Real Story Group. Make Better Technology Decisions.

Alan Pelz-Sharpe

The problem of original content in a digital context

19-Feb-2009

Tags: , Document Management (ECM), E-mail Archiving and Management, Evaluating SharePoint, Building Business Case, Implementation, Industry Standards, Marketplace at Large

Methods and definitions in the world of Records Management (and subsequently ECM) have been long established and remain, in many cases, as valid today as they ever have.

However, most of these methods and definitions were agreed upon when most records were physical hard copies; in most commercial situations this meant paper documents. The introduction and growth of digital documents has been embraced by the RM community, but many of these base definitions remain unchanged, and are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. One of those is the definition of an "original" document, a particularly crucial definition in these days of e-discovery.

An original document or file is just that, the original. It is not a copy; it is authentic and it can be proven to be authentic. In the paper world this is easy to understand: the original signed document is the original, not a photocopy of the original, even though that photocopy may be identical in every way. Even though the copy may be identical in every way, it is not the original, and in many cases will not be given the same legal status.

Likewise, in most instances, digital documents that are identified as originals, needing to be securely stored for a defined period of time due to regulatory demands, are stored as originals – in other words, the actual original file is transferred to an archive medium such as disk or tape.

However, most of these digital originals come in the form of unstructured data files or fixed content. These files are typically bulky, complex in nature and make heavy demands on storage systems and management applications. The perceived need to reduce this burden has spawned logical copy-based storage systems. Such a system stores an original file, but if changes are made to it moving forward, only the changed elements are stored. However, what will be displayed to anyone querying the system will be an exact replica of the changed original – a virtual original, but not the actual original.

In most cases this kind of storage will be perfectly acceptable, but I mention it to illustrate the fact that (for example) your Word document and its associated metadata is the original document, not a subsequent pdf or tiff image that you may create as a rendition. Arguably a contemporary paper copy of the original word document could also be considered "the original," assuming a paper copy was produced at the time, as would often be the case for a contract or order.

These may all seem pedantic issues, but the problem here is that the finer points of many new regulations remain untested in court. Likewise, technology solutions that have been designed to help meet some of these regulatory situations are equally untested in court. However, most of the established record-keeping definitions and methods established by records managers over many years have been tested many times and validated in court. Until these definitions are revised or overturned, it would make good sense to observe them, and to act with caution when electronically storing fixed content.

My Recommendations?

• Those involved in IT and RM projects focused on meeting regulatory standards need to act with caution. Not all of the software and hardware solutions currently available in the marketplace are equal.
• You need to be very clear about what constitutes an "original" document, and have this confirmed by legal counsel. If a storage product or software solution does not manage the actual original, you may have issues to resolve down the line.
• Mirrored physical copies of fixed content data may be more optimal in terms of meeting regulatory compliance needs than mirrored logical copies (storing only changes).
• In many instances paper records may well continue to be of importance, and electronic methods of storage and management will represent a highly efficient back-up to these paper records rather than a replacement.

What do you think?