Interoperability SOW

["jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

I agree that there is no need for formal minor changes to the SOW to stand in the way of beginning work. 

With regard to the King County project that was apparently not successfully implemented, is it possible for the reasons for that happenstance to be provided to this subcommittee as part of the information that is to be considered by it?

It seems that "operability" as a first instance is highly relevant to "interoperability" issues. If we can learn what went wrong with this project, perhaps it will provide useful lessons about what to do in the future that will likely work for everyone.

I think some changes to the wording of the SOW might be appropriate if it is possible to get these materials, but again, I don't think that should be a cause for delay.

===================================================================
A few minor corrections are needed in the document: 
  
- Under "proposed author(s) of the work, Roger Winters and I are listed as having experience implementing Electronic Court Filing 1.0.  The attempted implementation we were involved in was for Court Filing 1.1.

- It might be misleading to state we are "experienced in implementing" -- perhaps it would be better to state that we "participated in an attempt to implement" or something like that.  The ECF 1.1-based system delivered to us by a vendor was not accepted by us, so it was never implemented into a production environment.  We own the Requirements and Design documents on which that system was based, but we do not own or have access to the code, since we didn't accept the system.


Otherwise, the SOW looks great.  I do not feel these minor edits should hold up approval of the SOW by the TC. 
  
  
Catherine Krause 
E-Filing Project Manager 
King County Department of Judicial Administration 
(206)296-7860 
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov <mailto:catherine.krause@metrokc.gov>