Appraisal Task Force Report

Task Force Members:
Terry Eastwood, University of British Columbia (Chair)
Barbara Craig, University of Toronto
Du Mei, Central Archives of China
Philip Eppard, University at Albany, SUNY
Gigliola Fioravanti, Central Direction of Archives, Italy
Normand Fortier, National Archives of Canada
Mark Giguere, National Archives and Records Administration
Ken Hannigan, National Archives of IrelandPeter Horsman, Netherlands Institute of Archival Education and Research
Agnes Jonker, Netherlands Institute of Archival Education and Research
Leon Stout, Pennsylvania State University
Su-Shing Chen, University of Missouri, Columbia

Introduction
The Appraisal Task Force set out to determine whether the theory and methodology of appraisal
for electronic records differs from that for traditional records, and what role the activities ofappraisal play in the long-term preservation of electronic records. In doing so it relied heavily on
and coordinated its work with the other two InterPARES Project task forces. The original
InterPARES research plan asked the Appraisal Task Force to answer seven questions in its
domain of investigation (Domain 2):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

What is the influence of digital technology on appraisal?
What is the influence of retrievability, intelligibility, functionality, and research needs on
appraisal?
What are the influences of the medium and the physical form of the record on appraisal?
When in the course of their existence should electronic records be appraised?
Should electronic records be appraised more than once in the course of their existence,
and, if so, when?
Who should be responsible for appraising electronic records?
What are the appraisal criteria and methods for authentic electronic records?

Although these questions animated the research, many other questions—often related but
sometimes new—were to arise. The research moved through three phases. It began with areview of the literature on the appraisal of electronic records. It then examined the available
documentation from archival institutions on their appraisal policies and procedures, as well asreports on actual appraisals of electronic records. The final phase, and the most important,involved developing a function model of the selection of electronic records in order to gain adetailed understanding of the nature of the activities in appraising electronic records to bepreserved in authentic form. Selection encompasses both appraising and carrying out thedisposition of electronic records. It was mainly during the modelling that new questions arose andwere answered.
It is worthwhile emphasizing that the task force aimed primarily to identify the specific junctures inthe selection process when issues of authenticity come into play. It was for this reason that it hasrelied heavily on the conceptual requirements for assessing authenticity developed by the
Authenticity Task Force and on the preservation requirements developed by the Preservation
Task Force. The activities of appraisal determine which records need long-term preservation andthe various terms and conditions applying to their continuing preservation beyond the time of theiractive life in relation to the affairs that created them. Conceptually, this determination involves
passing the responsibility for preservation from the creator to some entity assigned responsibility
for long-term preservation. The most important aspect of this passing of responsibility is toensure, as much as is possible, that the identity and integrity (as defined by the Authenticity Task
Force) of the records can be established and preserved over time.1 The conceptual requirements
for assessing authenticity are therefore an important guide in the process of identifying electronic
records and establishing their integrity during appraisal. The requirements for preservation comeinto play in a vital way when we assess the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records.
The work of the Appraisal Task Force must therefore be viewed in the light of the work andresults of the two other task forces. The main connections and consequences of these
relationships are outlined in this report.
The primary outcome of the work of the Appraisal Task Force is the function model of theselection process. It and the thinking behind it represent the main contribution of the task force tothe problem of long-term preservation of authentic electronic records, as this report will explain at
length.

1

See "Authenticity Task Force Report.", p 20.

1

Basic Assumptons of the Research
Definition and situation of appraisal
In common usage, appraisal is defined as “the act of estimating the nature, quality, importanceetc." of something.2 Archival dictionaries and glossaries speak of appraisal as being “a basicarchival function” aimed at determining the disposition or disposal of records, that is, usuallyeither their continuing preservation or their destruction. In some cases, records may be alienatedfrom their creator.3 Appraisal involves making a judgement or estimation of the worthiness ofcontinued preservation of records. The Appraisal Task Force treats the term appraisal in thissense of coming to a determination of the disposition of records. However, the task force
considered that the function at issue is broader than the matter of determining the disposition ofrecords. It did so because appraisal is usually part of the act of acquisition of records by the entity
responsible for their long-term preservation, the preserver. Most commonly, the preserver
appraises records, that is, determines the worthiness of their continuing preservation, and carries
out their disposition. Carrying out the disposition of records usually (but not always) involves atransfer from the creator to the preserver of the custody of those records determined to be worthyof continued preservation and/or destruction of records not deemed worthy of long-termpreservation. In situations where the preserver has responsibility for appraisal, it often comes todecisions about the fate of records in consultation with the creator. Carrying out disposition is also
often a shared responsibility between the creator and the preserver. Responsibility to destroy
records may fall to the creator or to the preserver, or be shared by them.
The preserver is the juridical person whose primary responsibility is the long-term preservation ofauthentic records. The preserver may be an archival institution, such as a national, state, or
provincial archives given responsibility for the long-term preservation of the records of agovernmental organization. It may be an office of an organization, as is often the case with thearchives division or department of such organizations as churches, businesses, and universities.
It may even be an office (or officer) within the entity creating the records; this would be the case,for instance, where an agency’s archives within an organization such as a government were
given responsibility for long-term preservation of electronic records. In short, there must be someentity that is assigned responsibility for preservation. Therefore, the task force proceeded fromthe perspective of this entity and with long-term preservation in mind.
Whatever the division of responsibilities may actually be, it is necessary to conduct appraisal toidentify records worthy of continued existence, then carry out the disposition of records
determined to be of long-term value, and finally set in motion arrangements for their preservation.
It is this selection function, rather than the differences in the way responsibility for them is actuallyassigned, that interests the task force. It is assumed that the activities of appraisal and carryingout disposition, once they are understood in sufficient detail, can be conducted in numerous
administrative contexts.
The other premises of the research are found in concepts, such as “electronic record” and“authenticity,” of the project at large. Where it is necessary in this report, these other concepts are
discussed.

2

Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989 ed., s.v. “appraisal.”

3

The creator is the physical or juridical person in whose archival fonds the record exists. The fonds is thewhole of the records created (meaning made or received and set aside for action or reference) by a physicalor juridical person in the course of carrying out its activities.

2Research Design and Methodology
Literature review
In the first stage of its research, the task force conducted a review and analysis of the existing
literature on appraisal of electronic records to confirm or reject the various research questions
with which it began. For the most part, it confirmed the wisdom of these initial questions. The full
review is reproduced in Appendix 3; however, some of the main findings are worth repeating
here.
The review determined that a consensus had developed that electronic records must be
appraised from the same theoretical and methodological standpoint as traditional records. In
other words, important as the influence of technology is on certain aspects of methodology,
writers still employed the same general concepts in their writing about electronic records,
particularly in assessing the full context of electronic records and their continuing value. In theview of many writers, the main influence of the technology was in fact a negative one. Few
creators made adequate provision for electronic record keeping, with the result that it was difficult
to determine what an electronic record was in many cases and therefore to conduct appraisal ofsuch records. In particular, archivists wrestled with the problem of what to do with dynamic
databases, many of which were implicated in record keeping but did not actually produce records.
Many writers discussed the question of the timing of appraisal. Almost all of them concluded thatappraisal had to be conducted early in the life of systems producing the records. There were
accounts of both appraisal and preservation activities being hindered because records had been
removed from active systems without adequate documentation of their context of creation. To
avoid these problems, most writers advised early archival involvement with creators to determine
records of continuing value and to develop procedures for their disposition.
The review implicitly reveals that writers rarely addressed the application of the concept ofauthenticity to appraisal. For the most part, they assumed that preserving electronic records inauthentic form is a matter for the preservation function. Appraisal determines which records are to
be preserved; it is then up to the preserver to ensure their continuing identity and integrity.
Although that is true, the work of the task force explicitly shows that the concept of authenticity
has important application during appraisal, as will be explained.
Review of policies and procedures
The review of policies and procedures of archival institutions and programs amplified the findingsof the literature review, as might be expected. It also revealed that only a small number of
institutions and programs had anything like extensive experience appraising electronic records.
Those that did appraised electronic records in conjunction with and using similar methodology tothat for traditional records.
The main documentation of value proved to be actual reports of appraisal of electronic records.
These reports revealed that archivists expended much time and energy to appreciate the various
contexts of the records, including of course the technological context; applied criteria familiar in
the appraisal of traditional records; and spelled out the terms and conditions of disposition ofrecords deemed worthy of continuing preservation. Together the reviews of the literature andpolicies and procedures provided a body of empirical knowledge used in the task force’s main
exercise to develop a function model of selection.
Modelling the selection function
A function model represents the various activities of a functional process in a series of structured
diagrams. The task force used IDEF(0) or Integration Definition for Function Modelling, which isderived from Structured Analysis and Design Technique. IDEF(0) is a U.S. Federal Information3

Processing Standard, which is detailed in Publication 183 of the National Institute of Standards ofTechnology.4 The model and the related definitions of terms are reproduced in Appendix 4.
The purpose of the model is to characterize the relationships of the activities involved in selectionof authentic electronic records for long-term preservation. The model is produced from theviewpoint of the entity responsible for the long-term preservation of electronic records of anorganization. The assumption is that the same activities occur in any context where selection is
performed. Arrows pointing into a box representing an activity indicate inputs. Arrows pointing
outwards from boxes indicate outputs. Arrows pointing down from the top of boxes indicate
constraints on the activity, and arrows pointing upwards the mechanisms necessary toaccomplish the activity.
The following discussion can be read independently of the model. However, diagram numbers
are given to aid those readers interested in finding the part of the model relevant at any point in
the explanation of the process.
The task force employed modelling methodology in order to isolate and characterize the various
activities of the selection function. The methodology requires consistency and careful definition of
the concepts and terms used in the model. However, the model itself, because it depicts a highly
intellectual and complex process, needs considerable explanation, which the next section of thisreport provides.

Research Findings
Preamble
The work on the model began in early 2000. At this time, the Authenticity Task Force had alreadydeveloped the Template for Analysis of electronic records to be used by the project. The
Template and, subsequently, the Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity ofElectronic Records provided an important conceptual framework for the thinking behind themodelling. In several meetings of the task force over the next year and a half, the model was
refined and coordinated with the work of the other two task forces.
The Scope of the Main Activities in Selection (Diagram A0)
From the perspective of the preserver, appraisal is obviously a vital first step in the process ofpreservation. Selecting electronic records involves appraising them and carrying out theirdisposition. Carrying out disposition acts as a bridge between the activities of appraisal and thoseof preservation. Information about electronic records amassed during their appraisal is vital to theactions taken to determine and carry out their disposition and then, later on, to the actions taken
to preserve them. Nevertheless, it is important to note that responsibility for the actions ofcarrying out disposition will probably be shared between the creator and the preserver in most
instances. Clearly the organization’s policies and procedures will have to sort out the
responsibilities that fall to the creator and those that fall to the preserver as part of the disposition
rules guiding transfer of records.
The point about disposition rules makes it clear that one of the activities of selection is toestablish, implement, and maintain a framework for the selection function. Managing the selection
function also sets the rules and conventions for the preserver that govern appraisal.
Many problems that occur in the archival treatment of electronic records stem from changes in
the records' context over time. Monitoring these changes is a distinct activity; it ensures that upto-date information about records is compiled and that appraisal decisions are updated
accordingly or, where there is a need, revisited. To a large extent, monitoring electronic records
selected for preservation is our answer to the research question, “When in the course of their4

See <http://www.idef.com/idef0.html> for more information.

4

existence should electronic records be appraised?” The answer is frequently dictated by thecircumstances of change in the context of the records. In cases where the appraisal decision isbuilt into design of electronic systems, such as by records scheduling, or where it is conducted
sometime after a system has been in operation, monitoring records selected for preservation andmaking adjustments as needed is part of the process of selection. By contrast, appraising
electronic records long removed from the active system in which they were generated is usually
made more difficult because the relevant information about their technological and other contexts
is no longer available or difficult to obtain.
Selection, therefore, encompasses four main activities: (1) managing the selection function, (2)appraising electronic records, (3) monitoring electronic records selected for preservation, and (4)carrying out the disposition of electronic records.
The Broad Picture of Selection ( A0)
Selecting electronic records for long-term preservation—like selecting records in general—
responds, broadly speaking, to societal needs and to the creator’s needs for continuing reference
to the records. It also responds, explicitly or implicitly, to certain legal requirements, that is, to theconcepts, principles, and specific statements in law relevant to the selection of records. All theactivities of selection are conducted with an understanding of the theory, methodology, andpractice of archival science, including the requirements for ensuring authenticity of records.
Societal needs, creator’s needs, legal requirements, and archival science and authenticity
requirements all condition or influence the process of selection. How they influence actions anddecisions from juridical system to juridical system or for any one preserver is a question that isbeyond the scope of our research. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that managing the selection
function is largely a matter of taking these conditioning factors into account when developing
policies, strategies, procedures, and standards.
It hardly needs saying that the successful selection of electronic records requires knowledgeable
persons, certain facilities, and computer equipment and software. These are the necessary
instrumentalities of selection. As mechanisms employed in carrying out selection, they areneeded for all of the activities described in this report.
Broadly speaking, selecting electronic records means identifying records for transfer to thepreserver for continuing preservation. From among the electronic records produced by anorganization, some will be selected and transferred to the preserver and some will not. The
outcome in any given case will either be a transfer of electronic records selected for preservationfrom the creator to the preserver or a designation of electronic records not selected for continuingpreservation. It is a matter of organizational policy whether or not the preserver plays a role in thedisposition of electronic records not selected for preservation. In any event, the outcome or resultof selection is that electronic records both destined and not destined for continuing preservation
are identified.
The work of the task force has confirmed something that is implicit, but not spelled out clearly, inthe literature on appraisal of electronic records. In large measure, selection of electronic records
depends upon a gathering and assessment of information concerning the context of a given bodyof records or deriving from the records themselves. Relevant information gathered during theprocess must then be associated with the records so that they can be managed effectively by thepreserver and easily understood by future users. Obviously, a great deal of information about thecontext of electronic records exists while they are in active use, because it is needed for thecontinuing management of the records. This information often disappears or is difficult toassemble once records are removed from the active system in which they were generated. Thissituation provides a strong argument for beginning the appraisal process while records are still“live” in a system, and monitoring each phase of their existence to keep appraisal decisions
relevant and disposition plans practicable.
In particular, information about the technological context of electronic records comes into play at
two vital stages of selection. It is needed when assessing records’ authenticity, and when
determining the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records, as later parts of this report5spell out in greater detail. The other contextual information (juridical-administrative, provenancial,procedural, and documentary) tends to be relevant when assessing the continuing value ofrecords, that is, judging their capacity to serve the continuing interests of society and theircreator.5 For the most part, appraisers draw inferences about the continuing value of records froman understanding of the records and their various contexts.
Two kinds of information result from the appraisal process. There is information about theappraisal decision itself, and information about the electronic records selected for preservation
and “packaged” with them as part of a transfer from the creator to the preserver. The latter is theinformation about electronic records necessary to maintain them continuously in authentic form,
and includes the terms and conditions of transfer,6 to which the preserver may have to refer fromtime to time, such as when determining that a transfer contains the actual records designated to
be transferred in a particular case.
Managing the selection function (A0, A1)
Constraints on the process
The preserver needs to establish, implement, and maintain a framework of policies andprocedures guiding the selection function. The purpose of management is to make sure that thepreserver’s requirements for selection of authentic electronic records are met effectively andefficiently. Managing the selection function means taking responsibility for the whole process,both the quality of its outcome and the efficiency of the process. The main responsibility is toensure that those records of continuing value are identified and capable of being maintained
according to the appropriate authenticity requirements.
Typically, the activity of managing a process transforms external requirements into internal
directions. Furthermore, it generates feedback from internal processes and reacts to these
feedback signals by modifying directions. Like any higher-level management process, it is not too
structured, and this is also true for the knowledge and information used and processed in thefunction. The main process could be described as follows: collecting and evaluating requirements
for, constraints to, and opportunities for potentially appropriate operational appraisal strategies.
Indeed, like any management process, it is focused on matching external needs, requirements,
and constraints with the possibilities of the system or processes to be managed. One othercharacteristic of managing is its relative autonomy in interpreting external requirements andgathering relevant information. This means that it is not possible to establish policies, strategies,
procedures, criteria and standards that will fit all circumstances. Instead, we can only indicate thegeneral considerations that go into building the managerial framework.
The external conditioning factors on the selection function are assessed during analysis of thecreator’s needs for effective disposition of records, the broader societal needs for reference torecords, the necessity to observe and meet authenticity requirements, the imperatives of any
legal requirements bearing on the records, and, of course, the need to observe the concepts andprinciples of archival science. The notion of creator’s needs and societal needs is a familiar one inarchival science. Schellenberg recognized creator’s needs in his concept of primary value, and

5

The Template for Analysis has defined the various contexts of an electronic record and therefore, by
implication, of the various aggregations of electronic records such as are examined during appraisal.
Technological context is “the hardware and software environment in which the record exists or was created.”
Juridical-administrative context is “the legal and organizational system in which the creating body exists.”
Provenancial context is “the creating body, its mandate, structure, and functions.” Procedural context is “thebusiness procedure in the course of which the record is generated.” Documentary context is “the fonds towhich a record belongs, and its internal structure.” Internal structure refers to the relationships among therecords in a fonds.
6

The task force has defined terms and conditions of transfer as “a document that identifies in archival andtechnological terms electronic records to be transferred, together with relevant documentation, and that
identifies the medium and format of transfer, its timing, and the parties to the transfer.”6societal needs in his concept of secondary value.7 These needs include requirements for
rendering accountability in the political, administrative, fiscal, legal, and broader societal senses.
All these constraining factors are considered when developing the policies, strategies,
procedures, criteria, and standards guiding the selection function.
Obviously, external factors such as creator’s and societal needs and legal requirements will varyfrom situation to situation. They are factors that will, through policies and so on, influence thevalue judgements made during appraisal. The requirements dictated by the concepts andprinciples of archival science are another matter. In fact, the concept of authenticity and theconceptual requirements for assessing authenticity are matters of archival science. Because they
are the most important concepts bearing on long-term preservation of authentic electronic
records, and to ensure that they are recognized as an important conditioning factor of theprocess, authenticity requirements are highlighted as a separate constraint on managing theselection function. They explain the concepts guiding practice. Even though the application ofauthenticity requirements in any given case may be a matter of judgement, it is not a value
judgement that is at issue, as is the case in judging continuing value to the creator and society.
The manner in which authenticity requirements guide the conduct of appraisal will be looked at insome considerable detail as we move through the specific activities in which they come into play.
Information needed for management
Essentially, four kinds of information are needed to support the development of policies,
strategies, and procedures guiding selection: information about the records’ context, information
about appraisal decisions, information about updated appraisal decisions, and information about
disposition.
In any given case, the preserver aiming to develop a framework for selection must gather
information about the context in which records for which it has responsibility are created. For
instance, if the preserver is a government archives, what range of agencies is it responsible for,under what administrative arrangements, performing which functions, and so on. Information ofthis kind feeds directly into the process and comes out of it in statements (such as on the scopeof records to which the policy applies) in the framework.
Information about appraisal decisions already made provides valuable intelligence about thesuccess or lack of success of the process, and as such is an important input to establishing,implementing, and maintaining an effective framework. Where the process of monitoring
electronic records selected for preservation results in updated appraisal decisions, information
about these updated decisions and the reasons for them also provides valuable intelligence tofeed into the process of managing the framework.
Much the same is the case with information about the disposition of electronic records.
Experience of actual dispositions over time will reveal information useful for managing theframework, such as whether appraisal decisions are properly implemented.
Results of managing selection
There are two aspects of the framework. One is a set of rules and conventions governing the
conduct of appraisal, which for convenience we call the appraisal strategies. The appraisal
strategies operate as controls on the processes of appraisal of electronic records and monitoringof electronic records selected for preservation. The appraisal strategies encompass:••••criteria for appraisal
guidelines on how to apply authenticity requirements
procedures for carrying out appraisal
guidelines for reporting the results of appraisals

7

T. R. Schellenberg, The Appraisal of Modern Public Records, Bulletin 8 (Washington: National Archives
and Records Service, 1956).

7•

procedures for reporting on appraisal activities

The second aspect is a set of rules and procedures governing the conduct of disposition ofelectronic records. The rules and procedures act as a control on the activity of carrying out thedisposition of records. These rules and procedures include:•••

procedures for carrying out disposition (e.g., roles and responsibilities of the creator andthe preserver)
rules for disposition (e.g., acceptable formats for transfer, means of transmission ofrecords, etc.)
procedures for reporting about disposition activities (e.g., character and volume ofrecords acquired and/or destroyed)

Appraising Electronic Records (A2)
When applied to any given body of records, selection can be broken down into two mainprocesses. First, a decision is made with respect to the records’ disposition; then that decision is
implemented, that is, the records are transferred or otherwise disposed of. Furthermore, thecreation of information “packages” to document the appraisal decision and the records to bepreserved is crucial to allow for the performance of other archival functions, such as preservationand description. Within the larger context of the selection of records, therefore, appraisal is theactivity during which relevant information is gathered and compiled, and a disposition decision ismade.
We have viewed appraisal as being made up of four distinct activities: compiling information
about the records and their contexts; assessing the value of the records; determining thefeasibility of preserving them; and finally, making the appraisal decision. This breakdown is basedon a decomposition of appraisal into its logical component activities or functions, and it is notmeant to specify a precise work flow. It does not make any assumptions about the organizationalsetting in which the activities take place. It does, however, assume that there is a strong chance
the continuing value of records differs from the records' operational value to their creator, and thatthe continuing value should be determined according to a different set of criteria from that for
operational value.
Appraising a body of electronic records is to decide on their disposition. If they are deemed toserve some enduring need of their creator or society, the records will be preserved. One common
way of doing this is by transferring them to an entity, such as an archival institution or program
responsible for the records’ continuing preservation. It is also possible that the creator will
preserve them indefinitely, possibly by an archival unit, possibly under the supervision of an
outside archives authority. If the records are not deemed valuable, they will be destroyed or,
perhaps, be alienated to the care of some other entity.
Compiling Information
In order to conduct an appraisal, the person or persons conducting the appraisal (the appraiser)needs information drawn from reading the form and content of the records, and information about
the records' various contexts (juridical-administrative, provenancial, procedural, documentary,technological). The appraiser gathers, organizes, and records this information as a vital part ofthe process of determining disposition of the records. Information may come from publicly
available sources, as well as be obtained from the creator’s personnel or documentation, andfrom the records themselves. The precise nature and scope of the information required depends
on the particular appraisal methodology and criteria that the preserver has implemented.
It should be stressed that during this vital activity of appraisal, inferences are accumulated about
the continuing value of the records and about the grounds for presuming them to be authentic.
Referring to this activity as "compiling information" may mislead. Appraisal must rest on afoundation of solid research, which will assist in performing several of the activities we haveidentified, particularly assessing the value and the authenticity of the records, and identifying thedigital components that have to be preserved.

8

Assessing Value (A22)
The archivist uses the information gathered and compiled to determine the capacity of therecords to serve the continuing interests of both their creator and society. The archivist answers
the question: “How valuable are these records? How important is it to preserve them?” The outputof that activity is an assessment of the continuing value and authenticity of the records, as well as
information about the criteria that were used to make that assessment and how they wereapplied. This assessment may be further decomposed into three activities: assessing thecontinuing value of electronic records, assessing their authenticity, and determining their value.
Assessing continuing value
This first activity results in a statement of the reasons why the records should or should not bepreserved, according to the criteria decided upon by the preserving institution. Because it
involves values and judgement, appraisal may be performed differently according to different
national or intellectual traditions, juridical systems (including legislation), value systems, andtheoretical choices. Archivists engage in heated debates about appraisal criteria andmethodologies, and for good reason. As an example, one could study the records themselvesand determine which elements are likely to give them continuing value, for example, theirusefulness for legal purposes, their value as evidence of the functioning and organization of theircreator, or their potential for research. Another approach—particularly useful when there are vast
amounts of records, created during complex, intertwined processes—is to start by appraising not
the records themselves but the functions performed by the records creator, to determine which
ones should be documented for posterity, and then to find out which records better reflect theaccomplishment of these functions and their impact on society. Since our goal here is to come up
with a model of the appraisal activity that applies in a number of different contexts, wedeliberately omitted specifying which criteria or values, strategies, and methodologies should be
employed.
Assessing authenticity (A222)
A second component in the assessment of value is an assessment of the records’ authenticity.
The appraiser must establish the grounds for the presumption of authenticity. He or she mustensure that the records’ identity (e.g., parties involved, date, subject matter, and archival bond) ispreserved, and must ascertain the degree to which the records’ creator has guaranteed theirintegrity, by making sure that the records remain intact and uncorrupted. The questions to be
asked of the records at this stage correspond to the Benchmark Requirements Supporting the
Presumption of Authenticity of Electronic Records defined by the Authenticity Task Force ofInterPARES in the Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic
Records.8 Answering the questions requires an in-depth knowledge of the records, the electronicsystems they reside in or were created in, and the wider context of their creation and use. For
example, such an important element of identity as the author of the record may in fact be found in
the provenancial context (the owner of the system) rather than on the face of the record. Integrity
may be maintained through safeguards built into an integrated electronic record-keeping system(the technological context of the records), or it could be ensured through policies, procedures,and practices in the environment of the electronic system. Examples would be physicalrestrictions on access, policies on access privileges, procedures for data entry and validation, as
well as procedures for back-up and storage in different locations. The benchmark requirements
give full details of the various factors to be analyzed when assessing authenticity.
Therefore, the first step for the archivist is to compile the evidence supporting the presumption ofauthenticity. That evidence must then be measured against the benchmark requirements. If suchan evaluation does not produce a high presumption of authenticity, the archivist must try to verify
authenticity by other means, such as comparing different versions or copies of the records,
examining system audit trails, or interviewing personnel involved in the creation, use, and8

See Appendix 2.

9preservation of the records. The resulting assessment may affect the determination of therecords’ value. The information compiled at this stage is also crucial to understanding and using
the records once they have been transferred to the preserver. Future users of the records must
know how well founded the presumption of authenticity of the records is, and what informationthat presumption is based on in order to make their own assessment, long after the fact and whenaccumulating relevant information is likely to be difficult if not impossible.
Determining Value
The appraiser’s assessment of the records’ value reflects continuing value and authenticity.
However, the impact of authenticity on the archival value of records is not straightforward, andrequires some explanation.
For example, let us suppose that an objective of appraisal is to identify records documenting aprocess or function performed by the records’ creator and deemed worthy of long-termpreservation. To do so, an appraiser identifies records that will allow the preserver to maintain an
accurate reflection of that process or function. If the records creator were performing a functionthat had a very high impact on society, and its record-keeping practices were very poor, thearchivist would most probably still want to preserve evidence of the function by acquiring theappropriate records. Furthermore, if evidence of poor record-keeping practices and of possible
willful or fraudulent tampering with the records comes to light during appraisal, that might make it
more important to preserve them, in order to attest to that.
Assessment of how authenticity affects the value of electronic records is largely a matter ofgathering and evaluating evidence of what has happened to them during the course of their
existence prior to the time of appraisal. Of course, there is a prima facie case for presuming
records to be authentic if their creator relies on them in the usual and ordinary course ofbusiness. Nevertheless, in cases where the records no longer reside in their original environment
through, for instance, conversion or migration, it is necessary to determine whether what is being
appraised is what originally existed and whether changes to the records have seriously impaired
their ability to act as evidence of the activity that generated them. In cases where the chain ofcustody and preservation has been broken or where migration has resulted in missing records,
missing parts of records, or inadequate or inaccurate documentation of changes, there may begood reason to suspect the value of the records. If the appraiser has good reason to suspect thatthe records no longer reflect what they were at the time of their creation and primary use, he or
she may decide not to preserve them. Another case in which authenticity is important is when thevalue of the records resides in the accuracy of the information they contain, such as with survey
or scientific data, rather than in how well they represent the process during which they werecreated.
Thus, the archivist must assess both the continuing value of the records to their creator andsociety and the authenticity of the records in order to determine their overall value, and decide
how important it is to preserve them or not.
Determining Feasibility of Preservation (A23)
Assessing the value of the records is not enough, however. The appraiser must also determine
the feasibility of preserving them as authentic records. More precisely, the appraiser (acting as anagent of the preserver in effect) must decide whether the digital components embodying theessential elements that confer identity and ensure the integrity of the records can be preserved,
given current and anticipated capabilities. This determination is based on the same type of
information from the records and about the records that is used to assess their value, but it also
requires knowledge of the preserver’s current and anticipated capability to preserve electronic
records. This would include the state of preservation knowledge; hardware and software
capabilities; staff expertise; and financial resources. That information is actually provided by thepreservation function. The result of this determination is information about the resources andtechnical capability required for continued preservation of the records.

10

The activity of determining the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records breaks down
into three phases.
1. The appraiser determines both the record elements containing informational content andthose elements that need to be preserved according to requirements for authenticity, as
formulated by the Authenticity Task Force’s benchmark requirements.
2. The appraiser identifies where these crucial record elements are manifested in digitalcomponents of the electronic record that must be preserved.
3. The appraiser reconciles these preservation requirements with the preservation
capabilities of the institution that is responsible for the continuing preservation of the bodyof records being appraised.
This feasibility determination gathers and records technical information that is necessary toaccomplish preservation of the individual elements conveying both the intellectual content and theauthenticity of electronic records being appraised. This information also includes the projected
cost of preservation and an indication of whether or not the preserver has the capability topreserve the records in question.
The first activity in determining the feasibility of preserving a body of records being appraised is todetermine which record elements are to be preserved to ensure the authenticity of the records.
This activity identifies the extrinsic and intrinsic elements of form, as outlined in the benchmark
requirements, and the elements of content of electronic records that need to be preserved inorder to maintain their authenticity over time. Depending on the design characteristics of thesystem that produced the records, these elements of form and content may be observable on theface of the record or in metadata associated with the record, or implied in contextual information
associated with the records’ creation. This contextual information relates to the legal andorganizational system in which the creating body belongs; the mandate, structure, and functionsof the creating body; the business procedure in the course of which the record is created; thefonds to which the records belongs, and the fonds’ internal structure. This internal structure
comprises the relationships that link each record incrementally to the previous and subsequentones, and that convey meaning to the records.
There is other relevant information, in addition to that concerning form and content, that aids indetermining the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records. In particular, the appraiser
needs information about the technological context of records in order to understand how they
were generated. This would involve gathering and analyzing information about the electronicsystem itself, the hardware, software, operating system, and the type of files created—for
example, word-processing files, image files, and so on. This information is normally gathered aspart of the process of compiling information to support the activities of selection, but it is important
to note its special relevance in the essentially technical exercise of identifying records elements
and digital components.
An archival institution’s rules and conventions for appraisal—that is, its appraisal strategies—
affect this determination. Indeed, appraisal strategies are taken into consideration at all threestages in determining the feasibility of preservation.
The activity of determining the record elements to be preserved can be illustrated by using one of
the InterPARES case studies. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has a systemcalled TECHSOURCE, which contains a variety of records produced during the patent-granting
process. One very important record in the TECHSOURCE system is the patent application, alegal document that constitutes the first step, or act, in the process.
In the act of determining the feasibility of preserving authentic patent applications (or other legal
records) maintained in this system, the appraiser would be particularly concerned about the rigour
with which the creator met authenticity requirements in their creation. This is typicallyaccomplished through controls embodied in the TECHSOURCE system, and in external
procedural controls that were specified during the system’s design. These system design
requirements constitute the measures CIPO felt were needed to preserve the identity andintegrity of the electronic records in the system.

11

These requirements are often expressed in the intrinsic and extrinsic elements of the records’
form. Preservation of these elements of form maintains the records’ authenticity over time andacross technologies. In the case of a patent application, certain extrinsic and intrinsic elements—
such as the application’s standard format, and the chronological date and time of receipt by
CIPO—must be protected from tampering. In fact, such a requirement is stipulated in the
Canadian Patent Act. Intrinsic elements relating to the identity of the record, such as the namesof the persons involved and expression of the archival bond in the application number, would also
be included.
The appraiser would first consider the records from a system such as TECHSOURCE and theirvarious contexts. Then the appraiser would determine that a dispositive record (in which therecord represents the act) such as a patent application would contain many of these elementsthat need to be preserved in order to maintain its authenticity, and therefore its trustworthiness.
This is a critical component of appraisal and the result of this analysis would be a list of intrinsic
and extrinsic record elements that must be preserved in order to ensure authenticity.
Once the appraiser has identified both the diplomatic elements of the record that confer
authenticity and the content elements that need to be preserved, the next activity is to identify
how these elements are manifested electronically as digital components. In the analog realm, theextrinsic and intrinsic elements are typically united on the medium; however, this is not so withelectronic records. The identified elements in the electronic realm may be manifested in various
ways, in what the project calls digital components. As defined by the InterPARES Preservation
Task Force, a digital component is “a digital object that contains all or part of the content of anelectronic record, and/or metadata necessary to order, structure, or manifest the content, and that
requires specific methods for preservation of one or more electronic records, and that has specificmethods of preservation and reproduction.” The concept of digital object has its roots in theobject-oriented paradigm, whereby the characteristic of discernment of such an object is that it
has one or more particular methods associated with it, such as presentation software. This
identification of digital components is made using previously ascertained information about therecord elements to be preserved, along with information already gathered about the record’s
technological context.
For instance, in CIPO’s TECHSOURCE system, standard correspondence generated in thecourse of the patent-granting procedure is produced by combining standard templates containing
formulaic language with attribute information from various tables in the relational databasemanagement system. Each of these, the templates and the attribute information, are separate
digital objects, or components. In the case of the former, word-processing software is necessary
to invoke the template object and in the case of the latter, database software is necessary tounderstanding the table and relationships represented by a particular instance of an attribute. The
template digital objects contain extrinsic elements of form conferring authenticity (e.g., English
and French versions of the formulaic correspondence language). The digital objects representing
the table-derived attribute information contain security privilege and work-flow information thatguarantee intrinsic elements of form by ensuring that only someone with proper authority canissue a particular type of correspondence. In order for the archives to preserve authentic
electronic records over time, the appraiser must be aware of what these components are, what
records elements are contained therein, and the means by which the elements can be united toreproduce the record in a comprehensible form.
The final stage of determining the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records is areconciliation of the record components’ preservation requirements with the archives’preservation capabilities. The question is: “Can the components that manifest the informational
and authenticity elements be preserved, in light of current and/or anticipated future capabilities of
the archives?” Simply put: “Can the preserver preserve these digital components?” This is
answered by knowing the preserver's current and anticipated capability to preserve electronic
records. This information includes the state of preservation knowledge and the institution’s
hardware/software capabilities, as well as practical matters of staff expertise and financial
resources available for preservation services.

12

The attempt to reconcile preservation requirements with preservation capabilities produces twobodies of information that inform the appraisal decision. The first body of information concerns thedigital components to be preserved; it includes information that would explain where records
elements that are vital for maintaining authenticity are manifested in the (potentially various)
components of the electronic records, as well as the technical information (e.g., invocation
methods) about those components that would be required for subsequent preservation activities.
To use the TECHSOURCE example, the first type of information would include the identificationof specific tables within the records and database management system (RDBMS) that correspondto specific elements of form conferring both content and authenticity. The second body of
information would indicate, for example, what type of viewer software would be needed to view
the system’s scanned images or what information in the image file headers could be exploited for
retrieval purposes. The feasibility of preserving a given body of authentic electronic records would
be based on current or anticipated finances and technical capabilities. Equipped with thisinformation as well as the valuation information articulated in the value assessment activity, theultimate appraisal decision and documentation supporting it is then made in light of thepreserver’s appraisal strategies.
Making the Appraisal Decision
If the assessment of value determines that records are not worthy of long-term preservation, theappraisal decision becomes easy. In all other cases, however, the determinations of value andfeasibility come together in determining the appraisal decision. We could describe this asbalancing what the appraiser would like to preserve against what the preserver is capable ofpreserving and can afford to preserve. However, that would be simplistic. The balance between
value and feasibility rests on an exercise of judgement, on a case-by-case basis. For example, anappraiser could be confronted with a situation where preserving records would be either
extremely difficult for technical reasons, or would entail considerable costs. But this does notnecessarily tip the decision against preserving the records. If the records were of extraordinary
importance or their preservation were mandated by law, the archivist might look for either
alternative sources of funding or another preserver, or come to an arrangement by which thecreator would preserve the records—at least for a certain period of time. Nevertheless,preservation capabilities do come into play, because resources are not infinite, and choosing topreserve any given body of records often affects decisions made about other records.
The outcome of this decision making is of course an appraisal decision, which sets out thedisposition of the records. The decision is made up of two parts. First, it must list what must betransferred to the preserver, or disposed of in other ways (destroyed, transferred to an entity
other than the preserver, etc.). The list is laid out at a level of detail appropriate for someone to beable to carry out the disposition. Depending on the type of electronic records, and the precision of
the records management system, this could mean a high-level description of records (e.g., basedon their functional context or their classification), a list of record elements, or a detailed list ofdigital components. Ultimately, however, persons effectively carrying out disposition need precise
instructions and a list of digital components.
In addition to the list of records and digital components, persons responsible for carrying out thedisposition of records must be provided with information specifying how and when disposition
must be effected. That includes the responsibilities of each party, and interim measures such as amonitoring schedule. The terms and conditions of transfer specify the conditions of the disposition
the records, as well as more general clauses that apply to all records (such as rules about thefrequency of monitoring). These general clauses are established as part of the management
function in the form of disposition rules and procedures.
If all or some of the records appraised must be preserved, the content of the appraisal decision,as well as any further relevant information about the records’ technological environment, must be
included in an information package for people responsible for continuing preservation.
Finally, the appraisal process must produce documentation explaining and justifying the appraisal
decision. It characterizes the various contexts of the records that were relevant to the decision,

13

explains the methodology and criteria used, details the research method, presents theassessments of value and of feasibility, and outlines the rationale for the decision. It should makeclear which records were preserved, and which were not, out of the universe of records created.
This documentation is vital for accountability purposes, on the one hand, and so that future usersof the records understand the records, on the other. In fact, it constitutes permanent records ofthe preserver that must be accessible to anyone wanting information about the disposition ofrecords. Information about appraisal decisions is also a crucial feedback mechanism for thosemanaging the selection function (especially in devising appraisal strategies and methodologies),and for other archivists engaged in appraisal.
Recommendations on Appraisal
1. Appraisal is a knowledge- and research-intensive activity. Appraisers must be provided
with the proper training, tools, information, support, and resources to conduct thenecessary research.
2. Accurate and thorough documentation of the appraisal process in its various phases andoutcomes is essential. Information about the appraisal decision, as well as about theappraised records themselves, should be considered as an outcome of appraisal in its
own right, as much as the appraisal decision itself. That information is required for further
archival functions—such as preservation, arrangement, and description—to be performed
adequately.
3. The preserver should develop an interview protocol (along the lines of the InterPARES
Case Study Interview Protocol or CSIP) to ensure that the relevant information iscompiled to determine the records elements that need to be preserved.9
4. The preserver should use the Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining theAuthenticity of Electronic Records as the conceptual basis for its assessment of thegrounds for presuming records to be authentic and for its identification of records
elements that need to be preserved to ensure authenticity.
Monitoring Appraised Electronic Records (A0, A3)
Relationship to Other Activities
Monitoring appraised electronic records and the activities associated with doing so are necessary
to ensure the continuing preservation of the appraised authentic electronic records. This activity
occurs conceptually after an appraisal decision is made and before disposition is undertaken.
This placement recognizes that any decision is fixed in time, place, and circumstance. Appraisal
decisions need to be revised as required, to ensure that the information about the appraised
electronic records is still valid, that changes to the records and their context have not adversely
affected their identity or integrity, and that the details of the process of carrying out disposition are
still workable and applicable to the records.
Logically, the appraisal decision should be monitored to ensure that time and its changes areattended to when disposition actually takes place. Disposition may be immediate upon reachingan appraisal decision, but it might not take place for some time. The appraiser, acting as amonitor of electronic records earmarked for continued preservation, fulfils two important functions.
The first is to see that the appraisal decision, the detailed information about the appraised
electronic records, and the terms and conditions for transfer required by the preserver reflect
contemporary realities. Many changes to the records and their context will require relatively minor
revisions to appraisal documentation and to the terms and conditions of transfer. However, incases where the business processes and related computer systems are significantly revamped or
rebuilt, it will obviously be necessary to consider initiating a disposition under the terms of theoriginal appraisal and—for the two will likely go together—redoing the appraisal to take into
account the radically altered situation appraisal. This kind of “redoing” of appraisal should be
distinguished sharply from reappraisal in the sense of second-guessing the valuation of the
9

The CSIP is available on the InterPARES Web site at <http://www.interpares.org/reports.htm>.

14

original appraisal. It is redoing in the sense that one has to begin afresh to appraise what is in fact
a new situation of records of a particular creator, the former manifestation of which has in fact
ended. Describing this redoing as "a new appraisal" would not be inaccurate. However, the needto do so is very likely to go unnoticed, with perhaps disastrous consequences, unless monitoringis part of the selection process.
The Framework for Monitoring
Monitoring takes place within a framework established by specific appraisal strategies and acts
upon the appraisal decision in the light of the circumstances of the records and their contexts.
The appraiser is more or less constrained by the degree to which the appraisal decision is, forworking purposes, embodied in statements of terms and conditions and other information about
the appraised electronic records. Among other things, this information should identify therecord(s) that is(are) selected for preservation; provide technical information about the electronicsystem and the digital and record components in that system; specify a schedule for copying,transfer, or other type of process that allow an authorized disposition to take place; and confirm
these actions by an appropriate attestation from the authority with the competence to dispose ofrecords officially.
Monitoring Tasks
One of the tasks of monitoring is to see that scheduled dispositions are carried out. The appraiser
doing the monitoring keeps up-to-date information about the appraisal decision, the appraised
records, and the terms and conditions of transfer so that, when it comes time to make adisposition, there are no unforeseen problems or difficulties. It is especially important to keep upto-date information on how records are manifested in the system; how to destroy those records
that do not have to be preserved; and how to acquire, copy, format, and otherwise prepare andpackage records for continuing preservation.
Effective monitoring ensures that the appraisal decisions and the information about the appraised
electronic records meet the needs of carrying out disposition and preservation. Adjustments orminor change to the electronic records—either at the level of the record-keeping system, or in the
broader contexts of document, provenance, or technology—may have a direct bearing on theimplementation of the initial disposition of electronic records. Such alterations or adjustments inthe course of the ordinary business of the creator also may have implications for subsequentdispositions. Monitoring, therefore, regularly confirms that the decision and its related terms andconditions can be and are implemented. Updates to the appraisal decision and associatedinformation about the appraised electronic records will constantly be available to the persons
carrying out disposition and preservation activities.
Major alterations to the records, or significant changes in the system, its platform, and/or thecontext of its records might alter the circumstances of the records sufficiently that the originalassessment of value and determination of feasibility are no longer sound grounds on which tocontinue the selection of electronic records for continuing preservation. Another way of looking at
it is that monitoring will result in a recommendation to initiate a transfer and redo the appraisal
only when major changes take place that cannot be addressed by adjustments to the terms andconditions in the original or updated appraisal decision.
Relationship to Real Situations
Although the previous discussion has been explicit about the conceptual logic connecting
activities of the monitor to appraisal and the carrying out of disposition, the model also implicitly
suggests related practical steps for the real tasks of selecting electronic records for continuingpreservation. The model does not prescribe specific policies, procedures, strategies, rules,
conventions, or criteria, nor does it describe the detailed contents of any of these. However, therelationship of parts, the categories of control, the nature of facilities and resources, and the typesof inputs and outputs required for action suggest what specific information the selector needs toachieve the continuing preservation of electronic records for reference with their qualities ofauthenticity identified, maintained, and preserved intact.
15

Monitoring is essentially a matter of the entity responsible for preservation keeping in close
contact with the creator to keep track of changes to its records system. The realization of duties,
roles, and responsibilities is a practical matter for organizations to decide. A large nationalarchives, for example, with major responsibilities for the preservation of records for cultural ends,
and perhaps with defined roles in the overall management of recorded information resources, will
have a very different arrangement of responsibilities compared with that of a multinational private
corporation that views continuing preservation as an aspect of its business needs alone.
Whatever the goal of continuing preservation, monitoring decisions to ensure that they are
implemented is a key activity for any organization.
Those who monitor electronic records must have access to all the components of the appraisal
decision. These include information about the electronic records appraised for preservation, otherrelated information of a contextual nature, and all details of the preserver’s system, platform, andcapabilities. In addition, documentation must be revised to ensure that changes made to the initial
terms and conditions as well as recommendations to redo the appraisal are understandable,
accessible, and preserved. A fully developed monitoring activity will integrate the continuing andnatural changes to records and the systems in which they are kept with the preserver’s need toknow of changes. Monitoring ensures that the operation of the selection function meets the needsof both the creator and the preserver over the long term.
Recommendations on Monitoring
1. The preserver should set guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of monitoringappraised electronic records and develop work flows to ensure smooth operation of thisactivity.
2. The appraisal strategy and disposition rules should take account of the needs ofmonitoring appraised records.
Carrying out Disposition of Electronic Records (A4)
To carry out the disposition of electronic records is to effect disposition of the electronic records
according to the appraisal decision. This activity is made up of three distinct activities: prepare
electronic records for disposition; prepare electronic records for transfer to the responsibility ofthe preserver; and transmit electronic records to the preserver. The appraisal decision, and theterms and conditions under which there is this transfer of responsibility for preservation from thecreator to the preserver, set out what the disposition is to be, as well as who will do what, andwhen. The disposition rules and procedures developed in the management of the selection
function govern the process of disposition of records selected for preservation and records notselected for preservation. Carrying out disposition is a three-step process.
Preparing Electronic Records for Disposition
The first step, preparing electronic records for disposition, includes copying and, if necessary,formatting those selected for preservation so as to prepare them physically for transfer; and/or, if
this falls to the responsibility of the preserver, taking those records not selected for preservationand preparing them for destruction, alienation to another entity, or such other disposition as has
been determined in the appraisal decision. The inputs to this activity are the electronic records
themselves and updated information about the appraised electronic records. This includes theinformation necessary for disposition and continuing preservation of electronic records, including
the terms and conditions of transfer. Updated information will result from the monitoring activity
that keeps track of the changes to electronic records in the period since the appraisal decision
was first made. During this step in the process, records eligible for disposition are identified andprepared for transfer or destruction.
Therefore, two of the outputs of this activity are electronic records selected for preservation andelectronic records not selected for preservation. Electronic records not selected for preservation
are identified for destruction or disposition to an entity other than the one responsible forcontinuing preservation. Those electronic records selected for preservation are copied andformatted for transfer to the entity responsible for continuing preservation. A third output of this16

activity is information about disposition. This is information about the quantity and quality ofrecords selected for preservation and records not selected for preservation, and about the cost of
disposition of electronic records, utilized for management purposes. As an output of the appraisal
process, this information accompanies the decision made: transfer of electronic records, or
destruction (or otherwise).
Preparing Electronic Records for Transfer
The next step, one that either the creator or preserver may take or that they may take together, is
to associate records selected for preservation with the necessary information for their continuingpreservation, including the terms and conditions of transfer, identification of the digitalcomponents to be preserved, and associated archival and technical documentation needed fortheir treatment. The relevant information should have already been compiled and recorded during
the various stages of appraisal and monitoring. The task at this stage is to extract the informationnecessary for continuing preservation of the records from the mass of appraisal documentation,
and associate it with the records.
There are two outputs from this activity: the electronic records themselves, prepared for transfer,and information about the electronic records prepared for transfer. Electronic records are copied
and, if necessary, formatted for transfer, and associated with the information necessary fortransmittal and continuing preservation. Information about the electronic records prepared fortransfer spells out the terms and conditions of transfer of electronic records, and identifies thedigital components to be preserved together with the archival and technical specifications
necessary to guide continuing preservation.
Transmitting electronic records
The third step, the final activity of carrying out disposition, is to transmit the records selected forpreservation—along with the accompanying information necessary for continuing preservation—
to the office responsible for the preservation function.
The outputs of this activity include information about transferred electronic records and thetransfer of electronic records selected for preservation. Information about transferred electronic
records constitutes the record or records providing the information about electronic records
necessary to maintain them continuously in authentic form, including the terms and conditions oftransfer. The second outcome of the transmit function is the actual transfer of electronic records
selected for preservation. These electronic records are copied and, if necessary, formatted fortransfer and sent to the office responsible for the preservation function.
Recommendations on disposition
1. As part of its disposition rules, the preserver should work out a standard protocol settingout the roles and responsibilities of the creator and the preserver in carrying out
disposition of electronic records.
2. The preserver should develop a standard format for recording the information necessary
for continuing preservation that is associated with transfers of electronic records.

17

Relationship of Findings to Other Research
Although the work to develop a picture of the process of selection of authentic electronic records
builds on the general literature on archival appraisal, and on the specific literature on appraisal ofelectronic records as reflected in the literature review, no other research we know of has delved
deeply into the questions we set out to answer. We believe that the picture of appraisal ofelectronic records afforded by the model we have developed provides the most extensive anddetailed account of the process of selection currently available.
The most important relationships of the work of the Appraisal Task Force is of course to the workof the Authenticity Task Force and Preservation Task Force of InterPARES, the main lines ofwhich we have indicated. In this regard, it is worth reiterating that our work depends to a very
great extent on the work of the Appraisal Task Force, in particular on its template for analyzing
electronic records and its conceptual requirements for assessing authenticity. Readers of thisreport are encouraged to follow the explanation of the template and conceptual requirements inthe "Authenticity Task Force Report."

Conclusion
The task force set out to determine whether the theory and methodology of appraisal forelectronic records differs from that for traditional records, and what role the activities of appraisalplay in the long-term preservation of electronic records. To summarize the ways in whichappraisal and disposition differ for electronic records and traditional records, it will be instructive
to look again at the original research questions in light of the findings, particularly in light of theknowledge encapsulated in the model of the selection function.
1. What is the influence of digital technology on appraisal?
Some of the influences of the digital environment on appraisal simply heighten tendencies
already evident in the traditional environment, while others are new.
The need to monitor or keep track of changes in the record-keeping environment is not unknown
in the traditional environment. The functions and activities of creators, and their internalorganization and procedures—including documentary procedures—all change over time, with theresult that appraisal decisions must be revisited and amended to take account of these changes.
By contrast, in the digital environment, changes in the system generating the records can present
at least three scenarios.
In the first scenario, relatively minor changes to a system may lead to a relatively inconsequential
revision to an appraisal and information about appraised electronic records. That is, one can livewith the main lines of the original appraisal and determination of disposition. In the second,significant changes in the technological context may require one to adjust the appraisal to takeaccount, for instance, of new work processes and their automation or technological advances. In
the third, drastic changes, such as introduction of a completely new system, may lead theappraiser to initiate a disposition under terms of the existing appraisal and then, of course, a“redo” of the appraisal of records in the new system when it is determined one should be made.
Because much data in the digital environment is dependent for its meaning on an understandingof that environment, deciding the disposition of records in systems about to become outmoded islikely to be an important tactic. In the traditional environment, records committed to paper did notso easily lose important aspects of the original context of creation, even if they migrated into a
new record-keeping environment. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that monitoring change
and determining its effects on selection decisions is nothing new. The need for it is just morepressing in the digital environment.

18

Something along similar lines can be said about the need to appraise records early in their life,
when the appraiser can see a fully operational live system. In fact, modern records schedules,
which in effect constitute a series of disposition decisions class by class, are often created before
records are created. The difficulty in the digital environment, one discussed widely in the literature
reviewed by the task force (see Appendix 3), is that designers of digital systems, particularly inthe early years of office automation, paid little or no attention to questions of the disposition ofrecords. It was this fact, rather than any inherent characteristic of the digital environment, thatpushed archivists to suppose that appraisal capability had to be built into the design of systems.
The need to appraise early in the digital environment is, by contrast, vital for quite anotherreason. Information about the technological context, much of it now contained in the systems
themselves, cannot be found or reconstructed, we know from sad experience, even a short timeafter systems have reached the end of their life. It is exceedingly difficult to assess theauthenticity of such records, determine the feasibility of preserving them, and understand them inthe future, without this information about the technological context. Once again, archivists arefamiliar with the difficulties of having to construe the context of the records with little else to speakof it but the records themselves. This is hardly an argument for expecting the acuity of Jean
Mabillon (the Benedictine Monk who laid out the concepts and tenets of diplomatics in theseventeenth century) in all future users of electronic records where information about theirtechnological context is concerned. Rather, considerable information about the technologicalcontext of the records needs to accompany them through time in order for the records to be
intelligible in anything like an acceptable fashion in years and centuries to come. It is a principal
task of appraisal to gather this information so that it can be associated with the records.
These somewhat shaded and not entirely novel influences of the digital environment are quite
different in kind from the influences on two aspects of appraisal of electronic records: assessing
their authenticity and determining the feasibility of their preservation. Archivists have rarely
assessed authenticity overtly and as a matter of gathering evidence to support a presumption ofauthenticity, such as we recommend be done during appraisal using the benchmark
requirements. Those requirements spell out evidence derived in large measure from analysis of
the technological context (of the kind spoken about in the previous paragraph) but it is with theend of gauging the play of authenticity in the overall determining of value of electronic records. It
is precisely because the digital environment is so frail that this needs to be done. Even less often
have archivists gone the extra length, during appraisal, to verify the authenticity of records. Bothassessment and verification along the lines recommended in the Requirements for Assessing and
Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic Records are likely to become, and should become, therule rather than the exception.
Still, the pièce de résistance of this particular recounting of influences may be found in the activityof determining feasibility. It is here, particularly in determining how record elements are
manifested in the digital environment and in identifying digital components to be preserved thatthe appraiser must be immersed in the technical details of the digital environment. In some cases,
it may be surmised that, for reasons of the character of the digital environment, it will be
determined that records cannot be preserved or not in authentic form. Could there be a greater
influence?
2. What is the influence of retrievability, intelligibility, functionality, and research needs
on appraisal?
The task force did not investigate these questions directly. It is implicitly clear that part of theexercise of determining the feasibility of preserving authentic electronic records is to ensure thatthe preserver has the capability to read and retrieve or present them in a form that does notcompromise their identity or integrity. We have little to say beyond what is implicit in the final
report of the Authenticity Task Force about the question of functionality. Some researchers havesuggested that proper preservation of electronic records means perpetuating the functionality ofthe system creating the records. We have not worked upon the assumption that this is necessary
if the message the record was meant to communicate is preserved and its identity and integrity

19are evident. However, the means by which records are presented to researchers is reallydependent on preservation capabilities, not on appraisal as such. In any given case, though,should the capability exist to replicate aspects of the functionality of the originating system, theappraiser would naturally take that into account.
3. What are the influences of the medium and the physical form of the record on
appraisal?
As the Authenticity Task Force has determined that the medium is in fact part of the technologicalcontext and that not all aspects of physical form necessarily need to be reproduced in order tohave authentic electronic records, these questions are no longer apposite. They have been
proven to be the wrong questions to ask.
4. When in the course of their existence should electronic records be appraised? Shouldelectronic records be appraised more than once in the course of their existence, and, if
so, when?
These two questions are addressed together because they both concern the timing of appraisal.
In fact, it is not possible to answer the first with a single answer. For good reason, the task force
has assumed that records must exist before they can be appraised. It is indeed possible to build
records retentions scheduling into the design of electronic record-keeping systems, but until
records are actually created in the system and can be examined, questions around theirauthenticity and the feasibility of preserving them cannot adequately be answered. Of course, it
might be the case that scheduling is regarded as the first step in the appraisal process, whencontinuing value alone is judged. This initial step would then be followed by assessment ofauthenticity and determination of feasibility, most likely at the time that a transfer of records to thepreserver is anticipated.
The ideal scenario as we see it is that an initial appraisal is made, preferably when records canbe seen “live” in the system that generated them, and the applicability of that appraisal isregularly monitored to take into account changes in the records and their contexts, with the lastmonitoring being at or near the time of transfer (disposition). So, yes, electronic records must be
appraised more than once in the sense that the dynamic nature of the digital environment means
the assumptions and judgements of the appraisal as it exists at any point in time must be
validated before disposition action is taken. In short, the idea of monitoring is the answer toquestions about the timing of appraisal of electronic records that have been raised in theliterature. For a full discussion of opinion on this question, see the literature review in Appendix 3.
5. Who should be responsible for appraising electronic records?
As already discussed, one of the basic assumptions of the research is that appraisal is part of the
primary responsibilities of the preserver, although obviously there are nuances, as alreadydiscussed, to the way in which responsibility may actually play out in a given administrative
setting. We believe that our work buttresses this assumption in several ways.
The preserver has the long term and the interests of entities other than the current creating bodyin mind when appraising records. The assessment of authenticity and the documentation
generated and preserved during that assessment are actions associated with the preservation
function. This assessment and its documentation are preserved for the benefit of future users(whether inside or outside the creating body) wishing to establish the grounds for the presumptionof authenticity of the records.
Another argument follows the logic of determining the feasibility of preserving electronic records.
If appraisal is not undertaken by the preserver and with the current and expected futurecapabilities of the preserver in mind, there is the chance that appraisal and preservation will
simply be disconnected. It is hard to imagine that the preserver should accept decisions about

20

what it must preserve without having responsibility for making the decision. The methodology ofappraisal implied in the model leaves ample room for the interests of the organization creating therecords to be taken into account.
Finally, we hope that the complexity of appraising electronic records such as we have indicatedmakes it abundantly clear that appraisal requires considerable professional expertise to perform.
Because of this, it seems unreasonable to expect that anyone other than persons devoted to theprimary task of preservation should be saddled with the responsibility to appraise electronic
records.
6. What are the appraisal criteria and methods for authentic electronic records?
The methodology explicit and implicit in the model is our answer to the aspect of this question
about methods. The only criteria that, in our view, can be established to cover all situations are,first, the requirements for assessing authenticity as part of assessing the value of electronic
records; and, second, the concepts that have been developed for determining the record
elements to be preserved and for identifying the digital components to be preserved as part ofdetermining the feasibility of preservation. As we have explained, we did not regard it as part ofour charge to establish criteria governing assessment of continuing value, because assessing
continuing value is so sensitive to the entire context in which appraisals are made.
We are also of the view that we cannot go beyond the conceptual requirements developed by the
Authenticity Task Force for assessing authenticity. They in fact provide sufficient criteria forassessing authenticity and for determining the records elements that are vital for the identity ofelectronic records. Although we did not take it as part of our charge to develop criteria guiding thedetermination of continuing value, we do recognize that the appraisal strategies of preservers
should include criteria to apply in assessing continuing value.
Nevertheless, the model of the activities of selection shows that appraisal is a vital first step inlong-term preservation of authentic electronic records in innumerable ways. It gathers andsynthesizes essential information and evidence to ensure the authenticity of electronic records
and to set in motion their disposition and long-term preservation.

Summary of Recommendations
1. Appraisal is a knowledge- and research-intensive activity. Appraisers must be provided
with the proper training, tools, information, support, and resources to conduct thenecessary research.
2. Accurate and thorough documentation of the appraisal process in its various phases andoutcomes is essential. Information about the appraisal decision, as well as about theappraised records themselves, should be considered as an outcome of appraisal in its
own right, as much as the appraisal decision itself. That information is required for further
archival functions—such as preservation, arrangement, and description—to be performed
adequately.
3. The preserver should develop an interview protocol (along the lines of the InterPARES
Case Study Interview Protocol or CSIP) to ensure that the relevant information iscompiled to determine the records elements that need to be preserved.
4. The preserver should use the Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining theAuthenticity of Electronic Records as the conceptual basis for its assessment of thegrounds for presuming records to be authentic and for its identification of records
elements that need to be preserved to ensure authenticity.
5. The preserver should move set guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of monitoringappraised electronic records and develop work flows to ensure smooth operation of thisactivity.
6. The appraisal strategy and disposition rules should take account of the needs ofmonitoring appraised records.
21

7. As part of its disposition rules, the preserver should work out a standard protocol settingout the roles and responsibilities of the creator and the preserver in carrying out
disposition of electronic records.
8. The preserver should develop a standard format for recording the information necessary
for continuing preservation that is packaged with transfers of electronic records.

22