me too!
On 8 September 2012 10:03, Steve Whitaker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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]
>
--
Glenn
Glenn Sanders
[log in to unmask]
Australia
0407 187 333
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]
|
