‘Unknown’: A New Category of Records

‘Unknown’: A New Category of Records

I attended second thought-provoking presentation at last week’s Infonex seminar, Managing E-records in Canada’s Public Sector, in Ottawa.

In his presentation, “Defining and Implementing a Practical, Real-Life Information Governance Plan (IGP) for your Organization“, Bruce Miller (President, RIMtech) covered numerous topics such as policies, roles and responsibilities, change management, and performance measurement for electronic document and records management systems (EDRMS) in terms of qualification rate, declaration rate, and classification accuracy rate.  He also presented an IGP as a crucial component of an EDRMS implementation.

A new category of recorded information

IM professionals are accustomed to categorizing recorded information as either a) non-records or b) records (be they official or transitory).

Bruce challenged that mindset by proposing that a recorded information object may – at any given time – be in one of three states: record, non-record, or unknown.  Here’s how he defined those states in his presentation.

Record: Known to meet the criteria of a record.  This does not, however, imply that the item is being managed as a record.  Critical to this state is that it is ‘known’ by the RIM Manager so apppropriate management can be applied.

Non-record: Known to not meet the criteria of a record.  Does not meet the criteria of a business record according to the organization’s definition of a record.  Critical to this state is that it is ‘known’ by the RIM Manager so appropriate management can be applied.

[highlight type=”light”]Unknown: It is not known (for whatever reason) by the RIM Manager if this item is a record or a non-record.  It may be either.  Critical to this state is that it is ‘unknown’ by the RIM Manager.  Items in this category may be unknown (i.e. not tracked, and not managed or declared) or they may be unmanaged records (i.e. records that are not tracked, and are not managed if a physical record or declared if an electronic record).[/highlight]

Deletion vs. Disposition

After introducing the concept of ‘unknown’ records, Bruce discussed ‘deletion’ and ‘disposition’ (two functions in any EDRMS) and presented his assertion that ‘disposition’ should be reserved only for records.  Non-records and [highlight type=”light”]unknowns should be deleted as soon as they are no longer required[/highlight].  The key to deleting unknowns is being able to identify the end of their business need.

According to Bruce, ‘deletion’ is a machine-initiated and machine-driven process for which neither an authoritative source (e.g. a records retention schedule) or human oversight is required.  That’s why it should be possible in his opinion to give a Chief Information Officer (CIO) the mandate to delete non-records and unknown (unmanaged) records at a pre-determined date (e.g. when those objects are 2 years old).

Conversely, ‘disposition’ is process-driven, initiated by humans, and dependent on an authoritative source (i.e. what is approved and by whom).  Human oversight of disposition is assumed.  According to Bruce, there are 3 stages in the disposition process:

  • Stage 1: Qualify (which records are about to be deleted?)
  • Stage 2: Review (see business owner approval for destruction/transfer)
  • Stage 3: Destroy (delete and record audit)

Bruce also asserted that the goal of any EDRMS implementation should be to reduced the unknowns (or unmanaged) to zero.  And that can be achieved by deleting the unknowns as well as non-records, leaving a much smaller (and managed) collection of records to be disposed of.

Is Deleting the Unknowns a Good Strategy?

There’s no question that deleting the unknowns would provide many business benefits.  Untold amounts of staff time would be saved by not having to determine which of these items were records and then ensuring their appropriate management.  Their deletion would free up lots of space (thus reducing storage and back up costs) and improve retrieval efficiency by reducing the volume to be searched.  Some would also argue that deleting the unknowns would enhance risk management by reducing the volume of records to be searched during discovery or in response to freedom of information/access to information requests.  Bruce believes their deletion would increase the success of any EDRMS implementation because so many EDRMS implementations have failed – typically, very few records are declared and few non-records are managed with the bulk of an organization’s recorded information falling into the unknown category which is neither declared nor managed.

However, this practice would also expose the organization to risk since some information in the unknown category is, in fact, a record of the organization.  That means the organization won’t be managing all of its records according to industry standards (e.g. ISO 15489-1) and best practices (e.g. ARMA International’s Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles).  Also, the courts and regulators may look unfavourably on this practice.

Consequently, I recommend an organization complete a comprehensive cost-risk analysis and consult with legal advisors before implementing the deletion of unknowns.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts


Chucking Daisies

Chucking Daisies: Ten Rules for Taking Control of Your Organization’s Digital Debris (published by ARMA International in hard copy and PDF download) is a useful, inexpensive resource for educating IT, legal, risk and other professionals and line of business managers about fundamental R/IM principles and

Read More »

Internal Social Collaboration: More Records to Manage

I’ve been reading a lot recently about social media and collaboration tools and came across an interesting article in a Harvard Business Review blog (HBR Blog Network) about social collaboration within organizations. Brad Power, a consultant and

Read More »

From Here to E-ternity

I can’t take credit for the title of this blog post because it comes from the title of a recent, thought-provoking article in TIME Magazine (US Edition, Feb. 11). In “From Here to E-ternity: What Happens to

Read More »
  • About the Author

  • Sheila Portrait
    Sheila Taylor
  • Sheila Taylor is a well known consultant, educator, speaker and writer with more than 25 years of experience in the information management (IM) field.

  • Recent Tweets

  • Company News

  • Search Site

  • Archives By Date

  •  Telephone


    (905) 702-8756





    Request A Call

    Case in Point

    That's A Lot of Records!
    Often the requirement for a needs assessment is driven by a specific initiative being considered or an immediate problem to be solved, rather than a general desire to establish a corporate (or organization-wide) IM program. We had a client wanting to improve its management of a specific group of critical records – thousands of member files in paper, microform and digital formats containing hundreds of unique document types.
    Assess, Plan and Schedule
    Ergo reviewed the organization’s current practices for managing those records, compared those practices to best practices, and identified risks and areas for improvement. From there we developed a strategic plan with a focus on records storage and retention. The plan identified the operational, financial and technological requirements for implementing the recommended changes, improvements and enhancements in the lifecycle management of the member records. Activities in the plan were classified as short term (next 6-12 months), medium term (next 12-24 months) and longer term (next 25+ months).
    Step by Step Success
    Implementation of the strategic plan enabled this organization to ensure its member records are properly identified, organized, accessible, protected and retained as long as necessary to meet operational and other requirements.
    Previous slide
    Next slide