Information management legislation in the last quarter of the 20th century: A records management disaster

ARMA Records Management Quarterly, Jan 1997 by Penn, Ira A

The reasons for this anomaly are many. I have dealt with some of them in previous articles. I have suggested, for example, that the entire office automation craze that began in the 1970s was little more than a huge scam perpetrated by technology manufacturers and vendors. I have suggested that the switch from a manufacturing-based economy to an information-based economy has resulted in our having offices filled with people who produce nothing. I have even suggested that because white collar support functions have grown to the extent they have over the past half century, organizations have completely lost sight of their reason for existence, and that what used to be considered as mundane administration is now classified as the organizational mission. But there is yet an additional reason. It has to do with the human condition and the fact that people who do not understand (or don't want to deal with) a broad issue find some lesser sub-element within that issue that they can understand (and are willing to deal with), and they focus on that.

A simple example will put the issue into perspective: Suppose there are five employees in an organizational unit, four of whom function satisfactorily and one who is practically incapable of doing much more than breathing. At a management meeting, the employees' supervisor mentions the problems he is having and suggests that it might be time for some action. The director, who is well known for not wanting to face any problem, let alone one having anything to do with personnel, responds to the supervisor's statement by saying, "Yes, action is necessary; let's review and rewrite all the position descriptions."

Needless to say, rewriting the position descriptions will not solve the problem. Everybody in the meeting knows it. But nobody in the meeting wants to deal with an adverse personnel action, so rewriting position descriptions is an ideal way to pretend to be dealing with the issuewithout really dealing with it at all. Position descriptions are totally understandable things on which to focus; they are at least tangentially related to the subject of personnel; and they can be manipulated without consequence. The position descriptions will get rewritten-and the problem employee will stay firmly in place.

A similar thing, on a slightly more gargantuan scale, happened with IRM. There is, and (as can be seen from the series of commission reports dating back to 1810) always has been, an information management problem in the Federal government. However, the legislators in Congress and the managers in OMB couldn't understand or didn't want to deal with the problem. So a solution that couldn't possibly solve the problem was conjured up and implemented.

Information technology equipment is like a position description. It is understandable; it is at least tangentially related to the real issue; and it can be acquired and manipulated without consequence. If the charge of conscious problem avoidance seems overly harsh, there is one additional fact that should be considered: Neither PRA-80 nor OMB's Circular No. A-130 contains a definition of IRM! When legislation is passed and legislative guidance issued, and nowhere is the subject defined, then suspicion is not only warranted, it is essential.