The implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to present the findings of the first phase of a project entitled Putting the “Fun” Back in “Functional”, which has been investigating the socio-technical issues surrounding users’ interaction with electronic recordkeeping systems. The ultimate goal of the project is to improve that interaction by positively influencing the way in which individuals perceive their work practices and the tools they use to accomplish them. In its first phase, the project considered the implementation of such systems for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the factors and processes that contribute to its success. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 public employees from a large provincial government and a large city government in Canada about two information systems (ISs) – a meeting management system and an Electronic Documents and Records Management System. Findings Several salient themes emerged from the research data, including the value accorded to information and records, the implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems as a complex process, the appropriation of electronic recordkeeping systems, understanding users, ease of use and information/records specialists as part of the solution. Analysis of these themes shows that many of them can be explained through theories developed in the IS field. Research limitations/implications The results show that many themes are common across the records management and IS fields. Further, the results indicate the applicability of theories in the IS field to explain and predict the implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems. Originality/value This study is one of few that explicitly draw on IS theories to understand the implementation of electronic recordkeeping systems. The results of this study open up many opportunities for future research on electronic recordkeeping systems.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.