OACDP Winter Conference 2004

1. OACDP Winter Conference 2004 Marion County Imaging PresentationJanuary 14, 2004

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Recommendations(continued) Imaging applications should be web-centric wherever possible.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

26. Application Development • Image files scattered over disks • Jpg, gif, bmp, tif, camera formats, …. • VB and tiff files • Vendor solutions • LaserFiche

27. Business Services FIMS (Financial management system) Public Works Land Use Planning Survey Graphic Index Building Inspection Road records Current Projects

28. FIMS • Data center managed • FileNet and flexfields • Oracle 11i • Convert from custom code • Attached images • Converted 180,000 images

29. FIMS

30. FIMS

31. FIMS

32. FIMS PO, Requisition, Invoice

33. FIMS

34. FIMS

35. FIMS

36. FIMS

39. 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

40. 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

41. Land Use

42. Land Use

43. Land Use

44. Land Use

47. 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

48. PW – Survey Graphic Index