collaborative-assessment-report-2022

ICE

the

RECORDS

OFF

CER

__________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________

Inter-Agency Collaboration Applications

Records Management Assessment Report

National Archives and Records Administration

April 2022

INTER-AGENCY COLLABORATION APPLICATIONS

RECORDS MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), based on authority granted by 44

United States Code (U.S.C.) 2904(c), is responsible for assessing the proper management of

records in all media within federal agencies to protect rights, assure government accountability,

and preserve and make available records of enduring value. Under this authority, NARA

conducts records management oversight of federal agencies, including agency inspections and

assessments. An assessment is a multi-agency evaluation of a specific topic, issue, or activity

affecting records management (RM) processes, procedures, or policies.

NARA conducted an assessment of the collaboration tools used by federal agencies for inter-

agency business. In particular, NARA was interested in the technology, methodology and

policies federal agencies use to create, transmit, protect and preserve records from collaboration

tools. Furthermore, the purpose of this assessment is to determine what, if any, updates may be

required to federal records management regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B) or to

NARA guidance, including NARA Bulletin 2009-02: Guidance Concerning Managing Records

in Multi-agency Environments, in order for agencies to achieve results consistent with the

records management objectives established in 44 U.S.C. § 2902.

The term “collaboration tools” is broad, but this assessment focused on collaboration suites,

email, calendar, video conferencing, chat, file sharing, and document collaboration. For purposes

of this assessment, we are defining collaboration tools as containing:

● Collaboration Suites - Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Nextcloud, Zoho One,

OpenPaaS

● Document Collaboration - Max.gov, Google Workspace Docs, Sheets, Slides, Microsoft

365 Word, Excel, PowerPoint; Box, Huddle

● File Sharing - Max.gov, DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), Box, Huddle,

Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, Nextcloud, Owncloud

● Email - Outlook, Gmail, WorkMail, ProtonMail, Zoho, Thunderbird

Page 1

● Calendars - Outlook, Google Calendar, Max.gov calendaring service, Thunderbird,

Nextcloud, Amelia, Calendly, Doodle, TeamUp

● Chat - Google Chat, Microsoft Teams, Slack, Jabber, Rocket.Chat, Zulip, Mattermost,

Facebook Workplace, HIVE, Discord

● Video Conferencing - Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, ZoomGov, Cisco Webex,

Adobe Connect, AWS Chime, Verizon BlueJeans, Jitsi

Background

The goal of the assessment is to provide detailed information on agency use of collaboration

tools, understand the challenges of managing records created by using collaboration tools, and

support future government-wide records management policy. The General Services

Administration (GSA) and NARA, in coordination with the Office of the Federal Chief

Information Officer (OFCIO) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), conducted two

focus groups to gather data on agency collaboratives practices and tools. Based on the focus

group data GSA developed eleven recommendations for identifying and addressing records

management issues in collaborative and multi-agency environments. Many of GSA’s findings

and recommendations revolved around the policy challenges of effectively managing records

created using collaboration tools. NARA subsequently undertook this assessment to fulfill one of

GSA’s recommendations.

Scope

Six organizations participated in this assessment each with varying platforms, tools, and needs

for collaboration. These organizations used both in-house purpose-built tools and Commercial-

Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products, such as Microsoft Office 365, Google Workspace, and Zoom.

For this assessment, NARA focused on the collaboration tools federal agencies used to achieve

day-to-day tasks. We only focused on cloud-based collaboration platforms and not the type of

device(s) used to access them. NARA conducted assessments of the following agencies:

● Department of Interior/Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

● Department of Labor (DOL)

● General Services Administration (GSA)

● National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

● National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Page 2

● Department of Energy/Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)

Methodology

Participants submitted a pre-assessment questionnaire to NARA along with relevant

documentation, including all policies, procedures, or directives concerning the collaboration

tools that are used at their agency. NARA then conducted interviews with records management

and/or IT managers from each agency and asked questions about records management,

information technology security, and internal policies. This report synthesizes information

gathered via the questionnaire and individual interviews and contains observations to improve

the records management practices when records are created through collaboration tools. The

recommendations that follow are intended to help federal agencies and NARA meet the

challenge of collaboration tools.

HOW COLLABORATION TOOLS ARE BEING USED

Government agencies use either Microsoft Office 365 or Google G-Suite, which are both cloud-

based operating systems. These cloud-based tools have replaced the traditional on-premise

enterprise systems. By design, the tools create a seamless community where anyone anywhere

with access can communicate and collaborate. Within these cloud-based operating systems are

built-in tools that allow collaboration: simultaneous document editing, shared document storage,

note-taking, and video conferencing.

Word processing applications such as Microsoft Word and Google Docs are continuing to be

used as they have been used for decades. However, the vast majority of government agencies and

all of the agencies participating in this assessment are using a cloud-based version of these

applications. Along with applications like Excel, Google Sheets, Powerpoint and Google Slides,

users can create documents, spreadsheets and presentations that can be shared instantly with

other users for review, editing and viewing. Previously, users would have to email a document to

others, use external media and physically deliver the files, or place a file on a network share, the

contents of which were not managed by any collaboration suite. Users of cloud-based word

processing tools are still creating documents such as memoranda, reports, presentations and

budget spreadsheets. Permanent and temporary records are still being created using these cloud-

based applications.

Video conferencing applications such as Microsoft Teams and Google Meet facilitate the sharing

of information via live video. Video conferencing is a built-in tool in these cloud-based systems.

Many meetings that would happen in person and/or over the telephone are now happening in

Page 3

front of the computer and allows face-to-face interaction with someone no matter their duty

station. Since all the cloud-based applications are interconnected, documents and spreadsheets

can be shared instantly within a video conference allowing all attendees instant access to

documents.

There are chat functions in these cloud-based operating systems such as Windows Chat and

Google Chat. Chatting allows users to instant message another user. This allows for instant

communication and often more informal communication. This type of collaborative

communication has often replaced the use of the office telephone. Once again links to documents

can also be instant messaged using Chat.

Microsoft One-Drive, Google Drive and to a lesser extent Amazon AWS Cloud are the basis of

the cloud-based operating system. These file storage applications allow for cloud storage,

backup, security and retrieval of files without federal agencies having to have a physical

footprint of servers. Files that are created and shared are usually automatically stored within

One-Drive or Drive. Many times these applications serve as unofficial and official repositories of

temporary and permanent federal records. Security and maintenance is provided by the cloud

host which alleviates that burden from federal agencies.

Email is included as a part of these cloud-based systems. The interconnected tools within the

suite and the myriad ways of communicating are impacting the use of email. We heard from

agencies that cloud-based collaboration tools are replacing email because tools offer users the

opportunity to simultaneously share, edit, and chat about a document, work on a document,

communicate within the document, and share and edit simultaneously.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic has shut down many federal government offices and forced

people to work remotely, collaboration tools have become vital to the business of the federal

government. The pandemic has forced agencies and employees to maintain business processes

using collaboration tools on a daily basis.

Page 4

RECORDS MANAGEMENT OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Observation 1. There is No Consensus on the Defining Characteristics of a Collaboration

Tool

The term “collaboration tool” covers a myriad of technologies and capabilities that may or may

not create or maintain records. Many agencies interviewed considered certain collaborative

platforms to be just means of communication with no real record creating function. Each agency

interviewed did, however, mention that records are determined by the subject matter and content

of the document and not what application was used to create the document. But many would also

go on to say that communication created through a chat application, for example, is not a record

because chats are meant to be transitory. We observed that there was a reluctance to consider a

collaborative tool, such as a cloud-based Google Doc, as a collaborative tool since that tool is

used to document day-to-day business usually among internal stakeholders. While Google Docs

at one level can be seen as a replacement for traditional word processing tools, the addition of

collaborative functions within the tool, such as emailing and chatting with collaborators and

assigning tasks within the document, expands upon traditional word processing functions. The

only commonality among the agencies interviewed was that email was a collaborative platform

that contains both permanent and temporary records.

Grouping all of these tools together obscures their fundamental differences. These tools have

different capabilities and are constantly evolving. Agencies categorize the same tool in different

ways. For example, Microsoft Teams consists of document collaboration, chat, video

conferencing, and file sharing capabilities. It is therefore important to identify tool types that

might require unique records management approaches and corresponding policies.

Collaboration tools are used in day-to-day operations as well as meetings and conferences.

Collaboration tools are the basis of the modern cloud-based computing environment. They create

an interconnected network through the cloud, but are used in the same way as past forms of

communication, such as enterprise-based Microsoft Word documents or handwritten letters. The

way records are created and maintained should not be based on the system that was used to

create them, but instead by the information presented in the documents. Once the tool types are

identified, proper policies, procedures and governance must be implemented to ensure the

handling of records by these tools meets all established records management requirements.

Page 5

Inter-Agency Application Usage

Ema

Cale

nda

Chat and Video Conrerence File

Sha

ing

Microsoft [Google

Microsoft[ Google

I zoorn I Webex I Jabber I Slack[

other

Microsott[Google[ Kitewor

I Jabber[

other

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

WAPA

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Recommendation 1.1: Agencies must understand the various capabilities of collaboration tools

and the ways they are being used to accomplish an agency mission.

Recommendation 1.2: Agencies must recognize that all cloud-based collaboration tools have the

capability to create and/or maintain records.

Recommendation 1.3: Agencies must integrate records management and preservation

considerations into their use of collaboration tools. (36 CFR 1236.6)

Observation 2. Agencies are Comfortable Managing Document Collaboration Files

We learned during the interview portion of this assessment that federal agencies are comfortable

managing document collaboration files, and specifically records created by applications such as

Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Google Docs and Sheets. The agencies are managing these

records as though they did with the enterprise-based Microsoft Office, for example. Every

Agency Records Officer (ARO) interviewed reiterated that the content of these records

determines their disposition and not how they were created.

However, we did realize that comments, suggestions and edits to such documents were not often

being preserved. This created the disconnect between enterprise-based applications and cloud-

based applications. In an enterprise-based environment one document for example may have

edits and comments that are expressed through email and attached within. Whereas in the cloud-

based environment, the comments are embedded and versioning allows for multiple versions of

the same file. However, when data is transferred from the cloud environment to NARA for

preservation, embedded comments and versions can be turned off and that information lost. The

majority of the participating agencies expressed no definitive answer for the records management

of document collaboration files when versioning is present. For the most part, the AROs left the

decision to the document creator or a program officer.

Observation 3. Agencies are Comfortable Managing Email Records

Page 6

Agencies expressed general comfort with managing email records. All the participating agencies

were using the Capstone General Records Schedule (GRS 6.1) to identify, manage, and

disposition email records. Most of the agencies have begun preserving the emails of individuals

for the minimum requirement of 15 years after separation. Some agencies were more detailed

than others on the size of the email account, number of emails in the account, and the exact date

of transfer to NARA.

The most distinct difference among the participating agencies was their ability to cull the email.

“Culling, in the context of Capstone implementation, is the act of removing or deleting material

prior to disposition. This may include deleting non-record email, spam, and personal email, and

transitory email records”.

All the agencies mentioned that it was a desire of theirs to cull the

email prior to transfer to NARA. Some agencies expressed the desire but knew it was not a

possibility. There were agencies that left that task to the owner of the email and it was their

responsibility before they departed the agency. Another agency mentioned having a staff

member and a computer program review email to remove non-record, personal, and transitory

items.

Observation 4. Some Collaboration Tools Present Unique Challenges for Records

Management

During the agency assessment we discovered that many tools are being used for agency

communication and collaboration. For example, agencies are using Cisco Jabber, Adobe, Webex,

and Zoom, in addition to their agency workspaces, such as Google Workspace and Microsoft

365. The majority of agencies store records in the collaboration tool. As a result some agencies

have multiple repositories for the data to be stored and managed.

It is essential that AROs understand record formats and storage structures created within

collaboration tools for records to be managed properly regardless of the tools being used. As a

matter of standard practice, the ARO and other records management staff can ensure that the

requirements for managing records are included when decisions are being made for purchasing

and/or implementing the use of collaboration tools.

Furthermore, the majority of agencies store their records in the tool that is being used for

communication. Some agencies interviewed did not have a set procedure to decide how to store

the data in the most efficient manner. There were a number of agencies that left it to the

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about GRS 6.1, available at: https://www.archives.gov/records-

mgmt/grs/grs06-1-faqs.html (last retrieved March 8, 2022)

Page 7

application owner to decide how the records should be stored; likewise, there were some that let

their program office make the decision. Our assessment revealed one agency that consolidates all

their records into a single repository. This is a more logical and organized approach that allows

the agency to execute disposition, facilitate e-discovery, and implement litigation holds more

efficiently.

On multiple occasions, agencies expressed the desire to expand the current Capstone guidance to

include records other than email records. It is their hope that expanding Capstone would address

some of the unique challenges posed by complex communication tools. Capstone is an account-

based approach to records management, initially branded as Capstone in Bulletin 2013-02, and it

offers agencies an alternative method of managing their email records. Under this account-based

approach, final disposition of the e-mail account is determined by the role or position of the

record creator or receiver. AROs often saw chat as an extension of email records. In most

occasions, but not all, chat is embedded and accessed through the email application, typically

Microsoft Outlook or Google Gmail. However, the chat records may not be stored within the

email application as email records would.

All agencies expressed that applying disposition authority to records created on collaboration

tools is difficult as the capabilities of the collaboration suite software lack appropriate controls

out of the box. For example, categorization of records is sometimes at the discretion of the

creator of those records and is not determined by a strict rule set contained in the software and

done automatically. The dynamic nature of the records, the different document types, and the

various record formats in a collaboration tool make records scheduling and disposition

challenging to implement. For example, email found in a collaboration tool might be scheduled

using Capstone, whereas a case file in the same tool may have a traditional schedule. Similarly,

agencies had not developed a unified approach for scheduling video conferences and the chat

messages created within the video conference.

As more individuals have shifted to a remote working environment, there has been a dramatic

increase in video and chat communication among several agencies. It is crucial for these

agencies to refine their processes to manage and mark their records of communication more

efficiently. The inconsistency of their processes can lead to vulnerabilities in data security and

authenticity.

Recommendation 4.1: Agencies should support the training and/or professional development for

Agency Records Officers to gain a deeper understanding of collaboration tools functions and

capabilities.

Page 8

Recommendation 4.2: Agencies should designate AROs as stakeholders when collaboration tools

are being considered, purchased, and implemented and work with appropriate agency officials

(e.g., the CIO and CFO) as part of the IT implementation and procurement process.

Recommendation 4.3: Agencies should have intellectual control over all records.

Recommendation 4.4: Agencies should not allow the records management challenges of

collaboration tools to hinder their full use of collaborative platforms.

Observation 5. There is Inconsistent Records Management of Video Conferencing,

Recordings, and Associated Chat

As agencies have shifted to a remote working environment, there has been a dramatic increase in

video conferencing. Most agencies expressed that applying disposition authority to certain video

conferencing files is difficult. These difficulties can arise from various factors such as the lack of

auto-categorization of videos by the collaboration tool, thereby creating a backlog of video

recordings that must be manually reviewed to determine which records schedule applies to its

content. We found discrepancies in the way that agencies approach video conferencing,

recordings, and associated chat messages. Agencies did not have a clear policy or understanding

of when meeting recordings rise to the level of a record. Some agencies manage these records

under an agency-specific audiovisual records schedule. Meanwhile, others consider them

intermediary records. These agencies were managing records under NARA’s General Records

Schedule (GRS) 5.2. Most agencies do not have a centralized approach and tend to delegate

responsibility for the management of the video conferencing records to the creator or attendee(s)

of the meeting.

Agencies with video conference recording policies in place have varying policies for

transcription and/or closed captioning. Some agencies had automatic closed captioning built into

their capture, others captioned in real time, while others were captioned post-recording. Most

agencies assured us that the captions were embedded in the video file. No agency interviewed

created both closed captions and written transcripts of the meeting. Those agencies using

transcription for video conferencing had the transcription software built into the video

conferencing software. The transcript was stored outside of the video with no mention of there

being quality assurance or proofing of the transcript.

Many video conferencing platforms offer a chat feature. We found that the ability to save the

associated chat varies depending on the platform in use. For example, some platforms allowed

chats to be exported where other platforms deleted the chats immediately after the video ended.

In this instance, the only method of chat capture available would be “copy and paste” or a

Page 9

screenshot. Agencies were unclear on their records management responsibilities related to the

associated chat, and posed the following questions:

● What is an agency’s records management responsibility for chat that occurs within a

video conference? Does this change if a Capstone official is involved?

● Does closed captioning or transcription impact the retention of a video recording?

● When are video recordings covered by the GRS versus an agency-specific schedule?

Recommendation 5.1: Agencies need to develop internal policies related to video conferencing,

recordings, and associated records that can be consistently implemented. The policies should

specify when meetings should be recorded such as public and high-profile meetings or

recordings for the purposes of those who could not attend.

Recommendation 5.2: If they are recorded, they need to determine how long they need to be kept

based on NARA-approved records schedules.

Observation 6. Interagency Use of Collaboration Tools Presents Records Ownership

Challenges

The question of record ownership arises when agencies work together using collaborative tools.

When working with outside agencies many of the AROs had no policies on the ownership of

records being created. Some agencies had a policy of creating memoranda of understanding or

information sharing agreements for such situations. Therefore, many times the ownership of

records was unclear such that the records could be maintained by multiple agencies, one agency,

or neither.

Ownership of records is also an issue when dealing with incompatible collaborative platforms. In

some instances a record cannot be saved or maintained because it was created outside a

compatible system and the agency does not have the ability to capture the record. One agency

has a policy that they will grant access to their system to allow for collaboration, meaning the

agency will provide meeting attendees a Microsoft Teams account to collaborate and share

documents. Meanwhile, other agencies encourage document sharing only through email to

ensure that the records are captured properly.

NARA Bulletin 2009-02: Guidance Concerning Managing Records in Multi-agency

Environments discusses the ownership of records through multi-agency work. However, the

bulletin is out-of-date and does not take into account the advent of cloud-based systems, text-

Page 10

based chat, video conferencing or document collaboration. Ownership of electronic records

created collaboratively and shared is something that is used in day-to-day communication and no

longer for only special projects.

Recommendation 6.1: Agency Records Officers should work alongside Information Technology

staff to ensure that collaboration tools can provide secure and proper access for users to work

on inter-agency assignments.

Recommendation 6.2: For interagency collaboration, each agency should have a signed

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) that includes

recordkeeping requirements, scheduling and maintenance responsibilities, and ownership.

Observation 7. Incompatible Tools and System Security Present Accessibility Issues

The agencies interviewed used either Google G-Suite for Government or Microsoft Office 365.

These systems come with their own built-in collaborative platforms such as Google Meet,

Microsoft Teams, OneNote, and others. Many agencies ran into issues when they had to

collaborate with a federal agency that did not share their same platform. In some cases, a

hyperlink can be provided to a Google user to have access to Microsoft Teams, for example.

Depending on the security restrictions from the receiving agency, that may or may not be a

possibility. This becomes an issue when agencies use video conferencing, direct messaging,

sharing links or working collaboratively on a shared document. In certain cases, some agencies

use platforms outside of their operating systems or email suites such as Webex or Zoom.

The majority of federal agencies are using the Microsoft 365 platform for conducting agency

business. Often departmental agencies will have one tenant for all component agencies and they

will need to determine intra-agency sharing and management of records within the agency. A

tenant in this context refers to a particular partition of cloud resources that are allocated

hierarchically to sub-entities. Because most agencies are using Microsoft 365, it should be easier

to provide access to both inter-agency and intra-agency users if they are all on the government

cloud. However, agencies have not configured system settings to allow users perpetual access to

collaborative workspaces. Users may have access to Microsoft Teams spaces and chat for a time,

but then access may be revoked. This could create situations where records are not captured for

all agency records management purposes.

Incompatible tools can be problematic when trying to maintain a good records management

program. We observed that there could be issues when a record is being worked on by a member

from an agency that has incompatible tools. Sometimes the user will need to download and

convert a document, for example. When doing this, there is a risk of loss to the metadata,

comments, and the interactive collaborative nature that was intended by the use of these tools. As

Page 11

a result, the user will usually have to re-upload, email or find another way to incorporate their

contributions to a larger document. Additionally, downloading and re-uploading documents

creates a potential network security concern. When working collaboratively in Microsoft Office,

for example, user interactions and comments are constrained within the cloud. However, when

someone downloads a document, they are now accepting new risks (such as the potential security

vulnerability of the unintended execution of untrusted software) that were not present within the

cloud environment. The purpose of these tools is to allow multiple people to work on the same

document at the same time from virtually anywhere. But in many circumstances that is not

possible due to incompatible tools and network security.

Among the agencies participating in the assessment, we discovered a great diversity of unique

business requirements. Some agencies work closely with the private sector as well as state and

local governments that often have their own collaboration tools and requirements. In some

instances, multiple productivity suites were used by a single agency, but for different purposes.

For example, internal agency collaboration was done with the Office suite, and external

collaboration was done with the G-Suite. Additionally, tools such as Webex, Zoom, or Box were

used to augment Google G-Suite for Government or Microsoft Office 365. These tools tend to be

more operating system agnostic but internal security issues can still arise.

Recommendation 7.1: Agencies may want to ensure that they have a system agnostic way of

working collaboratively with external agencies.

Recommendation 7.2: CIOs should consider working with its agency’s Information Technology

professionals to ensure that they can access a variety of mainstream agnostic conferencing and

collaborative platforms that are not blocked by the agency’s firewall.

Recommendation 7.3: AROs must work with system users to ensure recordkeeping requirements

are met. (36 CFR 1236)

Observation 8. Agencies are Beginning to use Artificial Intelligence and Other Automated

Tools for Records Management

We witnessed that agencies are beginning to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) into their

records management processes. AI is used to analyze a document and determine where the

document should be stored based on the learned behavior of the user. Agencies are currently

using third-party COTS or purpose built-in house tools. AI can mimic learned behavior but at

times can cause records management issues because records can be stored in unintentional places

or in multiple places. According to one of the agencies interviewed, AI is still evolving but it

helps immensely with managing big data. With AI tools becoming more common, there will be a

Page 12

time in the near future where companies such as Microsoft and Google will offer AI capability in

its basic operating systems.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF RECORDS OFFICER

This assessment has focused on the many approaches that agencies have taken to work

collaboratively, managing information technology infrastructure, and managing records. Based

on the data gathered, NARA’s Office of the Chief Records Officer should review, update and

create new policies surrounding inter-agency collaboration.

NARA should:

● Begin to monitor the development, implementation and use of AI for records

management. Review the creation of policy for a future of automated records

management.

● Develop definitions for these different types of tools, gain an understanding of their

technical capabilities, and develop policy that addresses the nuances of each type of

collaboration tool and how they relate to the capture and maintenance of related records.

● Develop clear policy around video conferencing and associated records.

● Update NARA Bulletin 2009-02: Guidance Concerning Managing Records in Multi-

agency Environments to clarify the records management responsibilities for each agency

when records are created collaboratively by two or more agencies working on the same

business process.

● Consider providing examples and/or draft language for MOUs and ISAs to any updated

guidance regarding records management in a multi-agency environment.

● Study the possibility of extending role-based records management to other collaborative

and communication tools.

CONCLUSION

This assessment examined the many tools agencies are using to work collaboratively within and

across agencies. All agencies interviewed are using collaboration tools to accomplish their

mission goals. Each agency chose a different mix of collaboration tools to meet their unique

business requirements. The variety of tools and capabilities presented challenges for agencies to

effectively meet their records management requirements in areas such as:

Page 13

● Records ownership and responsibilities

● Configuration management across tools

● Proper identification of records being created and maintained by or within collaboration

tools

● Records retention and disposition

The interviewees were aware of these challenges, but differed on their approaches. AROs felt

that many of the records created using collaboration tools were covered by an existing NARA-

approved records schedule, but no agency had all permutations of tools and capabilities covered.

AROs also agreed that their goal was to create schedules focused on managing content rather

than tools, but were challenged by the diversity of business processes and different collaboration

tools used. Many AROs rely on the discretion of the creator and the office-level records manager

to determine the appropriate retention of a record created with a collaborative tool.

Page 14

Appendix

Participating Organizations

Western Area Power Administration

Records and Information Management Program Manager

Records and Information Management Specialist

Bureau of Land Management

Information Technology Manager

Department of Labor

Agency Records Officer

Advanced Engineering Division

Branch Chief

Project Manager

Director of Architecture Strategy

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)

Project Manager (Contractor)

General Services Administration

Agency Records Officer

Branch Chief, CIO Office

National Aeronautical and Space Administration

NASA Records Officer, Headquarters

Enterprise Collaboration Services Lead, Ames Research Center

NASA Records Manager, Glenn Research Center

National Archives and Records Administration

Corporate Records Management

Director

Records and Information Management Specialist

Page 15

'~~-

?S'

,-+-t

NATIONAL