Functional Requirement Standards

metadata and audit trails, along with retention disposition rules and records

management policies, in order to attest to how records were created and kept.²²⁶ As argued by scholars such as Mason and Force, adhering to and enforcing national and international best practice principles and standards for digital records management provides a strong basis for demonstrating the integrity of records, supporting their use as evidence in legal proceedings.²²⁷

There is still a sense in the archival community, however, that digital information should be held to a higher standard than paper information in order to maintain its authenticity and integrity.²²⁸ Lynch argues that aspects of authenticity and reliability are based on the: ‘[M]echanical characteristics of digital objects; they do not speak to the deeper questions of whether the contents of a digital object are accurate or truthful when judged objectively’.²²⁹ This is partly true, but one can also argue that it is by assessing the mechanics of the document, particularly its metadata and the systems functionality, that the integrity of the records can be confirmed. Further, there are no archival or legal criteria that can unequivocally prove the veracity of the contents of any document, paper or digital, or that can speak to the truthfulness of the record.

3.3.3 Functional Requirement Standards

In the digital age, protecting and ensuring the integrity of records, to enable them to act as evidence, can be achieved at least in part by the application of standards like

226 Mason, ‘Chapter 11: Authenticity and Evidential Weight of Digital Evidence’., 161. Mason, ‘Chapter 4: The Evidential Foundations’ Stephen Mason, ‘Investigation and Examination of Digital Evidence’, in Electronic Evidence:

Disclosure, Discovery, Admissibility (London: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007), 66-100., 67. Donald Force, ‘The Admissibility of Business Records as Legal Evidence: A Review of the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule in Canada’, Archivaria 78, no. Fall (2014): 25–51., 33. MacNeil. Trusting Record., 98.

227 Mason, ‘Chapter 4 The Evidential Foundations’., 66. This thesis is dedicated to investigating this particular topic:

Force, ‘“Pursuing the Usual and Ordinary Course of Business”.

228 Clifford Lynch, ‘Authenticity and Integrity in the Digital Environment: An Explanatory Analysis of the Central Role of Trust’, Council on Library and Information Resources, no. May 2000, accessed 12 January 2011

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/lynch.html.

229 Lynch, ‘Authenticity and Integrity in the Digital Environment’.

functional requirements for recordkeeping systems. Functional requirements for recordkeeping systems are guidelines that provide system designers and records creators with system features and functions for the creation and maintenance of digital records in information management systems. Functional requirements are often seen as technical solutions, and whilst they do provide a list of technical specifications, they should be based on organisational processes to ensure the capture of essential business records.²³⁰

One of the earliest examples of functional requirements for recordkeeping

systems was DoD 5015.2, discussed earlier. This standard was a continuation of the work done by the UBC-MAS project, but it also incorporated UPitt project findings and

regulations set by the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).²³¹ DoD 5015.2 was one of the first functional requirement standards to receive widespread support within the US Government when it was endorsed by both the Department of Defense and NARA In 1998.²³² Since then, DoD 5015.2 has been seen as a de facto standard for the design of recordkeeping systems for use in the US Government.²³³ Today, however, many other functional requirements standards are in place for recordkeeping systems, at the international, national and regional levels.

Two international standards are the Model Requirements for Electronic Records Management (MoReq) and the ICA’s Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments (ICA Req).²³⁴ MoReq was developed by the Document

230 Bearman, ‘Archival Data Management'., 225.

231 Hedstrom, ‘Building Record-Keeping Systems’., 53.

232 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ‘Electronic Records Management Software’., 2. John Carlin, ‘Baseline Requirements for Automated Record Keeping’, 18 November 1998, accessed 28 April 2013,

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/policy/automated-recordkeeping-requirements.html.

233 Carlin, ‘Baseline Requirements for Automated Record Keeping’.

234DLM Forum Foundation, ‘Modular Requirements for Recordkeeping System (MoReq 2010): Core Services and Plug- In Modules’ (DLM Forum Foundation, 2010). International Council on Archives. ‘ICA-Req Principles and Functional

Lifecycle Management (DLM) forum with assistance from the European Commission; it was first published in 2001 and revised in 2010.²³⁵ MoReq 2010 allows vendors to certify their systems against a core set of requirements; as long as their system meets these requirements, they can then validate their software against an optional set of

modules.²³⁶

ICA Req is the only functional requirements standard to receive endorsement as an ISO standard: ISO 16175. Unlike MoReq, ICA Req is a guideline for organisations rather than a certification standard for actual systems.²³⁷ Organisations can verify the records functionality of their systems against the ICA Req standard or they can adapt the standard according to their own requirements when designing an information

management system. ²³⁸ ICA Req has been used by organisations like the National Archives of New Zealand, where it formed the basis for a discretionary functional requirement standard for recordkeeping systems in government.²³⁹

Some jurisdictions have chosen to develop their own requirements informed by their particular contexts of operation. One example is the Public Records Office for Victoria (PROV), Australia, which developed the Victoria Electronic Records Strategy (VERS) standard (PROV 99/007). VERS is intended to guide departments and offices in the development of digital records management systems so that those systems are

Requirements’. International Council on Archives, 2008.

235 DLM-Forum on Electronic Records, ‘Model Requirements for the Management of Electronic Records (MoReq2):

Update and Extension’ (CECA-CEE-CEEA, European Commission, 2008)., 2. and DLM, ‘Modular Requirements.

Revisions in MoReq reflect changes in Information Communication Technology (ICT). DLM developed a more modular standard capable of being implemented in different jurisdictions.

236 Robert Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices and Technologies. Wiley CIO (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013)., 242. James Lappin, ‘How MoReq2010 Differs from Previous Electronic Records Management System Specifications’, Blog, Thinking Records, (2011), accessed 24 January 2015,

http://thinkingrecords.co.uk/2011/05/06/how-moreq-2010-differs-from-previous-electronic-records-management-erm-system-specifications/.

237 Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records., 242.

238 Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records., 242.

239Archives New Zealand, ‘Digital Recordkeeping Standard- Mapping Database Procedure’, Archives New Zealand, n.d., accessed 24 January 2015,

http://archives.govt.nz/advice/public-offices/digital-recordkeeping/digital-recordkeeping-standard-mapping-database-procedur.

capable of maintaining authentic and reliable digital records.²⁴⁰ This approach has resulted not only in the creation of standardised digital records across government, but also supported the export of records to PROV for preservation.²⁴¹ Other jurisdictions have implemented similar requirements, including Norway (NOARK) and Finland (SÄHKE). These functional requirements standards were designed to regulate and control the production of digital records in recordkeeping systems, thus ensuring records integrity over time.