" if we can't convince the originating office that the archival materials are
essential to their current operation..."
I know a records management consultant who, while doing very well,
asserts as a simple matter of fact that "there is no business case for
archives." While that may be exaggerated, it's consistent with long
standing archival distinction between primary and secondary values.
While there may be some (practically) permanent primary values (e.g.
charters, records of property rights, records of radioactive waste),
archives are generally preserved for secondary values which are
distinct from the values the records were created to serve.
" we'll have the same problem convincing resource allocators to fund
archival preservation in an archival facility."
I don't think it's the same problem at all. An archives whose mission is
preservation and use, and an archivist, who is devoting his life to these
goals, have vested interests in making the strongest case possible for
resrouces needed for archival goals. Other organizations and
professions which have no business need for archives have, at best,
marginal motivation for making the case.
"one of the very strong arguments in favor of post-custodialism
is that the originating office is more likely to be able to track new
software releases for the kinds of software they use, receive the
funding for them and get the current and archival data migrated at the
same time."
One of the intrinsic weaknesses of post-custodialism is that no one who
espouses that approach has ever explained what it means to preserve
archival records in an operational environment. They assert, as you do,
that the originators are more likely to have the resources and the
technology to carry the records forward accross generations of
technology. Our experience of the last quarter century certainly
indicates that information systems are maintained for very long periods in
the federal government. However, it is equally true that systems that are
maintained for long periods are subject to repeated changes. It may be
perfectly possible for the originator to carry data from one generation of
a system to the next, but it is not at all obvious that this process will
result in the preservation of authentic records. In fact, it is entirely
possible to preserve all of the data and loose all of the records.
If archivists -- i.e. specialists in the preservation of authentic records---
are not in charge of the migration of records across generations of
technology, but leave it to originators or IT specialists, they will not be in
a position to assert that all of the essential attributes of the records as
records have been preserved. The assertion that archivists can simply
be auditors of archival processes carried out by non-professionals
appears to be based on the assumption that archivists can know exactly
what has to be done without ever having done it or having any real
expertise in the process.
Put yourself in the perspective of a program manager or IT professional
and ask yourself how you would react if an archivst came to you and
said, "I can't do my job, so you will have to do it (and you'll have to find
the necessary resources), but I will sit in judgement and tell you if you've
done it right."
Besides, post-custodialism runs contrary to a common trend in the
federal government and in private industry: outsourcing. In outsourcing,
an organization benefits by turning specialized functions over to
specialists, rather than doing it inhouse. In post-custodialism, the
specialists want to turn over responsibility to the amateurs.
"Negative experience."
It happens all the time. I am rather amazed than any archivist, who has
had to deal with records creators and has seen the rampant neglect of
records management for current records which are most important to the
current business insterests of the creators, would argue that we can
assume the creators will accept responsibility for long term preservation
of records which have exhausted their value for current business.
We have had a few recent cases where we suggested to agencies that
they keep their historically valuable electronic records. Unanimously the
response has been: "That's the archives business. If you think they
should be preserved, you take them."
There is an older instance, dating from the mid eighties, that I think is still
relevant. It concerns the National Collaborative Perinatal Research
Project. The epidemiologists who were responsible for the project knew
they had an unique collection with lasting value: it is a collection on
60,000 women, their spouses, and all of their children to age 8. Even
though data collection stopped in 1965, in the mid 80's the data was still
being used for scientific research (it still is today). But by that time the
scientists at NIH had realized that the demands for access by outside
scientists were so high that it was interfering with their own research.
So they turned the collection over to the National Archives. Here was a
case where the originators understood perfectly the long term value of
the records and were doing all the right things to preserve it. But there
remained the fundamental conflict of interest between doing their own
work and providing archival services.
KenT.