Survey of Public Sector Information Management 2018/19 Findings Report

Kia pono ai te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga Enabling trusted government information Ko te ahuatanga o Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga Survey of public sector information management 2018/19 Findings report He tirohanga ki te whakahaere mōhiohio rāngai tūmatanui 2018/19 He pūrongo kitenga 27 November 2019 ISSN: ISSN 2703-223X Contents 1.0 Overview 3 Focus 7 2.0 Self-monitoring 7 High value and/or high risk information 10 Access classification 12 3.0 IM Environment 14 Drivers for IM 14 IM challenges 15 Transition from paper to digital 16 Organisational change and measures to secure and preserve integrity of information 17 4.0 Governance and Capability 20 Governance groups and Executive Sponsors 20 IM capability 21 Te Tiriti o Waitangi and IM 23 5.0 Technology and Systems 26 IM requirements built into new systems 26 Risks to information 28 Metadata 29 Digital information of long-term value 30 Digital information no longer accessible 31 Storage and measures in place to protect information 34 Requests for official information 35 6.0 Disposal 38 Disposal coverage 38 Disposal activities 39 Sentencing 40 Methods of disposal 41 Destruction 42 Transfer 43 Challenges to regular destruction and transfer 44 Appendix 1 48 Public offices 48 Local authorities 55 Appendix 2 58 Data tables 58 1.0 Overview Purpose The report starts with a section focusing on what we wanted to highlight this year, because of its relevance Information is fundamental to open, in the current context or because of its importance. transparent and accountable government. The ‘Focus’ section provides recommendations, while The Public Records Act 2005 (PRA) exists to the other sections offer observations. The second enable government accountability. section highlights the results that reflect the current environment in which IM evolves. The next three With this report and its recommendations, Archives sections present the findings in high-level groupings New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga (Governance, Systems and Disposal), establishing wants to improve leadership teams’ and decision connections between the questions and the sections, makers’ understanding of the value of information and following the information lifecycle. management (IM), and why it matters. We want to support them to make informed decisions on IM programmes so they can measure the value of this Survey objectives investment in the short and long term. The overarching goal of the survey was to collect We also aim to support IM practitioners to create a quantitative and qualitative data about IM practices better connection between IM operations and their in the New Zealand public sector, i.e public offices and organisation’s strategic framework and communicate local authorities. This will provide a baseline of data benefits effectively. for comparison in the coming years. By repeating this survey regularly, we will develop longitudinal data This findings report has three objectives: and knowledge about how practices evolve. • to illustrate organisations’ IM programmes The survey and its results will: and approaches; • provide a whole-of-system view of IM in the • to provide recommendations that Executive public sector; Sponsors and IM practitioners can use to continually improve their IM programmes; and • be able to be used by organisations as a self- assessment to benchmark their IM performance; • to promote best practice IM across the public sector. • feed back into our ongoing monitoring and reporting activities; and • enable us to identify potential improvements in advice, guidance and education, and plan service delivery. Survey of public sector information management 2018/19 Findings report He tirohanga ki te whakahaere mōhiohio rāngai tūmatanui 2018/19 He pūrongo kitenga 3 Survey methodology Organisations surveyed The survey was designed and delivered by our 254 organisations were surveyed: Government Recordkeeping Directorate, with • 176 public offices (POs) the assistance of an internal reference group made up of our principal and senior advisors and • 78 local authorities (LAs). specialist analytics and reporting staff from the The 2019 survey did not include all of the entities wider Department of Internal Affairs. A group of covered by the PRA; notably school boards of trustees, Executive Sponsors and IM staff from public offices Ministers, council-controlled organisations, council- and local authorities tested the draft survey. The controlled trading organisations and local government survey was delivered through the online survey tool, organisations. Options for expanding the survey SurveyMonkey. coverage will be considered in the coming years. We sent the survey to public offices and local authorities. Executive Sponsors at those organisations received the email link to access the survey and were Response rates expected to collaborate with their relevant staff to We recorded 228 responses, making the overall form the response. The response was mandatory for response rate of nearly 90%. Of public offices, all public offices as a direction to report to the Chief 168 responded (95% response rate), as did 60 local Archivist under section 31 of the PRA, but was not authorities (77% response rate). Each chart indicates mandatory for local authorities. the number of responses (as in N=226). A list of respondents/non-respondents is available at The survey questions were based on the requirements Appendix 1. The Government Communications of the PRA and the Information and records Security Bureau and New Zealand Security Intelligence management standard (the IRM standard). The Service responses are not included in the analysis and questionnaire can be found on our website results publication. (Link to PDF). Survey of public sector information management 2018/19 Findings report He tirohanga ki te whakahaere mōhiohio rāngai tūmatanui 2018/19 He pūrongo kitenga 4 Open Government Partnership Note on the treatment of New Zealand – Third National “other” responses Action Plan 2018-2020 The survey question picklists were designed from Archives New Zealand is leading Commitment 10 of our knowledge of the sector. We tried to limit the New Zealand’s Third National Action Plan under the number of options to the six we thought relevant Open Government Partnership. This commitment to most organisations. supports trust in government by developing a new For many questions, we also offered an ‘others’ option, approach to monitoring and publicising how well and provided a free text field. We identified through government is managing information. The survey the analysis that some of the free text responses aligns with the objective of Commitment 10 by were not relevant to the questions. For this reason, providing us with better insight into public offices’ the charts throughout this report exclude the ‘others’ IM practices. This will enable us to make the option and because these comments are available in management of government information more full on data.govt.nz. visible and transparent to the New Zealand public, supporting the Open Government Partnership values of transparency and accountability. Abbreviations, initialisations and definitions Dataset For ease of reading, we have used the following: The survey results are published as a dataset • IAR – information asset register and available on data.govt.nz as a companion to • IM – information management this report. • IRM standard – Information and records management standard Report on the State of • LAs – local authorities Government Recordkeeping • PRA – Public Records Act 2005 As part of the survey design, we selected five key • POs – public offices indicators to measure the overall state of government IM and provide a high-level perspective on whether IM Key definitions can be found on the Archives New within the public sector was improving, deteriorating Zealand website. or remaining stable. This high-level summary is included in the Report on the State of Government Recordkeeping 2018/19. The five key indicators cover: governance; resourcing; high value and/or high risk information; building IM requirements into business systems; and active, authorised destruction of information. Survey of public sector information management 2018/19 Findings report He tirohanga ki te whakahaere mōhiohio rāngai tūmatanui 2018/19 He pūrongo kitenga 5 2.0 Focus This Focus section summarises key findings for three survey areas we wish to highlight. Figure 1: Self-monitoring undertaken It provides recommendations for IM by organisations (N=226) professionals and Executive Sponsors and their organisations. The recommendations will help organisations develop action plans 20 to improve their IM practices. 23 Self-monitoring What we asked and why it 23 is important We asked about two types of self-monitoring – assessment against our requirements and standards, and assessment against the organisation’s IM 160 strategies, policies and procedures (Q.12 and Q.13). For organisations doing self-monitoring, we also asked what they do with the findings and recommendations (Q.14). Undertook both forms of self-monitoring Self-monitoring is a crucial part of establishing a governance framework for IM and part of Self-monitoring against Archives NZ’s organisations’ responsibilities as a public sector requirements only organisation. Self-monitoring against organisation’s IM strategy, policy and processes only Findings No self-monitoring Figure 1 shows the extent to which the organisations did some monitoring. We see that almost three- quarters of the organisations do both types

Load more