--Contents-- University Archives
Indiana University Electronic Records Project

INDIANA UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC RECORDS PROJECT, PHASE II

PROJECT NARRATIVE

Purpose and Goals of the Project

The Indiana University Archives is requesting funding in the amount of $174,911 for a two-year project on electronic records management.

This purpose of the project is to continue and expand upon the work undertaken in 1995-1997 on an NHPRC-funded electronic records management project administered jointly by staff from the IU Archives and the Information Technology. Whereas the main e mphasis in the initial project was on developing a methodology for applying a management strategy, the primary focus of this project is on the application and evaluation of the methodology. More specifically, the project outlined in this proposal is des igned to implement and test 1) the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping model developed by David Bearman, Richard Cox, and the project personnel associated with the University of Pitt sburgh Electronic Records Project; and 2) a methodology for applying the Pitt model developed by IU Archives and Information Technology staffs during the earlier NHPRC funded project (the methodology document is included with the proposal as Appendix item 2).

The project is both a research and program development project. As a research project, the primary goals are to address a host of issues that relate to the application of the methodology, to the implementation of recommended changes to systems, and u ltimately to the overall effectiveness of the strategy and its ability to produce desired results and effect positive change. As a program development project, the primary goal is to integrate the Pitt recordkeeping requirements and the IU methodology fo r applying them into the standard set of procedures undertaken by the institution whenever an information system is created or modified. As a means of achieving this, five program development objectives have been identified:

  1. Participating in the University’s process for auditing and evaluating the effectiveness, trustworthiness, and accountability of campus information systems;
  2. Assisting in the design and implementation of new Human Resources Management and Student Information Management Systems using PeopleSoft software;
  3. Participating in the initiative to develop a team that would create business process models and review campus information systems from a variety of perspectives;
  4. Assisting in the design and implementation of a document management system for the University; and
  5. Creating and obtaining approval for an electronic records policy statement and guidelines for managing electronic records.

Background Information on IU Electronic Records Management Project, 1995-97

This project was designed to implement and test the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping model developed by David Bearman, Richard Cox, and the project personnel associated with the University of Pittsburgh Electronic Records Project. IU project personnel identified four distinct stages of development for the project.

Stage 1: Application: Develop a methodology for applying the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping to IU information systems.

Stage 2: Evaluation: Review and evaluate IU information systems in terms of the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping and the Metadata Specifications developed at the University of Pittsburgh.

Stage 3: Recommendation: Develop and submit a set of recommendations designed to incorporate recordkeeping requirements into information systems.

Stage 4: Analysis: Review the project’s application and implementation of the Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping and the Metadata Specifications, and, more broadly, critique the methodology developed in the IU project, inclu ding its use of the Pittsburgh models, in terms of effectiveness, cost, user acceptance, and skills required to implement.

During the course of the project, the majority of staff time was devoted to Stage 1 activities designed to develop a methodology for applying the Pitt model. In the last year of the project, however, staff did complete several applications of parts o r all of the methodology. Descriptions of business processes were created for all the activities undertaken by the Registrar and Financial Aid Offices, and for seven major functions within Financial Management Services. In addition, for the Registrar an d Financial Aid Offices, staff completed the following steps: identification of business transactions and records created for one major Registrar function and for two Financial Aid functions; review of how the existing information system managed the reco rds for these functions; an evaluation of how well the system was managing these functions using the Pitt requirements as the source document; and finally, development of a set of recommendations outlining how the system could better manage the records of these functions.

Project staff were very disappointed, however, that more field tests were not completed. Resistance or lack of support from record creators was not the problem; staff simply ran out time to complete all stages of the project. Consequently, while the data that was collected is suggestive, there is not enough information to reach any real conclusions about the two key questions project staff hoped to address: 1) What are the costs associated with implementing the model? Is it cost effective?; and 2) Is the Pitt model and the IU methodology for applying it an effective and useful strategy?

In sum, the main accomplishments of the IU Electronic Records Project completed in the period from 1995-1997 were educating the archival staff on electronic records management issues and processing modeling techniques, identifying some potential partne rs, developing a methodology for applying the Pitt model, and creating some preliminary data on the application of the strategy. At the end of the project, staff could confidently conclude that the Pitt model and the IU methodology for implementing it ha d shown great potential. What the IU project failed to demonstrate, however, was the value of the model and methodology based on many real-life applications on information systems in many different functional areas.

Project Goals and Objectives

This proposal focuses on two major categories of issues identified in the NHRPC’s "Electronic Records Grant Suggestions": 1) Research Projects and 2) Program Development Projects.

Research - Goals and Objectives

One of the real keys to crafting effective strategies for managing electronic records will be the willingness of archivists and records managers from big and small programs to step forward and begin testing the strategies and concepts that have alr eady been proposed and will continue to emerge over the next decade. Until these real life assessments and evaluations are made, the archival and records management professions will find it hard to make any great strides in their quest to address and mee t the challenges of managing electronic records. The project outlined in this proposal is dedicated to providing some "hard data" for these assessments and evaluations.

The primary goal of the project outlined in this proposal is to test the Pitt model and IU methodology as often as possible and in as many different functional areas. These applications or field tests will occur as result of project personnel particip ating as members of University teams performing the following functions: completing routine audits for the University, designing and implementing PeopleSoft applications, constructing process models and reviewing information systems, and designing and imp lementing a document management system for the University’s "unstructured" data. Details on the Archives involvement in these initiatives is outlined in the Program Development section of the proposal.

The application or testing process will include three primary stages or steps:

1) Application of the methodology, which involves modeling business processes, reviewing information systems, evaluating the systems using the Pitt Requirements, and developing recommendations for improving the system; 2) Development of policies, st andards, and software modifications designed to implement recommended changes to information systems; and 3) Analysis of the IU methodology including its use of the Pittsburgh models, in terms of effectiveness, cost, user acceptance, and skills required to implement.

More specifically, in the stage devoted to the application of the methodology, project staff will address the following research issues:

  1. How effective was business process modeling for identifying electronic records? How useful to archivists are the methodologies created for systems analysis and design, such as functional decomposition diagrams, event models, data flow diagrams, and d ata models?
  2. Should archivists be thinking in terms of a priority system for applying these reviews, based on some appraisal of the value of the information system or of specific functions within systems? And, if so, can the profession define the systems and funct ions in such a way that they can be applied to other institutions, particularly those of a similar type, such as academic institutions, health care organizations, utilities, etc.?
  3. What are the costs based on numerous field tests of applying this methodology and model?
  4. Can a core set of functional requirements and metadata specifications be identified that needs to be used in each and every review?
  5. What types of skills are required to apply this methodology?

For the implementation stage, project staff will be address the following questions or issues:

  1. What are the costs of implementing the recommendations for improvements to the systems?
  2. How responsive were information managers and IT administrators to implementing changes?

3) What is the best strategy for joining metadata to the record? Is the strategy of encapsulating the metadata with the record worth the cost of implementation? Put another way, is the risk of losing critical metadata so great that archivists and th e IT community cannot afford to implement any other strategy than encapsulation?

4) Where will this metadata be found, and how will it be collected?

5) What are the best strategies for preserving inviolate over time records and metadata

that must be used periodically for administrative or research purposes?

  1. In what ways can archivists and the IT community automate the identification of record-creating events and the selection of appropriate metadata?

Finally, in the analysis stage, project staff will be asking the following questions:

  1. Is the overall strategy effective, and does it produce the results and products required to effect positive change? If not, what changes are required to make it more effective?
  2. Is the strategy cost effective? If not, in what ways can the methodology for applying the Pitt model be streamlined and made more cost effective?
  3. What are the best strategies for integrating this model and methodology into the standard set of procedures undertaken by the institution whenever an information system is created or modified?
  4. Who are the "natural" partners of the archivist in the management of electronic records? And how would this partnership work, i.e., what would each partner contribute, and how would each partner profit from the partnership?

5) What policies and procedures need to be in place for the model and methodology to

work?

Program Development

----Importance of Project for Program Development

One of the primary benefits of the initial electronic records project was to insert the Archives into the process for designing, analyzing, and auditing electronic information systems on the IU campus. The Archives is increasingly viewed on the ca mpus as a "player" with something significant to contribute. This trend is reflected in the fact that the Archives has become involved or will become involved in several information management projects. Clearly then, a strong foundation for an electronic records program has been laid. However, much work remains to be done before the program is fully established and the Archives staff are widely recognized as essential members of the information management team. At present, the Archives staff are not represented on all projects to design or modify major systems, and the Archives methodology is not a normal part of the analysis process. One of the great challenges the IU Archives continues to face is gaining entrée to the systems and ac cess to information managers and system documentation. The kind of authority the Archives has for reviewing paper records simply does not yet extend to electronic systems. At this point the Archives lacks the mandate and the well-established lines of aut hority to review information systems and to effect changes. It is with the purpose of establishing this mandate and this authority that the IU Archives is seeking funding from NHPRC. With NHPRC funding, the Archives will be able to increase dramatically its involvement and level of activity in several key projects underway or being discussed.

----Program Development – Goals and Objectives

As part of the general goal of increasing the Archives staff’s involvement in systems analysis and design, five program development objectives have been identified. These include participation in the University’s auditing process, involvement in the design and implementation of PeopleSoft software, participating on a team dedicated to creating business process models and evaluating information systems from a variety of perspectives, involvement in the design and implementation of a document mana gement system for the University, and creation of an electronic records policy statement and of guidelines for managing electronic records. In all cases, partnerships in the processes identified above are already underway or at least have been discussed and generally agreed upon. Of the five goals, participation in the audit process, involvement in the design of PeopleSoft applications, and creation and approval of an electronic record policy and guidelines for managing electronic records are the highes t priority items.

----Program Development - Participation in the University’s Auditing Process

The Archives is always looking for allies or partners, preferably units with a mandate and well established lines of authority to review information systems and to effect changes. The administrative unit that emerged as the best and most natural al ly for the Archives is Internal Audit. The goals of the two units are similar – both are interested in accountable, compliant, and trustworthy systems - and the methodologies intersect in certain key areas – for example, both acknowledge the critical imp ortance of risk assessment and the value of understanding business requirements. Staff from the two units have meet and discussed a strategy for collaborating on audit reviews. Everyone involved in this joint venture agrees that the partnership between Archives and Internal Audit has great potential, in large part because all the participants have something to gain from the collaboration. For the Archives the major benefits are participation in the authorized and routine review of information systems and the opportunity to exchange ideas on the overall management of systems with experienced analysts and auditors. For Internal Audit the primary benefits are access to detailed business process models and to previously unavailable analyses of systems fro m a recordkeeping perspective. Finally, the University benefits by having its information systems much more thoroughly reviewed and analyzed, resulting in more accountable, compliant, and trustworthy systems. (For additional information on this partners hip, see the letter of support from the Director of the IU’s Internal Audit Department included in Appendix item 3).

The team has initiated its first joint audit involving a review and analysis of all the information systems in the School of Optometry. Team members expect to finish this audit sometime in June, and then to move on to another audit. Archives staff an ticipate that by the end of 1999, they will have completed three to four joint audits. The primary program development objectives in this area are to increase the number of audits in which the Archives participates, to develop the procedures and workflow of the process, and ultimately to demonstrate the usefulness and value of Archives input into the analysis of information systems. NHPRC funding will make the realization of these objectives possible. Without additional funding, the Archives can only sp are sufficient staff to work on one major audit at a time. This is unlike the much larger Internal Audit Department, whose staff conduct audits of numerous information systems simultaneously. With NHPRC funding the Archives will have enough trained staf f available to be involved in three to four audit reviews simultaneously.

 

----Program Development - Involvement in PeopleSoft Applications

Like numerous universities around the country, IU has committed to purchasing and implementing software developed by the PeopleSoft Corporation. During the next five years, IU’s Student Information and Human Resources systems will be converted to PeopleSoft applications. The manager overseeing the PeopleSoft implementation has been contacted about Archives participation, and she has assured the Archives staff that they will be actively involved in the analysis and design process. Project staff’s p rimary contributions will be to establish recordkeeping requirements and to identify strategies for implementing them. NHPRC funding will permit the Archives to devote more staff resources to the PeopleSoft analysis and design process. (For more informa tion on this partnership, see the letter of support from the Director of University Information Systems included in Appendix item 3).

----Program Development - Work with a University Process Modeling and Information System Review Team

This initiative began to take shape because a few of the people involved in modeling or describing business processes noted that there were several groups on campus working independently on this activity. As a consequence, a group of modelers and system analysts have begun talking about developing a plan to coordinate and standardize these efforts. Business process modeling is an extremely important component of the IU electronic records methodology. Describing the processes is the first step i n the set of activities designed to identify records and evaluate how the systems are managing these records. The Archives staff is committed to establishing business process modeling as the initial step in the design of every information system. This r eview team is about more than process modeling, however. Once the models are created, members of the team will begin analyzing and evaluating the information systems using the process models as the point of departure. This analysis will be conducted fro m a variety of different perspectives. Some members of the team will be evaluating the system from a business reengineering perspective; others will be conducting an audit of the system; still others will be looking at only specific transactions, such as financial activities. Archives project staff’s contribution will be reviewing the system from a recordkeeping perspective. Project personnel regard participation in this initiative as an important component of the Archives strategy to develop an effec tive electronic records management program on the IU campus. (For more information on this partnership, see the letter of support from the Director of Management Advisory Services included in Appendix item 3).

----Program Development - Assisting in the Design and Implementation of a Document Management System

Recently the University purchased a mass storage system for storing all its "unstructured data," i.e., any data or information that is not stored in standard relational databases, including word processing documents, spreadsheets, graphic s, CAD files, video files, voice clips, and e-mail. To manage this information, the University created a team to review and select sophisticated, enterprise-wide document management software. The Archives was involved in the selection process, and has b een asked to provide a pilot project to test the functionality of the system under review – FileNet’s Panagon system.

It is anticipated that this pilot project will be undertaken this year, and that the new system will be purchased and implementation begun sometime early in 2000. The major project objectives in this area will be to define recordkeeping requirements, particularly as they relate to the definition of metadata, and to identify strategies for implementing these requirements (Recently the manager of this project was reassigned, and no replacement has yet been appointed. Consequently, it was not possible to obtain a letter of support for this initiative).

----Program Development - Creation of an Electronic Records Policy and of Guidelines for Managing Electronic Records

In the last eight years, IU has established policies and guidelines related to the management of electronic data. However, no statements have been created for the management of electronic records. Therefore, a major objective of this project is t o create and gain approval for an electronic records policy and for guidelines for managing electronic records. Project staff are confident that support exists for the approval of these documents. During the first NHPRC funded project, many administrato rs and information managers interacted with Archives staff and became more aware of the concept of records and a recordkeeping system. Consequently, project staff are convinced the time is right to seek approval of campus-wide record policies and guideli nes.

In the crafting this document, the Project Director will work closely with the Committee of Data Stewards. The Project Director is a past co-chair of the Committee and is still an active member. The Data Stewards, comprised of individuals who have ma nagement responsibilities for defined segments of the institutional data base, are responsible for recommending policies and establishing procedures and guidelines for University-wide data and information administration activities. Once approved by the D ata Stewards, the documents will be sent to the Committee on Institutional Data (CID). The CID is comprised of senior university officials, typically at the dean and director level, who have planning and policy-level responsibilities for data and informa tion within their functional area. Once the documents are approved by the CID, they become official university policy.

Significance and Relationship to NHPRC Goals and Objectives

This project meets one of the three top-priority goals of the NHPRC Strategic Plan:

"The NHPRC will enable the nation’s archivists, records managers, and documentary editors to overcome the obstacles and take advantage of the opportunities posed by electronic technologies by continuing to provide leadership in funding research-an d-development on appraising, preserving, disseminating, and providing access to important documentary sources in electronic form."

Moreover, the project directly addresses the following issues identified by NHPRC in Research Issues in Electronic Records:

Question 1. What function and data are required to manage electronic records in

accord with archival requirements? Do data requirements and functions

vary for different types of automated applications?

Question 2. What are the technological, conceptual, and economic implications of

capturing and retaining data, descriptive information, and contextual

information in electronic form from a variety of applications?

Question 3. How can software-dependent data objects be retained for future use?

Question 4. How can data dictionaries, information resource directory systems, and

other metadata systems be used to support electronic records management

and archival requirements?

Question 5. What archival requirements have been addressed in major systems

development projects and why?

Question 6: What policies best address archival concerns for the identification,

retention, preservation, and research use of electronic records?

Question 7. What functions and activities should be present in electronic records

programs and how should they be evaluated?

Question 8: What incentives can contribute to creator and user support for electronic

records management concerns?

 

Plan of Work:

There are five sets of project activities on which staff will be actively engaged.

----Partner with Internal Audit to conduct audits of electronic systems: Months 1-24

Audits of information systems are routinely implemented based on a schedule developed at the beginning of the fiscal year. A project objective is to have all project personnel working on a continuous basis as members of the audit teams. The expec tation is that with three staff members working on analyzing information systems, project personnel will complete twenty-five to thirty reviews of major information systems or sub-systems during the course of the project.

The Archives has just begun its alliance with Internal Audit, so the details of the collaboration will undoubtedly evolve during the next year or so. However, the basic steps of the audit process will likely not change. The audit process typicall y consists of four stages: Preliminary Review, FieldWork, Audit Report, and Follow-up Review.

The preliminary review stage of the audit process is designed to define the objectives of the audit and to gather the information on business processes. For the first joint audit review, team members decided that the Archives staff would take the lead in generating this documentation. Archives personnel have experience generating logical process models describing business activities, so it made sense for the Archives staff to assume this role. It is anticipated that during the project Archives perso nnel will continue to generate business process models for the audit team.

After the business requirements are identified, the audit review team moves on to the field work stage. At one point, the team discussed integrating the Archives and Internal Audit methodologies, but it was quickly determined that this was not the bes t strategy. Internal Audit fieldwork methodology consists of procedures designed to test the major internal controls and the accuracy and effectiveness of the transactions. To obtain this information, auditors actually go into the system to test and ana lyze all aspects of a particular business process. Obviously, these detailed tests cannot be implemented for every transaction, so the auditors normally select only the highest risk transactions for review and testing. The Archives methodology functions in quite a different fashion with the objective to achieve a broad analysis of all business functions rather than a detailed sampling of only certain transactions. In the end these differences in purpose and scope defied any attempts to create an integr ated methodology. Consequently, it was decided that the Archives and Internal Audit would go forward in parallel with their own unique, though complementary, reviews. However, it was determined that members would meet frequently to compare notes and di scuss possible adjustments to the overall strategy. For the Archives staff, the activities undertaken at this stage include reviewing information systems in terms of how the system is presently managing the business records and evaluating the systems usi ng the Pitt Requirements.

The next step in the audit process is the creation of the audit report in which team members present findings and outline recommendations for improvements. Rather than present separate reports, the audit review team decided to create a single joint re port incorporating the findings and recommendations of both Internal Audit and Archives. This report is sent to the managers of the information system, to selected high-level administrators, and to the IU Board of Trustees. Shortly after the report is d istributed, a meeting between audit review team members and unit managers is scheduled to discuss the recommendations and strategies for addressing them. Within one month of this meeting, the head of the unit is required to submit a written response desc ribing the activities that will be undertaken to resolve the problems identified in the audit report.

Finally, approximately one year after the distribution of the final report, a follow-up review is initiated to determine whether the problems identified earlier were addressed. Unresolved problems and strategies for addressing them are described in a follow-up report, which is distributed to all the recipients of the original report.

In sum, activities undertaken as part of the audit review team include: developing business process models, reviewing information systems and describing how the systems are presently managing business records, evaluating the systems using the Pitt Requ irements, developing recommendations for improving the system, identifying strategies for implementing the changes, and finally participating in monitoring and follow-up activities.

This is one of the highest priority activities of the project; consequently, all project staff will be actively involved in the audit process. The Project Director’s main role will be to review the products of the audit review, to prepare recommendati ons and reports, and to develop strategies for implementing recommended changes. The main responsibilities of the Project Archivist and Assistant Project Archivist will be to create process models, identify records, and to analyze how the system is manag ing the records. It is anticipated that each audit review will last approximately three months, and that the Project Archivist and Assistant Project Archivist will work on two audits at all times throughout the project. At that pace, twenty-eight audits of systems or subsystems will be completed during the two year project.

----People Soft Applications: Months 1-24

This is the other high priority activity. Participation on the PeopleSoft analysis and design teams will begin in the first month of the project, and will likely focus on the Student Information system. The first objective will be to create busi ness process models and identify records. Once this information is gathered, project staff will undertake the process of incorporating the Functional Requirements and Metadata Specifications into the design of the system. Finally, project staff will wor k with the team to develop strategies for incorporating recordkeeping requirements into the Student Information system. It is anticipated that these tasks will be completed in the first year of the project. In the second year, project staff will underta ke the same set of activities for the Human Resources Information system. These tasks will be performed by the Project Director and Project Archivist.

----Process Modeling and Information System Review Team: Months 1-24

Though an important activity, involvement in this team is a lower priority than working with Internal Audit and with PeopleSoft analysis and design teams. As a lower priority, project staff will be less actively involved, and consequently will co nduct fewer reviews as part of this team. The Project Archivist and Assistant Project Archivist will jointly do the modeling and review of each system, and the Project Director will review the products, develop recommendations and reports, and develop s trategies for implementation. It is anticipated the a system review will be completed every four months, resulting in five reviews for the entire project.

 

----Document Management Applications: Months 1-16

Like the process modeling initiative, this is an important though not high priority project goal. As indicated earlier, the primary objectives are to define recordkeeping requirements, particularly as they relate to the definition of metadata, and to develop a strategy for incorporating the requirements in the design of the system. These activities will be undertaken by the Project Director and the Project Archivist.

----Create and Gain Approval of an Electronic Records Policy and of Guidelines for Managing Electronic Records: Months 1-24

Creation of these documents will be the responsibility of the Project Director. The policy statement will be created and approved in the first year of the project, and the guidelines in the second year. Once the policy and guideli nes are drafted, they will be submitted for review, comments, and approval by the two major groups on campus responsible for information management: the Committee of Data Stewards and the Committee on Institutional Data (CID). The Project Director is a member of the Data Stewards and has served as a liaison to the CID.

----Advisory Group – Input and Meetings – Months 1 - 24

All the various products of the project in draft form will be sent to the Advisory Group for review and comments. The recommendations of this group will be reviewed by project staff and, if appropriate, incorporated into the documents before they are sent to the various IU managers for review. In this sense the Advisory Group will be an active participant in the project.

In addition, one day meetings with the Advisory Group will be convened at IU at the beginning and at the end of the project. Project staff believe that both meetings are vital to the success of the project. At the initial meeting to be held in the fi rst month of the project, primary objectives will be to review with the Advisory Group and the various partner groups, i.e., IU auditors, analysts, modelers, etc., all project goals, procedures, and timetables, and to solicit recommendations on strategie s and activities designed to further define and refine project objectives and methodology. Another objective of this meeting will be to seek input from the advisors on the relative value of each of the IU project research objectives, and to gain a sense of which research goals should be specifically targeted. Finally, this initial meeting will provide an opportunity for the advisors to become much more acquainted with the products of the project, which should result in higher quality and more focused in put during the course of the project. In sum, this initial meeting will provide project staff with invaluable information on the design and objectives of the project, and will generate among all participants a common sense of purpose. At the end of the project, the Advisory Group will be brought back to Bloomington for a day long meeting with project personnel and IU administrators and staff who participated in the project. At this meeting the advisors will review and analyze project products and resu lts, listen to reports and commentary from participants in the project (archivists, auditors, system designers, process modelers, etc.), and engage in discussions of next steps and alternate approaches. While the emphasis of this meeting will be the IU p roject, discussions on the future needs and priorities of electronic records management will certainly be prominently featured as well.

As compensation for the contributions of these advisors, the following amounts are requested from NHPRC: 1) $650 per person for travel, room and board to attend the meeting at the beginning of the project; 2) $700 per person for travel, room and board to attend the meeting at the end of the project; and 3) $500 per person each year of the project (for a total $1,000 per person for the two year project) for contributions made during the course of the project and at the two meetings. Please note that the sum is compensation for both services rendered during the course of the project and for contributions at the meetings. All the individuals on the Advisory Group are very prominent in their field and most have done consulting at rates two and three ti mes what this project offers. Project staff believe the compensation package offered in this proposal is fully justified considering the knowledge and experience of the advisors, and the amount of input they will be asked to provide.

A detailed plan of work for the project is included as Appendix item 1.

Products of the Project

The project will result in the following publications.

All white papers, policy statements, reports, and articles will be available on the Web site established for the project.

Project Personnel

Project Director: Philip Bantin, Director of University Archives

40% commitment each year – Resume enclosed

Mr. Bantin was co-director of the first NHPRC-funded IU electronic records project. He has been actively involved in electronic records management activities ever since he arrived at IU in 1993. Since 1996, Mr. Bantin has published four articles and made seventeen presentations on the IU project and on electronic records management. In addition, he has served as a consultant on electronic records management for four institutions.

The Project Director’s primary responsibilities will include the following activities: Hire and train project personnel; develop electronic records policy and guidelines; review all process models and systems analyses; prepare recommendations for for improvements to the systems; develop strategies for implementing changes to systems; and prepare white papers, reports, and articles outlining the results of the project. The Project Director will be involved in all aspects of the project, but will take the leading role in the analysis and design of the PeopleSoft and document management systems, in the creation of records management policies and guidelines, and in writing reports and papers describing the findings of the project.

Project Archivist: Rosemary Pleva

100% commitment each year

The Project Archivist’s primary responsibilities will include the following activities: creating process models and system reviews for the Internal Audit and the Processing Modeling teams; assisting the Project Director in developing recommendations for changes to systems and implementation plans; assisting the Project Director in creating process models, recordkeeping requirements, and implementation plans for PeopleSoft applications and for the document management system; and assisting the Project Director in developing papers and articles outlining the results of the project. The Project Archivist will be involved in all aspects of the project, but will work most extensively on the Internal Audit and Process Modeling team reviews and on the PeopleSoft application analysis and design teams.

Assistant Project Archivist: To Be Hired

100% commitment each year

The Assistant Project Archivist’s primary responsibilities include the following activities: creating process models and system reviews for the Internal Audit and the Processing Modeling teams; assisting the Project Director in developing recommendations for changes to systems and implementation plans; and assisting the Project Director in creating papers and articles outlining the results of the project. The Assistant Project Archivist will not be actively involved in all aspects of the project. This individual will spend the majority of his/her time working with the Internal Audit and Processing Modeling teams.

Advisory Group: Rick Barry, Gerry Bernbom, Fynette Eaton, Margaret Hedstrom, Greg Hunter, John McDonald, David Wallace

All members of the Group have been contacted and have agreed to serve.

These advisors will be asked to provide input and guidance throughout the project. In addition, one day meetings with the Advisory Group will be convened at IU at the beginning and end of the project.

URL:http://www.indiana.edu/~libarch/narrative.html
Comments: libweb@www.indiana.edu
Copyright 1998, The Trustees of Indiana University