Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project URL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project

URL Integration – Kane County CMS Assessment Project Final Presentation October 25, 2011 Amir Holmes, Senior Business Analyst & Project Manager Dave Usery, CEO

Proposed Solution

• To fully benefit the County as an enterprise, the agencies that

exchange information with the court must be included in the solution.

• Given current standards, agency systems – from different product

vendors - can interoperate at a level not feasible before.

• Overlaying all of this is a standardized architecture for justice

information sharing, grounded in service oriented architecture.

• Common data definitions have been developed and

standardized.

• The recommended solution provides for an incremental approach

to bringing up individual exchanges, as well as CMS components.

• The important overriding concern is that all investments meet the

standards and build for future growth.

Overall Recommendations

• The Clerk’s Office should replace the existing JANO

CMS with a new CMS which meets minimally Core Case Management Functions.

• The States Attorney’s Office should acquire a CMS to

replace paper driven business process and multiple Access databases.

• The Public Defender’s Office should acquire a CMS to

replace current application.

• Court Services should consider reissuing or

purchasing from the open RFP they issued last winter.

• JANO data should be converted and scrubbed into

normalized relational database.

Recommendations – New Court Case Management System (CMS)

• While there is consensus that the existing Court CMS

should be replaced, a new Court CMS will require changes to the Court business process and the way that other agencies interact with the Courts.

• In order for the new Court CMS to be successful,

users need to “buy in” to this notion of change; we encourage the County to support this environment of change.

• Clerk’s CMS must accommodate the technical

architecture that will facilitate data sharing/exchanges in its workflow.

• Agencies should share information system to system,

via the standards-based approach put forward.

Kane County Information Exchange Analysis

• 390 Documented Exchanges
• Priorities Defined for Exchange

Implementation

• For implementation purposes, we have

broken these priority and the other exchanges into groups of four phases. The intention is to implement this incrementally.

Recommended Information Sharing Standards

• GLOBAL REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE

(GRA)

• Endorsed by GLOBAL in 2004.
• Based on Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), a

widely recognized approach to sharing information.

• GRA solutions to information exchanges are made up
• f a combination of the connection method (web

services), the exchange language (NIEM), and the security specifications (encryption at the transport layer, data layer, etc.).

• NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model,

provides a common semantic understanding of data formatted in a semantically consistent manner.

Recommended Technical Architecture

• This recommendation proposes a GRA

conformant architecture that clearly delineates the functions related to the relevant stakeholders.

• High priority exchanges will be established in

an incremental fashion using NIEM-conformant messages.

• The messages will be triggered by a business

event at the sending agency, sent to the receiving agency, and processed into their application.

High-Level Architecture Diagram

Recommended Enterprise Implementation Plan

• Establish a justice information sharing

governance structure.

• All criminal justice partners should have their
• wn case or records management systems.
• Process of securing funds and procuring these

systems happens immediately.

• Criminal justice agencies, including the Circuit

Clerk’s Office, should leverage the County IT Department’s infrastructure for hosting and networking, leaving the individual case management applications the responsibility of their respective agencies.

Course of Action

• Incremental Approach to Implementation
• One of the first activities would be the development of RFPs for

the Court, and if possible, the SAO, Public Defender, and Court Services case management systems.

• Vendor commits to the interoperability standards and capability

to exchange the information the County has identified.

• The Service Specifications for the identified exchanges can also

begin as soon as resources become available.

• Web services can be generated using the work product

generated in the Service Specifications.

• Infrastructure procurement and implementation can begin in the

second year.

• Exchanges can be brought on incrementally based upon

stakeholder priorities.

Timeline and Related Costs

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison

• The implementation of the Enterprise-wide

solution will certainly be a large undertaking.

• This study projects the five (5) year costs of

maintaining the existing legacy system to minimally be $5,922,345.85.

• That figure does not include costs of the several

ancillary systems being currently pursued by the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, with the exception of the proposed data warehouse project.

• It also does not assume any funding for case

management systems for the State’s Attorney, the Public Defender, or Court Services.

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison

• The projected total costs for the new Enterprise solution over

five (5) years is $12,641,950.05, which includes the full implementation of the “to be” environment. Specifically, our estimates include:

• Funds for new Court CMS, as well as CMS systems for the

State’s Attorney, the Public Defender, and Court Services.

• Costs for current court staff, who will be critical in guiding

the implementation of the new CMS.

• Maintenance and support costs for the existing system

until the new CMS is operational.

• Implementation of over 25 cross-agency workflows.
• The difference between the existing legacy system costs

and the projected costs for the new solution - $6,719,604.20 – represents the County’s true costs over the five-year period of this project.

Year-by-Year Cost Breakdown

Kane County ICJIS Strategic Plan - Year by Year Cost Breakdown Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V TOTAL Agency System Data Warehouse for Data Conversion $ 800,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8000,000.00 Existing System Maintenance $ 18,750.00 $ 18,750.00 $ 18,750.00 $ - $ - $ 56,250.00 New Court Clerk CMS $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 4,080,000.00 New SAO CMS $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 1,540,000.00 New Public Defender CMS $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 1,078,000.00 New Court Services CMS $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 126,000.00 $ 1,078,000.00 IT Infrastructure & Project Management ESB Configuration & Support $ - $ 35,000.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 53,900.00 Procurement Assistance, Project Management & Support $ 130,000.00 $ 31,250.00 $ 31,250.00 $ 31,2500.00 $ 31,2500.00 $ 255,000.00 Court IT Staff $ 431,779.92 $ 440,415.52 $ 449,223.83 $ 458,208.31 $ 467,372.47 $ 2,247,000.05 Exchanges Phase I – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ 90,000.00 $ 210,000.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 375,600.00 Phase II – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ 105,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 439,800.00 Phase III – Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ - $ 60,000.00 $ 195,000.00 $ 23,400.00 $ 278,400.00 Phase IV -– Requirements Development / Exchange Implementation $ - $ - $ - $ 90,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 360,000.00 TOTAL $ 3,670,529.92 $3,040,415.52 $2,292,723.83 $1,810,358.31 $1,827,922.47 $12,641,950.05

Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis

• Estimated benefit of $1,277,031.50/year beginning in Year III.
• Kane County could expect to recover its investment ($6,719,604.20) in the

new CMS environment and integration after Year VIII.

• We believe this estimate to be conservative, as once the new CMS’s are
• perational efficiencies will be immediate.

$(8,000,000.00) $(7,000,000.00) $(6,000,000.00) $(5,000,000.00) $(4,000,000.00) $(3,000,000.00) $(2,000,000.00) $(1,000,000.00) $- $1,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COST YEARS

Next Steps

• CMS Procurement for Circuit Clerk, Court Services,

State’s Attorney, and Public Defender

• Begin Developing Exchange Artifacts for Phase I

Exchanges:

• Arrest/Case Reports
• Charging Documents
• Arrest Warrant
• Warrant Quash
• Supplemental Arrest/Case Reports
• Defendant Status Query

Procurement Strategies/Timeline

• Developing a deeper understanding of COTS products

in each area prior to RFP release – issue RFI/RFQ.

• Issue one (1) RFI/RFQ, allowing vendors to respond to

all four systems or a subset, or to team with other vendors.

• RFPs to closely follow for vendors that meet the

County’s pre-defined threshold as “qualified” based on RFI/RFQ.

• Review responses and conduct vendor

demonstrations, contact references.

• Make recommendation to the County Board regarding

specific vendors for specific products.

Specific Procurement Activities

• Develop RFI/RFQ to elicit initial information from vendors.
• Document specific business functions for each CMS product

(Court, SAO, PD, Court Services).

• Review RFI response and facilitate County justice practitioner

and stakeholder consideration, with the goal of narrowing the eligible vendors for the RFP.

• Draft and release RFP.
• Establish RFP review process and scoring tools.
• Facilitate and coordinate orals/demos for the County.
• Assist with contract negotiations and SOW preparation.
• Throughout the process, creating and supporting the RFP

review stakeholders as well as the County Board in terms of making decisions and moving through the process as a governance group.

Exchange Artifacts

• Convene individuals from both sending and

receiving agencies to discuss specific data elements, payload that will be exchanged.

• Begin the process of documenting this

interagency workflow, mapping data elements to NIEM, and developing web services, i.e. creating the Service Specification Package for each of the six (6) Phase I exchanges.