Glenn, How are you calculating the costs of scanning vs. storing hard copy? Linda Buss -------------- Original message -------------- From: Glenn Sanders <[log in to unmask]> > Earl > > Don't recall the document you are chasing, but here is an extract from a > guideline I developed last year: > > -------------------------------- > Deciding what to scan > > Scanning is very often part of a move to a largely electronic way of > working, but it is not the whole picture and often not the most cost > effective solution. The main reasons for scanning, in order of > importance, are: > > 1. To make documents quickly and simultaneously available to many users, > particularly if the users are spread across multiple sites > 2. To integrate hardcopy documents into new or existing electronic > procedures > 3. To protect important documents, eg as part of business continuity or > disaster recovery planning (although if the records are rarely used, offsite > hardcopy storage in a high standard facility will be cheaper) > 4. To save space (however offsite hardcopy storage is at least four times > cheaper than scanning, on a cost per page or cost per image basis) > > So as a generalisation, you would only scan records that are frequently or > simultaneously used, and where the required retrieval time is less than one > day. You would also scan material to integrate it into existing or new > electronic processes. You would only scan records to protect them, or to > save space, if electronic integration or simultaneous rapid access were also > involved. > -------------------------------- > You have to be careful with scanning. I've had people propose scanning > filing cabinets full of reports printed from MS Word (if they are on the > shared drives already why scan them?), and others proposing to scan material > scheduled for destruction in eighteen months. Others have wanted to scan > material used so infrequently as to be statistically immeasurable. Most > people don't even think about how to create or capture the metadata > necessary for retrieval, which can cost more than the scanning itself. > > It's too often a facile, glib solution, adopted with insufficient analysis. > And before Steve jumps on me, I hate paper too, and we are currently > involved in projects to scan two million A0 or larger plans ($5 mill > project) and parts of 50,000 technical manuals ($250,000 project), both > justified primarily by reasons 1 and 2 above, and slightly by reason 3. With > the approval of our local State Records office, most of the hardcopy will be > destroyed after scanning and QA. > > Glenn > > Glenn Sanders > [log in to unmask] > Australia > > These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any > previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked > and they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and > Glenn". Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't. > > 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]