Which is important, to keep the document as a hard copy or as a soft copy?

I think :to keep records of any document in soft copy is better then hard copy.Because if due to some miss happen eg.
fire hazard,effect of humidity/damp,if hard copy is lost we can't make/get duplicate copy of any important document.So,if it's kept as soft copy at least we able to get printout of any document.But as a Document Controller i always keep record in soft copy as well as in hard copy.We easily can't see full view clearly with all dimensions etc of a big drawing at a time in soft copy but if it's in hard copy,we can get help of hard copy.

I believe that both the hard copy and the soft copy have their merits. This is especially apparent when working closely with Senior Management.

Hard copies hold the signature, initials, instrutions and notations of a member Senior Management. It is important to file this away in a hard copy file with a great filing system. It has been my experience that six months after you think that you will never need a document, it is usually requested for some reason or another. The original signature, initials, instructions and notes are usually necessary for the purpose the document is requested for.  

Soft copies are great when kept in a comprehensive filing system and are easy to locate at a moment's notice and easy to send via email. This soft copy may show the signature, initials, instructions and notes; but because it is not the original penning of the executive, its authenticity could be called to question. Avoid the headache and have the hard copy available.

This is the advice that comes from my many years of administration experience.

both are important since they can be very helpful in various ways. Hard copy is on an easy tool and references, while soft copy on the other hand can be shared / reproduced and kept for a long time. 

I would say both are equally inportant. Different  people have different style of working and preferences. People working in traditional manner and who are leass tech savy esp in govt organisations would alwys prefer hard copies, however tech savy people would find it easy referring to soft copies. Both hard copy and soft copy have their merits and demerits. As it is always adivisable to have a back up in place, I thing both are equally importnat.

Review existing programs and adapt existing program as required. Make recommendations about adapting programs to meet unique needs.

Both methods are required

Soft copy for long term storage with security level to access and copy or print .

hard copy for short term usage with update every1:2 years .

On the basis of my experience, I have no hesitation to say that to keep a hard copy of a document is more useful when needed as a previous reference. No doubt we can retriew in seconds a soft copy of a document saved years back, but that would be of no use if the signing officer/authority has left the company and joined another job. In that case what we can do? And if we have hard and signed copy in the relevant file, we can get it and even make more copies of it. Moreover soft copies can be lost due to hard drive crash, virous attacks, and other possible reasons. 

keep both hard and soft copy