The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

User difficulties working with a Business

classification
business classification scheme: a scheme
case study
Peta Ifould 21
Office of Information Management, Western Australia Police,
Received 3 March 2015
Perth, Australia, and Revised 7 August 2015
13 November 2015
Pauline Joseph Accepted 16 November 2015
Department of Information Studies, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a unique perspective into user difficulties working
with the functional business classification scheme (BCS) to register, search and retrieve corporate
information at the Western Australia Police (WA Police).
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is a single case study. Questionnaire and interview
data were collected and analysed from a sample of ten EDRMS users on their perspectives of working
with the BCS. An interpretive analysis methodology was used, and inductive reasoning was used for
thematic analysis and sense making of the textual data from the transcripts.
Findings – Although the research participants were confident working with the BCS, they reported
difficulties finding an appropriate folder that matched the information to be classified and deciding
where to file the information. Participants reported that the design and structure of the BCS and training
were identified as areas needing improvement.
Research limitations/implications – Paradigm shifts in the record-keeping role from the
professional to the user may have some bearing on the difficulties users face when dealing with their
record-keeping responsibilities. The participants provided comments and suggestions for how to make
the BCS more user-friendly, more meaningful and more aligned to the business processes of the users
that are practicable and workable solutions for the records professionals to implement.
Practical implications – This paper provides a unique user perspective of a BCS, their difficulties
working with it and how these difficulties can be resolved in a government organisation.
Originality/value – This paper provides a unique user perspective of a BCS, their difficulties working
with it and how these difficulties can be resolved in a government organisation.
Keywords Training, Electronic records management, Classification schemes,
Business classification schemes, EDRMS, File plans
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The preceding two decades have seen the uptake and expansion of the use of
networked desktop computer systems by businesses, corporations and government

The corresponding author thanks the WA Police for their support and participation in this Records Management Journal
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2016
research. Aspects of this paper were adapted from Ifould’s Honours thesis and presented at the pp. 21-37
inForum Conference by the Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
(RIMPA) in Adelaide, 2014. DOI 10.1108/RMJ-03-2015-0011
RMJ organisations (Bailey, 2008). With the resulting increase in the production of
26,1 electronic information, it is not surprising that electronic document and records
management systems (EDRMSs) are being used to manage business documents and
corporate records and information.
Business information is being created by employees who use desktop computers to
carry out their daily work, therefore also creating corporate information, documents and
22 records in the process of their work activities which are managed within EDRMS. This
has caused paradigm shifts in record-keeping responsibilities from the records
professionals to the users of EDRMS (Joseph et al., 2012; National Archives of Australia,
2003). However, organisations have used EDRMS to manage business information with
mixed results, as what may have been implemented by the records professionals for the
organisation may not necessarily work for the users (Bailey, 2008; Orr, 2005).
Western Australia Police (WA Police) uses many different business information
management systems to capture a variety of operational and administrative data,
information and records, the EDRMS being just one of these. The paradigm shifts in
record-keeping responsibilities identified by Joseph et al. (2012) from
records-management-savvy professionals to knowledge workers in the organisation
requires users to use not only the EDRMS but also the business classification scheme
(BCS) embedded in the EDRMS to categorise, classify and, at times, search for
information in this system. A BCS based on the functions and activities performed by
the organisation and the difficulties users experience when working with it is the focus
of this research and the subject of this article.

Research problem
The WA Police is a large Western Australian Government organisation with 8,180
employees (Western Australia Police, 2013) and “is responsible for policing the
world’s largest single police jurisdiction covering 2.5 million square kilometres with
a structure comprising two regions, 14 districts and 158 police stations” (Western
Australia Police, n.d.). Employees are dispersed throughout the whole jurisdictional
area and comprise uniformed police officers and public service support staff. One of
the authors is employed as a records professional within the Office of Information
Management.
It would not be an overstatement to say that managing the data, information and
records in all the various business information systems, databases and applications
for so many employees over such a vast geographical area is a daunting task. When
employees have problems using any of these systems, they call the generic Help
Desk, which is the first level of support, and the fault or problem is logged in the
Help Desk system. Subsequently, logged problems are forwarded to the second level
of support, which is the business area tasked with resolving the problem. Employees
logging problems with using the EDRMS are forwarded through to the EDRMS
Team for resolution. The help provided to employees by the EDRMS Team includes
instruction, assistance, advice and training on all aspects of using the EDRMS.
The EDRMS at the WA Police, using the Objective system, was implemented in 2006
and was upgraded to newer versions in 2009 and 2011. The EDRMS is the corporate
repository for the organisation’s records and archives. As such, it contains
administrative, financial and human resource management records. Other
line-of-business applications are implemented to manage other functional operations of
the WA Police, for example, the Incident Management System (IMS), which manages Business
reported incidents requiring police attendance and investigation, and BriefCase, which classification
manages court briefs of evidence for prosecuting offenders. The focus of this study is on
the EDRMS. Of the total population of 8,180 employees, approximately 1,100 (13 per
scheme
cent) are active EDRMS users.
The BCS, which is an important component of the EDRMS system implemented, was
reviewed and redesigned to incorporate WA Police keywords and activity functional 23
terms with Keyword AAA thesaurus terms as part of the 2009 upgrade. The role of the
EDRMS Coordinator and EDRMS Team as system administrators includes monitoring
user compliance via Help Desk calls, daily audit compliance checks and BCS
maintenance. Although there is no formalised process for major review and redesign of
the BCS, ongoing maintenance of thesaurus terms and file plan folders is carried out in
response to ad hoc requests for changes from users as they arise.
The basis for this research into BCS user difficulties was motivated by the users
logging calls to the Help Desk with problems using the BCS.

Research question
As the BCS is such an integral component of the EDRMS, its use is important for the
efficacy of the system (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008; Garcia Garrido, 2008; Henttonen and
Kettunen, 2011; Smyth, 2005b), so this research sets out to investigate the nature of these
difficulties as evidenced by the logged calls. Record-keeping responsibilities have been
devolved to the users (knowledge workers) of the WA Police, and hence, it was
important to find out how to make the BCS and EDRMS easier to use and improve user
acceptance.
This prompted the following research question:
RQ1. What are the difficulties experienced by users at the WA Police working with
the business classification scheme to register, search and retrieve corporate
information?
The research aimed to investigate and determine:
• the current knowledge and confidence of users working with BCS;
• the difficulties users were having working with the BCS to register, search and
retrieve corporate information;
• how users sought help to resolve their difficulties when working with the BCS;
• what training users had received, working with the BCS; and
• how user experience working with the BCS can be improved by Records
Managers.

Literature review
The functions-based classification model is at the heart of this research. The fact that
users have difficulties working with such a model was the basis for searching the
literature for information that explains the model and also seeks an explanation for how
and why user difficulties arise and what those difficulties might be. What was found to
be missing was the users’ unique perspective about what their difficulties were working
with functional classification.
RMJ Functional classification model
26,1 A functional classification scheme used to classify business administration and
functional/operational information produces a satisfactory and effective BCS (Smyth,
2005a; Milne, 2010; Orr, 2005; Henttonen and Kettunen, 2011; Foscarini, 2012; Morelli,
2007). Orr’s (2005) research revealed that 83 per cent of experts participating in his
research agreed or strongly agreed that functions-based classification was the only
24 effective way of classifying records. Subject-based classification schemes have been
gradually replaced by functional classification schemes since the ISO 15489 standard
advocated for the best practice of a functional classification scheme based on an analysis
of the business processes, functions and activities carried out by the organisation (Orr,
2005; Henttonen and Kettunen, 2011; Morelli, 2007; Joseph et al., 2012; Gunnlaugsdottir,
2012; Jones, 2008; Joseph, 2010; Smyth, 2005a).
The functions-based BCS uses an analysis of the business functions, activities,
transactions and processes of the organisation as the basis for classifying corporate
records. This F-A-T model (function-activity-transaction) was originally devised by
Schellenberg in the 1950s (Orr, 2005; Foscarini, 2009). However, the research by Orr
(2005) and Foscarini (2009) argues that the record-keeping industry lacks consistent
definition of “function” and “activity”, so applying them in a BCS is difficult because
there is confusion as to where these terms might be used within the hierarchical
structure of the BCS (Foscarini, 2012) and that there is no consensus in what they
mean when applied at different levels in the BCS. They state that functional
classification was not fully understood by the records and information management
profession but, disturbingly, “appear to share an almost thoughtless belief that a
good records classification system […] ought to be function-based” (Foscarini, 2012,
p. 32). Even though functional classification schemes are used because they are
recommended as the best practice (Orr, 2005), “the meaning of function, activity,
business process and the like lacks a thorough and consistent elaboration”, so there
is no clear guidance on how to determine the scope of a function or build a structural
hierarchy that represents business processes across an organisation (Foscarini,
2012, p. 21).
The DIRKS methodology, although now withdrawn as a blueprint for
government organisations, is still being used and is still a valuable resource. It
requires at Step B that an organisation identifies and documents its business
functions, activities and transactions and determines how, when and where these
are performed (State Records NSW, 2003a). The DIRKS Manual, Steps A-D, not only
describes and explains what constitutes function, activity and transaction (State
Records NSW, 2003b) but also provides information about what is required in broad
and general ways. Keyword AAA (2000) also provides much the same level of detail
for professional record-keeping practitioners tasked with conducting Step B to
create a BCS for the record-keeping system. The National Archives of Australia
(2003) describes how to use the classification terms at each of the three levels of
function-activity-transaction but does not provide an explanation or definition of
these levels. These terms are listed in the glossary and refers the reader to Step B in
the DIRKS methodology for further information (National Archives of Australia,
2003). So even though there is some explanation and definition from the originators
of DIRKS and Keyword AAA, it still does not seem to be of sufficient help to records
professionals in applying function and activity terms as per the functional analysis
of their business processes to create a workable, meaningful and usable functional Business
classification scheme. classification
Much is written in the records management literature about classification schemes
and the development of BCS (Kennedy and Schauder, 1998; Franks, 2013) but little about
scheme
the actual maintenance of these tools. Such tools are not a static resource; thus, they need
to be continuously updated to reflect the changing business operations of the
organisation. It is recommended that a senior records professional be nominated to the 25
role of reviewing and revising the classification scheme (State Records NSW, 2000) and
then approving or supervising the addition of new terms or terms to be deleted. From
our work experience, we note trends by organisations in Australia to use a committee for
this approval process increasingly comprising members from other departments.
Conflicts between the addition and deletion of terms to existing relationship terms in the
BCS need to be reviewed carefully as a part of this process.

User experience working with the BCS

In relation to user difficulties, a literature review of users’ experience of working with a
functional BCS found that:
• they were uncomfortable working with a functional BCS (Jones, 2008);
• they have difficulty comprehending and understanding its logic (Foscarini, 2012;
Joseph et al., 2012; Henttonen and Kettunen, 2011; Joseph, 2010);
• they did not find it intuitive (Joseph et al., 2012; Calabria, 2004);
• it was not popular (Morelli, 2007); and
• they found function an alien concept (Foscarini, 2012).

So they may have resistance to using a BCS for capturing the metadata and registering
records into the EDRMS that an organisation requires of them (Henttonen and Kettunen,
2011). Table I provides a summary of the general perceptions of users found in the
literature review.
Additionally, Bedford and Morelli (2006) and Gunnlaugsdottir (2012) found that user
acceptance of functional classification schemes was possible when implementation was
user focused and not viewed as a technology initiative; involved and engaged the users
in the development of the folder structure; was promoted with an intensive user training
program; and involved senior management engagement and support. In implementing
EDRMS, Gunnlaugsdottir (2008, 2009) and Johnston and Bowen (2005) emphasise the
importance of the user to a successful implementation, specifically stating that “if
systems were poorly implemented they seemed to be regarded as not user friendly”
(Gunnlaugsdottir, 2009, p. 67). Table II identifies five elements attributed in the
literature for successful EDRMS implementation.
Research conducted by Orr (2005), Gunnlaugsdottir (2008, 2009, 2012), Foscarini
(2009) and Joseph (2010) about functional classification and EDRMS search behaviour
did not aim to specifically ask users what difficulties they experienced working with the
BCS. Hence, users unique perspective with the BCS has not been researched; thus, it is a
gap our research aimed to fulfil.
Orr’s (2005) research included a Delphi study asking records professionals
(experts and practitioners) for their opinion about functional classification, which
included asking them about the reactions of general users but not asking for the
RMJ User perceptions of functional classification Sources
26,1
Users find functional classification schemes not user-friendly or intuitive Joseph (2010),
Gunnlaugsdottir (2012)
Users find functional classification schemes complicated or too Joseph (2010),
complicated Gunnlaugsdottir (2012)
Users find they did not always know where to file information in the Joseph (2010),
26 functional classification scheme Gunnlaugsdottir (2012)
Users find functional classification schemes confusing, as it is possible Gunnlaugsdottir, (2012),
to classify information under many categories Smyth (2005b), Orr (2005)
Users find the worst thing about recordkeeping is the functional Gunnlaugsdottir (2012)
classification scheme
Users find the functional classification scheme unnecessary and using it Gunnlaugsdottir (2012)
time consuming
Functional classification schemes is not intuitive and/or user-friendly; Jones (2008)
users are uncomfortable with the functional approach to the
classification scheme
Users lacked understanding of how the functional classification scheme Joseph (2010), Henttonen
worked, found it hard to understand and cumbersome to use, do not and Kettunen (2011), Orr
understand or like to use functional classification schemes because it is (2005)
difficult to use, cumbersome and unclear
Users find function an alien concept and not easy to comprehend and not Orr (2005), Foscarini
Table I. intuitive (2012), Calabria (2004)
User perceptions of Users find that functional classification schemes have limited flexibility Foscarini (2012), Morelli
functional as compared to old shared drives with personal structure, makes (2007)
classification functional classification schemes unpopular with users

Element of implementation Sources

User involvement in the Calabria (2004), Bedford and Morelli (2006), Morelli (2007), Di Biagio and
development and design of Ibiricu (2008), Gunnlaugsdottir (2008), Foscarini (2012), Xie (n.d.)
the file plan
User training in use of the Calabria (2004), Smyth (2005a), Williams (2005), Bedford and Morelli
file plan (2006), Di Biagio and Ibiricu (2008), Garcia Garrido (2008),
Gunnlaugsdottir (2008), Henttonen and Kettunen (2011), Johnston and
Bowen (2005)
Support from senior Williams (2005), Morelli (2007), Gunnlaugsdottir (2008), Di Biagio and
management of the Ibiricu (2008)
organisation for using the
Table II. EDRMS
Elements for Organisational change Cisco and Jackson (2005), Morelli (2007), Oliver (2007), Di Biagio and
successful EDRMS management Ibiricu (2008), Gunnlaugsdottir (2008), Foscarini (2012)
and BCS Ensuring the file plan meets Calabria (2004), Cisco and Jackson (2005), Smyth (2005a), Bedford and
implementation organisational needs Morelli (2006), Morelli (2007), Gunnlaugsdottir (2008)

opinion of the users themselves. Gunnlaugsdottir’s (2008) research about

implementing and using EDRMS included records professionals and general users
as research participants and identified important factors necessary for successful
EDRMS implementations. Her findings highlight how critical the users are in
successful EDRMS implementations (Table II). Foscarini’s (2009) research about
functional-based records classification systems in European central banks included Business
records managers, archivists, EDRMS team and classification system users as classification
research participants. Foscarini (2009) asked the users how easy or difficult
classifying and filing with the current function-based system was but not what
scheme
difficulties they experienced. Nevertheless, it emerged that a “functional approach is
hard for the users to understand and to apply” (Foscarini, 2009, p. 278). Joseph’s
(2010) research about whether the management of corporate information in an 27
EDRMS supports the search behaviour of the EDRMS users included records
professionals and general users as research participants. Although this research
was primarily about users’ search behaviour, it identified the difficulties users
experienced searching and retrieving information using the classification scheme.
So it could be reasonably argued that the records profession has so far addressed
the concerns of the organisation but not its users. Implementing EDRMS and BCS
that adhere to the ISO 15489 international best practice standard for records
management systems (International Organisation for Standardisation, 2001) with a
BCS aligned to the functions and activities of the organisation provides a model
(Shepherd and Yeo, 2003) that has produced “effective and well-managed
architectures“(Goldschmidt et al., 2012, p. 153) for the records professionals, who are
not always or the only record-keepers of the organisation. However, a successful
EDRMS implementation is not guaranteed; success rates vary as benefits are
derived from specific instances of EDRMS implementations and not from just
following the recommended methodology and complying with the ISO 15489
standard (Johnston and Bowen, 2005). It could be said that functional classification
does not seem to be working as well for the users as it is for the records professionals
and the organisation as a whole. Given that BCS is embedded in EDRMS, if the BCS
does not work, then it affects the ease of use of the EDRMS to capture, use, search
and retrieve records, which is explained next.

EDRMS as service versus system models

Given the paradigm shifts in record-keeping responsibilities, the design of the EDRMS
must be more oriented towards the needs of the user, as they are now doing the
record-keeping tasks of creating, capturing, using, searching and retrieving records
within the EDRMS. Making EDRMS more of a service model than a system model, as is
currently the case, will help with making it more useful and meaningful for the users
(Goldschmidt et al., 2012).
In defining work systems and information systems, Alter defines a work system as:
[…] a system in which human participants and/or machines perform work (processes and
activities) using information, technology and other resources to produce informational
products and/or services for internal and external customers (Alter, 2008, p. 451).
Alter (2008, p. 453) defines an information system as a special case of work system that
is “[…] devoted to processing information, that is, capturing, transmitting, storing,
retrieving, manipulating, and displaying information”. Goldschmidt et al. (2012),
drawing on Alter’s work systems model, have developed a framework for future
enhancements and adaptations of EDRMS that produces a service work system. Service
is an inherent quality in a work system because it reflects the interaction between users
and the EDRMS where users are both the consumers and the customers of the products
RMJ and services they produce through the processes and activities of the work they do via
26,1 the EDRMS (Goldschmidt et al., 2012). This model emphasises “the importance of
addressing user expectations and patterns of usage […] and which are more adaptive
and responsive to user demands and responses” and which also emphasises the
“interactive nature of organisational priorities and systems delivery” (Goldschmidt
et al., 2012, pp. 157-158).
28
Methodology
Case study methodology was selected for this research because it is an appropriate
research method for exploring phenomena in its natural environment, that is, user
difficulties working with the file plan in the users’ work environment. The research
question, being a “what” question (Yin, 2012, 2014), is an exploratory question to
investigate and discover what difficulties users are experiencing. This exploratory
method, then, is designed for “solving problems, or of understanding phenomena of
interest and generating additional knowledge” (Cavana et al., 2001, p. 107).
Case study methodology lends itself very well to tapping into the real-world
experiences of users of EDRMS and BCS in current organisational work
environments, and it has proved effective and significant in similar research
(Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008, 2009 and 2012; Foscarini, 2009; Joseph, 2010) and has
provided value for the records profession in the application of the research findings
towards improved practices. However, the problem with case study methodology is
in demonstrating rigour in reporting and analysis of the results (Darke et al., 1998)
and in the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the data collection instruments
commonly used in case studies – questionnaires and interviews. We have
endeavoured to capitalise on the strengths and minimise the weaknesses in the case
study method and the data collection instruments used in this research. Interviews
were used because of the ability to capture large amounts of contextual information
and questionnaires because of the ease of managing and analysing the data. We note
that weaknesses such as misinterpretation, bias and observer effects by the
researchers and design flaws in the questionnaire and interview questions
(Whiteley, 2002) could not be completely eliminated.

Selection of participants
The WA Police EDRMS product, Objective, adheres to ISO 15489, the international
standard for records management systems (International Organisation for
Standardisation, 2001), and the BCS file plan folder structure uses Keyword AAA terms
to name the function and activity folders in the file plan.
The employees who participated in the questionnaire and interviews were selected
through a process of purposive sampling, “where a sample, appropriate to the
investigation of a particular problem or which is representative of a special population,
is selected” (Williamson, 2002, p. 32) by narrowing down eligible employees, within the
total WA Police employee population, to 10 participants. Of the 2,353 logged calls to the
Help Desk over a 20-month period from August 2011 to March 2013 about problems
with using the EDRMS, 92 were identified as calls specifically about difficulties working
with the BCS. The shortlisted users were then selected from these 92 callers in the order
of preference of those logging the most number of calls. These shortlisted callers were
contacted by telephone and asked if they would agree to participate. Callers were
excluded from participation when they declined to participate, were unavailable during Business
the time the questionnaires and interviews were scheduled and their workplace was in classification
regional Western Australia and, therefore, travelling distance was prohibitive for the scheme
researchers. The final ten callers who met these requirements were selected, and the data
collection process commenced after ethics approval was granted.
The questionnaire collected demographic information about the participants, their
length of service, job level, business unit and job description. It collected information 29
about the participants’ understanding and confidence working with the BCS. It also
captured what training they received, how adequate and helpful it was and what
training they would like to receive in the future to help with using the BCS. The
semi-structured interview questions were designed as open-ended questions to capture
in-depth information from the participants’ own perspective about the difficulties they
experienced using the BCS. The interview questions collected information about users’
difficulties with registering information using the BCS and about users’ difficulties
searching and retrieving information using the BCS.
Using the interpretivist research tradition (Williamson, 2002), the responses from the
questionnaire and interview questions were analysed to see if the findings answered the
research question and successfully achieved the aims of the research. Transcription of
the audio recordings of the interviews into text was outsourced to a commercial
Australian transcription service; participants were de-identified to fulfil ethics
requirements. Thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted
manually to discover regularities, commonalties and themes and patterns that emerged
from the responses. These themes and concepts were then combined into related
categories to draw meaning from the data and enable the drawing of conclusions from it
(Darke et al., 1998). Thus, in interpretive research, the researcher is interpreting other
people’s interpretations and, in this case study, of user experiences with the BCS
(Walsham, 1995).

Research findings
When completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to the rate the following:
• how easy they found working with the file plan – 50 per cent found it easy or very
easy;
• how well they understood the file plan – 100 per cent understood it well enough to
do their work; and
• how confident they were in having chosen an appropriate folder when registering
information – 60 per cent were confident or very confident.

It could be said then that the participants had confidence in using the BCS, they found it
easy enough to use and they had a good enough understanding and working knowledge
of the BCS to do their daily work.
When interviewed and asked “what difficulties do you have with the file plan to
register your information”, 50 per cent of the participants provided the following
responses:
• They had difficulties with deciding where to file information, for example,
Participant 8 said: “I’ve got this thing that I have to put on the system, where do I
RMJ put it? It’s just too complex for you to find out where you should […] it’s not
26,1 immediately obvious where it should go?”
• Not being sure where to file information, for example, Participant 4 commented “I
find it a little bit difficult sometimes because you might have a document and you
think, “Where on earth does this go?”
30 • Not being sure if where they had filed information was the best fit, for example,
Participant 2 answered: “sometimes the information that’s pertinent to our
particular section is not a really good fit for some of the sections on the file plan.
And some of it really is a guesstimate of where it should be put”.
• The file plan not being a good match for the information they had to classify, for
example, Participant 6 said: “most of the difficulties would perhaps come in the
way that some of the documents that we handle are titled. Some of the stuff that
comes across the desk, it’s called one thing, whereas the file plan associates it to be
another. Or it may be that the folder you’re looking for in the file plan isn’t stored
logically where you think it would be”.

This is consistent with the logged Help Desk statistics, in Table III, that shows the
majority of callers logged problems with where to file the information in the file plan or
matching a folder in the file plan to the information they had at hand.
From the questionnaire and interview responses, it could be interpreted that the
participants recognised that the underlying theory of the BCS did not work as well as it
ought to in practice as indicated by the reasons cited for these difficulties. That is, the
participants did not perceive the file plan to be a good fit for the information they were
trying to register, and therefore, they did not find the file plan intuitive or that it aligned
adequately enough to their business processes. This finding confirms difficulties
working with classification schemes reported in Joseph’s (2010) research, especially
where she reports users’ comments that the classification metadata field on the EDRMS
registration screen was the most difficult field to complete and users requested that this
field be removed from the registration screen.
Participants recognised that when their colleagues do not have the same level of
knowledge and experience when classifying information within file plan folders, it
makes their search attempts for appropriate folders to register new information difficult,
as they discovered misfiled information. This frustrated their efforts in deciding where

% of total calls
Categorisation of the calls logged about the BCS (n ⫽ 92 calls)

Where to place document in the file plan 76 (70 calls)

General file plan query 10 (9 calls)
Usually know where to file, but not this one in particular 3 (3 calls)
Looking for an existing folder but cannot find, need advice on best fit 8 (7 calls)
Table III. Audit by EDRMS system administrator revealed incorrect 2 (2 calls)
Help desk calls from placement, need advice to choose correctly
August 2011 to Access problem–could find folder but could not open it 1 (1 call)
March 2013 100
to file information and undermined their confidence in selecting an appropriate folder. Business
This finding highlights that for the file plan implementation to be successful, it is classification
necessary that all employees in the organisation are well trained and knowledgeable
about working with the file plan (Joseph, 2010).
scheme
Suggestions for overcoming difficulties with registering information and with
searching and retrieving it later are provided in Tables IV and V. The suggestions for
re-structuring and describing the file plan folder would certainly provide a more 31
user-friendly BCS, one that the users would find easier to navigate through, easier to use,
more aligned to the work they do, more meaningful and have more confidence in using.
The suggestions about training are supported by the literature. Table II lists user
training about the file plan as an element necessary for successful EDRMS
implementations. These findings also support Joseph’s (2010) findings that training
users to understand how the BCS works and how it is used to classify records and the
promotion of the BCS as a search and retrieval tool are managerial challenges for records
professionals.
In all, 60 per cent of participants found the scope notes useful or meaningful to help
them determine which folders they should select to classify their information during the
registration process. The rest reported that the scope notes were not really useful or they
had not read the scope notes or did not know about the scope notes. However, better
descriptions and information about folders was still reported as suggested solutions to
improve the design, structure and use of the BCS.
In all, 60 per cent of participants reported that they did not navigate the file plan
hierarchy for searching and retrieving information. They preferred to use metadata
fields, for example, searching by the name or the title of the document or the file number,
rather than searching using the classification metadata field or to navigate the file plan
by opening up the folders to find what they were looking for.
The results shown in Tables IV-VI provide confirmation that users of
classification schemes see the same improvements as records professionals as

Comments related to (%) Comments and suggestions

Design and 80 40% – Clarifying the folders with better descriptions, adding more
structure sub-folders more pertinent to business units, modifying and
refining the file plan
30% – It is a bit complicated, not as easy to use as I would expect
it to be and not user-friendly
10% – Not particularly suited to our business units needs
Training 70 30% – More training and better training choices (Blackboard, Help
Cards, instructional videos)
20% – Using it and familiarising yourself with the system
10% – Provision of a sandpit environment for practice
10% – Even after training not easy to grasp
Help Desk support 40 20% – Getting feedback about their use of the system, more Help Table IV.
Desk support Suggestions for
10% – Having local knowledgeable subject matter experts to go to overcoming
would be helpful difficulties with
10% – Cleaning up and re-filing what is already in the file plan registering
Other 10 10% – I don’t know how, you still have to use it information
RMJ Comments related to (%) Comments and suggestions
26,1
Design and 80 30% – By simplifying it, rearranging and renaming some of the folders,
structure making it smaller but easier to find what you need, providing better
information in the scope note more specific to the folder
20% – The whole layout of the EDRMS is not user-friendly
32 10% – Make it more obvious where to go to do things in the EDRMS
10% – Make the EDRMS screens and icons look like other systems they
are more familiar with, like Windows Explorer
Training 60 20% – More training, providing a sandpit environment to practice in
20% – More people knowing how to use it and being on the same level
Table V. of ability and experience with using it
Suggestions for 10% – Training about the whole extent of the system to get the most
overcoming out of it
difficulties searching 10% – Targeted Business Unit training
and retrieving Other 20 10% – Migrating contents from the network drives to the EDRMS
information 10% – More support from the Help Desk staff

Suggested improvements Sources

Simplify the BCS by customising the sections of the classification Joseph et al. (2012),
scheme users can see, simplify the classification scheme Gunnlaugsdottir (2009)
Better training on the classification scheme, customised training Joseph (2010), Joseph et al.
to the user rather than broad general training (2012)
Organisation change management required to manage user Foscarini (2012)
perceptions of functional classification
Classification scheme should be hybrid, which includes non- Foscarini (2012), Morelli (2007)
functional components
Continued user consultation to improve usability Morelli (2007), Calabria (2004)
Automate the classification process to make interacting with the Henttonen and Kettunen (2011)
Table VI. EDRMS easier
Suggested Make the classification scheme user-friendly and intuitive rather Joseph (2010)
improvements to than ambiguous
functional Establish processes for accurate metadata capture (correct file Joseph (2010)
classification titles and no more duplicated records) and enforce the standards
schemes for titling

necessary for making the BCS more user-friendly, especially simplifying the
classification scheme, more user involvement and user training. Participants
reported their preferred training method is one-on-one training and that training
specifically about the file plan would be helpful. Reliance on support from the Help
Desk, as an on-the-job training tool with real work problems was also reported as a
preferred training tool as users receive one-on-one support and instruction when
they call.
This research has explored how the file plan can be made more user-friendly and
acceptable for the users. The findings indicate that records professionals can make
the necessary changes to the BCS file plan to improve the user experience;
nevertheless, a shift in the thinking about EDRMS that is oriented more towards the Business
user may also be indicated. classification
scheme
Discussion
Alter (2008) attributes the failure of information technology projects generally to
inadequate user involvement in the early stage of the project and to the failure of the
implementation if the system does not meet user needs or expectations. Currently, 33
EDRMS is implemented as technology-centric information system where the users are
just the “users of the tool”, whereas a service work system model provides a user-centric
system where the users are “participants in the system” (Alter, 2008). Emphasis should,
therefore, be oriented away from the current thinking of users of EDRMS as
technological tools and towards users as human participants in socio-technical work
systems (Alter, 2012).
Table VII, Column 1, is derived from Goldschmidt et al. (2012), who propose that
EDRMS can perform in the future as a service work system and in a more user-centric
way, which also aligns with the literature and the responses from the participants in this
research. Users, participants, consumers, customers – these are the employees of the
organisation who have a stake in inputting and using the information in the EDRMS.
The EDRMS has to work for the user not just the records professionals and the
organisation. Making an EDRMS more of a service model than a system model, as is
currently the case, will help with making it more useful and meaningful for the users
(Goldschmidt et al., 2012).

Conclusion
The participants provided thoughtful and intelligent suggestions as to how their user
experience of the BCS could be improved. The small sample of ten participants is not
enough to generalise the results to the total employee population, but the results are
nonetheless supported by the literature. The participants reported that the design and
arrangement of the file plan should be made more user-friendly, more meaningful, more
aligned to their business processes and with clear descriptions of where information

How EDRMS need to perform in the future Support from literature and this research

Users have a preference for working in a user
interface that is friendly and intuitive
Users require information systems that easily
enable capture of strategic knowledge
Users understand the reasons and benefits of
having a records management program and
EDRMS
Users ensure information registered in the
EDRMS is meaningfully titled
Users participate in necessary records
management and EDRMS training to be
proficient in working and using EDRMS
Users provide feedback on EDRMS ease of
use and acceptability
Better BCS design and structure
Improve scope note descriptions and better BCS
design and structure
User training – in records management as well
as “how-to” training in how to use the EDRMS
User training – file plan clean up and re-filing
User training – in records management and in
functional classification and BCS Table VII.
Expectations of users
User involvement in the design and in a service work
development of BCS system model
RMJ should be filed. The participants also stated that they would like more and better
26,1 training about the EDRMS and about the BCS to help them make better decisions when
registering and searching for information. Clearly, the implications for the records
professionals at the WA Police are to provide this for them. This is not only necessary
when implementing EDRMS but is an ongoing requirement. Business requirements
change and employee turnover is inevitable, so it is necessary for the records
34 professional to make ongoing evaluations and incremental changes to the BCS and the
training program to keep up with these changes over time.
This research affirms the user as an important stakeholder in EDRMS
implementation. Records professionals now need to focus on working with the users and
consulting with them on what difficulties they might be having with using EDRMS and
BCS as an ongoing process. Then together, determine the most appropriate resolution to
implement, a process that will no doubt increase user acceptance. With a logical file plan
structure, clear and meaningful folder descriptions and a comprehensive training
program, users would be better able to do the work required of them.
Future research is recommended that extends from this single case study to
multiple organisations and involves more participants to provide a stronger
validation for the findings of this research. Also recommended are the case studies
of organisations that have well-established EDRMS that have involved their users
in the review and re-structure of the BCS, including case studies of organisations
that have implemented improved user training programs to see where user
difficulties have been resolved.
BCSs and functional classification in particular remains a current topic of interest
and one that goes to the heart of user participation and acceptance of systems that
have been imposed upon users. Further exploration of users’ perspective of EDRMS
and BCS would enable the records profession to design and provide more
user-oriented systems for its users.

References
Alter, S. (2008), “Defining information systems as work systems: implications for the IS field”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 448-469.
Alter, S. (2012), “The work system method: systems thinking for business professionals”, paper
presented at Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, Orlando, FL.
Bailey, S. (2008), Managing the Crowd: Rethinking Records Management for the Web 2.0 World,
Facet Publishing, London.
Bedford, D. and Morelli, J. (2006), “Introducing information management into the workplace: a
case study in the implementation of business classification file plans from the Sector Skills
Development Agency”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 169-175.
Calabria, T. (2004), “Evaluating Caloundra city council’s EDMS classification”, available at: www.
steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_caloundracouncil/pdf/KMC_CaloundraCouncil.pdf (accessed
11 July 2012).
Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L. and Sekaran, U. (2001), Applied Business Research: Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods, John Wiley and Sons Australia, Queensland.
Cisco, S.L. and Jackson, W.K. (2005), “Creating order out of chaos with taxonomies”, Information
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 44-50.
Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. (1998), “Successfully completing case study research: Business
combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 273-289.
classification
Di Biagio, M.L. and Ibiricu, B. (2008), “A balancing act: learning lessons and adapting approaches
scheme
whilst rolling out an EDRMS”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 170-179.
Foscarini, F. (2009), “Function-based records classification systems: an exploratory study of
records management practices in central banks”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 35
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Foscarini, F. (2012), “Understanding functions: an organizational culture perspective”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 20-36.
Franks, P.C. (2013), Records and Information Management, Facet Publishing, London.
Garcia Garrido, B. (2008), “Organising electronic documents: the user perspective: a case study at
the European Central Bank”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 180-193.
Goldschmidt, P., Joseph, P. and Debowski, S. (2012), “Designing an effective EDRMS based on
Alter’s service work system model”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 152-169.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008), “As you sow, so you will reap: implementing ERMS”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2009), “The human side of ERMS: an Icelandic study”, Records Management
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 54-72.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2012), “Functional classification scheme for records: FCS: a way to chart
documented knowledge in organizations”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 116-129.
Henttonen, P. and Kettunen, K. (2011), “Functional classification of records and organisational
structure”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 86-103.
International Organisation for Standardisation (2001), ISO 15489-2: Information and
Documentation – Records Management – Part 2 – Guidelines, International Organisation
for Standardisation, Geneva.
Johnston, G.P. and Bowen, D.V. (2005), “The benefits of electronic records management systems:
a general review of published and some unpublished cases”, Records Management Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 131-140.
Jones, P. (2008), “The role of virtual folders in developing an electronic document and records
management system: meeting user and records management needs”, Records Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Joseph, P. (2010), “EDRMS search behaviour: implications for records management principles and
practices”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Joseph, P., Debowski, S. and Goldschmidt, P. (2012), “Paradigm shifts in recordkeeping
responsibilities: implications for ISO 15489’s implementation”, Records Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Kennedy, J. and Schauder, C. (1998), Records Management: A Guide to Corporate Record Keeping,
South Melbourne, Longman.
Milne, C. (2010), “Developing information architecture through records management classification
techniques”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 Nos 4/5, pp. 366-386.
Morelli, J. (2007), “Hybrid filing schemes: the use of metadata signposts in functional file plans”,
Records Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
RMJ National Archives of Australia (2003), “Overview of classification tools for records management”,
available at: www.naa.gov.au/Images/classification%20tools_tcm16-49550.pdf
26,1
Oliver, G. (2007), “Implementing international standards”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 82-93.
Orr, S. (2005), “Functions-based classification of records: is it functional?”, Master of Science in
Records Management, Northumbria University, Newcastle.
36 Shepherd, E. and YEO, G. (2003), Managing Records: A Handbook of Principles and Practice, Facet
Publishing, London.
Smyth, Z.A. (2005a), “Adopting a functional classification of business processes in Northern
Ireland”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 233-242.
Smyth, Z.A. (2005b), “Implementing EDRM: has it provided the benefits expected?”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 141-149.
State Records NSW (2000), Keyword AAA: A Thesaurus of General Terms, State Records
Authority NSW, Sydney.
State Records NSW (2003a), Strategies for Documenting Government Business: The DIRKS
Manual – Introducing DIRK, State Records Authority NSW, Sydney.
State Records NSW (2003b), Strategies for Documenting Government Business: The DIRKS
Manual – Steps A-D, State Records Authority NSW, Sydney.
Walsham, G. (1995), “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 74-81.
Western Australia Police (2013), “Annual Report”, Perth, Western Australia, Western Australia
Police, available at: http://police.wa.gov.au/Aboutus/Annualreport/tabid/935/Default.aspx
Western Australia Police (n.d.), “Western Australia police”, Perth, Western Australia, available at:
www.police.wa.gov.au/Aboutus/tabid/893/Default.aspx
Whiteley, A. (2002), “Rigour in qualitative research”, Graduate School of Business Working Paper
Series, No. 24, Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley.
Williams, D.J. (2005), “EDRM implementation at the National Weights and Measures Laboratory”,
Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 158-166.
Williamson, K. (2002), Research Methods for Students, Academics and Professionals, Centre for
Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Xie, S. (n.d.), “Function-based records classification: a comparative study”, available at: www.
armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Sherry_Xie_Study.pdf (accessed 19 February 2013).
Yin, R.K. (2012), Applications of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, London.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, London.

About the authors

Peta Ifould graduated from Curtin University with an Honours degree in Librarianship and
Corporate Information Management in 2014. Her honours’ research investigated the difficulties
users had registering, searching and retrieving corporate information using the business
classification scheme at the Western Australia Police. She is currently an IM Business Analyst at
WA Police working at the Office of Information Management Centre in Police Headquarters. A
public servant for more than 30 years, and since 2008, moving to records and archiving roles at
Western Australia Police. Her current work involves reviewing and rewriting the Western
Australia Police Record Keeping Plan, reviewing and rewriting the Retention and Disposal
Schedule, reviewing and updating the business classification scheme file plan and rewriting
records management policy and guidelines documents. Peta Ifould is the corresponding author Business
and can be contacted at: peta.ifould@police.wa.gov.au
Pauline Joseph (PhD) is a Lecturer in Records and Archives Management at the Department of classification
Information Studies at Curtin University. Joseph completed her PhD at the University of Western scheme
Australia in 2011. Her PhD research is titled “EDRMS search behaviour: implications for records
management practices”. Joseph’s current research interests are about the sustainability of
community-based information management practices using the motor sport community as a case
study. Further interests include research about understanding the concept of “information” using 37
the draw-and-write research technique.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com