Excellent point!  It's what I had in mind when I said "rationale behind 
deciding to migrate a particular record series from paper" but you said it 
much better.

Case in point, we had one department that wanted us to scan a certain record 
series consisting of work order forms.  The record series had a fairly short 
term retention and had virtually no retrieval activity.  I declined to 
accept this as a valid scanning project as the department could offer no 
good reason as to why they needed to have the forms scanned.  Had they been 
able to demonstrate a valid business benefit to the scanning my decision may 
have been different.

Gary Vocks

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Graham Kitchen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [RM] help!


> Has everyone involved in this discussion forgotten that in order to do the 
> scanning, a feasibility study and business case must be done.  You can't 
> just scan everything because the user tells you to.
>
> After the business case proves one way or the other, then you either scan 
> or not.  Let's not forget the basics in order to get involved in the 
> "glitz".....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Gary Vocks
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: help!
>
>
> Speaking from the perspective of someone who has replaced a microfilm
> operation with a hybrid (scan and film at the same time) operation I can
> tell you that filming and scanning are not the same.  Everything is
> different, from the rationale behind deciding why to migrate a particular
> record series from paper to the amount of resources involved in the actual
> operation.
>
> I'm all for centralization because it gives RM more control over what is
> scanned/filmed and it also has the probability of reduced cost to the
> institution because of "economy of scale".  However, unless you can 
> convince
> your administration to provide you with enough resources or you can 
> operate
> on an effective charge-back system you'll probably soon find yourself
> overwhelmed by the amount of paper that departments want you to scan.
>
> IMHO, long-term preservation of institution records on microfilm is a 
> fairly
> easy sell to your administration.  Adding funding for sufficient scanning
> equipment and staff will probably be more problematic especially if
> university funding gets tighter.
>
> Gary Vocks
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gus Harris" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:38 PM
> Subject: [RM] help!
>
>
>> Yikes.  I really need some help folks.  Of late there are people within
>> our
>> organization who want to have certain records scanned to optical disk. 
>> Of
>> course there are issues regarding "what records," retention requirements,
>> cost feasibility, etc.  But, what has me alarmed is that they seem to 
>> want
>> our Records Management Department to do their scanning!  Now, I've been
>> the
>> records manager here for many years and we've provided microfilming of
>> university records, based on my analysis etc., for all these years.
>> However, I have always felt this was the proper thing to do since we are
>> the
>> department with the expertise in micrographic processes...and in this way
>> we
>> could ensure that the process was done correctly.  However, I think it is
>> a
>> different situation when you're doing electronic scanning.  I just don't
>> believe that is something to centralize in your Records Management
>> Department.  I can think of numerous reasons why....but would like to 
>> hear
>> from others why document scanning shouldn't be centralized within a large
>> organization...but rather a function within the departments that are
>> utilizing it.
>>
>> Thanks for any info and opinions in advance!
>>
>> Gus Harris
>> Records Manager
>> The Univ. of West FL
>> Pensacola, FL
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
>> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>>
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This message and any attached documents contain information that may be
> confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be 
> protected by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you 
> are not
> the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this 
> information. If you
> have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender 
> immediately by reply
> e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> 

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