6470
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Information
Resources Management
Washington DC 20460
21M-101V
February 1991
Guidance for Developing
Image Processing
Systems in EPA
EPA System Design and
Development Guidance:
Supplement to Volumes A & B
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................... 1
I. Acquisition Process for Image Processing Systems in EPA ....... .......7
A. IPS Committee 7
B. Overview of the IPS Acquisition Process 8
1. Define Mission Needs 9
2. Gain IPS Committee Concurrence 10
3. Conduct Feasibility Study 12
4. Obtain Director, OIRM Approval 13
5. Perform Detailed Requirements Analysis and System Design 13
6. Acquire and Implement System 14
II. Mission Needs Study[[[ 15
A. Define Organizational Mission 17
B. Describe Current Document Management System 19
C Define Document Management Problems 23
D. Identify Document Management Needs 23
1. Document Access 24
2. Document Storage 24
3. Document Distribution 25
4. Document Control 25
5. Document Processing 26
E. Identify Possible Solution Areas 28
1. Document Access 29
2. Document Storage 29
3. Document Distribution 30
4. Document Control 30
5. Document Processing , 31
F. Obtain IPS Committee Concurrence and Direction 31
III. Feasibility Study ., 35
A. Determine Operational Cost Baseline 36
B. Develop Feasibility Alternatives 40
C Determine Feasibility Alternatives Costs 41
1. Investment Costs 42
2. Operational Costs 44
3. Annualized Feasibility Alternatives Costs 46
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Appendix A: Document Management Framework......................................... .53
Appendix 8: Document Management Approaches .....~~.....................................61
I. Document Management Solutions 61
A. Paper 61
B, Micrographics 62
C Image Processing Systems 64
D. Hybrid Image Processing Systems 64
IL Document Management Alternatives 67
A. Paper - Technological Complexity 67
1. Movable Filing Systems 67
2. Computer-Based Indexing 68
B. Micrographics 68
1. Media 68
a. Microfilm Rolls 68
b. Microfiche 69
c Jacketed Microfilm 69
d. Aperture Cards 69
2. Technological Complexity 69
a. Computer-Aided Retrieval (CAR) 70
b. Computer Output to Microfilm (COM) 70
c Digitized Microfilm 70
C Image Processing Systems 71
I. Media 71
a.Magnetic Storage 71
1. Magnetic Tapes 71
2. Magnetic Disks 71
b. Optical Storage 72
I. Compact Disk/Read Only Memory 72
2. Write Once Read Many (WORM) 72
3. Erasable Optical Disk 73
2. Technological Complexity 73
a. Storage and Retrieval Systems 73
b. Archival Systems 74
c Document Processing Systems 75
Appendix C: Average Unit Costs.............................................-..*.............................^
Appendix D: Mission Needs Study Document Outline ........................................81
Appendix E: Feasibility Study Report Outline[[[^
Appendix F: IPS Policy Document..... .. ............ 89
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides guidance for EPA managers interested in
determining whether electronic image processing technology may be a cost-
effective alternative for their information management needs. It explains
how to define mission needs and how to conduct a feasibility study, the first
steps necessary to justify investment in an imaging system. These analyses
are key documentation in the government's budget and procurement process
for acquiring and implementing information technology and systems. The
term "image processing systems" (IPS) is defined for this guidance document
as the storage/ retrieval, processing and control of document images (i.e.,
document pages, maps, drawings, etc.) in electronic digital form.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
The purpose of this guidance is to advise EPA managers on how to
successfully demonstrate the need to make a capital investment in an image
processing system first to their own management, then to the Director of
the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) and, if warranted,
finally to budget and oversight officials in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA). This
guidance covers the initial documentation EPA managers should expect to
influence their decisions about imaging systems with preliminary
assessments of:
The nature of their document management needs
Any specific document processing and records
management problems that impede organizational
effectiveness
The options available to meet their needs and solve
particular problems
The economic, technical and organizational feasibility of
an electronic imaging system solution.
Just how much detailed documentation is required to obtain agreement is
generally in proportion to the magnitude of the investment. Investments
associated with IPS frequently include much more than the costs of vendor-
provided hardware and software and may include such new or additional
resources as:
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 1
-------
Executive Summary
Facilities, equipment and contractor services
Customized applications software
Office procedural manuals and updated records retention
schedules
Conversion .and .storage costs, for historical and existing
records
Human resources ~ both training and new roles for
management and processing.
Early identification of needs as well as a focus on the range of realistic options
should help to clarify whether and how IPS could significantly improve the
performance of the organization. A clear understanding of the management
objectives for undertaking major enhancements in document and records
management programs helps managers evaluate the full potential impact of
changes, benefits and costs they may experience if they decide to invest in an
imaging system.
IPS is a relatively new and complex technology. Early experience in
EPA and other organizations with prototype image processing systems
indicates that guidance addressing the particular characteristics of these
systems is important to managers. One of the major lessons from these
prototypes is that IPS is a fundamentally new way of performing many office
and program, functions. Imaging systems offer innovative and effective
processes for document creation, distribution, manipulation, storage and
retrieval. To justify both the expenditure of funds and the inevitable
disruption in established document handling procedures, an IPS system
should not simply perpetuate current document management practices by
automating them. An IPS solution should make use of the unique features
of IPS technology to improve document management while at the same time
supporting the overall objectives and priorities of the organization.
2. DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING EPA DECISIONS
Image processing technology is powerful, but it not necessarily the best
solution for all document and records management needs. The formal
definition of mission needs and assessment of feasibility outlined in this
guidance document should give managers the written analyses they need to
determine relatively quickly:
Whether they should invest in further, more detailed and
expensive assessments of specific IPS solutions
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 2
-------
Executive Summary
How large an investment over what period of time may
be needed before improvements start paying off
(including conversion, facility and staff costs mentioned
above.)
Preliminary cost, benefit and return-on-investment (ROD estimates are
essential ..to..meet.-Federal .oversight .requirements in the budget and
procurement process. Both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
the General Services Administration (GSA) have criteria and dollar
thresholds governing the acquisition of information technology and systems.
If these are met, substantial documentation on the need for and projected
return on the investment may be required.
This guidance covers the basic questions and topics that must be
addressed in the mission needs analysis, preliminary design and options
analysis for information systems. The products of these analyses the
Mission Needs Study and the Feasibility Study address basic documentation
needs for review within EPA and by oversight agencies. This guidance
document supplements Volumes A and B of the Agency's System Design and
Development Guidance and, like them, offers generic guidelines. Each
program manager's document and records management needs, however,
have unique as well as common concerns. Some needs are met with
substantial investments in "major" or "high-end" systems; some can be
satisfied with relatively inexpensive "low-end" systems. The early
identification of the scope of the solution determines the extent of detailed
analysis and documentation that may be needed to determine and justify the
investment in an imaging system.
This guidance was produced under the auspices of the Image
Processing Systems (IPS) Committee, whose charter is to ensure that EPA
investments in IPS meet the Agency's overall needs and priorities. Appendix
G presents the IPS Committee Charter. The Committee designed the IPS
acquisition process described in this guidance to promote its oversight role
and to begin building an understanding of the Agency's full range of strategic
needs for imaging systems. The IPS Committee serves as a senior-level
oversight and advisory body. Its recommendations inform the Director,
Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) who is responsible for
exercising EPA's delegation of procurement authority by approving
investments in information technology and systems, including IPS.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 3
-------
Executive Summary
3. ORGANIZATION OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Chapter I of this guidance provides an overview of the entire process
for acquiring image processing systems in EPA in six distinctive but iterative
decision-making phases:
Define "Mission Needs"
Gain IPS Committee Concurrence
Conduct Feasibility Study
Obtain Director, OIRM Approval
Perform Detailed Requirements and System Design
Acquire and Implement System.
A: noted earlier, this guidance document offers supplemental information to
assist EPA offices with the first four steps of the process for image processing
systems. The fifth phase of system acquisition involves extensive, indepth
analyses outlined in Volume C of the System Design and Development
Guidance. Two new guidance documents support the sixth phase of
acquisition and implementation. They are entitled Image Processing Systems:
Implementation Guidance Parts I and II:
9 Part I IPS Contract Hardware, Software and Services
Description provides a list of all hardware and software
components available on an EPA contract for image
processing systems.
Part II Acquisition and Implementation Guidelines
provides a summary of acquisition procedures, hardware
configuration design, training guidelines, site preparation
guidelines, installation and testing guidelines, operations
guidelines and support responsibilities.
The IPS acquisition process overview in Chapter I also defines the role and
outlines the procedures the IPS Committee will follow in exercising its role to
ensure the productive introduction and use of electronic image processing
technology and systems in the Agency.
Chapter n describes how EPA offices decide whether IPS is a solution
they should further explore by documenting their needs for improved
document processing and official records management. The chapter also
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 4
-------
Execulive Summary
describes the criteria the IPS Committee applies in concurring, from a broader
Agencywide perspective, with program managers' decisions that image
processing technology is a good potential candidate to address particular
problems and enhance overall organizational effectiveness.
Chapter HI presents a methodology for conducting a feasibility study to
get as early an assessment as possible of whether IPS is a reasonable solution
to. pursue-in-terms x>f economic justification, technical capability and
organizational realism. This chapter summarizes how to address the
estimated costs and benefits of alternative solutions in a relatively quick and
inexpensive analysis. The results assist EPA program managers in deciding
whether more time-consuming and expensive detailed systems requirements
analyses appear warranted. The results of the feasibility study then assist the
IPS Committee in recommending and the Director, OIRM in approving the
decision to acquire image processing technology and systems.
This guidance also includes six appendices. Several apprendices have
reference materials which may be useful in assessing mission need and
feasibility, such as comparative assessments of the relative advantages and
costs of paper, micrographics, image processing and hybrid image processing
systems. EPA documents which may be useful in developing image
processing systems, such as the Agency's policy on IPS implementation, are
also included as appendices.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 5
-------
I. ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS IN EPA
The need for guidance and an acquisition process specifically tailored
for image processing systems (IPS) became apparent from the Agency's
experience with early IPS prototypes. The distinctive requirements and
characteristics of image processing systems involve considerations beyond
those encountered in general automated data processing system
development. The term "image processing systems" is defined for this
guidance document as the storage, retrieval, processing and control of
document images (i.e., document pages, maps, drawings, etc.) in electronic
igital form.
To ensure that EPA offices interested in using image processing benefit
from this early IPS experience, the EPA Administrative Systems Council
created an IPS Committee, whose charter is to advise the Director, Office of
Information Resources Management (OIRM) and members of the
Administrative Systems Council on proposals to implement advanced
records and information management systems employing the use of digital
imaging, storage and communications technologies.
This chapter describes the role of the IPS Committee and the overall
process it has established for image processing system acquisition.
A. IPS COMMITTEE
The IPS Comittee is chaired by the Deputy Director, OIRM and draws its
membership from senior technical managers within OIRM and the National
Data Processing Division (NDPD in OARM/RTP) as well as senior program
managers knowledgeable about image processing and its use in EPA.
Appendix G presents the Committee's charter which includes definitions of
its objectives; membership and structure; and operation.
The essential role of the IPS Committee is to ensure the successful
introduction of this new and complex technology which has significant
impact on not only on individual offices but also on the Agency as a whole.
The Committee and its members are to ensure that new proposals for IPS
benefit from what the Agency has begun to learn from hands-on experience
with electronic imaging systems. In addition to technology transfer, they are
also to ensure coordination and prevent expensive duplications of effort
where offices may have similar needs. The Committee should also advise
EPA managers and the Director, OIRM-of opportunities for integration and
efficiencies of resource utilization, e.g., where all EPA Regional offices or
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 7
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
laboratories may benefit from the innovative system developed by one
organization.
The Committee has recommended the Agency's policy for IPS
acquisition and has published this guidance document as its initial activities
in overseeing the productive introduction and utilization of image
processing technology in EPA.
Exhibit M
Acquisition Process for Image Processing Systems
Acquire and
Implement System
Perform Detaied
Requirements and System
Design
Obtain Drector,
OIRM Approval
Gain IPS
Committee
Concurrence
B. Overview of the IPS Acquisition Process
EPA's process for acquiring image processing systems includes six
distinctive but iterative decision-making phases as shown in Exhibit 1-1:
Define "Mission Needs"
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
PageS
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
Gain IPS Committee Concurrence
Conduct Feasibility Study
Obtain Director, OIRM Approval
Perform Detailed Requirements and System Design
Acquire and Implement System.
This process follows the basic analysis and decision-making structure of
Volumes A, B and C of the Agency's System Design and Development
Guidance which begins with identification of "mission need" and concludes
with system acquisition and implementation.
The IPS acquisition process is distinguished from EPA's more generic
systems development process only by its emphasis on the critical importance
of the first step of defining mission need and the additional step of IPS
Committee concurrence. The following sections outline the purpose,
documentation and results of each of the six phases of the IPS acquisition
process.
1. DEFINE MISSION NEEDS
The purpose of this phase is to conduct assessments which help EPA
managers conclude that an image processing systems is an appropriate
alternative for improving their document processing and official records
management. This first step is critical to the rest of the acquisition process
because it defines the management objectives and the improvements which
promote the Agency's mission that managers should expect from their
investment in IPS. These definitions of the concerns the imaging system
should address are also invaluable aides to decision-making throughout the
remaining feasibility, design, acquisition and implementation phases.
The data collection and analysis tasks to determine the needs for an
image processing system do not require elaborate technical assessments. They
do, however, demand careful examination of an organization's document
processing and records management program. If an organization maintains
current records retention schedules and regularly assesses its document
handling procedures, these tasks can be completed efficiently to answer key
questions about:
Management Need Are documents and official records
-being managed-to help meet the organization's mission?
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 9
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
Management Opportunity Are changes in -document
handling and records management warranted to enhance
staff and office productivity?
Alternative Solutions What alternative document
management approaches might meet these needs and
enhance productivity?
Appendix D outlines the content of a Mission Needs Study to respond to
these and other questions EPA managers will raise before deciding that IPS
appears to merit further investigation.
Defining the nature of management problems and opportunities to be
gained helps in identifying the range of alternatives which may address the
problem. These alternatives are described in Appendix B and include:
More efficient paper document-based approaches,
enhanced with computer indexing, bar-coding of file
folders to aid tracking , and other 'low-tech" refinements.
Microform-based approaches, including microfilm and
microfiche, which may also be enhanced with
computerized indexing and retrieval
Image processing involving the conversion of paper
document images into electronic digital information,
which is then stored, retrieved and processed
electronically
Hybrid approaches involving combinations of the above
technologies.
At this phase, results of the mission needs analysis help EPA managers define
their records management requirements, evaluate the extent to which
improvements depend upon enhancements to their records programs and
whether information technologies may be a part of the management
solution.
2. GAIN IPS COMMTTTEE CONCURRENCE
If EPA program managers determine that IPS is an option they would
like to pursue further, they contact members of the IPS Committee and
review the results of their mission needs assessment to ensure the successful
introduction of this advanced technology into their offices.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 10
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
In reviewing the mission needs analysis, the IPS Committee does not
seek to "screen out" requests for image processing apart from those that are
clearly not appropriate applications of the technology as much as it seeks to
offer guidance to sponsoring organizations, based on the Committee's
experience with imaging.
In giving its concurrence to proceed with a feasibility study, the
Committee may request that the sponsoring organization address specific
issues in its analysis, such as giving consideration to a particular alternative
involving a hybrid of technologies.
The Committee may also use the mission needs analysis to determine
whether the scope of the proposed document management application
should be broadened (or narrowed), or whether other organizations may
have a collateral interest and might be brought into the process. For example,
an important responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that duplicative
feasibility studies are not conducted, such as the same program office in
several regions independently analyzing identical applications. In these
instances, the Committee will advise the Headquarters program office and
interested regional program offices to coordinate efforts through a joint
feasibility study.
The IPS Committee also may exercise its coordinating role when an
application offers the potential of supporting operations in another office or
functional area beyond the sponsoring office. For example, an image
processing application in one program area may benefit an administrative
function (or another program area) that uses the same documents or data
associated with those documents. Cost recovery for Superfund site cleanup is
one clear example of an activity involving both programmatic and
administrative documentation that transcend organizational and data system
boundaries. In these situations, the Committee may request coordination so
that as the application development progresses, the opportunity for cross-
functional /cross-organizational support is realized.
Ensuring the efficient use of the Agency's image processing equipment
is another responsibility of the IPS Committee. Because of the high capital
costs of large image processing systems, the Committee must encourage the
sharing of IPS hardware, when practical. If two divisions within a
Headquarters office, for instance, have pending requests that appear
promising, it may be less costly to host their applications on one larger image
processing platform than on two smaller platforms. The same need to
coordinate equipment use applies to EPA regional offices as well. While it is
premature at the mission needs analysis step to determine hardware
capacities, it is not premature for the Committee to request that the feasibility
analyses for such applications be coordinated. In fact, the economy of scale
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 11
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
gained through combining applications on a single IPS-platform might
permit economic feasibility when independent platforms would not.
Because the mission needs analysis serves as the foundation for all
following analysis and development efforts, it is essential that it be done
thoughtfully, yet not involve an elaborate technical analysis. Errors in
understanding the relationship of document management needs to the
mission of the sponsoring office, if not caught at this point in the process, can
be very expensive to correct later.
3. CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDY
If the IPS Committee concurs that image processing is a potential
solution worthy of further evaluation, then the sponsoring organization
conducts a feasibility study. This study involves further definition of the
alternatives and a comparison of their respective life cycle costs and benefits
to determine the most appropriate solution for the document management
needs. It is the Committee's responsibility to evaluate the results of the
feasibility study and the sponsoring organization's conclusions if image
processing is recommended as the most appropriate solution and advise the
Director, OIRM in approving the proposed system.
Chapter HI of this document presents the methodology the Committee
requires for conducting the feasibility study. Several general points about the
feasibility step of the IPS development and acquisition process are worth
noting in this introductory chapter.
The term "feasibility", as it is defined for this process, encompasses
several dimensions, including:
Economic justification Is the cost of the proposed
solution acceptable?
* Technical capability Is the recommended solution
technically possible?
Organizational realism Is it realistic that the proposed
solution can be implemented by the target organization?
The actual determination of feasibility is complex because it involves
weighing these factors with the benefits derived from managing documents
in a way that better supports the organization's mission. Baseline
characteristics that are developed in the Mission Needs Study are used to
perform economic analysis for each of the alternatives. These economic
considerations are then combined with the technological, organizational and
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 12
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
mission needs considerations in order to determine the most feasible
alternative.
The feasibility study elaborates on the alternative solutions identified
in the mission needs analysis, yet it is still conducted at a fairly high level.
An investment to develop detailed requirements and design should only be
made for the most appropriate alternative selected as a result of the feasibility
study. Thus, a sponsoring organization needs to define its alternatives only
to the extent required to support analysis presented in Chapter ffl.
Nonetheless, in some cases the IPS Committee may request further
analysis by the sponsoring organization to clarify ambiguities or to test
different cost factors. This is why. it is important at the outset for the
sponsoring organization to dearly understand the Committee's objectives for
the feasibility analysis.
4. OBTAIN DIRECTOR, OIRM APPROVAL
If the feasibility analysis concludes that an image processing-based
solution is the most appropriate, then the sponsoring organization receives
authorization from the Director, OIRM to proceed with development of the
application. The Director will consult the IPS Committee for advice in
making this decision to approve, disapprove or direct additional analysis
before the procurrement of an imaging system or a detailed design study may
begin.
If image processing is determined not to be the appropriate solution,
then the sponsoring EPA managers decide whether to proceed with another
alternative that does not include image processing technology. The
development and implementation of a solution other than IPS would occur
outside the process described in this guidance document.
5. PERFORM DETAILED REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND SYSTEM DESIGN
After receiving authorization to proceed with IPS application
development, the sponsoring organization will begin to specify the
application's detailed user and system requirements, and the system's design.
This analysis will build on the foundation begun in the mission needs and
feasibility steps.
The guidance for sponsoring organizations at this step of the
development process is contained in the EPA System Design and
Development Guidance, Volume C: System Design, Development, and
Implementation.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 13
-------
Chapter I - Introduction
During this step of the development cycle, the IPS Committee's
interaction with the sponsoring organization will be similar to the interaction
between OIRM and the NDPD for a major system development effort.
Periodic progress meetings may be held, mutually scheduled by the IPS
Committee and sponsoring EPA program office. These meetings will serve to
keep the Committee apprised of progress and significant problems. The
meetings will also provide an opportunity for the Committee to gain insights
that may be.helpful to pass along to the other IPS applications developers, as
well as offer guidance to the EPA office developing its detailed requirement
and design specifications.
At present, image processing systems are considered "major" systems,
as defined by the EPA System Design and Development Guidance, by virtue
of their scope of operation or magnitude of costs. The documentation and
review requirements specified throughout this present guidance for IPS
applications is consistent with the requirements for all major applications.
6. ACQUIRE AND IMPLEMENT SYSTEM
At the appropriate stage of IPS system design, the acquisition process
will begin. This point is determined by EPA program managers leading the
development of the imaging system. Written authorization from the
Director, OIRM is required under the Agency's delegations of ADP
procurement authority to invest in the necessary equipment and services
from the appropriate Agency contracts. Actual implementation is expected to
follow a project management and implementation plan defined as part of the
detailed system design.
Guidance on the acquisition and implementation step of this process is
contained in two separate documents on Image Processing Systems:
Implementation Guidance: Parts I and II:
Part I IPS Contract Hardware, Software and Services
Description provides a list of all hardware and software
components available on an EPA contract fcr image
processing systems.
Part II Acquisition and Implementation Guidelines
provides a summary of acquisition procedures, hardware
configuration design, training guidelines, site preparation
guidelines, operations guidelines and support
responsibilities.
The average timeframe in the federal government for the overall
process from mission -needs through acquisition and implementation
of a major information system is approximately 18-to-36 months.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 14
-------
II. MISSION NEEDS STUDY
This chapter discusses the process used to perform a Mission Needs
Study for a system in which the use of image processing technology is
contemplated. It also discusses the concurrence process and criteria used by
the IPS Committee when reviewing Mission Needs Studies.
The Mission Needs Study should identify the management objectives
and any specific records management concerns. These will define the
feasibility and requirements for an improved document management system.
Since the focus of this manual is on imaging systems which deal with the
manipulation and storage of documents, the focus of the Mission Needs
Study will be on records management issues in an EPA program area. A
range of alternatives to meet the defined needs must be assessed to arrive at
tentative conclusions regarding the most appropriate technological approach
to the problem.
The most critical aspect of the Mission Needs Study is providing
sufficient detail to demonstrate the nature of the program's needs without
getting lost in detailed data collection and analysis. The study is not meant to
be extensive or costly because no feasibility for implementing the system has
been established. On the other hand, enough information must be developed
to narrow the options sufficiently to focus the Feasibility Study on the most
appropriate document management solutions to the problem. Establishing a
sharp focus for the Feasibility Study will greatly reduce the effort and cost
necessary to conduct the study and will allow the study team to concentrate
more effort in identifying the most promising solutions.
Another critical issue is the effectiveness of existing records
management policies, procedures, operations and personnel. Any of these
aspects of the records management program that are outdated, ineffective or
unresponsive to the EPA program's needs must be corrected before
information technology solutions are worth the investment. Any new
system built upon weak document processing, insufficient staff resources or
obsolete records retentions schedules risks perpetuating the existing
problems. Some problems, in fact, might be aggravated with the introduction
of some technologies. Because of its central role in the successful
introduction of IPS, the program's records management should be reviewed
and clearly understood prior to the establishment of system requirements.
Exhibit H-l illustrates the process used to conduct the Mission Needs
Study. This is the first step in the development process, and in many ways,
the most critical. The high-level mission needs identified in this study will
become the foundation for all future feasibility and requirements analyses.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 15
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
They will also serve as the primary rationale to justify the .cost and effort
necessary to acquire the system.
Exhibit IM
Steps for Conducting the Mission Needs Study
JBMtofl MM* Study OooumtalQuUn*
Docurmnl Mmiganmit
Problem)
Currant Document
Management Syซtปm
Appendix D provides an outline for the written report which describes
the results of the Mission Needs Study. The document contains the
following chapters:
Chapter I (Introduction) provides a general introduction
to the purpose of the study, the process used to conduct it,
and the sources of information for the study.
Chapter II (Organizational Mission) describes the
organizational purpose, goals, objectives and functions of
the sponsoring organization and its records management
policies.
Chapter in (Current Document Management System)
describes the existing document management system and
its strengths and weaknesses.
Chapter IV (Problem Definition) defines the document
management problems which exist that hinder the
organization in meeting its goals and objectives.
m
Chapter V (Mission Needs) describes the document
management .needs required to .access, store, process and
control the documents maintained by the current system.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 16
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Chapter VI (Possible Solutions) provides-a description of
potential solutions to the problem with a rationale for
each describing how it solves the problem and meets
defined needs.
Exhibit II-2 identifies the methodology for conducting the Mission
Needs Study. The remainder of this chapter provides a description of this
methodology including the activities necessary to conduct the study and
produce the study document.
Exhibit II-2
Mission Needs Methodology
C j, ซw
*-
s %%%
PRQ9UHOEFMIIKMI
DETERMINES
tlBSON NEEDS
IDENT1FCS
A. DEFINE ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION
The first step in conducting the Mission Needs Study is to identify and
document the goals, objectives and functions of the organization which are
supported by an existing system. In general terms the organizational mission
defines what the organization does today and where the organization is going
tomorrow. The organizational mission is one element which establishes the
framework for identifying its document management needs. Exhibit II-3
identifies the major components comprising the organizational mission.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 17
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Exhibit II-3
Organizational Mission Components
ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION
'// FUNCTIONS '//,
In order to identify these needs effectively, the mission must be defined
in the context of the Agency's overall goals and priorities. For example, is the
broad mission of the program to enforce EPA regulations by successfully
prosecuting violators of EPA permits or to manage contracts which promote
more effective performance by the Agency? The mission should
encompasses all areas of the organization which are affected by the current
document management system or could be affected by implementing a new
system. Depending on the scope of the system, the organizational mission
may be defined for a specific branch, division, program office, regional office
or the entire Agency.
Laws, regulations and administrative policies and procedures have a
controlling influence on the characteristics of records management systems.
These issues must be well understood if the system is to ultimately serve the
needs of the organization.
To warrant the expenditure of funds, an IPS system should not simply
perpetuate current document management practices by automating them.
An IPS solution should make use of the unique features of IPS technology to
improve document management while at the same time support the overall
objectives and strategy of top management in information management.
IPS systems may be used for a wide range of applications within an
organization. Certain applications may be more strategically important than
others. For example, there may be an immediate need to reduce the number
of documents which are lost during a key phase of their processing. There
may, however, also be a strategic need to change the overall process through
which different staff in various locations interact as a document goes through
various stages of review and use. Potential users must appreciate the features
and capabilities that IPS technology offers to determine if an IPS can be
implemented cost-effectively to meet immediate and longer-term program
needs.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 18
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
The complexity of an IPS varies with the application goals. Some
systems intended for limited use in a single organization may be small,
standalone systems that do not require extensive document processing or
networking capability. On the other hand, systems which will be used
throughout the Agency and require integration of information from many
different sources could become very large and complex.
Additionally, a range of sensitive, human resource management issues
may surface with a proposal to consider an IPS system. IPS systems may
establish new information-access hierarchies, allowing rapid access to
documents by persons who previously followed structured procedures to
obtain them. Access control and document processing capabilities might be
built into an IPS system to ensure that only authorized persons have access to
documents or that documents must be processed in a specific way.
On a more basic level, it is important to consider the people who will
actually be operating, using and managing the system. Most office documents
and official government records are handled by many people throughout the
organization. The system must ultimately be responsive to all of their needs -
- and some groups will have distinctive needs not shared by others. People
have different reactions to automation of their work. They may not share the
same motivation to improve paperwork handling effectiveness and may
resist change, regardless of the benefits to the organization. Also, the ability to
process more work electronically in a unit of time may create a heavier
workload for operators and users, as well as the temptation for managers to
expect more work. These human factors must also be considered in the
Mission Needs Study.
It is important to understand that the overall effectiveness of an IPS
system is not determined by the capabilities of the hardware and software it
is determined by the ability of people who take advantage of these capabilities.
B. DESCRIBE CURRENT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Having identified organizational goals and objectives, it is now
necessary to evaluate the current document and records management system
of the organization. Is it expected that a proposed system will improve an
existing document management and processing capability? Or should the
new system be designed as a complete replacement of the existing system?
These questions can only be answered and justified by achieving a good
understanding of the current system.
The results of this analysis should provide an overall description of the
lifecyde of documents critical to the operations and performance of the
program office. The lifecyde of key documents begins with creation, through
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 19
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
active use to storage and disposition, either as an archival record or
destruction. Reference to the organization's retention schedules is essential
at this stage of analysis. The retention schedules provide an inventory of the
important documents in the office; identify which documents are official
governments records; and define disposition dates and procedures for each
document.
After establishing the set of documents and records used in the
paperwork supporting the office's functions, it is useful to distinguish
different types of documents - by how they are created and how they are used.
One approach to organizing the office's many different types of documents
into categories for further analysis might look like this:
Forms where the graphic format and size dimension of
the document are standard but the specific information
requiring action changes (e.g., purchase requisitions and
requests for personnel action)
Reference materials where the documents are not
changed by the holding office which uses this information
to perform its work on a routine basis (e.g., regulations,
contract terms and conditions, policy and guidance
documents, and publications from other sources)
Working and official documents where the documents
are either created or modified by processes in the office
while the documents are being developed or are held as a
record of an official action of the United States
Government (e.g., correspondence, record of decision,
memorandum of understanding, regulations, court briefs
and research reports)
Archival materials where the documents are not
changed by the office which either uses this information
in its work on an infrequent basis (i.e., for historical
trends) or is required by law to maintain inactive records
on-site (e.g., dockets).
Some method for organizing all the program office's documents into useful
categories helps create meaningful document profiles. These profiles
establish a functional description of the document categories, including how
they are processed and maintained under the current records management
system. Data collected for these document profiles are typically represented by
the kinds of questions illustrated in Exhibit n-4.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 20
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Exhibit II-4
Document Management Profile
What documents are retained?
What is the average number of pages per document?
What locations are served by the systems?
What is the mix of color and size?
Where are the documents stored?
Who uses the documents?
Who manages and controls the documents?
Why are the documents created?
Why are the documents retained?
How many documents are received daily? Annually?
How many document are retrieved daily?
How many documents are processed daily?
How many documents are stored? How many pages?
How are the documents organized?
How are the documents managed and controlled?
How long are the documents retained?
How are the documents disposed?
How many documents will exist next month?
Next year? In five years?
How many users are served by the system?
How often are the documents accessed?
Are the documents double-sided?
Are there security requirements (e.g. Privacy Act)?
Do the documents contain official signatures?
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 21
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
In addition to preparing a document profile, it is important to develop
an overall system description, including identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of the current system. The objective is to retain the strengths and
correct the weaknesses of the current system in order to implement a
successful document management solution that solves the problems. Exhibit
n-5 identifies the major components of the current system description.
Exhibit II-5
Current System Description Components
ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION
, - '
CURRENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
\ SYSTEM \^1
^ STRENGTHS vN
I
!X DOCUMENT 0
|X PRORLE 0
> SYSTEM y
^WEAKNESSES'
Information collected for the document profile and the system
description can be obtained using the following techniques:
Circulating survey questionnaires
Conducting interviews with management and staff
personnel
Conducting additional research by analyzing system
documentation and/or observing system operations.
The survey questionnaire should be designed to elicit quantifiable
information concerning characteristics of documents managed by the current
system. The wording of the questionnaire should be phrased carefully so that
it can be easily understood. In other words, technical data processing terms
should be removed and specific references to documents (e.g., document
acronyms [DMR], form numbers [SF-52], etc.) should be used where
appropriate.
Chapter HI of the Mission Needs Study Document, as shown in
Appendix D, should provide document profiles and description of the
current document management system including system objectives,
responsibilities of operating staff, document profiles, process flow diagrams
showing inputs, processes and outputs, mid system strengths and weaknesses.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 22
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
C. DEFINE DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
The document management problems which currently exist must be
clearly defined in order to identify the document management needs and
ultimately determine the best technological solution. The problem
essentially identifies unmet document management needs or deficiencies of
the existing system. These deficiencies define what the existing system cannot
perform in order to -meet -organizational -goals and objectives. Similar to the
system strengths and weaknesses described above, these system deficiencies
are also defined within the context of the organizational mission.
Exhibit II-6
Problem Definition Components
DBGAMZAIMNtt. IM8CN
CWMENT*V*rEMJ)ESCflU>IKM
ireim n
' Wl/UOCaEI/1
- - ' ' ' I
In addition to defining any problems, it is also important the
sponsoring office understands the implications of changes that may occur
when correcting these problems. An organization might create a new group
or remove an existing group of staff to support a new document management
system, or the organization might develop new procedures for document
management. Depending on the scope and complexity of the problem and
the solution implemented, these changes may have a significant impact on
the organization.
Identifying the strengths and deficiencies of the existing system will
establish the framework for defining the document management needs.
Chapter IV of the Mission Needs Study Document, as shown in Appendix D,
should provide an overall statement of the problem, as well as deficiencies of
the existing system.
D. IDENTIFY DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT NEEDS
Description of the current system and definition of the document
management problem establish the framework for determining what
capabilities an improved document management system should provide.
The description of strengths and weaknesses of the current system can portray
how current and future document management needs can and cannot be
met. Combined together, these elements can provide a foundation for system
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 23
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
enhancement that will preserve existing strengths, correct system weaknesses
and eliminate deficiencies. The following criteria provide an effective basis
for technology selection in the final step of the mission needs process.
1. DOCUMENT ACCESS
This need addresses which documents in the system are retrieved and
used by managers and staff in the program office and the type of access
required. Some of the issues to consider are:
Frequency of access: Is access to documents frequent or
seldom? Does access vary over time? If access is
infrequent, then a non-IPS solution may be most cost-
effective, such as microfilm or microfiche.
Speed of access: Length of time required to access
documents (rapid or slow)?
Single user or multi-user access: How many users will
need to access the same document or set of related
documents at the same time?
Other access characteristics: Do access characteristics
change over time? Are the accessed documents usually
related? If so, how? Access characteristics, such as what
type of information is typically needed (specific
information or general information), type of access (from*
one document to another in sequential order or random)
and how many documents are accessed at the same time
(single or many per access), all affect the technology
decision and ultimate system characteristics.
2. DOCUMENT STORAGE
Storage requirements define how long and under what conditions
documents must be available in the system. Some of the issues which should
be considered are:
Storage quantity: What is the total current document
volume? How many documents must be stored by the
system? What is the annual growth?
Storage duration: How long must documents be stored in
the system? If documents must be stored for a long time,
then.the ability of the storage media to remain reliable
over time becomes an issue.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 24
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Storage mandate: How long must the documents be
retained to satisfy the legal, statutory and disposition
requirements set forth in the Agency records disposition
schedules? Do any of these requirements limit the range
of acceptable storage media?
Active or inactive documents: How long do documents
stay active? Does access to documents become very
infrequent with age?
3. DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
Distribution requirements relate to the extent to which documents
must be delivered to multiple points in the organization in order to facilitate
other tasks. Some of the issues that relate to this requirement are:
Extent of internal and external distribution: Is document
distribution required? How many copies of the document
are typically distributed, both internal to the parent
organization and to external organizations.
Type of distribution: Is the whole document distributed,
or is only a portion of the document necessary?
Alternatively, is it necessary to distribute only data from
the document? Are documents distributed in groups or
individually?
4. DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document control relates to the security and accountability requirements for
documents in the system. These concerns are defined by the requirements of
the Privacy Act Program and legislation protecting confidential business
information and computer matching. In financial and administrative
documents, there are also objectives to minimize vulnerability to waste,
fraud and abuse. The following issues influence the selection of technology
in this area:
Security requirements: How extensive are security
requirements for documents in the system? Who sets the
security requirements? Are they sufficient as they
currently exist?
Document accountability: How extensive is document
accountability? Do the documents have intrinsic value if
control of- the document is lost? Who sets the
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 25
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
accountability requirements? Are they sufficient as they
currently exist?
Security for portions of documents or for data from
documents: Do different security requirements exist for
different parts of the same document? Is document level
security/accountability required?
5. DOCUMENT PROCESSING
Document processing is the extent of document flow, modification or
use of the document in the routine business of the organization. If the
document goes through extensive review or modification during the creation
process, or if routine business processes depend upon utilization and
modification of the document, then document processing is involved. The
following issues relate to this requirement:
Single or multiple persons processing documents: Are
documents typically processed by one person or by many?
Are multiple offices involved? Is there a specified
sequence of document flow during processing?
Internal and external document processing: Are the
documents reviewed or modified by external
organizations? Are documents processed in groups or
one by one? Are documents processed concurrently? Is
there a requirement that documents be processed in a
specified time?
A set of baseline characteristics must be developed to compare the
current document management system to the possible solutions. These
baseline characteristics are a subset of the mission needs and establish the
foundation for performing economic analysis. In order to perform an equal
comparison of the current system to each of the possible solutions, these
baseline characteristics define the reasonable set of mission needs
characteristics that should be reflected in the current system. Once
established, these baseline characteristics are constant for all of the alternative
solutions.
Exhibit n-7 presents a sample set of baseline characteristics that are used
to select the range of alternative solutions. These characteristics are a subset
of the document management profiles presented in Exhibit H-4. However,
the document management profiles reflect only the current system In
comparison, the baseline characteristics incorporate the mission needs that
should be reflected in the current system. The baseline characteristics are
further discussed in Chapter ffl - Feasibility Study. Exhibit n-8 identifies the
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 26
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
components that are used to derive the mission needs and depicts the
baseline characteristics as a subset of those needs.
Exhibit 11-7
Baseline Characteristics
What is the average number of pages per document?
How many documents are received daily? Annually?
How many documents are retrieved daily?
How many documents are processed daily?
How many documents are stored?
How many pages are stored?
How many users must the system support?
How many locations must the system serve?
How many documents will exist next month?
Next year?
In five Years?
How long must the documents be retained?
As shown in Appendix D, Chapter V of the Mission Needs Study
Document should describe the document management needs of the
organization in terms of access, storage, distribution, control and processing.
In addition, the baseline characteristics should be included for use in
determining economic feasibility conducted in the next development phase.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 27
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Exhibit II-8
Mission Needs Components
' ' ' ' A
FIMOTM /I;
^^^p^^l1
E. IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTION AREAS
The final step of the Mission Needs Study process is to determine
appropriate technology solution options that can meet program
requirements. Exhibit II-9 identifies the possible document management
solution areas. These possible solutions include:
Improved paper-based systems
ฎ Microform systems using microfilm or microfiche
Image Processing Systems
Hybrid combinations composed of combinations of the
above categories as well as other MIS technologies
Appendix B summarizes each of these solutions, which should be understood
before proceeding with the Mission Needs Study.
Exhibit n-10 provides an illustration of the relationships between the
Titeria utilized to describe mission needs in the previous section and the
jasic technologies available as system solutions. This exhibit does not
consider cost in the analysis, but merely depicts how well the needs criteria
generally apply to the functionality of the solution areas. Appendix A
provides a more detailed comparison of the requirements characteristics to
the system solutions. The following discussion amplifies the information
highlighted above under Section E.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 28
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Exhibit II-9
Possible Document Management Solutions
CIMRBITซr*TBI
. ITCTBI SjCoOCIMBCT>
L DOCUMENT ACCESS
Generally, image processing technology is most advantageous where
the solution requires frequent access to large volumes of documents.
Simultaneous access to paper documents by several users is difficult to
manage without creating copies of the document. Finally, increasingly
complex and demanding access requirements increase the likelihood that
image processing technology may be an appropriate solution for the problem.
2. DOCUMENT STORAGE
Image processing systems are most appropriate in cases where large
quantities of documents must be stored in the system. Technologies such as
Write Once-Read Many (WORM) optical disks offer large storage capacity at a
low cost and good long-term storage reliability. If some documents in the
system are very active and others are inactive, then perhaps a hybrid system
combining image processing with another technology is appropriate.
Image processing is a relatively new method for storing information
and, therefore is still in the early stages of acceptance by courts and regulatory
agencies. A legal precedent has not been established, to date, for the
admissibility of information stored on optical storage medium in a court of
law In current document management systems, micrographics remains the
best legally acceptable medium to ensure document integrity and reliability.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 29
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
3. DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
If distribution of multiple documents or portions of documents is
required, an image processing system may be a suitable alternative. In
general, IPS is best suited for applications requiring shared corporate databases
of documents distributed to multiple areas.
Exhibit 11-10
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Requirements
Categories
Document Access
Document Storage
Document Distribution
Document Control
Document Processing
Paper
Q
O
Q
ซ
9
Micrographics
e
Q
9
ซ
9
Key: Efficient: ^& Somewhat ^\
Efficient:
Image Processing
Q
inฃnicinit i \
4. DOCUMENT CONTROL
If security requirements are high, a number of options exist for
enhancing document security, including microfilm and IPS. Extensive
document accountability may also indicate the need for an image processing
system. Additionally, if sensitivity requirements are different for various
portions of the document or for data elements on the document, an image
processing solution may be appropriate.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 30
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
5. DOCUMENT PROCESSING
If documents are processed by multiple persons, in multiple offices,
externally to the Agency or if processing is done to batches of documents,
image processing technology may be appropriate.
Appendix A provides a more detailed view of these relationships, and
Appendix B provides a brief description of the technological alternatives that
are currently available. Utilizing the mission needs developed above and this
information, the sponsoring office identifies the solution(s) that are most
appropriate. The primary purpose of this process is to narrow the scope of the
Feasibility Study to only those solution areas which are appropriate to the
problem so that effort expended in the Feasibility Study can be as productive
as possible.
As shown in Appendix D, Chapter VI of the Mission Needs Study
should provide for each candidate solution, the name and description of the
solution as well as a rationale why it may be an appropriate alternative to
further analyze in the Feasibility Study.
F. OBTAIN IPS COMMITTEE CONCURRENCE AND DIRECTION
Exhibit 11-11 summarizes the primary criteria the IPS Committee will
reference when reviewing Mission Needs Studies. These criteria are
intended to ensure that the evaluation of projects is done fairly, consistently
and in a manner which is in the best interests of the Agency. Each of the
criteria identified in Exhibit n-11 is summarized below.
Consistent with agency priorities: The problem solved by the
candidate system must be consistent with mission requirements and Agency
priorities or it is unlikely that sufficient staff and financial resources will be
found to sustain system operation over time.
Sufficient resources: At a minimum, sufficient financial or staff
resources must be available to conduct the Feasibility Study or there is little
point in conducting the Mission Needs Study. An IPS system can be
expensive. If the resources are not available to procure and maintain it, then
it is unlikely the system will become a reality.
Clear statement of the problem: If the problem has not been articulated
clearly, it is likely that the sponsoring office has not completely thought
through the situation. Again, lack of clarity at this stage can be fatal.
Mission goals and organizational context: For the system to be a
success, the sponsoring office must have-articulated clearly mission goals and
the organizational context so that requirements and design efforts are
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 31
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
correctly focused. If this is not done, the system development effort will be
flawed from the start.
Proposed solutions consistent with the stated requirements: Has the
sponsoring organization correctly linked the mission needs with the correct
technology choices? Have any choices been overlooked? The Committee
may wish to provide additional direction to the sponsoring organization in
this area.
Demonstration of insight into the problem: IPS systems can be large,
complex and expensive. Additionally, they often result in significant change
in the business procedures of the organization. The organization must have
the management and technical sophistication to manage properly the
development and implementation process, or the system is likely to fail.
IPS a candidate solution for the system: If IPS does not appear to be
candidate solution, then the development effort is not within the jurisdiction
and interest of the Committee. Therefore, the Mission Needs Study need not
be brought before the Committee for review. If IPS is asserted as a proposed
solution, it should be supported by mission needs described in terms of access,
storage, distribution, control and processing requirements.
Other considerations: Each system is different, and the Committee
reserves the right to suggest other considerations as necessary.
Additional guidance: By providing additional guidance, the IPS
Committee can insure that Feasibility Studies are performed consistently and
in accordance with Agency policy.
The above criteria will be applied to evaluate the results obtained from
the Mission Needs Studies. Careful attention to ensure that these issues are
addressed in the Mission Needs Study will facilitate the evaluation process
conducted by the IPS Committee.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 32
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
Exhibit 11-11
IPS Concurrence Criteria
Is resolution of this problem consistent with
Agency priorities?
..Are . sufficient resources available to
undertake the Feasibility Study?
Is the problem dearly and accurately stated?
Are organizational purpose and mission
goals stated dearly and correctly?
Are proposed solution areas consistent with
the stated mission needs?
Does the sponsoring organization
demonstrate insight into the problem and identify
steps needed to correct the situation?
Is IPS a potential solution in this case, and is
that assertion supported by a description of:
1. Access Requirements?
2. Storage Requirements?
3. Distribution Requirements?
4. Control Requirements?
5. Processing Requirements?
6. External Requirements?
Are there any other considerations which
should be applied to mis project?
Should any additional guidance be provided
to the sponsoring organization to direct the
activities of the Feasibility Study?
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 33
-------
Chapter II- Mission Needs Study
The Mission Needs Study determines the high level mission needs
and identifies potential document management solution(s) to address the
defined problem. The results of this study establish the foundation for
conducting the next phase of the Systems Development Life Cycle
Feasibility Study. The analysis for assessing the feasibility of possible
solution(s) consists of four steps:
Determine an operational cost baseline for the current
document management system
Develop feasibility alternative(s) based on the problem
and needs defined in the Mission Needs Study
Determine feasibility alternative(s) costs providing an
annualized estimate of the investment costs and
operational costs
Develop a feasibility recommendation based on the
analysis of economic, financial, technological and
organizational considerations.
Each of these steps is discussed in detail in the following chapter.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 34
-------
in. FEASIBILTDlSlIIOY
Following IPS Committee concurrence with the conclusions of the
Mission Needs Study, a feasibility study must be conducted to determine if a
proposed solution can be justified within the context of existing constraints.
This chapter provides an overview of the feasibility analysis process to be
A A J J i
followed in conducting such a study.
The process, shown in Exhibit ffl-4, consists of four steps, and addresses
the feasibility of the solution(s) approved for consideration by the IPS
Committee, as a result of the Mission Needs Study process discussed in
Chapter H First, in order to form the- comparative basis for determining the
feasibility of the solution(s), an operational cost baseline derived from the
strengths and weaknesses of the existing document management approach
must be quantified. Second, based on an understanding of the existing
mission needs and following EPS Committee direction concerning the scope
of the proposed solution(s), a more specific alternative should be developed
for the proposed solution(s). Third, an analysis of the investment costs and
operational costs of the specific feasibility altemative(s) must be conducted.
Estimation of operational costs will serve to reflect a substantial portion of the
anticipated benefits for an alternative. Finally, other factors, such as
technological and organizational issues, as well as additional mission needs
unmet by the current document management approach, should then be
included in the analysis to provide support for, and understanding of, the
feasibility recommendation.
Steps for Conducting the Feasibility Study
Document Outline
Develop
Feasibility
mmendation
Determine
Feasibility
Alternatives) Casts
ftuabBBf Altimtttot
Develop
Feasibility Alternatives
Operations!
Cost Baseline
Guidmee for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
Exhibit m-2 describes the methodology that underlies-this process. In
order to assess the feasibility of selected alternatives, three major economic
analyses must occur:
Operational costs associated with the existing system must be
analyzed and developed into an annualized baseline cost.
Investment costs and operational costs of the selected feasibility
alternative must be analyzed and developed into an annualized
feasibility alternative cost.
Annualized baseline and feasibility alternative costs must be
compared primarily in terms of net present value to determine
basic economic feasibility.
The result of the net present value analysis is then included with any
additional intangible benefits. Other pertinent feasibility factors, such as
organizational or technological issues, as well as the extent to which an
alternative supports overall mission needs, also must be considered in
making the final feasibility determination.
A. DETERMINE OPERATIONAL COST BASELINE
A quantitative baseline must be developed so that a proposed solution
can be compared with the present document management system. This
operational cost baseline information is the foundation for any economic
analysis. Exhibit ni-3 summarizes the minimum set of categories that should
be considered in developing the annualized baseline cost. As can be seen,
once the basic characteristics of the existing system have been identified,
annualized storage, retrieval and processing baselines can be estimated.
The relevance of each of the major baseline cost categories storage,
retrieval and processing to the current setting must be determined on a
case-by-case basis. In each case, the baselines should serve only to reflect an
estimate of those activities that are actually being performed within the
current setting. For example, not every existing system will have extensive
document processing activities associated with it; such capabilities may not
even be currently possible. Some systems may serve primarily as document
repositories, with only minimal retrieval requirements.
It is important to understand that the operational baseline may not
reflect the full set of capabilities outlined in the Mission Needs Study; the
current document management approach simply may be incapable of
meeting the full set of document management needs. An awareness of the
weaknesses of the current approach, as well as those needs that are currently
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 36
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
M ANALYZED
ltMBOF
Exhibit III-2
Feasibility Methodology
OE1ปMNE
J
MCHHMUITZB)
I Of
COHMIIEDTO
WICefct&^^^l
XBTHC
FACTOM
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page37
-------
Chapter HI - Feasibility Study
Exhibit III-3
Baseline Operational Cost Categories
ofto
ofp*
nm mMk, MH ytv, MM
SPACE
QuMtratfrntoffloori
MATEMALKEOUWENT
OunlKy Bid ซMt of fltkig >yซtMn
(ปซ.ซ MMN*. toWv, Me J
PEnONNELCOSra
tmป4 en atMng* Dm* lor
lorag*, kKMkig irahnH. Mnkig,
ng*
HATEHUUS
ซซ 00 MlMII M< MX Of
PERSONNEL
Mirag*
kickidkifl
:;5-:ป*sajNEroocE88tMQ COSTS 5
unmet/ can play a significant role in determining the feasibility of a proposed
solution. In fact, the correction of current weaknesses and the provision of
additional capabilities is generally the primary reason for seeking approval to
implement a new solution. The key consideration to keep in mind
concerning the baseline system is that it serves as an analytical basis against
which proposed solutions are compared.
Personnel costs should be estimated based on current average wage
rates including overhead/fringe benefits for FTEs normally performing the
indicated activity. Personnel costs are primarily determined based upon the
time distribution of document handling and the amount of time associated
with specific document activities. Factors that can be used to estimate space,
materials or equipment costs are included in Appendix C.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 38
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
Once all costs associated with each of these areas, have been estimated,
the total annual costs for the baseline system can be determined. Annual cost
increases as the result of additional storage space costs per year should also be
considered. Exhibit ffl-4 presents a summary format of annual baseline
information required to conduct the comparative economic analysis,
described below, of the selected feasibility alternatives. Any special issues that
might have a significant impact on the current storage and retrieval costs,
such .as off-site document storage facilities or unusual retention
requirements, should be considered in the baseline analysis, as appropriate.
Careful attention to the external usages or interfaces required in the current
system should assist in the identification of relevant factors.
Exhibit m-4
Annualized Baseline Cost Summary
A8SUNE SYSTEM
ซOBTS|
COST SUMMARY
TOTAL ANNUM. STORAGE SPACE COST*
TOTAL ANNUAL STORAGE EOUPMENT/MATEMAU COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL STORAGE PERSONNEL COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL HETWEVAL MATEIULS COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL RETMEVAL PEIUONMO. COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL PROCESSING PERSONNEL COSTS
TOTAL AD
SPACE!
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 39
-------
Chapter III - feasibility Study
Results of the operational cost baseline analysis should .be presented in
Chapter n of the Feasibility Report. This chapter should include a brief
description of the current document management setting, its major
characteristics/ and the extent to which it meets overall mission needs. The
baseline category estimates should be presented along with any major
assumptions or unusual conditions that impact the overall baseline.
B ^EVELOPitAsiBiurY ALTERNATIVES
The process described in Chapter n of this guidance document should
result in one or more proposed solutions with the potential to address the
identified requirements. The IPS Committee may provide additional
direction as to the type, scope and complexity of the alternatives to be
considered for feasibility analysis. In addition, determination of the
operational baseline should provide a clearer understanding of the problem
to be resolved by the selected feasibility alternative(s). Therefore, three key
factors influence the development of feasibility alternatives:
High-level requirements developed for the Mission Needs Study
Direction provided within the IPS Committee concurrence
Understanding gained through analysis of the current problem.
The purpose of this step is to take these key factors into consideration and,
together with information about applicable technologies, develop one or
more alternatives sufficiently detailed to allow a meaningful analysis of
feasibility.
It may be helpful to think of the feasibility alternatives as an "educated
guess" as to how a proposed solution could address the problem identified in
the Mission Needs Study. The feasibility alternative serves only as an
analytical tool for determining the effectiveness of a proposed solution as
compared to the current system. Once feasibility has been determined for a
particular solution, the actual implementation option may differ significantly
from the alternative developed to assess feasibility. TThis can only be
determined once detailed system requirements have been defined, a process
that occurs only after the feasibility of one or more alternatives have been
established.
Appendix B, Document Management Approaches, contains
information that, when used in conjunction with the high-level
requirements developed within the Mission Needs Study, will allow the
selection and development of feasibility alternatives consistent with the
direction of the IPS Committee concurrence. Appendix B presents an
overview of possible technologies that facilitates a general understanding of
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 40
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
the fundamental characteristics of the solutions to- be considered. The
alternatives presented in Appendix B are not intended to be comprehensive
in scope. They are however, intended to provide a range of system
alternatives that can serve as a basis for developing appropriate feasibility
alternatives that have been adjusted or tailored to more precisely reflect the
problem resolution identified as necessary in the Mission Needs Study.
The development of feasibility alternatives represents a subjective
process of matching an understanding of the problem with an understanding
of potential solutions, factoring in any special direction or considerations
provided by the IPS Committee. Sound judgement must be exercised on the
part of the staff responsible for the feasibility study at this point. The accuracy
of the feasibility analysis, and consequently its future utility within the
systems development life cycle, depends on the appropriateness of the scope
and complexity of the alternative(s) selected. The more accurate and
comprehensive the understanding of the problem and the potential
solutions, the more appropriate the selection of the feasibility alternatives. It
is therefore important to acquire the best possible understanding of the
various aspects and implications of each solution before developing the
feasibility alternative(s).
A description of each feasibility alternative should be presented in
Chapter ffl of the Feasibility Report. Each description should include the basic
structure and components of the feasibility alternative, a summary of the
anticipated strengths and weaknesses of such a configuration, and the
rationale for its applicability in addressing the identified problem.
C. DETERMINE FEASIBILITY ALTERNATIVES COSTS
As with the baseline analysis, an annualized estimate of the costs
associated with each feasibility alternative is necessary. Whereas the baseline
analysis includes only operational costs, the feasibility alternative analysis
must also address the additional investment costs that would be associated
with the implementation of the alternative technology. In order to maintain
consistency with the baseline analysis, it is assumed that, at a minimum, each
alternative encompasses the same storage, retrieval, and processing
conditions as the baseline system. Results of the cost analysis for each
potential alternative should be presented in Chapter IV of the Feasibility
Report.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 41
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
L INVESTMENT COSTS
Feasibility alternative investment cost categories are summarized in
Exhibit ffl-5. Equipment costs (hardware and software if applicable), startup
costs and other costs are to be estimated for each feasibility alternative.
Equipment costs are to be based on the best available component prices
for the specific alternative. Appendix C contains certain cost information that
can serve as an initial point from which to develop the equipment cost
estimate. Hardware prices, however, may vary dramatically from vendor to
vendor and may also change over time, particularly as new technologies
mature. It is important therefore to verify current component costs before
costing the feasibility alternative. If appropriate, leasing or lease-to-purchase
options should be considered. Hardware prices should also include all costs
involving component installation, power and network cabling (if
appropriate) and documentation. The specific types and numbers of
components will differ according to each alternative but should generally be
consistent with the scope and complexity necessary to solve the identified
problem.
If a feasibility alternative has a software component, its costs should
include all required system, database and/or application software, and any
software licensing or maintenance fees, as applicable. The cost of any
necessary custom application development may vary widely, depending on
the particular system or application. Development of a "workflow"
document processing system could significantly increase software costs.
In addition to hardware and software costs, the startup costs associated
with each feasibility alternative must be considered. Costs in this category
should include an estimate of any extraordinary administrative costs incurred
in the justification and procurement of the alternative, as well as an
allowance for unanticipated miscellaneous expenses incurred during startup.
These miscellaneous costs can be estimated at approximately five percent of
the equipment costs. Other startup costs include an estimate of the costs
associated with any user and system administrator training required by the
alternative. These training costs generally rise as the feasibility alternative
increases in scope and complexity. Finally, costs associated with the
conversion of existing documents into the format required by the proposed
alternative must be considered, if indicated. The overall cost of document
conversion will vary significantly from alternative to alternative, both with
respect to the technology selected, as well as the scope of the solution
required.
Other costs may need to be included for a given feasibility alternative.
Identifying and estimating these costs, such as conversion costs, is dependent
on the scope and type of the alternative(s) selected.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 42
-------
Chapter in - Feasibility Study
Conversion costs can become particularly important in determining
feasibility. Some alternatives, for example, are more feasible if adopted for
future use while using existing or inexpensive storage options which avoid
what can be significant conversions costs.
Additional areas that warrant consideration include personnel
or additions, particularly in document management areas;
operational changes necessitated by the implementation of
alternative, in order to fully capture the benefits of that alternative;
on existing system resources, especially if the proposed alternative
integrated into an existing systems environment; and, impacts on
organizations that use the existing information.
changes
internal
a given
impacts
is to be
external
Exhibit III-5
Feasibility Alternative Investment Cost Categories
1
tvansnmsnuOK
HVESTUEMT COSTS
EQUMEMT COSTS
STORMS COSTS
CONVERSNN AND OTHER COSTS
JHMMJBEDKMBW
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 43
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
2. OPERATIONAL COSTS
In addition to developing an investment cost estimate, a quantitative
estimate of operational costs associated with each feasibility alternative must
be developed. Operational costs should reflect an estimate of the cost
reductions in overall operations that could be anticipated through the
implementation of an alternative. Exhibit ni-6 summarizes feasibility
alternative operational cost categories. It can be seen that these cost categories
are similar to the baseline operational cost categories described in Section B,
above.
Essentially, it is this similarity that ultimately enables the economic
comparison of each potential alternative with the baseline system. By
estimating the operational costs in similar categories, a comparable measure
of the anticipated impact of the alternative can be determined. This impact, or
"benefit", can be quantified relative to the operational baseline to determine if
the life-cycle savings associated with the "benefit" adequately offsets the
investment costs required to implement the feasibility alternative.
This approach to developing and using operational costs primarily
serves to estimate direct, quantifiable costs for the purpose of the above
comparison. These costs include such items as storage space costs and storage
materials. However, other impacts, such as in the areas of document
processing times, are indirectly addressed as well.
In developing the operational costs for the various alternatives,
changes with respect to the baseline operational costs are of primary
importance. The nature and extent of these changes will depend upon the
scope and complexity of the proposed alternative itself. Careful attention
must be paid to the potential for improvement in each of the cost categories.
Assumptions concerning the proposed system can influence the operational
cost estimate significantly. The information contained in Appendix B
concerning the characteristics of potential solutions should be considered in
formulating these assumptions.
Typical considerations include the reduction in space associated with
microfirraohics storage as comoared to tjaoer svstems or thp fart that r>pr-
'+* * %x * * * ^ " ~" ~~' f
square-foot space costs for automated systems may be higher as a result of
electrical or environmental requirements. In addition, media costs may differ
considerably by solution. Finally, and of major importance in determining
potential savings, consideration must be given to the significant changes that
may occur in the area of personnel costs associated with document storage,
retrieval and nroeessina. The costs assoriatprl with Hnrumpnt stnraerp mป\r
A t* ~ . -~ - o j
remain unchanged, or be only slightly altered, due to the offsetting of the
time and effort to physically label and store paper files with the effort to
photograph or scan and index documents in micrographics or digitization
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 44
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
solutions. The costs associated with document retrieval and processing,
however, may change dramatically as the technologies in proposed
alternatives assume a major role in document management, document
retrieval effort may be reduced as the alternative technologies enable rapid,
more efficient document location and access. Document processing effort
may be reduced through delays, timely association of subsequent file
documents or more accurate document delivery.
Exhibit ffl-6
Feasibility Alternative Operational Cost Categories
MSfUNECHAIUCTEMSTlCS
j
"> \
-
% \
- WWRllENrCOtT*
^M&fflMSilW*""
STOfUOE COSTS
SPACE
EOUFMENTMATEMALS
MATENALS
PROCESSMQ COSTS
AtMUAUZEDKAMMUTV
"
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 45
-------
Chapter HI- Feasibility Study
3. ANNUAUZEDFEASIBIUTYALTERNAITVECS) COSTS
Once all costs associated with the categories in both the feasibility
alternative operational costs and investment costs have been estimated, the
total annual cost estimate of the feasibility alternative may be developed.
Exhibit m-7 presents a summary format of the annual feasibility alternative
information required to conduct the comparative economic analysis described
in Section D, below.
D. DEVELOP FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATION
The feasibility recommendation to the EPA managers basically consists
of an assessment of economic feasibility and consideration of other factors
that might influence any decision to proceed with further development of a
proposed solution. The process that results in the overall recommendation
includes a determination of economic feasibility primarily through net
present value (NPV) analysis. Economic feasibility is augmented by
considerations of technical and organizational feasibility. Additional
considerations, including indirect or intangible benefits, should be addressed
also, particularly when mission needs dictate solutions that are not readily
cost-justifiable. Exhibit III-8 depicts the components contributing to the
development of the feasibility recommendation.
The feasibility recommendation should be included as Chapter V of the
Feasibility Report which is outlined in Appendix E of this document. The
recommendation report should include the costs of each alternative under
consideration as described in Section C, above, in support of the economic
feasibility analysis. The recommendation report should also include a
discussion of additional feasibility considerations described below for each
alternative, as appropriate. Based on the analysis of these considerations, a
specific recommendation and associated rationale should be made in the
report, identifying the alternative best suited for addressing mission needs.
1= ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The economic analysis becomes useful only when the estimated costs and
savings are considered in cash flow terms over the life cycle of each
alternative. Savings are best understood when discounted to determine their
present value, since the value of -noney changes over time due to factors
such as inflation. Investment costs are typically incurred at the outset of a
project, with benefits, or savings occurring throughout the life cycle. The life
cycle of an alternative should be determined based on the type of alternative
being analyzed; a six-to-ten-year range is typical.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 46
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
Exhibit III-7
Annualized Feasibility Alternative Cost Summary
FEASIBILITY ALTERNATIVE
INVESTMENT COST*
OPERATIONAL COSTS
COST SUMMARY
TOTAL ANNUAL STORAGE SPACE COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL STORAGE EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS COSTS
TOTAL STORAGE PERSONNEL COSTS
TOTAL RETRIEVAL MATERIALS COSTS
TOTAL RETRIEVAL PERSONNEL COSTS
TOTAL PROCESSING PERSONNEL COSTS
plus
EQUIPMENT, STARTUP AND OTHER COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
plus
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL SPACE COSTS (IF ANY) .
ANNUALCED FEASIBILITY
ALTERNATIVE COST
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 47
-------
Chapter III-Feasibility Study
Exhibit m-8
Feasibility Recommendation Components
There are many techniques employed to evaluate the economic
feasibility of a proposed alternative. The net present value technique is
relatively straightforward, consisting of five steps.
1. Annual costs are listed for the existing system. These costs reflect the
annualized baseline cost as described in Section A, above and should
indicate any year-to-year increases, as appropriate.
2. Annual costs are listed for each potential alternative. These costs
reflect the annuaiized baseline cost as described in section C, above.
Investment costs should be included in the first year.
3. Net annual cash flows are then computed by subtracting the costs for
each potential alternative from baseline costs on a yearly basis.
Investment costs result in a significantly negative cash flow in the first
year. It is anticipated that the cash flow would gradually improve as
alternative savings are factored in annually.
4. Net annual discounted cash flows are then computed by applying the
appropriate discount factor to account for the time value of money.
OMB Circular A-94 directs that a discount factor of 10% is consistent
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 48
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
with current policy. The effect of this step is -to present future cash
flows in terms of current dollars.
5. A cumulative discounted cash flow is then determined, with the final
cash flow amount representing the NPV of each potential feasibility
alternative.
The resulting cumulative discounted cash flow, or NPV, represents a
convenient way in which to examine the economic feasibility of a potential
alternative as compared to the baseline system. In addition, the NPV of
different alternatives can be compared as well to assist in the selection of the
best approach. Exhibit ffl-9 presents a simplified example of NPV over a five
year life cycle.
It is important to note that determination of NPV is based on many
assumptions that can significantly effect the outcome of the analysis.
Assumptions concerning the discount rate and the length of the life cycle are
critical. Assumptions concerning whether to apply investment costs at the
outset, or to amortize them across the life cycle must be made. Depreciation,
if applicable, can effect the outcome, as can assumptions concerning the
ultimate salvage or resale value of equipment. Finally, the assumptions that
provide the rationale for the selection of a particular alternative and that
underlie the entire cost collection framework will have a major influence on
the ultimate NPV outcome.
Exhibit III-9
Example of Net Present Value
Annualized Baseline Cost
Annualized Alternative Cost
Net Annual Cash Flow
Net Discounted Annual Cash Flow
Cumulative Discounted Cash Fbw
Net Present Value
Yearl
$100,000
$152,500
($52,500)
($52.500)
Year 2
$110,000
$75,000
$35,000
$29,000
($23.500)
Years
$120,000
$75,000
$45,000
$34,000
$10,500
Year 4
$130,000
$75,000
$55,000
$38,000
$48,500
Years
$140,000
$75.000
$65,000
$40,000
$88.500
$88,500
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 49
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
Once NPV has been determined, return on investment (ROD may be
computed, if deemed necessary. ROI also is useful in comparing different
alternatives. ROI is the percentage return for an alternative based upon the
present value of the estimated cost savings, or benefits, that result from its
implementation. In the example given in Exhibit III-9, ROI would be
computed as NPV divided by alternative investment cost [(($88500/$77500) -
1)* 100%] or, a 14% return on investment over the life cycle of the feasibility
alternative. Traditionally, a 10% ROI is considered the minimum acceptable
limit for OMB approval of system acquisitions.
2. NON-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
While economic feasibility analysis serves as the primary influence in
the development of a feasibility recommendation, additional intangible factors
often sway the balance in favor of one atlernative or another. As with many
other elements of this process, these non-economic considerations are "checks
on reality" and will vary greatly from alternative to alternative. This final
section is intended only to present a brief overview of some areas of possible
importance.
Technical feasibility considerations should come into play particularly
when an alternative under consideration involves new or unproven
technology. Extremely complex solutions also should be examined in this
light. Sometimes technology may not have matured to the point of providing
a reliable, effective solution, as in the current capabilities to efficiently perform
machine reading of handwriting. Complex alternatives may have to be
reevaluated and broken down into smaller, more manageable alternatives
with a vision toward integration at some future time.
Each potential alternative also should be examined against the structure
and culture of the organization. Implementation of an alternative may result
in unacceptable organizational changes, such as the elimination of a work unit
or the absorption of one unit into another. Other organizational factors must
be considered, including the availability of personnel with the technical
competency to utilize the new system and a willingness to make necessary
procedural changes. Management support must be available at all levels so
that adequate resources are provided to insure the success of the
implementation. Awareness of these and other organizational factors,
including the availability of funding for the proposed alternative, are among
the important considerations to be included in the feasibility analysis.
Finally, numerous other benefits may result from the implementation
o: of the potential alternative. However, many of the benefits may not be
readily quantifiable or may not be realized in the initial phases of
implementation because significant changes in the organization's business
practices may be necessary first. Even so, these benefits may be of considerable
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 50
-------
Chapter III - Feasibility Study
importance to overall feasibility determination. Examples of these indirect or
intangible benefits include:
Improvements in management ability to distribute, monitor, and
control workload
Reductions in clerical document management errors
Improved document integrity and security
Improved employee morale and retention rates, particularly at the
clerical level
Increased opportunities to integrate the new system with existing
systems, thereby providing better organizational information access,
with possible further cost reductions
Improved timeliness and quality in responding to external "customer"
information requests
Increased opportunities for streamlining operations
Increased flexibility in staff utilization
Increased opportunities to implement standards
Reduction or improvement of off-site (archival) document
management storage.
While it may not be possible to quantify these benefits and include them in
the economic analysis, they nevertheless should be examined, presented as
perceived strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, and incorporated as
part of the feasibility recommendation, as indicated in Appendix E.
Finally, the capabilities provided by a potential alternative may meet a
specified need that cannot otherwise be met; or, the capabilities provided by
an alternative may greatly exceed the capabilities of the baseline system in
meeting the full set of mission needs. In such cases, these considerations
should become significant factors influencing the feasibility determination.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 51
-------
Appendix A
Document Management Framework
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 53
-------
Appendix A: Document Management Framework
APPENDIX A: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Tables A-l through A-5 compare three primary document
management solutions a manual paper-based process, a micrographic
process and a document image processing solution. The tables show the
relative efficiency with which each of these three solutions satisfies document
management requirements in five major categories. The requirement
categories pertain to a general user or users' work environment and identify
potential user requirement characteristics within each category. Each of the
five requirement categories highlighted in a separate table and is defined as
follows:
1. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS. This category reflects the characteristics
as to how many users retrieve documents, the frequency of retrieval of those
documents, the attributes of the documents, portions of documents or data to
be retrieved and general security and timing restrictions pertaining to the
retrieval of the documents.
2. STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS. This category defines the volume of
documents to be stored, whether the documents are "active" (i.e., still in effect
and/or in current use) or "inactive" (i.e. no longer in effect and/or seldom
used), and the retention and disposition of the documents as set by the
Agency records disposition schedule.
3. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS. This category characterizes the
user(s) requirement in regard to distributing documents internal and external
to an organization, the scope of the document distribution requirement, the
frequency and scheduling of documents for distribution and the nature of
what must be distributed (e.g., single documents, multiple documents,
data/information from documents).
4. CONTROL OF DOCUMENTS. The control of documents is
characterized by the level of security requirements for documents, portions of
documents, selected data from documents and the extent of document
accountability required by users.
5. DOCUMENT PROCESSING. Document processing is defined in
terms of requirements to act upon or process documents in a prescribed
manner, by a specified number of people, involving internal and/or external
organizations and offices with consideration of processing time. Document
processing is distinct from the category of Access to Documents^because
processing is implicitly "workflow" related whereas access to documents
essentially represents the retrieval and display of documents.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 54
-------
Appendix A: Document Management Framework
It is assumed that the tables should reflect the -general capability of a
particular solution to satisfy a specific requirement, without consideration of
costs. Another assumption is that each of the solutions considered (i.e.,
paper, micrographic, image processing) was optimally configured/organized
for purposes of comparison. Essentially, the best manual paper solution
would be compared to the best micrographic or image processing solution for
a given requirement characteristic. Therefore, with all things being equal, the
tables are intended to jeflect the relative appropriateness of each solution.
The factors considered in assigning the relative values for each
solution are:
Effort required on the part of the user(s) to satisfy the
requirement given each optimized solution
Complexity of the solution in terms of management and control
required to be exercised by the user(s)
Comprehensiveness of the solution in terms of satisfying the
specific requirement and providing additional flexibility.
The tables are not intended to suggest a hierarchy or to convey
priorities of requirements or solutions. Those considerations must be left to
the judgement and needs of the users. For example, the criticality of a single
requirement and the selection of the most efficient solution to satisfy that
requirement may outweigh all other possible solutions applicable to other
requirements. This comparative consideration is reserved for EPA managers
to determine the importance and value of the solution.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 55
-------
Appendix A: Document Management framework
Table A-l
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Access to Documents
Requirements
Categories
Paper
Micro-
graphics
Image
Processing
Frequently
Infrequently
By Single User
By Multi-User
Sequentially by User
On Demand by Users
For Specified Data
For General Information
Within Specified Times
Restricted to Select Users
Single Documents
Multiple Documents
Specified Portions of
Documents
Key
Efficient:
Somewhat
Efficient:
Inefficient:
O
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 56
-------
Appendix A: Document Management Framework
Table A-2
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Storage of Documents
Requirements
Categories
Paper
Micro-
graphics
Image
Processing
Small Quantity
Medium Quantity
Large Quantity
Short Period of Time
(1 -12 Months)
Long Period of Time
(More Than 12 Months)
Is Discretionary by User
Is Specified by Law or
Other Authority
Active Documents
Inactive Documents
o
Key
Efficient:
Somewhat
Efficient:
Inefficient:
O
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 57
-------
Appendix A: Document Management Framework
Table A-3
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Distribution of Documents
-Requirements
Categories
Paper
Micro-
graphics
Image
Processing
Wide External
Distribution
Low External Distribution
Wide Internal
Distribution
Low Internal Distribution
Distribute Select Portions
of Documents
Distribute Documents
Within/At Specified
Time
Distribute Data From
Documents
Distribute Single
Document
Distribute Multiple
Documents
o
Key
Efficient:
Somewhat
Efficient:
Inefficient:
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 58
-------
Appendix A: Document Management Framework
Table A-4
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Control of Documents
Requirements
Categories
Paper
Micro-
graphics
Image
Processing
High Security
Requirement
Low Security
Requirement
Extensive Document
Accountability
Limited Document
Accountability
Security of Portions of
Documents
Security of Select Data
From Documents
Key
Efficient:
Somewhat
Efficient:
Inefficient:
: /~\
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 59
-------
Appendix A: Document Management framework
Table A-5
Comparison of Document Management Solutions
Document Processing
Requirements
Categories
Paper
Micro-
graphics
Image
Processing
One Person Processing
O
Multi-Person Processing
O
Single Office Processing
O
Multi-Office Processing
Specified Sequence of
Document Flow and /or
Approval
Agency Internal
Agency External
Single Document
Multiple Documents
Concurrent Processing of
Single or Multiple
Documents
O
D_
Processing Completed
Within Specified Time
Q
Key
Efficient:
Somewhat
Efficient:
Inefficient:
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 60
-------
Appendix B
Document Management Approaches
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 61
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
APPENDIX B: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT APPRO ACHES
I. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
This section provides a description and characteristics of possible
document management solutions that can serve as a basis for developing
appropriate-alternatives-in--the Feasibility Study. This appendix is not
intended to be comprehensive in scope. Instead, the information presented
provides an overview of possible technologies which should help EPA
managers gain a general understanding of the fundamental characteristics of
the solutions.
A. PAPER
Paper is still the most common form
of information storage. This storage media
has historically set the standard for
convenience, cost and functionality of
information transfer. The main drawback to
paper is the space required to store large
volumes of documents. In addition, a paper
filing system can require extensive time and
effort to retrieve documents and the
resources required to manage the overall
system can be quite expensive.
The physical characteristics of paper include a wide range of sizes,
colors, thicknesses and compositions. In addition to the information stored
on the document, these physical characteristics can also convey a message. As
compared to other storage media, this feature is very unique. Table B-l
defines the basic advantages and limitations of paper.
The expected lifetime of a paper document depends on the type of
paper used and environmental conditions in which it is stored. The life span
of paper can range from a few days to hundreds of years. Many inexpensive
types of paper use a high acid content which tends to deteriorate rapidly (e.g.,
newspaper). In addition, the ink chemicals tend to have an effect on the
durability of paper. Environmental conditions such as heat, light and
moisture can directly affect the life span of a document, but some forms of
high-quality, acid-free paper can be expected io last for 1GG years or more.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 62
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Table B-l
Paper Characteristics
Advantages: Standard Media for Information Transfer
Admissible as Legal Evidence
Can Handle Any Display Format and Size
Easy to Reproduce Information
ป Easy to Update Information
ซ Easy to Manually Browse Documents
Limitations: ฐ Requires Large Storage Space
Retrieval Time May Be Slow
Large Volumes Can Be Difficult to Manage and
Expensive to Move
e Easy to Lose or Damage Documents
0 Changes May Be Difficult to Identify and Track
Paper storage techniques are based on the physical filing of documents
involving a trade-off between file integrity and access. If an application
requires the tight control of documents, access to these files is usually
restricted. This commonly occurs by storing documents in a centralized
location. On the other hand, if document access is a significant requirement,
then copies of the original document are made and stored in decentralized
locations convenient for the user. Most organizations use a combination of
centralized and decentralized filing techniques. Sensitive documents are
commonly stored in a centralized location with restricted access and
frequently used documents are stored in multiple, decentralized locations.
Regardless of the storage and retrieval system, once the volume of
paper documents exceeds the available space, obsolete or seldom-needed
documents must be either disposed of or stored in a more remote location.
Despite a variety of disadvantages, paper will always remain a very common
and popular media for storing information.
B. MICROGRAPHICS
Micrographics uses a photographic process in which an image of a
paper document is transferred by a camera onto unexposed film. The film is
then-exposed,
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
density is quite high, but, special filming, processing, reading and printing
equipment are required. However, a service bureau may be contracted to
perform many of these operations. Table B-2 identifies the major advantages
and limitations of micrographic systems.
Micrographic systems require an
optical viewer to expand the image to a
readable size. These viewers are
available with a variety of
magnifications, screen sizes and image
retrieval capabilities. Most viewers
project an image of the document on a
screen, and the user controls the
spooling of microfilm or movement of
microfiche until the desired document
image is in view. Micrographics
printers are available that will allow the
user to produce a paper copy of the
image on demand.
Table B-2
Micrographics Characteristics
Advantages:
Limitations:
High Storage Capacity
Admissible as Legal Evidence
Well Proven and Tested Technology
Easy and Cost-Effective to Duplicate Film
Can Display Most Document Formats
Low Conversion Costs
Retrieval Time May Be Slow
Film May Be Difficult and Expensive to Update
Film Can Be Easily Lost or Damaged
May Be Time Consuming to Browse Documents
Micrographics has proven to be a very cost effective solution for
ications having-specific document storage and retrieval requirements.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 64
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
This document management solution continues to be a. viable technology for
solving many document storage problems.
C IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
From a broad perspective, image processing systems convert images to
a digital format that can be manipulated by a computer. When an image is
recorded using a digital process/ it is scanned and then transformed into
binary digits - ones and zeroes. This digital format can then be viewed at a
computer terminal, printed, stored or transmitted to other users.
Magnetic
Storage!
Optical Disc Jukebox
Laser Printer
As opposed to a photographic process that can record continuous tone
variations, electronic digitized images can only record a limited degree of
detail. Varying degrees of both intensity and color are represented by a
specific digital value. This is analogous to placing a fine window screen over
an image and recording only the parts of the image that can be seen through
the holes in the screen.
Virtually any media that can store digital information can be used to
store digitized images. The most common forms of digital media are
magnetic tapes and disks and optical disks. Digital information also can be
recorded on tapes, disks or cards. A description of these media is provided in
Appendix B, Section n - Document Management Alternatives. Table B-3
identifies the major characteristics of image processing systems.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 65
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Table B-3
Image Processing System Characteristics
Advantages: High Storage Capacity
Rapid Access to Documents
Easy to Reproduce Information on Paper
Difficult to Misplace or Damage Documents
Enhances Document Security and Integrity
Can Simultaneously View Single Document
System Can Be Easily Expanded
Can Integrate With Other Technologies/Systems
Limitations: High Equipment Costs
High Document Conversion Time and Costs
May Require Environmentally-Controlled Room
High Maintenance and Support Costs
Inability to Access Documents During System Downtime
No Decision on Legal Admissibility
D. HYBRID IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
Hybrid image processing systems use a host of various technologies
that maximize the performance, efficiency and cost effectiveness of
information processing for a given application. The overall solution for a
given application may incorporate multiple document storage technologies
(1=6=, paper-based, micrographics and electronic imaging) as well as other
complementary information technologies such as:
Bar Coding
Text Processing
Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
~ iiiฃv_LiGriiC i^raia AiiicrCiiailgc vi^i
Electronic Forms
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 66
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Network Architectures
Facsimile Transmission
Electronic and Voice Mail.
Hybrid image processing systems can be very appropriate where an
application contains a large, diverse and complex set of requirements. For
example, an application may have a wide range of information needs,
consisting of text and image data, each having a unique set of requirements
for storage, access, process and control. A micrographics solution may be
most suitable for those documents which are archived and rarely accessed.
Those documents which are needed on a frequent basis or are distributed to
several persons within a office may be best supported by an electronic imaging
solution operating on a local area network. In addition, these images may be
transmitted using a facsimile format to field offices or external organizations.
All of these technologies may be integrated in providing an overall cost-
effective solution for information processing which best meets the needs of
the users.
II. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
This section identifies feasibility alternatives for each of the document
management solutions identified above. These feasibility alternatives are
organized in two categories: media type and technological complexity. In
general, the media type provides the means for storing information (e.g., -
paper, microfiche, optical disk). Each solution is also subdivided into feasible
alternatives which are defined in various levels of technological complexity.
These complexity levels range from a basic alternative providing the essential
components of a technology to a more sophisticated alternative providing a
higher degree of automation and functionality.
A. PAPER
Numerous techniques have been developed to improve
the effectiveness of paper storage and retrieval tasks and to
reduce paper storage volumes including:
Movable filing systems using mechanical and electrical features
to reduce the amount of access space needed between filing
cabinets and shelves.
Computer-based indexing systems to identify the storage location
and control the distribution of paper documents.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 67
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
I. Movable Filing Systems
Movable filing systems use various equipment to improve access to
individual documents including rotary carousels and banks of shelves
mounted on rollers. The shelves can be manually rolled in either direction
to gain access to individual files. When they are not in use, entire banks of
shelves can be rolled together to eliminate the space normally taken for aisles.
These types of filing systems allow documents to be stored at much higher
storage densities than standard paper-based systems.
Other types of paper systems use electrically operated filing drawers and
shelves. An operator can simply press a button to move shelves using an
electrical conveyor. This allows the operator to scan rows of documents and
stop the conveyor when the desired document comes into view.
2. Computer-Eased Indexing
In addition to using movable filing systems a computer data base can be
added to reference the location for each of the documents. The location and
description of each document can be keyed into the system, along with
tracking information to identify who has a particular document when it is
being used. This data base can also interface with the electrical conveyors in
order to automatically retrieve a particular filing shelf.
Regardless of the level of automation incorporated into a paper-based
system, once the volume of paper documents exceeds the available space,
obsolete or seldom-needed documents must be either disposed of or stored in
a more remote location. This basic constraint remains a primary
disadvantage for paper-based systems.
B. MICROGRAPHICS
There are several alternatives available for a micrographics solution.
These alternatives can offer the best combination of functionality, technology
and cost for many applications. These alternatives are described below by
media type and technological complexity.
2. Media
Micrographics film can be stored in various forms including rolls,
cartridges or sheets. These forms are generally categorized as four major
media types: microfilm rolls, microfilm cartridges, microfiche and aperture
cards. A brief description for each media type is provided below.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 68
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
a. Microfilm Rolls
Using microfilm rolls, documents are
sequentially photographed on a film roll typically
100 or 215 feet long using 16-mm or 35-mm film.
A 100 foot roll of 16-mm film contains
approximately 2,400 images containing 8 1/2" X
11" pages. The film rolls are usually stored in
open reels or enclosed cartridges.
b. Microfiche
Microfiche stores photographic images of
documents in a grid format on a small rectangular
piece (fiche) of film. Each microfiche measures
approximately 4" X 6" and typically contains up to
98 images. It can be stored at a density of about 120
sheets per inch. Many of EPA's documents are
stored in this format, with one document usually
stored on a single fiche.
c Jacketed Microfilm
Jacketed microfilm uses a combination of microfilm roll and
microfiche storage techniques. Standard roll film is cut to the appropriate
length, based on the width of the jacket, and then inserted into dear plastic
jackets containing channels for film. The photographic images are initially
developed on microfilm rolls and then stored in rows similar to microfiche.
This format permits relatively easy updates to a jacket by adding or removing
film slides.
d. Aperture Cards
Aperture cards use a standard computer punch card to store a piece of
35-mm film. The film is mounted in a window and information can be
encoded on the card in order that the image be sorted and retrieved.
Although multiple images can be stored, there is commonly one image stored
per card. Aperture cards are frequently used for engineering applications
containing detailed architectural drawings, geographical maps, charts, etc.
Due to the archaic punch card technology, aperture card applications
are now commonly being replaced with microfiche-sized aperture cards,
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 69
-------
^ Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
which allows the combined storage of large format 35 mm images and
normal-sized document images.
2. Technological Complexity
Various types of micrographics systems are available that combine the
high document storage densities of micrographics with the electronic
capabilities of a computer. These types of hybrid micrographics systems can
offer substantial improvements for storing and accessing documents. A few
of these hybrid alternatives are described below including computer-aided
retrieval (CAR) systems, computer output to microfilm (COM) systems and
digitized microfilm systems.
a. Computer-Aided Retrieval (CAR)
CAR systems have proven to be a very effective solution for the
storage of archived documents which require infrequent retrieval. During
operation of a CAR system, documents are photographed on microfilm and
descriptive information is entered for each document in a computer data
base. A frame number or an image mark may be encoded on the film next to
each image. The computer database retains the frame number or image mark
and associates this information with the document description.
To retrieve the document, the descriptive information is entered, and
the computer then directs an automated image reader to manipulate the film
and retrieve the image associated with the document. Various types of
electronic conveyors and robotic-arm mechanisms have been used to retrieve
images stored on microfilm rolls, microfiche and aperture cards.
Microfilm supported by CAR systems can be a good "transition
medium". Film-based images can be scanned, converted to a digital format
and transmitted to an optical disk system. The computer-based film index
associated with each document can be accessed through the image processing
system. Older documents can then be stored and maintained on film which
relieves the need to store the same images on optical disk
H Computer Output to Microfilm (COM)
COM systems can print computer-generated data and scanned images
directly onto film. This bypasses the step of producing a paper copy of the
data. This type of system is very effective where large amounts of computer
data or images stored on magnetic or optical media must be permanently
archived. This allows the storage space on the magnetic or optical media to be
freed and used again. Once the space on the storage media has been erased or
overlaid with new-data, the only methods available to transfer the data from
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 70
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
microfilm back to the digital media is to manually type the data or scan the
document on film via a digital scanner.
c Digitized Microfilm
Another type of micrographics system converts document images
stored on film to digital data that can be processed by a computer. These
systems are sometimes referred to as automated document storage and
retrieval systems (ADSTAR) or videomicrographics systems. To facilitate
rapid access to the images, the film rolls are automatically retrieved and the
selected images are automatically located on the media. The image on film is
then converted, via a scanner, to a digital format where a computer can
electronically process and send the document to a computer terminal or
printer. The image can also be transmitted over a computer network and
stored on magnetic or optical media.
C IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
Image processing systems use computer technology to convert images
to digital values in order to manipulate and store the information. These
digital values represent bits of information that compose text and image data.
1. Media
Using image processing systems, digitized information can be stored on
magnetic and optical media. In addition, each media type can store the
information on tapes, disks and cards. A description of each medium is
provided below.
a. Magnetic Storage
With magnetic storage media the digital
values that compose text and image
information are recorded as a sequence of
electrical charges on a magnetically-coated
surface. Types of magnetic media include
magnetic tape, disks and cards. There are wide
variations in the data storage capacities and
access speeds of magnetic media.
1. Magnetic Tapes
Information recorded on magnetic tape must be accessed sequentially.
In order to read a record or document at the end of a tape, the entire tape
must be passed through the reading device, resulting in slow access time.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 71
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Storage capacities for magnetic tape generally range from five to ten
megabytes of data on a 100 foot length of tape. Because the storage capacity for
magnetic tape is relatively high and the cost per tape is low, this media is best
suited for data processing systems that contain a large volume of transaction
processing with little or no need for random data access.
2. Magnetic Disks
Because magnetic disks rotate continuously at a high speed,
information can be retrieved very quickly usually within a fraction of a
second. However, in comparison to magnetic tape, their storage capacity is
usually more limited. Magnetic disks include two types: hard disks and
floppy disks. Removable floppy disks are commonly used in personal
computers and provide a very portable storage media. Hard disks, compared
to floppy disks, are usually not removable but generally have a much higher
storage capacity.
The storage capacity for magnetic disks varies widely, depending on the
size of the computer. Removable floppy disks used in personal computers
generally hold from 720 to over 1,400 kilobytes of data. Hard disks can
provide a higher storage capacity as a result of greater precision between the
read/write heads on the disk drive unit and the media. A hard disk used by a
personal computer typically holds from 20 to over 200 megabytes. Hard disks
used by mini-computers and mainframe computers vary widely in storage
capacities, ranging from 500 megabytes to over 2 gigabytes of data per disk.
b. Optical Storage
Optical storage media contain digital values
that compose text and image information
recorded by a laser light as a series of holes or
bubbles on a reflective disk surface. The disks can
be read by reflecting laser light from the recorded
information through a detector back into a
computer.
As with magnetic media, optical storage devices come in various forms
including tapes, disks and cards. A common way of characterizing optical
storage is by the permanence of the stored information on the media.
Prerecorded storage media are those which can only be read; information
cannot be added or changed after the prerecorded information has been
"burned" on the media. Another category of optical media allows the user to
record information one tim*> and then rcneatedlv read this information. The
third category of optical media is similar to magnetic media the user can
repeatedly read, record and erase information. Some of the common media
types for each of these categories are described below.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 72
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
1. Compact Disk/Read Only Memory (CD/ROM)
CD/ROM contains prerecorded text or image information that can only
be read, not changed. This media type grew out of the compact disks (CDs)
used for audio reproductions. After a CD/ROM disk has been stamped with
the information from the master disk, no information can be changed or
added to that disk. This type of optical storage is very popular as a publishing
medium. Many trade associations and publication companies are now
distributing their periodicals on CD/ROM.
2. Write Once Read Many (WORM)
Optical storage media that allow the user to record information one
time and then subsequently read this information repeatedly are called
WORM devices. A WORM disk can generally hold from one to six gigabytes
of data per disk. The write once nature of WORM provides a secure storage
medium that prevents alteration of the document. This can provide
substantial benefits for an archiving application or where documents are
highly sensitive and must be tightly controlled.
3. Erasable Optical Disk
Erasable optical media generally function like magnetic media;
information can be repeatedly written to and erased from the storage
medium. Erasable optical disks generally store from one to four gigabytes of
data per disk. Introduced in the past few years to the commercial industry,
erasable optical media have become a viable alternative to magnetic media
where storage requirements are very high and information must be
repeatedly updated.
2. Technological Complexity
a. Storage and Retrieval Systems
Most optical disk systems are used for storage and retrieval of
document images. Documents are scanned and stored on an optical disk
(WORM or erasable disks) and then displayed on a monitor, reprinted,
transmitted to another location or copied to another disk. After scanning,
paper documents are either stored locally, archived at a remote location or
destroyed.
Optical disk systems used primarily for document storage and retrieval
are justified by several benefits when compared to conventional paper-based
systems. These benefits include:
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 73
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Documents can be stored at a higher density. Depending on the
resolution and compression factors, one 12" optical disk can
store from 20,000 to 70,000 images and have the storage
equivalent to five four-drawer filing cabinets.
Documents can be permanently and securely archived.
Documents cannot be changed once written to a WORM optical
disk. Most vendors guarantee no significant deterioration will
occur to the data on the optical disk for 10 to 30 years, assuming
that the disks are stored according to manufacturer's
specifications. After this period of time, the data can be
transferred to another optical disk or other storage medium. An
additional copy of the disk can be stored in another location to
reduce the chances of image loss or damage.
Documents can be retrieved rapidly. Document retrieval can
usually occur in a matter of seconds. This eliminates the time
commonly wasted when retrieving paper documents and also
causes minimal interruption of work.
Documents can be filed using a cross-indexing method. Paper-
based systems usually contain documents filed by one specific
index. Using a computer database documents can be searched by
multiple criteria. For example, users can search for a specific
document by name, date, account number, Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number, or any combination of descriptive
information. Of course, this cross-indexing method is not
limited to optical storage systems, but can be used in conjunction
with paper-based or micrographics systems.
Documents are always available for use. In contrast to paper-
based systems, documents stored on optical disk can be viewed
simultaneously by multiple users located at different monitors.
In addition, the document cannot be refiled improperly;
something that can happen easily with a paper-based system.
Document security is enhanced. Because document images are
stored on optical disks, access can be controlled by physically
locking the transportable disks in a filing cabinet or vault. Also,
passwords can be used to limit access to the documents on the
system. An audit trail can be easily incorporated that maintains
detailed information relating to document access.
Compared to micrographics systems, optical disk systems can offer
faster document access, improved image quality, greater storage density and
simultaneous access by multiple users to a single document. These benefits
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 74
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
can add up to increases in productivity and efficiency. However, these
benefits must be weighed against the higher equipment and startup costs for
optical disk systems and the issue of legal admissibility for optical media.
b. Archival Systems
Optical storage archival systems are used primarily for the long term
storage of documents requiring infrequent access. Documents are scanned
and stored on optical media (usually WORM or erasable disks) at a very high
storage capacity. The primary objective for an archival system is to maximize
disk storage density, sometimes compromising on image quality to increase
density. The design for this type of system focuses on storing the highest
number of images on a disk, with limited consideration given for the time
required to access and retrieve the documents.
c. Document Processing Systems
In addition to document storage and retrieval, another feature that can
provide significant benefits for an optical storage system is automated
document processing. This capability allows information to be added,
validated or extracted from a document as it automatically passes through
different stages of processing. Instead of a paper document manually
following a processing path, an electronic form of the document is
automatically passed from one station to the next using the computer
terminal to view the document.
An optical storage system can therefore simplify and accelerate
document processing activities. For example, upon entering the mail room,
an application requesting approval for manufacturing a new chemical would
be scanned into the optical storage system. The document would then be
indexed and automatically forwarded to various computer terminals based on
the review and approval processing cycle. Additional reference information
from the computer data base can also be viewed on the monitor while
processing the document. Once the processing cycle is complete, additional
descriptive information can be added to the document index based on
decisions made.
Document processing systems may offer the same advantages as those
listed above for storage and retrieval systems. In addition, those systems that
perform automated document processing also may provide benefits primarily
as a result of the networking capabilities. These benefits can include:
Electronic document transmission. Not only can documents be
retrieved rapidly, they can also be transferred automatically from
desk to desk. In addition, documents can be queued for
processing using an electronic in-basket.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 75
-------
Appendix B: Document Management Approaches
Pacing, sequencing, prioritizing and tracking of-documents. The
pace and sequencing of work in a paper-based system is usually
controlled by batches, based upon time of receipt. Yesterday's
work is processed in total before today's work is begun. In
contrast, an automated document processing system moves a
document to the next station immediately following completion
of the prior task. A time sensitive document can be expedited
-through -the .system by. assigning a high priority. An electronic
audit trail can also be used to track documents and review
progress of work.
Integration with other systems. Document processing systems
can be integrated with other image processing or data processing
systems. As a document follows its processing path, users can
simultaneously view data or documents from other systems in
order to retrieve or validate needed information.
Automated document processing systems are not appropriate for all
applications. Software development and maintenance costs are generally
higher than basic document storage and retrieval systems. Those applications
that have highly procedure oriented, time sensitive or have mandatory
proc ~ing cycles for documents can gain substantial benefits using this
technology.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 76
-------
Appendix C
Average Unit Costs
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 77
-------
Appendix C: Average Unit Costs
APPENDIX C: AVERAGE UNIT COSTS
(as of August, 1990)
Unit of Cost
Space Per Sq. Ft
Office Space
Premium Space
Moderate Space
Economy Space
Warehouse Space
Federal Records Centers
Paper Filing Unit
4-Drawer Cabinet Per Unit
5-Drawer Cabinet Per Unit
Lateral Shelves (5) Per Unit
Mobile Track Shelves Per. Ft.
Carousel Shelves (7) Per Unit
Microform Equipment Per Unit
Microfiche
Reader
Reader/Printer, Low Volume
Reader/Printer, High Volume
Microfilm Cartridge
Reader
Reader/Printer, Low Volume
Reader/Printer, High Volume
Storage Carousel, 480 Cartridge
*IPS Equipment Per Unit
Level I Host Computer
Level n Host Computer
PC Workstation
Scanner
Printer (Printronix Laser)
Printer (4216 Laser)
$30.00
$22.00
$13.00
$8.00
No Charge
$240
$330
$630
$16
$1,200
$150
$2,000
$10,000
$1,200
$6,000
$15,000
$550
$331,969
$205,193
$9,682
$7,025
$12^87
$1,446
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
Page 78
-------
Appendix C: Average Unit Costs
Cost Category/Item Unit of Cost Unit Cost
Furniture Per Unit
Equipment Table $400
Reading Table $400
Chairs $165
Personnel Costs Annual Salary (Step 5)
GS - Level 1 $11,990
GS - Level 2 $13,053
GS - Level 3 $14,714
GS - Level 4 $16,517
GS - Level 5 $18,481
GS - Level 6 $20,598
GS - Level 7 $22,887
GS - Level 8 $25,351
GS - Level 9 $28,001
GS - Level 10 $30,834
GS - Level 11 $33,875
GS - Level 12 $40,601
GS - Level 13 $48,281
GS - Level 14 $57,054
GS - Level 15 $67,112
* - A detailed listing of the prices for IPS equipment is available in the Image
Processing Systems: Implementation Guidance Part I IPS Contract
Hardware, Software and Services Description.
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 79
-------
Appendix D
Mission Needs Study Document Outline
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 81
-------
Appendix D: Mission Needs Study Document Outline
APPENDIX D: MISSION NEEDS STUDY DOCUMENT OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF STUDY
6. INFORMATION SOURCES
II. ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION
A. PURPOSE AND ROLE
B. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS
C STRUCTURE, REPORTING HIERARCHY
III. CURRENT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS
B. DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT PROFILE
C PROCESS Row DIAGRAMS
D. SYSTEM STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
IV. PROBLEM DEFINITION
A. PROBLEM STATEMENT
B. DEFICIENCIES
v. MISSION NEEDS
A. DOCUMENT ACCESS
B. DOCUMENT STORAGE
C DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
D. DOCUMENT CONTROL
E. DOCUMENT PROCESSING
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 82
-------
Appendix D: Mission Needs Document Outline
VI. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTION(S)
A - N
For each solution, provide the following:
1. Description
2. Rationale
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 83
-------
Appendix E
Feasibility Study Report Outline
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 85
-------
Appendix E: Feasibility Study Report Outline
APPENDIX E: FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
Summary of High Level Mission Needs.
II. BENEFIT-COST BASELINE
For the Baseline System, provide the following
A. CURRENT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SETTING AND MAJOR
CHARACTERISTICS
B. BENEFIT-COST ESTIMATES EXPRESSED AS OPERATIONAL COSTS
III. FEASIBILITY ALTERNATIVES
A-N
For each Feasibility Alternative, provide the following
1. Basic Configuration
2. Strengths and Weaknesses
3. Applicability Rationale
rv. FEASIBILITY ALTERNATIVES BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
For each Feasibility Alternative, provide the following
A-N
(Expressed as Investment and Operational Costs)
v. FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATION
A. COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
(Expressed as NPV/ROI)
B. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
For each area below, provide a comparative discussion of the relevant
aspects of each potential alternative, as appropriate
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 86
-------
Appendix E: Feasibility Study Document Outline
1. Organizational feasibility
2. Technical Feasibility
3. Intangible/Indirect Benefits
4. Mission Needs Considerations
^.-OVERALL-RECOMMENDATION
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 87
-------
Appendix F
IPS Policy Document
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA Page 89
-------
OIRM POLICY DIRECTIVE 90-01
10/24/90
IMPLEMENTATION OF IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS
1. PURPOSE. This policy establishes the principles that
govern the acquisition and use of image processing
-Systems. (IPS) This.policy, also-defines the roles and
responsibilities for implementing these principles.
2. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY. This policy applies to all EPA
organizations and their employees. It also applies to
the personnel of EPA agents (including contractors) who
are involved in the design, development, acquisition,
operation and maintenance of Agency image processing
systems.
3 . BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES.
a. EPA is committed to improving records management
and has determined that computer technology for
storage of image and text data is an important
capability for achieving improvements.
b. Agency contracts have been established for the
acquisition of image processing systems (IPS) to
ensure conformance to Agency standards and to
promote compatibility, information sharing and
responsible management of advanced technology.
c. Successful implementation of image processing
systems requires evaluation of both the records
management program and the technical design of
integrated hardware and software environments.
Programs which demonstrate well-organized and
effective records management programs often have
the potential to further improvement through the
innovative application of computer technology.
Programs with records management problems should
not implement image processing systems or other
technologies before addressing fundamental policy,
procedural and support, issues fox. 1110x109x119 Liieir
records more effectively.
-------
d. The objectives of this policy are to-:.
(1) Improve the effectiveness of EPA records
management.programs and increase access to
information resources in a manner that
enhances staff productivity and program
effectiveness.
(2) Manage official government records in
accordance with appropriate Federal
legislation, regulations and guidance.
(3) Oversee the development and implementation of
image processing systems consistent with the
Agency's strategies, priorities and applicable
policies and guidance for information systems.
4. AUTHORITIES.
a. EPA 2100 Information Resources Management (IRM)
Policy Manual (7/21/87).
b. Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended (44 U.S.C.
3101-3107).
c. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended.
d. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal
Information Resources.
5. POLICY. it is EPA policy that all applications
requiring the use of image processing systems must be
approved by the Director, OIRM. Approval shall be
obtained in a two-step process through EPA's Image
Processing System (IPS) Committee. At the earliest
stage, the Committee shall concur in concept with an
image processing solution based upon a Mission Needs ป
Statement (See EPA's "System Design and Development
Guidance," June 1989) before investment is made in a
more thorough assessment of requirements and feasibility
in a Preliminary Design and Options Analysis. In the
next step, the Committee shall evaluate the results of
the Preliminary Design and Options Analysis and forward
its recommendation for consideration by the Director,
OIRM. The Director, OIRM, shall approve, disapprove or
direct additional analysis before the procurement of an
IPS system or Detailed System Design, Development and
Implementation phase of the system lifecycle may begin.
-------
a. EPA must assess whether an image processing system
is a reasonable solution to pursue in meeting an
EPA organization's needs to strengthen records
management capabilities in order to improve
overall program effectiveness.
b. EPA must weigh the benefits and costs of
alternative problem-solving approaches.
Alternatives include paper, microform and
electronic digital media. Image processing
systems are powerful, but they are not necessarily
the best solution to every organization's records
management needs.
c. EPA must ensure coordinated national development
and management of electronic records management
systems, especially systems with information of
"corporate" value which should be shared in a
meaningful form within EPA and with our domestic
and international partners in environmental
protection.
d. EPA recognizes that as computer technology for
capturing, storing, processing and retrieving
information in image form is evolving rapidly, EPA
must evaluate Agency requirements continuously to
ensure the availability of responsive technology
options.
6. RESPONSIBILITIES.
a. The Director, OIRM, shall evaluate recommendations
of the IPS Committee and approve or disapprove
requests for image processing systems based upon
the results of a Preliminary Design and Options
Analysis which evaluates the requirements and
feasibility of image processing solutions.
b. An Image Processing Systems (IPS) Committee,
chaired by the Deputy Director, shall:
(1) Advise the Director, OIRM, on the overall
strategic development, implementation and
management of image processing systems and
technology in the Agency.
(2) Develop and promulgate policies and guidelines
governing Agency image processing systems
(IPS).
-------
(3) Be advised and keep abreast of -EPA initiatives
and activities in evaluating and developing
image processing systems.
(4) Concur in concept based upon a Mission Needs
Statement before any EPA organization invests
in a more detailed feasibility study through a
Preliminary Design and Options Analysis for
IPS.
(5) Offer recommendations to the Director, OIRM,
on the merits of an IPS request based upon a
Preliminary Design and Options Analysis.
c. The Office of Information Resources Management
(OIRM) shall:
(1) Develop and promulgate policy and guidelines
governing Agency image processing systems
(IPS).
(2) Provide guidance to Assistant Administrators,
Associate Administrators and Regional
Administrators in implementing the
requirements of this policy.
(3) Provide technical advice and assistance to the
EPA in evaluating how computer technology can
improve records management and in developing
and managing image processing systems.
(4) Review and approve studies, proposals and
associated procurement requests in cooperation
with NDPD for automation of records management
activities that ensure consistency with Agency
policy for records management and information
systems.
d. The Office of Administration and Resources
Management-RTP (OARM-RTP) and the National Data
Processing Division (NDPD) shall:
(1) Develop hardware, telecommunications and
systems software requirements for image
processing systems.
(2) Establish and manage EPA contracts for the
acquisition, implementation and support of
image processing systems.
-------
(3) Review studies, proposals and associated
procurement requests in cooperation with OIRM
to ensure that proposed image processing
systems or .other selected technologies are
properly used and comply with the requirements
of this policy.
(4) Provide technical support for optical disk-
based image processing systems, including
acquisition, implementation and operational
support.
e. Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators,
Regional Administrators, the General Counsel, and
the Inspector General shall ensure that the
acquisition, installation and management of image
processing systems under their direction are in
accord with this policy.
f. The Senior Information Resources Management
Officials (SIRMOs) shall:
(1) Review system design and development analyses
for image processing systems (IPS) to be
acquired and managed by their organizations in
accordance with this policy.
(2) Review procurement requests and budget
proposals for acquisition of image processing
systems (IPS) in accordance with this policy.
7. DEFINITIONS.
a. "Image Processing System" (IPS) is the general term
referring to a computer hardware and software
system designed to capture, store, retrieve,
display, manipulate and produce a facsimile of data
which is in the form of visual images.
b. "Mission Needs Statement" is an analysis which
defines the management problem to be addressed and
proposes an initial system concept for more in-
depth assessment as the appropriate response to the
problem.
c. "Preliminary Design and Options Analysis" is an
assessment of feasible system alternatives, their
costs and benefits which results in selection of a
system design upon which more detailed
specifications for system operations, hardware,
software and telecommunications are based,
-------
d. "Microform" is based on a photographic process
using camera equipment in which an image of a
document is transferred onto film. The film is
then stored in roll, cartridge or sheet form. The
most common forms of microform are microfilm and
microfiche.
e. "Electronic digital media" is a category of
computer technology which captures, stores,
processes and retrieves information, including text
and image data. Two main types of digital storage
include magnetic and optical storage. Magnetic
storage contains text and image data as digital
values on a magnetically coated surface. Types of
magnetic media include magnetic tape, disks and
cards. Optical storage contains information stored
as digital values. Laser technology is used to
"write" and "read" this information. Optical
storage media comes in various sizes and formats,
including Compact Disk/Read Only Memory (CD/ROM),
Write Once Read Many Times (WORM) and erasable
disks.
8. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES. Procedures and guidelines
for the development and management of image processing
systems (IPS) will be issued under separate cover.
-------
Appendix G
IPS Committee Charter
Guidance for Developing Image Processing Systems in EPA
-------
Charter for the
Image Processing Systems Committee
Objective: The Image Processing Systems (IPS) Committee is
hereby chartered as a committee of the Administrative Systems
Council. The purpose of the IPS Committee is to advise the
Director, Office of Information Resources Management, and
members of the Administrative Systems Council concerning
proposals for implementation of advanced records and
information management systems employing the use of digital
imaging, storage and communications technologies. The IPS
Committee shall:
Promulgate policy and guidance for development and
application of image processing solutions to EPA
records and information management requirements;
Provide advice and assistance to EPA offices in
the conduct and evaluation of Mission Needs
Statements, Preliminary Design and Options
Analyses and System Design, Development and
Implementation studies to ensure compliance with
Agency policies regarding life-cycle cost/benefit
analysis and major system procurement;
Review and concur in concept on proposals for
image processing systems resulting from Mission
Needs Statements before EPA offices invest in
more extensive Preliminary Design and Options
Analyses to assess the feasibility of image
processing solutions;
Approve and guide the procurement and implemen-
tation of image processing systems in a manner
consistent with accepted and approved system
design, as well as Agency strategic information
management goals and priorities;
Ensure that image processing system procurements
are made from existing, competitive contract
vehicles and that equipment and software are
capable of inter-system sharing of image and index
data to the maximum possible extent;
Promote the use of digital information and image
processing systems to enhance delivery of
information to the public;
-------
Support a process to continually review and
evaluate technological developments in digital
information and image processing which may have
potential application in the Agency.
Membership ..and Structure: The IPS Committee is chaired by
the Deputy Director, Office of Information Resources
Management. Members include the following:
Director, Information Management and Services Division,
OIRM
Director, Administrative Systems Division, OIRM
Director, Program Systems Division, OIRM
Director, Financial Management Division, OC
Director, Information Management Division, OTS
Director, National Data Processing Division, RTP-OARM
Project Manager, Superfund Image Processing System, RTP-
OARM
Project Manager, IPS Contract, RTP-OARM
Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and
Management - Region III
Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and
Management - Region IV
Other representatives may be added by the Deputy Director,
OIRM, from headquarters and regional offices, as well as
private contractors. The role of all members is that of
advancing the Agency's goals for information management and
assistance in implementing IPS in the Agency in a responsible
and productive manner, rather than representing their
particular organization.
Operation: The IPS Committee shall conduct its activities
through:
Monthly meetings for approximately the first six
months/ with quarterly meetings thereafter
Ad hoc meetings on its initiative or at the
request of a member, the Chair may call meetings
and/or arrange teleconferences to consult on
specific issues that require special attention.
Subcommittees the Chair, acting on behalf of the
members, may establish subcommittees to identify
and explore focused technical or information
management issues pertinent to image processing
system impienieiitation. Such svibcommittees may be
required to conduct or issue specific program or
policy analyses or position papers.
ft U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992650-217
------- |