Earl

Don't recall the document you are chasing, but here is an extract from a
guideline I developed last year:

--------------------------------
Deciding what to scan

Scanning is very often part of a move to a largely electronic way of
working, but it is not the whole picture and often not the most cost
effective solution. The main reasons for scanning, in order of
importance, are:

1. To make documents quickly and simultaneously available to many users,
particularly if the users are spread across multiple sites
2. To integrate hardcopy documents into new or existing electronic
procedures
3. To protect important documents, eg as part of business continuity or
disaster recovery planning (although if the records are rarely used, offsite
hardcopy storage in a high standard facility will be cheaper)
4. To save space (however offsite hardcopy storage is at least four times
cheaper than scanning, on a cost per page or cost per image basis)

So as a generalisation, you would only scan records that are frequently or
simultaneously used, and where the required retrieval time is less than one
day. You would also scan material to integrate it into existing or new
electronic processes. You would only scan records to protect them, or to
save space, if electronic integration or simultaneous rapid access were also
involved.
--------------------------------
You have to be careful with scanning. I've had people propose scanning
filing cabinets full of reports printed from MS Word (if they are on the
shared drives already why scan them?), and others proposing to scan material
scheduled for destruction in eighteen months. Others have wanted to scan
material used so infrequently as to be statistically immeasurable. Most
people don't even think about how to create or capture the metadata
necessary for retrieval, which can cost more than the scanning itself.

It's too often a facile, glib solution, adopted with insufficient analysis.
And before Steve jumps on me, I hate paper too, and we are currently
involved in projects to scan two million A0 or larger plans ($5 mill
project) and parts of 50,000 technical manuals ($250,000 project), both
justified primarily by reasons 1 and 2 above, and slightly by reason 3. With
the approval of our local State Records office, most of the hardcopy will be
destroyed after scanning and QA.

Glenn

Glenn Sanders
[log in to unmask]
Australia

These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked
and they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and
Glenn". Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.

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]