Roger
We had a similar request (without the scanning bit) for our distribution
system project and maintenance records (I am a RM function with only 2
FTE).  We set a policy early on that retrievals from storage that
involved interfiling would require requesting the entire box and
interfiling would be done by the requesting division. (Divisions also
have to box their records for storage and submit an index of box
contents to RM electronically). An electronic file of
additions/revisions/corrections to the index must be sent to RM along
with the box when ready to return to storage.  

Since we outsource our records storage, the cost of pulling entire boxes
was a factor in limiting the number of requests for constant
interfiling.  Another factor was the divisions having to do their own
interfiling.  It became clear that keeping records in the offices until
they were truly inactive or rethinking how they could file or box (i.e.
by termination dates for some records, by fiscal year for some records,
relying on a more detailed index to search for record location before
requesting retrieval, etc.) was less expensive than dumping everything
into storage and using records box storage as extensions of the file
cabinets.  

I have worked in organizations that have in-house storage facilities. In
those cases we set policy that charged back records storage labor costs
including pulling boxes, interfiling, etc.  Once again, cost acted as a
deterrent for inefficient practices.

Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, FAI)
Records Manager
Information Technology Division
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
Newport News, VA
[log in to unmask]

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