Achieving optimal records management requires a hybrid approach, combining centralised records management for vital information and manage-in-place for general administrative records. Additionally, the Bearman model offers an important methodology for embedding records management into defined business processes where there are limited record types.

The centralised and Bearman models were rivals that emerged during the 1990s. The Duranti model, championed by Dr. Luciana Duranti of the University of British Columbia, involved moving records out of business applications into a centralised repository which has a structure/schema optimised for record-keeping.

Whereas the model developed by fellow Canadian archivist David Bearman involved intervening in business applications to ensure that their functionality and structure/schema are optimised for record-keeping. The manage-in-place model emerged in the last decade, spearheaded by technology companies such as Microsoft.

Using a combined, or hybrid, approach ensures critical records are securely stored and preserved with appropriate structure and context, while general records are efficiently managed within the systems where they are created. This article advocates for using a records management solution that supports all models of records management.

This article outlines when each model should be used, citing research, standards, case studies and practical experience to support the approach.

Key considerations for combining approaches

1. Academic research on record structures: Academic studies show that when the structure of records is important, such as in legal or compliance documents, a centralised model is preferred. “The in-place model involves acceptance of sub-optimal structure/schemas, so in circumstances where it is possible to optimise the efficiency of a structure/schema of a corporate records system, we should reject that model” (Lappin, Jackson, Matthews, et al., Archival Science, 2021).
2. Experience with context and record integrity: A key challenge with manage-in-place is ensuring the full context of records. When records are automatically identified and stored in multiple repositories (e.g., Outlook, Teams, OneDrive), it becomes difficult to determine which version is the authentic, accurate record. This fragmentation weakens the reliability of records, as they lose the context of the original transaction or activity they were created in.
3. Standards for contextual records management: Managing records in place often fails to maintain context, leading to incomplete or inaccurate records. Standards bodies, such as the Australian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative, have addressed this with specific principles: “Contextual relationships between records in Microsoft 365 must be maintained. Mechanisms must connect records and information relating to the same body of work, assign version controls, and connect records across systems” (Functional Requirements for Managing Records in M365, CAARA, 2021).
4. Hidden costs of manage-in-place: While manage-in-place may seem efficient, it can have significant hidden costs. Practitioners, including Bill Tolson (Archive360), identify the following:
   1. Storage costs: Content remains in high-cost storage even after becoming inactive.
   2. FOI/discovery costs: Multiple repositories lead to higher costs when responding to Freedom of Information or legal discovery requests, as there are many copies and versions to review.
   3. Audit costs: Auditors must access multiple repositories to find relevant content, increasing time and costs.
   4. Security costs: Each repository requires its own security and privacy controls, including encryption, which complicates and increases costs while limiting search capabilities.

Centralised records management: when to use it

Centralised records management should be applied to vital records where structure, security, compliance, and long-term preservation are paramount. By centralising these records in a dedicated system, organisations ensure consistency in classification, retention, legal compliance, and long-term preservation while also improving the accuracy of AI-driven insights.

Use for:

1. Legal & compliance documents: Contracts, court rulings, intellectual property records, and regulatory filings. Why? Academic research concludes the use of centralised systems is critical when the structure of records is crucial, as in legal and compliance documents.
2. Financial records: Financial statements, tax records, audit reports, and budget documents. Why? Centralising financial records provides a secure environment for compliance and auditing and ensures structured data is available for AI analysis and insights.
3. Human resources (HR) records: Employee contracts, performance reviews, and payroll data. HR records are subject to privacy laws and regulations, requiring centralised control to ensure compliance with standards such as the Australian Privacy Principles.
4. Client or project records: Client communications, project deliverables, and finalised reports. Vital client or project records need to be centrally managed to maintain context and track versions accurately, ensuring authenticity and reliability.
5. Strategic business data: Business plans, mergers, acquisitions, and intellectual property. Strategic data is vital for decision-making and long-term preservation, requiring secure centralisation.

Manage-in-place: when to use it

Manage-in-place works best for general administrative records that are frequently updated, referenced, and do not require high-level security or long-term retention. This approach leverages the systems employees already use, allowing them to manage documents within those platforms efficiently.

Use for:

1. Routine administrative documents: Meeting minutes, internal memos, and procedural guidelines. Why? These documents are operational and low-risk, so they don’t require the structure or long-term retention that vital records need.
2. Project collaboration files: Drafts, working documents, and team collaboration files in platforms like SharePoint or Microsoft Teams. Why? Teams need quick access to these files, and manage-in-place allows real-time collaboration within the systems where they are created.
3. Internal communications: Emails, chat messages, and informal notes. These communications are often low-risk and temporary, making manage-in-place more efficient for their short-term use.
4. Temporary files & drafts: Working documents or draft reports that do not need permanent retention. These files are often discarded or revised, making manage-in-place appropriate until a final version is centralised.
5. Non-sensitive HR & training materials: Training guides, onboarding materials, and general HR communications. These records are frequently accessed by staff but do not require the higher level of security or long-term retention that centralised systems offer.

The Bearman model: where to use it

The Bearman model offers an approach that embeds records management within business processes, ensuring records are automatically captured and managed as part of daily operations without adding additional burdens on staff. This model is well suited to where there are limited record types in the business process.

Best suited for:

1. Transactional records: Processes such as sales, procurement, or service delivery where records are generated frequently and need to be captured at the point of creation. Why? The Bearman model ensures critical transactional records are managed within the workflow, reducing the risk of incomplete records and ensuring their context is preserved.
2. Compliance-driven sectors: Industries such as healthcare, finance, or government with strict compliance requirements can use the Bearman model to ensure that records are automatically captured and classified as part of the workflow, reducing the reliance on user action to manage records. Why? Automating records capture within business processes enhances compliance and reduces human error.
3. High-frequency, low-risk records: Records such as routine customer service interactions or purchase orders, which are frequently generated but of lower risk, can be managed efficiently using the Bearman model without needing centralisation. Why? This ensures that even low-risk records are captured without overwhelming central systems, while still maintaining compliance.

Summary: when to use each model

The following table highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each model based on key operational parameters.

The preference is therefore to apply the best model as the circumstances require. To enable best practice, a records solution that supports all models is required. The following table identifies where each model is best applied according to record type.

Case study

This case study demonstrates best practice, where a records solution that supports multiple models is implemented, either using a single software solution or, in other examples, using a combination working to complement each other.

Wodonga TAFE employs over 400 staff, providing a wide range of training and education services across different industries. Wodonga TAFE purchased iCognition’s Content Manager-as-a-service supplied in the iCognition Ingress cloud platform. The TAFE wanted Content Manager to deliver ongoing access to central legacy records, as well as providing a central point of search for enterprise records. Importantly, they had a fragmented digital landscape resulting from fast tracking the roll out of SharePoint and Teams sites to meet COVID pandemic requirements.

“The decision to transition to Content Manager 23.4 SaaS Cloud was driven by our commitment to providing the best possible digital environment for our staff and a vision to integrate our systems”, says Vanessa Flanagan, Records Management Specialist.

Managing these Microsoft 365 sites was a daunting task that consumed valuable resources and posed loss of records and security risks. However, using the combination of centralised and manage-in-place records models that Content Manager supports provided a great solution: they used Content Manager to archive and delete 1600 unused SharePoint and Teams sites, thus providing ongoing access and preservation of those records, and they also set up the manage-in-place capability for 456 other active sites.

“This easy integration has allowed us to manage some sites as “manage in-place” and others we finalise and can delete / archive to allow the clean-up process to be effective. As we progressed with our project, we have found the integration easy to implement, allowing staff to continue working in their preferred systems while recordkeeping occurs effortlessly and seamlessly”, says Ms Flanagan. Have a look at this video on Linkedin for more detail on this case study.

In other examples where multiple models are used in combination, iCognition has integrated Content Manager with Castlepoint to undertake a ‘handover’ of vital records to Content Manager, and/or to create a manage-in-place record in Content Manager. iCognition created this integration resulting in a product called the Castlepoint Connector

Conclusion

A hybrid approach to records management - centralising vital records, managing general administrative records in place, and using the Bearman model for transactional processes - offers the best balance of compliance, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

Centralising critical data ensures robust structure, security, and context, while managing less sensitive documents in place supports flexibility and operational efficiency.

The Bearman model further enhances this approach by embedding records management into everyday workflows. For best practice, make sure your records framework and solution supports all models!

Nigel Carruthers-Taylor is Executive Director & Principal at Information Management and Governance Specialists, iCognition. For more information contact iCognition on info@icognition.com.au.