Yesterday I wrote about the de-professionalisation of records.
Ultimately, it comes down to trading off accuracy for perceived efficiency.
Efficiency is only “perceived efficiency” because what we really do is shift the cost of records from a professional team, to other teams in a way that means we can’t measure the costs easily.
That’s not great, but loss of accuracy is actually far more of a problem.
Accuracy is what you will build the entire future of your organisation on. Any process that relies on the records relies on their accuracy.
Unfortunately, when we try and measure the cost of a loss of accuracy, we fail because what we have to measure is the value of work that won’t get done becasue it isn’t feasible.
This is the work that won’t get done because our records aren’t accurate enough to produce reliable results, and the costs of making them accurate are so large that it’s not feasible.
There are going to be winners and losers in this.
Winners will have high quality records, and will be able to take advantage of machine learning, high quality decision support systems, and many, many more automation technologies that are the only way we can deal with exponential growth of records and information.
Winners will also pass audits – which is nice.
Losers will have to do one of two things –
- Start a records program to produce high quality records.
- Wait for strong AI that can do the work anyway (in 70 years time).