Records management as invisible work: a study of Finnish municipalities

1 Records management as invisible work: a study of Finnish municipalities Authors: Tuija Kautto (first author), Doctoral Student Tampere University, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication, [email protected] Pekka Henttonen, Associate Professor Tampere University, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication, [email protected] Keywords: e-government, invisible work, mixed methods approach, municipal organization, records management, records management professional. Declarations of interest: none. This is the accepted manuscript of the article, which has been published in Government Information Quarterly, 2020, 37(4), 101460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101460 2 Abstract Records are strategic tools in e-government in the communication between public organizations and citizens and in promoting trust between these two actors. Records management professionals (in short, RM professionals) are responsible for organizations’ daily records management practices. Rapid technological development has changed the status of RM professionals and put them in the background while other groups such as ITprofessionals have gained prominence. This study examined visibility of records management work and RM professionals in Finnish municipal organizations. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. The theoretical framework of invisible work was tool in analysis. The findings show that records management and RM professionals in Finnish municipalities are invisible when looked through the factors that previous studies have shown to be related invisible work. RM profession in Finnish municipal organizations is strongly fragmented and gendered and the work is done in informal structures sometimes by temporary personnel. The connection of these factors to invisible work and especially their implications to public sector organizations’ records management have not gain much attention in earlier research. Therefore, in order to promote trustful e-government more future studies that examine the visibility of the records management work and RM professionals in different public sector organizations are needed. Introduction Digitalization and development of e-government have introduced us different movements, such as big data, open government data and public sector information (PSI). The ideas behind these movements are that both public and private sector can access, distribute and reuse the PSI in new ways that makes possible to create innovative and efficient services and promote citizens’ democratic participation. (Svärd 2018, 3.) It is argued that the need for public to 3 have more broaden access to PSI is expected to increase (Klareld 2017, 79). Records management is a key factor in promoting the initiatives of open, transparent and trustful egovernment (Mat Isa 2009; Voutilainen 2007; Klareld 2017, 78). Records and publicity of records are central tools in monitoring the openness of a public organization through Freedom of Information (FOI) laws (Erkkilä 2012) and in preventing corruption. Public organizations are also obliged to make sure that sensitive information and privacy issues are protected carefully (Kallberg 2013; Klareld 2017, 78). There are differences between public organizations in the emphasis on how sensitive or public their records are. For example, the records that are created in municipal decision-making are most often public and anyone can request this information, while the records in healthcare are related to a certain person and therefore under strict control and privacy. It is argued that a trustful public organization is a one that values both FOI and privacy, and balances the tensions between these two in records management practices (Kautto and Henttonen 2017). This makes records management strategic and explains why it should be a part of organization’s daily routines and practices (Hase and Galt 2011, 38). New technologies enable using information for multiple purposes. At the same time, changes in technology, societal values or work processes, they all affect how records are produced and managed (Klareld 2017, 78–79). This requires that organizations have deep understanding of different processes and concepts (Valtonen 2005, 67–68). In the e-government context, however, there are unclarities that relate to core concepts and common understanding. Questions like what is a record, what is meant by creation or receipt of a record, what is an archive, how records should be appraised, what records should be preserved long-term and how the mandates and responsibilities should be organized between public organizations and archival institutions, are looking for answers. Without common understanding and clearly defined responsibilities, different actors develop information systems separately and records 4 management is handled improperly with poor or incompetent resources. This risks formation of records and archives, and e-government development and its ambitious goals that are built on trustworthy records. (Klareld 2017, 80–82; Klett 2019.) Due to the complex nature of e-government, and finding the balance between multiple ideals, the attention has to turn to the legal, technical and social perspectives (Klareld 2017, 78–79). Organizations need specialized knowledge to solve these challenges. Records management professionals (in short, RM professionals)—which in Finland and in Sweden include also registrars and archivists having records management tasks—are a crucial professional group among other information professionals, (such as librarians, information managers, data managers, information system designers) in this e-government-puzzle. RM professionals have skills to carry out records policies and procedures that help organizations to achieve compliance, for example. RM professionals, having also domain skills, can negotiate with others or consult co-workers with questions that relate to digital recordkeeping practices. (Buchanan et al. 2017, 2–18.) Fragmentary information and technological changes together have fragmented, shaped and expanded different information professions into new forms. The fragmentation has also happened within single professions. (Upward et al. 2018, 243.) Though records management and RM professionals are found to be important for e-government development, records management is also being questioned by stating that it is no more able to give answers to current e-government challenges by traditional archival and records management methods of paper records (Brooks 2019; Foscarini 2010). Some have argued that records management as an organizational function is at a turning point or a crossroad (Harries 2012; Kallberg 2012; Lappin 2010; Palmer 2009). Further, some researchers have seen that RM professionals are in a professional crisis that makes it imperative that they link themselves more tightly with other 5 information management and IT professionals (Harries 2012) under the umbrella of a wider information sphere, information governance (IG) (Brooks 2019). There are perspectives that see IG strengthening and adding value to records management while some see that it is only a question of rebranding records management as IG is built on the fundamental principles of records management (Brooks 2019). There are also signs that RM professionals and records management functions are invisible and other professional groups are increasingly taking care of organizations’ records without the appropriate competence with records (Ismail and Jamaludin 2011). Would we accept that any person could do the work of police officers or doctors? Probably not. Why would organizations be ready to take risks and allow this happen when it is a question of records management? Or is there a risk at all? The world around records management has become fuzzy. As records are a vital communication tool between citizens and municipal organizations, and e-government development needs trustworthy records for its development it is important to look inside the black box where the records management practices happen. This study aims to provide information that could help in understanding the complex e-government phenomenon by examining whether records management is invisible within Finnish municipal organizations. The study focuses on the factors and reasons behind the possible invisibility of records management and then discusses the possible consequences the invisibility may cause in relation to e-government development. The data consist of RM professionals’ interviews and a questionnaire. Finland takes actively part in the works of international organizations and key partners that promote e-government development (EU, OECD, UN etc.). From year to year, Finland has been ranked among top ten countries in different international comparisons and surveys that relate to ICT, digital economy and society or e-government. (“EGovernment Benchmark 6 2019”) From this perspective, Finnish municipalities offer an interesting context for the study. Previous studies E-government studies and workplace studies have shown little interest in records management. ICT studies have touched some topics that are close to records management, i.e. privacy issues, however, not including a holistic view on recordkeeping (Kallberg 2013, 121). Tradition of records management research is short. Since 1990s’ studies have focused mainly in electronic document and records management (EDRM) systems, archiving or longterm preservation perspectives. Several studies have reported problems in usability and uptake of these systems. Because fulfilling recordkeeping requirements may seem arcane and bureaucratic to users, attention has turned toward making sure that these requirements are performed invisibly, behind the scenes. (Oliver 2017.) Organizations have also replaced EDRM systems by other business systems, for example Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems, to manage information (Kallberg 2013, 119; Svärd 2011, 61). Naturally, this does not add the visibility of records management to organizations. There are several studies about records management profession and records management practices in organizations. The studies (among others, Barata 2004; Ismail and Jamaludin 2011; Kallberg 2013; McLeod, Childs, and Hardiman 2010; Mäkinen 2013; Oliver, Chawner, and Liu 2011; Oliver and Foscarini 2014; Runardotter 2007; Shepherd, Stevenson, and Flinn 2009; Valtonen 2005; Brooks 2019) show that technology has changed the way public sector organizations use information and that information is valued differently than before. There are also great hopes that technology can solve complex issues around records. However, the studies show that top management and other professional groups are not aware of the 7 demands that RM professionals meet in their daily practices or the core of the records management work that is in making sure that the accountability, transparency and the evidentiary value of the records are secured. The consequence of not knowing is that existence of records managers and archivists is recognized in case of paper documents, but not always when digital information is in question. The fact that RM professionals are not acknowledged is shown in poor resourcing of records management and in how the work in records management is increasingly given to other professionals. According to Svärd (2018, 14) the lack of resources may also be consequence of different budgetary capacities between big and small municipalities. This affect how the municipalities success to implement PSI and further, how they manage to provide an access to PSI for their citizens. This may lead citizens in unequal positions depending on where they happen to live. Ignoring RM professionals can also lead to situations where records are not recognized and captured at the first place, they are handled against the legislation and they are deleted or destroyed without proper plans. This can cause economical costs, juridical implications, limit and violate of citizens’ democratic rights when they do not have access to records, cause loss of trust between citizens and public organizations, and damage historical or cultural heritage. RM professionals having an important role not only for organizations but broader in society, therefore, there is a need for research that examine what is meant by records management at present, what records managers actually do at work, what skills are needed and how the education of RM professionals should be developed (Buchanan et al. 2017, 3; Svärd 2011, 61). So far there have been few studies about Finnish records and archives management (Henttonen 2007; Mäkinen 2013; Mäkinen and Henttonen 2011; Packalén 2017; Peltola 2015; Valtonen 2005; 2007). Although some of the studies touch the topic of daily records management in organizations, they do not examine its organizational visibility. Kautto and 8 Henttonen (2017) examined the availability and findability of FOI and privacy statements on Finnish municipalities’ websites. The study showed that the statements were hard to find on websites. This suggest that at least some principles of good records management are hidden from the citizens in practice. Reasons for this are unclear. Size of the municipal organization and visibility of its records management principles do not seem to have a relation. However, one explanation might be that issues in records management are not explicated to outsiders because they are not recognized inside the organization in the first place. Invisibility of work is not a new subject in the academic research. In the field of workplace studies, computersupported cooperative work (CSCW) studies and social science studies, invisible work gained attention already in the 1970s when it was called “shadow work” (Nardi and Engeström 1999; Star and Strauss 1999). The development of welfare technologies has increased interest in the invisible work of health, social and homecare professionals, i.e. physicians and nurses, while administrative and medical secretaries have often been left outside the studies (Ertner 2019; Kamp, Obstfelder, and Andersson 2019; Bossen, Jensen, and Udsen 2014). Despite of the benefits that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has brought in healthcare, studies have proved that ICT can also cause some unintended consequences (UAC) for hospital staff such as loss in efficiency, extra effort to carry out routine tasks and new work tasks. Diane Golay (2019) presented in her study four time burden factors that are invisible from management and developers but affect nurses’ daily work. They are: 1) lack of a holistic perspective (the work includes several activities in several instances), 2) the hidden cost of a single click (some tasks require that nurse may have to go to a certain room and log into the system), 3) the invisibility of nursing work (direct patient care and documentation are required simultaneously), and 4) visible data, invisible work (managers see only what has been documented in the system, not how it has been done nor has something left not to be 9 done when doing the documentation). Golay argues that the existing research on the impacts of ICT is quantitative why qualitative, exploratory studies are needed. (Golay 2019, 6, 24– 26.) Bossen et al. (2014) studied the work of medical secretaries after electronic health record system (EHR) implementation at two Danish hospital departments. They found that the work of medical secretaries was more complicated and time-consuming after the EHR implementation. However, they could not argue that the new additional tasks had caused an increased workload when new tasks came up and some tasks did not exist anymore. The study showed that medical secretaries’ work included many tasks that were more than just to support physicians and nurses: information gatekeeping and articulation work, i.e. making sure that the diagnoses, codes, dictates or the information that nurses entered in the EHR was correct and up to date, and communication and coordinating with stuff, patients and relatives. The concept “boundary-object trimming” was presented to describe how the focus between various professionals’ work is different: the maintenance and optimization of EHR was a core of the work of medical secretaries whereas patients and their care, instead of EHR, was the core of the nurses’ work. The work of medical secretaries showed to be critical that means if the work is neglected it can cause breakdowns to hospitals’ other work arrangements. Therefore, invisible groups or professionals need more attention from researchers. Invisible work relates to questions of tacit and contextual knowledge, instrumental work contracts, informal social networks and relations (i.e. status contracts), power and social status, relation between worker and employer, expertise, temporary work and long-term teamwork and spatial issues (Bishop 1999; Star and Strauss 1999). When discussing invisibility Muller (1999) suggests asking to whom something is invisible, who is viewing and what is viewed. The nature of the work, visible or invisible, is crucial when creating new 16 matter. It may indicate how other professionals or especially top managers see RM professionals. Data collection and analysis The data was collected in two phases by interviews and a questionnaire survey. The mixed methods approach is a suitable method for describing and explaining a complex phenomenon (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). In this study the phenomenon is the invisibility of records management and RM professionals work. Table 1 shows the theoretical framework that was used as a tool in the analysis of results. Interviews The first author conducted four interviews between May and October 2015. The interviewees (A, B, C and D) were RM professionals who represented different municipal organizations, and they all had several years of work experience from municipal sector records management. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to keep the research problem in mind during the conversation. The interviewees had a possibility to express freely their work experiences and the challenges they meet at their daily work routines. The interviews were recorded after the interviewees had given their consent. The length of the interviews ranged between one to two hours. All interviews were transliterated within one week of the interview session. The interviews directed the formulation of the questionnaire. Questionnaire In the second phase, a questionnaire was sent to the municipal organizations’ RM professionals (n=54) who attended a course aimed at municipal registrars. A private company organized the course in August 2018 and the first author was one of the guest speakers. 17 The Survey Monkey questionnaire was formulated together with the organization that coordinated the course. However, the first author was responsible for the contents of the questionnaire questions. The respondents were informed that by answering to the questionnaire they give their consent to the use of their answers for the course and for this research. The questionnaire did not collect any personal details and the respondents answered anonymously. There were eleven questions in total and a feedback section in the questionnaire. Questions (Q) from 1 to 9 aimed to get information about RM professionals – who they are. These questions were related to the RM professionals’ educational and professional background, their current professional title and status and background information of the organization they worked within. Questions 10 and 11 focused on the challenges RM professionals faced within their work. All questions were not compulsory. Therefore, number of answers given varies from question to question. Data analysis Analysis was iterative. This means that the reading was conducted several times. Each reading session focused on a certain invisibility factor. The analysis paid attention to the nature of records management work practices and RM professionals to find out whether they contain elements of invisible work found in the previous research (see Table 1). After the analysis, the data was conflated to present the results. This was necessary to protect identity of some respondents who would have been recognizable from the data otherwise. Research findings Background of the respondents Altogether there were fifty-eight respondents. Fifty-one respondents came from municipal organizations and seven from other related organizations, such as federation of 18 municipalities, regional councils and Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Majority (55 %) of the respondents represented small municipalities with less than 10 000 inhabitants and 12 % big municipalities with over 50 000 inhabitants. The length of the 53 respondents’ (out of 58) current work experience varied: 43 % under one year or from one to five years, 28 % from five to ten years or from ten to twenty years, and finally 19 % over thirty years. Five respondents (out of 58) did not answer to this question. The study confirms that records management work conducted in Finnish municipalities is invisible inside of the organizations. Nine of ten invisibility factors presented in Table 1 were found in this study. Next, some examples of this are presented. The requirements and the importance of records management work are not known by managers or other professionals The study results that the records management work is invisible in municipal organizations. Managers and other professionals are not familiar with the requirements and the importance of records management work and therefore see it as routine. All four interviewees had experienced that records management is not known at the top management. “The total control of the records management seems to be in nobody’s hands and records management responsibilities are not always clearly defined. Records management is seldom included in organizations’ visions, strategies or risk plans” (Interviewee C). In case of reorganizing or outsourcing organizations’ functions or when updating the administrative rules records management is neglected (Interviewees C and D, Q11 respondents no 6 and 14). RM professionals are not automatically invited in edevelopment or IT-projects (Interviewees A, B, C and D). 19 The records management duties are delegated to a person who has no experience or appropriate education in this area. Sometimes it is even not clear who should appoint records professionals. For example, municipal manager had appointed the archive manager even though the law says that Municipal Executive Board should do this. In addition, when there is an archive manager, he/she is not necessarily working full time. The archives manager is often not a member of an organization’s top management group. (Interviewee C.) Within small municipalities, the responsibilities are sometimes left undefined (Interviewee B). In one case archives manager had left the organization and the duties were delegated as an additional work to an IT-designer (Q11 respondent no 13). In another case, a respondent had to take care of the municipal registrar office’s post including e-mail due to a long sickness-leave of the responsible registrar officer. This happened without any orientation. (Q11 respondent 9.) People do not tend to know what records are in e-context or how they should handle them in certain situations (Interviewee B). Even the closest colleagues and managers are not familiar with the requirements of RM professionals’ work or the practices their work include (Interviewees A, B, C, D). The following expressions describe the situation: “One has to make the records management work and practices visible by preaching and going time after time around in the organization from one administrative unit to another” (Interviewee A) and “One has to make constant noise about one’s work” (Interviewee D). The questionnaire respondents (7 out of 48) found it challenging that managers and other professionals are not familiar with the requirements of their work. Informal and unclear responsibilities (7 out of 17) were also mentioned as a challenge. All four interviewees argued that records management suffers from lack of resources, as the function is not well known in the management. However, there can be differences between big and small municipalities in how the resources are organized. (Interviewees A and B.) 20 Municipal organizations are decreasing the resources of records management simultaneously when the work is constantly facing new demands. Interviewee B found this to be caused by records management work is still invisible. (Interviewee B.) Poor resources were also mentioned as a challenge in the questionnaire (1 out of 17). The interviewees argued that although undone work is not seen immediately, it can have inevitable consequences later. RM professionals’ work includes—whether this is known by other professionals or not— elements of a consultant or an adviser, because RM professionals have to guide others in their work. RM professionals, both in the interviews and in the questionnaire, gave examples of requirements that are included in their work: wide expertise of legal issues when handling records, expertize of information retrieval, registering, archiving, internal organizational processes, and requests for information that citizens are entitled to do. This means that the RM professional is most often the first person that tries to solve a legal issue relating to records management. If the matter is complicated, then the RM professional next turns to the organizations’ lawyer (Interviewee D). Another example of required knowledge is how registrars have to know the organization well in order to deliver the information to right persons (Q11 respondent 3). The RM professionals in this study found it sometimes challenging to fulfill all the expectations and demands that they face in their work. “It feels like being in a fast moving train” (Interviewee D). Interviewee B had experienced a positive change when their IT-unit appointed a new manager. Unlike the previous manager in charge, this person was interested in records management issues. Communication between IT and RM professionals started to take tiny steps forward and records management issues started to become more visible. Therefore, it is argued in this study that the key persons have a big role in whether records management is well known and visible in an organization and whether the function is supported or not. 21 Invisible professionals (“non-persons”) take care of records management work behind the scenes in informal structures RM professionals are invisible in part because records management is strongly fragmented as a profession. The group of professionals is heterogeneous. The persons taking care of records management have various educational backgrounds, work experience, and job titles. The work is done behind the scenes, partly in informal structures, and sometimes by people who have only a temporary position in the organization. The work is gendered. Educational backgrounds are fragmented. Of the 58 respondents in this study 34 % had secondary education, 23 % bachelor’s degree, and 21 % master’s degree. 73 % of the respondents informed that their highest degree did not include any education in records management. However, twenty-six of the respondents informed that in addition to their highest degree they had completed lower or higher archival exams of National Archives. The job title does not directly tell what duties or tasks are included in RM responsibilities. For example, none of the questionnaire respondents informed to have the title of registrar even though taking care of the registry was usually part of the work. The word secretary occurred in some form in the questionnaire respondents’ job titles forty-six times out of 54 and once (out of 4) in the interviewees’ job titles. The most typical job title was office secretary. The work manager occurred in the questionnaire respondents’ job titles once (out of 54), and three times (out of 4) in the interviewees’ titles. All interviewees told that municipal organizations often have a net of recordkeeping contact persons inside the organization. The contact persons take care of archival or records management work in addition to their main tasks. The number of the contact persons may vary from tens to even some hundreds depending on the size of the organization. Usually recordkeeping contact persons are secretaries for a certain administrative area. Organizations 22 also use practitioners and people from employment subsidy procedures who do not have the knowledge of the substance or records management principles (Interviewee B). The problem for the recordkeeping contact persons is that they may have little time for archives or records management issues, for example, they work in records and archives management only one day per year or during holiday seasons (Interviewee D). All interviewees shared the idea that records management belongs to everyone in the organization however, the responsibilities and the duties should be more clearly defined. RM professionals experience that they and their work are not valued Interviewee A expressed: “Records management is seen as “a necessary evil”. It is a common misconception that RM professionals “love” paper, that they want to preserve everything and that they work only with paper processes. (Interviewee A.) All interviewees argued that they could create e-processes together with other professionals and find solutions that would help others in their work when handling records. RM professionals must justify value of their work time after time. That is not the case with other professionals like accountants. (Interviewee A.) The value of records management and RM professionals seems to rise temporarily when there is a need for “a cleaner” (Interviewee A) or has happened something that has led to legal consequences (Interviewees B, C and D). Most of the time the existence of RM professionals is forgotten and they are left outside of the projects (mentioned by all interviewees). The lack of appreciation of records management work was mentioned as a challenge (Q11 respondent 4). “It feels like records management is in practice change management done by a wage of a facility technician” said one respondent (Q11 respondent 12). RM professionals had experienced negative attitudes, bad behavior and lack of respect. A colleague had shouted from the office door holding garbage bags in hands: “Look at me! I am 23 archiving!” RM professional felt this behavior was insulting both for the profession and for his / her personally (Interviewee C). Records management work is invisible because of the RM professionals’ failure to communicate the meaning of their work with other professionals Sometimes RM professional has the full mandate and responsibilities to handle the organization’s records management but not the courage to use the power. This had happened to Interviewee B who had realized how to use the power only after many years of working and after records management education. All interviewees argued that RM professionals themselves could partly affect the visibility of records management. One must understand theories and different concepts in order to see “the big picture” and to be able to discuss different topics related to information management. One must be pro-active. This means that you must make instructions and guidelines yourself instead of waiting someone else to do this. One should recognize own strengths and weaknesses and be ready for lifetime education. One should believe in him/herself and give the value to own work and the profession. One should show interest in developing one’s own work. All four interviewee shared the idea that RM professionals’ orientation and interest in records management can make their work more visible. However, this is not straightforward. Sometime, especially with long careers, it is typical that the profession and the person intertwine. This may have both positive and negative effects on the profession in the eyes of the other professionals. (Interviewee A.) Interviewee C argued that RM professionals should look at the mirror from time to time and think about the role that they could be satisfied with. It important that RM professionals take care of their professional capabilities, learning and work development. Otherwise, there is a 24 risk for a professional marginalization. In addition, one should co-operate with other professionals instead of being afraid of the own position in the organization. (Interviewee C.) Discussion The study shows that records management is invisible in municipal organizations. Managers and other professionals are not aware of the work, its requirements and importance. RM professionals in this study argued that their work includes problem solving and has elements of knowledge work, and that the work requires wide expertise. Records management work in municipal organizations was not well resourced and the responsibilities were not clearly defined. The work was delegated to persons who were not qualified for planning records management. As records management was associated mostly with paper processes RM professionals were easily left out from IT-projects and e-development. These findings are in line with previous studies that have suggested that records management and RM professionals are invisible (Barata 2004; Ismail and Jamaludin 2011; Kallberg 2013; McLeod, Childs, and Hardiman 2010; Mäkinen 2013; Oliver, Chawner, and Liu 2011; Oliver and Foscarini 2014; Runardotter 2007; Shepherd, Stevenson, and Flinn 2009; Valtonen 2005). The findings of the study confirm that the work is invisible when it is seen as routine and this is again line with previous findings from Blomberg et al, 1996; Bossen et al, 2014; Karlsson, 2011; Muller, 1999; Nardi & Engeström, 1999 and Star & Strauss, 1999. The study suggests that the RM professionals are invisible because records management work is strongly fragmented. Although professionals may seem as one group it includes people with different educational backgrounds, work experience, and job titles. The most numerous group in this study were secretaries who did their work behind the scenes. In the statistics of the Statistics in Finland secretaries are classified as “Clerical support workers”, not as “Professionals” or “Associate professionals”. Kallberg (2013, 43) notes that glossaries may 25 indicate how professions are defined within different contexts as well as how they are defined and seen by public organizations. This is true also for classifications of professions. Majority of all the workers in the group of RM professionals are women. This suggests that the profession is gendered. These results came us a surprise. Fragmentation and classification of the profession and its gender division have not drawn attention before. The study also suggests that much of the work is done behind the scenes, partly in informal structures, like the previous studies argue. Municipal organizations had used informal structures and invisible people as an additional resource for records management: i.e. recordkeeping networks, practitioners with temporary positions and people from employment subsidy procedures. RM professionals found this problematic and challenging. These results are again in line with previous findings: the work is invisible when it is done by “non-persons”, the work is done behind the scenes, the work is informal and informally structured and the work is gendered (Bishop 1999; Bossen et al., 2014 (cites among others Barley, 1996;); Ehrlich & Cash, 1999; Ertner, 2019; Kamp et al, 2019; Karlsson, 2011; Muller 1999; Nardi & Engeström 1999; Star & Strauss, 1999; Karlsson, 2011; Nardi & Engeström, 1999; Star & Strauss, 1999; Westerberg, 1999; Muller 1999). The results also suggest that the value of records management work is not acknowledged in municipal organizations. Most of the time records management and RM professionals are forgotten and RM professionals are seen only as handlers of paper processes. Their value rises temporarily when something bad happens. RM professionals must constantly justify their work and existence. The results are in line with previous findings: the work done by others is less valued (Forsythe, 1999 and Nardi & Engeström, 1999), and the better work is done the less it is visible for those who benefit from it (Suchman, 1995).