Hi Rob, curious question. I have only heard of shrink-wrapping boxes when they are damaged (to prevent content from being exposed); however, the boxes would then be sent directly to my company for reconciliation of the issue.
Shrink-wrapping to prevent damage from sprinklers. I'll let others chime in on how this impacts the box's content over time (good thought though). In addition to boxes being called back, what happens as boxes are moved around (does the shrink-wrapping hold up over time)? If one were to decide that shrink-wrapping was an effective response to potential sprinkler damage, then it should be a Risk Analysis of what the likelihood of that happening is and does the cost justify the "risk." I would be concerned if the vendor said there was anything more than a very slight chance of sprinklers being activated.
Here is my primary thought though. If you are say it costs $3.10 to shrink-wrap a box, you better do a thorough Risk Analysis. I once worked for an organization that had nearly 200,000 boxes in storage in my geographic location alone. If we shrink-wrapped those boxes, that would be approximately $600,000. Not to mention if I called any boxes back, then returned them (they would have to be shrink-wrapped again).
I would do some strong due diligence before going down this road. Maybe this is a new approach that I haven't heard of, but (given the very small chance of a sprinkler head going off) I would be somewhat skeptical of the return on value for the investment.
Good luck - I am looking forward to some additional insights!
- Brett
Brett Wise CRM, FIP, CIPT, CIPP/US, IGP, CIP | American Board of Pediatrics
Director of Records & Information Management
111 Silver Cedar Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[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]
|
