Document distribution: The neglected link in the life cycle of records

In the beginning, records managers focused on the end--the disposition of documents no longer needed in active files. With the introduction of the "record life cycle," records managers began to pay attention to the creation, use, and active storage, as well as the disposition, of records. The life cycle theory also paid lip service to "record distribution," but it was not until records managers became involved with "workflow," as a by-product of their interest in storing documents as electronic images, that the movement of documents became a central concern. Workflow's attention to the flow of information between creation and disposition, as well as between the action events in the document's life, finally gave recognition to the fact that businesses are not composed of disconnected events. It finally accorded some long neglected respect to the principle that a process, no matter how perfect its beginning and end, is no stronger than its weakest link. Yet even now, this interest in workflow only rarely escapes electronic parameters to include the movement of paper documents. Hence, since most documents are still in a paper format, and since "workflow" in most offices is still a route of paper, we can continue to refer to document distribution as an overlooked phase of the record's life cycle.

ADDRESSING

That paper document distribution receives little of our attention is at first glance rather surprising. Since the most frequent response to any processing failure is "it must have been lost in the mail," the function of distributing paper documents would seem to warrant more of our attention. Of course, in the back of our minds, we know that the mailroom is often just a scapegoat for mistakes made elsewhere. Unless we are to assume that the mailroom clerks have entered into some dark conspiracy against the organization that employs them, we must assume that there is a communication failure between these clerks and those of us who deposit our treasures to be delivered. A little research will reveal that the most usual cause for such communication glitches is not incompetence in the mailroom, but rather negligence in preparing documents for distribution--in particular, faulty addressing habits. Examination of this negligence suggests that we are probably lucky that mail clerks are able to decipher correctly as many of our eccentric addressing instructions as they do. Our response to this problem has almost always been to emphasize the need to train the clerks--train them to understand the workings of the organization, train them to think like everyone else thinks. Since this approach has not been too successful, perhaps we should try the second alternative: Train ourselves and other senders to consider how a rational mail clerk will interpret the addressing instructions that we leave with them.

FAMILIARITY VS SYSTEM

While the task of addressing mail has not received any definitive philosophical treatment, it is fairly easy to recognize two schools of thought, both supported by reasonable assumptions. The first we might label "The Advantage of Familiarity." The basic idea of this theory is that mail with addresses which are quickly recognized is more quickly and easily delivered than that which must be "decoded." For example, I can drive from Los Angeles to my parents' home in Ft. Worth, Texas, without even thinking, but I have no idea what their nine-character zip code is. Therefore, if were delivering their mail, an address of "Mother and Dad" would not only be less work to write than "Mr. and Mrs. B. H. Sanders, 3812 Wilkie Way, Ft. Worth, TX 76133-????," it would also ensure a quicker, more accurate delivery.

The other school of thought on addressing (best represented by the Post Office's Domestic Mail Manual) begins with the not-too-incredible assumption that most mail is not composed of letters hand-delivered by children to their parents. To the contrary, the volume of mail, as well as the variety of addressees and locations, means that addresses will rarely be "familiar." "Mother and Dad" would become a "mystery" address--unfortunately a mystery whose defiance of solution is not all that uncommon for most business mailrooms. Once the volume and diversity of mail make it impossible to rely upon the mail carrier's familiarity with the addressee, it is necessary to develop rational, consistent systems of mail codes. The goal of such systems is to enable any carrier who understands the system to deliver mail even when he or she is completely unfamiliar with the addressees or locations. It also has the advantage of facilitating the various levels of course and fine sorting which are necessary to accelerate delivery in a larger organization.

THE US POSTAL SERVICE AND ADDRESS STANDARDIZATION

Those of us who are older (a group which sadly now includes me) can remember when even the U.S. mail was based somewhat more upon familiarity. We knew our mail carriers, and they knew us--and our dogs. If a piece of mail for us accidentally contained the address of the next door neighbor, the carrier neither gave it to the neighbor nor sent it back. He put it in our mail box without a second thought. If we could not remember the correct abbreviation for Mississippi, we wrote MISS or MISSI or MISSIP--and it still got there. Zip codes were an interesting concept, and we even occasionally used them--if they happened to be available. But it didn't really matter. Bar-coding an envelope was unknown; if we had seen one, we would probably have suspected a letter bomb and called the police.

Yet as the population, the volume of mail, and the competition in delivering it very quickly increased, the Post Office could no longer tolerate such personalization of addresses. Wisely avoiding dictatorial regulation, the Post Office began to offer discounted rates for standardized, logically consistent addressing practices that enable the Post Office to automate its procedures, and thereby to reduce costs and accelerate processing. These rules make it possible to replace letter-carrier familiarity with machine certainty: bar-codes to reflect the precise location of the addressee; mail already presorted into groups of the same zip code; and even letters arranged in the order of carrier delivery. Of course, to make these automated features effective, the rules must specify the precise location of each element of these addresses, as well as insist upon the replacement of hard-to-decipher, handwritten hieroglyphics with standard, typed characters. Although we complain about having to "do more for less" postal service, most companies find adherence to the presorting rules worth the savings they reap. Even more important is the implicit assurance that, because it will be handled first, mail which is "automation ready" will arrive at its destination within the shortest time possible--which, in my experience, has meant "next day delivery" within our metropolitan area. The Post Office's rule-based standardization and automation has worked. Indeed, even though we would never admit it to the Post Office, to pay anyone $.28 in 1995 U.S. currency to carry a presorted envelope across a metropolitan area within twenty-four hours or across the country within two days is still quite a bargain.

INTEROFFICE MAIL DISTRIBUTION PROBLEMS AND SOME RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

Unfortunately, the problems with deciphering addresses are much more vexing for interoffice mail than for that which is handled by the U.S. Post Office or other couriers. This is not too hard to understand: While expecting the U.S. Postal Service to be even "casually familiar" with the millions of potential addressees of mail in the United States is patently absurd, familiarity within a company of tens or hundreds or even thousands does not seem so ridiculous. Moreover, once people are accustomed to a certain type of service, they continue to expect it long after the conditions that warranted it have disappeared. For example, in my own agency, addressing interoffice mail with only a name and occasionally a department made sense when we numbered less than 100 employees. It still even worked pretty well when we had a staff of 200. However, after that time, mail carriers found it significantly more difficult to recognize names and to know for sure the current locations of the ones they did recognize. Somehow the delivery system based on familiarity had to evolve into some type of standardized, consistent, location-based addressing system. But how do we know at what point, to what extent, and in what fashion familiarity should be replaced by standardization?

Faced with this problem, I began searching for expert advice, only to realize that some of the best advice on the subject was available from my own records management background. In particular, records management's experience with filing systems can be quite useful in fashioning addressing systems. The application of the principles of document filing to the process of document distribution should not be so surprising: After all, filing documents is really nothing more than distributing them to the proper file addresses. From the standpoint of document processing, file folder labels are very similar to postal addressees. It stands to reason that principles developed by records management for document filing should apply to document distribution.

The general guidelines records managers have developed for filing systems are especially helpful in deciding where "familiarity" should optimally give way to "logical system" in document distribution. For the question of how detailed a mail-stop designation needs to be is not dissimilar from the question of how many levels of classification are required for filing. To be sure, the existence of elaborately convoluted classification systems reminds us that additional file classification levels have often been invented just to impress those susceptible to superficial appearances. But from the standpoint of results, the rule should be the practical insistence that classification levels are to be added only if they make it easier to locate a file. The test is pragmatic, not theoretical. For document filing, this practical guideline was already stated in the first edition of Maedke, Robek and Brown, Records and Information Management, p. 118: A set of files contained in two drawers or less can be best organized using a simple alphabetic series of familiar headings, whereas more voluminous file groups require hierarchical, stringently logical, often numerically coded filing systems.

Applying this same type of pragmatic analysis to the development of addressing systems implies that we only add additional levels of mail-stop coding when they really become necessary to handle increased organizational volume and complexity. This explains why an office with fewer than 100 employees probably does not need an elaborate system of mail stop codes. The names of people and departments are probably sufficient. Indeed, in such organizations, the mail carriers are often on a first-name basis with everyone. Involved mail-stop systems are required only when they make it easier to locate an addressee. At some point beyond the volume of 100 employees, names become less familiar, and mail-stop codes related to unchanging locations become necessary. This is especially true in organizational structures that frequently realign as a result of one-time projects and rapidly changing, ad hoc staffing arrangements. Naturally, between a delivery system based on face recognition and one relying on boxes identified only by location numbers, there is a whole range of possibilities, including mail stops associated with departments and secretarial work stations. The lesson from filing is that the decision of which variation to choose must be made on solid, empirically derived, practical grounds. There is no a priori right or wrong.

A closely related practical question encountered in both filing and document distribution is how many times a group of documents should be sorted. In a relatively small, alphabetical file, there is normally but a single sort-by initial letter. However, once documents are classified at more than one level, it is more efficient to sort at each level. If an additional level of sorting is not necessary, the chances are that the added classification level was unnecessary. This principle can also be applied with good results to document distribution. In distributing documents in a small organization, a single sort by a responsible secretary is sufficient. As an organization becomes so large and complex either in terms of organizational structure or locations that a single sort is inefficient, an additional sort should be added for each level of addressing, e.g., building, floor, department, mail stop.

Although all of the above may seem too self-evident to bear mentioning, it is not always so obvious in practice. Most of us with experience in either filing or distributing documents can remember the absurdity of "someone" walking down the aisle of file cabinets or the wall of mailroom cubicles just to deposit a single document in its place. (Dare we admit that sometimes we were the "someone" involved in this wasteful practice?) I can still remember repeating this procedure time after time, as if I were in a daze, when our mailroom staff was absent during a strike. As a result, I finally got home at 10 p.m., rather than 7 p.m. Dealing exclusively with the next item on the pile is undoubtedly the simplest course of action in both file room and mailroom: It requires no planning and very little thinking. It is also a very inefficient way to work. I should have remembered the general records management rule to sort documents at every level of classification before filing them. The rule is the same for the mailroom: If the mail is addressed with justified building, floor, department, and mail stop codes, there should be a sort for each.

THE SAGA OF NICKY

There is, however, one very important difference between filing documents and distributing documents: Few filing clerks develop strong personal friendships with their file categories, whereas the relationships between mail carrier and mail recipients are often among the most human and lasting associations to develop in the work place. Consequently, although document distribution should mimic document filing principles in ranking volume and complexity as the most important considerations in determining the structure of an organization's address codes, the unique characteristics of the organization and its staff are also important. In my own experience, the interplay between the requirements of organizational size and complexity on the one hand and the influence of personalities and individual eccentricities on the other is epitomized by Nicky Astilla who has worked in our organization as a mail carrier since he first immigrated to the United States in 1988 from the Philippines.

From the beginning, Nicky was dedicated to the ideal of being the perfect mail carrier. Whenever there was even the slightest suggestion that he might have misdelivered something, he began to perspire as though he had just been accused of first-degree murder or selling state secrets to the enemy. Whenever a piece of mail could not be located, he spent his lunch and breaks searching for it, and sometimes he continued the search long after closing time until he was successful. He would never say no to a request for a special favor, even though it might require his running throughout the building at top speed just to stay on schedule. Our organization even created a special "Roadrunner" award to commend his efforts.

Although not very proficient in English, Nicky worked very hard to learn the spelling and pronunciation of every staff member's name, as well as the department and location where each worked. When Nicky first began to work with us, we were an organization of only 100, but we grew steadily over the next five years to over 500. By that time, most of us knew only a fraction of the staff, but Nicky made a point of introducing himself to each employee. Then, after work and on weekends, he memorized each name, location, and departmental affiliation. He became synonymous with delivery based upon familiarity. When I couldn't remember someone's name, I could just describe how he or she looked, and Nicky could tell me the name, how to spell it, and where the person was located. He was literally on a first-name basis with each of our 500-member staff]

As long as Nicky was the only mail carrier, there was no need for an address that included anything more than a first or last name, but the situation outgrew even his remarkable talents. For one thing, the growth in staff forced us to hire another mail carrier who had not spent years memorizing staff names and locations--and was unwilling to give up his weekends to do so. Addresses containing only a first or last name were no longer sufficient. Secondly, Nicky became a U.S. citizen and was able to bring his wife and children from the Philippines, a series of events that must have reduced the time available for his after-work "hobby" of memorizing staff names. Finally, our organization of 500 merged with another organization of 10,000, making the system of mail distribution based on name recognition impossible even for Nicky's Rolodex memory.

With this large, newly merged agency with its very fluid organizational structure, we required a system based on logical codes that were related to locations rather than departments or persons and that would facilitate multiple sorts. Actually both previous organizations had already developed intermediary address systems that used departmental numbers as the address codes. Yet, as a result of merger and reorganization, many departments found themselves with employees in multiple locations. Even more importantly, large segments of the organization had begun to implement the currently popular matrix organizational structures, in which work units are composed of members representing several departments. As a result of both of these developments, departmental address codes became difficult to maintain, despite ingenious systems of suffixes to identify spatially separated departmental segments. Finally, faced with Nicky's frustration of trying to maintain this complex, make-do system of suffixes, as well as with the challenge of moving the entire organization into new quarters within a period of three months, all of us--even Nicky--had to adjust to an impersonal system of location-based addresses composed of building, floor, and mail-stop codes. The lesson of this story is not the inevitable replacement of familiarity-based systems or the inherent superiority of impersonal, location-based systems, but rather the need to reevaluate mail distribution systems continually as organizations evolve--especially when they become larger and more complex. Although the mail-stop system was a real blow to Nicky's pride, he recovered quickly--and began to memorize everyone's mail code. Somehow I did not have the heart to tell him that the new system made such memorization unnecessary and that such a task was impossible. (Besides, he might succeed and prove me wrong.)

LINGERING REMNANTS OF FAMILIARITY-BASED SYSTEMS

The type of evolution described above is probably similar to that experienced by many large organizations. However, all of us will find it more difficult than has the United States Postal Service. For the success of USPS in converting into an impersonal, efficient system was at least partly due to the fact that the agency is so large and impersonal. Other organizations, even if they have adopted some system of mail stops, often maintain a number of "familiarity-based" vestiges that are justified by precedent, as well as by the lack of rules to constrain the senders, who have "more important things to think about than addressing mail." Maybe the most common of these is the habit of delivering mail to individual desks. Except where automated "mail mobiles" or automatic sorting machines using barcodes are employed, it is difficult to justify mail stops at individual desks even in organizations of less than 100 employees. Yet it persists. I used to be very self-righteous in upbraiding Nicky for offering such preferential treatment to a select few "prima donnas"--until I realized he was delivering my mail individually to my desk.

THE GAME OF ARROWS

Another of these traditional systems is a favorite among engineers. Perhaps inspired by their training, engineers and many quantitatively oriented managers are enamored with graphic addressing that utilizes circles, bold lines, triangles, and various other graphic shapes. This procedure nearly always involves annotating a letter or memo and using an arrow to redirect it to someone else. Sometimes, this procedure involves nothing more than crossing out the "TO:" and "FROM:" on a memo and drawing a large arrow pointing to the name of the memo's originator. Often the memos are sent back and forth several times. Eventually, the memo will contain multiple arrows going back and forth with little indication as to which is the last one.

Some of the resulting documents actually become graphic masterpieces of "office art," documents whose creative blends of circles, lines, arrows, and colored marks are often more interesting than their contents. Our mailroom employees enjoy tracing the evolution of these graphic creations, which typically proceeds as follows:

* The project manager's secretary stamps the document with a list of all who should receive it and places highlighted copies in her out-basket for each name.

* The owner of one of the highlighted names scrawls a reply and draws an arrow back to the manager's name.

* The manager circles the reply and draws an arrow in another color to the originator's name, as well as to two of the names on the stamped list;

* As if frustrated by the mailroom's success in deciphering earlier encrypted addresses, one of these copies comes back to the mailroom with a scrawled note but no address that can be discerned (despite the 30-minute investigation of three mailroom clerks, who finally return it to the manager).

* The manager's secretary caustically scolds the mailroom for not paying enough attention and delivering the document to the wrong place.

DISTRIBUTION LIST ROULETTE

Almost as exasperating to mail carriers as arrows drawn all over the page are distribution lists. The distribution list can actually be an efficient way of sending messages. Significant time is saved by eliminating the task of individually addressing each piece. However, the practice is often abused. Sometimes the sender assumes that, because he knows everyone on the list, the mail carrier will have no difficulty in finding them. Most of us have seen distribution lists with only names, sometimes names of people from other organizations that the mail carrier has no way of knowing. Adding injury to insult, senders often provide the mailroom with only one copy and a list of 100 or so names--challenging the carriers not only to find where the addressees are but to copy and address the pieces as well. Quite often these are notices for a "crucial" meeting that is scheduled for the next day. Of course, the fact that mail centers often stay late to comply with such excessive demands, just as they bestow favors on selected prima donnas and play detective in determining which arrow is the last one, is partially to blame for the continuation of such practices. A mail center that has refused to deal with "addressing by arrow" or mystery distribution lists is almost as guilty as the offending senders who assume the "mail center will take care of it" just as they always have.

PACKAGING AND HOW MUCH TO INCLUDE

Although addressing is the most important concern in document distribution, there are others, such as how an item is packaged. Perhaps the most wasteful office practice associated with packaging interoffice mail is the amount of excessive paper stuffed into an "envelope" (which in many cases becomes so engorged as to be better described as a bundle). It is easy to trace the origins of this practice to the amazing ease with which photocopy machines disgorge reams of paper just waiting to be distributed. As if by magic, hundreds of employees look up to find their in-baskets crushed under the weight of a 500-page document they had not expected--do not recognize--do not want-and do not understand. The contents, of course, vary from organization to organization, but here is a personal list of such packages (none of them sent for records management purposes) that have recently forced me to replace my plastic in-basket with a metal one:

* a 200-page bus rescheduling plan, with which I had nothing to do;

* a three-inch-thick benefits package that affects neither me nor the staff reporting to me;

* an in-depth legal briefing regarding the organization's latest lawsuit;

* the week's newsclippings;

* a four-volume copy of a construction contract specification and drawings, which I will neither file nor review;

* a 20-page explanation of the annual goals and objectives of the MIS department, of which I am not a part.

It is not really fair to blame the copy machines for producing these copies--they only facilitate the process. We, the office workers who supply instructions to the copiers, are the real culprits. Why do we do it? Do we have some neurotic, competitive urge to stuff more paper in more bundles than anyone else? Do we do it to retaliate against the guy in the next cubicle who did it to us? More likely, we were just too lazy to review our distribution list carefully or ask whether a given enclosure was really necessary. Sometimes I also have the distinct impression that we unconsciously assume that the importance given to what we are sending will be directly proportional to the weight of the package. Whatever the reason, we should bear in mind the cost of what we are doing, a cost that includes

* Photocopying charges;

* Distribution cost (Distributing 25-pound bundles to everyone cannot just be "included in the regular mail run"; the resulting overtime is not inexpensive.)

* Recipients' time to evaluate and dispose of materials;

* Likelihood that the piece that really did need to be saved will be mixed up and thrown away by recipients with all of the material they really do not want, need, or understand.

It is not only that we are sometimes wasteful in deciding what to include in a package; we also often choose the wrong type of packaging. It seems fairly logical that interoffice mail should go into interoffice I envelopes. These are wonderful, underrated inventions: They can be used multiple times, to save money; indeed, where I work, we call them "thousand milers." They have handy tie or sticky, reusable fasteners, which eliminate accidental loss while facilitating insertion and extraction of materials. They are filled with holes, so that we can know instantly whether we have or have not removed the contents. They have clearly marked address lines to facilitate delivery. They are easy to distinguish from regular envelopes and so eliminate the danger of being confused with outgoing mail destined for the Post Office.

Despite the marvelous simplicity of "thousand milers," we still manage to misuse them. For instance, some of us penny-wise cost-cutters take time to type address sheets and paste or tape them onto thousand milers that have been used up--a miserly practice that is not only dollar-foolish in terms of staff time expended, but also runs the risk of misdirected mail when the supplemental address sheet falls off. (And they will fall off.) A more serious practice is to avoid using thousand milers altogether. This is done for a couple of reasons. The first is not without justification: To avoid the labor of inserting and addressing packages that are being distributed to multiple recipients, we staple a cover sheet with the names and addresses of all the recipients and highlight or underline a different name for each package. As mentioned above, so long as the bundles are firmly stapled and the name--well as the address--is unmistakable, there is little to criticize in this practice. The second reason, however, is not so rational. In this situation, the sender elects to use a fresh, regular envelope because the contents are confidential, "too important," or too time-sensitive to be put into a mundane thousand miler. This tactic very often backfires. Just as the U.S. Post Office increases efficiency by very mechanically sorting mail by type and address zone, most mailrooms first sort interoffice mail from outgoing mail on the basis of the type of envelope. Consequently, in the best case, the interoffice mail in the regular envelope will be delayed until the mailroom catches it while applying postage to the outgoing mail. In the worst--and more likely--case, it will be sent out with the rest of the U.S. mail, only to be returned a week or two later stamped "ADDRESS UNKNOWN." Even if a piece of correspondence is very confidential, its envelope (marked "CONFIDENTIAL") should be placed inside a thousand miler.

THE URGE TO WRITE EVERYONE

Not only do we often address our mail improperly, include too much in it, and package it poorly, we sometimes send it to the wrong people. I have previously discussed our infatuation with sending excessive memos as symptomatic of an irrational attachment to paper. I have since come to the conclusion that shyness is another explanation. I know in my own case, it is easier to state my case on paper than to argue it in person. When I must convince someone in person or over the phone, I must first overcome my basic shyness; indeed, sometimes I am so awed by the person that I write out what I am going to say and practice it as intently as though it were an acceptance speech for receiving the Nobel Prize. Even then, being somewhat slow in thinking on my feet, I am not at all sure that I will be able to deal effectively with counterarguments to my proposals. So I write a memo. Unfortunately, the memo, which is really a coward's way out, is much less likely to elicit the response or support I need. In almost every case, the response will be slower to a memo than that to a visit or phone call. In many cases, the recipient does not really understand what is being said, and responds in a totally irrelevant manner. Thus, although the link may at first seem far-fetched, training in assertive oral communication skills may be a significant aid in improving document distribution.

Even when we still decide a given communication should be in writing, we need to examine critically the length of the distribution list. We are all familiar with the shotgun principle of "junk mail" (i.e., mail that most recipients neither need nor want). Mass mailers have carefully calculated the cost of the likelihood of eliciting the response they desire from the audience to which they send their pieces. Even though the per cent of favorable responses may be only one or two per cent, the mailing may still be worthwhile. While we may accept the logic of this practice, it is still disturbing to think of all the wasted resources in sending mail to persons who do not want or need it. This is a waste not only in postage, but also in the time required to prepare, insert, read, and dispose of the materials sent. There is also to be considered the loss of good will from the recipients of junk who each day must wade through it.

Interoffice junk mail is not different in principle. We send our memos and packages to "All Staff" knowing full well that only a small per cent need to receive them. The difference is that most of the time none of us has carefully calculated the costs versus the benefits of sending out such a distribution. Indeed, since there is no postage involved, we often seem to think there is no cost. Quite the contrary, the cost of interoffice junk mail is greater than that of external junk mail. Remember that, while the loss of recipient good will probably not much harm a commercial mass mailer, it will greatly damage an interoffice mass mailer. The cost of the recipient's resources in opening, reading, filing, and disposing of junk mail is not the commercial mass mailer's concern; the recipient costs of interoffice junk mail directly affect the interoffice mass mailer's organization. Interoffice mass mailings can amount to a considerable invisible expense. Before we send anything to multiple recipients, we need to weigh carefully the benefits that realistically can be expected against all of the costs incurred. Regular pruning of our distribution lists is an obvious means to reduce organizational costs.

STEPS TO TAKE

This column has been able only to touch upon several of the concerns of document distribution that need to be examined carefully. A few preliminary recommendations seem to be in order.

Addressing Systems

* There is no single answer to addressing systems. The choice must be based upon the size, eccentricities, and complexity of the organizaton--just as the choice of a filing system is based upon the volume and kinds of documents in the file. Larger, more complex organizations will require mail-stop codes that do not rely on the mail carriers' familiarity with the addressees, that are more location-oriented, and that facilitate multiple, rapid sorting.

* Even more important than which system is selected is the enforcement of it: Preferential delivery arrangements, encrypted hieroglyphic addressing graphics, and distribution-list games should not be tolerated.

* It is as important to educate the senders as it is the mail staff on addressing procedures. Senders must learn to analyze critically and seriously:

* whether a document actually needs to be sent;

* to whom it needs to be sent;

* what attachments are really necessary; and

* and whether the item is properly prepared for quick, easy delivery.

In training the senders, it is wise to learn the Pavlovian behavioral modification techniques developed by the U.S. Post Office: Return items that are addressed incorrectly to the sender and offer inducements to those senders willing to take the time to address mail in a manner that facilitates distribution. The inducement most likely to reap results is a promise of more rapid delivery.

Electronic Help

* Mailroom processes have long been prime candidates for office automation. A good deal of this automation focuses on outgoing mail:

* Software-printer packages organize and print address data bases in presort--or even carrier route sequence--order.

* Integrated mail machines automatically fold and insert contents, determine weight, meter postage, and close the envelope.

* With the intense competition among carriers for expedited mail, electronic systems to permit rate-shopping between different carriers has become very popular. Rate-shopping shipping systems can afford considerable dividends where there is a large volume of expedited mail and where contracts or billing arrangements with multiple vendors are possible. However, our experience has been that the choice between vendors becomes a matter of always choosing the same vendor to provide a particular service (e.g., rush local, overnight air, or two-day ground) and that the way to save the most money is to sign an exclusive contract that assures large discounts--although it precludes rate-shopping.

* Although the automation of incoming and interoffice mail distribution has not been so readily available to most of us, there are signs of its arrival:

* Some lucky mailrooms (e.g., the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California) have installed elaborate systems that affix barcodes to incoming mail to enable a huge sorter to sort all mail into mail-stop bundles. Unfortunately, this system costs more than most organizations can afford; it also requires data entry of the addressee's name in order for the bar code to be assigned.

* Much more usual has been the consideration of robotic mail carriers for interoffice mail. Robotic mail carriers can undoubtedly save considerable resources--if the floorplan is suited to them. As soon as I can find a robotic mail courier that can take the elevator, I will have it installed.

* Even if the majority of us cannot take advantage of electronic rate shopping, robotic mail carriers, and bar-code mail distribution, we can borrow ideas from all of them. For example, the shipping systems designed to provide rate shopping, as well as the systems that electronically log in all incoming mail with barcodes, provide models--and some of the programming--for tracking important documents electronically. Similarly, even if our floorplan is not suited for a robotic mail carrier, the idea of consistently coding mail stops so that even a machine is able to distribute documents is a useful concept.

* A major application for electronic automation in document distribution is the use of the computer to maintain distribution lists--especially for such distributions as those to "All Directors" or "All Managers." When such distribution lists can be maintained on a network, individual labels and even personalized letters can be produced for mailings that will ensure that the address is correct and that the item is really delivered to the intended recipient. (In our very fluid organization, there is often a question as to who the "Department Heads" or "Directors" are.)

Development of a Plan

A plan for improving document distribution must be developed in the context of organizational records management, not just as an isolated concern of the mailroom.

* First, document distribution must be viewed as part of the life cycle of all records and an important aspect of records management.

* Secondly, while the mail carriers may be the ones most obviously responsible for document distribution, it must be made clear that the responsibility for its success also rests on the shoulders of the senders. Correctly addressing and packaging interoffice mail must become a priority-and those involved must be appropriately trained.

* Finally, in keeping with traditional records management, the plan should be the result of practical, objective reasoning that critically considers such issues as how much to base distribution on familiarity, when to require interoffice envelopes, when to exclude attachments, and how to balance the economy of distribution list reduction against the organization's need for "open communications."

Does not the development and implementation of such a plan suggest exactly the combination of objective analysis and education upon which records management thrives?

Copyright Association of Records Managers and Administrators Inc. Jan 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved