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?

Steve.bailey@northumbria.ac.uk