Fred Grevin
[log in to unmask]
212-788-8615 (office)
347-436-5360 (cell)
Please excuse the brevity of notes sent from my Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Grevin, Fred
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 08:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [RM] Sampling
One of the interesting aspects of this discussion thread is it demonstrates how little consensus there is on the methods of, and even the need for, quality control of scanned documents.
In contrast, both need and methods for QC of microfilm were well-established by the early 1970s.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with Marc Fresko's comment that "... if the project involves all the record images being looked at quickly - usually for indexing or for some other workflow step - then a separate QA step is probably superfluous, as any defective scanning will be noticed as a
by-product of the process."
Under NO conditions would I agree that a casual review of scanned images can substitute for a well-designed, carefully-implemented, monitored, and audited QC program, including image QC as a separate step in the process. I have seen too many instances where the absence of an image QC procedure resulted in poor images.
If you are scanning your documents, it's presumably because they have some value (that's where the value analysis / risk assessment mentioned in another posting comes into play).
Scanning represents a significant investment of resources, no matter who does it or how. If you want your investment to have a return, you need to do it correctly, and a good QC program is an essential part of that.
Best regards,
Fred
Fred Grevin
[log in to unmask]
212-788-8615 (office)
347-436-5360 (cell)
Please excuse the brevity of notes sent from my Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Fresko [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 02:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [RM] Sampling
Chris
I agree with previous replies about standards and guidelines. But I'd like
to add that whether you need 100% verification or sampling depends also on
the nature of the project.
If the project is to convert retrospectively some collection of records that
will not necessarily be looked at in the immediate future, then you need QA
of some sort, as advised in the other responses. But if the project
involves all the record images being looked at quickly - usually for
indexing or for some other workflow step - then a separate QA step is
probably superfluous, as any defective scanning will be noticed as a
by-product of the process.
Marc Fresko
Inforesight Limited
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Flynn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 January 2011 19:24
Subject: Sampling
Hello,
I have some folks that are looking at an imaging project, using Image Now.
Any experts out there? i would love to tap your brain. They are also looking
at sampling rather than verifying every image (my recommendation is to
verify every image). Any thoughts on sampling?
Chris Flynn
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]
|
