>>Certainly, it would not be prudent to digitize records with a
permanent retention and then toss the originals.<<

Have to take exception to this one.  We digitize permanent records every
day and toss the paper.  Granted, imaging for cold storage cannot
provide an ROI unless you are renting safety deposit boxes for your
records.  On the other hand, retaining permanent records in an inactive
storage facility begs the question "What's the point?"  Why keep
inaccessible records?

For the benefit of my Archivist friends, I recognize there is sometimes
"intrinsic value" that indicates retaining the original paper.  But in
today's environment of high speed printers and copiers I suspect that
there is enough of the 81/2"x11" stuff floating around to provide even
the most dedicated Gutenberger with a feeling of pure joy a hundred or
even five hundred years from now.  On the other hand, archivists will
probably take the stuff, run it through a camera, print it to film and
toss the paper any way.  We just save them a ton of work.  

Scan it, push images to film when your ready and send both film and
images to the archives.  Then check out which format is best for meeting
the real purpose of an archives, providing access to information.  

Bill R

Closing thought:  In today's world, there is virtually no chance the
paper copy is the original.  What is printed is a copy of the electronic
file.  So much for the intrinsic value of paper.

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