Glenn,
How are you calculating the costs of scanning vs. storing hard copy?
Linda Buss
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Glenn Sanders <[log in to unmask]>
> 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]
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]
|