Records management in the United Kingdom: Part III--English registry filing systems

In his famous book Spy Catcher:

The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer, Peter Wright describes the inner workings of the British Secret Service in the post World War II era-the famous bureaucracy for which the mythical James Bond worked during the height of the Cold War. This book is about the espionage activities of the M15 spy agency (its code name), but in several fascinating passages, Peter Wright describes a matter of professional concern to us as records managers: the Centralized Registry of M15:

"The nerve center of M15 was the Registry. It spread across the whole ground floor of Leconfield House ... The Registry was based in a central hall, which housed the main file index and the files themselves. The rooms leading off from the central concourse held the other specialist card indexes. Duplicate copies of all files and indexes were routinely made on microfilm, and stored in a specially protected M15 warehouse in Cheltenham [to safeguard against disasters]. The Registry always fascinated me ... The whole system depended on accurate and disciplined classification. Each case file read chronologically, with papers and attachments on the right and the index and case minutes on the left. There were four basic categories in the Registry. The first category was the Personal Files, which were buff colored files arranged in alphabetical order. There were about two million of these when I joined the Service in 1955 ... Then there were the Subject Files, or organizational files, such as for the Communist Party in Great Britain. Subject files very often ran into several volumes and were elaborately crossreferenced with the Personal Files. Then there were the duck-egg-blue List Files. These generally comprised material gathered during a particular case which could not easily be placed within either of the two previous categories. Finally, there were the Y-boxes. These were a means of separating particularly sensitive files from general access. For instance, all suspected spies were Y-Boxed, as were most defectors.

"Files were located by using the card indexes. Potter [the Chief Registry Officer] had devised a system of mechanically searching these indexes. Each card was classified with a series of punched holes to identify the category of files to which it belonged. To search a category of files, for instance to find a Russian intelligence officer using several aliases, an officer drew a master card corresponding to that category. Long needles were placed through the holes in the master card to locate any other cards which fitted the same classification. These could then be searched by hand. It was old fashioned, but it worked, and it meant that M15 resisted the change to computerization long after it should have happened."

As we shall see, M15's operation of its central registry was typical of a large ministry of the national government in Britain during the years following World War II.

In previous columns, we have devoted considerable attention to registry filing systems because an understanding of them is essential if records managers are to understand the international dimensions of their profession. In this column we will complete our serial on records management in the United Kingdom by describing the features of registry filing systems that are particular to the United Kingdom.

A BRIEF HISTORY

The origins of English registry filing systems can be traced to the 13th century, when England had a formal system for "registering" government documents by recording each incoming and outgoing document in a daybook or register.

As they evolved over the centuries, the terms "registry," "register" and "registration" carry closely related but distinctive meanings as applied to English registry filing systems. The registry generally refers to the physical place of document maintenance-the central file room. The noun register usually refers to a book where documents were indexed or recorded. The verb to register refers to the act of placing a registered document on file; in Britain the act of registration of a document constituted legal evidence of its authenticity and status as an official record, in addition simply to placing a document in the files. Except in a few specialized recordkeeping situations, the latter concept is generally unknown in American recordkeeping environments.

During the early l9th century, registry officers in British ministries of government were advised of the importance of their work.

"The recording of documents is one of the most important features of the domestic economy of any office. Unless the records are efficient, the office machinery cannot run smoothly, the treatment of all business will be delayed, and the time of all officials, from the highest to the lowest, wasted, while wrong decisions will be given through the absence of essential information."

This commentary remains as valid today, with our large and complex recordkeeping systems here in North America, as it was in Britain almost two hundred years ago.

Other essential characteristics of English registry filing systems as they developed over time: these filing systems attempt to establish control over records at the time of their creation and receipt, before being routed to the proper action office for handling or reply. Moreover, in the old systems, document indexing or registration was accomplished at the individual document level. This practice is rare in North American filing systems and, as we shall see, has all but disappeared in British registries today.

ENGLISH REGISTRIES TODAY

The modern registry has the functions of opening, indexing and monitoring the movement of files; of providing for their security; and of retrieving files upon request of the users. The practice of complete registration of individual documents survives to some small extent, but most large registries in Britain today are concentrating their efforts on establishing control over records at the category or series level, just as we do here in North America. Even the name of the recordkeeping system is being changed in many British organizations today; more modern terms such as "Information Centre," or "Documentation Services," are gradually taking the place of the rather quaint term "registry."

In the British government today, each department or ministry makes its own arrangements for creating and maintaining its own active records in registries, which exist in every department of the civil service within the United Kingdom. Within a ministry, the active records are normally the responsibility of a "chief registrar" or registry officer. Some departments operate centralized registries; others have decentralized registries serving individual divisions or branches. During the past thirty or so years, registries have become increasingly decentralized-one large department in the British government is reported to have over 800 separate registries, but most have 200 or fewer. In some departments, there is a separate registry for the minister's private office. In other departments, ministerial papers are filed in the main registry, along with the other departmental records.

BRITISH REGISTRY FILING SYSTEMS

The registration systems operated by agencies of the British national government are of two main types, both having features commonly employed in North American filing systems:

Hierarchical Registration Systems-In these registry systems, files are arranged in accordance with a subject classification scheme related to the arrangement of the mission and functions of the department, division or branch. This type of registry filing system is very similar to the "uniform files classification systems" commonly operated by organizations in both the public and private sectors in North America. Here, categories of related records (and/or the business functions reflecting them) are arranged in a hierarchical format from the most general to the most specific. This approach to recordkeeping was conceived in 17th Century Germany, and was adopted by the British and by countries throughout the world.

Thematic Registration Systems-In these types of English registry systems, subject terms, each having equal value with another, are selected, alone or in combination, to form a subject list to index individual files. The list of subject terms varies from registry to registry, reflecting the mission and functions of the organization. New terms may be added as required. Numeric codes are frequently assigned to the subject terms, in most registries the numeric coding scheme is composed of three parts: the first component indicates the owning department, the second indicates a subject, while the third indicates an accession number of the document or file.

Thus we see that both types of English registry filing systems exhibit characteristics similar to the uniform, subject-based classification systems, complete with a numeric coding scheme, that are so common here in North America.

COMPARISONS WITH AMERICAN FILING SYSTEMS

In the foregoing discussion, we have made numerous comparisons of English registry filing systems with those here in the U.S. So that our readers can have the best knowledge of how these two approaches to active recordkeeping compare, we will summarize the situation as follows:

Degree of Centralization In Active Recordkeeping Environments-Registry filing systems were "invented" centuries ago, when most organizations were relatively small and the quantity of records they maintained were minuscule by today's standards. Thus, they represented a highly centralized approach to recordkeeping. This basic approach continues today although, as we noted, registries have been gradually decentralizing during recent years. Whether in Britain, North America or elsewhere, centralized filing systems become very difficult to operate as they grow in size and complexity. This writer has devoted a significant part of his career to helping corporations and government agencies "fix" the problems associated with large, centralized recordkeeping systems. The basic issue is this: users of records systems have legitimate demands for "fingertip" access to the information they need to do their jobs. A centralized recordkeeping system operates contrary to this principle. In order for the system to enjoy a high degree of user confidence, it must perform extremely well. If it does not, the users will cease to use it, the integrity of system will be compromised, and failure is very likely if not inevitable. Thus, it is very difficult to operate a highly centralized filing system efficiently over a long period of time. Smaller filing systems are burdened with inefficiencies of their own, but this writer generally endorses a decentralized approach in most active recordkeeping environments.

Degree of Discipline Applied to the Recordkeeping System-This is one of the greatest strengths of registry filing systems as compared to those here in the States. In order for the registry filing system to function with any degree of efficiency, significant amounts of skilled labor and expertise must be deployed. This is, in my experience, the biggest single failure of American filing systems-they are not leveraged with the requisite degree of talent to enable them to perform at anything like the optimum level.

Control Over Records at the Most Appropriate Level of the System-We noted that the old method of indexing or registering individual documents has largely been abandoned in English registries, in favor of control over records at the category level-a practice similar to the situation here in the U.S., where the goal is to establish control at the records series or file folder level of most active recordkeeping systems. In the great majority of paper-based active recordkeeping systems, control at the series or folder levels is appropriate; control at the document level is neither necessary nor practical, particularly in large recordkeeping environments. On the other hand, in many automated environments (particularly with electronic imaging systems), control at the individual document level is required. American filing systems are frequently at a significant disadvantage when they are being converted to a nonpaper medium because of this characteristic. Thus, the "migration path" from paper to an alternative storage medium is likely to be smoother for many British registry filing systems.

Establishment of Control at the Time of Document Creation or Receipt-In many active recordkeeping environments, it is highly desirable to establish control over the records at the earliest possible moment in their life cycle-at the time of creation or receipt-before the documents are routed to the action office for reply or other handling. However, unless the documents are converted to a nonpaper medium immediately upon creation or receipt, the performance of the system will usually be insufficient to engender a high degree of user satisfaction. In North America, most managers and executives want their documents delivered to them immediately; they would seldom if ever tolerate delays due to mail pieces being opened, classified and registered prior to being routed to them. Today's sophisticated workflow software products are designed to do this, but here the document processing occurs in an electronic recordkeeping environment. Of course, the same user resistance can occur in these systems, since the documents must still be "prepped," scanned and indexed during conversion to an electronic storage medium-a very timeintensive process. The old English registry filing systems were attempts to establish document workflow advantages in a paper-based environment. The probability of failure of such an approach is great.

CONCLUSION

English registry filing systems and their North American counterparts are much more alike than they are different. They each have their strengths and deficiencies, either in basic conceptual design, execution, or both. The purpose of this and all articles in "The World of Records Management" is not to make value judgments as to whether one country has "better" or "worse" recordkeeping systems or records management than another. Rather, our aim is to arrive at a common understanding as to the similarities and differences of diverse recordkeeping approaches, so that the strengths of all can be applied in any given records management situation.

REFERENCES

International Council on Archives. European Archival Conference on the Creation and Organization of Contemporary Records. (Microfiche of National System Descriptions: United Kingdom). Paris: International Council on Archives. 1985.

Anne Morddel. A New Government Records Management Programme." Records Management Quarterly. October, 1986.

Anne Morddel. "Forget Philosophy, Torch the Registry." Records Management Quarterly. April, 1989.

Anne Morddel. "Performance Not Improved." Records Management Quarterly. April, 1991.

David O. Stephens. "The Registry: The World"s Most Predominant Recordkeeping System." Records Management Quarterly. Jan., 1995.

Notes for the Use of Registry Branches. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London. 1919.

Peter Wright. Spy Catcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc. 1987.

Copyright Association of Records Managers and Administrators Inc. Apr 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved