• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.25
• /
• pp.131-196
• /
• 2010

The Records Management Act was established by the result of the National Archive reformism in 1999. However, it could not have brought high-quality changes of recording management since recording management innovation was not continuously achieved. On the other hand, in 2006 the Records Management Act was completely revised as a part of recording management innovation. The records management innovation road map is created as an agenda in order to accommodate difficulties we face in the process of the records management reformism and to establish a norm in accord with international standards, a redesign of records management process and a development of records management system so that it can react quickly to rapidly changing situations on records management paradigms. The organization of the Records Management Act was revised by compensating the defect and applying in international standards. This is due to the fact that it is the highest priority assignment to be able to help promote those sorts of innovation to provide an institutional strategy. 'The National Records Management Advancement Strategy' of National Archives in 2009 seems to be an extension of the recording management Innovation road map. Nonetheless, this strategy cannot be considered a strategy of the consecutive national records management reform since it reflects the basis of the existing policy without any assessment with respect to the records management innovation. Government-level talks on records management innovation should be regarded so as to establish a national policy on records management and to be consistent in carrying Out the policy. This research focuses on how the records management innovation road map is reflected in the Records Management Act in 2006 and how international standards are applied in the act in the national records management regime and current records management system. Furthermore, several challenges will be illustrated to overcome a limit of the Records Management Act in the process.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.13
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2006

The archives and records management 'reform' has spreaded out through the third quarter of 2004. There are many evidences such as the change of the Office of the President's management on the record production, 'the reforming road map for the final draft on the archives and records management.' This method spreads into the Cabinets. So it is improved these rosy conditions was upgraded by the laws and regulations. We also hope that the conditions of the records management to be a higher level than before. However the actual conditions of the records management are not good comparing with the law and regulations. I think this unbalance is a serious problem. The reason of the 'failed history' during past time was caused not by the laws itself but by the indifference and negligence on the laws. The academic field and NGO have continuously required some essential suggestions on that problem; political neutrality and independent of the National Archives, the employment of specialists and the improvement of their skills etc. But these requirements have not accepted yet. This revised records management law also has not applied to the road map wholly. Even though the outward growth during that time is remarkable, we need to learn some instructions by way of the 'failed history'. Therefore our urgent task is to narrow the gap between the new system and the actual conditions based on long and short term projects.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.33
• /
• pp.113-153
• /
• 2012

Since the government of Republic of Korea was established in 1948, a period that made the biggest difference on National Records Management System was from 1999 when was enacted. Especially, it was the period of President Roh's five-year tenure called Participation Government (2003-2008). This paper illustrates distinct phenomena of Records Management System Policy during Participation Government. Three major agents of the system are President Roh, the Presidential Secretariat, and Archives Management Bureau at the National Archives of Korea. They sometimes competed with themselves for initiatives of policy, but they used to cooperate with each other and have brought about innovations on records management. The first distinctive characteristic of Participation Government (below PG)'s records management is that it implemented governance actively. That is, it tried to listen carefully to all opinions of interest organizations related to records management and enacted laws based on those. The PG not only listened to civic groups, but also created two professional groups called Records Management Innovation Expert Committee and Innovation Decentralization Assessment Committee. Those two groups enacted . Another remarkable feature is a nomination of records management specialists at public institutions. In 2005, PG created Archival Research Positions among research public officials and appointed experts in the field of Archival Research History at central department. With the process, the government tried to provide public records management system and to improve specialty of records management. Since then, records management specialists were employed not only at local governments but also at private archival institutions. It has allowed of entering a new phase in employing records management professionals. The Participation Government also legislated (completely revised) . It led to a beginning of developing records management in Republic of Korea. was revised thoroughly for the e-Government period and was established as a foundation for managing presidential records. An establishing process of a country's records management system describes the degree of democratic development of society. Following governments should supplement PG's shortcomings and carry out 'New Governance Records Management System'. Principal subjects of records management system should include not only a government but also civic groups, local governments, small businesses, and academic professionals. The object of records management also needs to be democratic by recording not only the plans and enforcements of a task but also influences and results of a task. The way of archiving ought to be discussed by all related principals.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.34
• /
• pp.221-250
• /
• 2012

This paper introduces the characteristics of the records and archives management of Korea from Joseon dynasty to now. This paper also explains historical background of making the records and archives management in Joseon dynasty. This paper introduces the process of establishment of modern records management system by adopting records management system and public administration of USA after liberation in 1945. The Joseon bureaucrats established systematic methodologies for managing and arranging the records. Jeseon dynasty managed its records systematically since it was a bureaucratic regime. It is also noticeable that the famous Joseonwangjosilrok(Annals of Joseon dynasty) came out of the power struggles for the control of the national affairs between the king and the nobility during the time of establishment of the dynasty. Another noticeable feature of the records tradition in Joseon dynasty was that the nobility recorded their experience and allowed future generations use and refer their experiences and examples when they performed similar business. The records of Joseon period are the historical records which recorded contemporary incidents and the compilers expected the future historians evaluate the incidents they recorded. In 1894, the reformation policy of Gaboh governments changed society into modernity. The policy of Gaboh governments prescribed archive management process through 'Regulation(命令頒布式)'. They revised the form of official documents entirely. They changed a name of an era from Chinese to unique style of Korean, and changed original Chinese into Korean or Korean-Chinese together. Also, instead of a blank sheet of paper they used printed paper to print the name of each office. Korea was liberated from Japanese Imperialism in 1945 and the government of Republic of Korea was established in 1948. In 1950s Republic of Korea used the records management system of the Government-General of Joseon without any alteration. In the late of 1950's Republic of Korea constructed the new records management system by adopting records management system and public administration of USA. However, understanding of records management was scarce, so records and archives management was not accomplished. Consequently, many important records like presidential archives were deserted or destroyed. A period that made the biggest difference on National Records Management System was from 1999 when was enacted. Especially, it was the period of President Roh's five-year tenure called Participation Government (2003-2008). The first distinctive characteristic of Participation Government's records management is that it implemented governance actively. Another remarkable feature is a nomination of records management specialists at public institutions. The Participation Government also legislated (completely revised) . It led to a beginning of developing records management in Republic of Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.15
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2007

This article deals with the short history from 1999 to the present time, how the Korean record and archives management world had grown up, and what the development of the branch of records and archives studies resulted in. First of all, it is looked out upon the transition and feature of each initiative bodies of records management, containing the records producing body, records and archives management body, records and archives professional body, and civil society. As a result, this article points out the disequilibrium state of the records producing body and civil society, for all the growth of records and archives management institutions and records and archives professionals. During the time of establishing the law, the Korean records and archives management had been made a rapid progress by some part of the leading group being to Korean Records and Archives Service and the society of professionals. But it is estimated only the malformed development depending on the model of elites, although we could achieve the establishment of Korean Records and Archives Act. The condition of records and archives management of the Participation Government was distinguish from the state of former times, being driven up the renovation of records and archives management. The main power of the renovation was sought our by overcome of the elite model with the development of archival institutions and professionals extending wide range. Particularly professionals to accept the education of graduate school grew up in quantity and quality and then they let the pattern of the collaboration with archival institutions rake root in Korea. As The Road Map on the Renovation of National Records and Archives Management was made, the government put into practice, so the management of records and archives in Korea could take a step of steady and continuous growth. But the development of the records producing bodies and civil society is staying at the low level as yet. Accordingly it is expected to have the most important means that the professional instruction become to normalize and archivists who posted in public agencies after graduating professional education program discharge their duties. And each public agencies have to speed up to set up the institutions for records management including some archivists so that overcome the condition of underdevelopment as fast as possible.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.18
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2008

Despite the institutional, organizational, and technological advances in the level of national records management that has occurred during the past several years, there has been no significant change in the condition of records management within individual public institutions, which may be an outset for records management. In order to begin the advance in national records management with overall innovation in records management by public institutions, it is necessary to distinctly set up the direction of innovation and a project to carry out. Also, a person in charge of records management, who is supposed to lead records management in each institution, should share the directions and projects. Against this backdrop, this study aims to define "the evaluation of records management" as a vehicle to establish a common goal for the innovation of records management and the role of a person in charge of records management as well as to develop evaluation indicators that might be applicable to all public institutions. With this aim, the study drew requirements of records management from domestic and overseas cases in the evaluation of records management conditions as well as the laws and standards of records management, and a roadmap for national records management innovation. Then, the study developed evaluation indicators by classifying the requirements according to three areas involving an organizational environment, records management job, and records management in the offices that create and file their own documents. The organizational environment area is concerned with the evaluation of the records management policy and the responsibility of an institution, and the evaluation of human resources and physical environment. The records management business area includes the measurement of the level of jobs, such as the records creation control conducted by the records management authority of each institution, the management of records schedules, the accession, preservation, and appraisal of records and their service, and the monitoring of records management. The area of records management in the offices is composed of the creation, registration, arrangement, and transfer of records as they are intended to be used during the monitoring of records management conditions. The study made it possible to measure all evaluation indicators with a quantitative evaluation method by clearly proposing the standard for objective and accurate evaluation.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.22
• /
• pp.77-114
• /
• 2009

The right to know is not satisfied merely by making or improving laws or systems. The right to know is a matter of culture rather than system. Nevertheless, consistent system improvement measures are required. There are many laws relating to the right to know. In particular, at the core are the Official Information Disclosure Act, the Record and Archives Management Act, and the Presidential Record Management Act. The fact that systems relating to official record management and presidential record management are related to the right to know is understood by the promotion of records and archives management reform after the year 2004, as a result of which the national archives management innovation road map was established. Reflecting the many opinions of the "Information Disclosure System Improvement Task Force" composed with participation of the government and the press after the participatory government's announcement of "Measures to Advance the Support System for News Coverage," amendments to the Information Disclosure Act have come forward with system improvement measures in connection with issues that had arisen until then. Such improvement measures have not resulted in actual improvements. This thesis proposes several system improvement measures, focusing on those that have arisen until now but have not been reflected in discussion, such as converting the concept of information non-disclosure into disclosure postponement, preparing and disclosing particular information disclosure standards, specifying personal information for non-disclosure, specifying and strictly applying any information that has not been disclosed for purposes of internal review, deleting non-disclosure items in stenographic records that do not have a reason to exist, and establishing limits and terms of non-disclosure. Of the most remarkable system improvement measures that have been made until now is our recognition that the right to know is not limited to the information disclosure system but that the "cause" of archive management should be systematic and scientific. In other words, the right to know is understood to establish not just accidential factors, such as with a whistle-blower, but the inevitable factors of systemization of production, distribution, preservation, and use of archives. Much more study should be pursued regarding disclosure of archives information. In particular, difficult issues to be resolved regarding reading records at permanent archives management institutions, such as the National Archives of Korea, or copyrights that arise in the process, require constant study from academia and relevant institutions.