58
Chapter 6
PII HISTORIC DATA RETENTION & STORAGE
SOLUTIONS
6.1 Risks: What does this mean to PII?
At this point the development of the Project begins. Initially, the candidate decides to make a previous evaluation for better understanding what should be the risks of losing Historic Inspections Data for PII.
Retention of Existing Historic Data
Data deteriorating on old Computer Tapes; DEC / VAX Equipment:
• Equipment failure – only 6 out of 12 tape drives remain operative;
• Maintenance support is limited – expires end May 2007;
• AlphaStation platform has limited experienced support in UK.
PUMA conversion skills are limited – only 6 people remain in UK;
Excessive high Energy Costs for Air Conditioning / Heating in Computer Room; Bulky storage required for old Computer Tapes (inc. External Backup store). Loss of Historic Data (Direct Business Risk)
Inability to provide Client Deliverables referring to a previous Inspection:
• Corrosion Growth Comparison / RunCom;
• Reinspection cross-check / Alignment with previous data;
• Quality Assurance by comparing previous analysis;
• Client Query reaction – Pre-Contract, Change of Client, Leak, Explosion.
Competitive Edge.
Observation:
Media used to store inspections made with USWM, USCD, CaliPPer technologies are NOT deteriorating. This technologies are too recent to have previous inspections and older media.
59
As they do not need to replace their inspection data on another media, the project considers data taken with MFL (Magnetics technology) ONLY.
6.2 Meetings and Survey
Evaluated the risks, the candidate considers right to schedule some meetings and develop a survey to understand what the common opinion about PII Data Retention is.
Points of contact for this phase are: Laure Brooks (Marketing);
Adam Bathgate (Project); Ron James (Sales);
Leanne Stanley (Integrity Services).
6.2.1 Meetings
Meeting with Laure Brooks (Marketing). She thinks that developing a survey is a good
idea to collect different opinions and inform people about this project and the Data Retention Problem.
Meeting with Adam Bathgate (Project) and Steve (my tutor in PII). They both think that
is important to store all data, both to satisfy the client completely, and to obtain a competitive advantage.
The problem is for inspections from 1986 to 2000, because PII should convert these for transfer.
The best and most immediate solution is to store the row data only, because they are easier to convert. In this way PII should make the data analysis for a second time. This takes time and may be cause of perplexity for clients.
Meeting con Ron James (Sales). He thinks that PII should store all previous inspections
data. He underlines that it should keeps its clients’ data for 10 years at least, this for contractual obligation.
For the inspections before 1996 PII might keep just row data, but he doesn’t know if it is convenient.
He thinks that PII cannot anticipate requirements of future inspections, because each client has his method and often decides to execute an inspection without proper criteria. However, often if after two inspections the corrosion has always a thin value, the third inspection will be longer.
60
Meeting con Leanne Tindall / Stanley (Integrity Services). She thinks that storing all previous inspections data is very important for PII, but for the inspections before 1996 the row data are necessary to perform her work. This is because before 1996 the analyses are not reliable if compared with those executed by new software. So, another analysis is necessary to execute for those.
6.2.2 Survey Study: Internal PII Survey
At this point the candidate, thinking the meetings not to be enough for understanding the common opinion in all PII, decides to elaborate some questions about Data Retention to spread in Intranet.
Survey Questions (dispatched in intranet):
Then the survey link is sent to email addresses of people working in departments involved in the data retention (@OIL&GAS PII SALES; @OIL&GAS PII MARKETING; @ENERGY PII INTEGRITY SERVICES; @OIL&GAS PII GLOBAL ANALYSIS).
53 Respondents to the Survey Questions:
• 30 Respondents working in Data Analysis Department; • 14 Respondents working in Sales Department;
• 9 Respondents working in other Departments.
Q1. Please indicate your Regional Office: Q2. Please indicate your Function:
Q8. In your opinion why do we keep previous historic inspection data? <Comment>
Q9. In your opinion what value does the client gain if we keep their historic inspection data? <Comment> Q10. Data Analysis Which is your primary technology?
Q12. Data Analysis (Magnetics) Do you know how to process 010, Analogue, DSP, inspection data using PUMA?
Q13. Sales / Marketing When you talk to the client about previous inspections conducted by PII, do you mention only the most recent inspection or multiple historic inspections?
Q17. Please add your Full Name if you have any other information or advice that you could share with us. We will then contact you.
Q3. In your opinion, how long do you think PII should store inspection data?
Q4. Imagine we inspected a client’s pipeline in 1996, 1999 and 2003. If we were to produce a reinspection report which combinations of historic data do you think we should use?
Q5. PII stores "raw" data, in your opinion, how long should we keep it? Q6. PII stores "analyzed" data, in your opinion, how long should we keep it?
Q16. Sales / Marketing We are trying to gauge the frequency of repeat inspections of a pipeline so that we can scale our data storage systems. From your experience, what is this frequency rate on average?
Q7. PII stores the "hard copy report", in your opinion, how long should we keep it?
Q11. Data Analysis If we have previously inspected a pipeline, and there is no Runcom or Reinspection Report to be produced, which of the following would you use to cross-check against the previous inspection?
Q14. Sales / Marketing From a Sales perspective what is a reasonable amount of time to keep the client’s data?
61
1. Questions about how long PII should store inspection data (Fig. 6.1).
The common opinion is that all data should be stored for 10 years at least.
62
2. Open question about why Historic Data should be retained (Fig. 6.2).
Figure 6.2: Open questions about retaining inspections data
Top Reasons include:
• Drawing up the Run Comparison Document (RUNCOM); • Answering Client query;
• Estimating Corrosion Growth Comparisons for PII and the client; • Keeping Competitive position in the market;
63
3. Open Question about what value the client gain if we keep their historic inspection data (Fig. 6.3).
Figure 6.3: Open questions about the value of keeping inspection data Main opinions:
• More detailed information about Corrosion Growth;
• Possibility to revisit anytime for any reason for a historical perspective or in case of leak, explosion or damage, etc;
• Comparison of inspections; • More accuracy.
64
4. Questions for Analysts only about what they would use to cross-check against the previous inspection, if PII has previously inspected a pipeline, and there is no Runcom or Reinspection Report to be produced (Fig. 6.4).
Figure 6.4: Questions for analysts only
• 18 Analysts answered Electronic Copy of Pipeline Listing; • 10 Analysts would use Signal data if available2.
2
It is always recommended to use the Signal Data if available. This needs to be included in the Reinspection Process training
65
5. Open Questions for Sales and Marketing only about which inspections they mention when they talk to the client (Fig. 6.5).
Figure 6.5: Open questions for sales and marketing only Talking about multiple historic inspections depend on:
• The contractual requirements; • The client’s problem.
66
6. Questions for Sales and Marketing only about what amount of time they think the client expects PII keeps their data (Fig. 6.6).
Figure 6.6: Questions for sales and marketing only The common opinion is that PII keeps its clients’ data for 15 years at least. According to the Internal Survey PII should keep:
• Inspection data, • Raw data, • Analyzed data at least for 10 years…
67 6.3 Conversion of Historic Data (Analyst Effort)
Historic Data are held in 3 different formats (Fig. 6.7):
Figure 6.7: Presence of data in three different formats
Basing on the table above and on other preliminary studies about PII Data Retention History the candidate decides that the following step is the time estimation for transferring all previous inspection data to new media.
68
6.3.1 Estimation Time: Division of inspections for period and distance From 1980 to 1995 (Fig. 6.7, 6.8):
During this period the data will need to be Restored, Re-processed using PUMA, then Converted using PUMACONVERT to the PC format as used today (Vax AlphaStation).
Figure 6.7: Database containing inspections from 1980 to 1995
69 From 1996 to 2000 (Fig. 6.9, 6.10):
During this period the data will need to be Restored, then Converted using PUMACONVERT to the PC format as used today (Vax AlphaStation).
Figure 6.9: Database containing inspections from 1996 to 2000
70 From 2001 to 2006 (Fig. 6.11, 6.12):
During this period the data will need to be Restored (Note from 2001 to 2003 this data is held on DLT Tapes which uses the VAX AlphaStation for the Restore ).
Figure 6.11: Database containing inspections from 2001 to 2006
71 Estimation Time: Conclusions (Fig. 6.13)
Figure 6.13: Estimation of time for transferring all inspections from 1980 to 2006
• The estimated elapsed time to convert and transfer data of ALL previous inspections to a new format is 18 years3!
• Additional Human resources would not reduce the overall time.
6.4 Historic Database: Creation of Combined Information
At this point the Creation of a Historic Database and the estimation of a trend in the historic inspections for the same launch & receiveseem for the candidate absolutely necessary for developing further analyses.
After a meeting with the PII Mentor and Manager where they discuss about her idea, he gives her all Historic Untidy Databases and she starts their tidying.
Historic Untidy Database is a Collection of ALL Historic Reinspections. Data are collated from different sources:
• Trialfiles (VMS System); • TrialDB (VMS System); • ArcDB (VMS System);
• Index Cards in Computer Room; • eDelivery4.
3
Due to the availability of Hardware a maximum of 3 restores / conversions could take place per day equating to 6 Years
4
72
The Untidy Database (Fig.6.14) obtained combining data coming from all these sources includes 8433 historic inspections to check.
Figure 6.14: Untidy Historic Database
This work takes about three weeks to the candidate. She meets a lot of different difficulties during the tidying. This because the untidy historic database is the combination of different sources where inspection data were recorded in different ways.
Main difficulties met during the tidying
1. Finding missing and inaccurate dates (Fig. 6.15):
73
None can find the right date, because it is written nowhere.
Besides, none can know if Burley Bank-Keighley and Burley Bank-Keighly are the same pipeline. It could be a simple mistake made by an analyst during the writing
2. Understanding if it is the same pipeline (Fig. 6.16):
Figure 6.16: Difficulties for understanding if it is the same pipeline
None can understand if Platform Grace are the same receive places of Platform Grace (Gas Line) or Platform Grace (Oil Line) or not. It is impossible to find out also checking and analyzing the Contract Number.
Final Tidy Historic Database: Consolidated all databases to 5285 Inspections (Fig. 6.17):
Figure 6.17: Final Tidy Historic Database containing all inspections
At this point the candidate thinks to be necessary for developing trend analysis to group each inspection according to same launch and receive.
74
Creation of a special Database for the Analysis Trend: Compressed database to 3971 Launch/Receive (Fig. 6.18):
Figure 6.18: Tidy Historic Database containing all launch & receive
The candidate asks the PII Mentor and Manager’s advice about her inspection trend analysis idea. As he thinks it is a good idea she decides to execute the analysis.
75 Graphics of Trend Analysis (Fig. 6.19):
Figure 6.19: Number of inspections per launch & receive Graphics: How many previous inspections for each launch & receive (Fig. 6.20):
P II H is to ri c D a ta R e te n tio n & S to ra g e S o lu tio n s C h a p te r 6 7 6 T re n d o f a ll p re v io u s i n sp ec tio n s ( F ig . 6 .2 1 ): F ig u re 6 .2 1 : G ra p h c o n ta in in g a ll in sp e ct io n s 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
77
With the rend analysis above the candidate thinks that PII can obtain the following advantages.
Historic Database: Conclusion
Historic Database is used by Data Control for proactive reinspection forecasting globally;
Historic Database allows PII to lookup and restore the data of future inspections per Launch & Receive. This makes any search of previous inspections easier and rapid; eDelivery Enhancement – Historic Database will be incorporated into eDelivery; The combined Historic Database could be used for trending analysis to predict future
78
6.5 eDelivery Enhancement: Use of the New Historic Database to verify if a new inspection has any previous inspection
Following the PII Mentor and Manager’s advice the candidate thinks of a graphic way of implementing the new historic database in eDelivery.
A New Page of eDelivery
If PII would like to know if a new inspection doesn’t have any previous inspection it can check in the New Historic Database pressing the button: “Check Database” (Fig.6.22).
Figure 6.22: A new page of eDelivery to verify if that pipeline was already inspected in the past
79 A New Window is opened
PII can just insert some letters for the launch and/or the receive (Fig. 6.23).
80 An Example
PII inserts the letters of its launch and receive with whom it thinks to find out if this is a new inspection (Fig. 6.24).
81
What is searched in the Historic Database (Fig. 6.25)...
Figure 6.25: What is selected inside the database
What appears on the screen (Fig. 6.26)...
82
Now PII has to check if its new inspection correspond to one of these three different pipelines comparing the information contained in the contract number and other data. After the check analyst can go back to the main eDelivery page pressing the ‘Back’ button (Fig. 6.27).
Figure 6.27: Pressing ‘Back’ button Making the Correct Choice…
At this point the analyst can select the right option (Fig. 6.28).
83
6.6 Number of Tapes per Year: A study to show the number of tapes PII stored every year from 1980 to 2006
After analysing the inspections and tidying historic inspection database, the candidate decides to estimate the number of tapes PII stores per each type (Fig. 6.29).
Data to develop the analysis
Figure 6.29: # of Tapes and Inspections divided per period and technology
Media #Tapes per Insp Years
TA90's/3480 175 MB 13,500 from 1980 to Sept 1996
DLT 15000 MB 0,158 from Oct 1996 to Oct 2003
LTO 500000 MB 0,005 from Nov 2003
Capacity
Year # Insp # Tapes Total Tapes #Insp per Tech Tot Tapes per Tech
1980 35 473 945 35 945 1981 31 419 837 66 1782 1982 43 581 1161 109 2943 1983 56 756 1512 165 4455 1984 66 891 1782 231 6237 1985 67 905 1809 298 8046 1986 82 1107 2214 380 10260 1987 77 1040 2079 457 12339 1988 70 945 1890 527 14229 1989 61 824 1647 588 15876 1990 128 1728 3456 716 19332 1991 208 2808 5616 924 24948 1992 159 2147 4293 1083 29241 1993 348 4698 9396 1431 38637 1994 386 5211 10422 1817 49059 1995 393 5306 10611 2210 59670 1996 389 3584 7167 2599 66837 1997 388 61,1 122,2 388,0 122,2 1998 207 32,6 65,2 595,0 187,4 1999 270 42,5 85,1 865,0 272,5 2000 289 45,5 91,0 1154,0 363,5 2001 304 47,9 95,8 1458,0 459,3 2002 285 44,9 89,8 1743,0 549,0 2003 236 31,2 62,4 1979,0 611,5 2004 270 1,3 2,6 270,0 2,6 2005 267 1,3 2,5 537,0 5,1 2006 170 0,8 1,6 707,0 6,7 Total 5285 33727,6 67455,2
84
# Tapes: Original tape copy held in the Computer Room;
Total Tapes: Number of tapes held in the Computer Room & External Backup Store per Year;
# Insp. per Tech: Cumulative total per year.
Viewing data in the graphs below the candidate can observe easily that the most number of tapes are related with inspections made from 1993 to 1996.
The main reasons of tape accumulation during this period is caused by the growing number of inspections (due to PII expansion and the use of magnetic technology only) and the low capacity of TA90 or 3480 tapes used to store data.
Volume of Number of Tapes per Year (Fig. 6.30):
Figure 6.30: Graph of all tapes per year and technology
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500
Enlargem ent of last 3 Years
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
85 Total Number of Tapes per Year (Fig. 6.31):
Figure 6.31: Graph of tapes per year
# Tapes per Year: Conclusion
Due to PII global expansion and the low media capacity of the IBM 3480 tapes there is a large number of tapes used between 1991 and 1996;
Addition effort is required during this period as the data is primarily stored in PUMA format and thus needs the conversion process applied;
There are instances where up to 50 tapes have been used for one inspection (Note: 13.5 tapes per inspection has been taken as an average);
1991 – 1997 is drawn upon frequently for Reinspection restores. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 Ye a r Enlargement 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 2004 2005 2006 Year # o f T a p e s p e r Y e a r
86
6.7 Analyze Results: A Boundary Line study of Data Tapes elimination
At this point the candidate with the team support analyses the Historic Database and Trend Analysis Graphs to understand if it is possible to draw a boundary line and identify tapes to keep and those to eliminate (Fig. 6.32).
Figure 6.32: Graph with an example of boundary line
19 79 19 80 19 81 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 1s t I ns pe ct io n D at e 2n d In sp ec tio n D at e 3r d In sp ec tio n D at e 4t h In sp ec tio n D at e 5t h In sp ec tio n D at e 6t h In sp ec tio n D at e 7t h In sp ec tio n D at e
87 Example: A Simple Cut Off5 (Fig. 6.33)
There are 408 Inspections before 1990 with at least 1 Inspection after 1990. This equates to approx 5508 Tapes which could be eliminated
Figure 6.33: Example of a simple cut off Simple Cuts Off6:
1. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1990: 408, Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 5508; 2. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1991: 476,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 6433; 3. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1992: 579,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 7817; 4. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1993: 617,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 8336; 5. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1994: 693,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 9356; 6. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1995: 769,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 10388; 7. # of Inspections that PII could eliminate before 1996: 853,
Total Average Number of Tapes that PII could eliminate: 11522.
5
There is to consider that sometimes PII needs to review Previous-Previous Inspections
6
88 Summary (Fig. 6.34):
Figure 6.34: Table containing all inspections & tapes that PII gets and that it can eliminate The table above shows scenarios for eliminating tapes per year, but ensuring PII has a least 1 newer Inspection retained.
Year by Year Savings7
Assuming PII eliminates all tapes between 1990 – 1996, the time taken to transfer data to another media has been calculated based upon each Data Format.
The information below shows how many tapes and much time can be saved per year (Fig. 6.35, 6.36).
Figure 6.35: Table with how many tapes can be eliminated per year
7
89
Figure 6.36: Table with how much time can be saved for transferring if PII throws away the inspections of that year
Data used like basis for the Boundary Line Study: Average number of Stored Tapes: 33728;
% of Tapes (on 33728) that we could eliminate: 34%; Average Total Loss of Time: 35034.5hrs;
% of Total Time that we could save: 25.6.
Boundary Line Study: Conclusion8
Option 1:
Eliminate all inspections before 1990 and the inspections between 1991 and 1992. This corresponds to eliminate 6892 tapes! (13784 including Backup Tapes)
Option 2:
Eliminate at least all inspections before 1992.
This corresponds to eliminate 7817 tapes! (15634 including Backup Tapes)
Option 3:
Eliminate all inspections before 1990 and the inspections between: 1991-1992 and 1995-1996.
This corresponds to eliminate 8026 tapes! (16052 including Backup Tapes)
8
Caution Conclusion: It has been noted by the Analysis Team that PII sometimes has to use multiple previous inspection data for Corrosion Growth comparisons.
For this reason candidate should understand if this is acceptable to the business that PII does not have those previous - previous inspections.
90
6.8 Future Storage Media: A Study comparing alternative storage media solutions
Following PII Mentor and Manager suggestion the candidate investigates and analyses advantages and disadvantages per different types of technology so to choose the best media for storing PII inspection data.
Media & Technologies
Evaluation of what kind of media PII should use to store the previous & future inspections, considering all advantages and disadvantages per each of these (Fig. 6.37, 6.38).
91 Advantages & Disadvantages
Comparison among different media to choose the most suitable media for PII purposes, searching in internet advantages and disadvantages.
Figure 6.38: Table with advantages & disadvantages per media
After having made out the list above the candidate has a more detailed knowledge about each media. The best two media for PII are DVD and LTO3, so it has to choose between them.
6.8.1 Top 10 Reasons to use LTO
1. PII already owns a LTO3 machine, so there is no need to purchase different hardware spending additional money. If PII decides to use DVDs to store the data, it would need to buy a jukebox and spend extra money;
2. PII already owns the furniture to store LTO3. This is also the case if PII decides to use DVDs it wouldn’t need buy a new racking system to store them. We verified that DVDs can be inserted in the same racking system. However, there would be a considerable increase of time to label the DVD case;
3. The LTO3 tapes are already recognized by a barcode, while DVDs need to be identified by labelling them. There are two solutions for this problem:
92
Buy software, the drive and the media (Lightscribe) can produce labels automatically during the recording stage. This makes the jukebox and DVDs costs higher (but lower than LTO3 machine and tapes costs), anyway this would be the better solution compared with the second one,
Buy a new label machine (already currently being used in the Analysis Department) to label the DVDs after the recording process. In this case the costs are too high and the procedure is too long (we can reject directly this solution!); 4. The LTO3 machine can recognize automatically if an error has occurred during the
backup and so it makes a new copy on another tape. This isn’t possible with the jukebox, so the employee wouldn’t know if there was a mistake during the backup (this is an important issue!);
5. We know that the LTO3 tape’s life span is approximately 50 years, while the life span of the software that reads these tapes may be about 10 years. We don’t know exactly what is the DVD’s life span but the information from internet research suggests to us that it is between 10-100years. We can’t know what is the software’s life span, but we can say that it is less than 10 years;
6. The LTO3 tape (400GB) has more capacity than DVD (4.7GB), so there is a need for less tapes to store the same amount of data (PII needs 117 DVDs to store the same amount of data contained on only one LTO3 tape!)
7. There aren’t many differences in the employee’s process. The main difference is about the time that the employee spends to insert and remove the media in and from the machine. DVDs take more time, because the procedure is different and they need more media to store the same amount of data;
8. PII needs 28 tapes maximum to store all previous inspections, so there is no need for a large amount of storage space. The problem occurs if a tape is lost or damaged (they would lose too much information!). With LTO3 they can record the previous information on a new media quicker than with DVD (they would use more media...loss of time for transferring!);
9. PII must store a copy offsite for safety, so the LTO3 machine should create two copies. It is additional time, even if the machine can do this automatically. Using DVD PII could buy more jukeboxes, so that more copies can be recorded at the same time. In fact, 1 jukebox is cheaper than 1 LTO3 machine, even if 2 jukeboxes are more expensive than 1 LTO3 machine, then it wouldn’t take less time, because they would record more DVDs simultaneously;
93
10. In the future, if PII decides to use LTO4, there is no need to purchase a new complete machine, new drives only would be required. Also, PII can record the data quicker to LTO4 from LTO3 tapes (saving money and time!).
6.8.2 Cost Comparison without Conversion Costs
Comparing the cost of all different media, the two cheapest media are DVD single layer and LTO3 (Fig. 6.39). In fact, DVD single layer costs 0.05$ per 100MB, while LTO3 0.17 per 100MB. LTO4 would be cheaper than LTO3 (it is the most advanced version of LTO3), but this is in a testing phase and, besides, PII already has a LTO3 machine and uses LTO3 tapes.
94
Investigating on all explicit and implicit costs of these two media, the candidate gets the following results (Fig. 6.40):
Figure 6.40: Table with costs comparison between LTO3 & Lightscribe DVD technologies
Note: PII Cramlington already has equipment for LT03 Tapes (CDS Tape Library) therefore there is no additional Machine Cost (15000$) to be included
Storage Media: Conclusion
Most cost effective storage media is LTO3;
Utilizes current IM Infrastructure (eg. CDS Tape Library);
95
6.9 Conversion Cost: Cost Analysis for safeguarding all Tapes onto new Media
At this point the candidate can draw her conclusions about what are the costs and the losses of time for converting and transferring all data per each scenario. She shows the following data to the team, so that a common decision can be taken (Fig. 6.41, 6.42).
Conversion of ALL Tapes: Conclusion
Figure 6.41: Total cost for transferring all previous inspections on LTO3 media
Note: No. of hours and total costs for conversion & record above are halved as 2 Inspection conversions are possible per day
Total cost for converting all Historic Tapes = $278k
Elimination Cost & Time Comparison9: Conclusion
Cost per Year if PII discards all pervious Year’s data and Convert all future Year’s data
Figure 6.42: Costs per different scenarios
9
96
Loss of Time per Year if PII discards all pervious Year’s data and Convert all future Year’s data (Fig. 6.43).
Figure 6.43: Loss of time per different scenarios Year by Year Saving Comparison: Conclusion
Figure 6.44: Table with saved costs per scenario
Note: No. of hours and total costs for conversion & record above are halved as two Inspection conversions are possible per day.
