See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233406831

Functional classification of records and organisational structure

Article  in  Records Management Journal · July 2011

DOI: 10.1108/09565691111152035

CITATIONS READS

18 15,336

2 authors:

Pekka Henttonen Kimmo Kettunen

Tampere University University of Eastern Finland
27 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   550 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improved OCR for Finnish historical newspaper and journal collection View project

Digitalia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kimmo Kettunen on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Records Management Journal
Emerald Article: Functional classification of records and organisational
structure
Pekka Henttonen, Kimmo Kettunen

Article information:
To cite this document: Pekka Henttonen, Kimmo Kettunen, (2011),"Functional classification of records and organisational
structure", Records Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss: 2 pp. 86 - 103
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09565691111152035
Downloaded on: 06-08-2012
References: This document contains references to 44 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 2317 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

K.S. JEFFERIES, 1946"FILING PRACTICE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 2 Iss: 1 pp. 8 - 16
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb026079

Elizabeth Shepherd, Alice Stevenson, Andrew Flinn, (2011),"Records management in English local government: the effect of freedom
of information", Records Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss: 2 pp. 122 - 134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09565691111152053

Geoffrey Yeo, (2011),"Rising to the level of a record? Some thoughts on records and documents", Records Management Journal, Vol.
21 Iss: 1 pp. 8 - 27
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09565691111125071

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ ARTICLES
21,2
Functional classification of
records and organisational
86
structure
Pekka Henttonen and Kimmo Kettunen
Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media,
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to examine how an electronic records management system has been
used in a Finnish government agency. In particular, it aims to study the relationship between
functional classification scheme and the way users in different organisational units and at different
organisational levels have employed the system. The goal is to examine whether electronic records
management systems were easier to use if the system “knew” what functional classes the user (or other
employees in the user’s organisational unit) typically need in their work.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on two sources. The first source is metadata
in records that were captured in the electronic records management system of the agency. It reflects
actual behaviour of users when they interact with the system and classification of records. The second
source is distribution of functions to organisational units in the light of policy documents and a survey
made in the organisation. The study compares the two sources to see how the users have employed the
electronic records management system in their work and how this relates to organisational structure
and supposed usage of the system.
Findings – In general, individual employees employ only a small part of the classification. However,
this does not apply at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy: the higher the person’s position in
the hierarchy, the more classes he/she is likely to use in the work. Regardless of the position, the
classes are generally those identified as belonging to the employee’s unit.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on one agency with a functional
organisational structure. The findings may not apply to organisations where job descriptions are fluid.
They should also be tested in more complex organisational settings. One could develop new methods
of automated classification which combine analysis of document content with contextual reasoning
about the likely functional classes.
Practical implications – Access to electronic records management systems could be facilitated by
creating in systems user/unit profiles defining what functional classes the user is most likely to need in
their work. It would also be useful if systems simply remembered what functional classes the user has
needed in the past.
Originality/value – The study offers insight into how an electronic records management system is
used in an organisation. This is valuable for companies developing records management software and
persons trying to gain a deeper understanding of records management in organisations.
Keywords Records management, Electronic records management, Metadata, Information media,
Classification schemes, Finland
Paper type Research paper
Records Management Journal
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2011
pp. 86-103 Introduction
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
One of the challenges in records management is coming to terms with the
DOI 10.1108/09565691111152035 unprecedented volumes of electronic data, records and information, in an era when
privacy, retention and security requirements have become stringent. Traditionally, Functional
records management processes have been undertaken by records management staff, classification of
but manual application of access and security rules and retention policies do not keep
pace with the volumes. Transferring the work to end-users is not proving successful records
either. Employees’ primary responsibilities may leave them little time to do these
administrative tasks. Therefore, even persons with a proper training may fail to
accurately determine how long a file should be retained, to what classification it 87
belongs, or how long it must be preserved for litigation (Christensen, 2008; Santangelo,
2009).
Asking employees to spend a large amount of time manually classifying data
greatly affects productivity (Santangelo, 2009). Thus, the problem is how to automate
records management processes, like assigning metadata. End-users are highly
resistant to capturing metadata that does not relate directly to their own business
processes (Christensen, 2008).

The Finnish approach

Metadata has to be added to records with minimal user intervention. This is achieved
in Finland by a records management tool known as AMS (an abbreviation from the
Finnish word “arkistonmuodostussuunnitelma”). An AMS is a combination of
functional classification scheme, retention schedule and file plan. An AMS identifies
records that are created or received by the organisation and instructs their handling.
An AMS works as a guidebook for the organisation. In an electronic environment it is
the source of record metadata values.
A functional classification scheme is the core of an AMS. Classification is defined in
ISO 15489-1 as “systematic identification and arrangement of business activities
and/or records into categories according to logically structured conventions, methods,
and procedural rules represented in a classification system” (International
Organization for Standardization, 2001). A functional classification scheme “is based
on what an organisation does, its functions and activities” (Orr, 2005). It describes
functions of the record-creating organisation.
Class by class an AMS lists record types that are created in functions. “Decision”,
“memorandum”, and “letter received” are examples of record types. For each record
type AMS defines default metadata values controlling access and retention times.
When a record is captured in an electronic records management system the record’s
functional class and type are used to retrieve from the system AMS default metadata
values, which are then assigned to the record.
For instance, an AMS may state that:
.
there is a function called “human resources management” with a sub-function of
“filling vacancies”;
.
“job application” is a of record type created in the sub-function;
.
a job application should be retained for two years; and
.
be considered as confidential.

When a record is added to an ERMS default metadata values come from the system
AMS. In some cases the user can change the default value by selecting another value
RMJ from a pick list. For instance, the system cannot always determine valid access
21,2 restrictions: therefore, the user has to change the default value when necessary.
Default metadata values are based on the combination of sub-function and record
type. Still, instead of a sub-function, the user typically selects a “case” in which the
record belongs. A case is an administrative process with a definite beginning and an
end. A number of cases are usually created in a sub-function during a year, one for each
88 started process. For instance, a case could be created from fulfilling a vacancy in the
organisation. The case is created in the system when the process is initiated and the
vacancy is declared open. When the vacancy is filled, the case is “closed”. Every case
belongs to a class in the classification scheme. Thus, the case provides a link between
the record and the functional classification. The case also links a record to other
records created in the same process. The decision to create a new case is usually done
in a registry office.
Hence, a user has to operate both within the functional classification scheme and the
case structure in the electronic records management system (ERMS). Nevertheless,
everything is based on making the right selection: if functional class and record type
are not correct, there is a danger that the record gets wrong metadata values. In a large
organisation the AMS classification scheme may contain hundreds of classes. Users
may find the classification scheme and electronic records management system hard to
understand and cumbersome to use. Therefore, there is a need to find ways to make the
selection process easier or even entirely automatic.
In this study we examine possibilities for automatic record classification in the light
of the relationship between functions, organisational structure and records created in
the organisation: if we know what are organisational functions, how responsibility for
the functions is divided between different units, and in which unit an employee works,
is it possible to say what functional classes are used in the work? The goal is also to
find out how functional classification is used in organisations. This may tell whether
user or unit profiles describing tasks – and, indirectly, functional classes that are likely
to be needed by users – could make interacting with an ERMS easier.

Literature review
Classification is an essential tool in records management. It is used to provide links
between records that originate from the same activity or from related activities; to
determine where a record should be placed in a larger aggregation of records; to assist
users in retrieving and interpreting records; and to assign and control retention
periods, access rights and security markings (Schellenberg, 1975; Smith, 2007) Because
of this, classification is often discussed in records management and archival text books
and guides (Smith, 2007; Williams, 2006; Shephard and Yeo, 2003; Todd, 2003; National
Archives of Australia, 2003a, b, Tough, 2006, Findlay, 2008) and in professional
literature (del Olmo, 2006; Morelli, 2007; Milne, 2007; Bedford and Morelli, 2006;
Robinson, 1997; McKenna, 2009; Sabourin, 2001). The role of classification in
information retrieval has been studied by Singh et al. (2007). Seitsonen (2009) examines
the relationship between organisational structure and functional classification in her
master’s thesis.
Campbell (1941) had already advocated functional classification. Campbell believed
that functional classification would be more understandable and easier for a researcher
to use and for an arranger to create than a classification based on administrative units.
Nevertheless, before the 1990s, records were commonly classified in creating Functional
organisations by subject and in archival institutions by organisational provenance. classification of
Today, classification schemes are usually functional and based on what an
organisation does. Since the 1990s functional classification has been strongly records
promoted. Recent records management textbooks in the UK and Australia promote
functional classification as the only or main means of classifying records (Orr, 2005).
A classification scheme lies at the heart of any electronic records management 89
system since it defines the way in which electronic records are grouped together
(aggregated) and linked to the business context in which they were created or
transmitted. Specifications for electronic records management systems (Archives New
Zealand, 2005; Arkistolaitos, 2008; International Council on Archives and Australasian
Digital Records Initiative, 2008; DLM-Forum, 2008) and international records
management standard (International Organization for Standardization, 2001)
advocate functional classification as the best practice for records management.
Records management metadata standard ISO 23081 notes that metadata can be
inherited from a higher records aggregate to a lower one. For example, metadata about
a folder can be inherited by all the items placed within the folder (International
Organization for Standardization, 2006). Classification scheme is one possible source
for inherited metadata.
Terminology is wavering: functional classification, functions-based classification,
and business classification are used as synonyms (Orr, 2005). Sabourin (2001) notes
that the term “functional filing” is used even though a record series in the model may
not display actual functions performed. There seems to be no full agreement on how
“function”, “sub-function”, “activity”, “transaction”, “task” and “process” relate to each
other and to levels of classification. Shephard and Yeo (2003) have made perhaps the
most rigorous analysis of their relationship. The terminological ambiguity is not
limited to records and archives management: in business re-engineering literature
there is no consensus about the definition of “business process” or a formal definition
of “process” that is sufficient for use by process engineers and system builders
(Maddison and Darnton, 1996).
There are different ways to create a functional classification: both a top-down
approach and an approach based on process analysis is possible (Orr, 2005; Tough,
2006). Functional classification schemes are usually hierarchical and enumerative.
Functions thesauri can be created from a hierarchical classification. An example of
functions thesauri is Australian Keyword AAA, which has been also used in the UK
Parliament (Gibbons and Shenton, 2003; Robinson, 1997, 1999; NSW Department of
Commerce. State Records, 2008). Xie (2007) compares and contrasts two types of
functional classification, one described in Australian DIRKS manual (Designing and
Implementing Record-Keeping Systems: Manual for Commonwealth Agencies) and the
other defined in Canadian BASCS methodology (Business Activity Structure
Classification System). In Northern Ireland a common file plan based on functional
classification has been developed for the Civil Service, first to common functions and
later to other areas (Smyth, 2005).
The functional approach has multiple benefits. For instance, a retention schedule
based on functions and related activities supports the organisation’s mission,
facilitates access, and helps to identify vital and archival records (Farneth and Nye,
2005). Man (2005) has written about functional approach from the perspective of
RMJ archival appraisal. She claims that functional appraisal and surveying techniques are
21,2 particularly effective for establishing the business context of records and identifying
legal and organisational requirements governing their retention.
Automatic classification has been a challenging research issue for decades. A major
motivation has been the high cost of manual classification. By now there are several
possible approaches (Golub, 2006). However, it is not sure how well subject-based
90 methods of automatic classification can be applied in records classification: terms used
in a record may not bear direct relationship to the function in which the record is
created or received. Also, the relationship between record, access rights and retention
times is not purely subject-based. In Finnish system access rights and retention times
are defined record by record, hence, they should also be assigned automatically. A
combination of manual and automated classification might provide good results
(Santangelo, 2009).

Problem statement
We need more information about how electronic records management systems are used
in organisations to understand the role of ERMS and the processes behind record
creation.
In this article we study one government agency to search for answers to the
following questions:
(1) How many functional classes are used by organisational units and persons
working in the organisation? Does the usage concentrate on some classes or is it
distributed more equally?
(2) How does the person’s position in the organisational hierarchy affect the use?
(3) Are the classes used by individuals those that one could expect on the basis of
analysis of relationship between organisational functions and units?

Methodology
The study is part of a two year of Semantic Web 2.0 (FinnONTO2) –project lead by the
Helsinki University of Technology. The general goal of the FinnONTO2 was to
combine benefits and synergy of Web 2.0 and semantic web technologies and
demonstrate the results in various semantic web portals and applications (see www.
seco.tkk.fi/). Whereas the research group at the Helsinki University of Technology
examined ways to apply traditional semantic web technologies to electronic records
(see Nyberg et al., 2010), our research group tried to find other ways to create more
“intelligent” and easy-to-use electronic management systems.
The data used in the study is a compilation of two sources. The first source is
metadata and records of a Finnish government agency. The second source is
information about the functions and organisational structure of the agency.

Records management metadata

The first source for the study was records and metadata in an ERMS of a Finnish
government agency. Records management metadata describes not only record
creation, but also processes in which records participate. The metadata used in the
study complies with the SÄHKE metadata model. SÄHKE is a Finnish specification
defining requirements for ERMS functionality and metadata (Arkistolaitos, 2005a, b, c).
Metadata in SÄHKE gives information about records and also describes cases and Functional
actions to which records are linked. An example of an “action” is sending a record for classification of
approval to another employee. Altogether the data used in the study gives a good
overall picture of the ERMS usage in the organisation. Nevertheless, the picture is not records
complete because reading records without modifying them was not recorded in
metadata.
The same metadata has been used in Kettunen and Henttonen (2010). The agency 91
delivering the records had an interest in developing electronic records management
and making ERMS more user-friendly. Thus, it was willing to give records and their
metadata to our research project. Unfortunately, the agency does not want its name to
be revealed.
There was little possibility for selecting the agency whose records are used in the
study. In our experience, agencies are usually reluctant to give their records to
research. Legal responsibility remains at the agency even when the records are outside
its control. It is not certain that confidential or classified information can be entirely
screened out from the records. Another reason for reluctance to deliver records for
research is technical obstacles. At the moment, many Finnish electronic records
management systems do not have tools for exporting records with their metadata.
Except for records in two functional classes – which were excluded because they
contained sensitive or classified information – the set included all the records received
or created by the agency and captured in its ERMS in cases opened during the time
period of 30.9.2005-31.12.2007. Altogether, the original set included 7,252 records of
permanent or non-permanent value in 67 functional classes. Besides records, the
metadata described 3,469 cases and 14,532 actions.
The agency is small and has about 130 employees. It ranks relatively high in the
government hierarchy. Because the agency does not want its identity to be known, its
functions cannot be described here in detail. They are typical for a government
organisation. There are facilitative functions, which include general administration,
personnel management, financial administration, and real estate management. In
substantive functions the agency interacts with other agencies and citizens, makes
decisions and gives guidance in matters within its mandate.
The records metadata contained information about agents and roles in which they
were involved in a process (for instance, about initiator who starts the process by
sending a letter to the agency), actions which have taken place in cases (like sending a
letter forward for an internal comment) and other events related to records (for
instance, modifying, signing or saving a document). Altogether, over 40 different roles,
actions or events were identified in the metadata. From here on they are collectively
referred to here as “events”. Metadata describing an event contain three parts:
(1) date;
(2) information identifying the agent and the unit involved; and
(3) a string describing what happened or what was the agent’s role in the event.

For instance, information identifying an agent combined with date and event
description string reveals when, and by whom the document was signed.
Some events were filtered out. For the most part, filtered events are about actions
that have taken place in the registry office of the agency. The registry office handles
incoming and outgoing letters of all units regardless of their functional context.
RMJ Therefore, we excluded from the data all events involving a person who was known to
21,2 have sometimes worked in the registry office. Also events in which the agent was not
identified as an agency employee or the date was outside the time range examined were
excluded. Finally, a small number of events were left out because the person was listed
in two units simultaneously and the unit in which the person was working when the
event took place could not be established with certainty. However, employees who at
92 different times worked in more than one unit and/or position, were included in the data.
The final dataset used in the study contained metadata of 43,113 events, which is
about 38 per cent of the original set. The metadata used in the study was about 5,259
records, 11,520 actions and 2,801 cases. If not otherwise stated, findings in this study
are based on the filtered dataset.

Information describing organisational context

The second source was information describing the organisational context in which
records were created. For this purpose, we collected information about the agency
personnel, functions, organisational structure and division of functions to different
organisational units during the time period examined. The information was gathered
from various literary sources; policy documents, organisation charts, and personnel
lists.
In the analysis, classes in the functional classification were mapped to the unit
structure. Some functions proved to be common to several units, and a few to all units
in the organisation. Only one functional class could not be linked to any particular unit.
This class was for records generated in a minor function, which did not belong to the
organisation’s main tasks and was not reflected in its structure.
The organisational structure was changed in the middle of the time period
examined; thus, the analysis was done for both organisational structures. In reshuffle
the organisation’s functions and functional classification scheme remained the same,
but some persons and responsibilities were transferred between units and one unit was
merged with other units.
At the last stage unit managers were asked to check whether the list of current and
past unit functions was complete and accurate. In the case of the merged unit, the
information was checked by its last manager, who was still working in the agency.
All the time there were four levels in the organisational structure: director general,
director, unit manager and employee. Because there seemed to be a clear difference
between how managers and ordinary employees had used the ERMS, executive staff
and managers were for the most part analysed separately. Although some persons
worked in more than one position during the time period examined, everyone stayed at
the same organisational level (no employee was promoted or demoted).
The relationship between functions and units was roughly the same in both
organisational structures. Functional classification remained the same despite the
changes in the organisation. One of the eight main classes was reserved for general
administration and three for other supportive functions. A unit was responsible for all
four, but also other units took part in the general administration. Four main classes
were dedicated to main business functions. In every main class most sub-classes were
mapped to one unit, but units (except for the supportive unit) had responsibilities
across main class boundaries.
Combining events and information about organisational context Functional
The final step was to merge information about events in metadata (the first dataset) classification of
with information about persons and functions (the second dataset). Information in the
resulting new dataset was as follows: records
.
name of the agent;
.
description of the event or the role of the person in the event;
93
. date of the event;
.
entity involved in the event (a record, a case, or an action taken in a case);
.
name of the organisational unit (or position in the organisational hierarchy if the
person was a director above unit level);
.
identifier of the functional class;
.
level of the functional class in the three-level classification hierarchy; and
.
whether the functional class was one of those identified as belonging to the
unit/manager (yes/no).

This dataset was used in the statistical analysis. In addition, a simple random sample
of 500 records was examined to understand some details of record creation and ERMS
usage.

Findings
General remarks about the ERMS usage
The delivering agency had made a decision to use its ERMS broadly in its functions.
Nevertheless, about one-third of the classification was unused. The functional
classification scheme had eight main classes and 97 second or third-level classes that
could be used for classifying cases and, thus, indirectly records. A total of 67 classes
(69 per cent) of them had been actually used to classify cases and records in the original
unfiltered dataset.
The analysis of the organisational context showed that about 77-80 per cent of the
functional classes were at the responsibility of one unit only. The responsibility for the
rest of the classes was divided to more than one unit at the same time.
The ERMS was employed unevenly in functions (see Figure 1). About 13 per cent of
events, were generated in supportive functions (first four main classes). About 72 per
cent of all events were related to 7th main class in which answers to inquiries and other
correspondence in one of the organisation’s main functions was classified. Other main
business functions (three main classes in the classification) covered the rest, with a
share of about 15 per cent of events. Filtering process did not change this: distribution
of events is practically identical in the original and filtered dataset. The proportion of
filtered events is roughly the same in all functional classes.
The e-mail system was not integrated with the ERMS. Users had to manually
import e-mail messages by creating a new text document, copying e-mail content to it
via clipboard and finally capturing the document to the ERMS. A random sample of
500 records showed that e-mail messages comprise about 21.4 per cent of records in the
system (^ 3.1 per cent with 95 per cent confidence interval). The manual process is
fairly laborious. It cannot be said how much e-mail was not captured because of this.
RMJ
21,2

94

Figure 1.
Distribution of events in
main classes in the
original and filtered
datasets

However, it is easy to assume that the number of e-mail messages in the system would
be significantly higher if the capture process had been automatic.
In the light of the ERMS, the organisation is effectively a “black box”. Only
incoming and outgoing messages were captured in the system. The above-mentioned
random sample of 500 records was used to examine whether internal interaction was
documented in the ERMS. In less than two percent of records (1.4 per cent ^ 1 per cent)
both the record sender and the receiver were inside the organisation. Even then the
message content was typically a redirected e-mail message, which had been originated
outside the organisation.

Usage of functional classification in the organisation

Functional classification and units. Metadata showed that organisational units
employed the ERMS very unevenly in their work. During the time period examined
there were altogether 13 units in two organisational structures. All the units had events
registered in the metadata, but one unit had so few that obviously the system had been
employed only once or twice in its operations. Naturally, this tells only about ERMS
usage. Actions that are done outside the ERMS – for instance, printing out a document
in the registry office and sending it on paper to be processed in the unit – cannot be
seen in metadata.
In both organisational structures one unit was responsible for the main function
generating most events. The share of this unit was about 65-70 per cent of events. Also,
supportive functions were concentrated to one unit and its share was 8-14 per cent of
events.
Units generally participated in a wide range of processes. There was no one-to-one
relationship between a unit and a main class. On average each organisational unit had
events in more than half of the eight main classes.
Usually, one of the main classes was more heavily used than the others (see Table I).
On average, 73 per cent of the events of a unit were in its most used main class, even
though the percentage could be as low as 36 per cent. The three most used main classes
covered about 95 per cent of the events of a unit.
On average, each unit used about 12 per cent of the classification. A total of 97
sub-classes in the functional classification could be used to classify cases (and records).
A unit in charge of supportive functions had the broadest range: it had participated in Functional
processes in 27 functional classes (about 28 per cent of the classification). Units in classification of
charge of supportive functions – like general administration, finance, and personnel –
had twice as many functional classes identified as belonging to them than units on records
average. It may be a sign that the functional classification was more developed in these
areas than the others.
Functional classification and individual employees. Less than half (68) of the 148 95
persons employed by the agency during the time period had used the ERMS at least
once. On average, an employee had more than 600 events registered in the ERMS, but
the distribution is strongly right-skewed: the median was only 69 events. About 48 per
cent of all events were related to three employees using the system most actively.
Of the 68 persons, 11 belong to one of the three managerial levels. Others (57) were
part of the executive staff. More than half of the 57 persons in the executive staff had
events only in one main class. Thus, using more than one functional main class was
untypical for low-level employees, but it was nonetheless common (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 also suggests that managers typically used the ERMS more broadly than
executive staff. On average, ordinary employees used two main classes and managers
more than four. The difference is statistically significant ( p , 0.001, two-tailed,
Mann-Whitney test). The director general was the only person having events in all
eight main classes.
This is confirmed when we look at the distribution of events to the whole
classification (and not to the main classes only): persons higher in the organisational
hierarchy used the ERMS more widely than persons working at a lower level. Figure 3
shows a box plot describing the distribution of events to classes at different
organisational levels. The difference in usage between persons working at different
levels is obvious. The bottom and the top of the box are the 25th and 75th percentile
(the lower and upper quartiles, respectively) and the band near the middle of the box is
the 50th percentile (the median). The whiskers (the lines that extend out the top and
bottom of the box) represent the highest and lowest values that are not outliers or
extreme values. Outliers (values that are between 1.5 and 3 times the interquartile
range) are represented by circles beyond the whiskers. For instance, the box plot shows
that the median of classes used by the executive staff (57 persons) is only three. A total
of 75 per cent had events in no more than six classes. Two workers had events in 14
and 15 classes, but they are so far from the main group that they should be considered
outliers. Possibly, they had worked in the registry office for a short time and their

Count of most used main classes Coverage, cumulative mean (%) Coverage, min (%)

1 72,8 36,0
2 87,5 58,0
3 94,5 80,0
4 98,3 91,0 Table I.
5 99,4 98,0 Distribution of events of a
6 99,8 99,0 unit to its most used main
classes in the functional
Note: n ¼ 13 classification
RMJ
21,2

96

Figure 2.
Number of main classes
used by executive staff
and managers (unit
managers, directors and
director-general)

Figure 3.
Position in organisational
hierarchy and number of
classes used
events actually should have been filtered out from the data set. However, we cannot be Functional
sure about this. classification of
On average, employees in the executive staff had events in four and managers (unit
managers and directors) in 13 classes (the median being three and six classes, records
respectively). This is 4-13 per cent of the classification. The director general (not shown
in Figure 3) used more functional classes (36) than anyone else in the organisation. This
again shows how position in the organisational hierarchy changes the ERMS usage. 97
Like units, employees used some functional classes more than the others. This is
especially true for the executive staff. Figure 4 shows how the events were distributed
to the 67 sub-classes that were used to classify cases and records. The y-axis shows the
cumulative percentage and the x-axis how many classes are taken into consideration.
The classes are in descending order. The figure shows that in the case of the executive
staff (solid areas) the class containing most events had 30 per cent of events at
minimum and 74 per cent on average. For the executive staff the three most used
classes covered 66 per cent of the events at minimum and 95 per cent on average.
Managers used ERMS more extensively. In their case (lines in Figure 4), the most used
class had only 20 per cent of events at minimum and 54 per cent on average.
Predictability of usage. Next we compared the event metadata with how the ERMS
should have been used in the organisation in the light of what we knew about
distribution of work between the organisational units. How predictable was the
behaviour of persons? Were events generated in those classes for which the unit was
responsible? Table II shows the answer.
About nine times out of ten the function was identified to be one of those under the
responsibility of the unit. This was true both for executive staff and unit managers.
Unit managers participated slightly more to processes that were not identified as
belonging to the unit. We assumed that directors above the unit level were responsible
for all functions in sub-ordinate units. Therefore, a director controlling multiple units

Figure 4.
Distribution of events to
most used classes
RMJ had 34-72 functional classes in his area. No director operated outside this domain
21,2 according to the metadata.
Figures 5 and 6 show by unit how well mappings between organisational units and
functional classes matched the events in the metadata. The number following the unit
name shows the absolute number of events. Generally, it seems possible to predict
98
Event is related to functions of the unit
No Yes Total
n % n % n %

Executive staff 2,782 8 33,302 92 36,084 100

Table II.
Relationship between Unit manager 357 10 3,231 90 3,588 100
unit functions and
generated events Director 0 0 1,727 100 1,727 100

Figure 5.
Distribution of events to
unit and non-unit
functions in the first
organisational structure

Figure 6.
Distribution of events to
unit and non-unit
functions in the second
organisational structure
quite well how functional classification is used in units. Only about 8 per cent of events Functional
are misplaced. Description of unit functions in the second organisational structure classification of
(Figure 6) seems more accurate.
There are several ways to explain the mismatch between events in the metadata and records
supposed usage of the ERMS in the units. One explanation might be that the mapping
process failed: we did not correctly identify all the functions belonging to a unit.
Mapping for the second organisation may have been more successful, because details 99
of the older organisation perhaps were partly forgotten. An alternative explanation is
misclassification. All the events of some units were in a “wrong” class. In these cases
the unit generally did not have many events registered in the system. Obviously the
system was not used in the unit’s daily activities. Misclassification may be due to user
inexperience or difficulties in mapping the unit’s functions to functional classification.
A third explanation is that there is no error: events in a wrong class reflect (perhaps
unofficial) cross-unit process participation, which was not recorded in policy
documents or recognised by unit managers.

Discussion
The findings of our case study suggest that only a part of the functional classification
is used by organisational units in its daily activities. It also seems possible to determine
in advance what classes will be used by a unit. At the same time the findings confirm
Seitsonen’s (2009) conclusion that there is no one-to-one relationship between
organisational units and functional main classes: both supportive units and units in
charge of business processes employ a large number of main classes and sub-classes in
the classification. Hence, from the unit alone one cannot deduce what classes in the
classification the employee is likely to need in his work. Knowing the unit does not
even reduce significantly the range of possibilities. Automation based on units alone is
not likely to work very well: also the person interacting with the system has to be taken
into account.
In general, individual employees employ only a small part of the classification.
However, this does not apply when we go higher up in the organisation’s hierarchy: the
higher the person’s position in the hierarchy, the more classes the person is likely to use
in the work. This is natural, because managers have to deal with all issues of their
subordinates.
Regardless of the position, an employee generally uses classes related to functions
of his/her unit. Among the functions of a unit, some functions are more likely to be used
than the others. A user generally employs in his work some functional classes more
than in others. If past behaviour is known, it is possible to say with great likelihood
what functional classes a user is likely to employ when (s)he interacts with the ERMS.
This is true especially if the user has a low position in the hierarchy. Hence, it seems
possible to create unit/user profiles, which could help both in automatic creation of
metadata, and user interaction with a system. Unit and user profiles could be created
automatically by gathering information about the ERMS usage. One could also create
them manually by analysing functions of units and users.
User and unit profiles are likely to work best in an organisation with a rigid and
clear division of work. An organisation where job descriptions are fluid may not
benefit from the creation of profiles. Further research is needed to see how this would
work in a larger, more complex organisation. As the functional span of an organisation
RMJ and its number of users grow, the ability to use the model presented may become more
21,2 limited.
The study has some limitations. The findings are based on records metadata and
examination of one government agency only. Inside the agency, some units and
employees used the ERMS more than the others, which may skew the results. It is also
possible that some records were misclassified and this has affect on the results.
100 However, there is no reason to assume that the number of misclassified records would
be high. Instead of misclassification, seeming anomalies in the metadata may reflect
organisational work that does not comply with official descriptions of organisational
processes. Another limitation in the study is that the agency ERMS was not used to
capture the organisation’s internal communication. The records in the ERMS show the
formal decision making process and the agency’s interaction with the outside world.
They tell less about what happens inside the organisation when “inputs” are turned to
“outputs”. There may have been free flowing internal e-mail discussions, which – had
they been captured in the ERMS – would make the picture of the organisational
behaviour different. Archival theorists have been concerned about how some groups
are marginalised in records and archives (Schwartz and Cook, 2002). The paucity of
information about discussions inside the agency shows that there may be reason for
concern.
Although one case study cannot give a comprehensive and reliable view on how
electronic records management systems are generally used in organisations, the
findings are indicative.

Conclusions
Access to electronic records management systems could be facilitated by building
systems that guide users interacting with the system. This could be accomplished by
creating unit profiles which link units to organisational functions described in the
classification scheme. In the case of executive staff it would be helpful to create user
profiles that are either based on previous usage history of the ERMS or a person’s tasks
in the unit.
Although this does not allow us to fully automate record classification process,
combined with content-based classification methods it might produce good results.
This is an area where we need further studies. Also, the findings of this study should
be tested in other organisational environments.
People at different organisational levels used an electronic management system
differently. This should be taken into consideration when systems are planned. The
same solution may not be optimal for both managerial and executive work in an
organisation.

References
Archives New Zealand (2005), “Electronic record-keeping systems standard”, June. Archives
New Zealand, available at: http://continuum.archives.govt.nz/files/file/standards/s5.pdf
(accessed 30 May 2010).
Arkistolaitos (2005a), “SÄHKE-määritykset. Osa I. Abstrakti mallintaminen” [SÄHKE
specification. Part I. Abstract model], available at: www.arkisto.fi//uploads/
Arkistolaitos/Teht%C3%A4v%C3%A4t%20ja%20toiminta/Hankkeet/SAHA/SAHKE-
abstrakti-V2-koko.pdf (accessed 4 June 2010).
Arkistolaitos (2005b), “SÄHKE-määritykset. Osa II. Toiminnallinen mallintaminen” [SÄHKE Functional
specification. Part II. Functional model], available at: www.arkisto.fi//uploads/
Arkistolaitos/Teht%C3%A4v%C3%A4t%20ja%20toiminta/Hankkeet/SAHA/SAHKE- classification of
Toiminnallinen-mallintaminen-V2-koko.pdf (accessed 4 June 2010). records
Arkistolaitos (2005c) “SÄHKE-määritykset. Osa III. Tekninen mallintaminen” [SÄHKE
specification. Part III. Technical model], available at: www.arkisto.fi//uploads/
Arkistolaitos/Teht%C3%A4v%C3%A4t%20ja%20toiminta/Hankkeet/SAHA/SAHKE- 101
Tekninen-V2-koko.pdf (accessed 4 June 2010).
Arkistolaitos (2008), “SÄHKE2. Sähköisten asiakirjallisten tietojen käsittely, hallinta ja
säilyttäminen” [SÄHKE2 Management, handling and preservation of electronic records],
available at: www.arkisto.fi//uploads/normit/valtionhallinto/maarayksetjaohjeet/
normiteksti_suomi.pdf (accessed 4 June 2010).
Bedford, D. and Morelli, J. (2006), “Introducing information management into the workplace.
A case study in the implementation of business classification file plans from the Sector
Skills Development Agency”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-68.
Campbell, E.G. (1941), “Functional classification of archival material”, The Library Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 431-41.
Christensen, C. (2008), “Connecting the dots. Leveraging standards and technology to achieve
automation of records management processes”, paper presented at the DLM-Forum,
Toulouse, December 10-12.
del Olmo, M.J. (2006), “Matrix: a double functional business classification scheme”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-68.
DLM-Forum (2008), “MoReq2 specification Model requirements for the management of electronic
records. Update and extension”, Version 1.0, Bruxelles – Luxembourg, CECA-CEE-CEEA,
April 2008, available at: www.moreq2.eu/moreq2/files-download/78_c316051c
2f1f9ebb2193d79ca7b45c09 (accessed 4 June 2010).
Farneth, D. and Nye, B.E. (2005), “Retention schedules: department versus functional for
managing organizational records”, available at www.ictus.com/docs/PositionPaper.pdf
(accessed 30 May 2010).
Findlay, C. (2008), “Digital recordkeeping”, in Bettington, j., Eberhard, K., Rowena, L. and
Smith, C. (Eds), Keeping Archives, 3rd ed., Australian Society of Archivists, Brisbane,
pp. 477-507.
Gibbons, P. and Shenton, C. (2003), “Implementing a records management strategy for the UK
Parliament: the experience of using Keyword AAA”, Journal of the Society of Archivists,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 141-57.
Golub, K. (2006), “Automated subject classification of textual web documents”, Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 350-71.
International Council on Archives and Australasian Digital Records Initiative (2008), Principles
and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Office Environments – Module 2:
Guidelines and Functional Requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems,
ICA, available at: www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ICA-Guidelines-principles%20and%
20Functional%20Requirements%20Module%202.pdf (accessed 10 June 2010).
International Organization for Standardization (2001), ISO 15489-1. Information and
Documentation. Records Management. Part 1: General, ISO, Bonn.
International Organization for Standardization (2006), ISO 23081-1. Information and
Documentation. Records Management Processes. Metadata for Records. Part 1.
Principles, ISO, Bonn.
RMJ Kettunen, K. and Henttonen, P. (2010), “Missing in action? Content of records management
metadata in real life”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
21,2 McKenna, F. (2009), “Do you really need a taxonomy/classification scheme with a records
management system?”, Records Management Bulletin, Vol. 152, pp. 12-17.
Maddison, R. and Darnton, G. (1996), Information Systems in Organizations: Improving Business
Processes, Chapman & Hall, London.
102 Man, E. (2005), “A functional approach to appraisal and retention scheduling”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Milne, C. (2007), “Taxonomy development: assessing the merits of contextual classification”,
Records Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Morelli, J. (2007), “Hybrid filing schemes: the use of metadata signposts in functional file plans”,
Records Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
National Archives of Australia (2003a), Overview of Classification Tools for Records
Management, National Archives of Australia, available at: www.naa.gov.au/
recordkeeping/control/tools.pdf (accessed 23 August 2007).
National Archives of Australia (2003b), Developing a Functions Thesaurus. Guidelines for
Commonwealth Agencies, National Archives of Australia, available at: www.naa.gov.au/
recordkeeping/control/functions_thesaur/thesaurus.pdf (accessed 24 August 2008).
NSW Department of Commerce. State Records (2008), Keyword AAA. Evaluation Package,
Sydney.
Nyberg, K., Raiko, T., Tiinanen, T. and Hyvönen, E. (2010), “Document classification utilising
ontologies and relations between documents”, available at: www.seco.tkk.fi/publications/
submitted/nyberg-et-al-mlg-2010.pdf (accessed 30 May, 2010).
Orr, S.A. (2005), “Functions based classification of records: is it functional?”, School of
Informatics, Division of Information & Communication Studies, Northumbria University,
Newcastle, available at: http://public.archiefschool.net/C8/Publicaties%20door%
20derden/Document%20Library/Orr_Functional%20Classification.pdf (accessed 31 July
2008).
Robinson, C. (1997), “Records control and disposal using functional analysis”, Australian Society
of Archivists Conference Archives and Reform: Preparing for Tomorrow, available at:
www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/keyword-products/records-control-and-disposal-
using-functional (accessed 25 September 2009).
Robinson, C. (1999), “Functional analysis and keyword classification”, Managing Change –
A Blueprint for the Future, the Edmonton Chapter of the Association of Records Managers
and Administrators (ARMA), Seminar, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2-3 March 1999,
available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20020623213601/www.records.nsw.gov.au/
publicsector/rk/edmonton/functional_analysis1.htm (accessed 25 September, 2009).
Sabourin, P. (2001), “Constructing a function-based records classification system: business
activity structure classification system”, Archivaria, Vol. 51, pp. 137-54.
Santangelo, J. (2009), “Rise of the machines. The role of text analytics in record classification and
disposition”, Information Management, November/December, pp. 22-6.
Schellenberg, T.R. (1975), Modern Archives. Principles and Techniques, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Schwartz, J. and Cook, T. (2002), “Archives, records, and power: the making of modern memory”,
Archival Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Seitsonen, K. (2009), “Tehtäväluokitus asiakirjahallinnassa: asiaryhmityksen käyttö Tampereen
teknillisen yliopiston TWeb-asianhallintajärjestelmässä” [Functional classification in
 records management: how the classification is used in the Tampere Technical University]. Functional
Informaatiotutkimuksen ja interaktiivisen median laitos. Tampere, Tampereen yliopisto,
available at: http://tutkielmat.uta.fi/pdf/gradu03785.pdf (accessed 30 June 2009). classification of
Shephard, E. and Yeo, G. (2003), Managing Records. A Handbook of Principles and Practice, records
Facet, London.
Singh, P., Klobas, J.E. and Anderson, K. (2007), “Information-seeking behaviour of electronic
records management systems (ERMS) users: implications for records management 103
practices”, HumanIT, Vol. 9, available at: http://etjanst.hb.se/bhs/ith//1-9/psjkka.htm
(accessed 20 August 2007).
Smith, K. (2007), Public Sector Records Management. A Practical Guide, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Smyth, Z.A. (2005), “Adopting a functional classification of business processes in Northern
Ireland”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 233-42.
Todd, M. (2003), Business Classification Scheme Design. Version 1.0. October, available at: www.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/bcs_toolkit.pdf (accessed 30 December 2008).
Tough, A. (2006), “Records and the transition to the digital”, in Tough, A. and Moss, M. (Eds),
Record Keeping in a Hybrid Environment. Managing the Creation, Use, Preservation and
Disposal of Unpublished Information Objects in Context, Chandos Publishing, Oxford.
Williams, C. (2006), Managing Archives. Foundations, Principles and Practice, Chandos
Publishing, Oxford.
Xie, L.S. (2007), “Function-based records classification system: a comparative study”, available
at: www.armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Sherry_Xie_Study.pdf (accessed 30 May 2010).

Further reading
International Organization for Standardization (2007), ISO 23081-2. Information and
Documentation. Records Management Processes. Metadata for Records. Part 2.
Conceptual and Implementation Issues, ISO, Bonn.

About the authors

Pekka Henttonen has a DSocSc in Archival Science. He has worked in the National Archives of
Finland and in the Military Archives of Finland. Currently, he is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media at Tampere University, Finland. His
research area is electronic records management. Pekka Henttonen is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: pekka.henttonen@uta.fi
Kimmo Kettunen has a PhD in Information Retrieval. Currently, he works as a Research
Manager at Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences in Finland.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats