RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Records Management <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:51:37 -1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (86 lines)
Aloha Dwight,

I agree with most of your comments...

However, the use of Unit Costs does help in comparing various
storage/media options in assessing various applications.  The unit cost
analysis is particularly popular with IT folks who used to dealing with
static data.  With the popularity of document imaging, everyone seems to
what their documents imaged, without taking into account more
cost-effective means of storage.  

Mahalo to everyone for their input...

Brian 


Brian A. Moriki
Records Management Officer
First Hawaiian Bank
808-844-3056
808-265-7449 (cell)
808-844-3494 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

***FROM THE DEPARTMENT THAT BELIEVES IN WE SAY YES!!!*** 


-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of WALLIS Dwight D
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Per Page Cost Of Microfilm vs. CD-ROM

Brian, I think it depends on the intended use and length of storage. We
only produce microfilm for records with long term retentions - generally
75 years or greater. In most cases, the information is also available
electronically, leaving the microfilm as a backup medium. In Oregon,
such an analog backup is required for records with retentions of 100+
years. 

The cost of the CD image in such a case requires the cost of the
microfilm as well - its not a matter of choice. In addition, I believe
one could make a compelling argument that cost of microfilm storage,
which does not require periodic intervention to maintain the record, is
progressively lower the longer a record needs to exist. Where that cost
point changes depends a great deal on the technology being compared to.
Jesse's point about working copies of microfilm is why we utilize cheap
diazo duplicates as our working copies, leaving the silver originals for
security purposes only.

In a nutshell - high activity, relatively low retention records are
going to be far cheaper to store electronically. Low activity, long
retention records are going to be progressively cheaper to store on
microfilm. Its just a matter of time.

Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 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

----------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain 
confidential information.  Any review, 
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or 
taking of any action in reliance upon, this 
information by persons or entities other than the 
intended recipient is prohibited.  If you receive this 
e-mail in error, please contact the sender by 
replying to this e-mail and delete this e-mail and 
any attachments from all computers without 
reading or saving the same in any matter 
whatsoever.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2