| |
45 - Appellate Courts ECMS
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
In Progress |
| JISC Priority |
3 |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Johnson, Richard D |
| Origination Date: |
| |
10/26/2010 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
Court of Appeals Executive Committee |
|
| Original Title: |
Appellate Electronic Filing |
| Request Type: |
New System
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Appellate Court System (ACORDS)
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Business Area: |
Court Case Management
|
| Communities Impacted: |
Appellate Court Judges
Appellate Court Clerks
Public and Other Users
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
High |
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
See attached request |
| Expected Benefit: |
See attached request |
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
Court of Appeals Executive Committee |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Johnson, Richard D |
| Origination Date: |
| |
10/28/2010 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
| Endorser’s Explanation and Comments |
On behalf of Court of Appeals Executive Committee as directed by Presiding Chief Judge Dennis Sweeney |
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
01/11/2011
|
| 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 Benefit Analysis Complete? |
No |
| Cost to Implement? |
2,990 - 4,780 hours plus contractor costs |
| Projected Maintenance cost? |
TBD |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
Yes |
| Court Level User Group |
| Appellate Courts |
| Approving Authority |
JISC |
|
| Request Summary: |
The COA and the Supreme Court require immediate action to develop and implement a web portal to facilitate electronic filing and an EDM system to support sharing documents across all four courts, indexing, storage, retrieval, and searching of documents, and an integrated workflow and correspondence module to improve productivity and efficiency in the processing of cases.
· Web Portal
· Electronic Document Management
· Case Management Integration (to eliminate double entry of information)
|
| Business Impacts: |
The existing manual, paper-based system is extremely resource intensive. Currently most appellate court processes are manual and paper driven. Manual internal case processing methods are slow, expensive, inefficient, and lead to an unacceptable lost/misfile rate. The paper based records not only prohibit multiple internal users, but also prevent access to the trial courts, litigants, the public, other divisions of the COAs and the Supreme Court. |
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
The appellate courts require a statewide enterprise document management system that interfaces with an appellate case management system to provide an integrated solution to support their business needs. This will greatly increase the efficiency of the courts. The complete solution for the courts includes the following components that work together: Web Portal supporting E-filing; Document and Information Access; Workflow supported Document and Case management. |
| Proposed Solution |
AOC proposes a solution that addresses the following areas; EDM and Case Management integration. EDM is comprised of a Web Portal supporting E-filing, E-Document and Information Access with Document Management and Workflow. Case Management integration requires that the EDM integrates with a CMS to eliminate double data entry. Currently the CMS used by the Appellate Courts is ACORDS. The preference is for the EDM to integrate with the existing case management application. |
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
Court of Appeals Executive Committee |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Johnson, Richard D |
| Origination Date: |
| |
01/11/2011 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Appellate Courts |
| Chair of Group |
Rich Johnson |
| Date of Decision |
01/13/2011 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
| Ranking |
| Request Priority |
1 |
| Request Importance |
High |
|
| Scoring Detail |
Score / Possible |
| Business Value |
10 / 10 |
| Relative Priority |
10 / 10 |
| Cost |
3 / 5 |
| Complexity/Level of Effort |
6 / 10 |
| Risk |
3 / 5 |
| Benefit / Impact |
5 / 5 |
| Impact of Doing Nothing |
5 / 5 |
| Total Score |
42 / 50 |
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
Authorized |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This request was authorized by the JISC on Feb 18, 2011.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
03/03/2011 |
| Implementation Stage |
Scheduled |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Project is scheduled for Apr 4 - Jul 31, 2011.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Work began on this project on April 4th, 2011.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
08/08/2011 |
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
The feasibility study report was completed on August 4, 2011. On August 5, 2011 the JISC authorized AOC to proceed with developing an RFP for the buy option presented in this study.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
08/22/2011 |
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Report added comparing initial AOC analysis estimates with actual work effort expended during the feasibility study.
|
|
|
|
|
