« Ind. Gov't. - Governor appoints environmental policy assistant | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending September 30, 2005 »

Friday, September 30, 2005

Ind. Courts - Still more on "Plan to link 400 courts hits a wall, again"

Nick Fankhauser, the VP for Product Development at Doxpop LLC, in Richmond, Indiana, has sent me a note about the Court's judicial technology and automation project (JTAC), about which the ILB has most recently posted on 9/26/05 and 9/29/05.

Fankhauser's company, Doxpop, provides internet access to court records in a number of Indiana counties. Access its website here. A quote from the site:

Doxpop provides access to over 3,909,887 current and historical cases from 92 Indiana courts in the Doxpop Network. During the average working day a new case is added every twenty seconds.

Doxpop receives frequent updates from every court we work with. Most courts send updates every ten minutes so the information you see on the Doxpop web site is always current and complete.

The historical case information available varies from three years to twenty years back depending on the jurisdiction. Most courts have at least ten years of historical case information available though Doxpop.

Here is a list of the counties Doxpop serves.

With that introduction, here is what Fankhauser writes in his note to the ILB, in answer to my question of what would/should JTAC do next - open the project up for new bids? His answer:

I hope the Supreme Court notices that many of the software companies in the private sector not only share their commendable goals but have been quietly working to meet those goals during the last 5 years (JTAC actually got started 5 years ago). The counties who have worked with these companies have succeeded while Computer Associates [JTAC's vendor] only predicted success.

A major reason for this success is that competitive pressure and niche markets can produce many solutions to choose from. Both tiny counties like Union (Pop. 7000) and major counties like Marion (Pop. 855,000) can use the market to their advantage to implement a solution that matches their unique local needs while still complying with statewide standards.

It is foolhardy to believe that a single vendor without competitive pressure will serve the needs of both large and small counties with equal focus and attentiveness.

Perhaps it is time to open the door to those who have succeeded and involve them in producing an open market solution that Indiana can be proud of.

Re the oft-reported "fact" that a number of Indiana counties remain in the "dark-ages" with respect to technology, Fankahuser writes:
Although there are some stragglers, all Indiana courts can easily and for a reasonable cost procure the software needed to meet the goals that were set when the "Statewide CMS" project was started. Even the stragglers are not simply "do-nothing" counties -- the counties who are struggling with outdated systems are cautious people who have been waiting for nearly a decade to upgrade their systems because of uncertainty about State requirements.

Although most people are aware of the JTAC statewide CMS project, those who have worked with the courts for some time will recall that before JTAC existed, there was an effort to create standards via the "AIMS" project. This project was started in or about 1995 and at the time, local courts were advised not to upgrade their software until the standards had been produced. The standards were never to my knowledge disseminated to local courts or CMS vendors.

The obvious irony here is that because the local courts have been told for roughly 10 years not to upgrade their software, it might appear to an outsider that left to their own devices, the local courts working with their vendors are incapable of effectively utilizing technology. In fact they are quite capable, and those who have ignored the direction from above to "do nothing" have moved forward on their own and are doing very well.

For examples of this, compare the situation of the Montgomery County courts to the situation of the Clay County Courts. Montgomery decided to help themselves and two years ago, installed a CMS that meets all of the goals outlined in the CMS policy Statement of May 2002. Clay was to be the first recipient of the JTAC CMS and, along with about 12 other counties, they're still using a substandard system while they follow the suggestion to wait for someone else to solve their problems.

Fankhauser's conclusion:
I think we should all support public oversight by communicating with interested parties and encouraging media attention. I hope others will join us in asking JTAC to seriously re-evaluate not just their vendor choice but the entire project. Another message that the planned approach to achieving their goals is essentially unchanged despite years of major setbacks and a radically altered technology will not speak well for JTAC.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 30, 2005 01:16 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts