The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm
RMJ
22,2
116
Received 5 April 2012
Accepted 14 May 2012
Records Management Journal
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2012
pp. 116-129
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
DOI 10.1108/09565691211268171
ARTICLES
Functional classification scheme
for records
FCS: a way to chart documented knowledge
in organizations
Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir
Department of Library and Information Sciences, University of Iceland,
Reykjavik, Iceland
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of studies conducted during the period
1986-2010 in 75 Icelandic organizations on how employees classified or did not classify information
and records.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative methodology was used, involving open-ended
interviews, participant observations and internal documentary material.
Findings – The studies revealed that very few of the organizations used a functional classification
scheme (FCS) organization-wide to classify records when the data collection took place. When FCS was
not used, records were variably stored unclassified or were classified by the employees according to
individualistic schemes made up by themselves. It was further discovered that influential factors in a
successful implementation of FCS were user participation in designing FCS, proper training and top
management support in its use.
Practical implications – The findings could be practical for organizations that intend to improve
information and records management and to maximize efficient retrieval of records for business and
legal purposes. They could be a starting point in successful introduction of FCS in organizations, both
in Iceland and abroad.
Originality/value – There is a lack of systematic analysis of studies on classification of records and
FCS, not only in Iceland but in other countries as well. The findings provide new knowledge on how
employees classify or do not classify records and use or do not use FCS and of which are the most
influential factors in a successful implementation of such schemes.
Keywords Classification, Classification schemes, Functional classification schemes,
Information management, Records management, Implementation, Iceland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A uniform functional classification scheme (FCS) for records is one of the most
important tools in information and records management in organizations. With FCS
the activities of an organization are charted or mapped and accurately and usefully
reflect the work that is performed. Such a scheme embraces all records that belong to a
certain case file and all the documented information that pertains to it, both in an
electronic format and on paper.
The main purpose of this paper is to present the data collection and studies that
took place over a long period of time, where the ways of classifying records by
employees in organizations were examined at the scene. Some conclusions from these FCS for
observations are introduced. The data collection took place in 75 organizations during records
the period 1986 to 2006 and again during 2008 to 2010. Qualitative methodology was
used during the observations. A large number of employees that were active in
information and records management were interviewed and work procedures
regarding classification were examined, both regarding paper records and those in an
electronic format. Available documentary material in the organizations regarding 117
classification and management of records was also examined. The objective was to
find out:
.
whether records were classified in a systematic manner according to a uniform
classification scheme or FCS;
.
which methods were used in classifying records when the employees did not use
a uniform classification scheme when classifying records;
.
what opinions the employees had of these schemes; and
.
whether employees realized the importance of a FCS and its use for the efficient
functioning of the organization.

The studies revealed that very few of the organizations used a uniform FCS to classify
their records. Some divisions within the organizations, however, did use a FCS for the
division itself although other divisions did not use it and did not have a FCS of their
own. In those organizations where a FCS was not in use, the employees stored their
records without classification or classified the records in a haphazard manner though
usually according to the best of their own knowledge. Some employees that had
knowledge of FCS believed that it was complicated and not user friendly but others
regarded it as important and a necessary tool. The view that employees should
participate in the design of a FCS for the organization and should obtain necessary
training as well as sound top management support in using it was frequently
mentioned.
This paper is divided into four parts. The theoretical background is covered in the
first part. The concepts of classification systems, classification schemes and FCS are
discussed and references are made to other studies on the subject regarding FCS
design, implementation and use. Part two discusses the methodology of the studies,
presents the participants and the methods and execution of the data collection. Part
three contains the conclusions in three sections. The last part is devoted to discussions
and a summary of the studies.

Theoretical background
Modern classification systems trace their roots to the theory presented by Aristotle in
the 4th century BC, that similar things should be classified together – the classical
theory of categories (Taylor, 2004). One of the oldest classification systems known to
exist was a subject classification system, Pinakes, of the poet Callimachus from the
third century BC. It was used to classify the holdings of the library in Alexandria in
Egypt (Taylor, 2006). In the centuries since many classification systems have seen the
light of day. Among these are hierarchical subject classification systems that are
especially designed to organize formally published material in libraries ( Joachim,
2003).
RMJ Hierarchical subject classification schemes were later used to classify records in
organizations. The need for easier access to information and records created in
22,2 organizations increased during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The
classification schemes were originally designed to classify paper records. Great
technological advancements took place during the twentieth century. These led to a
growing volume of records, created both on paper and in an electronic format. This
118 large number of records increased, still further, the need for classification schemes for
records (Cisco and Jackson, 2005).
Taxonomy covers the laws and principles of systematic classification. It is an
important part of information and records management (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2003). The
international standard on documentation and records management, ISO 15489, defines
the term classification as “systematic identification and arrangement of business
and/or records into categories according to logically structured conventions, methods,
and procedural rules represented in a classification system” (ISO, 2001, p. 2). Cisco and
Jackson (2005, p. 45) have underlined the importance of taxonomy for organizing
business records:
The increasing volume of electronic records and the frequency with which those records
change require the development and implementation of taxonomies – a classification system
of topics or subject categories – to maximize efficient retrieval of records for legal, business,
and regulatory purposes.
Methods that have been used in classifying information and records in organizations
are varied. More recent writings and instructions regarding information and records
management, however, recommend FCS. The classification scheme should be
functional. It should mirror the functions and the activities of the organization as the
records are created in the course of business activities (Bedford and Morelli, 2006; DLM
Forum Foundation, 2010-2011; ISO, 2001; Jones, 2008; Morelli, 2005). “Business
classification schemes are not based on the organizational structure of an organization.
Functions and activities are more stable than organization structures” (Standards
Australia, 1996, clause 7.2) and FCS is more flexible than a classification scheme based
on departmental divisions (Shepherd and Yeo, 2003). One of the reasons is that if a
function of one department is moved to another department, no change is necessary
with FCS.
FCS is the foundation of a records management program developed in line with ISO
15489 (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2002; ISO, 2001). It is the keystone of electronic records
management systems (ERMS) (DLM Forum Foundation, 2010-2011; Gregory, 2005;
van Houten, 2010). FCS needs to be a part of ERMS to make it possible to classify and
organize records into the systems in a uniform manner (Morelli, 2005). When records
are registered into ERMS they are at the same time classified in accordance with an
FCS. FCS is, therefore, fundamental for the registration, classification and the
processing of records (National Archives, 2009).
FCS covers all records that belong to the case files, the information that is recorded
on paper or electronically. Case files contain most records, accounting records being
excluded, regardless of format, such as letters received and sent, including facsimile
messages, e-mails and their attachments. Minutes of meetings, contracts, internal
messages, memos and reminders, reports, surveys and plans are also a part of the case
file. Furthermore, job and work procedures, work processes and instructions to
employees become a part of the case file, as well as promotional and instructional
material that is published by the organization. FCS for information and records in FCS for
addition charts the recorded knowledge within the organization and gives an overview records
of the organization as it is at each time (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2003). This implies that the
FCS must be reviewed and updated to reflect developments and changes within the
organization and its environment.
A FCS is introduced to ensure a uniform classification of information and records
and to facilitate their subsequent efficient retrieval. There is a real risk that records 119
may become lost due to change in personnel or cannot be found during an employee’s
absence if the records are classified in a manner that is not uniform or if the records are
classified according to the whims of the employee. One aim in using FCS is to place
together records that relate to the same case or subject and to keep together cases that
are similar in such a manner that there is a clear connection between them (DLM
Forum Foundation, 2010-2011; Jones, 2008). This makes it possible to track the
execution of a case or an assignment from the beginning to the end. FCS ensures the
correct context of the case as records that relate to and describe the same case are filed
together (DLM Forum Foundation, 2010-2011). A FCS also facilitates the assigning of
access rights or security precautions to specific subjects/functions and in defining
various retention periods for different records.
Using FCS for information and records is the most efficient way to obtain an
overview of the records collection of an organization and to ensure secure access to
these records. The records of public authorities must, according to law, be accessible so
that an overview is ensured regarding the handling of public cases. In addition, both
public authorities and private organizations, must respect protection of privacy and the
confidentiality of records as prescribed by law. Certain legal demands are usually
made regarding information and records in most countries. These are provisions for
the protection of confidential information, public access to information, demands for
the protection of privacy and permanent preservation of historical records. The most
important statutes in Iceland regarding information, records and their management are
the National Archives Act, no. 66/1985, with later amendments, the Information Act,
no. 50/1996, the Privacy Act, no. 77/2000, and the Administrative Procedures Act,
no. 37/1993, with later amendments (Administrative Procedures Act, 1993).
Arguments have been put forward based on research that it is important for a
successful implementation to involve the employees in the design and construction of
the FCS (Garrido, 2008; Gregory, 2005; Kibby, 2005; Smyth, 2005; Williams, 2005). The
necessity has, furthermore, been established that it is vital to consult with key
employees and seek their opinions regarding the design of FCS (Cisco and Jackson,
2005; Morelli, 2005) as they are the experts in the different operations within the
organization (Mai, 2010) as well as important stakeholders (Wang et al., 2008).
Furthermore, studies have revealed the importance of seeing that the employees
receive, prior to and during installation, proper training and assistance in becoming
users of FCS. If this is not done FCS is usually regarded as complicated and unsuitable
for use. Research shows that training and education are important success factors
when systems that organize information are to be implemented in organizations
(Fjermestad and Hiltz, 2001).
In addition, support by top management is vital for successful implementation of
FCS. Thorough preparation is needed before instituting the project and project leaders
must be selected (Connelly, 2007; Jeffrey-Cook, 2005).
RMJ These three factors: involving the users in the designing of FCS; proper training in
using FCS; and support by top management, agree with the conclusions of research
22,2 that was conducted on ERMS in Icelandic organizations, specifically the part that
provided information on FCS and its use. This research was undertaken during the
years 2001 to 2005. During the data collection 46 interviewees were interviewed in 14
organizations, both private and public, and 140 workstations within these
120 organizations were visited (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008a, 2008b). Follow-up research
conducted in 2008 further cemented these findings (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2009).

Methodology
Employees of a consulting firm in information and records management in Iceland,
RIM-Services (a pseudonym) made studies of the status of information and records
management in more than 100 organizations in Iceland during 1986 to 2006. During the
status surveys, that the employees of RIM-Services undertook data regarding the
situation of information and records within the organizations were collected and all
aspects regarding information and records management were examined in the field.
The data collected are quite voluminous. The originals are mostly in the form of
handwritten memo pads. Upon completing a survey in each organization, the
management of the organization received a written report or an analysis covering the
status of information and records management within the organization with
recommendations for improvements for every part of the program.
This paper, however, covers only one aspect of the surveys and only one part of the
records management program, namely the classification of records, both electronic and
on paper, especially according to a functional classification scheme (FCS). The
organizations involved in this respect totalled 75. These organizations were both large
and small in Icelandic terms. Some were private companies, others public
organizations or institutions, but various associations were included in the group as
well. These organizations represented most of the groups enumerated in the Statistical
Classification of Economic Activities in Iceland (Statistics Iceland, 2009). The number of
employees within the organizations that handled records, office workers and
specialists of various kinds, numbered from four to about one thousand.
Qualitative methodology was used in conducting the research at the place of work.
It is quite suitable for surveys such as these in the field (Bellinger et al., 1976; Berg,
1989; Bogdan and Biklen, 2003; Glaser and Strauss, 1968; Gorman and Clayton, 1997;
Mitchell, 1998). Three different methods were used in the data collection regarding the
classification of records:
(1) open-ended interviews were conducted with the employees;
(2) participant observations took place at the scene where it was studied how
employees classified records on paper and in electronic format in their
computers; and
(3) available internal documentary material such as rules, instructions and older
schemes on classification were examined.
It should be noted that sections on classification in the reports and analyses submitted
by RIM-Services, as well as a FCS designed under RIM-Services’ auspices for use in the
organizations, were a part of the research documentary material. A three-prong
approach or what is called a triangular approach in the literature was used in the data
collection. It is believed to give a more valid picture of the situation in the field FCS for
compared to using only one of these methods (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003; Janesick, 1994; records
Silverman, 2000).
Information was sought on how employees classified their records by asking the
employees themselves, and by observing these employees at their place of work. Key
employees, the records managers, were also questioned about the work procedures of
their fellow employees and about the situation regarding classification of records in 121
general. It was impossible to interview all those working with records in the larger
organizations. The records managers, or the individuals in charge of information and
records management, were usually quite knowledgeable about the situation and could
substantiate the findings obtained in the field.
Usually two consultants from RIM-Services visited all departments, divisions,
sub-divisions, fields of activity and the various premises of the organization as
appropriate, depending on the size of the organization. The consultants examined the
situation as it pertained to information and records management. The visits were
scheduled and organized in cooperation with the key person in charge of information
and records management in the organization, usually the records manager. Division of
labor was employed during the interviews. Usually one of the consultants asked the
questions while the other took notes. The second person did not keep quiet the whole
time during the interview, however, but also followed up questions and the discussions
as the situation warranted. The consultants at RIM-Services observed in the field
among other things how records were kept, classified or not classified, in file cabinets,
drawers, on shelves, and in folders. It was furthermore observed how employees
classified and stored records into electronic information systems or their computers.
Notes regarding the observations were taken during the visit. Various available
documents regarding the structure of the organization, its functions and its
information and records management, including classification of records, were also
collected during the visits. This material supplemented the notes that formed the basis
of the written report with recommendations to the management of the organization.
Quite often it proved necessary to add to the data collection further information with
phone calls and exchange of e-mail to key employees.
Out of the 75 organizations, 68 availed themselves of the service of RIM-Services
and decided to have a new FCS designed, as shown in Table I. Contact was made with
about two-thirds of these 68 organizations from 2008 to 2010. Additional data were
collected by interviewing the records managers, or the individuals in charge of
information and records management in each organization. This was done with the
aim of obtaining information about the continued use of the FCS that was designed by
RIM-Services in cooperation with the users and subsequently implemented in the
organizations for general use by those working with records.
In the next three sections several aspects of classifying records are discussed. First,
the status and implementation of a FCS in the 75 organizations is presented. Second,
alternative methods other than a FCS are covered. Finally, the views of employees
towards FCSs are examined.

FCS and the 75 organizations

The principal objective of filing records according to a uniform FCS and the main aim
of implementing such a scheme organization-wide are for the users to be able to
RMJ
The status regarding a uniform FCS in the 75
22,2 organizations Number of organizations

FCS for the organization as a whole was in place 02/75

A uniform FCS in the organization was lacking 73/75
FCS was in place in individual departments 13/75
122 FCS designed by RIM-Services 68/75
Senior management active files (paper records
collection) subsequently organized by RIM-Services
according to the new FCS 64/68
Active files (paper records collection) in additional
departments to the senior management subsequently
Table I. organized by RIM-Services according to the new FCS 44/68
The status regarding a Active files (paper records collection) of departments
uniform FCS in the other than senior management organized by RIM-
organizations Services according to the new FCS 04/68

retrieve information when needed (Shepherd and Yeo, 2003). In the reports
RIM-Services always emphasized this fact. The conclusions that were reached after
analyzing the data collected in 1986 to 2006 regarding the status of a uniform FCS in
the 75 organizations are shown in Table I.
Two of the 75 organizations used a uniform FCS designed for the organization as a
whole at the time of the data collection. Of the 75 organizations 13 were using various
kinds of classification schemes that were originally designed for use in one of the
departments or divisions of the organization. Of the 75 organizations 68 availed
themselves of the service provided by RIM-Services and decided to have a new FCS
designed following the analysis and the subsequent report made by RIM-Services.
These 68 organizations can be divided into 17 government organizations (institutions
and companies), 20 municipal organizations (and companies), 24 private companies
and seven associations.
Of these 68 organizations 64 took advantage of the service provided by
RIM-Services to organize the active files of paper records collection of Senior
Management when a draft of FCS, composed by RIM-Services, had been approved. Of
the 68 organizations, 44 benefited from the service provided by RIM-Services and had
the active files of paper records collection in other departments or divisions organized
by RIM-Services as well. Of the 68 organizations, four used the RIM-Services service
only to organize the active files of paper records collection of departments other than
Senior Management.
In 2008 to 2010, 45 of the 68 organizations that had availed themselves of the service
provided by RIM-Services to have a new FCS designed for their records were
contacted. These were ten government organizations/companies, ten municipal
organizations/companies, 18 private companies, and six associations. It was revealed
that 43 of the 45 organizations contacted were still using the FCS in those departments
or divisions that originally implemented the scheme, as shown in Table II.
Two of the organizations, both private companies, had stopped using the FCS
following a merger with other companies. Only 28 of the 43 organizations reported that
they had continued to implement FCS organization-wide in other departments, both in
ERMS and for paper records when the work done by RIM-Services was finished. All of
the 43 organizations stated that they had continued to adapt FCS and had made FCS for
additions to it in connection with changes in the environment and according to records
different tasks and needs within the organization.

Methods other than FCS for classifying records

The records surveys conducted by RIM-Services revealed that the most common
scenario was that employees did not use a uniform FCS in classifying their records. 123
The employees that did not use FCS stored paper records, both those that were created
internally and those received, in different ways in file cabinets, file drawers or binders
on shelves. Records pertaining to the same case file were usually not kept together,
which resulted in the lack of a complete overview of the case or assignment and its
processing. In those cases the records were usually not classified at all.
It was discovered during the preliminary survey that about 15 percent of the
employees used an alphabetical system that they had designed on their own to classify
paper records. In those cases the records, cases or assignments were
classified/organized alphabetically, according to the names of organizations, places,
individuals, assignments or cases and these records were stored in file drawers or file
cabinets. By employing this method records pertaining to the same case were at least
partially filed together. It was relatively easy for these employees to retrieve these
records when needed but it was also revealed that their colleagues sometimes could not
find the necessary records when the employee who had filed them was absent.
Electronic records, that were created internally, for example Word, Excel and
PowerPoint documents were saved on the shared drives of the computer systems of the
organizations. Some used the various drives of departments or divisions. The records
did not receive any uniform classification before storage when these methods were
used. Each employee classified his/her records as he or she saw fit. Some even stored
their records on the hard disk in their private computers, on floppy disks or CDs and
classified the records according to their own private systems. These employees usually
used a name, a record’s type or a subject for “classification” and storing or something
that they felt would be used in later retrieval. It differed how systematic the assigning
of the name/type/subject was with the employees that were not using FCS. Three
methods, however, were the most common:
(1) the name of a party, individual or organization, or an abbreviation that easily
indicated the party in question;
(2) the name of the type of the records, for example, financial report, memo,
agreement or a fairly obvious abbreviation; and
(3) subjects such as boats, furniture, gates, leaseholders, pamphlets, vehicles.

The status regarding a uniform FCS in the 45

organizations Number of organizations
Table II.
Still using the FCS 43/45 The status regarding a
Stopped using the FCS 02/45 uniform FCS in the
Continued implementing the FCS 28/43 organizations during the
Continued adapting FCS 43/43 years 2008-2010
RMJ Sometimes, employees printed out the electronic records that they created themselves
22,2 and stored them as paper records as well. In some cases they kept the printed electronic
records in the case file of the paper records. Employees normally were able to retrieve
records that they created themselves. However, their fellow employees usually had a
hard time retrieving the records during the event of illness, during leaves of absence or
when there was a change of personnel.
124 The employees that did not use FCS usually used the inboxes and out boxes in the
e-mail software for storing e-mail. Some did not classify the material at all, whereas
others used some classification system of their own. The employees did not usually
store attachments received separately but kept these with the e-mail in the e-mail
software. However, in some cases, they printed out the e-mail and/or the attachments
and stored them as paper records. Most of the employees could always find all of the
e-mail that they received or sent. Their fellow employees, however, could not retrieve
e-mail on their computers in their absence even though they had access. The
organization of records in the e-mail software was such that it was only expected that
the receivers/senders themselves could find the records, but not other employees.

The views of employees towards FCS

The reasons why so few uniform FCS were in use in the organizations at the time of the
surveys conducted by RIM-Services were mainly of two types. On the one hand, neither
the managers, nor their subordinates, knew of the existence of such a classification
scheme, and on the other hand, even though the employees knew of these schemes,
they were believed to be unnecessary, and complicated and not user friendly.
Some respondents mentioned that they did not always know which class in the
scheme should be selected for the different records. An employee at a private company
said for example: “I always become so confused when I try to use this FCS. I feel that it
is possible to classify the record under many categories.” Another employee, a
specialist at a government organization said: “The worst thing about all this records
management is this FCS.” And a manager in a municipal organization said: “I know
that this is a necessary function (i.e. classifying records according to FCS), but I find it
too complicated and time consuming.” It was revealed when the employees believed
FCS to be complicated to use and not user friendly, that the FCS had neither been
implemented properly with user participation as well as top management support nor
had enough time and effort been provided to train the staff in the use of FCS.
The FCS that was designed by RIM-Services was usually written in close
cooperation with the employees that were intended to use the scheme. The first draft of
the FCS was presented to the key employee in question and opinions were sought on
improvements. Changes were then made according to the suggestions received. The
employees seemed to appreciate this approach in general. It happened, nevertheless,
that it proved difficult to have employees review the draft. The consultants at
RIM-Services were also not always observant enough. This had the result that the FCS
was not used to the extent intended and on a few occasions the employees complained
that the FCS should have been written in a closer cooperation with the employees who
should have participated more in the assignment.
Usually a certain key employee was assigned as a liaison to RIM-Services in the
planning and the execution of the records surveys and further work for the clients.
This was normally the records manager or the person responsible for the information
and records management in the organization. If that person was positive towards the FCS for
FCS, a powerful spokesman for it, an active and qualified user and was ready to teach records
others how to use the FCS, the other employees were usually more positive towards
learning how to use the FCS and to start to use it. This key employee was especially
important in the design of the FCS and his/her opinions were very valuable and
actively sought.
An FCS, as stated earlier, reflects the activities of the organization and the work 125
processes and assignments that take place within it. In one way it could be stated that a
FCS is a map of the activities of an organization. In a number of cases, the senior
managers said, after reading the first draft of the FCS, that it was a blueprint of the
activities of the organization. One senior manager of a large and old private company
that had been operating continuously since the first decade of the twentieth century
said, for example:
This is strange! You have in fact painted a picture of our entire company, of everything that
we do, both here at the headquarters and in all other divisions, and also in the different parts
of the country.
Another said:
You have now documented everything that we are doing here – this in actually a map of
information and also some kind of a knowledge map of the company.
It was often mentioned in the interviews that were conducted around the year 2000
with employees of public authorities that the employees realized that it was necessary
due to legal requirements to have records in good order and have them classified in a
systematic manner. A senior manager in a large government company in the energy
field mentioned, for example, that he had recently examined the legal requirements
regarding records and realized that one of the requirements was to have a good
“scheme for letters”. In those three cases mentioned above the top management support
in using FCS by employees was excellent.
When the employees were familiar with the FCS and the reasons for its existence,
participated in the assignment, got sufficient training and top management support in
using it, there was common agreement that FCS was useful and an important tool in
information and records management and a part of efficient and effective work
processes. And, those that had learnt to use this tool and had made it a part of their
work routine said it was invaluable in storing and retrieving information and records.
These employees said that they would not want to be without FCS in their work.

Discussions and conclusions

A uniform FCS for records is an important tool in information and records
management (DLM Forum Foundation, 2010-2011; Gunnlaugsdottir, 2002; ISO, 2001).
It is recommended that classification schemes should be functional rather than based
on organizational structure (Bedford and Morelli, 2006; DLM Forum Foundation,
2010-2011; ISO, 2001; Jones, 2008; Morelli, 2005; Shepherd and Yeo, 2003; Standards
Australia, 1996, clause 7.2).
In the original surveys conducted by RIM-Services in the 75 organizations during
1986 to 2006 it was revealed that most of the organizations (73 out of 75) did not use a
uniform FCS. It did occur, however, that some sort of classification scheme was used in
RMJ certain departments or divisions of the organization, a finding in agreement with the
22,2 experience of Shepherd and Yeo (2003) – or 13 out of 75. When the records surveys had
been completed by RIM-Services, 68 organizations agreed to accept the service to have
a uniform FCS designed for the organization as a whole for use in classifying their
information and records in some kind of format. All of the 68 organizations took
advantage of having RIM-Services organize at least one paper records collection (active
126 files) in accordance with the FCS, as shown in Table I.
During 2008 to 2010 contact was made with 45 organizations out of the 68
organizations that RIM-Services had previously worked for in designing an FCS. This
was done to study the continued use of the FCS. Of these organizations 43 were still
using the original FCS. However, amendments had been made in light of new
assignments and developments, as shown in Table II.
When the employees did not use FCS in classifying information and records, the
records were variably stored unclassified or they were classified by the employees
according to individualistic schemes made up by themselves and usually with no
harmony. Records were, therefore, kept in a non-uniform manner that resulted in
difficulties in retrieving records in the absence of the employee who had done the filing.
For these reasons an overview of cases and their processing was difficult to obtain and
the haphazard filing methods did not meet requirements according to law, regulations
and standards (DLM Forum Foundation, 2010-2011; ISO, 2001). This agrees with the
findings of studies conducted in Iceland in 2001 to 2008 (Gunnlaugsdottir, 2009).
It is important that an FCS is designed in cooperation with the employees that are
intended to use it in the organization, as they are important stakeholders (Wang et al.,
2008). This became clear in interviewing the clerical staff and is in agreement with
other studies in the same or similar fields (Gregory, 2005; Kibby, 2005; Mai, 2010;
Smyth, 2005; Williams, 2005). Finally, it was striking that the role of the key employee
that participated in the design and the implementation of FCS was important. If he/she
was a good spokesman for the FCS and willing to train others it made all the difference
regarding the general use of the FCS among the employees. This is further evidenced in
the studies by Cisco and Jackson (2005) and Morelli (2005). Arguments have been put
forward based on research that training and education is an important success factor
when systems that organize information are to be implemented in organizations
(Fjermestad and Hiltz, 2001).
Many of the senior managers realized that the activities of the organization were
being mapped when FCS for information and records was being designed. This should
not come as a surprise as an FCS is designed to reflect the issues and the assignments
undertaken within the organization (ISO, 2001). The employees, especially of public
organizations, realized that the FCS formed the foundation for effective information
and records management in accordance with legislation. When top management
realized the importance of FCS for the organization they were usually more willing to
support the employees in using it. Support by top management is crucial when
implementing FCS in organizations (Connelly, 2007; Jeffrey-Cook, 2005).
The reasons for the lack of a uniform FCS in an organization when RIM-Services
started the records surveys were that the employees often did not know of such
schemes or considered them too complicated and not user friendly. In those cases
where the employees had become familiar with FCS, however, understood the reasons
for its existence and had made it a part of their work, FCS was regarded as an
invaluable tool for information and records management and effective work. This FCS for
result agrees with other research (see for example Gunnlaugsdottir, 2008a, 2008b, records
2009).
Systematic classification of information and records and the use of a uniform FCS
form the basis for efficient information and records management in organizations.
Effective information and records management leads to quality work procedures and
thus effective management of the organization at the same time. Effective information 127
and records management is also of importance to organizations in meeting legal
requirements regarding information and their records.
If FCS does not exist in an organization there is a risk that access to information and
records is not secure and that the protection of information may not be acceptable.
Records surveys in the field regarding classification of information and records in
organizations define and supply important issues for the design and implementation of
FCS. New knowledge is discovered about how employees use or do not use FCS and
which are the most influential factors in the successful implementation of such
schemes, namely: user participation in designing FCS as well as proper training and
support by senior management in their use. The studies covered here could be of
practical value and a starting point for organizations that intend to introduce FCS at
their place of work. There is a lack of systematic analysis of such studies, not only in
Iceland but in other countries as well. This paper is hopefully a contribution to fill this
void.

References
Administrative Procedures Act (1993), Administrative Procedures Act (37/1993), Stjornsyslulog,
Reykjavik.
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. 22 No. 2, pp. 169-75.
Bellinger, D.N., Bernhardt, K.L. and Goldstucker, J.L. (1976), Qualitative Research in Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Berg, B.L. (1989), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA.
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2003), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to
Theory and Methods, 4th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Cisco, S.L. and Jackson, W.K. (2005), “Creating order out of chaos with taxonomies”, Information
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 45-50.
Connelly, J. (2007), “Eight steps to successful taxonomy design: when users are not involved in
classification system design, their deployments frequently fail”, The Information
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 40-6.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2003), “Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-19.
DLM Forum Foundation (2010), MoReQ2010w: Model Requirements for Records Systems, DLM
Forum Foundation, European Union, Brussels.
Fjermestad, J. and Hiltz, S.R. (2001), “Group support systems: a descriptive evaluation of case and
field studies”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 115-59.
RMJ Garrido, B.G. (2008), “Organising electronic documents: the user perspective: a case study at the
European Central Bank”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 180-93.
22,2
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1968), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Widenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Gorman, G.E. and Clayton, P. (1997), Qualitative Research for the Information Professionals:
A Practical Handbook, Library Association, London.
128 Gregory, K. (2005), “Implementing an electronic records management system: a public sector
case study”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 80-5.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2002), “An international standard on records management: an opportunity
for librarians”, Libri: International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, Vol. 52
No. 4, pp. 231-40.
Gunnlaugsdóttir, J. (2003), “Seek and you will find, share and you will benefit: organising
knowledge using groupware systems”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 23, pp. 363-80.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008a), “As you sow, so you will reap: implementing ERMS”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2008b), “Registering and searching for records in electronic records
management systems”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28,
pp. 293-304.
Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2009), “The human side of ERMS: an Icelandic study”, Records Management
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 54-72.
Information Act (1996), Information Act (50/1996), Upplysingalog, Reykjavik.
International Organization for Standardization (2001), ISO 15489-1:2001: Information and
Documentation – Records Management: Part 1: General, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
Janesick, V.J. (1994), “The dance of qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 209-19.
Jeffrey-Cook, R. (2005), “Developing a fileplan for local government”, Records Management
Society Bulletin, Vol. 125, April, pp. 3-5.
Joachim, M.D. (Ed) (2003), Historical Aspects of Cataloging and Classification, The Haworth
Information Press, New York, NY.
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.
Kibby, P. (2005), “The competition commission’s story: a case study in EDRM delivery”, Records
Management Society Bulletin, Vol. 125, April, pp. 41-3.
Mai, J.E. (2010), “Classification in a social world: bias and trust”, Journal of Documentation,
Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 627-42.
Mitchell, M.L. (1998), Employing Qualitative Methods in the Private Sector, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morelli, J. (2005), “Business classification schemes: issues and options”, Records Management
Society Bulletin, Vol. 124, February, pp. 15-21.
National Archives Act (1985), National Archives Act (66/1985), Log um Thodskjalasafn Islands,
Reykjavik.
National Archives (2009), The Use of Decimal Classification System in Classifying Records FCS for
(Notkun tugstafakerfis við flokkun skjala), National Archives, Thodskjalasafn Islands,
Reykjavik. records
Privacy Act (2000), Privacy Act, (77/2000), Log um personuvernd og medferd
personuupplysinga, Reykjavik.
Shepherd, E. and Yeo, G. (2003), Managing Records: A Handbook of Principles and Practice, Facet
Publishing, London. 129
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage Publications,
London.
Smyth, Z.A. (2005), “Implementing EDRM: has it provided the benefits expected?”, Records
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 128-30.
Standards Australia (1996), AS 4390.4: Records Management: Part 4: Control, Standards
Association of Australia, Homebush.
Statistics Iceland (2009), Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in Iceland 2008:
A Handbook (ISAT2008: Islensk atvinnugreinaflokkun: Handbok), Statistics Iceland,
Reykjavik (based on: European Communities (2008), NACE Rev. 2: Statistical Classification
of Economic Activities in the European Community, Eurostat, European Commission,
Luxembourg).
Taylor, A.G. (2004), The Organization of Information, 2nd ed., Libraries Unlimited, Westport,
CT.
Taylor, A.G. (2006), Introduction to Cataloging and Classification, 10th ed., Libraries Unlimited,
Westport, CT.
van Houten, G. (2010), “Drafting a function-based file classificantion plan”, Information
Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 31-5.
Wang, Z., Chaudhry, A.S. and Khoo, C.S.G. (2008), “Using classification schemes and thesauri to
build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation”, Journal
of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 842-76.
Williams, D. (2005), “EDRM implementation at the National Weights and Measures Laboratory”,
Records Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 58-66.

About the author

Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir is a Professor at the University of Iceland. Her main field of teaching
and research is in information and records management, total quality management and
knowledge management. Her research field also includes taxonomy and classification theory. She
has received a BA in History and Library and Information Sciences from the University of
Iceland, a MSc (Econ) from the University of Wales, and a PhD from the University of Tampere,
Finland. In 1985 she founded a consulting company on information and records management,
Gangskor, and has worked for more than 100 organizations in Iceland. She has also held seminars
and given lectures on information and records, quality and knowledge management for various
institutions, companies and associations, both in Iceland and at international conferences. She is a
reviewer of manuscripts, both Icelandic and from overseas, in the field of information sciences,
and sits on editorial advisory boards. Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir has written reports, handbooks
and book chapters as well as articles that have been published in Icelandic and foreign journals
and books. Her résumé and list of publications can be found on the bottom of her homepage (see
www.hi.is/en/simaskra/1373). Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir can be contacted at: jg@hi.is

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints