Chapter 3 | TABLE OF CONTENTS | Chapter 5 |
CHAPTER 4 |
Micrographics |
Finding |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Microfilmed
documents require only 2 percent of the storage space of paper documents. |
||||
|
Microfilming Preserves Deteriorating Records. Eventually, all paper records are at risk of deterioration. Each time a record is handled and exposed to light or temperature variations, some damage is done. Microfilm is an alternative long-term storage medium that allows continued use of the information contained in fragile and valuable records without endangering the original. |
|||
Despite
the initial expense, over time microfilming is a cost effective alternative
to paper storage. |
Microfilming certain non-permanent records is also cost effective. Based on its own estimate of paper storage costs, WSA has concluded that microfilming non-permanent records is a cost-effective alternative to paper storage for records with retention periods greater than 15 years. For records with a retention period less than 15 years, it is less expensive to store them as paper. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Space Savings Through Microfilming Can Be More Extensive |
|||
|
||||
Unreliable
equipment and unfilled camera operator positions limit productivity. |
||||
5,000
cubic feet of records await microfilming and destruction. Up
to 95 percent of Archives’ collection does not need to be retained in its
original paper form. |
||||
Microfilming
could have a larger impact on extending existing storage space. |
Figure 4 below shows the potential impact that more microfilming
could have on preserving WSA storage space.
Our calculations assume that any additional microfilming contributes
to space savings, that cameras are fully operational, and camera operators
are trained. Calculations
include the use of only one planetary camera because a second one is
unreliable and is rarely used. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
Based
on WSA’s net average annual accumulation, current available storage space
should last about four years. |
· The upper line of Figure 4 shows that current available storage space should last about four years, based on WSA’s net average annual rate of accumulation. · The middle line shows that current available storage space could last another 7 years, with 3 camera operators filming 2 cubic feet per day on rotary cameras and 1 operator filming 1.5 cubic feet per day on a planetary camera. ·
The lower line shows that current available storage
space, under the ideal conditions described above, could last up to another
39 years. However, if WSA chooses to
use its micrographics resources for other priorities, then space savings may
not occur, either to that extent or at all.
As such, 39 years should be considered a theoretical maximum
contribution to space savings, not necessarily a practical reality. |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
WSA
does not re-evaluate
projects once they are accepted. No
funds are set aside for micrographics equipment replacement or repair. Grants
may provide a source of temporary funding for specific micrographics
projects. |
||||
|
|
|||
|
Conditions
Warrant Improved Planning
for Micrographics Use |
|||
|
|
|||
Technical
Services is unable to take on additional microfilming projects. |
||||
|
Recommendation: WSA should develop a plan to strategically
use and financially support micrographics. |
|||
|
||||
|
Micrographics is a valuable but expensive management tool. It should be used as such, not provided as a matter of custom to those agencies who have traditionally used it. WSA needs to develop a plan which will balance the technical costs associated with micrographics against its space savings, records preservation, and other management contributions. This plan might include a request to change legislation so that funds generated directly by the program can be used for program support. Once a plan is developed, WSA needs to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate all micrographics projects to ensure that they continue to meet the criteria for microfilming. |