On 5/19/06, Allen, Doug <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Interesting thread, in that we have moved from a discussion of recouping
> scanning costs and comparisons between scanning costs and storage to a
> more
> "holistic" view of paper v. digital information management costs.  Were
> any
> of us called into an evaluation for a new system, I would hope that we'd
> look both the "bigger picture" (corporate goals and objectives,
> competitive
> advantage, expected business process improvements, service level
> improvements, etc.; and the details relating to a cost comparison of the
> alternatives including many of the items we've seen here.
>
> Does anyone have access to a tool that provides for a comprehensive cost
> comparison...(i.e. an ROI tool)?



Doug was right in saying this discussion morphed form one subject to
another, and that's good and bad.  I would have liked to see it continue on
the path it started on and then a new subject discussion begin
independently.

The whole concept of "ROI" is a bit overplayed when it comes to implementing
an ERMS or ECM type system in my mind.  It's not what should be the primary
basis for deployment... that should be related to the concepts Doug has
mentioned above... namely meeting Corporate/business objectives.  And first
and foremost among these should be improving the access to information
assets to result in more effective use of information as a benefit to the
operating practices of the business.  By achieving this, the benefits
realized will be widespread.   Improved governance, ability to be more agile
and adapt to market needs, trend analysis, ability to efficiently and
effectively respond to legal actions, compliance with regulations, and the
list goes on.

Where this takes place is in looking at how your business does business, and
how it uses, or could better use, information.  In the UK, they call it a
BIA (Business Impact Analysis), in the US, it's more commonly called a BPA,
(Business Process Analysis) .  Who generates or receives what information,
what they do with it after they generate or receive it (physically) and what
it's used for... and who else could benefit from knowing the information is
available and having access to it.  This last piece is the one most
organizations don't do an effective job of.  And what's really important
here is that you gather data regarding ALL OF the parties involved in the
creation, management, and use of the information... find out what they do
with it, why they do it that way, who else uses it, how they look for it,
how often they need it, where they're located and if multiple people need it
simultaneously.

Once these pieces of the puzzle are available, it's a matter of using this
information to assist in the development of a FRD, (Functional Requirements
Document) and seeking out a vendor who has a product that can meet these
requirements at a scale that suits your organization.  You also have to
determine how critical it is to you that these features all exist "natively"
in the product, or if you would be better served buying the system from one
source, or if you'd prefer to work with third parties to develop some of the
components in a custom environment, tailored to suit your specific needs...
and if they can collaborate with the system vendor.

Then, the hard part takes place.  Selling to management the BENEFITS of
spending the money for the capital investments, the training of staff, the
changing of process and procedures and the deployment of an Information
Assets Management System.... because whatever acronym it goes by, this is
what it REALLY is to your organization.

If it's being sold as a COST BENEFIT rather than a RETURN ON INVESTMENT, you
may have a better chance of convincing management that it should be done.
By improving access to information and increasing effectiveness, many ROIs
will eventually be seen.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

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