No one needs to argue with me why records that are born, stored,
retrieved and deleted in electronic format are an advantage. But, of course,
there can be disadvantages as well.  This recent scenario made me laugh
(quietly to myself) because I still believe we should select our records
media based on a wide variety of considerations, and it sometimes makes
sense to change the media throughout the life cycle.

Many times throughout the past several years I have suggested in meetings
that sometimes it might make sense to retain some of our "long retention
records" in paper.  Needless to say the IT folks generally rolled their eyes
and looked at me as though I was the "paper monster" (Steve will
understand).

Well, just last week in another cross-functional meeting to discuss how to
manage our legacy data system records, an IT vice president was expressing
his frustration with the complexity and cost of resources to store our
legacy data so we can decommission all our legacy platforms.  And then he
said, I think we should just print these records and let Mary's group manage
them.  Yes, we have a very good reputation for managing the paper records
that are transferred to our Records Center, but the idea was primarily
prompted by the complexity and costs.

Yes, I know there are many ways retain electronic records in electronic
formats, but quite frankly these IT teams think it is much too expensive
(WOW, when did this happen?).  But then I quickly replied, "Sure we can
store them in paper but how in the world will we search them?"

Tradeoffs - costs, access, security, retention.  Our decisions must be
flexible and our life cycle management of records requires ongoing
evaluations - and, yes maybe even a migration from electronic to paper.
Thanks Mary

-- 
Mary W. Haider, CRM
Records & Information Manager

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