Choosing the correct storage media is critical for the long-term, secure storage and availability of business records. In this, the first of a two-part series highlighting the complexities of digital preservation, Paul Mullon, marketing director of Metrofile, proposes a distinctly non-technical solution that is fast gaining popularity.
If one has to blindly follow the latest fads on the roller-coaster evolution of digital records management it would be a fascinating, but exhausting and expensive trip. The pace of technical change is simply too fast for the average person, company or even government organisation to keep up.
Unfortunately, compliance and corporate governance regulations are forcing companies to take action as far as records retention is concerned. But before they can select the appropriate storage solution for their companies, business leaders need to first understand the issues involved and the realities of digital storage.
At first glance, IT holds great value for managing corporate records. I am a firm advocate of technology, holding the belief that - if appropriately applied - technology is a great tool, reducing costs, simplifying the management of information and often significantly streamlining operations.
However, its usefulness depends on where and how it is used. In many instances an "old-fashioned" solution, such as microfilm, can prove the most reliable, cost-effective and enduring.
In order to understand when technology is the optimal solution and when not, it is useful to look at the lifecycle of an organisation`s records. Figure 1 shows a simplified representation of a typical document during its life in an average business. We ignore the maintain stage in this article as the issues involved are covered in the active and retention stages.
Active documents (access is paramount): During the initial stages of its life, a document will need to be captured into a system that will allow it to be distributed to and accessed frequently by any number of people. It is in this active state that the use of low-cost, high-availability and instantly accessible technology is the most appropriate medium. In fact, technology provides a tremendous amount of value and should be used wherever possible in this stage: the costs of implementation are high, but the returns are quantifiable and are almost immediate.
Archive documents (preservation is paramount): Generally documents are kept for the long term for different reasons than in the active state and the value of those documents therefore changes. Archived documents will seldom be requested; therefore the need for instant retrieval falls away. When requesting information that is five years old, most users will be satisfied with a four-hour response.
The issue then becomes one of choosing the appropriate media that is both affordable and able to ensure that information will still be available and readable in years to come. In this instance the durability and reliability of microfilm seems to outclass all other storage systems: its long lifespan has been proven in the past and reading documents from microfilm requires fairly simple technology.
The risk of obsolescence
There are those who would explode at the idea of reverting to what is seen as an older technology. We know that the cost of technology has been steadily decreasing as performance and storage capacity increases, but this speed of advancement is the area of biggest concern. There is no guarantee that information created and stored on today`s media will be readable in future, while we can be sure data on microfilm will be.
The reasoning is as follows: most hardware and software vendors ensure their products are backwards compatible for two generations (on the odd occasion this could be three generations) and this seems a reasonable policy. Unfortunately, because of the rate of technological change, a new product generation will probably be developed every 18 months. This means that, on average, information won`t be readable on equipment installed only five years after it was archived. Playing Russian roulette to guess which format will have a longer lifespan is not in anyone`s notes on corporate governance.
The Domesday project in the UK is a good example of how the latest technology was used to record information for future generations. Less than 20 years after the information was stored, nobody has the technology to read it. There have even been a number of reports indicating that the familiar CD, which was expected to last for 30 years, under certain conditions may not be readable after five years.
For storing and managing active documents, digital solutions are the fastest, most cost-effective and appropriate solutions. But when it comes to records that need to be retained over the long term with few access requests, technology falls short. A different, perhaps not as trendy solution is required, and this is where microfilm comes into play.
In the next article in this series, we examine various long-term storage options, highlighting the pros and cons of each in comparison to microfilm.
Share
Metrofile is the South African market leader in the management of business documents, and is committed to help customers reduce costs and improve productivity in processes that are centred on documents and corporate records.
All companies have a combination of paper and electronic documents, and are forced by law and customer requirements to secure the availability of the documents for the duration of their lifecycle. For most organisations, the volume of documents is growing at an exponential rate, and is becoming increasingly difficult to manage.
Metrofile is uniquely positioned to provide consulting and implementation of full lifecycle paper and electronic records management solutions from storage and conversion through to destruction.
Editorial contacts