Doculabs

Some organizations still use microfilm for some of their records.  Are they nuts? Many probably are. But microfilming can be the right approach if you are doing it with open eyes. This post explains when microfilming is a bad idea and when it might be a good idea.

Many organizations continue to keep microfilm around for their older records, which they have never digitized because the ROI isn’t there. But – and this is much more interesting – some continue to convert their records to microfilm because they have some very long retention periods, like 100+ years or forever. In fact, some not only scan paper to microfilm (rather than, or in addition to, scanning to digital image) but also convert electronic documents to microfilm.

I said that microfilming can be the right approach if you are doing it with open eyes. Specifically, this means that you are clear about your “real” requirements, your range of options, and the probable risk, costs, and benefits of each approach.

• An example of a “real” requirement is if microfilming is a mandated format. We still see this in government, particularly in state and city regulations. But since the trend is toward accepting digital formats, and since digital formats are far more efficient for processing and distributing, some government organizations do a twin stream approach when scanning in paper documents – to TIFF or PDF for processing purposes and to microfilm to meet current but antiquated government regulations requiring microfilm.

• What about organizations who don’t have a mandated format but do have a mandated 100+ year retention requirement? Most such organizations don’t microfilm any more but rather either meet (or are trying to figure out how to meet) the requirement electronically by moving the records to cheaper long term storage over time with a tiered HSM (hierarchical storage management) or “ILM” (information lifecycle management) approach. But these organizations aren’t treating the 100+ years requirement as special. They are bucketing it in with the other longer term retention requirements (e.g. for 10 years or 30 years, or for indefinite legal holds).

• So digitizing (not microfilming) is a standard practice for long term retention – but is it a best practice? For most organizations it is, once you evaluate the risk, costs, and benefits.
  • The primary risk of digitization for long term retention is obsolescence and decay: obsolescence of the storage hardware and software systems and formats, and corruption of the electronic files as they sit over long periods of time and are periodically migrated to different systems and formats. But these risks can be shown to be sufficiently low if you stay with mainstream, high quality systems and open formats, and plan your long term retention approach. Just about everyone is in the same boat.
  • When you look at costs and benefits of the various approaches – microfilm alone, full digitization alone, and “dual stream” scanning to both microfilm and digital image – the case usually becomes very clear. If processing, access, and distribution are required of the documents, then digitization beats microfilming, particularly if you estimate and include the total cost of ownership of each approach for the next 3 years. What about dual streaming? The dual stream approach lets you use the digital images for processing and access, but has most of the cost disadvantages of microfilm. So consider dual streaming only if you are currently mandated to use microfilm, or if your organization has very serious reservations about immediately moving to purely digital – and saving the paper for an interim probationary period is not an option.

This post seems to be very pro-digital and anti-microfilm, and it is – for most cases where microfilming is an option. But the conclusion comes only after evaluating the requirements, options, and business cases relevant to each approach.  Certainly what I’ve said is borne out in all the cases we’ve seen in our consulting practice. Please let me know if you think I missed the boat.