In the not too distant past, many managers used to dictate meeting notes and other documents into Dictaphone recordings which were then sent to secretaries for typing.
As progress made its never ending march forward, nearly everyone got access to a desktop wordprocessor, and employing secretaries got more expensive. As a result, both the number of secretaries and the practice of dictating notes and letters decreased, in favour of managers doing their own typing.
Ironically, many of today’s managers, who now type their own notes and meeting minutes, probably earn quite a lot more than a secretary would. However creating a documentary history of what was said in a meeting is often a basic necessity and cost of keeping accurate corporate records.
So let’s explore an example where a manager earns say, 50k (or roughly 25 per hour) and takes about 30 minutes to type a set of meeting minutes. The approximate cost of creating those notes would be calculated at 12.50 (I.E. dollars, pounds or euros, depending on the currency of the managers’ salary). And doesn’t take into account the time, distraction and loss of productivity of having to write the notes on a piece of paper during the meeting.
We believe that 151-151 will save at least 50% of the cost of creating the meeting notes in the example above?
Here’s how ….
- The person chairing the meeting will take their laptop (or tablet/smartphone) into the meeting and record the meeting using the 151-151 local device App.
- During the meeting, each time something is said that might be noteworthy, the chairperson will click (or tap) to create a “time-tag” linked to the 151-151 recording. The noteworthy conversation (agreement or decision) is then repeated (I.E. dictated) and captured within a time-tag period of the recording.
- The chairperson will create X number of time-tag periods which the 151-151 technology can easily turn into text when the meeting is finished.
- Let’s say you create 6 time-tag periods during the recording, which correspond to the 6 sets of notes (and possibly other observations) the chairperson would normally have scribbled on a piece of paper.
- When the meeting is finished and the recording saved, the chairperson simply clicks to login to their 151-151 sound file management console and uploads both the recording and time-tags to their 151-151 account.
- Now they click to “Auto(machine)-transcribe” (or even Human Transcribe*) the time-tagged periods which were created during the meeting recording.
- In a matter of seconds (longer in the case of a human transcription*) the 151-151 software will create a draft set of notes containing the dictated time-tagged words which is ready for them to edit and tidy before distribution.
So if the old way of creating a meeting document cost 12.50, what does the 151-151 way cost?
- It will depend on the size of the sound file created, but for the file upload and cloud storage, it will cost about 0.60.
- The auto(machine)-transcription cost will be about 0.10
- Plus, let’s say about 10 minutes of editing/tidying (I.E. 25 per hour / 6 = approx. 4.16)
That’s a total of 4.86 (approx). A saving of over 20 minutes in time and therefore 60% cost, when compared to the 12.50 it cost to type the notes.
And because you now also have a 100% accurate recording of what was said during the meeting (not just a single persons’ written interpretation) you might even consider relying on the transcripted notes as they are (I.E. forego the editing/tidying) and save even more.
With 151-151, you can easily send the full recording, along with any transcribed notes and time-tags to anyone you think appropriate. This makes it easy for them to replay only those parts of the recording in which they are most interested.
That’s a 60% efficiency saving (at least!) plus, if necessary, everyone can replay a 100% accurate record of what was said, discussed and agreed.
* A human transcription would cost more, but will almost certainly be more accurate. This results in higher transcription costs, but less editing. The relative savings will therefore depend on the cost of less editing compared to the increased cost of a human transcription.