Understanding functions: an organizational culture perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to discuss the disconnection between the recognized centrality of the functional approach to records management and archives and the actual understanding of functions that scholars, practitioners, and records creators seem to have. It suggests that records professionals should consider functions not in the abstract but in the specific socio‐cultural contexts in which they are enacted. Design/methodology/approach After analyzing the main theoretical and methodological issues concerning the concept of function and the application of the functional approach, the paper reports some findings of an empirical study of function‐based records classification systems conducted by the author in four different organizations in Europe and North America. Findings The multiple‐case study research confirmed that the meaning of both function and classification are subject to various interpretations, that a number of non‐functional factors are involved in the creation of function‐based tools, and that records professionals find available explanations of functional methods confusing. The findings also indicate that there is a relationship between organizational cultures and the ways in which business and records processes are perceived and translated into practice. Research limitations/implications This study provides a number of suggestions that may be used to improve the analysis of functions and business processes for any records management purposes. In particular, it discusses some of the non‐functional and cultural factors that influence the design and implementation of function‐based records classification systems. However, more empirical research is needed in order to broaden our understanding of functions in real‐world organizations. Originality/value Based on a broad selection of professional literature on the functional approach, this paper presents the original findings of an empirical study that uses qualitative methods to analyze and interpret the data collected. It is hoped that it will inspire more exploratory research of this kind in the records management area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it