In order to access many customized software programs, a user ID and a password are generally required. Within corporations, levels of authority to approve contracts, invoices, change orders, and purchases are tightly controlled. These requirements bear periodic checking, because courts are becoming more willing to admit electronic evidence, such as signatures entered on electronic pads for credit card transactions. There are legal reasons to retain hard copy, such as the requirement of legal signatures or embossed notarial seals. If the facility or space inventory is this small, very little conscious facility management of any kind is probably needed. More likely, the real issue is something else. This position is becoming almost impossible to defend as the cost of hardware and software drops. The size of the database and/or facility does not warrant automation. (Note that we are discussing storage of hard-copy data electronic storage still enables printouts to be made at will.) Among the reasons to retain hard copy as a storage medium are: The issue now is whether data need to be stored in paper form at all. As electronic storage becomes cheaper and methods of scanning hard-copy data onto computer disks improve, retaining hard copy becomes more and more costly and more difficult to defend. Electronic data provides the instant strategic advantage of removing the barrier of remote storage and access. For example, in a department that has a small inventory with a low churn rate, you may decide to keep prints of drawings in a flat file instead of buying a CAD system, or you may decide to let an off-site contractor store the drawings electronically. There is no requirement to automate all data.
It is also desirable to designate a backup person who can access the system when the primary person is absent.Įlectronic/Hard Copy vs.
DATABASE PART 2 MANUAL
One person should be designated as primarily responsible for maintaining the official copy for record purposes: for example, a space planner who maintains the space assignment files on CAD or in a manual drawing flat-file cabinet. (This rule is not meant to apply to back-up duplicate tapes but to avoid having more than one place where master data are kept and edited.) If there are multiple places to store the same data, there are multiple opportunities to change it. The old rule about storing data is still a good one: Provide lots of ways for people to find data but, insofar as possible, only one primary place to store them. This month, we’ll present some considerations that will help to avoid these symptoms. Rights of access to records are not clearly spelled out.Specific responsibility for updating records is not clearly defined.What is important is not adequately protected.Much of what is stored is unnecessary junk.We ended on a bit of a negative note, listing four key symptoms to faulty design. We explained that the utility of a database is determined early on-when it is initially set up. Last month we talked about the basics of facility databases.