Professionalization and some sort of associated certification for the appropriate attainment of a professional credential seem to go together quite naturally in this modern age; few people, if any, would tend to deny the logical relationship that exists, especially through the observation of many different occupations, each with its own requirements for being held, for people to be held, as qualified and accepted professionals within each field of activity. 

Consequently, it can be calmly stated, one hopes, that mere idle speculation is not being rendered in the course of what will be professed as reflective of the fundamental truth revealed, besides a discussion of records management related topics in general.

For archivists, for instance, there is the CA (Certified Archivist) designation given through the Academy of Certified Archivists, which simply didn’t exist, e.g., over 50 years ago.  The management of archives, of course, is a related field of endeavor, which is a direct part of a total records management program for any institution.   Many professions take longer than others, however, to eventually achieve various and sundry degrees of often seemingly expected professionalization and, of course, the proper attainment thereof.

Relatively late in the 20^th century, a certification program for records managers began, as an interesting way of trying to gain ever greater recognition of the specified expertise involved, meaning as being actually worthy of a professional credential in the actual business world. 

Enough of a substantial body of knowledge, it was determined, had come into rational existence whereby it was felt that those people who managed records ought to then be more recognized, as possessing certain skills, talents, abilities, knowledge, etc., that could be properly thought of, as pertaining to records handlers; this is in more definitive terms of an actual and verified occupation of an increasingly, by definition, professional level of asserted and overt, assumed and demonstrable, known expertise.   

And, like all professions, one suspects, there are highs and lows involved.   One such low point in time appears to be occurring for those, the majority at least, who are presumed to be among the premier professionals who manage records/data/information on a regular or occupational basis.

What is unfortunately happening to the records management profession today, meaning in the early 21^st century, is, in certain ways, similar to what had dramatically happened to the nursing profession in the 1970s and 1980s.  Why?   In short, though other qualifications could, one assumes, possibly be stated, this is fundamentally because both contain a majority of women in these modern professions; and, there are empirical consequences, though no tremendous concern expressed by the contemporary environment within the American business world.    

The only part of the records profession not having a majority of women, of course, would be at records centers where basic brawn tend to be placed in a higher regard than brain power in terms of the often practical physical demands involved.   However, even there, through more and more advanced robotic automation, brain power may come to eventually replace all mere physical strength at almost all of the larger or largest records centers imaginable.   So, this admitted point covered here ought not to detract or diminish, in any way whatsoever, from the main thesis being confidently advanced.

Hopefully, the various and interrelated observations and contentions given here will help to reflect suitable thinking about this highly important matter; it is also based, it can be added, upon being 30 years in the field of information/archives/records management and having achieved, at the least, a decent amount of professionalization (at least 20 years of being a CRM, consultant, internationally published author, etc.) while being employed in this area of growing expertise.   It can be also confessed openly that no regular salary level has ever, in those years, matched the effort of maintaining a CRM status.

Therefore, it is thought that the many considerations appropriately rendered will not be, therefore, just the height of mere tendentiousness or ignorant speculation but, in fact, fairly genuine reflections as based honestly upon some profound and valid cognition; this has been, of course, gained from some hard decades of dedicated work, writing, etc. in both the private and public sectors, inclusive of some aforementioned consulting work, both paid and unpaid, and, also, involvement in professional societies. 

But, the advanced proposition directly related to this present article, to be given below, needs to be advanced boldly and without qualification.

There is now, it needs to be said, a true professional shortage of Certified Records Managers (CRM) in that the Institute of Certified Records Managers (ICRM), founded in 1975, recognizes less than 1,000 (active) CRMs in the entire world, meaning those who hold the CRM certification as a professional designation given by the ICRM.   One can, for any further information to confirm any facts needed, simply call them at: 877-244-3128 or check out their website at: www.ICRM.org

Rough Parallel Professional Analogy

CRMs are, in some ways, somewhat similar to RNs (Registered Nurses) as distinct from mere PNs (Practical Nurses) who are not required to meet all of the much more rigorous standards for advanced professionalism as is then demanded for all actual RNs.  The current pay of RNs, on average, is now significantly higher than mere PNs, given the same years of experience, etc.   

Today, however, the vast majority of companies and corporations still steadily refuse to pay decent salaries, to compensate such professionals, appropriately, meaning commensurate and reciprocal with the greater abilities, skills, knowledge, etc. that are always required of today’s CRMs versus regular records managers or mere file clerks.   A shortage of CRMs is, therefore, developing as had been true of the pool of available and qualified RNs in the 1970s and 1980s.

One continually finds much significant evidence, moreover, of this peculiar situation as to the marked disparity of salary levels for most CRMs by seeing, for instance, talk on a major records management listserv that notes how furious many CRMs are whenever they find out that certain of their fellows are ready and willing to take (unfortunately?) low paying positions.  

Economic reality, of course, can be a vicious dictator, a nasty tyrant, of sorts.  (This can be further confirmed, of course, by simply noting (usually low) salary offers publicly stated for CRMs in most of the advertised positions.   Much available empirical evidence can, thus, be so very easily both adduced and produced.)

For the most part, it is calmly and reasonably suspected that many CRMs need to simply earn a living or support a family and their assumed pride of being CRMs is, one might sadly guess, much less important than getting a much needed and steady pay check.   But, corporate America, nonetheless, is going to pay a long-term and heavy price when the increasing and crescively critical shortage of CRMs is fully realized as being a definite and major business cost of a rather large magnitude than it is currently known to be.  

It is not yet properly nor actually understood, much less comprehended critically, that a holistic business management perspective regarding data/records is significantly required beyond just the narrow and narrowing confines of IT, legal, accounting, or other such specializations that are, of course, good and needed –  in their proper place, of course.   

There can be a true problem of having too much of a good thing.  The number of highly trained CPAs that had, for instance, once existed at Arthur Andersen did not save that firm from its fatal dissolution; it was, therefore, a sure and certain lack of business ethics no doubt, not accounting expertise per se, that assisted in destroying forever that firm and its once great reputation.

IT, as another example, sees everything as basically a “data problem” in set terms of just more fancy computerization of the data flow, usage, formation, etc.; the legal sector, as is thus appropriate to it, understands all matters, direct or indirect, in term of latent or actual litigation concerns; accountants, inclusive of Certified Public Accountants (CPA), are notably concerned with balancing the books, etc.; risk and/or compliance managers are, usually, (functional) lawyers in disguise, but they really know who they are anyway.  

It’s like the proverbial philosophical story of the blind men confronting the main different parts of an elephant and analyzing the whole animal based only upon the particular part that each one has examined.

All such important and equally valid perspectives are, of course, always fine and good – but inadequate to the ever greater task at hand, and into the future, in set terms of records and information resources management (RIRM), meaning comprehending that information as records, regardless of media type, is of the same basic value as capital, plant, equipment, and human resources. 

This is, surely, enterprise-level thinking, holistic cognition, of a very high order of magnitude indeed and, moreover, enormously requisite to all and any theoretical and practical business needs whatsoever.

Without the foregoing, noted, holistic RIRM perspective, especially of CRMs, a looming disaster is being faced by business interests more than they now know or, moreover, (in a much more shocking manner) are even willing to know; the latter point is more shocking and striking than the former consideration, therefore, in that most such highly qualified records managers are thought to be no better than file clerks acting under a fancy title. 

Thus, a CRM is regarded mostly as just a kind of puffed up file clerk who pretends to have required knowledge beyond that possessed by IT people, lawyers, CPAs, etc. in terms of genuine and much greater professional value for true and substantive business purposes.

Again, this is not meant in any way to wrongly discount the thus real contributions of other valuable professionals involved in business concerns; this article is, therefore, appropriately meant to direct both proper and requisite attention to a difficulty that has gone largely overlooked by corporate management because, among other major cited reasons, many women are involved with records management functions, affairs, and activities.   Traditionally, those occupations that have had mostly or mainly females connected to them have been underpaid professions, as had been true of teaching and nursing. 

What about Other Business Professionals?

Another equally important factor creating the shortage of CRMs is that lawyers, CPAs, and IT people have better political lobbyists connected with or to their professions.  It is difficult to doubt such a fact casually.  As most politicians tend to be lawyers, this first category, therefore, ought to have obvious associations with much easily observed and indicative political/public success; CPAs, on their part, have been able to get legislation written mandating that certain audits absolutely must be done legally by only qualified CPAs, so, again, what is obvious is what is known to be a plain fact of doing business in America.   

Lawyers and CPAs have, in fact, much plainly legislated job security, which is certainly an enormous socioeconomic advantage for professionals, to say the least.   IT is number crunching, in its essence, and management is fairly so mesmerized by numbers; this is mainly because such things can be easily made subject to quantification, as with the figures, for instance, in the real and proverbial bottom line of business profit or loss.  

This can be seen, of course, as rationally understandable.  Thus, however, there are many notable and real-world consequences to be continually encountered that do necessarily make or create many difficulties for records/information managers, which do not, in fact, automatically exist for other business professionals.   Illustrations can be given by the manifesting of practical business situations.

Is there a looming or potential kind of data storage problem at a company or corporation?   No problem (for IT)!   Top management typically allows IT to just buy more storage capacity since the basic price of it mostly keeps falling, relatively speaking.   Just let a records center manager tell top management that more space is actually needed in the records center for the needed storage of records boxes – and all hell then brakes loose.  

What is, thus, so curiously meant by this statement of business-associated reality concerning (usually physical) records requiring storage, as a part of records management?

The records center manager is strongly, sternly, told, in the vast majority of cases, to just immediately correct that so very terrible and also unneeded problem; this is to be urgently done as soon as possible by, e.g., eliminating all excess boxes and/or not taking in any more boxes until the recognized problem is then quickly fixed.   

And yet, too much storage or additional storage continually bought by IT is not normally perceived by management as ever being  a real or genuine problem needing to be properly addressed as such.   Therefore, IT is not usually seen, in such a case, as creating any real records management problem justifying a proper solution, meaning, specifically, in terms of appropriate and requisite records management. 

This seemingly small but greatly illustrative example is truly potent with numerous and interesting implications and powerful indications of how records managers are usually disregarded as mere “box jockeys” versus often big, powerful IT professionals qualified, one might guess if needed, to walk on water.   Perception can create reality (in the minds of top management officials).

The genuine and significant disparity in cognition, therefore, in most typical top/corporate management thinking ought, of course, to be readily manifest beyond any further redundant elaboration given here.  Public perceptions are, indeed, quite important (as an understatement of such harsh reality), and they are, usually, fully reflected in how American management regularly faces various issues and situations encountered in the normal business process.

Until and unless CRMs can, therefore, muster effective lobbying efforts and/or, perhaps, change major popular public perceptions about records work in a vast manner, salary levels for most CRMs will tend to remain very low in the next two to three decades, meaning until a “crisis” atmosphere is finally created. Or, one might suggest if ever a shortage of CRMs is broadly recognized by commerce, industry, government, etc. as a true problem needing and justifying a rational solution.

 This had, in fact, actually happened in the case, as critically cited above, pertaining to RNs due to a then increasing shortage of qualified RNs [meaning when many women just stopped entering the nursing profession because of low pay and much associated and resulting poor work conditions] existing in the United States. 

Of course, a “few” progressive corporations, clearly recognizing the true professional/business value of certain qualified records workers, have offered salaries fully commensurate with the then accepted importance of the CRM designation.  These relative few do not yet, unfortunately, represent the present vast majority of companies and corporations, industries and levels of government, in America. 

And so, the here observed and real crisis for domestic business  enterprise and public entities does not seem to be actually unavoidable anytime in the near future of, perhaps, the next decade or two. 

Market forces are, consequently, to be so readily perceived, as being ever at work, in the observed and fundamental terms of supply and demand factors, of course.   Demand, as corporate/management thinking changes or evolves into the new century, will increase for more and more CRMs, but a manifest shortage, the supply, is now certainly occurring rapidly – less than 1,000 as had been pointed out in the entire world as of the first decade of the 21^st century – most obviously due to the truly significant and controlling lack of economic incentive that now usually exists. 

Paradoxical situations exist, however, by which companies insist that records managers have also the same backgrounds, in effect, as that of lawyers, CPAs, CFOs, etc.; this is when businesses, if their leadership only knew better, ought to insist on more requisite and logical specialization in terms of RIRM, not the odd effort to continually reduplicate knowledge/expertise that ought to be logically possessed and, moreover, much better retained by their own lawyers, CEOs, COOs, CPAs, CFO, etc. 

Instead, the noted and overall business trend is the greatly demand  much duplicated and highly redundant expertise on that of basically a more generalist level of knowledge, instead of intensified expertise regarding important and required knowledge of RIRM, meaning what CRMs know and are correctly trained to know.  

There is the sneaking suspicion, nonetheless, in the minds of most top management about people who could be pursuing, for instance, a much more economically successful legal career and, instead, opt for doing mostly records work.   Questions logically come up in people’s minds.

Admittedly, some rare exceptions do exist by which some business professionals can, of course, still successfully attain and progress with their double or more professionalisms kept intact as a combined career.  But, the previously cited paradox substantially harms records professionals; this is mainly because those successful few are not rightly seen as the proper exception to the general rule that most records managers are thought to supposedly lack, in the minds of top management officials, the actual ability to succeed in other professions that are, of course, better salaried. 

Basic socioeconomic respect in America, with the notable exception of, e.g., religious professions, is mostly related, on the whole, to higher versus lower income levels, the professional “bottom line” as it were.  Until the majority of CRMs get salaries much closer to or at the level of corporate executives, they will be at a distinct disadvantage professionally. 

Why, after all, should someone earning, e.g., several hundred thousand dollars or more in annual salary take the business management related advice, which is what RIRM really ultimately is, seriously from a CRM merely earning about $40, $50, or $60,000.00 on average.  The inequality is, therefore, highly palpable and largely tends to be negatively determinative, as well as illustrative surely of fundamental business reality, though this may be denied, of course, by most top management/corporate officials. 

This is the basic functional reality in the United States, unlike Europe, where people are mainly judged by their status in society usually by income or wealth; in Europe, a typical university professor, for instance, though not paid well, is yet normally highly esteemed; and, this is the social tradition upheld in Germany.   Perhaps, nonetheless, it might be profitably asked if there was ever an opportunity to, perhaps, help promote the interests or status of CRMS?  But, does anyone really care about the developing shortage crisis regarding CRMs and, moreover, should anyone care?

The Somehow Missed Period of Enormous Opportunity

As an understatement of sorts, the past ten years or so have been, to say the least, a tremendously momentous time in the modern history of the entire records management profession; this can be well said with a great confidence and, moreover, without any rational doubt whatsoever in terms of the certainly enormous opportunity so favorably presented.   

The past Enron, Arthur Andersen, and other quite significant business scandals that were obviously due to very heavy data/information/records-related situations involved can be added, right easily, to the September 11, 2001, attacks on American soil that ruined records sources contained in the World Trade Center destruction in New York City; in addition, of course, there was the highly important Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (2003) decision, along with, needless to say, the December 2006 major changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding many e-records matters.

In the recent past, of course, the Enron and associated scandals had provoked the creation and passage of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 pertaining to corporate governance, responsibility, and compliance with many additional rules and regulations enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission serving publicly traded companies; it is usually much more simply or commonly known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).  The SOX ought, therefore, to have tremendously heightened the broader understanding and added appreciation of how truly important records are and, moreover, will certainly be in the life of this country.

Due to its rather obvious importance, an extensive excerpt has been taken from the Executive Summary of the 2004 Business Process Analysis Benchmarking Team:

“The Business Process Analysis (BPA) Benchmarking Team was formed in the fall of 2004 as part of the National Records Management Program Fiscal Year 2005 work plan.  The team was charged with ‘conducting at least four benchmarking visits with government agencies, university research groups, and private service providers on business process analysis and systems development to support electronic recordkeeping.’   The team's charge alluded to two possible ways of identifying recordkeeping requirements and ensuring that they are met in new systems design:  1) business process analysis and 2) integration of recordkeeping requirements into the systems development life cycle.  The team investigated both approaches by conducting benchmarking interviews focused on six specific methodologies:

Business Process Analysis

• Australian Standard: Work Process Analysis for Recordkeeping, AS 5090-2003
• Center for Technology in Government. Models for Action tool from Practical Tools for Electronic Records Management and Preservation
• The Minnesota State Archives. Trustworthy Information Systems Handbook

Integration of Recordkeeping Requirements into the Systems Development Life Cycle

• US Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO Electronic Records Management Technical Standard and Guideline, July 2002
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Electronic Recordkeeping Certification Manual
• The Central Intelligence Agency. Electronic Recordkeeping System (ERKS) Requirements

Findings

During its work, the Benchmarking Team discovered unique strengths in all six methodologies that make them valuable for identifying electronic recordkeeping requirements or otherwise improving electronic records management.  The exemplary practices in these specific methodologies represent two different yet complementary ways of ensuring that recordkeeping requirements are identified and met in new information systems design.  One approach, business process analysis, identifies process-specific recordkeeping requirements that cannot be identified except through examination of a particular function's needs.  The other approach, certification of new information systems against a predefined list of requirements for recordkeeping system functionality, is the best way of ensuring that all important systems are able to handle records appropriately.  An agency that uses both approaches can be confident that it is capturing the right records in all formats required to meet its business needs and that it is creating, maintaining, protecting, and providing appropriate access to authentic, reliable, and trustworthy records throughout the records' life cycle.  The Benchmarking Team believes that the methodologies described in this report provide a wide range of practical tools and models that could enable all Federal agencies, regardless of their current electronic records management and system development sophistication, to develop comprehensive policies and procedures for integrating records management requirements into new information technology (IT) systems.

Common Themes

• Records managers need to focus on the business process.
• Business process analysis and system development are resource intensive, but including recordkeeping in preexisting processes minimizes additional cost.
• Risk management can help decide which processes justify intensive analysis and which systems must meet all requirements.
• Success in identifying and meeting recordkeeping requirements in new systems design depends on the interaction of people, processes, and technology.
• Records managers need new skills to participate in new processes.”

The World Bank Group, as an international example, is trying to get a handle on a major global problem, meaning  the loss of control of records and information systems, especially pertaining to electronic environments.  What are considered to be accurate official records should yield, it is thought by them, the proper basis for such things as poverty reduction, the rule of law, economic development, and accountability frameworks.  

However, the normally existing kinds of systems for creating, organizing, and preserving what ought to be reliable official information have broken down in many nations of the world.  Simultaneously, it is thought, the many modern challenges of correctly preserving electronically-generated records in authentic form are rapidly increasing.  

Therefore, it is usually felt that this seriously influences the wanted ability of public sector institutions to be fairly accountable and responsibly transparent and, therefore, to improve various services to citizens.

And, what, for instance, of the USA’s E-Government Act of 2002, Title II - Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services, Section 207: Accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information?    It is there stated, with needed directness, that the “purpose of this section is to improve the methods by which Government information, including information on the Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public.”

As additional proof of yet more added national emphasis on records matters, the Department of Defense (DOD) 5015.2 –STD (Design Criteria for Electronic Records Management Software Applications), originated in 2000, is now in its newest and revised incarnation.    The DOD 5015.2 standard has been adopted or adapted, of course, by many companies seeking better control of digital records resources.

Moreover, this matter can be easily lumped in with such other records-related  legislation as HIPPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, having its primary legal focus on the protection of a patient’s right to privacy [Title II Public Law 104-191] and all associated confidentiality and security of personal health records, with an additional concern for properly ensuring portability [Title I ] of health insurance in the United States. 

Important Questions

Therefore, keeping all of the above securely in mind, a fair number of important and pertinent professional questions can, among others, rightly be asked:

Did any of these vitally and manifestly important matters of both national and international substance, inclusive of war itself no less since September 2001, come to greatly raise major public consciousness to the degree needed for somehow leading to the recognition of the increased  importance of there being Certified Records Managers?   No.  

Did the records management profession have the requisite infrastructure in existence [which may be the only valid excuse], during these past years, to take full and strong advantage of this interesting situation offering a great and real opportunity to creatively promote the image and value of the CRM?  No.  

Did the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) International and the Institute of Certified Records Managers (ICRM), in these momentous past years, successfully seek out and obtain national legislative requirements actually equivalent to the integral and substantive presence of CPAs in American business?  No. 

Did ARMA help to fundamentally raise the total national consciousness of the records-related issues involved by generating and directing tons of publicity at American business such that all major corporations thought it to be simply unthinkable not to have a CRM employed by these institutions concerned in this question at hand?  No.

Was, perhaps, any nationally prominent politician sought out and, in fact, interested by ARMA regarding the proper and functional idea of logically integrating the role of CRMs, analogous, e.g., to the already cited normal business role of CPAs,  concerning those corporate activities relative and integral to records management work?  No.  

Are the vast majority of corporate officers now substantially aware of the existence of there being CRMs, meaning especially, for instance, as being seen as a surely and naturally logical part of the modern and progressive corporate enterprise structure itself?  No.  

Did ARMA and the ICRM prevent the vast majority of people involved in American business from simply associating CRM mostly with Customer Relationship Management by launching a needed national effort to successfully defend the integrity of the CRM acronym designation?  No.   

As a possible consequence of the records-related scandals and disasters, has the value of hiring CRMs become truly highlighted, in a manner commensurate with the overall rise of CRM salaries, such that, for instance, none of them would ever feel the hard economic necessity of taking a low-pay position?  No.

Is there any true responsibility on the part of ARMA for failing, to whatever degree, to take natural advantage of this nearly unprecedented period or era of opportunity for the requisite advancement of the records management profession by promoting, dramatically and successfully, the valid interests of the premier professionals in the field of records/data/information work? 

The author of this article will, however, let the readers themselves wisely decide this most interesting, hot, critical, and pivotal question that definitely concerns the now predominant reality of the records management community and profession.  It is, therefore, a thoroughly serious professional question that both deserves to be asked and, more importantly, to be answered honestly.   Of course, some or many will say that the author has been very uncharitable toward those who may have tried to do some things but simply had failed, for whatever (reasonable) reasons.

Realistically, however, one can still rightly judge by the empirical results and circumstances, actual employment conditions and observed job advertisements, which ought to more clearly be correctly indicative of what had or had not happened in, approximately, the past ten or so years.   How truly unfair is an appeal to the mere observation of economic reality that can be studied openly by anyone interested?  

Or, is it the simple case that never so many have done so little for so few?   Is it disproportionate for a profession to laud its membership community as being composed of a certain select number of expert practitioners, while being unable to, somehow or other, effectively support the professional salary needs of its best members?   

In America, unlike, e.g., Europe, as has been noted, one’s salary almost always equates with imputed or implied socioeconomic status, i.e., assumed importance to society and its both proper and successful functioning.

The Records Management Profession Today

In the current information-rich environment of the 21st century, keeping good track of all paper and electronic records is fraught with risk.   It’s increasingly risky because, among other reasons, the failure to locate and produce records can lead to decreased productivity, lost business, heavy fines, lawsuits, and, much worse, actual jail time set aside for some offenders.  

Consequently, establishing a compliant records and information resources management program is quite complex.   It normally requires much professional expertise, takes a dedicated commitment of time and budget, and is full of rigorous kinds of
true challenges.

Today, many informed executives understand that records management is serious business, but may not yet fully realize the comprehensive breadth of its actual impact translated across the entire enterprise or the true diversity of many related requirements that it also logically imposes.   In some cases, they do mistakenly think that, as examples, their particular disaster recovery system, email archive, or document management repository – basically systems designed for other purposes – are still all equally meeting their enterprise records management needs and requirements.   

At the other extreme, they may be unable to correctly realize that, as an example, the DOD 5015.2-compliant records management application they may have seriously implemented in the legal department is simply overkill for most of the records they need to appropriately manage across the enterprise.   This can, therefore, unfortunately lead to much unwanted user resistance and, ultimately, a basic failure to successfully achieve the supposed and desired business objective intended.

One related purpose of this article has been to help explain the diversity of records management requirements at the corporate enterprise level and, moreover, why electronic document repositories, designed for other purposes, logically then fail to properly meet those assumed requirements.   It is necessary for records managers to describe the requisite elements and procedures required by a records management application compliant with DOD 5015.2   

This is because, moreover, it is usually thought of as today’s “gold standard” for all official and formal records management, especially RIRM and Enterprise Content Management; it can be then noted, also, why such systems are then so requisitely appropriate for some records management needs, but necessarily inappropriate for others; and, one can thus infer logically, all truly qualified records managers, entered into the career field, know why this must be, in fact, the empirical case involved. 

Many people, perhaps, most really do not initially seek out a career in records management; it tends to usually be something that many people get put into either over a period of time or, sometimes, quickly if there is no other person available for a particular records-associated task or tasks.  Some, however, do reasonably choose a records management career, though they are usually the exception to the rule. 

Anyone who wishes to become a CRM has, however, made, one logically assumes, a more formal and informed decision to achieve the highest level of records professionalization possible, meaning, at the least, prior to other certifications that are now increasingly possible; this is, certainly, as many career-minded workers end up connecting other acronyms to their last names.

The entire critical situation, moreover, now facing the records profession is tremendously odd in that increasing international recognition is being superbly given to records management, yet surely very incommensurate with the lack of economic advancement for its most professionalized practitioners; and, this obvious disparity, it can confidently be stated, can be documented.  

But, the trend toward professionalization continues as worldwide interest yet mounts on behalf of contemporary and future records work.

Besides such important matters as ISO 15489-1, meaning the new international standard for records management: Information and Documentation – Records Management – Part I: General of 2001, there is the, e.g., Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and, literally, much else besides.   

Again, internationally speaking, there is currently MoReg 2, the Model Requirements for E-Records and Document Management, used in Europe by the European Community (EC) and, in fact, originated by the EC and DLM Forum as MoReg in 2001.

This can, moreover, be compared to Australia’s DIRKS (Developing and Implementing a Recordkeeping System) that was developed in the 1990s.  The ISO 15489-2: ISO/TR Information and Documentation – Records Management – Part 2: Guidelines is, therefore, an implementation document fairly comparable to DIRKS in many respects.  

Nonetheless, such widely based international recognition has not, for the most part, boosted the prospects of the vast majority of CRMs worldwide, and especially not in the United States where most of them happen to reside. 

The now ever crescive intellectual demands, of a truly international scope, upon the profession have not at all, for all of the previously stated reasons and possibly others, caught up; this is with the normally meager or average salary levels typically so involved.   An aforementioned kind of breaking point will, therefore, be surely reached as one end of a proverbial bridge will not be seen to have been fully and successfully spanned, given here as just an understatement of future fact.

And yet, the ICRM insists, in its extant advertizing, that the presumably highly coveted CRM designation is the most respected credential in the profession; people are to enjoy the assumed prestige that accrues from being the finest in one’s field of endeavor and to reap the professional advantages of getting the credential 

It is said by the ICRM, furthermore, that no other credential is more directly associated with today’s complex and rapidly evolving environment affecting records and information management.

Reasons, which are logically expressed, are advanced by this organization, of course, for getting the CRM in terms of becoming outstanding in one’s chosen profession, a gaining of greater confidence, enhancing of career opportunities, networking possibilities, and the overall attaining of professional development; all of this is for exemplifying knowledge, experience, and integrity within the records profession, which all surely sounds great (if nothing else).   

For an organization slightly older than 30 years, its favored propaganda is fairly impressive; if only the reality matched the grand rhetoric, it would, one suspects, be truly great.

Future Dim Prospects for CRMs

Much that happens in the profession is usually old stuff in that a disaster or major problem of some kind or other afflicts a company/corporation, meaning fire, flood, other natural or man-made catastrophe, occurs and forces the issue of creating a real or much better records management program; added to all those existing possibilities, besides ever increasing levels and degrees of government regulation, are growing concerns related to the increasing and often observed extreme litigiousness of American society, whereby almost anything or any incident could conceivably provoke a lawsuit (sooner or later).  

Consequently, of course, knowledgeable records/information/ data managers must be or become alert and aware about such matters and, also, how their records programs can then effectively and efficiently deal with them in a dynamic and proactive, not reactive, manner.  

This extends, through records and information resources management (RIRM), to logical concerns that every company/institution, public or private, have a vital records protection program to ensure that it is back in business within 24 hours or less, thoughts about cost savings and cost avoidance issues, a media migration program so that both software and hardware remain usable not just now but far into the future.

Such thinking, moreover, includes proper recognition of an archives collection not just for narrow historical purposes but for economically generating revenue, especially for private enterprise, with aids for better advertising, marketing and, in addition, public outreach efforts to genealogists and others who will pay for informational services; this is besides instituting cognate and requisite efforts at risk management and trying to ensure, within reason, that a company/corporation is as litigation safe as possible. 

 All of this, therefore, can easily be put into the fruitful context of enterprise content management (ECM) to stress the ever greater totality of all corporate activities whereby the whole dynamically and creatively becomes larger than all of the individual parts for a holistic perception of institutional reality.  

The Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM) has fortunately done much to help publicize ECM, as something that upper management truly ought to appropriately come to terms with, regarding how to more effectively and efficiently run a progressive and modern corporation in the best manner possible.   Of course, there must also be professional concerns, e.g., for correctly incorporating document management practices, knowledge engineering, and knowledge management features into any and every modern enterprise-level situation.

When ECM is correctly added to RIRM, moreover, the then successful combination fosters cognition as to the best methods, procedures, and systems with subsystems that do stimulate business intelligence, growth, and initiatives and, thereby, enhances more and more opportunities for ever greater profits.   Professional records managers, especially CRMs, are informed about such matters and more.

But, does such expected expertise and concern, dedication and knowledge, actually pay off, most of the time, in real and verifiable terms of employment situations and allied, related, remuneration?

It seems highly unlikely, to say the least, that the basic economic status, meaning salary levels, of most and probably the majority of CRMs will significantly change in the near or foreseeable future.  Of course, in certain selected industries and for, e.g., special situations dependent upon urgent needs, situations, justifications, etc., some CRMs, as the odds would have it, will certainly (logically) outpace the vast majority in rather substantive terms of both expected and much deserved financial success. 

This is to be reasonably expected and, as such, will solidly exist as the illustrative exception to help better prove the general rule of inadequate compensation that will generally persist, for some time, for the yet basic majority of such highly skilled practitioners.   And, supply and demand in a supposedly free market economy will, of course, suitably govern and direct the resulting reality.

Additional professional acronyms can, one supposes, be just continually added to that of a CRM designation; however, unless and until substantial and documented evidence can be appropriately gathered to the contrary (to refute this article), the overall fundamental situation will, however, not really change due the already given reasons that need not, again and again, be repeated (to the possible annoyance of the reader).  

The only realistic possibility for a great change will be, it could be hoped, when CRMs, through ARMA and, perhaps, a pool of interrelated organizations, get enough needed political clout and power to bring about a situation fairly similar to that of the CPAs, as has already been manifestly related in this article.  

At that point in time, therefore, when a CRM is finally regarded with at least as much (or more) seriousness as a good or very good CPA, the salary levels then involved will tend to achieve a basic parity, properly and solidly commensurate, with mature professionalization of a suitably high order. 

Until then, the assured and growing shortage of CRMs, relative to the explained critical need, will logically continue to grow apace with the great lack of genuine interest in ever providing decent compensation to appropriately encourage enough white collar professionals to seek out becoming Certified Records Managers.   

Conclusion

Although it is hoped sincerely that this topic has not been beaten to death, the prevalent and known economic disincentives, therefore, truly exist; and, the logical case seems to be, at a bare minimum, basically proven beyond any sound and rational doubt.

Given the explanations and argumentative demonstrations honestly presented in this article, ought there to be any truly realistic and fully honest doubt as to the understood situation that will growingly exist, clearly persist, in the next two or so decades?   The author freely, moreover, challenges anyone to respond in the negative, meaning to yield forth the requisite facts and substantive figures to, thus, readily show the many supposed errors in this avowedly argumentative paper, if any really do exist.  

Until then, a general but, one hopes, significantly informed and intelligent pessimism will steadily remain (at least in the mind of the author of this article).

	Web useless-knowledge.com