Evaluating a University Records Management Program.ppt

Evaluating a University Records Management Program Timothy R. Sanford Assistant Provost Background The Records Management Program Custom Schedules Unit Liaisons Integrated with University Archives No Storage RMP Challenges Large number of campus units Decentralization of University hierarchy Lack of resources Education / Training Low priority The Evaluation Survey on web of unit liaisons Focus group discussions Interviews Comparison to other RM programs Liaison Survey Results 27% Total response rate (138/500) 63% have found RMP to be at least somewhat helpful 55% have Work Plans that do not include their liaison responsibilities 44% spend at least 1 hour per week on RM Liaison Survey Results, cont. 60% are at least somewhat satisfied with their Schedule Of the liaisons with Schedules, 82% attempt to use it Most common written response: lack of time 53% reported a need for additional storage space Liaison SurveySummary Most liaisons report the training sessions to be helpful Liaisons often found retention schedules difficult to understand Many liaisons continue to practice poor records management Liaison SurveyMisconceptions RM is an extraneous activity Disregard for NC Public Records Law Using lack of storage as an excuse Lack of familiarity with the volatility of electronic formats Liaison Focus Group “Lack of time” theme High levels of frustration Unanimous dissatisfaction with office records Desire to do “what is right” Interviews Dr. Ed Southern, State Records Center of North Carolina Dr. William Saffady, records management author, consultant, and professor at Long Island University Survey of Peer InstitutionsGoals Trace common approaches Identify current trends Develop a profile of successful practices Learn how other institutions are dealing with electronic records Survey of Peer InstitutionsFindings 68% use customized schedules 48% offer training programs 76% combine archives and records management 88% offer records storage 40% have guidelines for el