Tell 'em Andrew; AMEN!
I will buy you a brew one of these times.
I hate paper!
Best regards, Steve
Steven D. Whitaker, CRM
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andrew Warland <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Ann
>
> Your question about the 'legitimacy' of paper records reminds me of the
> many reasons (excuses, really) people give for wanting to keep their paper
> records. A lot will depend on the legal requirements in your jurisdiction
> but here in Australia there are almost no reasons to keep an original paper
> record, it's convenience only. Except where legislation specifically
> requires records to be kept in a particular form, the only legitimate
> reason is where there is a signature or other marking on a document that
> may be material to litigation; i.e., it's harder to prove a signature was
> made from the digital version.
>
> In my previous job with one of the biggest local government organisations
> here, just about everyone used digital records, including scanned versions
> of incoming paper. It was, I would quote, used by the CEO to the garbo
> (garbage collectors) and so you had little excuse not to use the EDRMS
> (TRIM). However, the development/planning people loved their paper,
> despite being given digital copies of all plans by the developers. They
> loved it mostly because it was convenient to take a file with the plans on
> it to a building site. They, perhaps rightly, claimed that things like
> laptops or tablets (unless they had 50" screens) just wouldn't work if they
> had to make a note on a plan.
>
> One of the suggestions that I made towards the end of my time was to use
> 'semi official' paper files. I had seen this concept work in a previous
> major insurance company here. Essentially it meant having official-looking
> files that contained printed copies of the digital records. It was made
> very clear to the users that these were temporary files to be used for the
> convenience of taking documents off-site. Anything that was printed had to
> be placed in the EDRMS.
>
> As for the legitimacy of the digital record, the local government
> organisation I worked for was in court regularly. One of the things the
> lawyers loved about our EDRMS was the audit trail. This came to their aid
> again and again, not so much to prove the legitimacy but to underline the
> security of our documents - we knew exactly who had seen it, edited it,
> printed it, etc. Users also got to love the audit trail too as they could
> see if someone had viewed or edited their document (a really great tool if
> you send a link to a document and ask someone to look at it!).
>
> In your earlier email you mention using SharePoint 2010, which we use where
> I work now (a large not-for-profit organisation). SharePoint 2010's audit
> trails aren't all that user friendly, but they still exist.
>
> My suggestion would be to document and promote the benefits of using your
> system, not the system. Things like unique and persistent IDs, versioning,
> approval workflows, audit trails are so much better than leaving the
> document on a drive.
>
> Andrew Warland
> Sydney, Australia
> My views entirely
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Ann Mangiaracina
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> > Happy Friday Everyone!
> >
> > Does anyone have any experience with this - We had a QA Audit of our
> > Engineering and Construction dept. regarding the security of our project
> > records.
> >
> >
> > It has been this dept's. position that the electronic files in the EDMS
> > are for
> > search and that the hard copy files are the records. Can anyone share
> > what
> > type of security measures they employ to control access to hard copy
> > files?
> >
> > Also, what is required to consider the electronic files in the EDMS as
> the
> > records? The dept says that each page is not verified after it is
> scanned
> > (some packets are 100's of pages) and therefore does not feel confortable
> > using the electronic document as the official record. We have
> permissions
> > and
> > security setup well in our edms so that is not an issue. Any thoughts?
> > thank
> > you, as always, for your input!!!! You all are the best!!!
> >
> > have a great weekend!
> >
> > 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]
>
--
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]
|
