When the Tennessee Public Defender's Conference was given the thumbs up to purchase new case management software, they were delighted. The prospect of new software meant to them what it means to most of us-a chance to process more work, more efficiently and effectively, in less time using a better tool. ProLaw became that tool for them, and what follows describes their decision-making and implementation process.
Our journey from the technological Dark Ages of DOS command lines to the fast-moving present day where Windows platforms rule was, to say the least, much like a big old bear shedding its winter fur for a sleeker, lighter summer coat. We kept that bulky old coat as long as we could, extracting every possible bit of warmth from the trusty, musty fur. But then the weather warmed, and it was time to go light and sleek with our technology before we ended up matted and scruffy instead of sleek and cool.
We look back at our opportunity to upgrade from our old DOS-based case manager, CaseMan, to Windows-based ProLaw, and are pleased that technology continues to evolve. CaseMan, developed in FoxPro for the Tennessee Public Defender's Conference back in 1993, served us well for years and provided us the statistical basis on which to periodically report to our state legislature. We invested a considerable sum in this highly-customized software, and had hoped to rely upon its capabilities for as long as absolutely possible.
In spite of the desire to continue with CaseMan, after more than half a decade of service, we knew its days were numbered when we moved from our DOS platform to Windows in 1998. We then began to consider replacement options while we trained our users on the new Windows system. The prospect of replacing our custom software was not one we relished. Leaving the comfort and familiarity of CaseMan was going to be an adjustment regardless of how well we did our homework. We accepted this, and then proceeded with the next step-outlining our expectations for CaseMan's replacement.
The Tennessee Public Defender's Conference is part of a cost-conscious government, making funds downright tricky to come by. Fortunately we'd written a federal technology grant in the spring of 2000 that we were awarded in July of that year.
Defining our needs was, of course, the first step. At a minimum, we had to accomplish with our new case management system what we had managed in CaseMap - strong statistical reporting. But in order to truly benefit from a solid case management tool, we had to set the expectation bar higher. What we really needed was a robust, feature-rich, highly customizable, infinitely scaleable case management system that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. Also, the Tennessee Public Defenders' Conference is comprised of 42 offices in 31 districts across the state of Tennessee, which meant that any software we chose would be required to communicate across a distance. We certainly felt these parameters were reasonable, though we soon learned that not everyone offering case management options did.
In order to ensure we were outlining our collective case management needs well, we formed a committee of attorneys, conference staff and users to define and accurately forecast current and future case management requirements. The committee subsequently crafted an RFP based on the information they had gathered, then cast it to the industry players and awaited a response.
While a respectable number of vendors responded, ProLaw ranked best among all respondents. Its robust feature set and overall flexibility offered an advantage over even those packages designed specifically with public defenders in mind. ProLaw represented a customizable, time-tested alternative, with a history of happy clients to further strengthen its appeal.
Our final decision to purchase ProLaw became even easier when we visited two of its installations and were pleasantly surprised at the evidence of abundant customer support available - something we knew would be absolutely critical to the success of our endeavor. Interestingly enough, ProLaw not only offered features that we were excited to embrace, it was also reasonably priced-a combination we hadn't dared hope to find.
Due to our grant being awarded over two fiscal years, with work performance due prior to payment, our rollout plan was a bit tricky. Scheduling became critical, as did our method for training users on ProLaw. To complicate matters even further, all of our 42 offices differed slightly in their practice preferences and style, so in spite of beginning as a fairly straightforward operation, ours became increasingly sophisticated as we proceeded. ProLaw was able to meet our numerous prerequisites without balking, and continually adapted when necessary along the implementation road.
Several adjustments were made along the way. Our original data conversion plans were altered when we realized that each of our branches used CaseMan a little differently, and that individualized conversions would be necessary to protect the integrity of our data. ProLaw's data conversion team then customized each location's conversion. Timelines altered a bit with this development, but we still managed to stick to our rigorous rollout schedule.
We also encountered physical limitations. Slow phone line connections within our statewide phone system precipitated. In lieu of single databases in main offices into which satellite offices dialed, there was a need for separate databases in some of the satellites. While certainly not show stoppers, events like these occurred along the way and made the entire process a little more interesting that we would have liked. In many ways the implementation was a test of creativity and stamina for our IT staff and ProLaw's trainers. The schedule was tight and training was designed to target individual user groups to maximize training benefits and minimize professionals' time dedicated to the process.
Training time, plus good old hand's-on experience is paying off. Our district offices are now beginning to reap the benefits of ProLaw's integrated functions. As our attorneys and staff work cases, they are able to add case notes, verify contact information, and basically check on the status of cases whenever they wish. Perpetually updated data is truly changing the way we handle our cases, since less time is spent tracking down the newest relevant details. We're also taking advantage of the document management side of the program. For example, we now use ProLaw to generate the form letters defendants receive apprising them of when they'll need to appear in court. The amount of time we're already saving is adding up quickly; by not having to manually prepare each document, we're streamlining our workflow.
Since our rollout, our inability to connect with our statewide WAN has been resolved, though our connectivity has not significantly changed the way we use ProLaw. It has allowed us to keep one database in some districts, which we thought might have to be split between main office satellite due to slow telephone connections. This only involves a handful of districts. There is not more data sharing than before, just faster in those offices. The lack of WAN in initial rollout was just one factor considered when deciding to decentralize ProLaw to the districts. We're now convinced that was the best choice, regardless of whether the WAN connection was available in the beginning. Because we do not share case data between districts, there was no need for the ability to share ProLaw databases between districts. By decentralizing the databases, we are insulated from WAN-related issues affecting ProLaw performance (speed and downtime). We can still centralize the management anywhere via PC, while decentralizing the databases seemed to work well for us.
We have shed our heavy old coat and are moving forward with spring in our step and the knowledge that we've gained more than just a new case management system. We've begun to refine our workflow, to discover the joy of sharing case data across-the-boards and to reach a level of practice that will only continue to improve as we adopt over time more and more of what ProLaw has to offer.
Times are tight from a budgetary standpoint, and we are already identifying additional ways for ProLaw to help us improve our efficiency. Each district office uses the software slightly differently due to onsite preferences. ProLaw is able to adapt to the various styles represented across the Conference, which means more professionals are likely to take advantage of its capabilities. We consider this to be particularly important in a time where the luxury of more personnel is not an option. Serving our clients well is our objective. Using ProLaw is one way we can ensure we'll be able to continue to effectively serve those clients, even as their numbers increase while our staff numbers remain the same.