On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:00 AM, RECMGMT-L automatic digest system wrote:
> The trend for most organizations seems to be to reduce the real estate
> footprint as much as possible. Records storage is often a very low
> value-add use of real estate, unless you can show significant savings.
>

If the goal is to reduce the real estate foot print then storing them  
in media format is the best course of action.

I believe everyone here will agree that the ability to convert 10,000  
boxes of storage into the size of a
piece of Texas Toast is the only way to go.  Does everyone agree??  :~(

But if we store off site and we are in 50 states then we only have  
one choice of who to store with. But
wait, that company is always stating how their tremendous volume  
makes losing media inevitable in their Press Releases right after  
another data loss.

They also have contracts that put all risk back on the client,  
otherwise they would fix the problem by hiring better people and  
having more managers on site in each location. But for now it is  
cheaper to fight the public relations nightmare of a loss than to fix  
the problem. Similar to how Ford allowed the Pinto to have bad gas  
tanks rather than spend millions to fix a potential problem that  
turned out to be way more than "Potential."

If we look at the TJ MAXX situation where losses run well over $600  
million already, who pays for that?
That's right, the Owner of the records. Follow the GE Money (Penneys)  
loss and see if any blame is affixed to anyone other than the Owner  
of the records, even though they selected a records storage company  
to store those media units. And the chain of custody, according to  
the articles, reflected that the client placed those media units into  
protective custody at their offsite storage company.  But still GE  
Money and Penneys will pay the cost associated with protecting  
consumers identity and privacy rights.

Unless something changes in this regard, isn't the risk of millions  
of lost dollars for a variety of reasons trump the miniscule cost  
savings of storing onsite. Or at least select a company that doesn't  
make you the fall guy in a loss. Or select a company that has an  
excellent reputation for not losing records, they are out there.   
Some companies even offer insurance coverage to cover a loss.  This  
forces them to be very accurate as their insurance premium is based  
on a program of preventive security.

But as records managers, your first question should be "How do I  
protect the records in my custody?" Second is "How do I keep my  
corporation out of the headlines for bad things due to poor  
management of the corporate records?"  Third "How do I protect the  
Corporate Veil by maintaining control of my records?"  And so on......

I don't know how far down the list the issue of lowering your cost of  
storage from 25¢ per box to 10¢ is?but over 20 years at ARMA and how  
ever long I have been associated with records management listserv  
that many of you have priorities that are screwed up.

A quick calculation of the hundred or so losses that have occurred in  
the last two years will provide an excellent risk calculation to show  
management the real costs of storing offsite with a vendor who  
refuses to take liability.  Then compare this to what is the value of  
your collection if it is lost or exposed to competitors or identity  
theft criminals.

The movie "Breach" did a great job of showing what one man exposing  
private information can cost.  In the end with government secrets it  
was billions and several lives.

I wonder if I will ever see records managers who really care about  
protecting what is in their control?

If everyone did we would spend a great deal more time talking about  
SLA's, risk exposure insurance and procedures about switching vendors  
when a failure has occurred and how to explain to management the risk  
associated with improper storage of records.

As a result we are seeing a trend to storing more and more records  
virtually. (Virtual tape, Virtual Servers and Virtual Data  
Centers.)   Soon we will see a revelation similar to "Digits to Dust"  
as equipment failures make whole libraries disappear. But maybe that  
will be less costly than our current system?

Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[log in to unmask]
(610)  756-4440    Fax (610)  756-4134
WWW.FIRELOCK.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]