This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Reference
One of the most influential, early articles to stress a functional approach was the article by David Bearman and Richard Lytle, “The Power of the Principle of Provenance,” Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86): 14–27. From that same time period see also JoAnne Yates, “Internal Communication Systems in American Business Structures: A Framework to Aid Appraisal,” American Archivist, 48 (Spring 1985): 141-58. One of the earliest applications of functional appraisal was by Joan K. Hass, Helen Willa Samuels and Barbara Trippel Simmons, Appraising the Records of Modern Science and Technology: A Guide (Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 1985). This methodology was later applied in a university setting in a publication by Helen Willa Samuels, Varsity Letters. Documenting Modern Colleges and Universities (Metuchen, N.J: The Society of American Archivists and Scarecrow Press, 1992), and to the documentation of high technology companies in Bruce Bruemmer and Sheldon Hochheiser, The High-Technology Company: a Historical Research and Archival Guide (Minneapolis: Charles Babbage Institute, Center for the History of Information Processing, University of Minnesota: distributed by the Society of American Archivists, 1989). For articles advocating a functional approach as it relates to electronic records see especially, Terry Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management and Archives in the Post-Custodial and Post-Modernist Era,“ Archives and Manuscripts 22 (November 1994): 300–328; Margaret Hedstrom, ”Descriptive Practices for Electronic Records: Deciding What is Essential and Imagining What is Possible,S Archivaria 36 (Autumn 1993): 53–63; David Bearman, “Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy, and the Management of Electronic Records in Europe and America,” in David Bearman, Electronic Evidence. Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organizations (Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics, 1994): 261-66; and the Australian Archives Home Page at: www.aa.gov.au/AA_www/AA_Issues/KER/KER4.html
For summaries of the changing business structure and its implications for recordkeeping see Richard Cox, “Archives and Archivists in the TwentyFirst Century: What Will We Become?” Archival Issues 20, no. 1 (1995): 97–113; John McDonald,SManaging Records in the Modern Office: Tarning the Wild Frontiers Archivaria 39 (March 1995); 70–79; David Bearman and Margaret Hedstrom, “Reinventing Archives for Electronic Records: Alternate Service Delivery Options,” in Electronic Records Management Program Strategies, 82–98. Ed. Margaret Hedstrom, (Archives and Informatics Technical Report No. 18, Pittsburgh, PA., Archives and Museum Informatics, 1993 ); Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (New York: Harper Business, 1993 ); Thomas H. Davenport, Process Innovation. Reengineering Work through Information Technology (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993 ); and David Bearman, “Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy, and the Management of Electronic Records in Europe and America,” in Electronic Evidence, 254–277.
This term was used by Terry Cook in his article “Easy to Byte, Harder to Chew: The Second Generation of Electronic Records Archives,” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991-92): 202–216.
David Bearman, “Recordkeeping Systems,” in Electronic Evidence, 43–44, and Charles Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies. The Impact of Information Technologies on Archival Principles and Methods (Macerata, Italy: University of Macerata, 1992), 48–51.
For descriptions of the evolution of the concept of the record and redefinitions of the term see Richard Cox, “The Record: Is It Evolving?” The Records and Retrieval Report 10, No. 3 (1994): 1–16; Richard Cox, “The Record in the Information Age: A Progress Report on Research,” The Records and Retrieval Report, No. 1 (January 1996 ): 1–16; David Roberts, “Defining Electronic Records, Documents and Data,” Archives and Manuscripts 22, No. 1 (May 1994 ): 14–26; Glenda Ackland, “Managing the Record Rather Than the Relic,” Archives and Manuscripts 20, No. 1 ( 1992 ):57-63; David Bearman, “Managing Electronic Mail,” in Electronic Evidence, 188–191; David Bearman, “New Models for Management of Electronic Records,” in Electronic Evidence, 283-84; Charles Dollar, Archival Theory and Information Technologies, 45–48; and the Australian Archives Home Page, Archival Issues, “Keeping Electronic Records,” at the URL listed above.
This definition can be found in several of Bearman’s writings but see especially, “Archival Principles and the Electronic Office,” in Electronic Evidence, 147.
David Bearman, “Archival Principles and the Electronic Office,” in Electronic Evidence, 148.
For descriptions of the recordkeeping system concept see David Bearman, “Recordkeeping Systems,” in David Bearman, Electronic Evidence, 34–70, and the Australian Archives Home Page, Archival Issues, “Keeping Electronic Records” at the URL listed above
For the most up-to-date list of the functional and metadata requirements see the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project Home page at http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/
An excellent source on this subject is James Martin, Information Engineer-ing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1989).
An outstanding source on this topic is Edward Yourdon, Modern Structured Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Yourdon Press, 1989).
To view all the documents produced by our Project, consult our Electronic Records Project Home Page at http://www.indianaedu/~libarche/index.html.
Examples, like this, used throughout our paper should be understood as provisional products of our work. The methodology we are using is still being evaluated and developed.
For definitions and examples of these concepts seeThomas H. Davenport, Process Innovation, 5–9, and the list of definitions provided on the Indiana University Electronic Records Home Page at the URL listed above.
A practical introduction to the topic of data modeling is found inC.C. Fleming andB. Von Halle, “An Overview of Logical Data Modeling,” Data Resource Management (Winter 1990): 5–15; a more thorough coverage is found in R.G. Ross, Entity Modeling: Techniques and Applications (Bos-ton, Mass: Database Research Group, Inc., 1988).
See Functional Requirement Number 7 “Complete” on the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project Home Page at the URL listed above
David Bearman, “Recordkeeping Systems,” in Electronic Evidence, 59.
For a description of a project designed to create a separate recordkeeping module within a system seeMark Giguere, “Philadelphia Electronic Re-cords Project-Phase I Update,” The Philadelphia Record 1, No. 2 (Septem-ber 1995):9–10, and the Philadelphia Electronic Records Project Home Page athrtp://www.phila.gov/city/departments/enns/erm.html.
For a description of a project designed to create “metadata encapsulated objects,” see citations on the Philadelphia Electronic Records Project listed above.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bantin, P.C., Bernbom, G. The indiana university electronic records project: Analyzing functions, identifying transactions, and evaluating recordkeeping systems-a report on methodology. Arch Museum Inf 10, 246–266 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802370
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802370