|
28 - CLJ Parking Module Modernization
|
|
Request Status Summary |
Request Status |
Completed |
JISC Priority |
0 |
Status Comment |
Feasibility Study Report delivered to customers on April 2, 2012. |
|
Request Detail |
Requestor Name: |
|
Marr, Cynthia D |
Origination Date: |
|
09/02/2010 |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
|
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
|
Original Title: |
Parking and Vehicle Related Violations Case Management Solution |
Request Type: |
New System
|
Which Systems are affected? |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
Data Warehouse
Judicial Access Browser System (JABS)
Other
|
Other affected Systems / Business Processes |
VRV Data Exchange |
Business Area: |
Court Case Management
|
Communities Impacted: |
CLJ Judges
CLJ Managers
State Agencies
Public and Other Users
|
Impact if not Resolved: |
High |
|
|
What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
The existing JIS Parking Module was designed to process parking violations and was developed prior to the advent of red-light and photo-speed violations, also known as vehicle related violations (VRV). The existing parking module limits the court's ability to efficiently monitor parking and vehicle related violations, receivables, and interfaces with other agencies. Highlights of the known limitations are included in the attached document.
The evolution of vehicle related violations highlights the business need for a new JIS parking module.
|
Expected Benefit: |
- Integration with the existing parking/VRV data exchange will minimize clerical resources devoted to data entry and increase the accuracy and completeness of case filing.
- Increased revenue with more proficient monitoring and use of time payments and collection resources.
- Streamlined integration with DOL to provide owner information and update vehicle hold requests.
|
Any Additional Information: |
Sierra Systems, in January 2010, conducted a feasibility study of the tolling case management system provided by Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation (ETCC), the current WSDOT tolling customer service vendor. Additionally, Sierra Systems prepared a Requirements document for a VRV solution for AOC.
|
Endorsement Detail
|
Endorsing Committee |
|
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
Endorser Name: |
|
Vance, Aimee R |
Origination Date: |
|
09/08/2010 |
|
Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
AOC Analysis Detail
|
Analysis Date: |
01/07/2011
|
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 to Implement? |
Up to $40,000 |
Feasibility Study needed? |
Yes |
Court Level User Group |
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
Approving Authority |
CIO |
|
Request Summary: |
The existing JIS Parking Module was designed to process parking violations and was developed prior to the advent of red-light and photo-speed violations, also known as VRV. The existing parking module limits the court's ability to efficiently monitor parking and vehicle related violations, receivables, and interfaces with other agencies. The evolution of vehicle related violations has clearly illustrated the business need for a new JIS parking module. |
Business Impacts: |
Law enforcement agencies around the state are now using cameras to enforce red light, railroad crossing, construction and school zone laws on vehicles. The increased volume of violations from these multiple sources has resulted in an increase in day to day workload for court staff. CLJs file a high volume of vehicle related violation cases. The current information systems are unable to meet this new business challenge and need to be adapted. |
Summary of Proposed Solution |
AOC analyzed all of the available documents related to the business and technical issues related to the JIS parking module and VRV. The analysis revealed that the requirements, needed to move forward with a project to address the business and technical issues, are incomplete. Based upon this analysis, AOC proposes to complete the gathering and documentation of requirements and conduct a feasibility study on how best to solve the issues that currently exist in the system. |
Proposed Solution |
AOC proposes to complete the requirements gathering efforts that have occurred in the last year. This will ensure that the needs of all courts are addressed. In addition, AOC will work with the Department of Licensing and the Department of Transportation to ensure the interfaces between JIS systems and these agencies are accounted for appropriately. This proposal also includes a small feasibility study that will be completed in order to provide guidance on how best to address the unmet requirements. A significant amount of work has already been completed by AOC, court staff and Sierra Systems. This work will serve as the basis of this proposed work effort, resulting in a reduced level of effort to accomplish the goals of this request. |
|
|
Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
Endorsing Committee |
|
District and Municipal Court Management Association |
Endorser Name: |
|
Vance, Aimee R |
Origination Date: |
|
01/10/2011 |
|
Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
CLUG |
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
Chair of Group |
Cynthia Marr |
Date of Decision |
01/11/2011 |
Decision |
Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
Ranking |
Request Importance |
High |
|
Scoring Detail |
Score / Possible |
Business Value |
9 / 10 |
Relative Priority |
8 / 10 |
Cost |
4 / 5 |
Complexity/Level of Effort |
8 / 10 |
Risk |
4 / 5 |
Benefit / Impact |
5 / 5 |
Impact of Doing Nothing |
5 / 5 |
Total Score |
43 / 50 |
|
|
Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
Analysis Date: |
02/28/2011 |
Implementation Stage
|
Authorized
|
|
Comments:
|
This request was authorized by Jeff Hall on Feb 2, 2011.
|
|
|
Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
Analysis Date: |
02/28/2011 |
Implementation Stage
|
Scheduled
|
|
Comments:
|
This request was scheduled by the Operations Control Board on Feb 14, 2011.
|
|
|
Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
Analysis Date: |
|
Implementation Stage
|
In Progress
|
|
Comments:
|
Work is in prgoress on this project.
|
|
|
Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
Analysis Date: |
04/10/2012 |
Implementation Stage
|
Authorized
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Prioritized
|
|
Comments:
|
The Feasibility Study Report for this request was delivered to customers on April 2, 2012.
|
|
|
Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
Analysis Date: |
|
Implementation Stage
|
Authorized
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Non-Prioritized
|
|
Comments:
|
Updating prioritization status due to error.
|
|
|
Implementation Detail
|
Analysis Date: |
05/15/2012 |
Implementation Stage
|
Authorized
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Non-Prioritized
|
|
Comments:
|
ITG Analysis preformance results attached.
|
|
|
|
|