Exploring Two Approaches to Information Management: Two Swedish Municipalities as Examples

  • Proscovia SvärdEmail author
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


This chapter explores the differences and similarities between records management and enterprise content management (ECM). The need to manage information effectively as a key asset is central to the delivery of quality service, and information management determines the efficiency level of business operations. Information systems are deployed to facilitate the effective creation, capture, organization, management, and dissemination of information, so a proactive and holistic approach to information management is critical if information is to be leveraged in a manner that gives organizations a competitive edge. Records management, a field of management that controls the systematic management of records, enables organizations to comply with the regulations governing corporate or government information. It also serves broad societal purposes like the promotion of government accountability and transparency and the societal memory. While records management focuses on records that carry the evidentiary value of business transactions, other types of information resources such as documents, audio files, video clips, and desktop information have proliferated in governments. This type of information is unstructured and highly relevant to the day-to-day business operations, but often it is kept in multiple places and in duplicate, which complicates the task of finding it. This development has led to new ways of managing information such as ECM. ECM is variably defined as a technology, an initiative, a framework or a set of skills that organizations employ to manage their unstructured information resources.


Business Process Knowledge Management Enterprise Architecture Business Operation Business Process Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I acknowledge with thanks the European Union Objective 2 funding for this project in the Centrum för Digital Informationsförvaltning (CEDIF). I also express my appreciation of the support received from my supervisors; Karen Anderson and Erik Borglund. Special thanks also go to the participants of both municipalities whose views informed this research.


  1. AIIM Market Intelligence. (2009). State of the ECM industry 2009: Who’s achieved it, how are they doing it and is it working for them? Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  2. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baharein, K., & Noor, M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bantin, P. C. (2008). Understanding data and information systems for recordkeeping. London: Facet Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bohlin, A. (2010). Offentlighetsprincipen (Åttonde Upplaga ed.). Mölnlycke: Elanders Sverige AB.Google Scholar
  6. Borglund, E. (2006). A predictive model for attaining quality in recordkeeping. Sundsvall: Mid Sweden University.Google Scholar
  7. Butler Group. (2004). Enterprise architecture: An end-to-end approach for re-aligning IT with business aims. Butler Group.Google Scholar
  8. Chachage, B., & Ngulube, P. (2006). Management of business records in Tanzania: An exploratory case study of selected companies. South African Journal of Information Management, 8(3).Google Scholar
  9. de Carvalho, R. A. (2007). An enterprise content management solution based on open source. In L. D. Xu, A. M. Tjoa, & S. S. Chaudhry (Eds.), IFIP: The international federation for information processing (Vol. 254, pp. 173–183). Research and practical issues of enterprise information systems II: Volume 1 Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Duranti, L., & Preston, R. (Eds.) (2008). International research on permanent authentic records in electronic systems (InterPARES) 2: Experiential, interactive and dynamic records. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  11. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 5–35). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Emery, P. (2003). Document and records management: Understanding the differences and embracing integration, white paper. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  13. European Union. (2003). Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 2013 on the re-use of public sector information. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  14. Feldman, S., & Villars, R. L. (2006). The information lifecycle management imperative. White paper. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  15. Gilbane, F. (2000). What is content management? The Gilbane Report, 8(8), 1–24. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  16. Glazer, D., Jenkins, T., & Schaper, H. (2005). Turning content into competitive advantage: Enterprise content management technology, what you need to know. Waterloo, Ontario: Open Text Corporation.Google Scholar
  17. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1995). Re-engineering the corporation. A manifestor for business revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Harries, S. (2009). Managing records, making knowledge and good governance. Records Management Journal, 19(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hockman, H. (2009). Change management: Ensuring ECM success by preparing end-users for automation. Optical Image Technology. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  20. Hofman, H. (2005). The archive. In S. McKemmish, M. Piggot, B. Reed, & F. Upward (Eds.), Archives: Recordkeeping in society (Topics in Australasian library and information studies). New South Wales: Charles Sturt University, Centre for Information Studies.Google Scholar
  21. ISO 15489-1. (2001). Information and documentation: Records management: Part 1 general.Google Scholar
  22. ISO/TR 26122. (2008). Information and documentation: Work process analysis for records (1st ed.).Google Scholar
  23. Iverson, J., & Burkart, P. (2007). Managing electronic documents and work flows: Enterprise content management at work in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(4), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenkins, T., Köhler, W., & Shackleton, J. (2006). Turning content into competitive advantage: Enterprise content management methods, what you need to now. Waterloo, Ontario: Open Text Corporation.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, P., & Ekstedt, M. (2007). Enterprise architecture, models and analyses for information systems decision making. Pozkal: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  26. Kampffmeyer, U. (2004). Trends in record, document and enterprise content management. White paper. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  27. Kemp, J. (2006). A critical analysis into the use of enterprise content management systems in the IT industry. A report based on a dissertation by James Kemp. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  28. Larsson, T., & Bäck, H. (2008). Governing and governance in Sweden. Elanders Hungary Kft.Google Scholar
  29. Ljungberg, A., & Larsson, E. (2008). Processbaserad verksamhetsutveckling. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  30. MacMillan, A., & Huff, B. (2009). Transforming infoglut! A pragmatic strategy for oracle enterprise content management: Manage corporate-wide content and intellectural property. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.Google Scholar
  31. McGreevy, M. (2003). Managing the transition. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(6), 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKemmish, S. (1997). Yesterday, today and tomorrow: A continuum of responsibility. In Proceedings of the Records Management Association of Australia 14th National Convention. Perth.Google Scholar
  33. McKemmish, S. (2001). Placing records continuum theory and practice. Archival Science, 1(4), 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNally, M. B. (2010). Enterprise content management systems and the application of Taylorism and Fordism to intellectual labour. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 10(3/4), 357–373.Google Scholar
  35. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. A qualitative approach. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Munkvold, B. E., Päivärinta, T., Hodne, A. K., & Stangeland, E. (2006). Contemporary issues of enterprise content management: The case of Statoil. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 69–100.Google Scholar
  37. Nordheim, S., & Päivärinta, T. (2004). Customization of enterprise content management systems: An exploratory case study. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.Google Scholar
  38. Reed, B. (2005a). Reading the records continuum: Interpretations and explorations. Archives and Manuscripts, 33(1), 19–43.Google Scholar
  39. Reed, B. (2005b). Records. In S. McKemmish, M. Piggot, B. Reed, & F. Upward (Eds.), Archives: Recordkeeping in society (Topics in Australasian library and information studies). New South Wales: Charles Sturt University, Centre for Information Studies.Google Scholar
  40. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 305–329). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Rockley, A., Kostur, P., & Manning, S. (2003). Managing enterprise content: A unified content strategy. Indianapolis: New Riders.Google Scholar
  42. Shepherd, E., & Yeo, G. (2003). Managing records, a handbook of principles and practice. London: Facet publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, H. A., & McKeen, J. D. (2003). Developments in practice VIII: Enterprise content management. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 647–659.Google Scholar
  44. Sprehe, J. T. (2005). The positive benefits of electronic records management in the context of enterprise content management. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sundberg, H. (2006). Problems in public e-services development. Härnösand: Mid Sweden University.Google Scholar
  46. Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., Kuljis, J., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Extending the information system lifecycle through enterprise application integration: A case study experience. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.Google Scholar
  47. Tyrväinen, P., Päivärinta, T., Salminen, A., & Iivari, J. (2006). Guest editorial: Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Upward, F. (2001). Modelling the continuum as paradigm shift in recordkeeping and archiving processes, and beyond: A personal reflection. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  49. Upward, F. (2009). Structuring the records continuum: Part 1: Post custodial principles and properties. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  50. vom Brocke, J., Derungs, R., Herbst, A., Novotny, S., & Simons, A. (2011). The drivers behind enterprise content management: A process-oriented perspective. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 445–456). Helsinki.Google Scholar
  51. Winget, M. (2004). The archival principle of provenance and its application to image representation systems. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from
  52. Yeo, G. (2007). Concepts of record (1): Evidence, information, and persistent representations. The American Archivist, 70, 315–343.Google Scholar
  53. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Culture and History, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations