| |
171 - Connect CDT and AKA
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
Authorized |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Zitkovich, Mickey L |
| Origination Date: |
| |
01/11/2013 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
|
| Request Type: |
Change or Enhancement
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Business Area: |
Calendaring
|
| Communities Impacted: |
CLJ Managers
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
Medium |
| Impact Description: |
A person is either at the window, on the phone, or in front of the judge and wants all his court date. The clerk looks up CDT on one case not realizing he has other court dates connected to an AKA and he does not get all his dates resulting in the defendant not showing and a warrant for his arrest being issued. |
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
An individual that has two name codes, one being a true name and the other an AKA all the cases show up on the DCH, however they do not all show up on the CDT. |
| Expected Benefit: |
Reprogram CDT to show all calendared cases for true and AKA names |
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Vance, Aimee R |
| Origination Date: |
| |
01/17/2013 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
03/01/2013
|
| Request Rationale |
| Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans: |
Yes |
| Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards: |
Yes |
| Breadth of Solution Benefit: |
Wide |
| Cost Estimates |
| Cost to Implement? |
137 hours |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
No |
| Court Level User Group |
| Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
| Approving Authority |
CIO |
|
| Request Summary: |
At present, the Set Court Date (CDT) screen in the Judicial Information System (JIS) only shows calendared cases for specific name code entered regardless of whether a true name or AKAs exist. This can lead to confusion as court staff or judges may not see all calendared case for an individual. This request seeks to enhance CDT so that it will show all calendared cases for the true name and AKA names. |
| Business Impacts: |
This enhancement would allow court staff to see all calendar cases for an individual’s true names and AKA names with a single action. |
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) proposes to include calendared cases for AKAs on the output of the CDT screen. |
| Proposed Solution |
AOC proposes to enhance CDT to include calendared cases for AKAs linked to the name entered. The AKAs will be designated on the output with an “A” or other similar device to clearly delineate which cases are for the true name and which are under the AKAs. The project will also consider increasing the maximum number of individual proceeding records for an individual from 99 to a larger number, to be determined later. This will be included if an analysis determines that it is necessary for the proper operation of the enhancement. |
| Additional Systems Affected |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Communities Impacted |
CLJ Judges
CLJ Managers
|
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Vance, Aimee R |
| Origination Date: |
| |
03/13/2013 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
| Chair of Group |
Cynthia Marr |
| Date of Decision |
03/21/2013 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
| Ranking |
| Request Priority |
8 |
| Request Importance |
Medium |
|
| Scoring Detail |
Score / Possible |
| Business Value |
9 / 10 |
| Relative Priority |
7 / 10 |
| Cost |
5 / 5 |
| Complexity/Level of Effort |
10 / 10 |
| Risk |
5 / 5 |
| Benefit / Impact |
5 / 5 |
| Impact of Doing Nothing |
3 / 5 |
| Total Score |
44 / 50 |
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
Authorized |
| Prioritization Option: |
Non-Prioritized |
|
|
|
|
|