A neatly rearranged record can be a less useful collection than one that looks more chaotic. The documents may reflect how a person, office, or project originally functioned, regardless of disheveled folders, uneven labels, or overlapping date ranges. Prematurely creating a new chronology or alphabetical system may destroy those relationships.
To explore this, photograph or draw a small sample file in its original arrangement. Observe how folders are labeled, dividers are placed, how papers are fastened or clipped, how they are annotated and categorized (is there more than one file type for each?), and which documents are grouped together as a cluster. Then ask what the document arrangement says. A series of requests, followed by approvals and concluding notes, may indicate a workflow. A series of correspondence grouped with a series of reports may indicate that the correspondence helps explain the report. This is an inventory exercise that turns what appears to be chaos into something to consider.
New practitioners may sort by the obvious, for example by the date on each page, or by the paper type (e.g. paper size or color), or by the type of document. This may remove a request from a response, or detach an attachment from a cover letter, or may mix records created by different departments. Arrangement by date is appropriate within a given record series, but may not be appropriate in determining an overall structure. We must always consider who made the records, for what function and how they may have been organized. Original order is what the person, office, or project did when they created or used them. It may contain evidence that can’t be found in individual documents on their own.
Of course, it’s true that original order doesn’t necessarily mean all papers should remain as they are. There are occasions when collections arrive in a disordered state with little or no arrangement. Other collections may have been mixed when moved into temporary storage or through repeated use. The first job is to determine if the structure is still intelligible. Are there clues that there was a system to begin with? Look for patterns such as recurring folder titles, reference codes, filing sequences, project titles, case numbers, or document grouping. Documenting what was found helps you decide how to organize the records; be careful not to assume an arrangement with a high degree of certainty when there is little evidence.
An inventory that records both the original structure and any changes that you make can be a great starting point. When you document each file’s title, date range, extent, reference code and storage location, you preserve a history that can be referred to as records are removed from their shelf locations and re-shelved in archival boxes, renamed and reordered. When boxes of records are moved from an old location to an archival box, it is helpful to keep a record of the old and new locations. Files that can’t be identified as part of a larger record series should be placed into temporary storage; this is safer than adding them to the first category they encounter.
A good arrangement makes it easier for people to understand the context and history of the records they are viewing, not just take pretty pictures of the archives in a record repository. The change that is apparent to the user is the ability to see that actions, decisions and documents that are associated with each other remain associated and the person can navigate to the structure in a finding aid. A more orderly new structure is not necessarily a better structure. Without a record of what happened to the documents, once their relationships are disrupted, labeling may not be enough to provide the evidence that the relationships provided in the original structure.