>>Dept. of Forestry case study that says that it is 16x more expensive to
maintain a digital collection than paper.<<

The figure doesn't surprise me.  If you do the math, imaging or microfilming
in place of storage is very expensive.  But...

 - A second paper copy for business continuity will double your cost of
storage and disposal and the cost of creating the second paper copy will
likely be equal to the scanning/microfilming expense.
 - Retrieving a paper copy from storage will likely cost dozens to hundreds
of times more than accessing an electronic copy, not to mention the time
spent waiting for retrieval of the needed records.
 - In many instances the record was originally generated electronically so
storing paper is 16x more expensive than retaining it electronically (adding
the cost of generating the paper and returning it to digital is then 32x as
expensive as retaining in the native format).

Finally, retaining on paper eliminates the fun of discussing whether data
are records or fleeting bits and bytes of data scattered like leaves on a
virtual street (organized, they are a big part of a tree, unorganized and
disconnected, they are fertilizer.)

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