We have been moving to electronic storage of records. It works well, but one downside is the size of the scanned files. I don't mean megabytes, I mean the pages in the scanned file. I have a client that needs a deed, I did a survey next to them, and I figured that the needed deed was probably in that file...??.
So I go to open the file of the next door neighbor and its 1750 pages. Clicking through that looking for a deed proved to be more of a task than going down to the courthouse and pulling the correct deed.?ÿ
It's best to lean up the file that needs scanning before scanning.
And the needed deed wasn't in there anyway.?ÿ
If you are storing everything as a single PDF file, there should be some sort of organization set up in to "chapters" with a table of contents. Otherwise I would suggest storing the scanned pages in a nested directory structure organized by subject matter - "Research, Billing,...", etc.
100%, we started to change how we scan, it takes up front time, but it's worth it, in this case the 1750 page file had a 1993 job number so it was an early version. We have since changed to trees like you suggested, I highly recommend that. Although, I will say the files had been separated into subject matter,,,,,,,you have to wade through them to get there, not the best system.
If you throw all of your documents into an electronic heap (1750 page pdf) then you've got a heap o' data.
As you've discovered, scanning requires a well organized digital file system with naming conventions and folder rules and more...
At least you can OCR those pdfs and electronically search through multiple files at once - of course the OCR is only as good as the legibility of the image.
As you search for data - it'll become clear how you need to organize your data. It'll take time to organized and the investment in data organization data has a long-term payoff so think about how you want to find your data before you come up with a schema. Don't expect to reap real benefit in the immediate future but rest assured - it will pay off in the long-run.
A "heap o' data" is easiest to sift through as paper. It is not lost on me how analog is simply better for some tasks. Went to the archives and looked at microfiche, and they had these new readers. Well, they are new all right, and the interface is digital, not analog. So, while your fingers and eyes got into a certain connection with the old machines, that just doesn't happen with the new machine. I could scan through 10x's faster the old way.
.pdf's are the same kind of different.?ÿ
If you can use OCR and get some searchable text, it really helps. Other than that, scanning in 2000 pages into a single file is just short of throwing it in the trash. And once everyone forgets your naming scheme for the files, then it really makes them useless.?ÿ The key is as always: metadata. You must know where and what about the data. However that happens, it must occur.
