denotes premium content | May 26 2012 
Feature
posted 5 Oct 2004 in Volume 1 Issue 4
Freedom of information: putting it on the record
Peter Benfell, information manager at the UK Debt Management office, highlights how all levels of government can create a best-practice standard for information management and adhere to the guidelines in the looming Freedom of Information Act by following existing guidelines.
The last decade has seen significant drivers for change in public-sector information management and from a diverse range of sources. Stakeholders, from government ministers to the public, are demanding more for their money; they want more efficiency, better services, increased transparency and greater accountability. It’s no longer acceptable for high volumes of paper to form the backbone of information management and record keeping. But in a post-11 September world, drivers for change are not limited to efficiency.
The war on terror has forced public authorities to think about how they exploit the information they hold and how they join up with other bodies in order to see the threat and act accordingly. Work on electronic interoperability and metadata standards for government takes on a new light when viewed in this context.
But joining up and sharing information, particularly the prospect of centralised databases containing information on individuals (whether to find terrorists or to identify vulnerable children) is seen by many as posing a threat to civil liberties and personal privacy. If those rights are to be meaningfully protected, good information systems and management are required.
Rights supporting the protection of individuals’ privacy and civil liberties have been enshrined in law since 1998 in the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts and obligations placed on those holding information about us. Balancing legislative requirements and business needs has brought inevitable conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. Some would argue that more recent legislation, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000 or the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, while making provision for the protection of the rights of individuals, actually undermine the spirit of the earlier legislation.
The balancing act between legislative requirements, business needs, the rights of the individual and the rights of society as a whole are challenging enough for the public sector information manager today. But the balance must also be achieved in the most cost effective way possible and provide more efficiency and better exploitation of information assets.
While there are many pragmatic reasons for improving information management, there are also significant dogmatic ones. The Modernising Government white paper of 1999 sets out the government’s vision for the way in which the public sector will work. Joining up systems and sharing knowledge, keyto preventing acts of terrorism, are also essential for providing a better service, as are broadening the channels by which the citizen can interact with government.
Providing services to the citizen through portals or single points of entry is important for both central and local government. Having a single point of contact for the individual makes a better, more customer-focussed experience; for the authority it means a better chance of having the correct information available to all those who need it in providing services to the individual.
Implementing e-services equates to keeping e-records. This year saw requirements for these records of interaction with government to be captured and managed electronically through electronic document and records-management systems. Working with other information professionals, these systems must also integrate with workflow, internet and intranet portals and customer-relationship-management systems to add value.
From January 2005, additional challenges are added to the mix by the full enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI). Most central government bodies already operate within the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which provides a framework for answering requests for information not normally made publicly available.
FOI puts a right of access to public-sector information on a legislated footing. Essentially, FOI allows two things: to discover what information is held by public authorities and to be given access to it. Inevitably, this will cause some embarrassment as disclosures are made of past events which many would rather keep hidden. The fact of a fully retrospective right of access is the most likely source of such embarrassing disclosures and from which there are lessons to be learnt.
Poor decision making and less-than-robust analysis in policy formulation in the past are things for which records and information managers can not be held responsible. However, they are responsible for the quality of records created going forward.
Records managers have a tool to assist them in setting out best practice standards in records creation, capture and management. If the International Standard in Records Management, or BS-ISO 15489, is properly applied to new information initiatives and existing work practices it will help prevent potentially embarrassing disclosures in the future. It describes the characteristics of record-keeping systems and of records themselves.
To this end, fit-for-purpose records must be created and then captured for later exploitation. These records provide evidence of business activities, either for legal and evidential reasons or for information reuse in the future.
There are four elements involved: authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability. Each interacts with the others and exists at a variety of levels. Together, they ensure the record does what it is designed to do. Being aware of the conflicting drivers for information professionals, each of the following reasons adds to a compelling argument for examining records creation.
For those driven most strongly by efficiency gains, having a record which can be proven to be authentic and which contains the correct information means work can proceed without the need to verify the content. This allows resources to be redirected to adding value to the already extant information. It also means avoiding remedial work rectifying problems caused by the wrong information.
Changes to corporate governance requirements in the private and public sectors mean greater accountability and the ability to prove the effectiveness of controls. Statements of internal control outline the framework in which risks are mitigated and decisions made. But the real evidence of those controls lie in the records produced. Being able to prove the authenticity and integrity of a record means there can be no question of what was done to mitigate risks.
Joining up and sharing information, internally and between authorities, requires information that is usable. In a paper world, there were no technical obstacles to sharing information because paper requires no intermediary to access its information content. In an electronic world, nothing can be taken for granted. Metadata standardisation is essential to ensure information can be shared. By definition, fit-for- purpose records meet best practice and are of high quality. When they become publicly available, there should be no concern over their adequacy. The records created should show the robustness of the decision-making process by using a solid base of evidence and evaluating potential outcomes. Subject to genuine withholding to protect the public interest, they should be records a public authority is proud to publish.
Creating fit-for-purpose records should be transparent to the user. Doing the job should be enough to create and capture the necessary fit-for-purpose records without significant user intervention. The use of consistent metadata fields, designing forms and templates for routine business transactions and ensuring the robustness of systems, in line with British Standards Institution1 guidelines BS-PD 0008 and BS 77991, will help ensure fit-for-purpose records are a key information source for the future. It is crucial the public sector takes steps to ensure that the current information challenge it faces does not become a missed opportunity for greater efficiency.
References
1. http://www.hcsu.org.uk/standards/docs/2003%20Records%Management.pdf
