is it worth investing in records management?
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
7th April 2011 | Steve Bailey
Don’t waste your Don’t waste your money appraising money appraising
recordsrecords
The surprising implications for The surprising implications for records management of records management of
measuring our impactmeasuring our impact
Hands upHands up
Who here thinks investing in RM Who here thinks investing in RM will deliver a will deliver a positive return on positive return on investment investment for an organisation?for an organisation?
But…
There is comparatively little literature within the records management field relating to the area of benefits and efficiency measurement
Traditionally the majority of benefits used to support business cases for investment in records management are of an intangible nature
There is clearly a strong appetite for empirical data within the UK records management profession
An assessment of the current evidence base demonstrating the benefits of investing in the improvement of records management – a selective literature review, JISC infoNet,
August 2009
Does this matter anyway?
2000-10 “The compliance 2000-10 “The compliance decade”decade”
2010-20 “The efficiency 2010-20 “The efficiency decade?”decade?”
RM: Obligation or opportunity?
Do we have the evidence to justify these claims?
“People waste 6 weeks per year trying to find misfiled documents” (Coopers & Lybrand, 1998)
“it costs £80 to find a misplaced file and £150 to replace it” (Coopers & Lybrand, 1998)
“Managers spend 6 weeks per year searching for documents” (RMS Bulletin, Jan 2009)
“The average information worker creates 22 new documents every working day (RMS Bulletin”(Jan 2009)
7
But…
The majority of the available evidence supporting efficiency gains is often of a nebulous nature and is not supported by accessible, independent empirical data
Benefit in relation to records management tend to be documented within the available literature far more than costs
An assessment of the current evidence base demonstrating the benefits of investing in the improvement of records management – a selective literature review, JISC infoNet, August
2009
Decision TimeDecision Time9
Business case built on contribution to compliance and governance
RM becomes a corporate obligation akin to Health & Safety
We drop any pretence that RM delivers positive ROI as this cannot be verified
Business case built on contribution to compliance and governance
RM becomes a corporate obligation akin to Health & Safety
We drop any pretence that RM delivers positive ROI as this cannot be verified
Business case built on demonstrable benefit to the operation of the business
Compliance and governance still part of ‘the offer’ but as a lower profile ‘given’
We develop the techniques & evidence base to prove the claims we make
Business case built on demonstrable benefit to the operation of the business
Compliance and governance still part of ‘the offer’ but as a lower profile ‘given’
We develop the techniques & evidence base to prove the claims we make
10
Which path should we Which path should we take?take?
Pros and cons?Pros and cons?
Identify processes subject to a change
initiative
Identify processes subject to a change
initiative
Agree discrete measurable benefits
Agree discrete measurable benefits
Record process ‘as is’ performance
Record process ‘as is’ performance
Record actual process performance post
change
Record actual process performance post
change
Capture implementation and
ongoing costs
Capture implementation and
ongoing costs
Compare the measured benefits and costs to
calculate impact
Compare the measured benefits and costs to
calculate impact
12
2.1 Identified measureable benefits
1. Business Processes
“… a new software system will be used to capture, manage, store, preserve and deliver content and documents relating to organisational processes”
1. Reduction in time taken to post case files from Governance Team to schools
2. Reduction in time taken to post case files from Schools to Governance Team
3. Reduction in time taken to post case files from Governance Team to Adjudicators
13
2.2 Metric data capture
Measurements Descriptions Year 1 Benchmark
Year 1 Actual
Unit of measurement
Minutes
Area of change Minutes per case file (per year)
Performance 17.25 5
Annual multiplier
312 280
Performance change
71%
Conversion of unit to £
Salary per minute
£0.152 £0.323
Annualised performance (£/pa)
£807.30 £448.00
Reduction in time taken to post case files to schools
Monetary benefits obtained from the redesigned process
£359.30
14
3. Comparative cost information
Costs Implementation costs
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Staff costs
£3,383.57 £1,691.78
£845.89 £256.52 £256.52 £256.52
Non staff costs
£10,000.00
£2,400.00
£2,880.00
£3,024.00
£3,175.00
£3,334.00
Overall costs
£13,383.57
£4,091.78
£3,725.89
£3,280.52
£3,431.52
£3,590.52
15
4. Monetary impact
Monetary Measurement
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Monetary benefits £7,800 £7,912 £7,958 £8,066 £8,110
Comparative cost information
£17,475
£3,725 £3,280 £3,431 £3,590
Monetary impact - £9,675
£4,186 £4,677 £4,634 £4,519
Cumulative monetary impact
- £9,675
- £5,488
- £811 £3,823 £8,3434. Non - monetary impact
Unit of non monetary benefit
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Savings in linear metres of storage space
31.68 34.76 37.84 40.92 44
16
17
18
FindingFindingss
Caveats:Caveats:• The sample is small (6 The sample is small (6 institutions)institutions)• The sample is limited (HEIs The sample is limited (HEIs only)only)
Finding 1: retrospective appraisal exercises rarely deliver ROI
19
Cardiff University – Monetary Impact
Monetary Measurement
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Monetary benefits £17,546
£3,627 £656 £656 £656
Comparative cost info
£83,089
£13,541
£1,680 £1,680 £1,680
Monetary impact - £65,542
- £9,913
- £1,023
- £1,023
- £1,023
Cumulative monetary impact
- £65,542
- £75,455
- £76,479
- £77,503
- £78,526
Large up front implementation
costs due to appraisal & scanning
On-going nature of
maintenance costs
‘One off’ nature of benefits
(paper reduction)
Finding 1: retrospective appraisal exercises rarely deliver ROI (Continued)
20
Kings College London
Monetary Measurement
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Monetary benefits £1,182 £1,146 £1,110 £1,074 £1,038
Comparative cost info
£6,040 £1,120 £1,120 £1,120 £1,120
Monetary impact - £4,857
£26.00 - £9.10 - £45.10
£81.10
Cumulative monetary impact
- £4,857
- £4,830
- £4,839
- £4,884
- £4965Impressive 96% time saving in retrieving file from accessioned & listed box = £33 saving per
retrieval
But only c.5 retrievals per
year
Very similar ongoing
appraisal costs to Cardiff
Finding 2: Implementing a retention schedule ‘from this point on’ can deliver ongoing cost savings
21
University of Oxford
Monetary Measurement
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Monetary benefits £2,429 £2,953 £3,589 £4,357 £5,294
Comparative cost info
£1,825 £1,880 £1,974 £2,033 £2,094
Monetary impact £604 £1,073 £1,615 £2,324 £3,200
Cumulative monetary impact £604 £1,677 £3,292 £5,617 £8,817
No investment in
implementation costs (IT, staff
effort etc)
Instant (if modest) ROI
Reasonable return over 5
years
22
Finding 3a: Records management is only cost effective above a certain scale of operation (retrieval costs)King’s College London Time taken to retrieve a file from an accession
Measurements Descriptions Year 1 Benchmark
Year 1 Actual
Unit of measurement
Minutes
Area of change Retrieval of file
Performance 82 3
Annual multiplier
5 5
Performance change
96%Conversion of unit to £
Salary per minute
£0.420 £0.420
Annualised performance (£/pa)
£172.20 £6.30
Monetary benefits obtained from the redesigned process
£165.90
£1,120 costs per year£33 saving per retrieval34 retrievals required PA
to break even
Finding 3b: Records management is only cost effective above a certain scale of operation (electronic storage costs)
23
University of Nottingham
Descriptions
Year 1 Benchmark
Year 1 Actual
Descriptions Year 1 Benchmark
Year 1 Actual
Total MB data stored
66.73 0 Total GB data stored
870 87
Performance change
100% Performance change
90%
Server costs per MB
£0.003 £0.000 Server costs per GB
£10.00 £10.00
Total costs £0.17 £0.00 Total costs £8,700.00
£870.00Monetary benefit £0.17
Monetary benefit £7,830.00
Kings College London
Cumulative monetary impact by Year 5 = 85p
Cumulative monetary impact by Year 5 =
£45,390
24
Finding 4: Investment in better processes and systems is more efficient than increased reliance on cheaper labourUniversity of NottinghamMeasurements Descriptions Year 1
BenchmarkYear 1 Actual
Unit of measurement
Minutes
Area of change Minutes per case file (per year)
Performance 17.25 5
Annual multiplier
312 280
Performance change
71%
Conversion of unit to £
Salary per minute
£0.152 £0.323
Annualised performance (£/pa)
£807.30 £448.00
Monetary benefits obtained from the redesigned process
£359.30
Areas for debate25
How accurate, robust and empirical should we seek to be?
Are there dangers to seeking to quantify the benefit of RM?
Can we / should we find ways of capturing qualitative benefits?
Do records managers have the skills required to undertake this type of activity?
www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/impact-www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/impact-calculatorcalculator
Thank youThank you
Questions?Questions?