My own experience is that both knowledge-based and space-based
considerations should be taken into account in building a case for recordkeeping
solutions; because the former is typically based on soft-savings benefits, and the
latter is based on hard-savings benefits. Together, they appeal to different
decision-maker bases in the organization. Also, I find that when people talk
about space related savings, they usually fail to include some of the costlier
elements.
A case that also addresses avoidance costs of facilities-related costs, will
include such costs as those of paper storage (opportunity cost of space),
storage equipment purchase (file cabinets, bookshelves, 3-ring binders, file
folders), equipment repair, maintenance and replacement (including the often
large costs associated with the associated procurement processes), etc.
Needless to say, alternative digital systems are not cost free.
People costs related to finding information are usually much higher (which
operational people are usually very happy to testify to when responding to
work behavior surveys). And, of course, knowledge-based justifications appeal
very much to executives who struggle themselves with information gathering
tasks, and who see these as very much linked to business aims and processes,
which they are. Demonstrating savings however can be elusive. The facility costs
are hard and can make the facility manager an instant advocate of electronic
records systems. A big problem with any such calculations is that the central
budget people typically want to be able to capture the financial benefits
declared in any CBA. Where the savings are hard (such as facilities expenses)
budget offices like them, because they can take them out of the hide of the
facilities budget when the organization OKs the new IT system budget. But when
it is related to the productivity of operational people, they want to say:
OK, lets take 1.235 positions away for every 20 positions an operating unit
has. When this message comes back down to the operators, their managers often
say: Whoa! I don't believe that this system is going to be that productive,
despite what the staff say.
Following Bill Roach's point, there may be special times where space is much
more of an issue. One client was building a new building and wanted to
change to open space offices and reduce office sizes in the process, but was very
worried about all the paper in the old closed offices, corridors, etc., and
where it would go in the new construction. By taking a combination approach for
both paper (high-density storage) and electronic records (enterprise content
management solution), it was possible to meet their needs and improve
information/records access and security, even though the staff didn't appreciate
the downsized office spaces.
I think some combination of justifications makes the best approach,
depending on the particular solution being presented.
Regards,
Rick Barry
_www.mybestdocs.com_ (http://www.mybestdocs.com/)
Cofounder, Open Reader Consortium
_www.openreader.org_ (http://www.openreader.org/)
In a message dated 4/12/2006 12:02:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:54:08 -0500
From: "Roach, Bill J." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scanning of Documents to Reduce Space?
>>There are MANY reasons for considering the conversion of paper format
documents and records to digital formats, but the ABSOLUTE LAST REASON
should be "to save space".<<
I realize I am taking my life into my hands when I respond to this but
no risk, no reward.
I agree with nearly everything that Larry says here but will add one
little caveat. Sometimes saving space is the business reason that
results in :
>>improved access to information, a need for providing
concurrent/simultaneous access the same information to multiple users,
the ability for users to avoid the duplication and use of multiple
copies of paper records by using electronic representations instead,
etc.<<
I can think of several examples where space was the driving
consideration for imaging the records. Granted, you can also say the
decision was based on other factors like customer service or needed
access, but the bottom line was lack of space. In these instances, it
was far less expensive to image the documents than it was to move the
offices. There was no available space to expand the records storage
area and the records were far too active to move to an offsite location.
So the choices are either, image the records so you can stay where you
are today or move an entire office function to a new location.
In these instances, imaging to save space was the "ABSOLUTE LAST REASON"
and the right business decision.
Bill R
Bill Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North Dakota
ITD/Records Management
701-328-3589
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|