|
Case Management for Public Sector Legal Departments
Essential Features to Maximize
Your Return on Investment
Author: Matt Ryan,
Senior Consultant
Copyright © 2008 Legal Files Software, Inc.
Contents:
Introduction
System Scalability and Reliability
E-mail and Calendar Integration
Document Management
Advanced Features
Software Evaluation Checklist
Introduction
Commercially available case management systems have been in existence
since the 1980s. Since that time, the number of software providers offering
a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) legal case management solution has increased
substantially. Today, departments looking for a case management solution
could easily come up with a list of dozens of packages to consider by
running a simple search on their favorite Internet search engine.
While some packages are easy to eliminate because they were designed specifically
for a corporate legal department, or a law firm that deals only in personal
injury, bankruptcy or immigration, a long list still remains from which
to choose the correct system for your department. To complicate matters
further, the maturity of the products makes a feature-by-feature comparison
of two or more programs a time consuming task that leaves no clear “winner”
in the contest.
While very few case management COTS software providers will admit it,
the simple fact is that all these systems perform about 80 percent of
the same functions. Differences in user interfaces and the number of mouse
clicks it takes to perform a given task are clearly important aspects
to consider when selecting a system since these two items alone can determine
the fate of a case management implementation. However, these items alone
should not formulate your decision to purchase one product over another.
A portion of your evaluation time should be spent on the 20 percent of
the “not-so-obvious” functionality that can provide an enormous
return on investment in both time savings, and internal information technology
resource savings.
This paper will attempt to highlight several of these important features
that more often than not, are overlooked during the software evaluation
process. Some of these items are features, both simple and advanced, while
some are probably more appropriately categorized as technical traits of
a software system. Whether functional or technical, these features are
by no means an inclusive list of everything that should be considered
when selecting a case management system. Instead, items listed in this
document that are appropriate for your department should be combined with
your own unique case management requirements to help you purchase the
solution that will provide the largest return on investment for your department
over the long run.
The features discussed are arranged into sections by categories. The end
of each section includes a checklist of the items discussed that can be
used as part of a software evaluation form. A complete checklist is included
at the end of this paper for convenience.
top
System Scalability and Reliability
While being a software
vendor’s largest customer may have benefits when things are going
well, the tradeoff in headaches from a performance and reliability standpoint
are hardly worth it. The extra money a department might save by going
with a system originally built for the public sector market can be wiped
out the first time the system goes down or the entire system runs poorly
after the 50th concurrent user logs in. The second time it happens, it
simply costs the department money in lost productivity.
One of the biggest “unseen” differences in case management
products is the efficiency of the applications programming. Inefficient
programs will require a much larger database server, workstations, and
network throughput or bandwidth in order for the application to operate
with reasonable response times. All of these inefficiencies translate
into additional costs that a department must incur in order to utilize
the application and can evolve into much larger issues as the system is
rolled out to more and more users.
While it is difficult to tell how efficient a program is during a software
demonstration, there are several things to look for and ask about when
evaluating a program. One of the most obvious is to ask each vendor for
the recommended server and workstation configurations that would realistically
support the number of users being considered. Large workstation and server
requirements should raise a flag. Applications that require a dedicated
server should raise another flag as this could signal a non-standard implementation
of standard programming techniques that could cause future support headaches
and compatibility problems.
Another not-so-obvious question that should be asked is the development
history of the application being considered. Many legal case management
applications began as a desktop application that ran against a desktop
database. The lack of scalability and inefficiencies of these applications
forced some of these vendors to offer a version of their application that
will run against a true SQL relational database system such as Microsoft
SQL Server. While a vendor may tell you that these “new” systems
were a completely new development effort, chances are code was “borrowed”
from their old desktop applications, carrying forward some of the inherent
problems of their old systems.
In short, departments need to consider applications that were designed
specifically for a SQL relational database management system from vendors
with proven installations much larger than the number of users that will
be deployed. In order to ensure the case management system will be able
to grow with the department, a good rule of thumb is to insist that the
vendor provide a reference for an established customer with a least four
to five times the total number of users needed at the department. If this
reference can confirm an acceptable performance of the application with
no considerable down time or system crashes, the application should perform
equally well or even better in an installation only 20 to 25 percent as
large and minimize the information technology costs associated with poorly
designed systems.
The following checklist includes important questions to ask all vendors
pertaining to the scalability and reliability of the system being considered.
Scalability
and Reliability Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Recommended database server for an installation with
_____ users. |
|
|
|
| Recommended workstation specifications including CPU,
RAM and disk requirements. |
|
|
|
Was the product ORIGINALLY developed to run on a SQL relational database
management system? |
|
|
|
| Size of the vendor’s largest installation. |
|
|
|
| Is the vendor willing to provide this installation
as a reference? If so, please provide a contact name and phone number. |
|
|
|
Note:
Additional references of similar size firms should also be requested from
each vendor.
top
E-mail and Calendar Integration
Microsoft Outlook/Exchange continues to increase its market share in the
legal marketplace. In organizations that have chosen this platform for
e-mail, calendaring, and even contact management, Outlook has most likely
become the primary application the organization’s staff utilizes
to perform their duties and communicate with clients. The good news for
these organizations is that most COTS case management applications include
some level of integration with Outlook and/or Exchange so users do not
have to abandon Outlook in order to use a new system.
While most case management vendors offer integration with Outlook, how
this integration is programmatically accomplished, and the level of integration,
varies greatly from vendor to vendor. For instance, most vendors offer
integration between the case management system’s calendar and Outlook’s
calendar. However, fewer vendors offer true, two-way integration between
calendaring systems that enables a user to continue to use their Outlook
calendar as their primary calendar. While functional items such as this
should become apparent during a vendor’s software demonstration,
other items surrounding the integration may not be discovered until after
a product selection has been made and a contract executed.
The Exchange e-mail server is a department’s information technology
hub. If there is any doubt to this statement, try and remember the loss
in productivity the last time e-mail was not available and internal and
external communication was interrupted. For this reason, departments should
avoid products that require integration directly with the Exchange server.
In many instances, integration with the Exchange server creates an additional
workload and storage requirement on this vital resource that can cost
the department significant money in upgrades. More importantly, however,
is that integration directly with the Exchange server often means bypassing
or disabling important security settings in Exchange that would expose
the department to viruses or hackers. The potential costs to a department
for lost communications and work product, in addition to the time lost
because the e-mail server is down would be difficult to quantify. As such,
this type of integration should be avoided and departments should never
allow third-party applications to integrate directly with their Exchange
server.
Instead, e-mail, calendar, contact, and task integrations with the case
management system should all take place on the Outlook desktop application.
This minimizes the security risk for the entire department while still
accomplishing the objective for the end users. As an added benefit, this
type of integration is often easier to install and maintain, in addition
to the peace of mind it will provide.
Another item to be aware of is how the case management system stores case/matter
related e-mails and e-mail attachments. Since some solutions simply create
a “link” to the message stored in Outlook or Exchange, the
message can never be deleted (purposefully or accidentally) from within
Outlook or this link will be broken. Additionally, departments can find
themselves having capacity and performance problems on the Exchange server
since e-mails are never removed from the system. Ideally, your case management
system should store e-mail and all associated attachments in its data
store in their native formats.
The following checklist includes important questions to ask all vendors
pertaining to their integration with Microsoft Outlook.
E-mail and
Calendar Integration Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
Does vendor’s application require
integration directly with the Exchange server? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between calendaring systems (Can appointments be created
and updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between task/reminder systems (Can tasks and reminders
be created and updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between contact systems (Can contacts be created and
updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
| If an e-mail is “saved” to a case/matter,
does it have to remain on the Outlook/Exchange server? |
|
|
|
Note:
While IBM’s Lotus Notes and Novell GroupWise are not as prevalent
in the marketplace as they once were, some vendors also offer integration
with these e-mail systems. Even though the security and virus threat is
not as great, organizations using Lotus Notes or GroupWise should insist
on a desktop integration, as well.
top
Document Management
Many departments have already invested in a dedicated document management
system (DMS) in order to manage, organize and protect the department’s
work product and documents. For departments that have not yet invested
in this technology, many COTS case management systems include a document
management feature. Additionally, departments considering a DMS implementation
should also consider a case management system that offers this functionality,
since case management can provide a number of useful tools for little
or no difference in cost.
If a document management component offered by a case management vendor
is going to be considered, several important items must be considered
during the evaluation process. First and foremost is how the case management
system stores and manages documents. Organizations should make sure the
case management system actually “manages” the storage of the
document and does not simply maintain a link to the related document.
Applications that simply maintain a link to a document that has already
been saved in a user specified location do not provide the organization
with enough control over these documents. If one user saves documents
to a network drive and another user saves documents to their local drive,
a case management system that maintains links to documents does provide
a method to access these documents, independent of where they are stored.
However, the availability of documents will most certainly become an issue
because if the user who stores documents locally does not turn on his/her
computer on for the day, or if he/she utilizes a laptop computer and happens
to be out of the office, these documents will be unavailable for every
user of the system.
In order to solve this problem, a document management system should take
the responsibility of saving the physical file away from the end user.
Documents should be stored in a central location on a network drive or
as actual records inside the relational database management system. An
easy-to-use interface should allow users to “profile” the
document by relating it to a case/matter and categorizing the document
according to department policies. The case management system should also
programmatically manage all document saves and accesses independent of
the document type (Word, Word Perfect, PDF, etc.).
For organizations that have an existing investment in a document management
system, many case management vendors offer integrations with these programs.
This makes it possible to access case/matter related documents stored
in the third-party DMS application directly from the case management system’s
user interface. If this approach is selected, organizations must be sure
that the selected case management vendor has an official “partnership”
agreement with their DMS vendor so your integration will continue to work
with new releases of the DMS solution. Additionally, an official “partnership”
relationship also means that your case management vendor has built their
integration using approved methods and tools provided by the DMS vendor,
and document security is not compromised.
A department’s specific document management requirements will expand
beyond the items covered in this section. The following checklist includes
important questions to ask all vendors pertaining to their document management
capabilities. Selecting a vendor who meets these basic requirements will
provide a greater return on your case management investment.
Document Management Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Does vendor’s application include a complete
document management component OR integrate with the existing DMS application? |
|
|
|
| If an integration with the existing DMS is desired,
is the vendor an official “partner” with the DMS vendor? |
|
|
|
| If the case management system will be utilized as a
DMS, does the application manage the storage of documents? |
|
|
|
| If the case management system will be utilized as a
DMS, can the application store any document/file type along with a
document “profile” (metadata)? |
|
|
|
top
Advanced Features
Many case management systems have become very feature rich and it’s
these added features, the 20 percent discussed earlier in this paper,
which truly sets one vendor’s product apart from the others. Since
it would require an unrealistic amount of time in order to fully understand
every single feature offered in every COTS product you are evaluating,
this section highlights some of the more important “advanced”
features that have a high return on investment, but not all products offer.
While a simple and direct user interface will be apparent during software
demonstrations, having a program that is easy to navigate does not always
insure the implementation will be a success. A department with multiple
practice groups has a wide range of needs that must be met from a single
case management software program. As an example, a transactional practice
group will have different business and information requirements than a
litigation group. Purchasing a system that specializes in managing litigation
cases puts a case management implementation at risk by not providing enough
flexibility for the other practice groups.
A case management system should be viewed through the eyes of all users.
This includes users from every practice group in the department that will
be utilizing the application. To minimize the risk that a particular practice
group will not utilize the application, the case management system should
be flexible enough to allow for a customization of the interface for each
practice group or case/matter type. This will mean that the transaction
group users will not have to look at screens and fields that only apply
to litigation cases and will simplify the system for these users. This
will also reduce the training time required and increase the user adoption
rate of the case management application.
When an application does not provide a means to capture all of the data
needed for employees to do their jobs, employees get creative. They turn
to Word documents, spreadsheets or pen and paper, and grow frustrated
with the application since it does not do what the users need. This significantly
impacts productivity, limits the usage of this data and often means that
the data is not being backed up on a regular basis, further exposing the
department to losses. The selected case management system should be flexible
enough to allow for the creation of customized screens that can be used
to capture all data and information required by the user or client. Ideally,
the vendor will offer a tool so this task can be accomplished by non-technical
staff, so the task of customizing and maintaining the system does not
fall 100 percent on information technology personnel.
Another feature that is often overlooked during the initial evaluation
and selection process is how well the application can deal with the “exceptions”
to the normal business processes. These can be as simple as re-assigning
workload when an employee resigns from the department, to handling last-minute
client requests for information or a report.
If the selected case management system does not include functionality
to quickly re-assign workload from one user to another, or it takes an
employee an entire day or more to manually update the application, the
true cost of the case management system just went up. Likewise, if the
case management system does not have an easy way to export information
in order to format it into a report a particular client just requested,
the amount of time it will take to produce this report using some other
means could be significant.
While it would be next to impossible to predict every possible exception
that may arise, a case management system should be advanced enough to
handle a majority of these items. The following checklist includes important
features to consider in your case management selection.
Advanced Features Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Can the vendor’s application be “customized”
for the needs of each practice group? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application allow for “customized”
windows or screens? |
|
|
|
| Can all “customization” be performed by
non-technical staff with minimal training? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application include the ability
to easily re-assign workload between users? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application include the ability
to easily export data into other applications? |
|
|
|
top
Software Evaluation Checklist
The following checklist can be utilized during the software evaluation
process to ensure the items discussed in this paper are not overlooked.
A department’s own unique requirements should be added to this list
in order to provide a complete evaluation process.
Scalability and Reliability Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Recommended database server for an installation with
_____ users. |
|
|
|
| Recommended workstation specifications including CPU,
RAM and disk requirements. |
|
|
|
Was the product ORIGINALLY developed to run on a SQL relational database
management system? |
|
|
|
| Size of the vendor’s largest installation. |
|
|
|
| Is the vendor willing to provide this installation
as a reference? If so, please provide a contact name and phone number. |
|
|
|
E-mail and
Calendar Integration Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
Does vendor’s application require
integration directly with the Exchange server? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between calendaring systems (Can appointments be created
and updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between task/reminder systems (Can tasks and reminders
be created and updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
Does the vendor offer true, two-way
integration between contact systems (Can contacts be created and
updated from either application)? |
|
|
|
| If an e-mail is “saved” to a case/matter,
does it have to remain on the Outlook/Exchange server? |
|
|
|
Document
Management Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Does vendor’s application include a complete
document management component OR integrate with the existing DMS application? |
|
|
|
| If an integration with the existing DMS is desired,
is the vendor an official “partner” with the DMS vendor? |
|
|
|
| If the case management system will be utilized as a
DMS, does the application manage the storage of documents? |
|
|
|
| If the case management system will be utilized as a
DMS, can the application store any document/file type along with a
document “profile” (metadata)? |
|
|
|
Advanced
Features Checklist
| Feature |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Can the vendor’s application be “customized”
for the needs of each practice group? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application allow for “customized”
windows or screens? |
|
|
|
| Can all “customization” be performed by
non-technical staff with minimal training? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application include the ability
to easily re-assign workload between users? |
|
|
|
| Does the vendor’s application include the ability
to easily export data into other applications? |
|
|
|
top
|