Iron Mountain covers how to generate 'quick wins' by reducing paper in this presentation from the AIIM Road Trip 2015.

1. Paper Reduction: Generate Quick Wins

2. • You want to remove the paper from your
organization’s workflows.
• Where do you start in order to get some ‘quick wins’
under your belt?
2
Insight: The Status Quo Won’t Continue to be Acceptable
of respondents agree that business‐at‐the‐speed‐of‐
paper will be ‘unacceptable’ in just a few years’ time.
AIIM Paper Wars – update from the battlefield, 2014
68%

3. Steps to evaluating opportunities to reduce paper:
1. Conduct stakeholder meeting
2. Analyze historical documents
3. Identify where digitization is happening today
4. Develop a set of paper reduction remediation strategies Identify
potential paper reduction and ROI opportunity
5. Understand the potential value
Get the ‘Big Picture’ Across the Enterprise

4. • Faster responses to customers, higher productivity, improved
remote and mobile availability are seen as the biggest
benefits.
• Legal and Finance departments are the most resistant
to paper‐free working.
4
In general - focus on paper reduction yields quick results
60% 77%
have seen a positive ROI
on their paper‐free
projects in 12 months
have see a positive ROI
within 18 months
AIIM Paper Wars – update from the battlefield, 2014

5. 5
Accounting processes and mailroom are a good place to start
Eliminating paper at the door is a proven strategy.
of invoices arrive as electronic (e.g. pdf, fax, etc.)44%
59% of these end up as a paper copy, primarily printed prior to processing
8%
38%
60%
of these electronic invoices pass through the system as electronic
of users showed a positive ROI from digital mailrooms within 12 months
within 18 months
AIIM Paper Wars – update from the battlefield, 2014

6. • Accuracy and Accessibility
• Destruction of Originals
• Cost Effectiveness
• Compatibility
• Personal Information Protection
• Application of the Records Retention Schedule
• Litigation Hold Capability
‘Compliant digitization’ requires a significant investment in
equipment, training, and manpower. If it isn’t a core competency
… it’s a ‘distraction’ that carries higher risk.
If it isn’t your core competency … consider outsourcing to
increase operational and financial efficiencies.
6
Considerations for Compliant Digitization

7. Business processes and workflows can be transformed by reducing paper and applying
intelligent capture. The results are increased efficiencies and better customer experience.
Workflow Improvement Roadmap
• This effort will produce an Imaging Standardization Roadmap
The paper to digital journey – Intelligent Capture
Step 1: Analyze physical document workflow processes:
Time-Motion
study of how
associates perform
paper intensive
service tasks
Direct observation
‘follow the paper
workflow process’
efficiency, difficulties,
and opportunities
Thought-sharing
sessions of service
goals, physical
documentation pain
points and
improvement
suggestions
Step 2: Categorize types of activities / tasks / transactions
Client Relationship Management
(e.g. growing business or deepening
relationship)
Core Services
(e.g. transaction-based services,
fulfilling requests or researching
questions) Step 3: Synthesize data to
identify opportunities next steps
(automate, simplify, centralize,
educate, etc)
Other Activities
(e.g. non-client facing/administrative
tasks)
Meeting Objective: PO Engagement Discussion
Meeting Date: 04/16/2010
Team Attendees: J Holland, S Shikhare, J Wilson
Participants: Jennifer Udovich; Russ Tipper (UMA, Consults, MFA)
Service Profile:
Vision:  Establish workflow that eliminates need to first open a brokerage account before opening an advisory
account
 There should be ON E: enrollment process; maintenance process; client relationship policy statement,
which includes progress to goals.
Service Workflow: (Client service management from initiation, prioritization, execution, resolution to communication)
Current
Process
Observations
 Need better front end and easier navigation.
 UMA forced to use IP tool, but if another account/program is being opened, the IP tool/info won’t be
carried over to other program; they need to use a different W M tool
 Need 1 dashboard to generate proposal and enroll; enrollment would be a later step, but should be
part of the same dashboard.
Pain Points  the client agre em ent is too long and complicated; Enrollment system /process not intuitive; multiple
welcome kits going out to clients during the same ‘enrollment’ (happens when multiple accounts are
being opened and approved over a series of days; need to be smarter about tracking what’s happening
and consolidate client touch points to one.)
Improvement
Opportunities
 Jen sugge sted we look closely at UMA process. It’s the newest program and encompasse s multiple
accounts/programs. The one Client Agreement is in place and seems to be working so far (to be
confirm ed in field). The PO and business side expected the rest of the process would be ‘combined’ as
well, but it didn’t work out that way. Separate packages are still being sent out to clients for each
account. A disconnect with Technology as far as delivery goes.
Other: (Observations not directly related to workflow improvements but important to note)
Comments &
Observations
N/A
Next Steps /
Follow‐up
 Jen suggests we utilize MSG Advisory Council and individual Specialists in the field, Ned Daynes, Mike
Spielman, Rob Jarvis, John Quinn.
 Jen will review the FA ‘complaint folder’ and share pertinent info with us.
 Asked us to include Latin America in our study (Global W orkstation different; in some ways better,
other ways not.)
 Ken Marx is a good re source to slice and dice FA universe data
 Jen has survey questions from a couple years ago that was actually never executed, but she’ll share
the questions with us.
 Jen offered to review the CA survey questions for SS and JW .
Meeting Objective: PO Engagement Discussion
Meeting Date: 04/16/2010
Team Attendees: J Holland, S Shikhare, J Wilson
Participants: Jennifer Udovich; Russ Tipper (UMA, Consults, MFA)
Service Profile:
Vision:  Establish workflow that eliminates need to first open a brokerage account before opening an advisory
account
 There should be ON E: enrollment process; maintenance process; client relationship policy statement,
which includes progress to goals.
Service Workflow: (Client service management from initiation, prioritization, execution, resolution to communication)
Current
Process
Observations
 Need better front end and easier navigation.
 UMA forced to use IP tool, but if another account/program is being opened, the IP tool/info won’t be
carried over to other program; they need to use a different W M tool
 Need 1 dashboard to generate proposal and enroll; enrollment would be a later step, but should be
part of the same dashboard.
Pain Points  the client agre em ent is too long and complicated; Enrollment system /process not intuitive; multiple
welcome kits going out to clients during the same ‘enrollment’ (happens when multiple accounts are
being opened and approved over a series of days; need to be smarter about tracking what’s happening
and consolidate client touch points to one.)
Improvement
Opportunities
 Jen sugge sted we look closely at UMA process. It’s the newest program and encompasse s multiple
accounts/programs. The one Client Agreement is in place and seems to be working so far (to be
confirm ed in field). The PO and business side expected the rest of the process would be ‘combined’ as
well, but it didn’t work out that way. Separate packages are still being sent out to clients for each
account. A disconnect with Technology as far as delivery goes.
Other: (Observations not directly related to workflow improvements but important to note)
Comments &
Observations
N/A
Next Steps /
Follow‐up
 Jen suggests we utilize MSG Advisory Council and individual Specialists in the field, Ned Daynes, Mike
Spielman, Rob Jarvis, John Quinn.
 Jen will review the FA ‘complaint folder’ and share pertinent info with us.
 Asked us to include Latin America in our study (Global W orkstation different; in some ways better,
other ways not.)
 Ken Marx is a good re source to slice and dice FA universe data
 Jen has survey questions from a couple years ago that was actually never executed, but she’ll share
the questions with us.
 Jen offered to review the CA survey questions for SS and JW .
M eeting Objective: PO Engagement Discussion
M eeting Date: 04/16/2010
Team Attendees: J Holland, S Shikhare, J Wilson
Participants: Jennifer Udovich; Russ Tipper (UMA, Consults, M FA)
Service Profile:
Vision:  Establish workflow that eliminates need to first open a brokerage account before opening an advisory
account
 There should be ON E: enrollment process; maintenance process; client relationship policy statement,
which includes progr ess to goals.
Service Workflow: (Client service management from initiation, prioritization, execution, resolution to communication)
Current
Process
Observations
 Need better front end and easier navigation.
 UMA forced to use IP tool, but if another account/program is being opened, the IP tool/info won’t be
carried over to other program ; they need to use a different W M tool
 Need 1 dashboard to generate proposal and enroll; enrollm ent would be a later step, but should be
part of the same dashboard.
Pain Points  the client agre ement is too long and complicated; Enrollment system /process not intuitive; multiple
welcome kits going out to clients during the same ‘enrollment’ (happens when m ultiple accounts are
being opened and approved over a series of days; need to be smarter about tracking what’s happening
and consolidate client touch points to one.)
Improvement
Opportunities
 Jen sugge sted we look closely at UMA process. It’s the newest program and encompasse s multiple
accounts/programs. The one Client Agreement is in place and seems to be working so far (to be
confirm ed in field). The PO and business side expected the rest of the process would be ‘combined’ as
well, but it didn’t work out that way. Separate packages are still being sent out to clients for each
account. A disconnect with Technology as far as delivery goes.
Other: (Observations not directly related to workflow im provements but important to note)
Comments &
Observations
N/A
Next Steps /
Follow‐up
 Jen suggests we utilize MSG Advisory Council and individual Specialists in the field, Ned Daynes, Mike
Spielman, Rob Jarvis, John Quinn.
 Jen will review the FA ‘complaint folder’ and share pertinent info with us.
 Asked us to include Latin America in our study (Global Workstation different; in some ways better,
other ways not.)
 Ken Marx is a good re source to slice and dice FA universe data
 Jen has survey questions from a couple years ago that was actually never executed, but she’ll share
the questions with us.
 Jen offered to review the CA survey questions for SS and JW.
M eeting Objective: PO Engagement Discussion
M eeting Date: 04/16/2010
Team Attendees: J Holland, S Shikhare, J Wilson
Participants: Jennifer Udovich; Russ Tipper (UMA, Consults, M FA)
Service Profile:
Vision:  Establish workflow that eliminates need to first open a brokerage account before opening an advisory
account
 There should be ON E: enrollment process; maintenance process; client relationship policy statement,
which includes progr ess to goals.
Service Workflow: (Client service management from initiation, prioritization, execution, resolution to communication)
Current
Process
Observations
 Need better front end and easier navigation.
 UMA forced to use IP tool, but if another account/program is being opened, the IP tool/info won’t be
carried over to other program ; they need to use a different W M tool
 Need 1 dashboard to generate proposal and enroll; enrollm ent would be a later step, but should be
part of the same dashboard.
Pain Points  the client agre ement is too long and complicated; Enrollment system /process not intuitive; multiple
welcome kits going out to clients during the same ‘enrollment’ (happens when m ultiple accounts are
being opened and approved over a series of days; need to be smarter about tracking what’s happening
and consolidate client touch points to one.)
Improvement
Opportunities
 Jen sugge sted we look closely at UMA process. It’s the newest program and encompasse s multiple
accounts/programs. The one Client Agreement is in place and seems to be working so far (to be
confirm ed in field). The PO and business side expected the rest of the process would be ‘combined’ as
well, but it didn’t work out that way. Separate packages are still being sent out to clients for each
account. A disconnect with Technology as far as delivery goes.
Other: (Observations not directly related to workflow im provements but important to note)
Comments &
Observations
N/A
Next Steps /
Follow‐up
 Jen suggests we utilize MSG Advisory Council and individual Specialists in the field, Ned Daynes, Mike
Spielman, Rob Jarvis, John Quinn.
 Jen will review the FA ‘complaint folder’ and share pertinent info with us.
 Asked us to include Latin America in our study (Global Workstation different; in some ways better,
other ways not.)
 Ken Marx is a good re source to slice and dice FA universe data
 Jen has survey questions from a couple years ago that was actually never executed, but she’ll share
the questions with us.
 Jen offered to review the CA survey questions for SS and JW.
Process Assessment Framework

8. “In the past, it could be days
before we got our hands on the
documents that we needed to
customs, and now that transpires
in a matter of minutes.”
International Trade Compliance, Parker Hannifin
Increasing Operational Efficiency and Visibility

9. Increasing Operational Efficiency and Visibility
"Before partnering with Iron
Mountain, we needed to drop
everything, locate and pull
invoices and research transaction
histories manually. Now we have
online access to invoices to
review with a quick keystroke.“
Disbursements and Commitment Accounting, Sungard

10. CONFIDENTIAL 10