each site's profile was then drafted. As the analysis progressed, common themes, success factors, and barriers to success emerged.
3.1 Common Themes
These common themes emerged during analysis.
- Sites A, B, and D are all doing functional scheduling to some degree and they only create Records Disposition Authorities that cover an entire agency or other large functional unit. For effective functional analysis, an appraisal archivist needs to consider documentation of the entire agency (or other large unit) at once.
- Both B and D have built in regular reviews and updates of the schedules, B once a year and D every five years.
- Sites A, B, and D all require formal letters requesting assistance or memoranda of understanding between the archives and the agency being scheduled. This ensures high level support for the records management process in the agency and lays out a project plan for completing the agency's schedule in a timely way.
- Sites A, B, C, and D all conduct full appraisals and create the associated appraisal documentation only for potentially permanent records. This saves time, effort, and paperwork over sending all records through the same process, while creating sufficiently detailed documentation about permanent series to be used in archival description.
- Sites A and D both changed their scheduling and appraisal processes so the archives would be less dependent on the expertise and initiative of agency staff. They found that they got better results and faster turn around times if archives staff took an active role in managing the scheduling and appraisal process or actually did the inventorying and scheduling themselves.
- Both B and D provide reports to agencies on the successes and weaknesses of their records management programs as part of scheduled reviews. B does this as part of the yearly review. D provides a report when it completes an agency schedule, which happens for each agency every five years. (Site A is starting to send report cards to agencies on the state of their disposition authorities, listing which are current, which are out of date but usable, and which are so out of date that they are revoked. This is a different use of the reporting idea.) All of these reporting mechanisms provide encouragement for and measurement of records management implementation in the agencies.
- Both C and D use periodic appraisal discussion groups as part of the process of deciding which records should be permanent. Site E once had this kind of group but eliminated it.
- Many sites, particularly A, B, D, and F emphasized the importance of making records management information and tools freely available on clear, well-designed, and user-friendly internet sites.
3.2 Critical Success Factors
During analysis, the following success factors were deemed critical.
- Top management support of records management policies
- Sufficient budget, resources, and manpower associated to records management programs
- Regulatory and Legal environment set up to support records management policies
- Tools, systems, and software to support automation of processes
- Well communicated processes
- Providing an environment that encourages customers to recognize and act on the importance of Records Management programs.
3.3 BARRIERS TO SUCCESS
During analysis, the following factors were found to be barriers to success.
- Lack of management support for Records Management programs
- Lack of funding to support Records Management programs
- Rigid procedures that do not allow the records management program to adjust to meet the business needs of the customer agency
- Rigid procedures that force records management staff to spend time creating documentation that is not used later
- Traditional records management practices that do not make sense to continue
4.0 Conclusions
The benchmarking process uncovered patterns in practice that several well-run archives and records management programs shared. Some of these findings support NARA in its decision to pursue the direction the Business Process Reengineering Process Redesign Team is recommending. Other findings are less compatible with this path and would require further study to see if the benefits they might bring would be worth the difficulties in reorganizing NARA's processes to accommodate them. Conclusions on specific topics follow.
- The benchmarking interviews provided support for many current NARA initiatives and suggestions of the BPR Process Redesign Team. Among these are expanding the general records schedules, scheduling at a level above the traditional series, and providing as much information and as many records management tools as possible on the Internet. One site had laboriously created a searchable database of all its valid disposition authorities, and in spite of the work involved the site reported that it was the best improvement they had made. Such a system would be invaluable for NARA, and would lay the groundwork for closer cooperation between NARA headquarters and regional records management staff and for regular monitoring of agency compliance.
-
Many archives have redesigned their processes in order focus more of their attention on potentially permanent records, doing full appraisals and creating detailed descriptions and appraisal documentation only for records that might be considered permanent. This allows the archives to spend very little time on obviously temporary records, while still providing enough appraisal documentation to explain the reasons for a disposal authorization for the questionable cases. The BPR Process Redesign Team is recommending that NARA adopt a similar strategy, developing two approval tracks, one for high priority, permanent, or questionable appraisals and another faster track for uncontroversial temporary records. There is a difference in orientation between most of the benchmarking sites and NARA that may prevent NARA from doing exactly what they do. Most of the benchmarking sites behave as though they need to defend the decision to appraise a series as permanent: records are temporary until proven permanent. NARA's legal mandate and environment is similar to that of these benchmarking sites, but because of the greater public scrutiny to which NARA is subject, NARA operates as though it needs to defend the decision to authorize destruction. This difference in posture may make it more difficult for NARA to scale back on the appraisal documentation it requires for temporary records to the extent that these other sites have done. Nevertheless, it is worth investigating whether other strategies might offer NARA as much protection as the appraisal reports currently do.
-
Several sites did some form of regular reporting on agency recordkeeping, including such topics as records destroyed, new records series created, records sent to off-site storage, and records sent to the archives, combined with suggestions for improving recordkeeping practices in the agency. This kind of evaluation encourages good recordkeeping and lets the agencies know that the archives is monitoring their compliance. Because it happens regularly to every agency, though, the process doesn't have the negative associations of occasional inspections. This kind of regular reporting could help improve records management practice throughout the Federal government. Because the reports focus on records management outcomes (records appropriately scheduled, retained, destroyed, and archived), NARA could also use these reports as a tool to measure the impact of its programs on records management practice.
- Appraisal discussion groups appeared in several sites. These groups provide consensus on whether a series should be permanent. Because of the consensus-building process, these groups could lead to more consistent appraisals. They can give processing and reference archivists an opportunity to explain their perspectives on appraisal, playing a role similar to the role of NARA's Stakeholder Unit Review. The appraisal groups provide an additional advantage in simply giving archivists involved in different stages of the records lifecycle an opportunity to get to know each other and explain their priorities and processes to each other. A disadvantage of a system like this for NARA would be the difficulty of fully integrating regional stakeholders into such meetings, although conference calling could help.
- A major pattern in the benchmarking results is a suite of related findings:
- Functional scheduling of an entire agency at a time;
- Regularly scheduled updates to the schedule so that appraisal archivist can continue to analyze the documentation of the agency's functions as a whole;
- Memoranda of understanding that lay out the agreement between the archives and the agency for this large, agency-wide scheduling and appraisal project; and
- The archives staff taking complete responsibility for managing the project and doing much of the scheduling work.
The model that includes these elements works well for many archives. It gives them control over schedule quality and timeline and it allows them to make good use of their functional analysis of agencies. The archives also report that this method makes more sense to their agency customers than traditional retention scheduling did. Going to this model would be a big change for NARA, however, and NARA is not currently moving in this direction. In fact, some of the suggestions coming out of the BPR Process Redesign Team may not be compatible with this model because they assume that decisions about each series or big bucket would be made independently, not in the context of an analysis of the functions of the whole agency.
APPENDIX A: BENCHMARKING QUESTIONS
Group 1 Questions:
Business Environment
The purpose of these questions is to gain an understanding of the external forces that are impacting on the business that may provide the rationale or necessity for process improvement efforts.
- What challenges do you face in achieving your mission?
- Do you recognize any specific weaknesses that you would care to share with us and if so, are there efforts underway to address these areas via process improvement efforts?
- Are there changes in the legal or regulatory environment (federal, state, and local) to which you are responding, and how are you responding to them?
- Have you had any successes in making changes to regulations that hindered or impeded your business, and how in general did you go about it?
Group 2 Questions:
Organizational Infrastructure
The purpose of these questions is to understand the relationships among processes, functions, and competencies.
- Have you identified core business processes and support business processes and how did you go about defining them? Do you use any kind of formal modeling technique such as enterprise modeling, process mapping, and such? Do you use any automated tools to keep your models current?
- Do you practice outsourcing and/or strategic partnering in any of your business processes? How do you share information among contractors, business partners, and remote offices? What has been the experience so far?
- Do you have a formal office established to manage quality improvements and/or process reengineering?
Group 3 Questions:
Technological Infrastructure
The purpose of these questions is to understand the degree to which technology is a driving force in the organization and to be able to relate that to process improvement efforts.
- What is the overall technological strategy to support your business processes?
- To what extent do you share data with entities outside of your organization - suppliers, customers, contractors, professional organizations, agencies, other government entities, and/or educational institutions?
Note: For the following groups of questions, the benchmarking team tailored questions to the specific targeted process being reviewed for the particular organization participating on the benchmarking activities.
Group 4 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on how to minimize the schedule approval cycle.
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for minimizing the schedule approval cycle? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider the schedule approval cycle to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who is responsible for measuring the efficiency of the schedule approval cycle? How many FTE are used to perform this task? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow them to successfully measure the efficiency?
- What is the measure of quality you use for your schedule approval process? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
- On average, how many schedules does your organization create in a given month? How many schedules are approved each month? How long is your schedule approval cycle (in days)?
- Does your schedule approval cycle include a public or external stakeholder review period? If so, how long is this review period and how many schedules are actually commented on?
- Are there specific categories of schedules that consistently have a longer approval cycle than others? If so, why do you think they take longer to process? What is the longest time required to get a schedule approved? The shortest?
- How is appraisal carried out? How are appraisal decisions documented? What is the unit of scheduling or schedule approval?
Group 5 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on streamlining routine scheduling activities
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for streamlining routine scheduling activities? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider routine scheduling activities to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who periodically monitors the effectiveness of your organization's routine scheduling activities? How many FTE are used to monitor this process? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow the FTE to monitor the effectiveness of this process?
- What is the measure of quality for these routine scheduling activities? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
- Does your organization have any outstanding issues with NARA related to routine scheduling activities? If so, what are they?
Group 6 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on the handling of different types of data in a variety of media formats.
- What types of data and media formats does your organization work with?
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for handling different types of data in a variety of media formats? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider this process to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who is responsible for measuring the quality of providing access to archival media? How many FTE are used to perform this quality assurance? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow the FTE to successfully monitor quality?
- What is the measure of quality for your process of providing access to archival media? What are the criteria that you use to define excellence in performance for access service? How do you measure the output quality of access service? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
Group 7 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on Implementing Records Disposition
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for implementing record dispositions? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider implementing record dispositions to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who is responsible for ensuring that record dispositions are properly implemented within your organization? How many FTE are used to perform this task? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow them to successfully enforce proper implementation?
- What is the measure of quality for implementing record dispositions? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
- Does your organization have any outstanding issues with NARA related to implementing record dispositions? If so, what are they?
Group 8 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on Records Management
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for embedding records management processes and requirements into new systems and work processes? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider the embedding of records management processes into new systems and work processes to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who is responsible for measuring the overall effectiveness of your records management processes and requirements? How many FTE are used to monitor compliance? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow the FTE to successfully monitor compliance?
- What is the measure of quality for these embedded records management processes and requirements? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
- Does your organization have any outstanding issues with NARA related to records management processes or requirements? If so, what are they?
Group 9 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on maintaining and maximizing other agencies' and departments' compliance with your requirements
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for ensuring that agencies maintain and maximize compliance with your requirements? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider maintaining and maximizing compliance with requirements to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who in your organization is responsible for ensuring that agencies maintain and maximize compliance? How many FTE are used to perform this task? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow them to successfully enforce proper implementation?
- What is the measure of quality for these activities related to maintaining and maximizing compliance with requirements? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
Group 10 Questions:
Process and Metrics Questions on how organizations specifically identify the location and nature of sensitive information.
- Does your organization have a defined, documented process for identifying the location and nature of sensitive information? If so will your organization share this with NARA? If so, please provide point of contact.
- Do you consider identifying the location and nature of sensitive information to be a problem or concern in your organization? If not today, was it a problem in the past?
- Who is responsible for identifying the location and nature of sensitive information? How many FTE are used to perform this task? What, if any, special training was necessary to allow them to successfully enforce proper implementation?
- What is the measure of quality for identifying the location and nature of sensitive information? What are the performance criteria that you use, or would use, to define excellence in this process? How do you measure the output quality of this process? How do you measure progress in quality improvement?
Group 11 Questions:
Process Improvement Initiative Questions
- Is there currently or has there been a recent process improvement initiative regarding the above listed processes? If so, what process improvements have given you the best return in performance improvements?
- Is any part of the above listed processes automated? What technology improvements have given you the best return in performance improvements?
APPENDIX B: The Benchmarking Code of Conduct
Definitions
Benchmarking - the process of identifying and learning from the best practices anywhere in the world - is a powerful tool in the quest for continuous improvement.
To contribute to efficient, effective, and ethical benchmarking, individuals agree for themselves and their organization to abide by the following principles for benchmarking with other organizations:
Principle of Legality - Avoid discussions or actions that might lead to or imply an interest in restraint of trade: market or customer allocation schemes, price fixing, dealing arrangements, bid rigging, bribery or misappropriation. Do not discuss costs with competitors if costs are an element of pricing.
Principles of Exchange - Be willing to provide the same level of information that you request, in any benchmarking exchange.
Principle of Confidentiality - Treat benchmarking interchange as something confidential to the individuals and organizations involved. Information obtained must not be communicated outside the partnering organizations without prior consent of participating benchmarking partners. An organization's participation in a study should not be communicated externally without their permission.
Principle of Use - Use information obtained through benchmarking partnering only for the purpose of improvement of operations within the partnering companies themselves. External use or communication of a benchmarking partner's name with their data of observed practices requires permissions of that partner. Do not, as a consultant or client, extend one company's benchmarking study findings to another without the first company's permission.
Principle of First Party Contact - Initiate contacts, whenever possible, though a benchmarking contact designated by the partner company. Obtain mutual agreement with the contact on any hand off of communication or responsibility to other parties.
Principle of Third Party Contact - Obtain an individual's permission before providing their name in response to a contact request.
Principle of Preparation - Demonstrate commitment to the efficiency and effectiveness of the benchmarking process with adequate preparation at each process step, particularly, at initial partnering contact.
Etiquette and Ethics
In actions between benchmarking partners, the emphasis is on openness and trust. The following guidelines apply to both partners in a benchmarking encounter.
- In benchmarking with competitors, establish specific ground rules up front, e.g., "We don't want to talk about those things that will give either of us a competitive advantage, rather, we want to see where we both can mutually improve and gain benefit."
- Do not ask competitors for sensitive data or cause the benchmarking partner to feel that sensitive data must be provided to keep the process going.
- Use an ethical third party to assemble and blind competitive data, with inputs from legal counsel, for direct competitor comparisons.
- Consult with legal counsel if any information gathering procedure is in doubt, e.g., before contacting a direct competitor.
- Any information obtained from a benchmarking partner should be treated as internal privileged information.
- Do not disparage a competitor's business or operations to a third party.
- Do not attempt to limit competition or gain business through the benchmarking relationship.
Benchmarking Protocol
Know and abide by the Benchmarking Code of Conduct.
- Have basic knowledge of benchmarking and follow a benchmarking process.
- Have determined what to benchmark, identified key performance variables, recognized superior performing companies, and completed a rigorous self-assessment.
- Have developed a questionnaire and interview guide, and will share these in advance if requested.
- Have the authority to share information.
- Work through a specified host and mutually agree on scheduling and meeting arrangements.
- Follow these guidelines in face-to-face site visits:
- Provide meeting agenda in advance.
- Be professional, honest, courteous and prompt.
- Introduce all attendees and explain why they are preset.
- Adhere to the agenda: maintain focus on benchmarking issues.
- Use language that is universal, not one's own jargon. - Do not share proprietary information without prior approval from the proper authority of both parties.
- Share information about your process(es) if asked, and consider sharing study results.
- Offer up a reciprocal visit.
- Conclude meetings and visits on schedule.
- Thank the benchmarking partner for the time and for the sharing.
Short Words to the Wise
- Keep it legal
- Be willing to give what you got
- Respect confidentiality
- Keep information internal
- Use benchmarking contacts
- Don't refer without permission
- Be prepared at initial contacts
Page Last Updated: 07/08/08
