Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: Systems and Technology

Electronic Records Management System

Also known as: ERMS, electronic records management system
Simply put

An Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) is a software solution used to manage electronic files and documents as records within an organization. It helps ensure that an organization has the records it needs, when they are needed, by applying controls over how those records are handled through their lifecycle. The scope of what an ERMS manages depends on how the organization configures and uses it.

Formal definition

An ERMS is a software system that enables an organization to manage electronic files and documents as records, typically by assigning a defined lifecycle to individual pieces of organizational information. Such systems are commonly used to support records management activities across the record lifecycle, though the specific functions supported vary by product and by organizational policy. It should be noted that electronic records management as a discipline is often described as broader than any single system, encompassing the management of records held in varied formats, including electronic, paper, and microform; an ERMS is the software component that supports this discipline rather than its entirety. Distinctions between an ERMS and related systems such as electronic document management systems (EDMS) or enterprise content management (ECM) depend on the functions each provides and are not fully specified in the available evidence.

Why it matters

An ERMS matters because organizations increasingly create and hold information in electronic form, and without a system designed to treat that information as records, it becomes difficult to ensure that the right records are available when they are needed. Electronic records management, as described by national archives guidance, is a discipline broader than any single tool, encompassing records held in electronic, paper, microform, and other formats; an ERMS is the software component that supports this discipline for records in electronic form rather than the discipline in its entirety. Recognizing this distinction helps organizations avoid the assumption that deploying a system alone satisfies their records management obligations.

The value of an ERMS lies in the controls it applies over how records are handled through their lifecycle, which can support an organization in demonstrating that it holds the records it requires for operational, accountability, and evidential purposes. Because the scope of what any given ERMS manages depends on how the organization configures and uses it, the benefits realized vary considerably between implementations. Two organizations running the same product may achieve markedly different outcomes depending on their policies, classification schemes, and retention rules.

It should also be noted that the boundary between an ERMS and related systems such as electronic document management systems (EDMS) or enterprise content management (ECM) platforms is not sharply fixed, and depends on the functions each system provides. Professionals evaluating or governing these systems should therefore treat vendor category labels with caution and assess the actual recordkeeping capabilities delivered rather than relying on the name of the product category.

Who it's relevant to

Records managers
Records managers rely on an ERMS as a tool to help ensure the organization has the records it needs when they are needed. They are typically responsible for defining how the system is configured and used, including the lifecycle controls applied to records, and for recognizing that the system supports rather than replaces the broader discipline of records management.
Information governance officers
Information governance officers have an interest in how an ERMS fits within the wider accountability framework spanning policy, risk, and value. They may need to distinguish the system's records management functions from adjacent capabilities offered by EDMS or ECM platforms, and to ensure that reliance on a single system does not obscure obligations that extend beyond it.
IT and systems staff
Those responsible for implementing and maintaining software will encounter the ERMS as one system among related document and content management platforms. Because the distinctions between these categories depend on the functions each provides and are not fully specified in general terms, IT staff often work with records professionals to translate recordkeeping requirements into system configuration.
Compliance and accountability functions
Staff concerned with demonstrating that an organization holds and controls its records may look to an ERMS as evidence of applied lifecycle controls. Whether the system meets any particular jurisdictional or sectoral requirement depends on how it is configured and on obligations that vary by jurisdiction and sector, so its role should be assessed against those specific requirements rather than assumed.

Inside ERMS

Records classification scheme
A structured framework, often based on business functions and activities, used to organize records consistently and support their retrieval, retention, and disposition. In an ERMS this scheme typically governs how captured records are arranged and controlled.
Capture and declaration functionality
Mechanisms by which content is brought under records control and formally declared as a record. Declaration typically fixes the record so that it can no longer be altered in ordinary use, distinguishing an authoritative record from a working draft or transitory information.
Metadata management
The creation and maintenance of descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata that supports the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of records over time, and that documents context and management actions.
Retention and disposition controls
Rules that associate records with retention periods and disposition outcomes. Disposition may include transfer, permanent preservation, or destruction, so these controls do more than schedule deletion; the specific outcomes depend on organizational policy and applicable requirements.
Access, security, and permissions
Controls that restrict who may view, use, or act on records, supporting confidentiality and protecting record integrity. These features help ensure that only authorized changes are made and that unauthorized alteration or removal is prevented.
Audit trail and event logging
A record of actions taken on records within the system, such as capture, access, and disposition. Audit trails support the demonstration of integrity and accountability by documenting management actions over the record lifecycle.
Legal hold or disposition freeze capability
A means of suspending scheduled disposition for records subject to litigation, investigation, or other holds. The circumstances triggering holds and the obligations attached to them depend on jurisdiction and sector.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about ERMS.

Is an ERMS the same as a document management system?
Not quite, though the two are often confused. A document management system typically focuses on the creation, editing, versioning, and collaborative handling of documents as active working content. An ERMS is concerned with managing records as evidence of activity, applying controls such as classification, retention scheduling, and disposition to preserve authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability over time. Some platforms combine both functions, but the recordkeeping capabilities are what distinguish an ERMS. Where a system permits records to be freely altered or deleted without controlled processes, it may not meet recordkeeping requirements even if it manages documents effectively.
Does implementing an ERMS mean an organization has addressed its information governance obligations?
No. An ERMS is a tool that supports certain records management functions, but records management is only one component of the broader information governance framework, which spans policy, risk, privacy, security, and information value. Deploying an ERMS does not by itself establish accountability structures, governance policies, or compliance across the wider information landscape. The technology can enable good practice, but it does not substitute for the organizational, procedural, and governance measures that surround it.
How should retention and disposition rules be configured within an ERMS?
Retention and disposition are typically driven by a retention schedule that reflects legal, regulatory, and business requirements, which vary by jurisdiction and sector. Within an ERMS these rules are often associated with classification categories so that records inherit appropriate retention periods and disposition outcomes. It is important to remember that disposition is not synonymous with destruction; depending on policy, it may involve transfer to another system or archive, permanent preservation, or controlled destruction. Configuration should reflect the organization's approved schedule rather than default settings.
How can legal holds be managed in an ERMS?
Many ERMS platforms provide functionality to suspend the normal disposition of records that are subject to a legal hold, so that they are not destroyed while relevant to litigation, investigation, or other obligations. The specific requirements and processes depend on jurisdiction and sector. Effective use generally involves the ability to identify affected records, apply and track holds, prevent their disposition, and release the hold once it no longer applies. The system should support, but does not replace, the legal and governance judgments about when a hold is warranted.
What should be considered when classifying records during capture into an ERMS?
Classification typically links a record to a business classification scheme or file plan, which in turn supports retention, access, and disposition decisions. During capture, organizations often aim to assign classification as consistently as possible, whether through user selection, rules, or automated methods. It can be helpful to distinguish authoritative records from copies, drafts, and transitory information at this stage, since not everything captured warrants the same controls. The approach depends on organizational policy and the nature of the records involved.
What is involved in migrating records into or out of an ERMS?
Migration generally aims to preserve the properties that make something a record, including authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability, along with associated metadata and any retention and disposition information. Moving records between systems can be treated as a transfer within the disposition process, and care is often needed to maintain evidential value and audit history. Considerations depend on organizational policy and, where applicable, jurisdictional and sector requirements, and it is prudent to verify that migrated records remain accessible and interpretable over their required retention period.

Common misconceptions

An ERMS is the same thing as a document management system (or the two are interchangeable).
Although the two often overlap and some products combine both, they differ in emphasis. Document management typically supports the creation, editing, versioning, and collaborative handling of documents, whereas an ERMS is concerned with controlling records as evidence across their lifecycle, including declaration, fixity, retention, and disposition. A document under active revision is generally not yet an authoritative record.
Deploying an ERMS by itself constitutes information governance.
An ERMS is a tool that supports records management functions such as classification, retention, and disposition. Information governance is the broader accountability framework spanning policy, risk, privacy, security, and value. The system can enable good practice but does not replace the governance structures, policies, and decisions that surround it.
Disposition in an ERMS simply means automatic deletion once a retention period expires.
Disposition is broader than destruction. Depending on the applicable retention schedule and policy, disposition outcomes may include transfer to another body, permanent preservation, or destruction. Treating disposition as synonymous with deletion risks losing records that should be retained or preserved.

Best practices

Base the system's classification scheme on business functions and activities so that records are organized consistently and can be reliably retrieved, retained, and disposed of.
Ensure records are captured and formally declared so that authoritative records are distinguished from drafts, copies, and transitory information, and are protected from unauthorized alteration once declared.
Configure retention and disposition rules to reflect the full range of possible outcomes, including transfer and permanent preservation as well as destruction, rather than defaulting to automatic deletion.
Maintain complete metadata and audit trails to support the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of records and to demonstrate accountability for management actions.
Implement legal hold or disposition freeze functionality and align its use with the hold obligations applicable in your jurisdiction and sector.
Treat the ERMS as one component within a wider information governance framework, supporting it with policies, roles, and periodic review rather than relying on the technology alone.