Oacdp winter conference 2004
Download
1 / 64

OACDP Winter Conference 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


OACDP Winter Conference 2004 Marion County Imaging Presentation January 14, 2004 History 1991 - City of Salem and Marion County begin a joint document imaging project. Filenet was the preferred vendor.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

OACDP Winter Conference 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Oacdp winter conference 2004 l.jpg

OACDP Winter Conference 2004

Marion County

Imaging PresentationJanuary 14, 2004


History l.jpg

History

  • 1991 - City of Salem and Marion County begin a joint document imaging project. Filenet was the preferred vendor.

  • Marion County Sheriff’s Office begins to scan incident reports starting with 1990. Business Services also begins to scan certain financial documents.

  • No other departments participated mainly due to cost.


Upgrading legacy system l.jpg

Upgrading Legacy System

  • September 2000 – City decides to upgrade from Filenet to Panagon.

  • If County wants to participate, it will cost $49,000 for hardware and $19,000 for software. This would only cover the Sheriff’s Office.

  • Additional $22,000 for FIMS integration.

  • Other County departments decide not to upgrade because of the cost.


Imaging committee l.jpg

Imaging Committee

  • Committee chartered by Director of newly formed County I.T. Department in May 2001.

  • Committee charged with providing recommendations to I.T. Director in preparation for June 30, 2002 split of City and County Information Technology Departments.


Recommendations l.jpg

Recommendations

  • Before any imaging proposals are considered, a thorough review of the proposal should be done by the Clerks Office. This review is not necessarily a technical review of systems or hardware but it would look at the proposal from a records management perspective.


Recommendations continued l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • Marion County IT staff should be closely involved in all imaging acquisition, purchase, and development. IT staff should be responsible for selecting the best technical and most cost-effective solution.


Recommendations continued7 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • County Departments that are heavily invested into the current Filenet/Panagon environment should probably remain where they are. This applies mostly to Business Services and the Sheriffs Office. This recommendation also suggests that Marion County should take a phased approach to bringing these applications ‘in-house’. Any future development or new departmental applications should be done in cooperation and in conjunction with Marion County IT staff. It is imperative that Marion County technical staff be familiar with the systems so that they can be successfully managed at some point in the future.


Recommendations continued8 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • There are other departments that have their own ‘in-house’ imaging systems or have imaging as a part of a larger application. The recommendation is that those departments (ex: Assessor, Clerk, and PW) stay with what they have until it becomes necessary to move or migrate away from those systems.


Recommendations continued9 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • All potential vendors (including the Data Center) should be specific and exact with estimates for imaging applications and systems. Real costs should be figured for a period of 5 years with replacement costs being factored in. The county should enter into service level agreements with vendors, contractors, or service providers. The county should devise a more equitable and understandable method of allocating costs for shared county systems.


Recommendations continued10 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • Imaging applications should be ‘grouped’ by similar document classes (see Information and Document Flow attachment). Groups include Criminal Justice, Land/Building records, General Business, and Financial applications. Imaging decisions should never be made by individual department before consulting other departments in the same group. Integration and Standardization within groups should be focused on.


Recommendations continued11 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

Imaging applications should be web-centric wherever possible.


Recommendations continued12 l.jpg

Recommendations(continued)

  • Imaging systems that ‘lock’ the county into proprietary file formats should not be considered. New systems should be open and accessible enough for the county to use images and data for further in-house development.


Redaction an edited work especially a reissue new edition webster s l.jpg

Redaction(an edited work; especially a reissue; new edition – Webster's)

  • Redaction is the ability to ‘redact’ (make unreadable) certain portions of a document.

  • This is important to criminal justice agencies because of court ordered expungements.

  • Discovered that Marion County was not properly redacting. Only highlighting (annotating) with black high-lighter. Annotations could be turned on or off.

  • Documents had to be reprinted, blacked out manually and re-scanned.

  • Filenet quote for redaction was $15,000 with $2,600 annual maintenance and we had to write our own custom interface.

  • Starting looking at Laserfiche.


Splitting systems l.jpg

Splitting Systems

  • Began to look at Laserfiche but could not get cooperation with existing vendor to do conversion.

  • Conducted many meeting with Data Center and Filenet to discuss issues pertaining to the split.

  • Many problems and issues with license split.

  • Costs for creating two systems and upgrading estimated at $100,000.


Another look at laserfiche l.jpg

Another Look at Laserfiche

  • Annual licensing costs were only 25% of existing system.

  • Laserfiche stores images in non-proprietary format, easy to integrate with other applications.

  • Easy to use and administer.

  • Scanning errors were easy to correct.

  • Cost of converting documents would be half the amount that Filenet quoted for just splitting the systems.


Reasons for success l.jpg

Reasons for Success

  • County hired Imaging programmer/administrator.

  • Documents were downloaded from Filenet taken off-site and processed one at a time and re-written as Laserfiche ‘tif’ image.

  • Administrator worked closely with new vendor in all aspects of conversion, installation, testing, and training.

  • Easy to develop custom scanning and retrieval interfaces that are web-based.

  • Modifications such as additional index fields are easily done.


Sheriff s office l.jpg

Sheriff’s Office

  • Records staff can scan much faster and are very happy with the system.

  • Records staff can search on indexed fields directly into Laserfiche.

  • Staff can also use OASIS (which indexes all text of police reports). OASIS links directly into Laserfiche document database.

  • Outside agencies participating in OASIS will soon be able to view Laserfiche documents as well.


Application development l.jpg

Application Development

  • Image files scattered over disks

    • Jpg, gif, bmp, tif, camera formats, ….

  • VB and tiff files

  • Vendor solutions

  • LaserFiche


Current projects l.jpg

Business Services

FIMS (Financial management system)

Public Works

Land Use

Planning

Survey Graphic Index

Building Inspection

Road records

Current Projects


Slide28 l.jpg

FIMS

  • Data center managed

    • FileNet and flexfields

  • Oracle 11i

    • Convert from custom code

    • Attached images

  • Converted 180,000 images


Slide29 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide30 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide31 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide32 l.jpg

FIMS

PO, Requisition, Invoice


Slide33 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide34 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide35 l.jpg

FIMS


Slide36 l.jpg

FIMS


Pw land use l.jpg

PW – Land Use

  • Merging departments

  • Moving people – 1 month/new building

  • 10 file cabinets

  • Shared use by land use/engineering

  • Large percentage of redundant documents


Pw land use planning l.jpg

PW – Land Use/Planning

  • 60+ percent of land use documents are generated from planning

  • Paper is sent to several other agencies

  • Engineering also has a similar set a documents in cabinets


Land use l.jpg

Land Use


Slide42 l.jpg

Land Use


Slide43 l.jpg

Land Use


Slide44 l.jpg

Land Use


Slide47 l.jpg

CODE

  • If m_oDoc Is Nothing Then Set m_oDoc = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")

  • m_oDoc.Navigate "http://172.30.2.65/lf3/index.asp?TLID=" + sTaxLotIDNumber, , , "LUTSGIS"

  • Use for testing in IE:

  • http://172.30.2.65/lf3/index.asp?TLID=072W30BC04200


Slide48 l.jpg

PW – Survey Graphic Index


Pw building inspection l.jpg

PW – Building Inspection

  • Cannon LaserDisk Images - 600,000 documents

    • Converted to LaserFiche

  • Microfiche – 200,000 est.

    • First deliverable here, 5% complete, 6 months to completion

    • $25,000 contract($0.05 per 16mm and $0.28 per 35 mm)

  • Paper

    • Scanning backlog from 1997 to present

    • Approximately 100,000 pages of paper per year.

    • Presently scanning 1 day a week, in process of getting more help.


Future enterprise app l.jpg

Future – Enterprise App


Any questions l.jpg

Any questions?


ad
  • Login