Print

Print


George - some things to consider with the benefit mentioned in your posting
#1 r.e. floor space.
        <1) Since IM (and others) charge storage fees by floor space, a 40%
reduction in size = 40% reduction in storage    costs.>
While the actual records are compressed into less space, they still WEIGH
the same. So, if you theoretically could pack 40% more in a container, that
container now weighs 40% more. That could create problems in several areas
1) Shelving units. Can the shelves handle the heavier container?
2) Floor load. Is the floor load capable of handling a 40% increase in
weight?
3) Lifting. Suddenly, the "ability to lift 40 pounds" becomes the "ability
to lift 56 pounds", which goes over the NIOSH max recommended weight for
unassisted lifting.
4) If you are not using a standard box, some vendors charge extra. Many of
their shelving units are designed for the standard archive box. If your
container isn't the standard archive box size, you may either pay a lot more
for the non-standard size or pay the price of the standard box anyway
because they can't file anything else in that empty space.

With these 4 factors above, you may not see an actual 40% decrease in
storage costs.

The photos of the Prague book restoration (a link to the presentation was on
the site George originally sent the link to) were amazing. This is an
interesting technology.

(opinions my own and not those of my employer)

Laurie Carpenter, CRM
Records Manager
Koch Industries, Inc.
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance