Electronic Document Management at Columbia UniversityCommon Solutions Group, September 12, 2014

Why implement EDM at Columbia University?

• To replace old/antiquated imaging system, the Minolta Image Management System (MIMS), that stored documents in an optical/CD-ROM jukebox for the University's Accounts Payable department. This was back in 2006-2007.

• Desire to implement enterprise wide ECM/EDM solution that was secure, scalable, reliable, etc., to deploy throughout University over the years.

2

Why OnBase?

• After extensive RFP process, 3 responses were received:– Hyland Software's OnBase application– Perceptive Software's ImageNow application– Ricoh's (then called Ikon Office Solutions) home grown imaging

application• Chose Hyland's OnBase for its modules/offerings, but also because it

was already implemented in 2 separate instances at the University (one which was later absorbed in to enterprise instance)

• Reseller used at the time was the leader in Higher Education sales/coverage, specializing in Admissions and Accounts Payable applications

• Hyland Software was and has consistently been a leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Content Management

3

OnBase's Capabilities with…

• Integrations• Was integrated with University's home grown AP mainframe

application, allowing communication to and from mainframe• Integrating with external Admissions application systems via web

services.• University then upgraded the home grown AP application to use

PeopleSoft Financials, which OnBase was easily able to set up a near real time integration. Data is sent to and from both systems for up to date status updates and transaction approvals/denials.

• Integration with Open Text's RightFax Server

• Architecture – OnBase can easily scale out to support enterprise solutions

4

OnBase's Capabilities with…

• Audit Trails – extensive audit trail, which logs detailed information when a document is touched in any way, i.e. viewed, printed, modified, emailed, etc., as well as when any document level metadata is modified.

• Security – OnBase can segregate security access and privileges to documents and processes based on user's job functions

• Can integrate with LDAP, Active Directory, and CAS • Workflow/BPM possibilities

5

Implementation Timeline

• ~2002 – The University's Undergraduate Admissions Office purchased OnBase to manage the end to end admissions application processing and review.

• Summer 2003 – The Mailman School of Public Health (grad school) also purchased a separate instance of the OnBase application to manage its admissions application processing and review.

• Summer 2006 – The University began looking in to initiating ECM. Began RFP process.

• 2007 – OnBase was chosen as the Enterprise-wide ECM application. It was developed to manage the University Accounts Payable department, allowing departments to electronically send invoice documentation to AP, as well as manage electronic communications between departments and AP. Prior to doing so, hard copies of invoices were (snail) mailed to AP, which then needed to be scanned to the old MIMs system, before processing. Processing invoices averaged 3-4 weeks. This time was significantly reduced to same day for rush requests, and 1-3 days for normal processing.

6

Implementation Timeline (cont.)

• Fall 2008 – Expanded EDM services to the University's largest graduate school. Solution was for an end to end Admissions application processing, integrating with an external application submission vendor, and the University's Student Information System. Application helped to process over 13,000 admissions application per year.

• Summer 2009 – Expanded to various graduate schools for their admissions application processing and later to manage Student Advisement in one of the schools. We also imported one of the previously existing stand-alone OnBase systems in to the Enterprise application.

• Summer 2010 – Expanded OnBase functionality to the University's Purchasing Department to manage the overall requisition and change order process.

• Summer 2012 – University implemented PeopleSoft Financials, which required an overhaul of the pre-existing OnBase Workflow process. Near real-time integration with PeopleSoft Financials was also developed.

7

Client Summary

• The University's Accounts Payable, Purchasing, and Vendor Management departments using document management and workflow module

• 4 Graduate Schools using document management and workflow module

• 3 Independent departments using electronic document management

~ 2,500 users throughout enterprise, using a combination of direct thick and thin/web access, and integrations with external systems.

8

The Good…

• Increased operational efficiencies across all clients, with enhanced workflow capabilities or even basic document retrieval. – Saw huge improvements in processing times of AP, Purchasing, and

Vendor Management requests– More efficient at managing large amounts of documents associated

to operational logistics of a business process, i.e. collating supporting documentation for thousands of Admissions applications automatically

• Allowed for proactive approach for transaction monitoring/managing, direct communication with clients from OnBase application

9

The Bad…

• Implementing brand new technologies and processes came with its drawbacks.

– In initial AP application configuration, the volume of transactions and processing times wasn't considered initially. For example:

• Overlooking additional clicking when working with multiple systems at once caused large backloads at first.

• Delays caused by overdeveloping integration when implementing near real time integration with PeopleSoft.

• Reporting tools – required vast knowledge of OnBase database schema. Canned reports provided with report module were not very useful.

• Knowledgeable resources are hard to come by

• Expanding EDM to rest of University has also been a challenge. Due to:

– In house resource availability

– Departments not readily seeing positive impact of implementing EDM application

– Costs involved with supporting application, i.e. head counts, etc.

10

Things to keep in mind

• Think BIG. While it's good for smaller departments to begin implementing basic EDM, i.e. document storage and retrieval, and later expanding to their respective business units, the enterprise as a whole should think about standardizing and expanding services to main/central groups first. Then they should determine what business processes are shared among various groups and tackle those as well. This will make standardizing documents/keywords much easier.

• Security – not just security within the application itself, i.e. roles and responsibilities, but rather security related to PII, FERPA, HIPPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.

• Document retention – Organizations should think about not only how to store documents, but how to get rid of them as well.

• As with any IT implementation, requirements traceability is key! This will ensure that the client's requirements are logged and met.

11

Things to keep in mind

• One EDM/ECM system may not fit the needs of the entire organization. Case in point is with legal and medical records storage/management. There are software packages available that meet the needs of both of these vertical groups individually that may not fit the needs of the greater population.

• Always be one step ahead of vendor. In our case, some standard practices weren't followed/communicated during initial implementation.

12