Doug - just a word of caution for folks on your cost allocation comment.
When comparing a cost allocation numbers, you want to make sure you are
comparing apples and apples. Cost allocation formula are not necessarily
unit pricing systems. For example, a cost allocation based square
footage cost may not compare to a unit price to store a cubic foot
charged by a commercial records center (this is where that fuzzy "usage"
stuff begins to play a role). The unit price component for square
footage within that cost allocation formula may work. Or, the cost
allocation figure would work if both the active and inactive storage
areas are utilizing the same cost allocation formula. Understanding the
allocation formula helps ensure apple to apple comparisons.

The reason I point this out is the cost allocation may be supporting
functions not directly tied to facility square footage (for example, an
overall property management function). Changing a storage cost from a
cost allocation based square footage charge to a unit pricing based
storage charge may save direct costs, but end up increasing the
remaining square footage charge due to the need to continue to support
the supported function. In other words, you may not save the money you
think you will.

Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution & Stores
(FREDS)
1620 SE 190th Avenue
Portland OR 97233
phone: (503)988-3741
fax: (503)988-3754
[log in to unmask]
 

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