Ofcom's Records Management compliance with the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice

Mark Salter made this Freedom of Information request to Office of Communications

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Office of Communications,

As set out by the "Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the management of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 :-

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/...

To illustrate the aim of this request, a recent reply to me :-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/62...

( http://preview.tinyurl.com/62mejo3 )

from your office indicates that an average of *15* minutes per case record would be needed to extract basic details from each case record; investigation case data that should also be being reference in the day to day activity of your interference investigation team.

The information requested needed your office to :-

1. filter the full database by root cause - I requested information from cases *only* related to Power Line Technology.
2. extract the date the complaint was made
3. extract which part of the radio spectrum was reported being affected.
4. extract the make and model of the device identified as the interference source.
5. extract the number of sources identified (where multiple sources of interference were found)
6. extract the range of frequencies determined to be affected by the device(s) causing the problem
7. further filter the records identified to find the number closed without interference being removed and provide the the summary reasons.

These pieces of information are all key, basic case details that I believe would and should be used to help drive initial assessment of any new interference reports.

Please provide the following pieces of information :-

1. Your 'organisational arrangements that support records management' as defined in section 6 of the above mentioned Code of Practice.

2. Your 'Records management policy' as defined in section 6 of the above mentioned Code of Practice.

3. The requirements document(s) that drove the process of assessing and selection of Ofcom’s record management solution(s).

4. For each records management solution rejected or selected from your final shortlist(s), please provide the following :-

i) the product’s name or a unique id to facilitate any future reference.
ii) the criteria driving reason(s) for rejection or selection
iii) the purchase price and/or license cost(s) and conditions
iv) the average amount of time required to fully extract, redact and report a single record from each records management system currently in use for data provision under an FOI response. Where an average value is not held, then an estimate will be acceptable, please indicate which flavour a value supplied is (average/estimated).
v) the average time required to locate and extract for viewing a single record for use in your day to day functions.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Salter

Dear Office of Communications,

Yet another response that you should already have responded to. Should I assume that Julia Snape's indication for another long overdue response applies:-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/of...

and that the response to this request will be forthcoming by the 10th June 2011 too?

Yours faithfully,

Mark Salter

Dear Office of Communications,

Over thirty working days have passed since this request was made, no acknowledgement, no indication that extra time is needed. Can I get a status please?

Yours faithfully,

Mark Salter

Eleanor Berg, Office of Communications

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Salter

Please accept my apologies for the delay to responding to this request.
Please find our response and enclosures attached.

Yours sincerely

Eleanor Berg

:: Eleanor Berg
Information Requests

[1][Ofcom request email]

:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[2]www.ofcom.org.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Eleanor Berg,

I'm sorry, but you are mixing requests and responses up. Can you please repeat the final answer to, this request which is available in full here:-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/of...

( http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xgfqs3 )

Yours sincerely,

Mark Salter

Eleanor Berg, Office of Communications

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Salter

Thank you for your emails, and I apologise if Mr Howell's one response
caused you confusion. In an attempt to make my response clearer I will
respond to each of your emails separately. The responses will be the same
as that of Mr Howell's original letter.

In response to this email below your request asked:

"As set out by the "Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice on the management
of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
:-

[1]http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/...

To illustrate the aim of this request, a recent reply to me :-

[2]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/62...

( [3]http://preview.tinyurl.com/62mejo3 )

from your office indicates that an average of *15* minutes per case record
would be needed to extract basic details from each case record;
investigation case data that should also be being reference
in the day to day activity of your interference investigation team.

The information requested needed your office to :-

1. filter the full database by root cause - I requested information from
cases *only* related to Power Line Technology.
2. extract the date the complaint was made
3. extract which part of the radio spectrum was reported being affected.
4. extract the make and model of the device identified as the interference
source.
5. extract the number of sources identified (where multiple sources of
interference were found)

6. extract the range of frequencies determined to be affected by the
device(s) causing the problem
7. further filter the records identified to find the number closed without
interference being removed and provide the the summary reasons.

These pieces of information are all key, basic case details that I believe
would and should be used to help drive initial assessment of any new
interference reports.

Please provide the following pieces of information :-

1. Your 'organisational arrangements that support records management' as
defined in section 6 of the above mentioned Code of Practice.

2. Your 'Records management policy' as defined in section 6 of the above
mentioned Code of Practice.

3. The requirements document(s) that drove the process of assessing and
selection of Ofcom's record management solution(s).

4. For each records management solution rejected or selected from your
final shortlist(s), please provide the following :-

i) the product's name or a unique id to facilitate any future reference.
ii) the criteria driving reason(s) for rejection or selection
iii) the purchase price and/or license cost(s) and conditions
iv) the average amount of time required to fully extract, redact and
report a single record from each records management system currently in
use for data provision under an FOI response. Where an
average value is not held, then an estimate will be acceptable, please
indicate which flavour a value supplied is (average/estimated).
v) the average time required to locate and extract for viewing a single
record for use in your day to day functions."

The response to this request is set out on page three of Mr Howell's
letter and is as follows:

1. Organisational arrangements to support the Lord Chancellor's Code of
Practice are as follows:

. The Records and Information Management (RIM)
function reports to the Secretary to the Corporation. Its overall strategy
is approved by the Executive Committee.

. Ofcom's corporate risk framework includes all
aspects of its activity, including Records and Information Management.

. Roles and responsibilities are outlined in the
Records and Information Management Policy.

. A comprehensive set of guidance exists to support
the policy.

. ICT maintains a catalogue of systems, the main
record stores are referenced in the RM guidance, and all changes are
approved by a group which includes RIM representation.

. The Ofcom induction programme governance module
includes a section on records and information management. The guidance
includes a quick start document. Local Information Managers provide
individual advice and support.

. There is an annual action plan, regularly revised,
to support the IM strategy.

. Resources for the RIM team are included in Ofcom
Secretariat budget.

2. A copy of Ofcom's Records and Information Management Policy is
enclosed.

3. We have done a search for the information relating to this request and
we have found information relating to the requirements for selecting our
case management system, Siebel, but it details assessments during the
selection procedure made in relation to particular companies. These views
which have been recorded by Ofcom are commercially sensitive in relation
to the companies involved and confidential in relation to the selection
process. For that reason therefore unfortunately, the information is being
withheld under section 43 of FOIA. This part of the Act deals with the
exemption of information that would prejudice the commercial interests of
a person or company. In applying this exemption we have had to balance the
public interest in withholding the information against the public interest
in disclosing the information. The attached annex A to this letter sets
out the exemption in full, as well as the factors Ofcom considered when
deciding where the public interest lay. (for the ease in this email, Annex
A is below)

4.

i. The product name is Siebel. Siebel is our case management system.

ii. Please see response to question 3.

iii. We do not hold the individual cost of Siebel as it is includes in a
whole product system and we cannot break this down for individual
functions.

iv. We do not hold the average amount of time required to fully extract,
redact and report a single record from Siebel as this depends on the
nature of the record and what is being asked for. The average time will
vary on a case by case basis.

v. Please see answer to questions iv.

Yours sincerely

Eleanor Berg

:: Eleanor Berg
Information Requests

[4][Ofcom request email]

:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
[5]www.ofcom.org.uk

If you are unhappy with the response or level of service you have received
in relation to your request from Ofcom, you may ask for an internal
review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be
treated as a formal complaint and will be subject to an independent review
within Ofcom. We will acknowledge the complaint and inform you of the
date by which you might expect to be told the outcome.

The following outcomes are possible:

o the original decision is upheld; or

o the original decision is reversed or modified.

Timing

If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should
contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no
statutory deadline for undertaking internal reviews and it will depend
upon the complexity of the case. However, we aim to conclude all such
reviews within 20 working days, and up to 40 working days in exceptional
cases. We will keep you informed of the progress of any such review. If
you wish to request an internal review, you should contact:

Graham Howell

The Secretary to the Corporation

Ofcom

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London SE1 9HA

show quoted sections