SPEC Kit 305: Records Management· 17
Staff Training
Staff receive training in records management poli-
cies and procedures in a number of ways. The most
common methods are in-person workshops (20 re-
spondents or 83%) and on-the-job experience (19 re-
spondents or 79%). Self-study of manuals (46%) and
formal classes (33%) are also fairly common. Only
three respondents (13%) have used webinars. A va-
riety of other methods have been used, including a
records management listserv, Web training modules,
and one-on-one instruction.
Thirteen respondents (59%) reported that all staff
members are trained to manage all formats of re-
cords. Of the other nine respondents, one stated that
all staff are trained to manage textual, audio-visual,
and graphic materials, while only the department
head was trained to handle electronic records. One
reported staff training in paper and electronic records
and other formats as needed. Two reported limited
experience or no training with electronic records.
One stated that training depends on job functions
and data access policies.
Assessment
The survey asked what metrics are used to assess the
performance of the records management program.
Eleven respondents (48%) measure success by the
percentage of departments using the records man-
agement program. Seven (30%) use the turnaround
time for retrieval requests. Six (26%) use the turn-
around time for accessioning, creating box lists, and
moving items to storage. Four (17%) use the backlog
volume. Eight (35%) have not assessed the success of
the program.
Conclusion
It is interesting that only two-thirds of the institutions
responding have records management programs and
that the majority of those programs are located in the
library. Within those libraries, there is no single mod-
el of records management. In some cases, the records
management program deals with both permanent
and non-permanent records. In others it deals with
permanent records only. Not all are funded in the
same way. Only five programs use dedicated records
management software systems. The majority who
are utilizing electronic tools use tools that are library
specific or could be expected to be in use in a library.
Surprisingly little progress seems to have been made
in gaining control over electronic records, judging by
the number in storage. Nonetheless, the services of-
fered to their institutions are largely the same.
Staff Training
Staff receive training in records management poli-
cies and procedures in a number of ways. The most
common methods are in-person workshops (20 re-
spondents or 83%) and on-the-job experience (19 re-
spondents or 79%). Self-study of manuals (46%) and
formal classes (33%) are also fairly common. Only
three respondents (13%) have used webinars. A va-
riety of other methods have been used, including a
records management listserv, Web training modules,
and one-on-one instruction.
Thirteen respondents (59%) reported that all staff
members are trained to manage all formats of re-
cords. Of the other nine respondents, one stated that
all staff are trained to manage textual, audio-visual,
and graphic materials, while only the department
head was trained to handle electronic records. One
reported staff training in paper and electronic records
and other formats as needed. Two reported limited
experience or no training with electronic records.
One stated that training depends on job functions
and data access policies.
Assessment
The survey asked what metrics are used to assess the
performance of the records management program.
Eleven respondents (48%) measure success by the
percentage of departments using the records man-
agement program. Seven (30%) use the turnaround
time for retrieval requests. Six (26%) use the turn-
around time for accessioning, creating box lists, and
moving items to storage. Four (17%) use the backlog
volume. Eight (35%) have not assessed the success of
the program.
Conclusion
It is interesting that only two-thirds of the institutions
responding have records management programs and
that the majority of those programs are located in the
library. Within those libraries, there is no single mod-
el of records management. In some cases, the records
management program deals with both permanent
and non-permanent records. In others it deals with
permanent records only. Not all are funded in the
same way. Only five programs use dedicated records
management software systems. The majority who
are utilizing electronic tools use tools that are library
specific or could be expected to be in use in a library.
Surprisingly little progress seems to have been made
in gaining control over electronic records, judging by
the number in storage. Nonetheless, the services of-
fered to their institutions are largely the same.
