The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0956-5698.htm

RMJ
20,1 ISO 15489 Records Management:
its development and
significance
96
Susan Healy
Public Record Office, Kew, Richmond, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of producing ISO 15489 Records
Management, and to explore some of the professional and other issues that arise for consideration at
an international level.
Design/methodology/approach – The process of producing ISO 15489 Records Management is
described, along with some of the thinking behind that process,
Findings – In one sense, the contents of ISO 15489 are less important than its existence. The fact that
records managers can point to an ISO/BSI Standard for their discipline can be used to improve the
image and status of records management in the eyes of those who know little or nothing of the subject.
The Standard is a statement of good practice in records management. It is also something that can be
passed to professionals in other fields when working on projects together. Also, the internationalising
process has made the Standard more suitable than AS 4390 for the UK environment.
Originality/value – The paper identifies some of the benefits of the Standard for records
management in the UK.
Keywords ISO 9000 series, Standards, Records management, Archives management,
Information management
Paper type Viewpoint

Records Management Journal
Vol. 20 No. 1, 2010
pp. 96-103
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0956-5698
DOI 10.1108/09565691011039861
Introduction
In this article I shall describe the process of developing the international standard ISO
15489[1] and its associated Technical Report, and some of their contents and assess the
Standard’s significance for records management in the UK[2].
First, an explanation of the abbreviations and acronyms I shall use. ISO stands for
International Standards Organisation, a body based in Geneva that oversees the issue
of international Standards. The British Standards Institution (BSI) is the UK NMB
(National Member Body of ISO). The ISO Technical Committee under whose auspices
we worked is TC 46 and its Records Management Sub-committee is SC 11, hence the
reference to TC 46/SC 11. The BSI counterparts are IDT 2 at the Committee level
(standing for Information Documentation Terminology) and Sub-committee 17, hence
IDT 2/17. Key stages in development of a Standard are production of a Committee
Draft (CD), a Draft International Standard (DIS) and a Final Draft International
Standard (FDIS). Finally, the sections making up a Standard are called clauses.
This article was originally published in Records Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-42
(2001), and has been republished as part of the journal’s 20th anniversary commemorative issue.
Development of ISO 15489 ISO 15489
My involvement in ISO 15489 started in July 1997 when I attended a meeting at the BSI Records
offices in Chiswick. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss future action on
internationalising the pioneering Australian Standard AS 4390[3], Records
Management
Management. This Standard had been developed in Australia in the early 1990s in
response to the quality Standard ISO 9000. ISO 9000 refers to the need for “quality
records” to show the operation of a quality system but does not expand on what makes 97
up a quality record. Australian records managers made the connection between ISO
9000 accreditation and good records management and set out to fill the gap, producing
what Standards Australia has described as one of its best sellers.
AS 4390 had recently been through an ISO balloting process for issue as it stood but
sufficient reservations had been expressed by NMBs for ISO to decide that a re-think
was necessary. So, a group of records professionals and Standards experts from the
UK, Australia, USA, France and Sweden met and concluded that ISO should be asked
to set up a new sub-committee to develop AS 4390 into an ISO Standard. This was the
start of what was to prove a fascinating if often frustrating project.
ISO approved the recommendation and TC 46/SC 11 met for the first time in Athens
in May 1998, with the chair (David Moldrich) and secretary (Peter Treseder) provided
by Australia. The UK was represented by Philip Jones and myself at this and
subsequent meetings; Bob McLean joined the delegation in May 2000[4]. Other
countries represented at the meetings were Australia and New Zealand, the USA,
Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark
(see Figure 1). We were joined also by observers from the International Council on
Archives and the International Records Management Trust.
The UK was represented at the Athens meeting because BSI had decided to
contribute to this work and had established IDT 2/17 to shadow TC 46/SC 11, with me
in the chair. IDT 2/17 was and is a healthy mix of those who practice records
management in both public and private sectors, those who oversee it in government
and those who teach it, together with representatives of other interested organisations.
TC 46/SC 11’s activity has not been confined to its six-monthly meetings. Much of
its work has been done electronically, using e-mail and a dedicated mailing list and
discussion database, and the meetings were less for drafting than for negotiation.

Figure 1.
A working break, Berlin,
May 2000
RMJ It soon became clear that different national professional and juridical traditions led to
20,1 very different views of what the Standard should cover and contain. These differences
persisted throughout and it is remarkable that we were able to reach consensus
without losing the utility of the finished Standard. What sort of issues caused
difficulties? Here are some of them.

98 Scope
Scoping the Standard was an initial and recurring problem. Some countries do not
distinguish between records and archives and were unhappy with a time-limited
concept of records management. They had real difficulties with the idea that we should
focus only on the management of records in their originating organisation, with no
coverage of the management of those selected for permanent preservation and
archived, either in-house or in an external archives institution. This issue mattered to
the UK delegation because other BSI sub-committees work on aspects of archives
administration, such as the BS 5454[5] sub-committee, and we needed to avoid
encroaching on their territory.
TC 46/SC 11 managed to reach agreement and ISO 15489 does not extend to
archives administration. This is stated explicitly in clause 1, Scope, in the following
terms:
This International Standard provides guidance on managing records of originating
organizations, public or private, for internal and external clients. [. . .] [It] does not include the
management of archival records within archival institutions.
Footnote 1 explains:
In some countries, the management of records also applies to archives management. Archives
management is not covered in this Standard.
As for what records management encompasses, the Standard adopts an holistic
approach. The definition of records management in clause 3 is:
. . . field of management responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation,
receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records, including processes for capturing and
maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the
form of records.

Status
There was some debate concerning whether the Standard should be a voluntary code
of practice, i.e. a statement of recommendations, or a compliance Standard, i.e. a
statement of requirements. The decision had to be made because of the effect on
terminology, on which ISO has rules.
The verb “must” and others with a mandatory connotation can be used with
compliance Standards only; for recommendatory Standards “should” and equivalents
is the accepted term. We decided that a compliance Standard would be premature and
self-defeating; most organisations need urging towards best practice and would not
respond to a document purporting to set mandatory requirements. Furthermore,
without enforcement powers and mechanisms it would be futile.
Audience ISO 15489
Terminology also affected our decision on whether the Standard should be aimed at Records
records practitioners or general managers and company secretaries. AS 4390 is aimed
at both: Part 1 is a high level summary of the other parts which is intended to be read Management
by the managers who seek ISO 9000 accreditation and control the funding of records
management, while Parts 2-6 provide operational details suitable for practitioners. We
had already agreed not to replicate the AS 4390 division into parts so that option was 99
not open to us. We decided that the Standard should be intelligible to non-specialists
but useful for records professionals; it remains to be seen whether we succeeded. The
Technical Report, on the other hand, is intended to be read and used by records
practitioners.

Structure
The structure of the Standard changed frequently in the course of development (one
cause of the frustration alluded to above). The major change was the decision in May
1999 to divide the text into two documents, a Standard focusing on principles and
outcomes (the what and the why) and a Technical Report (TR) (see Figure 2) providing
procedural guidance, thereby providing an aid to understanding and implementing the
Standard (the how). In the event we ended up with a TR that expands clauses in the
Standard selectively.
The clauses in the Standard indicating and the corresponding clauses in the TR (as
indicated) are as follows:
(1) Scope (TR clause 1)[6];
(2) Normative references;
(3) Terms and definitions;
(4) Benefits of records management;
(5) Regulatory environment;
(6) Policy and responsibilities (TR clause 2);
(7) Records management requirements;

Figure 2.
Working on the Technical
Report, May 1999
RMJ (8) Design and implementation of a records system (TR clause 3);
20,1 (9) Records management process and controls (TR clause 4);
(10) Monitoring and auditing (TR clause 5); and
(11) Training (TR clause 6).

100 The TR also contains a bibliography and two appendices that link the clauses in the
Standard to the corresponding clauses in the TR and vice versa. An index is also
planned.
The two clauses expanded most in the TR are clause 8 (as clause 3, Strategies,
design and implementation) and clause 9 (as clause 4, Records processes and controls).
TR clause 3 contains a detailed explanation of the DIRKS (Designing and
Implementing RecordKeeping Systems) methodology developed by the National
Archives of Australia[7].
TR clause 4 contains text on (i) the instruments required for RM operations, e.g.
business classification scheme, disposal schedules (called disposition authorities),
security and access classification schemes and vocabulary controls; and (ii) processes
using these instruments, e.g. capture, registration, classification, access and security
classification, disposal, storage and use and tracking.

Annexes to the Technical Report

We liked the idea of including annexes and contributions were received. For example
the UK supplied some model policy documents and disposal schedules. Two factors
led to a decision to omit them. The first was the number of additional pages they
would involve and the resulting increase in the sale price of the TR. A rough
reckoning is £1 for each page of a Standard or TR and if the TR was to be affordable,
especially to developing countries, it had to be cut. The second factor was that we
could not agree on what was appropriate to an international document that would be
translated into other languages. In the end it was decided to leave it to NMBs to add
annexes if they wish. BSI has agreed to do this and the UK edition of the TR will
include a couple of annexes.

Record-ness
There was continuing debate about when a record is a record – or perhaps when a
document or information becomes a record. Professional theory concerning capture
and registration collided with the reality that the courts in some countries accept as
records what records managers might refer to as documents. The Standard represents
a workable compromise in setting out the characteristics that records and records
systems should possess without overtly contradicting national legal systems. So,
records are defined as “information created, received, and maintained as evidence and
information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the
transaction of business”. Authoritative records, however, are those with certain
characteristics: authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability (clause 7.2) and the
records systems supporting them have the complementary characteristics of
reliability, integrity, compliance, comprehensiveness and systematic (clause 8.2).
Terminology ISO 15489
ISO Standards are supposed to use authorised terminology where this exists and Records
depart from it only when absolutely necessary. Records management terms are
included in ISO 5127[8] but TC 46/SC 11 found it could not accept all its definitions. So, Management
clause 3 contains some variant definitions on which we were, eventually, able to reach
agreement.
101
Appraisal
The word “appraisal” does not appear anywhere in the Standard or the Technical
Report. This is because we could not agree what it is or who can do it – a good example
of differing national traditions. One strongly held view was that appraisal is the
assessment of the value of records (or functions) for historical research with a view to
determining which should be preserved permanently. Another equally strongly held
view was that it is an assessment of the value of records (or functions) for operational
and archival purposes with a view to determining which records should be created and,
once created, for how long they should be retained (which might be one or many years
or even permanently as archives). The solution: describe the concept and omit the
word. So, clause 9.1 (Determining documents to be captured into a records system) and
clause 9.2 (Determining how long to retain records) together contain useful and
acceptable text without mentioning the term. It was only some months after the text of
the Standard had been agreed that we realised some of us meant different things by the
word “retention” . . . .
Having achieved consensus on the Standard at our meeting in Berlin in May 2000
we were able to submit it to formal voting by NMBs as a DIS. To our relief it achieved a
100 per cent “yes” vote, albeit with comments seeking some changes. ISO rules allow a
chair to omit circulation of a revised Standard as a FDIS and to proceed directly to
publication if a DIS has received a 100 per cent “yes” vote. The chair of TC 46/SC 11
decided to follow this route and at the time of writing (in August 2001) the Standard is
being prepared for publication. A formal launch ceremony will take place at the ARMA
conference in Montreal on 3 October 2001. (Editor’s note – The launch did take place
with a live link to the UK PRO conference at Stratford upon Avon.) The TR achieved
consensus at the Stockholm meeting in November 2000 and, with some agreed
revisions, was issued for voting by NMBs in 2001. This was successful and, all going
well, the TR will be published towards the end of 2001.
BSI will publish the UK edition as BSI ISO 15489 later this year. The TR will be
published also, and UK purchasers will have the benefit of some useful appendices –
model policy statements – omitted from the ISO edition. (Editor’s note: the Standard
and TR have now been published). BSI will be publishing also some guides in its DISC
series. Three are in hand already, dealing with business benefits of records
management (written by David Best), performance measurement (written by Sandra
Parker), and a guide to implementation (written by Julie McLeod). Others may follow,
for example a workbook has been suggested.

The significance of ISO 15489

In one sense, the contents of ISO 15489 are less important than its existence. The fact
that records managers can point to an ISO/BSI Standard for their discipline can be used
RMJ to improve the image and status of records management in the eyes of those who know
20,1 little or nothing of the subject. So, buy it and cite it for that reason if no other.
But the Standard deserves respect for its contents as well as its existence. It is a
statement of good practice in records management which records managers should
find useful, however qualified and experienced they are. It is also something that can
be passed to professionals in other fields when working on projects together, for
102 example ICT professionals when developing new records systems.
I think the Standard improves on AS 4390 in two ways in particular. First, the
internationalising process has made the Standard more suitable than AS 4390 for the
UK environment (Editor’s note: and on the same basis potentially for other countries).
The use of “records management” rather than “recordkeeping” as the key term enables
a strengthening of the alignment of records management with management rather than
with filing. This fits well with the conception of records management imparted in
current university courses and reflected in the Draft Code of Practice under section 46
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000[9]. In addition, the change from the records as
evidence basis of AS 4390 to allow also for records as information works better in the
UK, where there is a general acceptance that records have value not only to provide
evidence of past decisions and actions but also to inform current and future decisions
and actions. This is now accommodated.
The second area in which AS 4390 has been improved is the teasing out of separate
characteristics for authoritative records and for record systems. This should make the
text much more useful to those seeking to develop systems with authoritative records.

Conclusion
In setting out some of the areas of disagreement above I have tried to give a sense of
what is involved in developing an ISO Standard and to describe its contents in general
terms. Achieving consensus required compromise by all involved but I believe it has
been to the benefit of the finished documents.
What is needed now is implementation of the Standard, assisted by the TR and the
BSI DISC booklets, to test its utility. ISO Standards are reviewed every five years so
there will be an opportunity to improve or update it if necessary. Use it, and if you
identify gaps in the present version, or areas for updating, be prepared to inform BSI
when the review begins.

Notes
1. BSI, BS ISO 15489-1: Information and documentation – Records Management – Part 1:
General. BSI, London; BSI (2001), PD ISO/TR 15489-2: Information and Documentation –
Records Management – Part 2: Guidelines, BSI, London, 2001.
2. In describing the Standard’s development I have drawn on reports I prepared for BSI on
successive meetings of ISO TC 46/SC 11. The views expressed in this article are mine and not
those of BSI or members of IDT 2/17.
3. Standards Australia, AS 4390: Records Management – Parts 1-6, Standards Australia,
Sydney, 1996.
4. Athens was the first of a series of six-monthly meetings in such enviable locations as
Washington, DC, Paris, Melbourne, Berlin and Stockholm.
 5. BSI, BS 5454: Recommendations for the Storage and Exhibition of Archival Documents, BSI, ISO 15489
London, 2000.
Records
6. Clauses 1-3 are common to all ISO Standards.
Management
7. DIRKS manual is available at www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/dirks/dirksman/dirks.html
(accessed 10 October 2001).
8. ISO, ISO 5127 Part 1: Documentation and Information – Vocabulary – Part 1: Basic
Concepts, ISO, Geneva, 1983.
103
9. “Draft Code of Practice on the discharge of the functions of public authorities under Part I of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000”, available at: www.lcd.gov.uk/foi/dftcp00.htm

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

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