Gary, the effect of RIM on distribution is a factor of a specific focus on
that within the RIM program.  In general, this appears not to be a focus.

A good example is "manuals management" which, I have observed, seems not to
exist in a formal way in many organisations that sorely need such a program.
 When leading a program in Canada some time back, we developed a matrix for
information content (manuals) by given program areas, matched against the
job responsibilities of various positions within each, plus considerations
of an office library with one or more copies based on demographics
regionally, and thereby saved mucho bucks across about 500 offices in an
organisation that produced about 40+ program manuals.  

The hard savings were in production, distribution, etc. But it is also
possible to put numbers to simple administrative tasks like updating a
manual.  What pay level updates--individual management & professionals?
admin support?  how much time for how many average updates?  What mechanism
is used to bring revisions before the necessary audience?  Circulated
revision sheets? Issuance of new manuals? Online access points?  Regular
staff meetings? What is the efficacy of each?  All of this sort of action
can be quantified.  The trick with routine records is that duplication is
tied to many factors (retrievability, timeliness of distribution,
access/reality in use of online sources,etc.). Virtually impossible to
track, but numbers can be genearted through user surveys, etc.

It is difficult, I find, to get benchmark data in many RIM areas becuase the
programs are so diverse.  Yes, there are common elements, but of around 30
functional areas examined in RM programs in multiple sectors, I found that
the top functions in descending order are: semi-active storage (records
center services), file system design, filing/retrieval services, and
retention planning ranked over 80%. Manuals management, 35%; audit, 30%;
reprographics, 18%. In short, some of the areas that offer significant real
savings (and generally included in the CRM toolkit) are missing from many RM
programs. And, if only about 30% are engaged in auditing RM performance
within companies, programs cannot really know how they are doing--much less
establish benchmarks.

This is an area we can all benefit from.  Thoughts on developing a frame for
this?  How are others developing the numbers that can illustrate  the value
of RIM?

John James O'Brien, CRM, MALT
www.irmstrategies.com

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]