>
> This ripple in the pond seemed to track across the country. So much so
> that Certified Destruction companies are using their reputation to move into
> records management, media vaulting and so on.  Well run local offsite
> storage companies are seeing inquiries from the Fortune 500 running from a
> problem since they make more requests they are seeing the problem first.


Similarly, I've seen a firm who is well known for its secure transportation
of other paper based commodities at the ARMA Conference for the past 3 years
offering their services to the Records Management community.  It was
apparent the first year at least that they didn't quite "get it" , but they
seem much more in tune with the needs of the profession now.


> One effect is the movement of tapes to independent operators or the
> movement to disk to disk to eliminate an existing vendor.  Will this hasten
> the demise of box storage?


Probably not, much of what is stored in boxes is there for a reason.  It's
either to meet a legal need for information that is infrequently accessed,
but still needed to satisfy a retention requirement, or it is retained to
meet some other business need.


> Another trend that was mentioned is the huge changeover from delivery
> schedules.  In the past a request from Monday prior to noon was responded to
> by a delivery the next day before noon.  24 hour turn around was the norm.
> Today the schedule for some firms present 48 hours as the Standard. Anything
> shorter is an emergency rush and the delivery fee is much higher.


This sounds more like a poorly designed business model to me... "instead of
charging more to keep the stuff on the shelves, let's determine how
frequently it's accessed and how quickly the customer needs it, then devise
a way to charge them more to get it"


> This makes the decision to keep boxes on the shelf even more expensive.
>  So we seem to come full circle where the smaller, more efficient and more
> secure records storage vendor has a place.


ANY decision to store records offsite ultimately costs mote than storing
them in-house, unless you have severe volumes of infrequently accessed
information with seriously long retention periods.

As discussed many times before, most records have a retention period of 6 or
fewer years, and **IF** they are generated in paper form to begin with, it
is less expensive to house those generated in this manner in-house than it
is to:

pay your staff to index and box them,
pay to send them offsite,
pay to store them,
pay to track them,
pay to have them pulled,
pay to have them delivered,
pay to return them,
pay to have them returned to storage,
pay to cointinue storing them,
pay to have them pulled,
pay to permanently remove them from storage,
and pay to have them destroyed.

Not to mention the cost for your staff to:
complete the paperwork for requests,
wait for a return call and call again when the shipment doesn't arrive,
explain to staff why the shipments are late,
manage the contract,
dispute the incorrect invoices,
process the invoices for payment,
receive the shipments,
prepare the returns,
wait for and call the vendor regarding the late pickups,
and justify why you selected this vendor in the first place

We are all quick to jump on IT for failures but these two items may have
> very negative consequences for Records Management.  They speak to your
> efficiency and worse your accuracy and trust.


And as a few of us have mentioned, it shouldn't fall on RIM to explain this,
because in most instances, RIM DOES NOT make the final selection... and
unfortunately, in many cases, RIM doesn't even get involved in preparing the
RFQ/RFP or analyzing the bids for "lowest total cost" rather than perceived
bottom line cost.  There's a great tool available for this purpose, and it
is designed not only for RIMs to use, but for procurement, facilities,
management or others who are not familiar with RIM practices...

http://www.arma.org/bookstore/productdetail.cfm?ProductID=2220

And not only are we all quick to blame IT for some failures, the press is
quick to blame organizations for lost records when in most cases where the
records are stored offsite, its the service provider who was under a
contractual obligation to be an industry leader in information protection
who actually lost the records.  Their name might be mentioned in one or two
of the more local stories, but the headlines always read about how the "XYZ
Corporation lost a bazillion records".


> As a barometer of our times, are you seeing

a greater volume of misplaced boxes from your offsite storage provider?
> If the box is lost, how long until you get it back?

If ever?
>

How about a few follow-up qualifying questions for this virtual survey:

How do you generally become aware of lost boxes?
Does your provider tell you, or do you only find out when you request them?
Do they run regular inventory reports to ensure if they bill you for storing
10,000 boxes they ACTUALLY HAVE those 10,000 boxes?
Do you make periodic inspections for random boxes to make sure they're
there?
If they/you determine a box is lost, what credit do you receive?
Does it ever measure up to the damage you may suffer as a result of the box
being lost?
If you send 100 boxes, and they report receiving 100 boxes, and you have
records of everything you've requested and returned during the contract,
WHERE IS THE LOST BOX?
What is the potential exposure if the information was sent to a competitor
or other business?

Thanks Hugh... I just spent 4 days in Disneyland, and this certainly
reminded me I'm back in "Reality Gulch"

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
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]