Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via
Information Control Plans∗
Saara Packalén and Pekka Henttonen
Abstract
To ensure evidence and to control systematically records’ life span in digital
environment, we need additional data about records’ background, history, and
actions creating those records. National and international specifications typically
set requirements for metadata and functionality that an electronic records
management system must have. Creation of metadata is resource consuming.
One solution to this problem is to hide and automate records management
processes. The chapter examines how this has been done in Finnish public
administration. Firstly, the chapter contributes to discussion about description
of records management processes and adds understanding of possibilities for
adding metadata to records. Secondly, we aim to stir up interest toward the
use of a concept paradata in recordkeeping and invite discussion of benefits of
understanding some of recordkeeping metadata as paradata. While paradata is not
an established term in archives and records management, it is a befitting concept
to describe information that is gathered about records during their life span.
∗No Creative Commons Licence applies to the respective Third-Party Material.
S. Packalén (✉)
Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu,
Finland
e-mail: saara.packalen@uef.fi
P. Henttonen
Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences (ITC), Tampere University,
Tampere, Finland
e-mail: pekka.henttonen@tuni.fi
© The Author(s) 2024
I. Huvila et al. (eds.), Perspectives on Paradata,
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning 13,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53946-6_12
215
216 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
1Introduction
A key records management standard ISO 15489-1:2016 defines records manage-
ment (RM) being “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” (ISO 15489-
1:2016). To ensure evidence and to control systematically records’ life span in
digital environment, we need additional data about records’ background, history,
and actions creating those records. In archives and records management transition
from paper era to digital environment led to a paradigm shift when archives could
no more be managed and considered as physical objects and entities. It was realized
that it was not enough to manage existing records only. In digital environment the
premise for managing records had to be the process that produced those records.
Archival theorist Terry Cook (2001, 4) said that:
For archivists, the paradigm shift requires moving away from identifying themselves as
passive guardians of an inherited legacy to celebrating their role in actively shaping collec-
tive (or social) memory. Stated another way, archival theoretical discourse is shifting from
product to process, from structure to function, from archives to archiving, from the record
to the recording context, from the “natural” residue or passive by-product of administrative
activity to the consciously constructed and actively mediated “archivalisation” of social
memory.
This shift to processes and functions can be seen in records management metadata.
Its roots are in the 1990s. At that time, it had become obvious that recordkeeping
professionals (records managers and archivists) must manage also electronic infor-
mation and abandon their traditional role as custodians of physical documents only
(Bearman, 1994; Cook, 1994; Gilliland-Swetland, 2005; Sprehe, 2000). This led to
the question of what it means that something is record in an electronic environment
and what are requirements for systems that manage electronic records. This was
studied in research projects of the University of Pittsburgh and the University
of British Columbia (for details, see, e.g., Marsden, 1997). The projects formed
the basis for later national and international specifications for electronic records
management systems (Gable, 2002; Wilhelm, 2009). The specifications typically set
requirements for metadata and functionality that an electronic records management
system must have (e.g., the system must capture date and time when information
is stored in it and prevent unauthorized destruction and modification of records).
Because of the projects it became an axiom in archival science that records systems
must link records to business activity/transaction from which they arose (Lappin et
al., 2021). This happens by assigning records a place in a functional classification
scheme. Today international standard about records management metadata (ISO
23081-1:2017) shows broad consensus about content of metadata.
Creation of metadata is resource consuming. Adding metadata manually is for
the person receiving or creating a record often a superfluous step for which there
is no motivation, because it usually does not benefit the work task at hand and
makes the process slower. One solution to this problem is to hide and automate
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 217
records management processes. In this chapter, we examine how this has been
done in Finnish public administration. Firstly, the chapter contributes to discussion
about description of records management processes and adds understanding of
possibilities for adding metadata to records. Secondly, we aim to stir up interest
toward the use of a concept paradata in recordkeeping and invite discussion of
benefits of understanding some of recordkeeping metadata as paradata.
2 Information Control as Part of Information Governance
The aim of controlling information via automated records management processes
and metadata serves the goal of information governance (IG) or records/information
management which is according to Brooks (2019, 14) “supporting an organization to
manage, secure, access and exploit its information in complex digital environments
across a myriad of locations.”
Today, alongside a relatively narrow concept of RM or records and information
management (RIM) more holistic and broader-reaching view of IG has enhanced
extensive interest among the recordkeeping professionals. When RM and RIM focus
on control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use, and disposition of records,
the concept of IG represents more wide-ranging area of organizations’ information
needs.
“In short, IG is about information control and compliance” (Smallwood, 2014,6).
Smallwood (2014) sees information governance as a subset of corporate governance.
It is about standardizing and systematizing handling of information. It focuses
on access, control, management, sharing, storing, preserving, and auditing of
information. Organizations’ policies, processes, and technologies to manage and
control information must be complete, current, and relevant. Further, including
“[ ...] who is able to access what information, and when, to meet external legal
and regulatory demands and internal governance policy requirements” (Smallwood,
2014,6).
Yet, the concept of IG is still vague and there is no one commonly accepted
definition of it. High-level nature and breadth of the scope characterizes the
various definitions of the concept (Brooks, 2019). A decade ago, Hagmann (2013,
229) stated that “The RIM community tries to capitalize this term [information
governance] in order to get a seat at the table of senior executives and to get out
of the dusty image of records administration in a paper environment.” Lately, other
aspects based on the genuine need for broadening the focus in current administrative
recordkeeping have also been arisen (Brooks, 2019). The above presented IG
definitions of Smallwood pointing to information control fit well in Finnish public
sector recordkeeping context in which a proactive recordkeeping strategy that is
based on organizational functions has been traditionally dominant.
The Finnish Act on Information Management in Public Administration
(906/2019) that was published after and in part as consequence of the GDPR
(General Data Protection Regulation) of the European Union has been crucial for
the wider understanding of what records management is about. The act made it
218 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
obvious that in a digital environment one needs a broader approach to information
management in which records management is only one part. Although it is possible
to manage records without automatic information control, information control
allows automatization of records processes and connecting them to information
resources of the organization.
In Finland, the National Archives has traditionally played a strong role in guiding
public sector organizations’ records management. In 2005, National Archives’
SÄHKE specification started to stipulate the requirements and features for records’
digital archiving in information systems. Finnish SÄHKE2 specification includes a
metadata model whose purpose is to ensure evidentiality, integrity, and usability of
records (Mäkiranta, 2020). After GDPR and the following regulation, in accordance
with the role of National Archives, starting from the beginning of year 2023,
SÄHKE2 specification serves only as a recommendation for the agencies.
3 Records Management Metadata and Paradata
Concept of paradata is ambiguous. Current definitions of paradata often include a
certain perspective, for example the context of education or research methodology
(Pomerantz, 2015), surveys (Kreuter, 2013), or heritage visualization (Baker, 2012).
Sköld et al. (2022) discuss paradata in different information domains as well as
close connection and overlapping between concepts of paradata, metadata, and
provenance data. Only recently the concept of paradata has been introduced to
the archival and recordkeeping sphere in studies focusing on paradata in AI-based
automation (Davet et al., 2022, 2023). As Davet et al. (2023) state, conceptual
overlapping exists between the conceptual development of paradata for AI and those
of contextual metadata and explainable AI.
Hence, in archives and records management, the concept of paradata is only
emerging to theoretical and practical discussions and thus, it mostly represents an
uncharted territory. The concept is barely mentioned in studies in this research area.
Studies focusing on metadata or data processes (see, e.g., Bak, 2016; Sundberg,
2013) do not use the term paradata. In similar fashion, Finnish SÄHKE2 calls
metadata all data describing the context, content, structure, management, and
handling of information (Arkistolaitos, 2008a). Nevertheless, concept of paradata
might be applied in this area, too.
In a digital environment, adding metadata is inevitable and an established
practice in records’ handling and archiving. It is questionable, should we even call it
adding, since in digital environment, most of the metadata are automatically added
by the recordkeeping system. Some of it are still, though, explicitly added by a
human. Metadata is part of the record, part of its content. Meta and data are not to
separate any more the way they are/were in the world of paper records (Bak, 2016).
If metadata is defined as information that helps in semantic interpretation of the
data, and paradata is all other information about the background, administration,
and use of the data, records management metadata belongs almost exclusively to the
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 219
category of paradata. Although records management metadata may help to interpret
the records, it is not generally about the meaning or content of data.
The metadata can be broken into the following components (ISO 23081-1:2017,
16):
1. metadata about the record itself;
2. metadata about the business rules or policies and mandates;
3. metadata about agents;
4. metadata about business activities or processes;
5. metadata about records management processes.
Figure 1 gives an example of the diversity of metadata in archives and records
management area. It describes entities in records management metadata. For
example, there are metadata about agents, mandates, and business (McKemmish
et al., 1999).
In records management, metadata has often a temporal triptych structure: the
metadata gives information about current status of records, but also about future and
past actions. For instance, metadata may tell that access to records is now restricted,
but that the access restrictions will be removed in the future. Once when there are no
more access restrictions, the metadata will show what restrictions there have been
in the past. This reflects basic conception of records as evidence of past actions.
Metadata accumulates throughout the records’ life span. As considered above
and shown in Table 1, there are different types of metadata in records management.
Metadata is largely about context of records, their background, administration, and
use of the records. Some metadata is added at point of capture, that is, when
the records are stored in a records management system. After capture metadata
is complemented and this continues even when the record has been archived. A
study of records in an electronic records management system showed that 65% of
metadata was about event history (Kettunen & Henttonen, 2010).
Recordkeeping metadata describes records provenance and relationships that
define authenticity, reliability, accountability, and accessibility of digital records
throughout the records’ life span (Fig. 1 and Table 1). All this data is called
metadata. Some of it is various contextual information that is needed to understand
the record’s provenance and its connections to other records. Much of the data,
however, is something else, information about the process and various agents that
are related to the record during its life span.
4 Cost of Metadata Creation
Studies have shown that capturing metadata about data context is generally ex-
pensive and labor intensive (Faniel et al., 2019). Records management metadata
is no exception.
Metadata schemes in records management are broad. For instance, the first
version of the Finnish SÄHKE metadata specification includes over 120 elements,
220 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
Fig. 1 Coverage of recordkeeping metadata (McKemmish et al., 1999, 15)
many of which can be used at different levels of hierarchy (Records Creator—
Collection of records—Record Series—Matters—Transactions—Records). Alto-
gether there are about 280 possible metadata element—entity combinations. A study
showed that in one electronic records management system more than half of the
metadata elements were unused (Kettunen & Henttonen, 2010). A reason for this
may be that while a records management metadata scheme must be prepared for all
eventualities when it is concretely applied not all parts of the scheme are necessary.
For instance, if the agency does not take part in eGovernment service processes,
elements supporting eGovernment services are unnecessary.
The same study showed that optional metadata elements in the scheme were
generally ignored, and only mandatory elements had values. Metadata values either
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 221
Tab le 1 Examples about types of metadata in records management. Created from ISO 23081-
1:2017
Metadata about At point of capture After capture
Records Date and time when created;
record structure; link to business
activity or transaction generating
the record
Changes in structure or in
technical dependencies
Accessibility Identifiers of records and record
aggregations; classification
Terminology changes; changes of
personnel; changed locations
Security Access restrictions Personnel changes; change of
security rules and levels
Business rules,
policies, and
mandates
Metadata schema; business rules
regarding record creation
Metadata showing management
of records in compliance with
regulatory and other requirements
(e.g., access to records)
Agents Agents involved in record
creation
Changes in roles of records
Business process Information about transactions,
but also records management
processes (e.g., disposition
metadata)
Business processes in which
records have been used; copying
of records
come from the system, they are default values based on user selection, or free-text
values given by the user. A closer inspection of the elements suggested that human
intervention was minimal: it seems that users avoided inputting metadata (if they
had a choice), and they also preferred to accept default values as such (Kettunen &
Henttonen, 2010).
Altogether this—that only mandatory values were given, and that they were
generally generated by the system—reveals the high cost of metadata creation.
The metadata guarantees authenticity, reliability, and usability of records in long
run, but generally its generation makes work processes slower and does not benefit
the immediate work task at hand. In addition, users who are not professionals in
information management or recordkeeping may find it difficult to assign records a
place in the organization’s functional classification scheme. A Finnish study showed
that even experienced professionals face difficulties in using functional classification
schemes (Packalén, 2015). Therefore, one possibility is to hide records management
processes from the users and automate them as much as possible. This can take place
as part of integration of records and business systems which can take place in several
ways (see, e.g., DLM Forum Foundation, 2011, 16–18).
222 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
5 Principles of Information Control
The conclusion of the research projects of the University of Pittsburgh and the
University of British Columbia in the 1990s was that electronic records management
requires (among other things) contextualization of records by preserving informa-
tion about their functional context and relationships between records.
Finnish recordkeeping had elements supporting contextualization already before
digitalization. Like in Nordic countries in general, practice of keeping registries has
been common in Finnish administration for centuries. In other words, in- and out-
going letters have been marked in a registry book, card file, or database. Registry
entry has joined records together, linked them to a common process, and even
to a function (if the registry classification scheme is function based). In short,
a registry has given information a context. Another noteworthy characteristic of
Finnish recordkeeping is that functional approach was adopted as a starting point
for records management in the beginning of the 1980s. Thus, many agencies had
a functional classification scheme even before digitalization. This classification
scheme formed the core of records management plan that every agency was required
to have by law, and which listed record types by function and gave instructions to
their retention and management. First national specification for electronic records
management systems (known SÄHKE1) in year 2005 required that this plan, now
in digital form, was the source of metadata for electronic records (Henttonen, 2023).
Besides registry information, functional classification scheme was another source of
information about the context of the records.
Next phase took place in year 2008 when the National Archives Service of
Finland (current the National Archives) introduced a new approach to improve
information management processes. According to SÄHKE1 specification records
management plan was to be included in the electronic records management system.
The plan contained information about functions, and record types that were gener-
ated in them, and gave default metadata values for the retention and management of
record types. The next phase brought two changes. Firstly, records management
plan was now separated to a system of its own (Information Control System)
and it was complemented with information about process steps that are taken
in the function. Information control was defined as management of information
management process in an information system (JHS 191, 2015). Secondly, the
idea was that the plan—now called Information Control Plan (ICP)—would be
the source for records management metadata across information systems in an
agency: when the process goes forward information systems get metadata values
from agency’s ICP. This is shown in Fig. 2 that gives an example of a process from
recordkeeping perspective. Organizations’ ICP gives metadata needed in records
handling in an organization. These metadata will then be stored in organization’s
information system.
224 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
Fig. 3 Interaction of the Information Control System with other systems. Translated from JHS
176, 2012
Besides SÄHKE specification, legislation about information management,
archives, and freedom of information affect information control.1 There are
guidelines and instructions that help to identify and describe business processes
in an Information Control Plan. Legislation also defines what information must be
included in a registry.2
In the core of Information Control System is a plan with an enumerative
functional classification scheme which lists all the functions of the agency, and,
in addition, process steps and record types that are generated or received in the
function. This plan has default metadata values for controlling access to information,
managing information security and data privacy, and supporting e-services. Infor-
mation Control System that contains the plan interacts via Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs) with electronic records management systems, electronic archives,
and other information systems that process and create records (Kuntasektorin
arkkitehtuuriryhmä, 2016). As shown in Fig. 3, Information Control System may
control several information systems that, to varying degrees, also interact with each
other. Not every information system may store records in an archival system.
1 Most important laws are Act on Information Management in Public Administration (906/2019),
Archives Act (831/1994), and Act on Openness of Government Activities (621/1999).
2 Act on Information Management in Public Administration (906/2019).
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 225
Consequently, in practice, content of an ICP consists of a functional classification
describing functions of the organization and descriptions of the organization’s
operational processes. Process description describes an operational process from
recordkeeping point of view. It includes administrative (or other) process stages,
and transactions that take place in the process phases as well as record types
involved. Process stage is an entity that includes one or more transactions. In
administrative processes there are common administrative process stages (such
as initiation, preparation, and decision making) that are similar in every process.
Transaction is a single task that takes place as a part of a process. JHS 191
recommendation for public agencies (JHS 191, 2015) gives three alternative ways
for structuring the content of Information Control Plan. Thus, the plan may state
what are
Record types by process stage,
Record types by process stage and supplementary transaction(s) specified by the
organization, or
Record types by transactions that are grouped by process stages.
In short, the organization may choose the way it describes their processes in the
ICP and how detailed process descriptions it will have. Process descriptions are
manually generated data about the processes of the organization. When a process is
changed the description must be updated accordingly. Information Control System
at hand and agency’s other information systems may set limitations to descriptions
and dictate what is their appropriate level.
Agencies do not have concrete instructions for creating an ICP besides general
level requirements for metadata in legislation and sparse instructions, rules, and
regulations given by the National Archives. SÄHKE2 specification used to require
(currently it only recommends) describing agency’s processes but it does not
define sufficient level of detail in the descriptions. This is in the discretion of
the agency. It is generally assumed that agencies have already had a functional
classification scheme and management data of record types that are generated or
received in the functions. This information is in records management plans that
precede information control. Thus, if an agency wants to implement information
control, it basically only needs to add process descriptions. To create a plan for
information control, one needs information from laws and statutes, regulations
and standing orders, strategies, quality handbooks, and process descriptions. One
needs to consult SÄHKE2 specification and recommendation for the structure of
Information Control Plan, JHS 191. One must also discuss with professionals who
are responsible for the functions and the processes.
If the agency has analyzed its business processes for other (i.e., business)
purposes, those descriptions naturally help in drafting the ICP. However, in an ICP,
processes are described from recordkeeping viewpoint. There are no studies about
whether and to what extent the result differs from process descriptions that have
been created for Business Process Re-engineering, for example. The process in an
ICP follows the phases that are carried out in organization’s information system,
226 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
Tab le 2 A possible process description of the process of Giving Opinions
Process stage Transaction Record type(s)
Commencement Receipt of the initiating document Letter/Attachment/Request
Preparation Processing of the Request for Opinion Letter/Attachment/Request
Preparation of the Opinion Letter/Attachment/Memorandum
Decision making Drafting/Attaching the Opinion Opinion/Attachment
Making a note: No opinion given (note) Letter
Service notification Informing officially Letter
including every possible record type, when handling the matter, e.g., in a recruitment
process.
What this means in practice can be seen when we look at administrative
procedures which have been the most common targets for information control. For
instance, one thing that agencies do is that they give opinions. The ICP has hierarchy
of classes in the functional classification scheme:
00 General Administration
00 00 Steering and Development
00 00 02 Opinions
00 00 02 00 Giving Opinions
The lowest level in the scheme is the name of the process. This lowest level
groups together process stages, transactions, and related record types. Process stages
are common for all administrative processes. Therefore, a process 00 00 02 00
Giving Opinions may be presented in ICP as exemplified in Table 2. Default
metadata values governing retention time, access restrictions, etc. of the record
types are omitted here. Process stages, transactions, and record types as such are one
sort of contextual information (paradata) about records that belong to the process.
They help users of the systems to proceed consistently and provide them essential
information about the past and forthcoming steps in the process.
Ideally, the agency has SÄHKE2 compatible Information Control System with
the appropriate Information Control Plan, the plan is integrated with the electronic
records management system and other information systems, and these systems have
been adapted to information control. In that case the records process would go as
follows:
The user (or personnel in registry office, depending on agency policy) opens a
new matter in the system and chooses right class for the matter from the functional
classification scheme. To support this the Information Control Plan may include
additional information (metadata) that helps the user to make the right choice. The
user checks the default metadata values and corrects them when necessary. The user
may also add supplementary information, like title of the matter, or civil servants
handling the matter. Finally, the user adds the matter in the registry, and it is assigned
a unique registry identification number.
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 227
When the Information Control Plan contains process steps, the only path forward
allowed is to follow the process description. Although the Information Control Plan
has default steps, the user may ignore some steps, if necessary, and, e.g., to go from
Commencement directly to Decision making, if there is no need for preparatory
phases. User cannot add any new steps.
The user then selects the transaction. After selection of the type of transaction the
user creates or attaches a record to it (when necessary) and selects the appropriate
record type from the selection list. The user checks the default metadata values and
may update them (e.g., define a record that has by default no access restrictions as
partly confidential). The user may also add some metadata, like date of receipt, if
the system does not supply it automatically. Users’ capability to edit metadata is
limited by their role. Most users cannot change retention time, for instance. This
can be done only by recordkeeping professionals.
When the user creates a new document in the system, the document is first
marked as draft, and its visibility is limited. When the document is signed
electronically it becomes final and locked to prevent any further changes. The
system may include rules that (for instance) mark the matter automatically as closed
when the process reaches a particular phase.
During the process, two things may happen simultaneously. Firstly, the records
gather paradata about their background and the function/process which they are
result of. Secondly, this paradata is used as basis for further actions. For instance, if
record’s retention time is calculated from the completion of the process, i.e., when
the matter is closed, date of the process completion is recorded in para-/metadata
and used to assign a date when the record is to be removed from the system.
An Information Control Plan can be just a guidebook to agency’s functions,
processes, and information, but it is stated that full benefit comes only if the plan
is used to manage and automate information systems. There are no studies on
whether and to what extent this goal of information control has been reached, but
SÄHKE2 specification and concept of information control have today established
their position in Finnish public sector records management (Mäkiranta, 2020).
Other benefits may include improved usability of information systems because of
default metadata values and process descriptions (JHS, 2015). Metadata enables
tracking of processes and facilitates answering to information requests. Entries in
the registry/system document content of a record, processes (when it has arrived,
who has created it, etc.) and what transactions (like answering to a request for
opinion) have taken place. Information Control Plan not only describes the records
accumulating in the course of organizations’ business activities but provides a tool
for managing processing stages of the information and for information security
measures. When fully exploited, several information systems would be controlled
by one ICP via APIs. If the systems are used without exceptions, they provide
trustworthy evidence of the flow of information in an organization. Persons who
access information later may convince themselves about the authenticity and
reliability of the information by looking at the para-/metadata about it.
A prerequisite for information control is existence of a functional classification
scheme. Functional approach to records management is today widely accepted
228 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
among recordkeeping professionals in the Finnish public sector (Packalén & Hent-
tonen, 2016a). However, people understand basic concepts, like function differently,
and the plans are sometimes difficult to use. Functional approach needs more
rigorous theoretical basis (Packalén, 2017). Functional schemes are heterogeneous,
and analysis of class names shows ambiguity and varying conceptual structures in
the schemes (Packalén & Henttonen, 2016b).
Creating a workable ICP and integration of Information Control System with
recordkeeping and other systems requires a collaboration between several stake-
holders of the organization: records managers, data protection specialist, lawyers, IT
personnel, system suppliers, and specialists on various subject areas like personnel
management. In addition, collaboration with National Archives of Finland is
necessary to define records with archival value. Once created an Information Control
Plan needs constant updating.
Implementation of information control requires financial, technical, and human
resources. Even with appropriate resourcing (which is often lacking) the goal is
difficult to reach. An unpublished report on electronic archiving in municipalities
three years ago revealed that implementation of information control—at least in a
rigid form—has not been feasible in most information systems or databases, and
that information in the municipalities is generally hybrid and only exceptionally
complete digitalization has been achieved (Hänninen, Heli: Sähköisen arkistoinnin
tilannekuvan selvitys kunnan toimialoilla 2020). A study in year 2020 found out that
only in one state agency out of ten their ICP controlled more than one information
system. For some, information control concerned only a part of organizations’
functions (Mäkiranta, 2020). No university had entirely digital processes for records
with permanent value (Kokkinen, 2020, 10).
6 Discussion and Conclusions
Information control brings together different ideas. Information Control Plans
incorporate traditions of Finnish recordkeeping: registry practice, and proactive
planning of records’ life span. They fulfill internationally recognized requirements
for electronic records management and, in addition, serve implementation of
Freedom of Information legislation. An Information Control Plan can be accessed
by anyone according to Finnish Freedom of Information legislation. Thus, the plan
increases transparency by showing what information is gathered and processed in
public administration (Lybeck et al., 2006). Information control is a combination
of functional approach in records management planning, information governance
perspective to information management, local recordkeeping traditions, and need to
increase efficiency and automate processes.
SÄHKE2 continues to exist as a recommendation. In the future, The National
Archives will primarily focus on records that have value for permanent preservation,
archives, and have less authority in records management. For the same reason, in a
recent draft for archival legislation there is no requirement for agencies to implement
information control (Luonnos hallituksen esitykseksi eduskunnalle arkistolain ja
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 229
Kansallisarkistosta annetun lain muuttamisesta, 2022). Thus, formally there will be
less constraints and obligations in Finland for public sector records management
to fulfil. Nevertheless, proper metadata and goals of information governance are
still considered important. While agencies will have more freedom in their records
and information management, it is likely that for practical reasons information
control and SÄHKE2 specification still form the basis for future development.
Although implementations may change, organizations still need to describe their
processes and have procedural information about them. Metadata are to ensure later
understandability and usability of digital records. Understanding paradata as part of
it may bring new, useful insights to the future discussion of process descriptions.
Clearly, information control carried out through an ICP has benefits. Adding
metadata (paradata) automatically to records and the processes they originate from
accelerates management of information. It shortens the time used in handling a
matter in an agency which might lead to increased customer satisfaction. However,
there are no studies that would empirically show the benefits of information
control. For instance, automation of records processes may save human resources,
but there is no research showing how significant these savings are. However, on
the other hand, ICP must be constantly kept up to date about information and
processes in the organization which is a laborious and resource- craving task.
Functional classifications are not without problems. Previous studies have shown
several challenges in organizing records by function. Some of them are a result of
conceptual confusion and heterogeneous classificatory structures which result from
a lack of theoretical background and guidance for creating classifications (Packalén
& Henttonen, 2016b). Information Control Plans involve similar challenges.
Information Control Plan as such is a record that is regularly updated. Old and
new versions of the ICP are preserved. They provide enormous amount of informa-
tion about organization’s processes and records management. Information Control
Plans are not paradata themselves. They are only descriptions of organization’s
planned functions, processes, and records. When the plans come to flesh in the
organization’s daily operations, information in the plans becomes paradata about the
records. The InterPARES research group defined paradata as “information about the
procedure(s) and tools used to create and process information resources, along with
information about the persons carrying out those procedures” (Davet et al., 2022).
All this information is saved in records management and information control system
used.
It is important to understand that when operating in digital environment the
premise of the information gathered is the records creating process and not a single
document/record. Typically, Finnish recordkeeping practices and procedures are not
based on theories but are constructed as resolutions from practical needs (Kilkki,
2004). The same applies to Information Control and its applications. It rests on the
rather weak theoretical base of the functional approach to records organization. One
should base recordkeeping activities on theoretical and conceptual understanding
and underpinnings. Therefore, in archives and records management discipline one
needs to examine the potential of the concept paradata from various perspectives.
Finding out what it is that paradata has to offer to archives and records management
230 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
and contributing the recordkeeping viewpoint to paradata discussion is a start. While
paradata is not an established term in archives and records management, it is a
befitting concept to describe information that is gathered about records during their
life span. How we name things forms our understanding. It is about understanding
what kinds of data it is that we add to records and the records creating processes,
and about understanding the foundation of our actions.
References
Arkistolaitos. (2008a). SÄHKE2. Sähköisten asiakirjallisten tietojen käsittely, hallinta ja säi-
lyttäminen [SÄHKE2. Management and preservation of electronic records]. Retrieved April
13, 2023, from https://kansallisarkisto.fi/uploads/normit/valtionhallinto/maarayksetjaohjeet/
normiteksti_suomi.pdf
Arkistolaitos. (2008b). SÄHKE2. Sähköisten asiakirjallisten tietojen käsittely, hallinta ja
säilyttäminen. Liite 1. [SÄHKE2. Management and preservation of electronic records.
Appendix 1]. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://kansallisarkisto.fi/documents/
141232930/154880298/Sahke2-Liite1-Metatietojen_tuottaminen.pdf/3f4f169b-81a2-ed00-
2c20-ff0a9feb3731/Sahke2-Liite1-Metatietojen_tuottaminen.pdf?t=1679904728156
Bak, G. (2016). Not meta just data: Redefining content and metadata in archival theory
and practice. Journal of Archival Organization, 13(1–2), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15332748.2017.1413974
Baker, D. (2012). Defining paradata in heritage visualization. In A. Bentkowska-Kafel, H. Denard,
& D. Baker (Eds.), Paradata and transparency in virtual heritage (pp. 163–175). Taylor &
Francis Group.
Bearman, D. (1994). The implications of Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President for the
archival management of electronic records. In Electronic evidence. Strategies for managing
records in contemporary organizations (pp. 118–145). Archives & Museum Informatics. http://
www.archimuse.com/publishing/electronic_evidence.html
Brooks, J. (2019). Perspectives on the relationship between records management and information
governance. Records Management Journal, 29(1/2), 5–17.
Cook, T. (1994). Electronic records, paper minds: the revolution in information
management and archives in the post-custodial and post-modernist era. Archives and
Manuscripts, 22(November), 300–328. http://socialstudies.cartagena.es/images/PDF/no0/
cook_electronic.pdf
Cook, T. (2001). Archival science and postmodernism: new formulations for old concepts. Archival
Science, 1(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435636
Davet, J., Hamidzadeh, B., Franks, P., & Bunn, J. (2022). Tracking the functions of AI as paradata
& pursuing archival accountability. In Archiving 2022: Final Programs and Proceedings, 7-10
June 2022 (pp. 83–88). Society for Imaging Science and Technology.
Davet, J., Hamidzadeh, B., & Franks, P. (2023). Archivist in the machine: Paradata for AI-
based automation in the archives. Archival Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10502-023-09408-8.
DLM Forum Foundation. (2011). MoReq2010. Modular requirements for records systems. Volume
1. Core services & plug-in modules. Version 1.0.
Faniel, I. M., Frank, R. D., & Yakel, E. (2019). Context from the data reuser’s point of view.
Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1274–1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2018-0133
Gable, J. (2002). Everything you wanted to know about DoD 5015.2. The Information Management
Journal, 36(6), 33–38.
Gilliland-Swetland, A. (2005). Electronic records management. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 39, 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440390113
Adding Paradata About Records Processes via Information Control Plans 231
Hagmann, J. (2013). Information governance - beyond the buzz. Records Management Journal,
23(3), 228–240.
Henttonen, P. (2023). “One system to rule them all”: The limited success of information control
systems in Finland. In B. Greg & M. Rostgaard (Eds.), The Nordic model of digital archiving
(pp. 115–134). Routledge studies in archives. Routledge.
ISO 15489-1:2016. Information and documentation - Records management. Part 1: General.
(2016). ISO.
ISO 23081-1:2017 Information and documentation. Records management processes. Metadata for
records. Part 1: Principles. (2017). ISO.
JHS 176. (2012). Sähköisten asiakirjallisten tietojen käsittely, hallinta
ja säilyttäminen [Management and preservation of electronic records]
Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/
view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.suomidigi.fi%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020-
06%2FJHS176.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
JHS 191. (2015). Tiedonohjaussuunnitelman rakenne [Structure of Information Control Plan]
(pp. 1–17). JUHTA. Retrieved April 4, 2023 from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/
view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.suomidigi.fi%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020-
07%2FJHS191_0.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Kettunen, K., & Henttonen, P. (2010). Missing in action? Content of records management metadata
in real life. Library and Information Science Research, 32(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lisr.2009.10.002
Kilkki, J. (2004). Bearmania. Frosting Finnish archival practice with imported archival theory.
Comma, 1, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.3828/comma.2004.1.7
Kokkinen, S. (2020). Sähköisen arkistoinnin nykytilan selvitys. Korkeakoulusektori.[Stateof
electronic archiving. Higher education institutions] Aalto-yliopisto.
Kreuter, F. (2013). Improving surveys with paradata: analytic uses of process information. Wiley,
Incorporated.
Kuntasektorin arkkitehtuuriryhmä. (2016). Kuntasektorin asianhallinnan viitearkkitehtuuri
[Reference architecture for records management in municipal sector]. Retrieved
February 1, 2023 from https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/sites/default/files/media/file/
Kuntasektorin%20asianhallinnan%20viitearkkitehtuuri.pdf
Lappin, J., Jackson, T., Matthews, G., & Ravenwood, C. (2021). Rival records management
models in an era of partial automation. Archival Science, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-
020-09354-9
Luonnos hallituksen esitykseksi eduskunnalle arkistolain ja Kansallisarkistosta annetun lain
muuttamisesta [Draft for a government proposal about changing the Archives Law and Law
about the National Archives]. (2022).
Lybeck, J. et al. (2006). Arkistot yhteiskunnan toimiva muisti. Asiakirjahallinnon ja arkistotoimen
oppikirja [Archives - the functioning memory of the society. A textbook for records and archives
management]. : Arkistolaitos.
Mäkiranta, M.-L. (2020). Sähköisen arkistoinnin nykytilan selvitys/valtionhallinto
[State of electronic archiving. Government administration]. Retrieved
March 28, 2023, from https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/33413091/
S%C3%A4hk%C3%B6isen+arkistoinnin+nykytila+raportti+valtionhallinto.pdf/25a91cfa-
ed30-639d-99b8-e1fe421a945f?t=1598525687764
Marsden, P. (1997). When is the future? Comparative notes on the electronic record-keeping
projects of the University of Pittsburgh and the University of British Columbia. Archivaria,
43, 158–173.
McKemmish, S., Acland, G., Ward, N., & Reed, B. (1999). Describing records in context in the
continuum: The Australian recordkeeping metadata schema. Archivaria, 48, 3–37.
Packalén, S. (2015). Functional classification. Record-keeping professionals’ difficulties and their
handling in maintenance and use of FC in Finnish organisations. Records Management Journal,
25(2), 166–182.
232 S. Packalén and P. Henttonen
Packalén, S. (2017). Functional classification systems in Finnish public-sector organisations.
University of Tampere. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-0473-7
Packalén, S., & Henttonen, P. (2016a). Recordkeeping professionals’ understanding of and
justification for functional classification: Finnish public sector organizational context. Archival
Science, 16(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-015-9254-4
Packalén, S., & Henttonen, P. (2016b). Ambiguous labels: Facet analysis of class names in Finnish
public-sector functional classification systems. Knowledge Organization: KO, 43(7), 490–501.
Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata. MIT Press.
Sköld, O., Börjesson, L., & Huvila, I. (2022). Interrogating Paradata. Information Research,
27(Special issue, October 2022). 10.47989/colis2206.
Smallwood, R. F. (2014). Information governance: Concepts, strategies, and best practices. Wiley,
Incorporated.
Sprehe, J. T. (2000). Integrating records management into information resources management in
U.S. Government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 17(1), 13–26.
Sundberg, H. P. (2013). Process based archival descriptions – organizational and process chal-
lenges. Business Process Management Journal, 19(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-Jan-2012-
0002
Wilhelm, P. (2009). An evaluation of MoReq2 in the context of national EDRMS standard
developments in the UK and Europe. Records Management Journal, 19(2), 117–133. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09565690910972075
Saara Packalén PhD, is a University Lecturer at the University of Eastern Finland, in the
Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, at the Master’s degree programme in
Archives and Records Management. After finishing her doctorate from the University of Tampere,
Information Studies and Interactive Media, in 2017, she has also worked in Finnish public sector,
in project management and recordkeeping duties.
Pekka Henttonen D.Soc.Sc., Adjunct professor, is a University Lecturer in the Faculty for
Information Technology and Communication Sciences at the Tampere University. Before academic
career he worked in the National Archives of Finland and in the Military Archives of Finland.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
