On 2/15/06, Chris Flynn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> With all electronic records,your most current version is the record copy.


I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say or not (?)

With electronic/digital forms of records. in many cases EACH VERSION is a
record copy, because they may contain different text and/or metadata,
correct?  So each version represents a "record" of something or other.

I urge you to make sure your policies read like that.


If you're making a change in the manner in which you manage your
informational assets from storing and referring to the paper copy as the
"record" to scanning, imaging or otherwise converting all of these former
hard copies to digital formats, then not only should your policies state
this, but your procedure manuals should be changed to reflect these
modifications to process for records management as well.

It's also advisable to have a memo to file acknowledging the date on which
the decision was made to perform a wholesale conversion of large volumes of
information to digital/electronic format, and if you use a service bureau to
perform this work, to retain a copy of the contract, including all
specifications for verification of quality on conversion, etc. with it.

If all the images are
> good then the original paper copy may be disposed of according to your
> retention schedule. I would urge you to make that retention as short as
> possible.


You might want to consider adding an item into your retention schedule for
"Source Documents, post scanning" that would include a time table for
destruction and in the disposition instructions, may mention something
about" X days/months after verification of X percent of images performed".
And I agree, the time frame should be short, once you have made a hard
decision about doing this.



If rescanning
> the record did not correct the problem the orginal paper record wa
> retained
> and the longest retention period fo rthat record applied. My expereince is
> that suspect quality is self evident to the user. In the case the the
> record
> needs to be viewed the hardcopy is available.


We applied tactics that were similar and also included something suggested
by another person. If the records were being batch processed and no one had
picked up on the poor quality during prep or scanning, we would attempt a
re-scan.  If it was caught in-process, then we would first attempt to
photocopy the "original" and improve the image quality by increasing the
contrast, placing a piece of white paper behind it before copying, or
reducing the image by 2-5%.  We might scan the image at a higher resolution
to increase the quality of what was captured as well.  All of these things
may be seen as "altering the original" in some camps, but our QC procedure
clearly stated what parameters we had at our discretion to use to enhance
the image during capture while maintaining that we were simply converting
the content to a digital form.

As a last resort, we would film a insert sheet stating the image was too
poor to capture and where the hard copy could be located.

Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance