My own experience is that both knowledge-based and space-based  
considerations should be taken into account in building a case for  recordkeeping 
solutions; because the former is typically based on soft-savings  benefits, and the 
latter is based on hard-savings benefits. Together, they  appeal to different 
decision-maker bases in the organization. Also, I find that  when people talk 
about space related savings, they usually fail to include some  of the costlier 
elements. 
 
A case that also addresses avoidance costs of  facilities-related costs, will 
include such costs as those of  paper storage (opportunity cost of space), 
storage equipment purchase (file  cabinets, bookshelves, 3-ring binders, file 
folders), equipment  repair, maintenance and replacement (including the often 
large costs  associated with the associated procurement processes), etc. 
Needless to  say, alternative digital systems are not cost free.
 
People costs related to finding information are usually much higher  (which 
operational people are usually very happy to testify to when responding  to 
work behavior surveys). And, of course, knowledge-based justifications  appeal 
very much to executives who struggle themselves with information  gathering 
tasks, and who see these as very much linked to business aims and  processes, 
which they are. Demonstrating savings however can be elusive. The  facility costs 
are hard and can make the facility manager an instant advocate of  electronic 
records systems. A big problem with any such calculations is that the  central 
budget people typically want to be able to capture the financial  benefits 
declared in any CBA. Where the savings are hard (such as facilities  expenses) 
budget offices like them, because they can take them out of the hide  of the 
facilities budget when the organization OKs the new IT system  budget. But when 
it is related to the productivity of operational people, they  want to say: 
OK, lets take 1.235 positions away for every 20 positions an  operating unit 
has. When this message comes back down to the  operators, their managers often 
say: Whoa! I don't believe that this  system is going to be that productive, 
despite what the staff say. 
 
Following Bill Roach's point, there may be special times where space is  much 
more of an issue. One client was building a new building and wanted to  
change to open space offices and reduce office sizes in the process, but was  very 
worried about all the paper in the old closed offices, corridors, etc., and  
where it would go in the new construction. By taking a combination approach for 
 both paper (high-density storage) and electronic records (enterprise content 
 management solution), it was possible to meet their needs and improve  
information/records access and security, even though the staff didn't appreciate  
the downsized office spaces.
 
I think some combination of justifications makes the best  approach, 
depending on the particular solution being presented. 
 

Regards,

Rick  Barry
_www.mybestdocs.com_ (http://www.mybestdocs.com/) 
Cofounder, Open  Reader Consortium
_www.openreader.org_ (http://www.openreader.org/) 

In a message dated 4/12/2006 12:02:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Date:    Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:54:08 -0500
From:   "Roach, Bill J." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Scanning of  Documents to Reduce Space?

>>There are MANY reasons for  considering the conversion of paper format
documents and records to digital  formats, but the ABSOLUTE LAST REASON
should be "to save  space".<<

I realize I am taking my life into my hands when I  respond to this but
no risk, no reward.

I agree with nearly  everything that Larry says here but will add one
little caveat.   Sometimes saving space is the business reason that
results in  :

>>improved access to information, a need for  providing
concurrent/simultaneous access the same information to multiple  users,
the ability for users to avoid the duplication and use of  multiple
copies of paper records by using electronic representations  instead,
etc.<<

I can think of several examples where space  was the driving
consideration for imaging the records.  Granted, you  can also say the
decision was based on other factors like customer service  or needed
access, but the bottom line was lack of space.  In these  instances, it
was far less expensive to image the documents than it was to  move the
offices.  There was no available space to expand the records  storage
area and the records were far too active to move to an offsite  location.
So the choices are either, image the records so you can stay  where you
are today or move an entire office function to a new  location.

In these instances, imaging to save space was the "ABSOLUTE  LAST REASON"
and the right business decision.

Bill R

Bill  Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North  Dakota
ITD/Records Management
701-328-3589





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