Teoría General de Sistemas de Ludwig Von Bertalanffy

Workplace collaboration has increased across all fields since the 1960s (Moody 2004), largely as a result of the changes in communication structures that have come about with the changing information and communications technologies (i.e., ICTs). Archivist Helen Samuels (1986), remarking upon the increasingly distributed and networked nature of work within organizations, offered suggestions for appraising such networked information for archival purposes. Also around this time, ARM researchers began commenting in more depth about how the changes required new ways of thinking about records. For example, in 1995 Anne Gilliland-Swetland remarked upon then-prevailing perceptions of how networking could change social and organizational environments. She noted that researchers were then hypothesizing “that networking encourages intra- and inter-institutional as well as

transnational collaboration; that it is a democratizing force that is breaking down

hierarchical, organizational and scholarly structures; that it can function almost as an instantaneous, synchronous medium and as a result may be more reflexive, spontaneous, candid, and informal” (2004, 595).

Increasingly distributed work patterns have also developed in the public sector. Sharon Dawes and Ophelia Eglene share information about the growing collaborative

provision of government services, including collaboration “across two or more distinct public sector agencies, or between public and private or nonprofit entities, to deliver government services” (2008, 2). They point not only to changing models of service provision, but also to changing functional and organizational requirements for the performance of government activities, revealing that a key motivating factor for increased engagement in collaboration has been the introduction of new technology and the perception within the government that the “technological expertise necessary to implement public service delivery systems” (2) lies in the private, not the public, sector. The strengthened desire to engage in collaborative service provision and the increased sophistication of computer technologies, however, has also led to a greater distribution of records management and archival functions within the public sector.

Kwon and colleagues (2008) report that digital preservation service provision in state government is widely dispersed, with the IT unit standing out “across all three branches of government as holding a significant role in the standards-setting process and in providing services related to digital preservation” (188). In addition, parallel standards-setting and service-provision efforts occur across the executive, legislative, and judicial agencies in state governments, often with little or no cross-branch cooperation and communication. The authors reveal that

units other than the state libraries, archives, and records management (LARM) units have the authority to set standards for digital information created and maintained by government agencies. Even within the areas generally considered to be within the realm of state LARM units – retention and disposal – legislative and judicial agencies are operating independently to a great degree (188).

In the 1990s, public service provision became more distributed and collaboration increased when the National Performance Review recommended that government agencies reengineer government activities, making “full use of computer systems and

telecommunications” to revolutionize services delivery (Dawes and Eglene, 1). Dawes and Préfontaine (2003) examine some of the themes that emerged from these collaborative projects. For example, they note that each project had a very distinct set of norms and expectations regarding how key roles and functions should be implemented. In addition, the relationships were quite dynamic and the roles and responsibilities evolved throughout the project, although early performance strongly influenced later “actions, performance and results” (41). In order to effectively work together, such collaborations need a clear institutional framework reinforced by some mechanism of authority, whether that be regulation, law, or formal, contractual agreements between partners. The authors relate, however, that experimentation and creativity are strengthened by the development of informal relationships. Performance, communication, and an ability to adapt to changing conditions are also strongly affected by the nature and flexibility of the technical tools. However, data presents a key issue: data ownership and rights among partners is a continuing conundrum and projects must tackle the question of the “stewardship11 responsibilities of multiple public partners” (42).

11 _{Information stewardship is defined here as the “active involvement in the management, including the} preservation, of digital data for future use.” This definition corresponds directly to Lee and Tibbo’s (2011) definition of digital curation. Stewards are those individuals or groups that engage in stewardship activities.

27

One might wonder why ownership of public data would be a particular issue among public sector entities; there are two reasons. The first is the question of who “owns” the responsibility for engaging in the stewardship role. When multiple agencies crossing multiple jurisdictions engage in shared services, who should maintain responsibility for the jointly created data? This is an organizational and sometimes a legal question. Kristin Martin and Jan Reagan (2003) point out that with more state government information being presented on the World Wide Web, the boundaries between publications and records are blurring, leading to some confusion as to whether the stewardship of particular documents should reside under the purview of a State Library or a State Archives and Records Section. Their research is specific to North Carolina, but this perception holds true for any state in which the two entities maintain separate spheres of control. In absence of clear-cut statutes that regulate what constitutes a “publication” as opposed to a “record,” state librarians and archivists need to collaborate in order to ensure appropriate stewardship coverage.

Martin and Reagan are not alone in this sentiment. During 2005, the Library of Congress convened three workshops that included representatives from all 50 states. They engaged in mutual discussion and learning about how state governments were handling the digital preservation challenges that existed at that time. During the workshops one of the key ideas upon which participants agreed was that “working across different institutional and professional communities was one of the most important issues facing digital preservation" (Library of Congress, 20).

In fact, working across different communities has also been found to be an issue for any shared services or collaborative arrangement. Sue Richards (2001) and others (Walters 2010) share important prerequisites for successful joint working arrangements. Richards

notes that clearly defined goals, the monitoring of and response to performance metrics, adequate resources, the presence of a clearly identified leader, and mutual support and trust are all crucial elements for collaborative success. Tyler Walters adds that a key ingredient for leadership is a well-defined governance structure that outlines roles and responsibilities for both the leader or leaders and the joint participants. Although Walters favors having the leader be a separate entity that is not a member of the collaboration, H. Brinton Milward and Keith Provan (2006) point out that three different governance models can hold: the lead organization model, the network administrative model, and the self-governance model. The network administrative model is Walters desired form, where a separate leader (i.e.,

organization or administrative entity) is hired to perform governance activities; the lead organization model is one in which a generally powerful organization within the shared arrangement also acts as the lead; the self-governance model is one in which all members of the collaboration engage in governance (Milward and Provan, 22). Christine Ryan and Peter Walsh suggest that in public sector shared services, clear expectations are essential, and that this requires an explicit agreement between partners in early stages regarding what

constitutes acceptable performance and what constitutes “credible” reporting of that

information (2004, 623). Depending upon the nature of the service provision and the type of sharing (e.g., cross-agency collaboration vs. private outsourcing of public services) these could be agreements such as memos of understanding (MOUs) between agencies (Reed) or contracts like service level agreements (SLAs) with external vendors (Richards).

The second ownership issue related to distributed service provision is a property rights question related primarily to the rights of access and sharing when one party holds specific property rights over data. For example, the attendees of the Library of Congress’

2005 state government workshops were individuals who engaged in a wide variety of digital preservation activities as librarians (43%), archivists (34%), records managers (8%), IT professionals (13%), and other workers such as clerks and agency information custodians (2%) (Library of Congress, 42). A number of these participants reported that issues with the copyright status of information can be a key factor in a state’s preservation decisions. For example, one attendee “described situations where state digital information was subject to the copyright of commercial contractors that either generated the information on behalf of the state, or that packaged existing state information for sale to the public” (12). Although the state was allowed copies of the newly copyrighted content, it was not allowed to provide public access. In situations such as this, public information stewards need to be aware that they must negotiate with vendors for the rights to the data that the information stewards have created or collected. Another workshop participant reported that California state law does not explicitly declare that public records reside in the public domain. As a result, states are subject to federal copyright ownership requirements. Although Section 105 declares federally created records to be in the public domain, this is not necessarily the case for state created information. Cobb and Palmer report, “Generally, when a government remains neutral, or when there is the absence of a claim of ownership, the provisions of the Federal Copyright Act apply to a publication. Thus, copyright ownership would appear to be in place for agencies per federal law absent any statement for public domain in California law” (2004, 20). Although the California Legislature has tended to lean toward protecting and providing free public access to state created documents, the actual legal status of these records is

murky, and the ownership of individual agency records by the agencies has created confusion around appropriate and inappropriate uses of records and documentary materials from a

copyright-standpoint. Such confusion serves as a disincentive to preserve materials.

Representatives from yet another state commented that public information that was perceived to be under copyright law in their state was typically not preserved because of “legal barriers to reproduction and access” (Library of Congress 2005).

However, another possible disincentive for responsible stewardship of records in state agencies may reside in accountability concerns. In an environment in which ownership of processes and data is murky, employees may fear reprisal in the event of a disaster or

accident if they take responsibility for activities for which accountability has not been clearly designated.