Indicator: I02: Identification of the Volume of Physical and Electronic Holdings
Definition: The indicator on Identification of Physical and Electronic Holdings assesses the institution’s ability to survey and record the volume of documents, whether in physical or electronic form (including born-digital documents and digitised documents).
Justification: Identifying the holdings provides a solid foundation for the effective management of information across all formats and media, contributing to the institution’s operational efficiency, transparency, and regulatory compliance.
Interpretation: Evaluates the establishment of minimum policies regarding document management.

Indicator: I03: Existence of a Description Policy
Definition: The indicator on the Existence of a Description Policy assesses whether the archival institution has established and documented a formal policy to guide the process of describing its documentary holdings and collections. This policy defines the standards, regulations, and procedures to be followed for describing and cataloguing the documents and records that form part of the institution’s holdings.
Justification: A well-defined description policy is essential to ensure consistency, accuracy, and interoperability of archival information. It sets out the guidelines for creating descriptions that facilitate the identification, location, and access to documents and records by users and researchers. The description policy addresses key aspects of the description process, including the preparation of inventories, assignment of metadata, standardisation of terms and vocabularies, and adoption of description standards such as ISAD(G) (General International Standard Archival Description), Encoded Archival Description (EAD) for describing holdings, among others.
Interpretation: Evaluates the establishment of minimum policies in the field of document management.

Indicator: I04: Existence of a Normative Standard for Archival Description
Definition: This indicator aims to assess the presence or absence of defined normative standards within the institution for documentary description. It serves as an initial diagnostic to determine whether the organisation has established specific guidelines and rules that guide the procedure and standardisation of the information produced for access and management of its documentary holdings.
Justification: The adoption of a normative standard for archival description is essential to ensure the consistency and integrity of archival information throughout its life cycle. It provides a common foundation of practices and procedures that promote interoperability across different archival systems and contexts, facilitating collaboration and information exchange between institutions.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to stably manage the policies implemented by each institution.

Indicator: I05: Existence of a Normative Standard for the Digitisation Policy
Definition: Assesses whether the archival institution has established a set of specific standards, guidelines, and procedures to guide the digitisation process of its documents. This normative standard defines the principles, criteria, and technical requirements, as well as the stages of the digitisation process—from the selection of documents to the preservation of digital objects.
Justification: The existence of a normative standard for the digitisation policy provides a solid foundation to ensure the quality, integrity, and authenticity of the digital documents produced by the institution. It establishes clear guidelines on aspects such as digitisation resolution and format, methods for image capture and processing, metadata management, and the long-term preservation of digital files.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to stably manage the policies implemented by each institution.

Indicator: I06: Digitisation Policy
Definition: The Digitisation Policy indicator assesses whether an institution has established and implemented a comprehensive policy that regulates the processes of document digitisation. This policy defines the guidelines, standards, and procedures for the efficient and secure management of information in digital format.
Justification: The implementation of a digitisation policy ensures consistency, security, and efficiency in digitisation processes, facilitating the preservation, accessibility, and proper management of the institution’s digital holdings.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to stably manage the policies implemented by each institution.

Indicator: I07: Trend in the Publication of Digitised Documents
Definition: This indicator measures the trend (upward or downward) in the publication of digitised documents by an archival institution. It is a key factor in assessing digital maturity.
Justification: Digitisation processes enhance accessibility, security, and efficiency in information management. They also support the preservation and conservation of physical documentation.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools aligned with policy needs and implements activities to strengthen its functions.

Indicator: I08: Adoption of Normative Standard for Metadata Implementation
Definition: This indicator aims to assess the presence or absence of defined normative standards within the institution regarding metadata. It serves as an initial diagnostic to determine whether the organisation has established guidelines and/or specific standards to govern the production of metadata for electronic documentation (born-digital or digitised).
Justification: Metadata are essential for the organisation, search, and efficient retrieval of information within an entity. The adoption of a normative standard for metadata implementation is crucial to ensure the consistency, interoperability, and accessibility of information in an organisation. These standards provide clear guidelines on how to label, describe, and structure data, thereby facilitating the effective and efficient organisation, search, and analysis of information.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools aligned with policy needs and implements activities to strengthen its functions.

Indicator: I09: Existence of Digital Preservation Policy
Definition: The digital preservation policy comprises the set of principles, policies, and strategies aimed at ensuring the physical and technological stability, as well as the protection of the intellectual content of digital objects, so they remain retrievable, readable, and usable over the long term.
Justification: Due to their volatile and fragile nature, electronic documents are exposed to various threats (technological obsolescence, software and hardware dependency, technical or human errors, natural disasters, cyberattacks). These require proactive and technically sound preservation actions to ensure their long-term preservation and to safeguard the essential properties of the document: authenticity, reliability, integrity, accessibility, and usability.
Interpretation: Assesses the establishment of minimum policies in the field of records management.

Indicator: I10: Adoption of Normative Standard for Digital Preservation
Definition: The indicator for Adoption of Normative Standard for Digital Preservation assesses whether an institution has implemented an appropriate policy and processes to preserve electronic documents and ensure their long-term durability and future accessibility. This indicator is essential to guarantee the integrity and long-term availability of digital information.
Justification: In the digital age, where information is increasingly vulnerable to technological obsolescence and data loss risks, it is crucial to establish a digital preservation policy. This ensures that important electronic documents are properly maintained and remain accessible in the future, even as technological environments evolve.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to sustainably manage the policies driven by each institution.

Indicator: I12: Existence of Normative Standard on Security and Risk Management
Definition: The indicator for Existence of Normative Standard on Security assesses whether an archival institution has developed a set of specific standards, policies, and procedures aimed at protecting the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of electronic documents and archival records in digital environments.
Justification: The existence of a normative standard on digital security provides a clear and coherent reference framework to ensure that the institution implements appropriate and effective security measures to protect its electronic documents.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to sustainably manage the policies driven by each institution.

Indicator: I13: Existence of Security and Risk Management Policy
Definition: This indicator aims to determine whether the institution has established a digital security policy for the protection and preservation of electronic collections.
Justification: Implementing this policy is crucial to protect the integrity, authenticity, confidentiality, and availability of documents and electronic records, as well as to minimize risks associated with events such as loss, damage, or unauthorized access.
Interpretation: Assesses the establishment of minimum policies in the area of document management.

Indicator: I14: User Diversity Index
Definition: The User Diversity Index is an indicator that evaluates the variety of user types interacting with the institution. This indicator reflects the breadth and inclusiveness of the institution’s audiences through its services, products, or activities.
Justification: User diversity is an aspect of accessibility and the institution’s engagement with communities. A variety of users represents greater representativeness and adaptability of the institution to the demands and preferences of different users. It also reflects the ability of an archival institution to promote inclusion and participation of diverse social groups.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies implemented by each institution.

Indicator: I15: Existence of Consultation Channels for Users
Definition: This indicator records whether the institution has different channels or platforms for users to consult the preserved collection.
Justification: The existence of various consultation channels (on-site consultation, remote consultation via email, remote consultation via platform or website, among others) ensures the ability to integrate different types of users (consultants).
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies implemented by each institution.

Indicator: I16: Existence of an Information Access Policy
Definition: This indicator aims to assess the presence or absence of an Information Access and Transparency Policy within the institution. It serves as an initial diagnostic tool to determine whether the organization has established procedures, practices, and norms that promote access to the documentary collection.
Justification: A formal policy establishes the principles and procedures for accessing archival information, promoting transparency and regulatory compliance.
Interpretation: Assesses the establishment of minimum policies in archival management.

Indicator: I17: Existence of Clear Access Procedures
Definition: This indicator evaluates whether the institution has established and documented clear and transparent procedures for users to access the consultation of the documentary heritage. This includes the process for requesting access, necessary requirements and deadlines, the definition of information protection, as well as formats and consultation channels.
Justification: Providing transparent and well-defined procedures makes it easier for users to request and obtain access to the documentation.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies each institution implements in a stable manner.

Indicator: I18: Existence of Specific Legislation on Access to Information
Definition: This indicator aims to evaluate the presence or absence of legislation on access to information and transparency. It serves as an initial diagnosis to determine whether the institution has a national regulatory framework to promote policies of transparency and access to information.
Justification: The existence of specific legislation ensures the right to access archival information and provides a legal framework for its management.
Interpretation: Assesses the establishment of the minimum policies regarding document management.

Indicator: I19: Existence of Portal, Site, or Technological Platform for Public Consultation
Definition: This indicator seeks to determine whether the institution has a technological platform that allows the public to make inquiries and remotely access the documents and archives it holds.
Justification: A public consultation technological platform provides an interactive and accessible channel for users to access archival information.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies that each institution implements.

Indicator: I20: Publication of Archival Description Instruments
Definition: This indicator evaluates whether the archival institution has published and made available to the public the description instruments that facilitate access to and understanding of its archival holdings. These instruments may include inventories, catalogs, collection guides, classification charts, and other documents providing detailed information about the archival collections held by the institution.
Justification: The publication of these description instruments allows users to understand the structure, content, and location of the documents and archival records, thereby facilitating their search, identification, and request. It also promotes transparency and accountability by providing information about the available documentary resources and the access and usage policies established by the institution.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies that each institution implements.

Indicator: I21: Publicity of Regulations
Definition: The Publicity of Regulations indicator evaluates the extent to which an archival institution disseminates and makes available to its community the regulations and legislation that govern its functions and activities. This indicator is crucial for ensuring transparency, legal compliance, and access to relevant information within the institution.
Justification: The publicity of regulations is essential to ensure that both internal staff and external users are aware of the rules and guidelines that govern the operations of the archival institution. It provides clarity, consistency, and legitimacy to the actions and decisions taken, while also fostering trust and accountability both within and outside the institution.
Interpretation: Assesses the effective capacity to manage the policies implemented by the institution in a stable manner.

Indicator: I22: Mechanisms for Citizen Participation
Definition: This indicator evaluates whether the institution promotes and facilitates active citizen participation in the processes of accessing documentation. Participation mechanisms can be incorporated into activities with users and consultation communities within the institution, using various dynamics and formats.
Justification: Encouraging citizen participation in information access processes promotes transparency and strengthens the relationship between the institution and the community.
Interpretation: Evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage the policies it implements in a stable manner.

Indicator: I23: Staff Training on Accessibility
Definition: Determines whether the institution provides training and capacity-building for staff responsible for managing and facilitating access to documentation, covering topics such as access, transparency, and data protection.
Justification: Staff training on accessibility ensures the effective implementation of access policies and promotes a culture of transparency and public service.
Interpretation: Evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage the policies it implements in a stable manner.

Indicator: I24: Proactive Disclosure Without Prior Request
Definition: Assesses whether the institution has a policy that promotes the proactive disclosure of relevant archival information without requiring users to submit formal access requests.
Justification: Proactively disclosing archival information without prior request demonstrates a commitment to transparency and facilitates public access to information.
Interpretation: Evaluates the establishment of minimum policies for document management.

Indicator: I25: Promotion of Interoperability
Definition: Determines whether the institution promotes the interoperability of archival information systems and formats to facilitate the exchange and integration of data between different platforms and systems.
Justification: Promoting the interoperability of archival information systems and formats facilitates data exchange and system integration, improving access to and management of information.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools applied to the needs of its policies and implements activities to enhance its functions.

Indicator: I26: Existence of a Document Management System
Definition: The indicator for the existence of a Document Management System assesses whether the archival institution has a system or platform specifically dedicated to the management and administration of catalogs, archival descriptions, or documents from its archival holdings and collections. This system allows for the efficient storage, organization, search, and retrieval of document descriptions and archival records. It also evaluates whether access to this system is public.
Justification: A document management system provides a technological infrastructure that facilitates the creation, editing, updating, and querying of archival descriptions and records. It also enables the management of documentation, standardization of data, metadata assignment, and the integration of controlled vocabularies, contributing to the consistency and quality of archival descriptions across the institution.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools applied to its policy needs and implements activities to enhance its functions.

Indicator: I27: Number of Devices
Definition: The indicator for the Number of Devices refers to the total number of technological devices used within an institution over a specific period of time. These devices may include desktop computers, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, servers, and other devices connected to the institution’s network.
Justification: This indicator serves as a quantitative measure of the institution’s technological infrastructure and its capacity to support operations and institutional processes. The number of devices provides an overview of the institution’s technological infrastructure. A larger number of devices may indicate a more robust infrastructure and investment in technology that supports institutional operations and services.
Interpretation: It evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage and maintain the policies it implements.

Indicator: I28: Existence of Technology Team
Definition: This indicator aims to assess whether the institution has staff specifically dedicated to infrastructure and technological support tasks. It helps to measure whether the institution has the conditions to develop its technological capabilities or not.
Justification: The existence of a technology team provides a fundamental resource for archival management and the management of electronic documentation.
Interpretation: It evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage and maintain the policies it implements.

Indicator: I29: Existence of Databases or Data Systems
Definition: This indicator assesses whether the archival institution has databases or computer systems designed to store, organize, and manage information from its documentary collection. These systems can cover a variety of data, including document metadata, information about the provenance and contextualisation of records, as well as archival management data such as conservation status and access processes.
Justification: The existence of databases or data systems provides the institution with a technological infrastructure to efficiently manage archival information, facilitating the search, retrieval, and consultation of documents and records by users and archival staff. Additionally, it allows for the tracking and monitoring of archival processes, as well as the generation of reports and statistics on the status and management of the collection.
Interpretation: It evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage and sustain the policies it implements.

Indicator: I30: Technological Independence
Definition: This indicator reflects an institution’s ability to develop its own technological solutions internally, as opposed to relying on external vendors.
Justification: “Technological autonomy” signifies a higher level of institutional maturity in terms of innovation capacity, resource management, and control over the technological process.
Interpretation: It evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage and sustain the policies it implements.

Indicator: I31: Implementation or Development of Technological Tools
Definition: This indicator evaluates whether the archival institution has implemented or developed specialized technological tools for managing, analysing, and exploiting the information contained in its digital collection. These tools may include document management systems, digital repositories, data analysis software, and more.
Justification: The implementation of specific technological tools aims to optimize the management and use of digitized information by facilitating its storage, organization, search, and analysis. Additionally, it allows the application of advanced data analysis techniques, such as text mining, network analysis, and data visualization, which can provide valuable insights into the content and structure of the digital collection.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools tailored to the needs of its policies and implements activities to enhance its functions.

Indicator: I32: Existence of Strategy for Authenticity and Integrity of Electronic Documents
Definition: A fundamental element of a digital preservation plan is the definition of strategies. This indicator seeks to identify whether the archival institution has adopted any strategies to ensure the preservation of digital objects and files in various situations and environments.
Justification: There are various solutions and strategies to ensure the integrity and authenticity of electronic documents, including the preservation of technology, emulation, replication, migration, encapsulation, or refreshing.
Interpretation: Evaluates the institution’s effective capacity to manage its policies in a stable manner.

Indicator: I34: Participation in the Implementation of National Platforms
Definition: The Participation in the Implementation of National Platforms indicator evaluates whether the archival institution has been involved in the processes of designing and implementing document and electronic file management platforms or systems at the national level. This indicator highlights the archival institution’s collaboration and contribution to the development of key technological infrastructures for the management and preservation of state information.
Justification: Involving archival authorities in the design and implementation of electronic management systems is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, archival institutions have expertise and specialized knowledge in the management and preservation of documents, enabling them to provide technical criteria and standards to ensure the integrity and authenticity of information. Additionally, their participation helps standardize the processes of producing and managing state information, enhancing the efficiency and transparency of governmental operations. Finally, by being involved in the implementation of platforms at the national level, archival institutions can ensure that the specific needs of long-term preservation and access to electronic documents are considered.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools tailored to the needs of policies and implements activities to strengthen its functions.

Indicator: I35: Existence of Periodic Evaluations
Definition: This indicator aims to assess whether the institution has mechanisms in place for periodic evaluations. It also evaluates the existence of management tools, such as platforms for monitoring archival policies.
Justification: Conducting periodic evaluations strengthens the institution’s work agenda by providing tools to make adjustments and updates based on progress and challenges faced. The existence of a platform for monitoring archival policies is additionally a key tool to ensure efficient management.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools tailored to the needs of its policies and implements activities to strengthen its functions.

Indicator: I36: Use of Indicators or Evaluations for Decision-Making
Definition: This indicator evaluates whether the institution uses systematic evaluations and data analysis in decision-making related to archival management. The effective use of these results to inform strategic decisions highlights the importance of data-driven archival management focused on continuous improvement.
Justification: Using indicators or evaluations for decision-making provides consistency and sustainability to institutional definitions and actions.
Interpretation: The institution incorporates specific evaluation tools tailored to its policy needs and implements activities to enhance its functions.