GDA Development History, Communication, and Beginnings

1
GDA DevelopmentHistory, Communication, and
Beginnings

• Pam Thorburn, Chair,
• Public Records Act Working Party

2
A Bit of History - PRAW

• The Public Records Act Working Party convened by
  New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee first met
  February 2007
• Membership of PRAW was a cross-functional group
  of university management staff including library,
  student services, registry, information
  technology etc
• There were no Records Managers employed at a NZ
  university when PRAW started
• PRAWs initial focus was to develop a GDA for all
  8 universities

3
What is a university?

• Obviously a place of research and learning
• In New Zealand there are 8 Universities
• Collectively for all 8 institutions in 2007 there
  were.
• staff 24,000 (largest 5,700 smallest 700) 
• students 175,000 (largest 40,000 smallest
  4,000)

4
What is a university?

• In essence to support each university takes the
  infrastructure and services that would equate to
  small to medium towns
• For instance in relation to infrastructure

5
Infrastructure/ Services

• To support the numbers of staff and students the
  university generates records on.
• Student Accommodation and related services
• Lecture theatres and laboratories and related
  regulations and services
• IT networks and computer suites
• Research spaces including private/public research
  institutes
• Crèches and Marae Buildings and services
• Libraries and collection management

6
Infrastructure/ Services cont.

• Counselling and Health
• Corporate services-HR, Finance, Facilities
  Management, Communications and Marketing, Student
  Recruitment etc.
• Governance and Strategic planning
• Student and Academic Administration
• Student Unions and Associations
• Student Support services-Learning support, Career
  Advice
• Special Collections including Art Collections and
  Galleries
• On-site business supplying food, books etc.

7
GDA Development

• SWIM Ltd were selected to develop the GDA in
  partnership with NZVCC
• Archives NZ assisted by providing advice as and
  when required.
• A Project was established to achieve this outcome
  and a communication strategy was developed as a
  key part of the process

8
Project Management Structure

• Project Sponsor - NZVCC
• Project Steering Group PRAW
• Project Team was made up of representatives from
  PRAW and SWIM
• Project Team reported to Steering Group, who
  reported to the Sponsor.

9
Project Challenges

• Universities covered by the PRA for the first
  time and as seen infrastructure and services are
  significant
• There was a level of opposition to being covered
  by the PRA
• Each of the 8 universities operates, and is
  structured differently, to all the others for the
  purposes of records management
• Universities have devolved and complex management
  structures, traditionally based on collaborative
  and consensus decision making

10
Project Challenges cont.

• Records management capability within universities
  was limited
• when the project to develop the GDA started
• one university had a records management team -
  and this team had a vacancy for the Records
  Manager,
• one had a consultant reviewing records
  management capability
• one had a part time person reviewing historical
  records

11
Project Challenges cont.

• Coverage of the PRA the PRA excludes the
  records associated with teaching and learning and
  research and what this meant needed clarification
• Definition of what a subsidiary was added
  complexity to the process...
• Most Universities have national and international
  strategic partnerships involving a variety of
  contract arrangements

12
Communications and Buy-in

• PRAW members had to obtain buy-in for the
  development of the GDA from Vice-Chancellors and
  senior management
• Compliance only projects do not engage or enthuse
  difficult to get hard data on the cost-benefits
  of RM
• Most universities set up an internal
  cross-functional working group to oversee the
  project at an institutional level

13
Project plan for Communications

• PRAW members were the champions and first point
  of contact
• Workshops and one-on-one interviews with senior
  staff were conducted by SWIM consultants
• Important that the strategy was flexible but
  the message was the same
• Suggested wording prepared for university
  intranet sites, and communications to staff

14
Project Team Communications

• Met regularly, meetings had to be useful
• Built trust
• No surprises!
• No secrets (e.g. discussed openly how to manage
  known challenging people-the saboteurs)
• Risk and issues had to be identified and managed
• All members were wearing multiple hats! (e.g.
  representing PRAW, a university and a functional
  area)

15
Workshops and interviews

• Each university was visited for 2 days by the
  consultants for workshops and interviews
• PRAW members arranged the workshops, introduced
  sessions and attended most of them this meant
  they had to have a good understanding of the
  whole university but it built internal ownership.
  
• SWIM consultants ran the workshops, conducted
  the interviews and provided the base
  documentation for the GDA

16
Workshops and interviews cont.

• Participants were from all aspects of the
  university system administration and academic
  (cross-functional)
• In addition to the workshops influential
  individuals were identified at each university
  and interviewed separately about the GDA by the
  consultants

17
Consultation process

• The process for review of the GDA was very much
  one of continued consultation and feedback
• A draft of the GDA was handed out at workshops
  and interviews, and participants were encouraged
  to share it with colleagues
• Participants commented on the draft directly to
  SWIM consultants (normally on the area they
  worked in)

18
Consultation process cont.

• Second versions of draft was sent to all workshop
  participants who were (again) encouraged to
  share it.
• External key stakeholders were notified and
  invited to participate, and were notified when
  the GDA was released for public comment by
  Archives NZ

19
Approval process

• Sign off internally (by all universities)
• PRAW members approved the final version of the
  GDA
• Following review by Archives NZ staff, they met
  with SWIM representatives and the project team
  overseeing the GDA development project to clarify
  the final few issues
• Normal Archives NZ process followed

20
The Positives

• The GDA was developed and approved, nearly within
  budget (the increase in the budget was due to the
  number of comments made on the draft GDA by
  university staff!)
• A closer relationship was developed with Archives
  NZ
• Archives NZ were kept informed throughout the
  process, but where not included formally
• Archives NZ staff were called upon early in the
  process for clarification on a number of issues
  (e.g. definitions around research, teaching and
  learning, and what exactly is a subsidiary)

21
The Positives cont.

• Increased awareness of records management
• Beginning of a willingness to implement records
  management principles
• Within 8 months of approval of the GDA there were
  7 appointments of records managers at
  universities
• The GDA is being implemented!

22
Implementation

• Universities are at the start of the journey and
  all are at various stages of implementation
• There has been to date one record type that was
  given an unworkable retention period and a small
  number of minor changes have been identified
• PRAW continues as an NZVCC group to support
  implementation.

23
Implementation cont.

• The current terms of reference for PRAW is to
  facilitate collaborative projects, providing cost
  benefits to all 8 universities
• To provide advice to Vice-Chancellors Committee
  on strategic and operational implementation
• It remains a cross functional group and records
  management expertise has now been included

24
And that is Another Story

• Thank you for your time
• Questions?