State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

1. State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Review and Validation of the Statewide Judicial Information System (JIS) Strategy Final Report Engagement: 221051040 October 31, 2005

2. Contents Executive Summary 3 Section 1 - JIS Business Case and Current Approach 20 Section 2 - JIS Migration Project Overview and Scope 38 Section 3 - JIS Migration Risk and Readiness Assessment (Bottoms Up) 51 Section 4 - JIS Migration Strategy Assessment (Top Down) 94 Section 5 - JIS Migration Project Strategy Alternatives Analysis 97 Section 6 - JIS Migration Project Execution Alternatives Analysis 108 Section 7 - Recommended Roadmap and Next Steps 124 Appendices 128 • Appendix A - Key Interview Themes • Appendix B - Best Practices and Technology Trends • Appendix C - Business Case Best Practices

3. Executive Summary

4. Background • The Judicial Information System (JIS) is a statewide information system. • JIS was formed in 1976 upon recommendation by a task force comprised of Supreme Court justices, trial court judges and legislators. • JIS supports automation in juvenile, municipal, district, superior, and appellate courts and over 10,000 users access data in the JIS, including judges, court staff, attorneys, law enforcement, and private sector businesses. • Governance of the JIS is delegated to the JIS Committee (JISC). • The JISC developed a JIS Migration Plan to: • Guide the transition from the current legacy systems to an integrated, service oriented system that will deliver intuitive tools for performing court functions to increase access to data across all court levels and improve court processes and business practices. • Specify the priority in which current systems will be replaced and new functionality added. • Provide the basis for project plans, schedules and budgets over the three biennia from FY2002 through FY2007. • The project is faced with questions and issues similar to many large IT projects, including scope, schedule and budget concerns. • The AOC has, therefore, decided to conduct a review of its overall strategy for JIS and current capabilities to implement the JIS Migration Plan.

5. Gartner Engagement Objectives We are focusing on the four key objectives for this engagement: • Business Case Validation — validate and update the business case for the JIS and provide a strategy for validating overall requirements for the entire court system. • Current Capability Validation — complete a comprehensive review of JIS resources in order to determine capabilities and readiness. • Plan Validation — validate planning assumptions through an assessment of the project scope, governance model, communications plan and budget and make recommendations for improvement. • Review of other States’ Applications — assist the AOC in planning visits to other states that have undertaken or are currently completing a development cycle similar to JIS.

6. Gartner Methodology Aug 22 Sep 30 Oct 31 Gartner’s Project Assessment methodology encompasses a multi‑step process that identifies both the business and technical issues, and supporting mitigation strategies that must be addressed to successfully implement the project objectives of the State.

7. Assessment ApproachBottoms-Up and Top-Down Assessments Gartner’s methodology includes five levels of review: • Court Interviews* • Executive Interviews • AOC Staff Interviews • Work Product Reviews • Focus Group and WorkshopActivities** Top-Down Assessment * See Appendix A for Key Interview Themes. ** See Appendix B for Best Practices and Technical Trends and Appendix C for Business Case Best Practices presented during workshops. Bottoms-Up Assessment Key areas of our Bottoms-up Assessment

8. Project Risk and Implementation Readiness AssessmentAssessment Methodology Rating — Gartner’s risk and implementation assessment rating is based upon Project Management Institute’s (PMI) standards. To highlight potential risks to the project for each project management knowledge area, Gartner uses a “red light/yellow light/green light/blue light” reporting strategy as documented below: • “Blue Light” (Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards): The approach exceeds “Best Practices” project standards. The approach has enhanced system delivery success. • “Green Light” (Acceptable to Excellent, i.e., “Low Risk”): The approach meets or exceeds solid project management and systems development standards. To receive this ranking, the approach must present no significant risks to the project. • “Yellow Light” (Caution, i.e., “Medium Risk”): The approach is not clearly defined, and/or presents a risk to the project. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are important to ensure optimal project operation. • “Red Light” (Risk Alert, i.e., “High Risk”): The approach presents serious risks to the project and requires immediate attention. Recommendations for risk areas assigned this rating are essential for mitigating project risk. Recommendations — Gartner’s recommendations for improvement and risk mitigation.

9. Bottoms-Up AssessmentOverall Risk and Readiness Assessment Ratings Overall the project is rated RED – High Risk. • There were 13 Red – High Risk areas identified. • There were 16 Yellow– Medium Risk areas identified. • There were no Green – Low Risk areas identified. • There were no areas Blue – Exceeding Project Schedule and Quality Standards identified. JIS Migration Project Assessment Focus Area Summary Overall Project Budget and Schedule Risk Operational Risk Organizational Risk External Risk Business Benefit Risk

10. Bottoms-Up Assessment (cont)Rationale for the Rating: High Risk • There is no clear vision (charter), case for action or project plan in place (and signed off by key stakeholders) that defines the business benefits (in terms of the functionality to be delivered to the specific court levels, the technology improvements to be gained or the metrics by which to measure the system’s success to be achieved through business functionality delivered or process improvement to be provided) by the JIS Migration Project. • Overall project governance needs to be strengthened at all levels. • The JISC is encouraged to be more proactive and a driving force around: • Defining high-level business requirements. • Establishing the value of business benefits expected. • Prioritizing the functionality to be delivered to the various court levels (phasing). • Requiring budget and tracking cost for the individual solution components. • Requiring a linkage between business benefit value received and the cost for each solution component. • In addition, the JISC needs to facilitate and drive consensus among the various courts, counties and agencies involved in the project. • AOC management needs to take a more “hands on role” in regularly assessing project status, helping to address key issues, providing mentorship and clearly articulating the vision and progress the project is making. • At the “grass-roots level” it is not clear what the new JIS encompasses either from a technology standpoint or business value to be delivered. The team lacks direction and focus.

11. Bottoms-Up Assessment (cont)Rationale for the Rating: High Risk • The AOC does not have a fully fleshed-out architecture for the proposed JIS system, making it difficult to assess overall system complexity, resource requirements (for development as well as ongoing support), project schedule impacts (development and implementation), as well as overall budget requirements. • The AOC project management and software development processes and methodologies (although improving in some areas) are not mature and lack the depth needed to ensure the success of such a complex undertaking as the new JIS. • Critical resources needed for the project are either not available, or do not have the necessary experience and skill level required (e.g., Program Manager, Systems/Database/Security Architects). • The courts (due to business workload and resource constraints) are hard pressed to provide the needed resources to support the project, and this situation appears unlikely to change. The courts will need to provide support in a variety of critical areas on the project including: • Requirements definition and review (system functionality, business value metrics, delivery priority, etc.). • In process project reviews and the assessment of key deliverables. • User Acceptance Testing. • Turn Over to Production Planning. • Post Implementation Assessment and Support.

12. Top-Down JIS Strategy AssessmentLinkages are Broken • The business case was not explicitly defined prior to project execution. • Requirements are not linked to specific business benefits. • The scope of the JIS Migration Project is not sufficiently bounded to ensure delivery success. • There is no fully fleshed out solution architecture that is linked to Business Requirements. • Without sufficient linkages that are traceable back to strategy, the current execution approach results in chaos and over-commitment.

13. Assessment Bottom Line There are unmet business needs within the court system. • The business problems and opportunities that resulted in the original JIS Migration Project represent real business needs. • Some of the current initiatives and solutions would meet these defined needs if they could be executed successfully. • However, no “business case” can be articulated for the entirety of the JIS Migration Plan, which is a strategy and is comprised of multiple IT initiatives that require separate and distinct justifications (e.g., case management, calendaring, e-Citation, public e-Access, data exchange). While the AOC has made progress towards an enterprise JIS, Gartner’s assessment indicates that the program risk of failure is high. • It is not clear if the AOC will be able to deliver a finished project within the specified timeframes and within the budget. • Issues associated with definition of scope, prioritization, and execution of those initiatives have introduced risk to project success and full benefit realization of the JIS Migration Project. • The strategy of building an enterprise system is not consistent with similar initiatives in other states. • The need for a single enterprise solution to solve the problems of separate courts may not be feasible and would require a very strong governance, which is not present today. Gartner analyzed alternatives and developed a Recommended Roadmap that is designed to maximize benefits to the courts going forward.

14. Formulation of Alternatives A Process to Bridge Gaps and Reduce Risks In defining the alternatives, Gartner believes that the AOC needs to focus its activities on Strategy first and then Execution: • Strategy Alternatives • Alternative I: Continue As Is But Improve Execution • Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach • Execution Alternatives • Alternative A: Re-Architect / Re-Host the Legacy JIS • Alternative B: Acquire Best-of-Breed Solutions and Integrate • Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange*, Then Best-of-Breed *Note: The Data Exchange referenced in this alternative includes a broader scope than the existing JIS Data Exchange initiative.

15. Strategy Alternative Assessment Results Summary of Assessment Results The table below provides a summary of Gartner’s assessment of the Strategy Alternatives. The key for this table corresponds to the color scheme shown below. An interpretation of these results is presented in the next slide.

16. Strategy Recommendation • Gartner recommends the AOC adopt Alternative II: Reconsider Strategy and Approach. • This approach provides the greatest long-term benefit to the AOC and the courts in terms of an enhanced and predictable delivery process that provides needed business value to the courts. In the long term, the risks associated with this option are lower than those for Alternative I. This alternative provides a clear vision and roadmap that establishes clear delivery team goals and objectives, as well as setting customer expectations. It provides the organizational focus and visibility needed to address both programmatic and process improvement issues currently impacting the JIS project. Specifically in the areas of executive oversight and governance, project management and software development. • General comments on Gartner’s assessment of Alternative I: • Alternative I does not address the critical issues impacting the current JIS project, including: • Lack of a fully fleshed-out solution architecture. • Lack of a clear vision and detailed project plan that documents critical project milestones, deliverables and key events. • Lack of an in-depth, phased implementation plan that ties delivered functionality to measurable benefits to the courts. • In addition, Alternative I spreads out needed changes over time, thus diluting their impact, and does not provide the organizational focus needed to ensure success.

17. Execution Alternative Assessment Results Summary of Assessment Results The table below provides a summary of Gartner’s assessment of the Execution Alternatives. The key for this table is shown below. An interpretation of these results is presented in the next slide.

18. Execution RecommendationConsider after Strategic Recommendations have been addressed • Gartner recommends adoption of Execution Alternative C: Initially Focus on Data Exchange, Then Best-of-Breed. • This Execution Alternative leverages the existing data exchange project, and will provide the highest relative business value and ROI to the State. Risks associated with this option are lower than for other approaches - and can be mitigated through the execution of an effective risk management plan. This approach additionally provides the greatest flexibility to the courts regarding specific solutions for local court operations. • General comments on Gartner’s assessment of other approaches: • Re-architecting the JIS on a contemporary technology platform and database does not offer the State a ROI that is comparable to other approaches. Costs and timeline cannot be as well defined in advance as other options, application development cannot occur rapidly enough to remedy imminent problems with the current platform and transition of technical staff, and maintainability will present future challenges. • The availability of viable off-the-shelf applications which provide core case management system and supporting functions (e.g., document management, electronic filing, etc.) built on current technical platforms enables the best-of-breed approach to provide a higher business value and ROI to the State than re-architecting the JIS internally. However, without an initial focus on data exchange, this approach limits the value to the courts.

19. Recommended Roadmap First 120 Days Ongoing Focus Strategic Focus (Reconsider Strategy and Approach) Execution Focus (Focus on Data Exchange) • Establish a robust Governance and Project Oversight Process. • Determine the role that the AOC will fulfill in the delivery of solutions to the courts. • Define the success metrics and business value that each initiative will bring to the courts. Vet each business case with all key stakeholders. • Define and fully develop an overall solution architecture and detailed plan for the new JIS. • Identify components for statewide or local implementation and analyze buy vs. build for each. • Redefine the JIS Migration as a program with a series of interrelated, prioritized projects, each with a budget and detailed project plan. • Establish comprehensive delivery processes and acquire needed critical skills. • Continue to be the preferred solution provider for the vast majority of courts. • Focus on the design and development of a statewide data integration infrastructure. • Develop detailed Data Exchange Architecture. • Assess Buy vs. Build Alternatives. • Develop Integration Standards. • Define the Enterprise Database Architecture. • Defined Phased Implementation Plan. • Focus on the operation and maintenance of the data infrastructure by the AOC. • Move to an Internal Service Company (ISCo) delivery model providing best-of-breed solution services and maintenance support for the courts. • Any court that chooses to acquire and support their own systems must comply with AOC data integration requirements.

20. Section 1JIS Business Case and Current Approach

21. Business Case Table of Contents • Executive summary • Introduction and background • Problem/opportunity definition • Recommended solution/alternatives • Benefit estimates/assumptions • Cost estimates/assumptions • Risk factors/mitigation • Financial analyses • Implementation approach/timeline Compelling Business Cases Give Decision Makers All the Information They Need A business case provides a credible analysis that supports the decision to proceed with or continue an initiative. • Contains explicit linkages with program objectives/strategies. • Requires stakeholder agreement, support and commitment. • Documents problems and opportunities that are to be addressed. • Includes measurable project objectives that are translated into program impacts. • Assists in project prioritization and investment decisions. • Guides project execution. • Provides a framework by which project success and benefits delivered can be determined.

22. Business Case LinkagesTraceable Through the Solution • The business case is driven by specific problems and opportunities experienced by Washington courts (Why). • Business requirements must be supported by the business case and represent “What” must be accomplished. • The solution architecture must provide the technology components that meet business requirements. • The solution alternatives provides a strategy for “How” the business needs will be met.

23. Setting the StageCourt Environment Scope, Scale and Complexity Different courts have different processing emphasis, requirements and complexity. • All courts emphasize case efficiency based on the heavy caseload. • All courts have specific Legislature requirements for data confidentiality. There are different resource levels and system dependencies depending on district size within each court level. • Courts in the three biggest counties have more resources and job specialization. • Throughput efficiency and performance are critical for case processing in the large counties. • Some large counties (King, Pierce) have departmental applications and IT staff. • Resource and computing capacity are severely constrained in the smaller counties. Some may not even have computers. Participation in the JIS application can vary by court and county. • Customers can be broken down as follows: • Tier I – Full service • Tier II – A la carte • Tier III – Data exchange only (i.e., currently Seattle Municipal Court (SMC)) • Pierce County and SMC* have their own systems and are not dependent on the AOC for support. * Note that SMC and the AOC are currently jointly planning how SMC can become part of JIS.

24. Business CaseFindings A business case was not originally articulated prior to the execution of the JIS Migration Project: • The objective of the JIS Migration Project, as articulated in the JIS Strategic Plan and Migration Plan, was to support the efficient and effective operation of the Washington State courts through a strategic, enterprise-wide court information system • No explicit linkages were defined between the business case and the value of specific business benefits to be achieved through each of the solution components (e.g., case management, calendaring, e-Citation, public e-Access, data exchange). • No budgets were created for specific solution components (projects) that could be validated against business benefits to be achieved. • The business value of resolving problems and achieving opportunities was established by the JISC through the approval to proceed with the project. • However, the “process” by which budgetary figures were derived appears to be the result of an evolutionary approach and likely does not truly reflect the value of the business benefits to be realized. • No feasibility analysis was conducted to determine the practicality of achieving the JIS vision. This analysis would have included: • Identification of business requirements and common needs among the courts. • Validation of court support for change. • Assessment of the availability and maturity of technology alternatives, etc.

25. Business CaseFindings (cont) • Gartner reconstructed the business case based on business and project artifacts, interviews, and workshops: • Gartner believes that the original business problems/opportunities that resulted in the decision to commence the JIS Migration Project remain high priority issues within the courts. • The JIS Migration Project, as envisioned and scoped, would deliver significant business benefits if realized. • The AOC has developed many of the infrastructure components and capabilities to host court technologies (i.e., high availability infrastructure and hosting capabilities). • In Gartner’s opinion, the objectives of the JIS Migration Project, as scoped, are far too large to be realistic, measurable or achievable. • Significant gaps in the business case remain since the value of specific business benefits to the courts are not known and the costs of the current approach are incalculable. • Serious questions about the business value of the JIS Migration Project to the various courts and stakeholders remain. • Business benefits have been described in terms of technology benefits (i.e., difficulty in maintaining legacy systems, platform independence, etc.).

26. Business CaseFindings (cont) The AOC clearly recognizes that both process change and execution capabilities must be addressed in order to deliver business benefits to the courts: • Gartner concurs with the recommended changes that were discussed in the JIS Migration Tactical Plan, dated December 4, 2004. In particular: • Definition of the decision criteria for initiation of JIS projects. • Classification methods for new proposed work and the process by which JISAC approves plans. • Focus on required, mission-critical projects.

27. Business CaseFindings (cont) The business problems defined for the JIS Migration Project have been defined in technology terms and did not adequately recognize court prerogatives. *As documented in the AOC Enterprise Application Architecture, Enterprise Application Vision

28. The Courts are Faced with a Number of Critical Issues The courts face three primary business problems: • Business needs within the various courts are not supported due to required functionality • Higher court workload and costs resulting from redundant data entry and manual inefficiencies • High cost and risk of ongoing maintenance and support of multiple, nonintegrated legacy applications The JIS Migration Project was Designed to Address Each Area Above.

29. Limited Access to Information and Functionality • Business needs within the various courts are not supported due to required functionality • The courts require enhanced or new functionality to continue to meet business requirements. Specific requirements vary by court but include: • Case Management (All) • Calendaring (All) • Jury Management (Superior and Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CLJ)) • Probation (Juvenile and CLJ) • Social Work (Juvenile Court) • Statistic and Management Reporting (All) • Process Universal Payments (Juvenile and CLJ) • Store Electronic Documents (All) • Data Exchange (All) • Financial Management (All) Example: Changes to the Superior Court Management Information System (SCOMIS) are becoming a challenge as functional and data complexity increase beyond what the system was originally designed to handle. Many changes to the business rules of the system are required. Case management functionality is weak as the system only tracks one disposition per case and more are needed for Juvenile cases. The system also has limited calendaring / scheduling functionality and does not have receipting or imaging functionality.

30. Redundant Data Entry • Higher court workload and costs resulting from redundant data entry and manual inefficiencies • The ability to exchange data electronically (in real time where needed) will enhance court operations and reduce costs by: • Reducing or eliminating the double (and sometimes triple) data entry required today. • Improving data quality that would improve efficiency and reduce errors. • Sharing data among courts to enable better decisions and improve sentencing. • Sharing data with other state and federal agencies, which is required and could help obtain federal funding. • Enhanced data sharing will allow the State to streamline processes that are both people, paper and time intensive, resulting in more efficient operations as well as the potential for addition revenue for the State. Example: The ability to issue and process electronic tickets will save the courts and the State significant time and resources by reducing the current process of transcribing paper tickets into the system.

31. High Cost and Risk of Ongoing Maintenance and Support 3. High cost and risk of ongoing maintenance and support of multiple, nonintegrated legacy applications • Maintainability is becoming a challenge as case load, public access, and functional and data complexity increase beyond what the system was originally designed to handle. • Several systems operate using outdated technology platforms. • COBOL and Natural are both legacy development environments that are antiquated and need to be retired. • Maintenance will become a bigger challenge resulting from retirement of experienced legacy support staff. • It is difficult to attract or retain qualified IT staff with needed skills in outdated technologies. A number of critical resources are (or will soon be) able to retire. • The AOC does not have a fully fleshed-out solution architecture or set of design standards for systems development resulting in a variety of system configurations and applied technologies, all of which make support for the current as well as future systems less than efficient. Example: The District and Municipal Court Information System (DISCIS)/JIS is a mainframe application that is COBOL, CICS and Natural based. With the imminent retirement of support staff, adequate support and maintenance will be at risk. Higher costs will be incurred to find replacement staff who will not have the AOC-specific business knowledge to meet current support levels.

32. The Courts Can Realize Significant Future Benefits The AOC has the opportunity to: • Provide the technology infrastructure to accommodate future business change and improvement • Establish standards for data sharing and integration • Enable common services that will support future system consolidation • Improve public safety services through the identification of indicators and trends in criminal behavior (business intelligence) • Improved access to justice for the people of Washington • Improved access to case information for judges • Increased transparency and access to court information by people The JIS Migration Project was Designed to Address Each Area Above.

33. Provide the Infrastructure for Future Change 1. Provide the technology infrastructure to accommodate future business change and improvement • The AOC does not have a clear understanding of the specific functionality to be delivered to the various courts in terms of the overall JIS project. The AOC has the opportunity to establish the infrastructure and strategic technology direction of Washington courts now and into the future. • A fully fleshed-out solution architecture direction and definition would enable the AOC to quickly assess specific technologies to support development and operational activities, required staffing and skills (including vendor support), and overall project budget and schedule impacts. Focus on integration and data architecture would provide both immediate and long-term benefits to the courts. • The deployment, operations and maintenance of the infrastructure components necessary to host business applications and technologies would provide the courts with a professional and secure backbone upon which to build future capabilities. For example, common web services could be developed and built on common architecture standards and hosted on a common infrastructure. Example: The establishment of data standards would initially enable data sharing and integration, and eventually facilitate the consolidation of applications and systems of various courts if needed.

34. Improve Public Safety Services to Citizens 2. Improve public safety services through the identification of indicators and trends in criminal behavior (business intelligence) • Availability of data combined with the use of business intelligence tools can enable courts to establish meaningful relationships and patterns that would not be readily apparent otherwise. For example, deep data mining and analysis can provide courts and local law enforcement with indicators and trends in criminal behavior at the case level and in aggregate. This information may provide the basis for changes in policies, enforcement and judgments that improve the delivery of public safety services. Example: Global access tostandard, canned management reports would enable trend analysis and planning, which would result in better management decisions and improved efficiency and effectiveness.

35. Improved Access to Justice 3. Improved access to justice for the people of Washington • Improved access to case information for judges will: • Provide judges with enhanced access to complete case files and histories. • Expand information provided to judges (e.g., such as social, risk assessment). • Increased transparency and access to court information by people will: • Enhance oversight and accountability of the courts. • Provide convenient access to the courts by the public (e.g., court calendars, juror reporting information). Example: Prospective jurors would have access to information on court calendars, reporting requirements and responsibilities.

36. Measurable Business ObjectivesExamples

37. Business CaseFindings (cont) The business problems/opportunities and measurable business objectives provide the business case foundation for financial and business benefit justifications of future JIS Projects. • Gartner believes that the scope of the current JIS Migration Project is too large to financially justify and should be decomposed on an initiative by initiative basis (e.g., case management, calendaring, e-Citation, public e-Access, data exchange). • JIS Migration Plan, as articulated, represents a strategy or vision, not an achievable project. • Each discrete project requires a separate budget, business requirements and financial justification.

38. Section 2JIS Migration Project Overview and Scope

39. Legacy Systems Overview The legacy applications targeting specific court levels were originally developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The applications included: • SCOMIS (Superior Court Management Information System). • JUVIS (Juvenile Information System) – currently being transitioned to JCS. • ACORDS (Appellate Court Records & Data System) – has been replaced by a Web-based application. • DISCIS (District and Municipal Court Information System) for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. The four separate applications were all: • Mainframe applications. • Written in COBOL, Natural Language. • Originally designed using VSAM, ADABAS and eventually migrated to DB2. In addition to the four main applications, there are supplemental applications, for example: • JRS (Judicial Receipting System), JABS (for Judges), Data Warehouse and Reporting. • There are also a significant number of local applications in use by the large courts. The legacy applications are maintained by the Legacy Maintenance group within the Information Services Division (ISD).

40. Legacy Systems Overview (cont) The Production Environment provides reasonable support for the legacy applications: • The applications run on stable, scalable and proven mainframe technology. • The applications generally provide less than 0.5 second average response time. • Performance is maintained during peak hours from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (with an average of 13,000 transactions per hour). • The application supports a large number of transactions. While the legacy environment may be stable, ongoing maintenance of the legacy application is a concern: • Maintainability is becoming a challenge as case load, public access, and functional and data complexity increase beyond what the system was originally designed to handle. • It is getting increasingly difficult to recruit support for the dated technology. • Maintenance will become a bigger challenge from retirement of experienced legacy support staff.

41. JIS Migration The JIS Migration Project was defined in a plan authorized in 2000. Its main objectives include: • Vertical, cross-jurisdiction integration of the court levels by common applications. • Deployment of web-based technology, enhancing ease-of-use with friendly user-interfaces. • Data Integration from application consolidation aimed at improving data quality and timeliness and reducing excessive data entry. The current JIS migration plan focuses on two major activities: • Phase I – Redesign/enhance and Re-host the functionality provided to the courts via the current suite of applications onto a contemporary platform with a set of core functionality for use by all courts while providing the ability to offer “court-specific solutions” where needed. This activity would also include the redesign and enhancement of the current DB2 database to provide scalability to meet current and future business needs and to allow for increased data transparency and interchange between the courts and other State agencies. • Phase II – Following the implementation of the initial phase above, provide enhanced functionality that is currently not offered today to meet the ongoing needs of the courts. This would include functionality that supports Jury Management, Social Work, Data Exchange, Financial Management, Storing of Electronic Records, etc.

42. JIS Migration Project Overview Since the migration project initiation in 2000, a number of projects have been implemented. • The following applications were completed: • ACORDS (Appellate Court Records & Data System) – Rollout is complete. End-users are generally satisfied with the functionality; however, the system suffers from slow system performance. • CAPS (Court Automated Proceeding System) – was rolled out only to one court location. The perception is that the implemented functionality was not user-friendly and was time-consuming to use. • JCS (Juvenile & Corrections System) – Production rollout is in progress. End-users are satisfied. Rollout to all juvenile courts is expected by April 2006. • Additionally, other completed initiatives include: • Individual data exchanges between systems have been implemented. • Significant infrastructure work has been completed. The current JIS architecture has been defined at the strategic level, but requires follow-through to fully flesh it out.

43. JIS Migration Scope and RequirementsKEY:Phase I and II Activities The following three slides summarize the analysis of court functionality and plans for JIS Migration: KEY: Phase II Major New Functionality Courts = Required Functions Green = Required by all courts Based on group consensus during the Gartner Focus Group Session on 8 Sep 2005 Yellow = Required by some courts Based on AOC Analyst Phase I Re-host/Enhance Current Functionality Based on group consensus during the Gartner Focus Group Session on 8 Sep 2005

44. JIS Migration Scope and Requirements Phase I and II Activities

45. JIS Migration Scope and Requirements Phase I and II Activities (cont)

46. JIS Migration Scope and RequirementsPhase I and II Activities (cont)

47. AOC IT Execution Strategy Layered Project Governance • JISC - stakeholder oversight • AOC - executive oversight • Project management oversight Software Development Approach • Build using in-house resources supported by contractor subject matter experts • Historical – early adoption of new technology using big-bang approach • Current – Agile development: • Phased delivery of functionality • Prototype solutions “try before you buy” Services and Infrastructure • In-house hosting • Full service available, but not mandatory

48. AOC IT Execution Strategy (cont) Technical Approach • A single, integrated system providing 80% of the required core functionality with the ability to be easily customized to meet specific court business needs. • Service Oriented Architecture • Web-based application suite • Externalize business rules • A single enterprise database accessible by all applications to foster data transparency and data exchange.

49. AOC IT Execution Strategy (cont) JIS Migration Initiatives

50. AOC IT Execution Strategy (cont) Transition Plan