In the last four decades, there has been a growing interest in the importance of the organization, dissemination and use of information within organizations at a time when records have gone beyond basic functionality, exploring their complex interconnections with society, knowledge and communication practices.

Duranti (1994) observes that documentary records have characteristics that allow the analysis and understanding of the record, whether for administrative or cultural purposes, namely: impartiality, authenticity, naturalness, interrelationship, and uniqueness.

Shepherd and Yeo (2003) point out that a record is not only defined by its age, physical format, storage medium, selection for preservation, or as a form of recorded information. It is characterized by providing evidence (not in a legal sense) of some exclusive activity. In this way, such evidence can be used in any situation where proof of a specific activity is required.

For Schellenberg (2006), the essential criteria that make it possible to distinguish “records” incorporate characteristics that determine the reason why they are considered as objects preserved over time − the values by which they are preserved (for administrative and evidentiary, cultural and historical purposes) and the links to an institution or person (origin or custody).

According to Cunningham, Millar, and Reed (2013), it is imperative to know the origin of a record, considering it as a contextualized source and an object of information provided with broader meaning and evidential value. Knowledge of the origin of a record allows its use as evidence of activities, as it is essential to know who created or received it and for what purpose.

Cunningham, Millar, and Reed (2013) emphasize a continuous cycle in which the individual, work group or organization is responsible or involved in processes of creation, capture, use and/or management of records. These processes aim to achieve organizational objectives in a context that houses business (which can be or are documented records), people (who conduct business), and records (created, handled, and managed by people).

Bellotto (2014) highlights the uniqueness of archival documents based on two parallel and essential intrinsic properties − those of being evidence and of being information/testimony −, shaping their relevance over time as historical, administrative, legal and historical sources.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) incorporates distinctive attributes and defines the archival document in relation to other documentary forms. According to International Council on Archives (2023), the archival document is an instrument created by individuals or organizations in the development of their activities, whose relevance is attested by its testimonial value over time, imbued with essential intrinsic qualities, such as authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usefulness.

The record stands out in its unique ability to capture facts, causes and consequences while preserving memory and expanding in time the evidence of these facts, retaining essential information and building history.

In particular, the archival document brings together variables such as form, content and representation in different media or formats that allow it to be identified and categorized into genre, species, type, and nature of the subject. These characteristics provide a comprehensive and classifying framework that facilitates their management and understanding.

From an organizational perspective, archival documents are recognized as instruments to support administration, culture, and scientific development, in addition to fundamental elements such as evidence and information.

In the field of scientific literature, the complexity of the concept of “knowledge” is reflected in the wide range of definitions found and distinct emphases. In the sphere of this diversity, it is essential to identify and select a perspective that enriches the contemporary understanding of this term within the scope of this research.

For Nonaka (1994)4, the concept and meanings of knowledge are multifaceted and points out that since the classical Greek period, the history of philosophy can be considered an incessant search for the meaning of knowledge.

Nonaka (1994, p. 15) states: “[...] knowledge is created and organized by the flow of information itself, anchored in the commitment and beliefs of its holder”. The terms “information” and “knowledge” are often used interchangeably, however there is a clear distinction between information and knowledge.

Nonaka (1994, p. 15) further explains: “information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the flow of information itself, anchored in the commitment and beliefs of its holder”.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997, p. 63) emphasize the subjective and active nature of knowledge, highlighting its role in the dynamics, construction and validation of personal beliefs, considering it as: “a dynamic process of justifying personal belief in relation to truth”.

Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 6) emphasize the fluidity, richness, importance of experience and values in the formation of knowledge, defining it as a “fluid mixture of condensed experience, values, contextual information and experienced insight, which provides a structure for the evaluation and incorporation of new experiences and information”.

Therefore, in this research, we selected as a definition for “knowledge” that presented by Dalkir (2011, p. 468) that incorporates distinctive attributes to the term: “Subjective and valuable information that has been validated and organized into a model (mental model); used to make sense of our world; generally originated from accumulated experience; incorporate perceptions, beliefs and values”.

Among these attributes, individuals’ reflections on certain information and the consequences they cause for decisions and actions stand out, including the condition in which information related to the current situation is compared to other situations experienced, reflecting the accumulated experience and the incorporation of individuals’ perceptions, beliefs and values.

Organizational knowledge evolves from an interactive process, with emphasis on the conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge that plays a decisive and fundamental role for the effective management of knowledge.

Nonaka (1994) notes that organizations do not create knowledge without individuals and from this perspective, the creation of organizational knowledge is a process that amplifies knowledge and consolidates it as part of organizational knowledge.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997, p. 7) point out that tacit knowledge “is highly personal and difficult to formalize, which makes it difficult to transmit and share with others”, while explicit knowledge “can be easily ‘processed’ by a computer, transmitted electronically or stored in a database” (Nonaka; Takeuchi, 1997, p. 8).

The authors point out that organizational knowledge evolves through an interactive process, in which the conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge plays a determining role. Indeed, they provide a theoretical basis for exploring knowledge in the organizational context.

Dalkir (2011) highlights the creation and diffusion of knowledge as crucial factors for competitiveness in the organizational perspective, recognizing knowledge as an asset, regardless of its tacit or explicit nature.

As knowledge is a formidable asset, it becomes imperative for organizations to measure and evaluate their potential through reliable approaches and a common language, promoting an assertive understanding of its value as a determining factor for the competitiveness of contemporary organizations.

Records Management presents itself as a dynamic and indispensable concept in the preservation of memory and information over time, drawing on concepts such as Theory of the Three Ages5, Document Life Cycle6, Records Continuum7 and Recordkeeping8. By using this conceptual framework, it strengthens the archival practice and the strategic role of effective records management throughout its trajectory.

In this perspective, RM plays a central role in the contemporary understanding of archival practices, in the performance of its various actors and in the continuous preservation of memory, information and knowledge in organizations.

Duranti (1989a, 1989b), from the historical path, outlined the evolutionary links of document production and conservation practices in ancient, medieval, and modern times, providing a critical reflection by raising questions about the determining conditions for the establishment and effectiveness of RM.

Kern, Holgado, and Cottin (2015) identified and detailed four major theories, models and influences of publications in a timeline from the 1920s to the present day, drawing from guides, archive management manuals and articles specialized in different authors and cultures.

The authors highlighted four major groups calling them “Precursors”, “Three Ages”, “Life Cycle” and “Records Continuum”. The four groups are listed in Chart 2.

Jardim (2015) conducted comprehensive research that highlights this diversity, the intrinsic importance of these terminological instruments and the implications under theoretical and practical aspects in various archival contexts.

The author considers RM as “one of the most diverse archival territories, subject to different theoretical and practical perceptions” (Jardim, 2015, p. 20) and his research reflects these perceptions as essential resources for effective communication within the realm of archival knowledge.

Jardim (2015) based his study on multiple definitions of the term “records management”, extracted exclusively from glossaries, archival dictionaries, and archival traditions, notably in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Especially in the context of Brazilian archival science, the author points out: “In Brazil, with regard to English texts on records management, the translation or perception of the term records is often associated with current and intermediate documents or, in other words, documents that are not characterized as of permanent value” (Jardim, 2015, p. 23).

The author compiled, from the original language, a frequency of terms associated with the objects, actions and objectives that would be inherent to the RM, as presented in Chart 3.

Within the scope of international institutions, governments and archive associations of several countries, specific standards were defined, encompassing elements that characterize RM.

In this context, Jardim (2015) analyzed the emergence of document management, after the 1950s in the North American scenario, as a distinct area of archival science and highlighted its transformations with the adoption of new models and international standards.

The ISO 15489 standard is emphasized, as it has become over the years, a global reference for the development of RM in organizations, originally written in English, and has been translated into several languages, receiving prominence in the scientific literature by various authors.

For this research, the definition of RM was chosen from ABNT NBR ISO 15489-1 (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, 2018), the Portuguese version of International Standard ISO 15489-1:2016 − Information and documentation − Records management Part 1: Concepts and Principles published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO):

Thus, supported by fundamental premises in the scope of archival science, the well-implemented RM guarantees an important source of information to consolidate the organization’s knowledge, unfolding in the rationalization of documentary production and in the optimization of ease of use.

Knowledge is a valuable corporate asset and requires coherent and understandable approaches that enable organizations to determine their current state of KM, progressing through the phases necessary for greater organizational development.

Notwithstanding the conceptual divergences in the terminology associated with KM, the differences between the accepted and widespread terms are not as substantial as they initially seem.

Alavi and Leidner (2001) note that small discrepancies in the delimitation of KM are reported in the scientific literature, in terms of the description and stages of the cycle. The position of the authors is corroborated by Dalkir (2011), who points out that KM is based on a vast number of different fields, reflecting its interdisciplinary nature. The scientific literature offers a representative number of texts that address the conceptions, concepts, definitions, and perspectives on KM.

At this juncture, the author points out the lack of conformity in the literature related to the terms that describe the stages of the KM cycle and highlights conceptual divergences in the terminology associated with these processes, which are generally outlined as creation, storage/ retrieval, transfer and application of knowledge.

Dalkir (2011) identified, in the scientific literature, comprehensive approaches by Wiig (1993), Meyer and Zack (1996), McElroy (1999), Bukowitz and Williams (2000), and Rollett (2003) that have been implemented, validated, and contain detailed descriptions of the stages of the KM cycle. These approaches are described in Chart 4.

In the Brazilian scientific literature on KM, its constituent elements, and the evolution of the concept over time, Valentim (2020), when investigating the state of the art, conducted a review that identified various published concepts, according to Brazilian researchers. The author distinguished the constituent elements of KM, based on the authors’ understanding of the analyzed texts:

In fact, the contribution of KM is realized in the organizational context in a collective, systematic and integrated manner, aiming at the creation, sharing and application of knowledge.

In this section, a review of the scientific literature is used to present studies that address the inherent aspects of the relationships between RM and KM in organizations, which are the objects of analysis in this article.

The articles identified through the application of the protocol for conducting the literature review (Section 1) are listed in Chart 5.

Day (1997) presented the reasons, challenges, benefits, and potential of integrating information services. The author points out that records managers must maintain and develop their essential skills to lead the process of integrating corporate information services.

According to the author, by avoiding information overload, RM and KM require the application of retention periods and information filtering processes that guarantee users access only to the necessary information. Thus, RM plays a key role in applying retention schedules, while KM, by accessing filtered and organized information, becomes a beneficiary.

In the context of information as a strategic resource, records must be recognized as essential assets for achieving organizational objectives, including using them to support corporate memory and organizational knowledge.

Beastall (1998) points out that the interface between RM and KM lies in the way individuals record their opinions and judgments based on what they discover in original documents, forming a continuous cycle in which information is converted into knowledge. For the author, the memory of the organization is an essential element through which the knowledge contained in the records is captured for management and sharing later.

The perspective of Beastall (1998) reveals that in certain contexts, the organizational culture may not favor the sharing of information. Thus, the knowledge of an individual or group becomes isolated and segregated from all others, compromising sharing and integration into corporate memory.

Beastall (1998) suggests flexible database structures that allow and facilitate changes or incorporations in the integration process between RM and KM. Nevertheless, the incorporation of nuances and details of the information obtained during the practical implementation of RM represents a challenge for records managers who wish to be an essential component of the KM cycle.

The author recognizes that RM in organizations requires agility and control at a higher level of complexity (as the materials that need to be controlled and managed extend beyond traditional paper documents), propelling RM to a new way of managing and recording information, aligned with the imperative of management by capturing and sharing knowledge.

Sanderson (2001) discussed the interrelationship between tacit knowledge and RM, highlighting the importance of capturing it (which often resides in the experience and intuition of individuals) within organizations. The author emphasizes the preservation of organizational memory as a crucial point of this interrelation. RM ensures that knowledge accumulated over time is maintained and can be recovered when needed, providing a solid foundation for future decision making and strategic development of organizations.

Sanderson (2001) argues that effective records management can contribute to transforming this implicit knowledge into documents that can be shared and reused by the organization in the future.

RM facilitates knowledge transfer at the organizational level by capturing tacit knowledge and transforming it into formal documents. Thus, knowledge can be more easily shared among team members, fostering a culture of continuous learning and collaboration.

For Sanderson (2001), the documentation of processes and procedures is crucial for capturing tacit knowledge. By formalizing, recording individuals’ practices and experiences, organizations ensure that knowledge is not lost, and documents are organized and accessible at the right time.

Sanderson (2001) points out that by recording tacit knowledge, RM supports innovation and continuous improvement. Documenting ideas, problem solutions, and lessons learned allows the organization to evolve and adapt more quickly to market changes and new opportunities.

From the perspective of information management, Tombs (2004) discusses the complexity and challenges of KM. In this context, the author positions RM as a more effective and practical proposal. Despite their differences, KM and RM interact and complement each other in distinct aspects.

Tombs (2004) analyzed KM and RM perspectives in the context of usability, storage and retrieval of information, arguing that without a record-based approach, organizations will face difficulties due to their complex nature, the mutability of the context in which they operate and the variables that involve their employees. The author, when comparing the two fields of management, points out that RM emerges as the preferred solution for information storage and retrieval because it has a more agile approach, is easily understood within the organization, relatively low-cost and highly adaptable.

Tombs (2004) recognizes that KM approaches can be valuable, especially when they support RM activities. This suggests a potential integration where KM practices can be utilized to enhance the effectiveness of RM systems.

Harries (2009) points out that RM must adapt to transformative changes in the public sector, where the emphasis is on efficiency and expanding the quality of services. RM must demonstrate clear benefits and integrate into organizational processes, facilitating business transformation. The author proposes a framework to map the dynamics between records and knowledge in the process of formulating public policies through to the delivery of services, integrating RM with knowledge communities and KM processes, highlighting the mutual importance in governance and accountability.

Harries (2009) identified three types of communities with respective knowledge structures, shared interests and values that influence the production, organization, and use of records: communities of practice, communities of interest and communities of action.

Equally significant, RM processes are essential for producing new knowledge and for the continuous improvement of organizational practices, supporting externalization (making knowledge explicit and transferable), internalization (absorption of new knowledge), and socialization (creation of shared understanding).

The author highlights the crucial role of records managers for organizational efficiency, continuous innovation, and good governance, which, in time, should facilitate connections, encourage knowledge sharing and analyze patterns in relation to corporate strategy and risk profiles.

Galt and Hase (2009) point out that KM must be aligned with the organization’s strategies, competencies, culture and needs to ensure effective implementation while in the context of RM this strategic approach reinforces the need for reliable and consistent search systems that support the organization’s growth and viability.

Galt and Hase (2009) emphasize the importance of organizational learning and continuous improvement of KM and RM in the implementation of new systems and processes that contribute to the continuous development of organizational practices.

In the organizational context, the authors point out operational and cultural challenges in the implementation of KM and RM systems. Cultural resistance to change and the lack of standardized systems are significant obstacles that must be overcome to achieve compliance and operational efficiency.

An and Wang (2010), highlight how KM and RM are interrelated and complement each other, contributing to efficient governance, promoting organizational competitiveness and value creation in organizations.

Based on the approach of three types of systems used corporately, the authors observe that the integration between Business Continuity Management Systems (BCMS), Records Management Systems (RMS) and Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) promotes evidence-based governance, optimizing processes and resources, improving decision making and resulting in efficiency.

This level of organizational governance is achieved through the control of metadata and functional requirements for records’ maintenance, authenticity, integrity, quality, and usability, ensuring responsible and consistent decision making.

In effect, records are managed as business resources and knowledge assets, ensuring their effective use as renewable and reusable capital.

Hase and Galt (2011), despite using a single case study in an educational institution, provide some points for understanding the relationship between RM and KM that deserve to be addressed as strategic issues and integrated into the various processes necessary to sustain operations, ensure organizational effectiveness and continuity of knowledge.

For the authors, specifically in a tertiary education environment, RM and KM are seen as inseparable. In this context, records of students’ results and achievements, both in physical and electronic files, are fundamental to KM and the constitution of institutional memory.

Hase and Galt (2011) point out that good RM practices contribute to the continuity of knowledge and reduce operational costs by eliminating duplicates and improving organizational efficiency.

Duranti and Xie (2012) used the Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization (SECI) model of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)9 to address the relationship between RM and KM. The authors note that during the KM cycle, the externalization process and the combination process produce tangible knowledge assets, which are potential records according to RM. The production of tangible knowledge assets will occur when information becomes documents that serve as a means of executing future business processes.

According to Duranti and Xie (2012, p. 248), “RM’s function is to record the entire business process in the form of documents, and this certainly includes capturing the participation of the knowledge asset”.

To illustrate Duranti and Xie’s (2012) perspective, we refer to the following approach to organizational knowledge creation: “unlike individual knowledge creation, it occurs when all four knowledge creation processes are managed ‘organizationally‘ to form a continuous cycle” (Nonaka, 1994, p. 20).

According to Nonaka (1994) the four processes of knowledge conversion are described as:

Duranti and Xie (2012) observe that the relationship between KM and RM is transformative, inclusive, and reciprocal. Transformative because knowledge conversion processes (outsourcing and combining) produce tangible knowledge assets that are potential records according to RM (the relationship with RM will be established when they participate and become an integral part of an organization’s business activity, regardless of where or how).

From this perspective, KM and RM intersect when an organization applies externalized knowledge and preserves operational evidence. The relationship between KM and RM is inclusive because RM envisions knowledge conversion processes (outsourcing and combining) as business components of the KM function, in the same way as other business components of other organizational functions (financial management or human resource management, among others).

The relationship between KM and RM is reciprocal in at least two aspects: first, by the assistance provided by knowledge assets to the development of RM rules and, second, by the application of KM techniques to make tacit knowledge in RM explicit in the organization.

Likewise, RM provides contextual information so that knowledge assets are interpreted and applied in a meaningful way in the organization, being essential for the practical implementation of KM because it guarantees the authenticity, quality and usability of the records generated by the KM function.

Duranti and Xie (2012) note that both disciplines have reciprocal capacities, face similar challenges and opportunities. RM can provide support to the development of KM rules, while KM techniques can be applied to favor the conversion of tacit knowledge of RM into explicit and accessible, benefiting in the creation of an environment where RM benefits from KM practices and vice versa.

The authors distinguish that the challenges and opportunities of both disciplines are similar in common areas, such as business process alignment, change management and organizational culture.

These common areas reinforce the need for collaboration between KM and RM and highlight the importance of an integrated approach, where KM and RM complement each other, providing a more robust and efficient organizational environment.

Lima and Duarte (2017), when presenting guidelines for an integrated RM, Information Management (IM) and KM policy, highlights the importance of integrating the three management modalities (RM, IM, and KM) for documental, informational and knowledge sustainability in search of authenticity, quality and administrative effectiveness of organizational processes.

From this perspective, KM practices can assist in the development of organizational competencies by integrating people and processes, from an integrated approach between RM, IM, and KM.

Lima and Duarte (2017), notably on RM and KM, points out that these courses have different but complementary objectives, focuses and management instruments. The RM cycle involves production, organization, and preservation of documents in daily operations and strategic decisions of organizations ensuring authenticity, integrity, and accessibility.

Notwithstanding, RM favors compliance and administrative efficiency by defining the rules, standards for archiving and storing records used as a factual and legal basis for the organization’s operations.

Knowledge management, in turn, focuses on people and knowledge management, both tacit and explicit, using documented information to transform data into valuable insights, improving the ability to adapt and respond to organizational changes.

Indeed, the instruments used in the three management modalities (RM, IM, and KM) also reflect their interrelationship. RM employs classification plans and temporality tables, information management can use taxonomies and thesaurus, and KM relies on knowledge maps and skill banks.

These instruments, although different, are complementary and favor the integration of informational and documentary practices, promoting an environment conducive to the creation, organization, sharing and use of organizational knowledge.

For Anderson (2019), KM also involves the preservation and sharing of institutional memory, while RM ensures that crucial information is maintained and accessible, providing the framework for knowledge retention and organization. The author notes that KM systems rely heavily on records retention policies to maintain data integrity and accessibility over time. In this context, the interaction between KM and RM directly impacts organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Therefore, organizations that implement good RM practices in their KM programs gain greater capacity to retain critical knowledge and improve their competitive performance in the market.

Anderson (2019) points out that the development of technical solutions to support KM requires the consideration of RM practices (including those that support the management and distribution of explicit forms of knowledge) to ensure the maintenance of institutional memory and avoid the possibility of gaps in records retention.

Vieira (2020) highlighted the mutual relationship and complementarity between RM and KM, demonstrating how the organization, preservation and proper use of archival documents are essential for the creation, storage, and dissemination of knowledge within organizations.

The author assumed that RM contributes to KM in two dimensions: (i) the physical and intellectual organization of records; (ii) the selection of records for disposal or permanent safekeeping throughout their life cycle, providing savings, efficiency, and administrative effectiveness to organizations.

Vieira (2020) then analyzed how RM can contribute to improving KM in organizations, exploring their approximations and distances, concluding that the results point more to an approximation than to a distance, evidencing the contribution of RM in the KM process.

RM provides KM with the control, organization, and ease of access to information in the records produced and received by the organization, including the rationalization of production and the application of control practices, classification, ordering and retrieval of records essential for the creation and use of organizational knowledge.

Vieira (2020) points out that the result of the application of RM may benefit from a knowledge asset in relation to archival documents (which are accessible, contextualized in their function/activity and organizational structure, maintaining its identified values and established custody deadlines).

In this perspective, interrelated cycles of RM and KM are formed, the records since production complement the cycle of KM, which involves the organization, use and generation of new registered knowledge, which is then transformed again into new cycles of RM and KM.

Isomura (2021), based on a framework to analyze KM and RM, points out that archival documents and knowledge are created, collected, and used through three processes: operation, communication and decision making.

When these three processes are dynamically interconnected, KM and RM become effective and must be integrated to improve operational effectiveness, support decision making and ensure the strategic use of knowledge in organizations.

The author used three cases to confirm his approach and presented the following conclusions:

The author argues that KM is strategically oriented to use information assets, promoting communication and information sharing, while RM is directed towards efficiency, focusing on well-defined policies and auditable procedures, responding to compliance and documentation needs in organizations.