Order in the Court

 Implementing configurable workflow as part of Enterprise Content Management (ECM) obviously systematizes, streamlines, and expedites information and process flow in a multitude of ways, big and small.   One major benefit, often acknowledged but too rarely quantified or considered in sufficient detail, is something that DOESN’T happen: Documents don’t get lost.  While everyone knows that is a good thing, rarely do they reflect (in a business sense) just how good it is.

In one of the memorable Biblical parables, Jesus observes that when one lamb out of a hundred goes missing, once it is found, there will be more rejoicing for the lost lamb than for the 99 that were where they were supposed to be all the time.  There are some good reasons for that rejoicing, as everyone who has participated in an intensive search for a missing, critical document knows all too well.

In the traditional, paper document and hard file-centric justice system world, lost (mislaid, misfiled, misdelivered, you name it) documents and files are part of everyday life.  While everyone knows how disruptive, not to mention annoying, this situation is, it is really hard to quantify the true cost.

Here’s a hint: It’s a LOT more than people usually give it credit for.  In fact, considering document flow among and within jails, prosecutors, law enforcement, courts, etc., if the true cost in both dollars and in negative impact on the core mission of delivery of justice were calculated, it would often be enough, in and of itself, to justify implementation of ECM with workflow across and throughout the justice system.  Consider the impacts of a lost document or file:

• You have to spend time looking for it. (This is the one cost people usually try to quantify.  Usually they underestimate it; but in any event, it is but the tip of the iceberg.)
• You don’t have it, so you can’t use it. (Picture people standing around in court; or a file sitting on a desk waiting to be processed while waiting for a document that can’t be found, often while a deadline runs.)
• You aren’t sure what it says, so you either wait or risk error.
• You may have to take it away from someone else who is using it when you find it.
• You may not even know it exists (and the cost of this one alone can be astronomical).
• Someone who shouldn’t be handling and/or seeing it may be the one to find it.

Small wonder that all of the above give rise to perhaps the greatest expense of all: Processes and procedures designed to guard against losing documents and files.  (Ah, if only they worked!)  Of these, the most pervasive, insidious, expensive, and difficult to dislodge, is the making and keeping of duplicate copies.

Implementation of ECM with configurable workflow can virtually eliminate the costs associated with missing documents and files, particularly when handled in conjunction with e-filing.  In the paper-centric system, every instance a document or file is handled, moved, viewed, created, received, filed, or even kept on a desk constitutes a potential “point of failure” at which it can go missing.  By contrast, in a court with a properly implemented ECM system, any document or file can be accessed at any time from anywhere once it is in the system.  Thus, to the extent there is any potential “point of failure”, it is at the front end at the time of creation or receipt, where safeguards can be much more effectively and efficiently designed, implemented, and administered.

In developing business justification for implementation of ECM with workflow in the justice system, the virtual elimination of losing files should be more than just a “nice to have” side benefit.  It should be evaluated as a major potential financial driver.  So, make the celebrations at the return of the lost sheep a thing of the past – and stop worrying about the fence while you’re at it.

I have previously mentioned here that my brother is an engineer. In a recent conversation I was once again struck with some of the similarities of the challenges of managing manufacturing operations to those of managing court operations when my brother commented that he must repeatedly remind the facilities designers that “‘Retrieval’ is the second half of ‘Storage and Retrieval’”. To which, he wryly observed, the usual reaction is something like, “Yeah; so what’s your point?”.

The point for my brother is that, since his facilities have to actually build vehicles, it does him little good and much harm for the designers to design clever, efficient storage from which it is difficult to impossible to retrieve things at need.

My thoughts flashed back to my first court imaging project decades ago. Almost all of the emphasis was on getting the paper documents “imaged” into the new system. Because of the perceived added workload of having staff input the images and meta-data, a great amount of work went into streamlining the input process as much as possible. Thus, “Storage” was certainly considered at great length.

Far less obvious to those pioneers was the impact of “Retrieval”. The original system (mainframe based), was slow, awkward, obviously “different”, and difficult to use even for the willing, well-trained. For most people, it was about as pleasant to experience as a toothache. Most people who could, and all judges, still used the paper files and documents whenever they could.

Clearly, courts and court Electronic Content Management (ECM) systems have come a long, long way since then. Ease of use for end users has become a major objective in systems development and implementation. Even judges, once willing to participate in the process and unshackle themselves from physical files and documents, can now gain even easier and faster access to necessary information than was ever possible in the paper world. . (See How Paper-On-Demand Provides Judges with Documents that Work “Better than Paper”, posted December 3, 2012, http://courtblog.imagesoftinc.com/2012/12/03/how-paper-on-demand-provides-judges-with-documents-that-work-better-than-paper/.)

My brother’s remark caused me to consider that it may be that the “business case” for ECM in the courts is, in some instances, being made “backwards”. That is, usually the business case (correctly) identifies the increased efficiencies and cost savings that ECM can provide. But the (often unconscious, or at least assumed) view is from the “front”, or “Storage”, end: “Well, we have all these documents and files that we’ve got to put somewhere. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to just digitize them?” Then (not quite as an afterthought; but really as a follow up), comes the question “What has to happen to make those digital documents usable?”

What if courts were to start looking at the question the other way around? What if the first question were, “What is the fastest, easiest, cheapest, most efficient, and most secure way to ACCESS AND USE the documents we need?” In other words, start with the second half – Retrieval – and work back from there. It quickly becomes obvious that courts need to move to ECM to maximize document usability.

In a sense, one might say we end up in the same place – effective implementation of ECM. True. Nevertheless, I think my brother is correct when he points out the importance and value of looking at the subject from both angles – Storage AND Retrieval. Let’s face it – the court’s interest in documents and files isn’t about storing them. No, what courts are interested in is using the documents and files, which means being able to access (retrieve) them as easily and effectively as possible. As has been pointed out before, it turns out that the greatest impact on courts that implement ECM with workflow comes, not in the intake and storage efficiencies, significant though they may be, but in the radically improved ease of access to and use of electronic documents and files.

From this view, the document storage savings are not the primary motivator; but simply a welcome side effect, of improving document access and usage through ECM.