Understanding functions: an organizational culture perspective

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to discuss the disconnection between the recognized centrality of the functional approach to records management and archives and the actual understanding of functions that scholars, practitioners, and records creators seem to have. It suggests that records professionals should consider functions not in the abstract but in the specific socio-cultural contexts in which they are enacted. Design/methodology/approach -After analyzing the main theoretical and methodological issues concerning the concept of function and the application of the functional approach, the paper reports some findings of an empirical study of function-based records classification systems conducted by the author in four different organizations in Europe and North America. Findings -The multiple-case study research confirmed that the meaning of both function and classification are subject to various interpretations, that a number of non-functional factors are involved in the creation of function-based tools, and that records professionals find available explanations of functional methods confusing. The findings also indicate that there is a relationship between organizational cultures and the ways in which business and records processes are perceived and translated into practice. Research limitations/implications -This study provides a number of suggestions that may be used to improve the analysis of functions and business processes for any records management purposes. In particular, it discusses some of the non-functional and cultural factors that influence the design and implementation of function-based records classification systems. However, more empirical research is needed in order to broaden our understanding of functions in real-world organizations. Originality/value -Based on a broad selection of professional literature on the functional approach, this paper presents the original findings of an empirical study that uses qualitative methods to analyze and interpret the data collected. It is hoped that it will inspire more exploratory research of this kind in the records management area.

Recordkeeping professionals’ understanding of and justification for functional classification: Finnish public sector organizational context

“…112-113). Previous studies and literature (Foscarini 2012;Orr 2005;Smith 2007, p. 54) show that records management professionals prefer functional classifications because they find it easier to manage records in the functional structure (Todd 2003, p. 3). In Foscarini (2012, p. 30), a belief in 'power of function' as such was also strong among records practitioners.…”

“…Functional terminology is vacillating, and different terms are used almost synonymously. Function, as a concept, is obscure (Foscarini 2012). Foscarini (2012) found that the meanings of functional concepts like ''function'', ''activity'' and ''transactions'' were not clear to professionals.…”

“…With the increasing volume of records in organizations and use of electronic records management systems (ERMS), the functional approach has become more popular. At the same time, however, there has also been a growing interest in the problems that functional classifications involve (Alberts et al 2010;Calabria 2006;Foscarini 2012;Orr 2005).…”

“…Functional classification has recently drawn increasing attention as a method for organizing records in electronic records management (Alberts et al 2010;Bak 2012;Foscarini 2012;Gunnlaugsdottir 2012;Henttonen and Kettunen 2011). It is highly valued by records management professionals (Foscarini 2012;Orr 2005) and sometimes even presented as the only reasonable method for classifying records (Shepherd and Yeo 2003).…”

“…It is highly valued by records management professionals (Foscarini 2012;Orr 2005) and sometimes even presented as the only reasonable method for classifying records (Shepherd and Yeo 2003). Other options for records classification, i.e., subject, record type, organizational structure (Smith 2007, pp.…”