By Jackie Stapleton

In 2021, I was working closely with a compliance officer named Mark, who had been given the job of implementing an ISO management system at his company. Mark was eager to learn and get things right, but he was relatively new to the world of ISO standards.

One day, we created an internal audit record—a document that was supposed to capture the findings of a recent audit, serving as a snapshot in time. It was meant to document what was observed during the audit and remain unchanged as a historical record.

A few weeks later, I noticed something strange when reviewing the audit records. The original document had been altered. Mark, in his efforts to be thorough, had gone back and edited the audit record to include the corrective actions his team had taken. In doing so, he unintentionally erased the original findings, making it impossible to see the issues that had initially been identified.

When I asked Mark about the changes, he explained that he thought he was supposed to update the record with the latest information. He was surprised when I explained that an audit record is meant to be a static snapshot of what happened at a specific point in time. The corrective actions should have been recorded in a separate document—one that tracks the ongoing status of those actions, essentially a living record.

Mark’s misunderstanding didn’t stop there. In another instance, he decided to embed a living record—a constantly updated risk register—directly into one of the company’s procedures. As a result, the procedure itself needed to be continually revised to reflect the changes in the risk register. This not only complicated the management of the procedure but also led to confusion among staff who had to follow it.

Through these challenges, Mark learned the importance of distinguishing between different types of records. He realized that trying to mix snapshots in time with living records could lead to loss of vital historical information and create unnecessary complexity in the management system. We worked together to separate these elements, ensuring that the management system was both conforming and easier to maintain.

This is much like what we do as parents. We take photos of our children – first steps, birthdays, graduations. Each photo is a snapshot, capturing a moment as it was. You wouldn’t edit these photos later because their value lies in preserving that specific snapshot in time.

Then we might also keep a diary or journal, updating it with our children’s thoughts, feelings, and milestones. This diary evolves as your child grows, reflecting the ongoing journey.

In an ISO management system, snapshots in time are like the photos—unchanging records of specific events. Living records, like the diary, are meant to be continually updated. Mixing these up can lead to confusion and loss of important context. Each has its own role in capturing the past and guiding the future.

The Advantages of Data-Driven Decision-Making

The article from Harvard Business School Online, The Advantages of Data-Driven Decision-Making highlights the importance of data-driven decision-making (DDDM), emphasizing that organizations using data to guide decisions are more objective, efficient, and predictive.

According to a PwC survey of over 1,000 senior executives, highly data-driven organizations are three times more likely to see significant improvements in decision-making compared to those that rely less on data. This underscores the value of integrating both historical and real-time data for more balanced and effective business strategies.

Balanced Evidence Framework

The combination of static and dynamic records allows for decisions that are both well-informed and flexible, providing a balanced approach that can lead to more effective and resilient outcomes.

Static Records

Definition and Value:

• Static Records are like snapshots in time, capturing and preserving specific moments or decisions within an organization. These records are unchangeable once they are created, meaning they serve as a permanent record of past events, decisions, or observations.
• Examples: Internal audit reports, signed contracts, and final meeting minutes.
• Value: The primary value of static records lies in their reliability as a source of historical data. They offer a solid foundation for understanding what has happened in the past, verifying compliance, and maintaining continuity over time. Because they remain unchanged, they provide an accurate and trustworthy reference point that can be used for audits, reviews, and assessments.

Living Records

Definition and Value:

• Living Records are dynamic and continuously updated to reflect the ongoing changes and developments within an organization. These records are designed to be flexible, evolving as new information becomes available.
• Examples: Risk registers, project plans, and maintenance schedules.
• Value: Living records are valuable because they provide the most current and relevant information available. They allow organizations to respond to new challenges, adapt to changing circumstances, and make real-time decisions based on the latest data. This adaptability makes living records crucial for effective day-to-day management and long-term strategic planning.

Balanced Decision-Making

The Power of Combining Both:

• While Static Records and Living Records each have their strengths individually, their true power is unlocked when they are used together.
• Static Records provide the historical context and evidence needed to understand past decisions, ensuring that any new actions are grounded in what has been tried and tested. They protect the integrity of the organization’s history and ensure that lessons learned are preserved.
• Living Documents, on the other hand, allow organizations to remain agile, updating strategies and processes as new data comes in. They ensure that decisions are made with the most current and relevant information available, enabling quick responses to emerging opportunities or threats.
• Balanced Decision-Making occurs when an organization uses both static and dynamic records together. This approach ensures that decisions are not only informed by the past but also adaptable to the present and future. By leveraging the strengths of both types of records, organizations can create a comprehensive evidence base that supports robust, well-rounded decision-making.