|
Howard,
With all electronic records,your most current version is the record copy. I
urge you to make sure your plocies read like that. If all the images are
good then the original paper copy may be disposed of according to your
retention schedule. I would urge you to make that retention as short as
possible. I used "verified" as part of the quality control step. Verified
means that the image was viewed and represents a true image of the original.
Images that were not adequate were flagged for re-scanning. If rescanning
the record did not correct the problem the orginal paper record wa retained
and the longest retention period fo rthat record applied. Myy expereince is
that suspect quality is self evident to the user. In the case the the record
needs to be viewed the hardcopy is available.
Chris Flynn
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Howard Furst
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Doc Scanning : how to best indicate original doc was of
poor quality
We are in the process of imaging a large collection of active engineering
documents.
When we began the project we were instructed to use a rubber stamp that said
VERIFIED on any document that was of suspect quality or had a visually
impaired issue.
After seeing their documents stamped VERIFIED they are having second
thoughts. Because these paper docs are still in active use, they don't want
them marked up and they also feel the word VERIFIED could be misunderstood
for something about the document.
I am looking for constructive comments, ideas and advice from those with
document imaging experience about methods they use to indicate suspect image
quality. (Please no opinionated lectures).
My questions:
Q1) What is the best wording to use. Is there a standard term or is VERIFIED
it?
@2) What alternatives are there to a rubber stamp? ( we have used cleared
post it flags but this is very labor intensive; Ideally have a patch sheet
that triggers an “overlay” but I don’t see this supported in our Kofax
software or B&H scanner)
Q3) Is it better not to even indicate suspect quality?
Thanks in advance,
Howard Furst
===
Howard Furst
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/06
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.9/261 - Release Date: 2/15/06
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
