At 12:24 PM 11/2/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>A point of clarification I'm not implying it's a good thing to manage
>paper.  The basis for my initial inquiry and follow-up information was
>to build a case for not keeping file cabinets full of paper working
>files.

Well, as a clarification to this clarification, IF you elect to retain your
records in paper form, then it IS A GOOD THING to manage your paper records =)

And there ARE legitimate cases for keeping working files in paper form,
especially if that's the native form you develop them in.  Many "working
files" are transitory in nature, having a business need of less than 3
years and depending on the volume you generate and how you need to retrieve
them for use it may not be worth the labor, cost and effort to convert them
to a digital form for management.

Factors that would impact your decision would include those related to
retrieval and use patterns (frequency, rapidity, randomness or by multiple
users in disparate locations) and how long you need to retain the files.

>I'm preparing an all out blitz in 1Q 2005 to have departments review
>and appropriately apply disposition to information in paper as well as
>other transportable media. (ie micrographics, CDs etc.)

Keep in mind, ANY retention schedule and RIM Program should be based on
content, not media, form or format... so I'd approach this from a little
different angle than considering the media form first as a part of your
"blitz".  If you have a retention schedule already, great... if not,
perform an inventory, identify who produces (and who uses) what, how it's
filed (paper or electronic) and how it's backed up (copies, servers or
removable media) and then determine the legal, statutory and regulatory
requirements for keeping it, THEN identify the business need for the
information and if it exceeds the required retentions, add that in.

Also, if you have an organizational archive, discuss with them items that
may be of enduring or intrinsic value to the organization, and if you DON'T
find out if someone thinks it might be a good idea to establish (and fund)
one.  Add a notation into the retention schedule against these items and
make sure that prior to destruction they're offered to the archives for
appraisal.

>Numbers usually present a nice visual as oppose to text - "We need to
>reduce our dependence on paper, please apply the appropriate disposition
>to your files."   Why?  What's in it for me?  Why does it benefit the
>company?

I still think you may be going about this the wrong way... the volume of
the material you're currently maintaining shouldn't be the "key factor" in
determining the need to do something.  Maybe your organization is paper
intensive for a reason... you might need to take a step back and examine
the organizational culture and find out WHY things are done the way they
are first.  If you have a lot of "form intensive" processes or you do a lot
of work with clients that aren't embracing electronic processes, then you
may be bound by some of this.

Also, if your organization isn't ready to make a lot of capital
expenditures for hardware, software, communications systems and isn't
willing to commit funds to the long-term maintenance, including costs of
conversion and migration of images over time, then maybe paper is the way
they'd prefer to go.  And don't forget training... as you build these
systems, EVERYONE needs to be trained as to how to apply metadata to the
documents, records and files being put into the system.  A certain amount
of this can be automated, but classification schemes and taxonomy take time
and money to build as well.  Maybe they've decided that presently, storing
paper and hiring file clerks is cheaper for them.

>Perhaps this very basic topic doesn't fit the current trend of
>discussing the management of electronic files.
>What I know is the electronic systems that have been put in place as
>official repositories generate volumes of paper.

It's not too basic, it's one of the building blocks of a RIM
Program.  There are many organizations that have hybrid systems, managing a
portion of their records in paper form, a portion as images converted from
paper (supported by an index and EDMS) and another portion as native-form
produced electronically.  And there are organizations that still manage a
portion of their records on microfilm, especially those who have extremely
long-term retention requirements or want to have a deep archive of critical
or vital records.

Larry

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