RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Thought on CMS interface

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

This is a good catch Dallas. I am not a representative of the courts, but I
do know the value of workflow management. Combined with some automated
decission making it has high value. We use it a great deal in our editorial
enviroment. It can make a big difference in a high workload constrained
resource enviroment.

I suggest that the TC look at this  issue seriously. The timing may be rough
given the meaningful, agressive and important targets we have for the first
release of Blue. 

At the least we should look at this from a high level scenarios standpoint
to ensure the  implementation and support of the current use cases willl not
preclude supporting this scenario in a subsequent release of blue.

Regards,

Don


Donald L. Bergeron
dbergeron@woh.rr.com 
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com

O - 937-865-1276
H - 937-748-2775
M - 937-672-7781


-----Original Message-----
    From: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
    Sent: 03/24/2005 1:35:35 PM
    To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee"
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Thought on CMS interface
    
    Last week I was working with some clerks, their IT staff, and the CMS
vendor to launch efiling at a new court.  We were analyzing and mapping all
the processes required to integrate to their existing CMS and DMS.  In this
case the CMS is a case maintenance system not a case management system and
the behavior is different.  During this process I continued to reflect back
on the use cases that we were discussing in SLC.  The reality of the
situation is that the communications between the CMS and our software
requires workflow that clearly was not identified in the use cases.
     
    After thinking about the situation, it occurred to me that the current
use cases that we were including in Blue were use cases that support the
functions that support the functions of an external court source (formerly
known as the EFSP functions).  The use cases do not address the complexities
of workflow to automate clerk behavior and actions.
     
    The court we are working with wants to minimize clerk entry and review,
thus capture the necessary data so that the interface between the receiving
function at the courts will perform the actions the clerk would  do if they
receive paper documents.  Some submissions require human intervension and
decisions and those submissions cannot be completely automated.
     
    My interest in sharing these thoughts with the group is to manage
expectations of courts that eventually will request their CMS vendors to
support the CM API in Blue.  We do not want the courts to think that the use
cases we are working on are all that is needed to automate their efiling
process.  The CMS use cases in Blue are designed to support the external
efiling submission process and it does not completely address the automation
processes that may be embedded in the clerk review functions.
     
    Dallas

<<application/ms-tnef>>