LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for RECMGMT-L Archives


RECMGMT-L Archives

RECMGMT-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave RECMGMT-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject:

Vendor Service Issues/Sales Rep Turnover (NFPA)

From:

Hugh Smith <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:53:13 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)


On Feb 27, 2010, at 12:00 AM, RECMGMT-L automatic digest system wrote:

SNIPS:

> From: Maureen Cusack <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: February 26, 2010 5:15:14 PM EST
> Subject: Re: Vendor Service Issues/Sales Rep Turnover
>
>
> Yes, in my case the larger issue is vendor service in general, not
> merely
> account rep. turnover. In my case we don't actually have a contract
> in place
> because the vendor will not agree to many requirements.

If you do not have a contract in place then their standard contract is
what rules. When they refused to modify the contract and you declined
to change vendors you accepted their contract you just didn't sign it.

You also surrendered other rights as well. Oftentimes, the negotiation
only begins when you issue a notice that you are pulling the records.
You better bring legal in on this or you will be slaughtered.

There are many vendors out there who will treat you fairly and will
negotiate.
>
> Obviously, in an ideal world, the contract is tight and
> includes incentives for the vendor to improve service.

I have watched records managers accept a lengthening delivery window.
When the industry was made up of thousands of little suppliers, the
standard delivery window was "Call me on Tuesday morning and delivery
will be set for next day." Now the industry has accepted two day
delivery without a whimper.

I have watched the fixation of a huge Hostage Fee on the industry. (Do
I hear a whimper?)

> A tight contract ideally should preclude the need for the customer
> to research legitimacy of monthly
> charges because invoice content, reports, and service processes
> should be spelled out in excruciating detail.

I have been told that no one reads the Invoices and that is why the
phantom fees start to creep in. Just compare an invoice from 10 years
ago to today's invoice and notice the difference. Honest vendors
establish pricing that they can stand behind.

A good example is the reboxing fee. ($9.00 per box) Many times the
reboxing was not even provided it was just another bill that was
slipped by. Sure a few of you caught it but think about all the
companies that paid it without any comprehension of what it was about.

> And then ideally the vendor agrees to the lengthy customized
> contract. Which vendors big and small rarely do.

If you do not have a contract in place, I could see many people in
California who would be willing to talk to you as you have no Hostage
Fee in place, although they will try to enforce it. That is why legal
needs to be part of your team.

> It's important to get that reality out in the open for
> us records managers. Another reality is that there's collusion across
> vendors on issues like insurance (e.g. per-box minimums). This list
> serv has
> discussed it in the past.

Yes but out of 1,600 listserve participants, how many stepped and
enforced their demands or left to search for another vendor. RM's
assume everybody is cut from the same cloth and that is not true.

> Collusion also happens with NFPA standards (for example the
> Technical Committee) where there's underrepresentation by records
> managers. Records managers need to assert themselves to vendors and
> consortia that dominate standards committees.

The NFPA actively sought out records managers to participate. But
corporations will not pay for their records managers to participate.
(air travel, hotel and days for the meeting and staff time off) The
minute Alan Andolsen applied, he was accepted. It is unfortunate that
he passed away weeks before the meeting. But who will take his place.
Bill Benedon also could sit at the committee and holds a spot but does
not attend. Larry was not granted time off or expenses to travel to
the meeting.

The Technical Committee was balanced if everyone just showed up. It is
not the fault of the offsite storage industry that ARMA ignores their
responsibility. If the Board of ARMA was required to send four members
to every meeting you would have a voice. But in this area, ARMA does
not exist. I wonder why?

Maybe this Listserv should ask for donations like for Shareware
software. Donate $2.00 to send a member to the NFPA. Then ask that
one person from this List go and represent your voice.

How many of you ask management to allow you to become a member of
NFPA? The primary Standard for your industry is NFPA 232 Protection of
Records. How many use it or even have a copy?

You better buy the 2010 copy when it comes out as it makes the Records
Manager or the Owners of the business directly responsible. Then ask
legal to read it. Couple the new 232 with the SOX legislation and I
could easily see a records manager or the C-level officer in companies
with no records manager paying large fines, spending time in jail or
other fun stuff.

The final meeting to lock in changes is in October and the deadline
for joining this committee is March. You still have an opportunity to
comment. You should since you are specifically called out as the
"Responsible Party" in this standard. In my opinion it is willful
negligence on the part of ARMA to not participate. What about the
ICRM Board?

Yes records managers were under-represented but take a look in the
mirror. NFPA begged for people to step up from the records management
community. You don't have much time. March is the date to submit for
next years' technical committee. The last president to become involved
was Jaunita Skillman and she was amazing in protecting the RM's
position. Since then............??


Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[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]


Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main RECMGMT-L Page

Permalink



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager