registry: The world's most predominant recordkeeping sys, The

It is impossible to understand the international dimensions of records management without understanding registry filing systems. In previous columns, we have discussed this type of filing system, but our discussion has been in the context of how registries are implemented in a particular country. Since registry filing systems are virtually unknown in the United States, we will describe their essential characteristics for our American readers, and indicate how they differ from the filing systems we have here in the U.S.

The title of this article labels the registry filing system as the world's most predominant recordkeeping system. Indeed it is. Registry filing systems had their origins in Ancient Rome, and were developed in their modern form in Germany and England several hundred years ago. It was the British, however, who spread registry filing systems throughout the world. As we shall see, the British implemented registry filing systems in the offices of their colonial secretaries in colonies throughout their worldwide empire. Today registry-type filing systems are used as the basic system of active recordkeeping throughout much of Europe, Africa, Asia and the South Pacific.

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS

The most essential, distinguishing feature of registry filing systems is that they use registers--books, cards or other media--to list the receipt and movement of the records of an organization while they are in current use. These registers or journals are a type of index to the records, and they serve as the basis for document control in registry filing systems. These filing systems attempt to establish control over records at the time of their creation and receipt, before they have been processed or acted upon by the person responsible for handling a particular matter. Most registry filing systems represent a highly centralized approach to active recordkeeping, in which one central registry office serves as the central recordkeeping repository for an entire organization. Further, document indexing or registration is often accomplished at the individual document level in registry filing systems. The records series concept, which is the basic level of record control in U.S. filing systems, is either non-existent or it plays a secondary role in records control in registry filing systems.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Registry filing systems, perhaps the earliest known systems for keeping paper-based records in an established order, had their beginnings in Ancient Rome. Roman magistrates kept private notes, called commentarii, which were consolidated into daily court journals, or commentarii diarni. The entries in these journals were made in chronological order for all incoming and outgoing documents, including minutes of judicial proceedings, evidence submitted by litigants, and other records. These journals constitute the earliest known registers--books for recording the existence of documents.

During the Middle Ages registry offices in something like their modern form came into being, when the chanceries or secretarial offices of royal households were established to handle the documentary work of European kingdoms. The early, primitive registries consisted of keeping documents in two separate groups or series: one for incoming papers and a separate one for outgoing documents. The essential feature of the system was the register, in which entries were made of documents in the order in which they accumulated. Each entry for a document consisted of a number, which was consecutively assigned as the documents accumulated. These numbers were the key by which single documents in both the incoming and outgoing series were controlled. They provided a means of reference to the writers and subjects of the documents in that references to persons and subjects were keyed to them. And they indicated the order in which the documents were filed--their physical location within the filing system.

As long as the quantity and subject coverage of the documents filed in registry offices remained small, segregation of them into incoming and outgoing series (without regard to their subject content or the relationship between incoming and outgoing papers) was relatively manageable. However, when the volume of documents began to grow and the subject matter increased in complexity, it became apparent that this two-series segregation was unworkable. Thus, during the 17th through the 19th centuries, European registries gradually abandoned two-series document segregation in favor of a system whereby the incoming and outgoing documents were integrated based on their type. Case files--the papers pertaining to a particular case or matter--were established as a common type of file in registry offices, as were subject files--those pertaining to a particular subject or topic. However, all individual documents created or received by an organization continued to be registered in the registry books.

REGISTRY SYSTEMS IN GERMANY

The modern history of registries in Germany begins in the 17th century. In 1678, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was appointed as general archivist of the principality of Brunswick-Lunenburg, and soon thereafter he suggested a general classification system for the registration of documents. The system was based on a logical scheme of subject-based categories organized in a hierarchy of major and subordinate topics, very similar to those in common usage today. Thus, the Germans are credited with adding the principles of subject-based files classification to document registration systems; Leibniz's basic approach has developed into a common feature of registry filing systems over the past three centuries.

In German ministries of government, there is usually one registry for each division of a ministry. These registry offices receive the divisional mail from a central postal office and register each piece, which is then routed to the proper officials with all pertinent attachments for action. Upon its return, the piece is classified according to the standard registry classification scheme. The registers themselves consist of ledger-type bound books or card files containing the entries for individual documents in consecutive numerical order. The files are physically arranged in accordance with the subject headings in the classification scheme, and sometimes separate indexes by person and by subject are kept, as well as inventories of all documents controlled by the system. The files themselves are housed in binders in filing cabinets. In the present-day German files classification schemes, a four-level/digit hierarchical system is typically used: the primary subjects at the top of the hierarchy designate the main functions or activities of an organization, as denoted by the first digit; the secondary and tertiary categories are denoted by the second and third digits; and the individual files units are denoted by the fourth digit.

ENGLISH REGISTRY SYSTEMS

As early as the 13th century, England had a formal system for registering government documents by recording each incoming and outgoing document in a daybook or register. English registries had one special feature that has sometimes been emulated in other registry offices in Europe and throughout the world: the act of registering a document constituted legal evidence of its authenticity. Otherwise, the basic functions of English registry offices were very similar to those previously described.

Like their counterparts in Germany, English registry offices are generally decentralized on a divisional basis. There are departmental registries in every department of the civil service in the United Kingdom; one department is reported to have 800 registry offices, but most have 200 or less. Each department in the British civil service has discretionary authority to define its own registries, from a completely decentralized approach in which all file stations are designated as registries, to a highly centralized one in which one large centralized registry serves an entire organization.

In British registry offices, the practice of segregating files by type into case files and subject files is particularly popular; some offices do not have standard classification schemes that are as well developed as those in Germany. One further difference: In British registry offices, documents are usually classified before they are routed to the action offices, whereas in Germany document classification usually occurs upon return of the piece after it has been handled by the action office.

As has occurred in many countries, in the United Kingdom the practice of registering every individual document has largely disappeared.

REGISTRIES SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

In previous columns, we have noted that registry filing systems exist in the republics of the former Soviet Union, in Norway, Italy and throughout Europe. It is the British, however, who deserve the major credit for spreading registry filing systems throughout the world--to the many countries that were once a part of the British Empire.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, the British Colonial Office prescribed standard registry filing practices for the colonial secretaries in their colonies throughout the British Empire. Thus, the filing systems of approximately 70 to 80 nations that were once a part of the British Empire were modeled after English registry systems, or at least were influenced to some extent by them. Those countries include most of East, Southern and part of West Africa, the countries of the English-speaking Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, and parts of Southeast Asia, and the large and important countries of the South Pacific, e.g., Australia and New Zealand.

Registry filing systems were used to some degree in the American colonies when they were under British rule, and in the United States throughout much of the 19th century, but they were finally abandoned in the U.S. government in 1912, when a government commission recommended that federal agencies cease the practice of making book or card registers for incoming or outgoing correspondence.

REGISTRIES FROM A NORTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

From the perspective of records management as it is practiced here in North America, registry filing systems have several problematic features in managing active records in an efficient manner. This perspective was articulated most graphically by Anne Morddel in an article in the Records Management Quarterly entitled "Forget Philosophy, Torch the Registry." Morddel wrote that "I have seen dozens of registries, in the British government, in the governments of ex-colonies, in British and Continental businesses, and I have never seen one that works. Not one was able to cope with the amount of paper files it stored, to have a satisfactory filing system for storing them, or to provide an acceptable level of service to users."

This indictment of registry filing systems is, perhaps, a bit harsh; nevertheless it deserves serious analysis. If registries really "don't work," there must be reasons why this is so. And, more to the point, what should be done about the situation. Therefore, I offer the following observations concerning registry filing systems as seen through the prism of U.S.-style records management practice:

(1) Registration at the Individual Document Level.

Most types of common office documents (including nearly all subject files and most case files) do not need to be indexed at the individual document level. In North America, most recordkeeping systems are not controlled below the records series or file folder levels, which is usually sufficient to permit efficient retrieval. Thus, from a North American perspective, registration at the individual document level constitutes "over-control"; the labor expended to do this would be better spent on other records management tasks.

(2) Registration of Documents Prior to Being Routed to the Action Offices.

In North America, most managers and executives want their mail delivered to them immediately; they would seldom if ever tolerate delays due to the mail pieces being opened, registered and classified prior to being routed to them. Thus, such a practice would usually be considered to be unworkable.

(3) Highly Centralized Registries Serving a Large Organization.

In large organizations comprised of many departments and sections and having very diverse filing requirements, a strongly centralized approach to document management is usually dysfunctional for a variety of reasons. Users of records are generally very skeptical of active documents being located any appreciable distance from them; they usually desire the files to be in close proximity so that "fingertip access" is the norm. Unless the registry is capable of providing accurate and timely retrieval to almost all user requests, confidence in the system will inevitably deteriorate. Then, the users will invariably make copies of the files they need and retain them at their workstations. Unless a central registry can operate consistently at peak performance, it will soon be undermined by the very users it exists to serve.

In summary, registry filing systems are often rather cumbersome in their operation. However, the foregoing is not meant to be a wholesale or one-sided criticism of these systems. Registries are often managed in ways that are worthy of emulation in the United States or anywhere else. The classification schemes are often carefully and extremely developed, and a high degree of discipline is frequently applied to the system by those who operate and use it. These are aspects of system design and implementation that are noticeably lacking in many, perhaps most, filing systems in this country.

REGISTRY AUTOMATION

As might be expected, one of the major strategies for upgrading registry offices is to apply computer automation to them. While a number of PC-based records management software programs are commercially available that are specifically tailored to registry filing systems (most of these systems are sold in Australia, Canada, and the U.K.), it is important to remember that computer automation is rarely successful unless the manual systems are streamlined before attempting to implement an automated solution.

REFERENCES

Elizabeth Brachmann-Teubner. "Case Study: State Archive Administration of the German Democratic Republic." In: Proceedings of the European Archival Conference on the Creation and Organization of Contemporary Records. Paris: International Council on Archives. 1985. Microfiche Supplement. pp. 191-195.

Siegfried Buttner. Ibid. pp. 13-35.

Anne Morddel. "A New Government Records Management Program." Records Management Quarterly. October, 1986. pp. 40-42.

Anne Morddel. "Forget Philosophy, Torch the Registry." Records Management Quarterly. April, 1989. pp. 52-54.

Ira A. Penn, Anne Morddel, Gail Pennix and Kelvin Smith. Records Management Handbook. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company. 1989. pp. 127-135.

T.R. Schellenberg. Chapter 8, Registry Systems. In: Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1956. pp. 65-77.

Copyright Association of Records Managers and Administrators Inc. Jan 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved