EXECUTIVE REPORT RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS RESEARCH

Transcription

1 EXECUTIVE REPORT RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS RESEARCH December 17, 2012

2 Table of Contents Background Research & Methodology... 3 Executive Summary... 4 Section I General Information... 6 Number of Parcels... 7 County Population... 8 Functions Recording Office Provides... 9 Disaster Recovery Feature Office Responsibility by Document Type Number of Documents Recorded Daily Average Number of Recorded Documents in 2011 vs Mode of Receipt of Documents to be Recorded Number of Documents Currently Stored in Electronic Systems Percentage of Documents Imaged and Available in Electronic System Size of Office Staff Number of Work Stations Public Work Stations Public Access to the Internet Original Source of Present Records Management System (RMS) Purchased Records Management Systems Length of Use for Current System Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location Satisfaction with Present Records Management System Currently or Planning Backfile Projects Respondents Which Have Plans for Backfiling In-House vs. By Vendor Adoption of New Technology Start of the Fiscal Year Approval Date for Your Budget Planning to Replace Present Recorder System Timeframe for Replacing Recorder System Section II Views on Records Management Systems RMS Features that are Important to Recording Officials Issues of Importance When Selecting a Vendor Needs a Records Management System is Required to Meet Current Record Management Systems (RMS) Capability to Solve Issues Awareness of Recorders Management System Providers The Best Recorders Management System Vendor User Group Meeting Participation Top Industry or Association Publications

3 BACKGROUND RESEARCH & METHODOLOGY Advanced Analytics (AA), a division of Hidalgo & DeVries, Inc., was commissioned to conduct the jointly sponsored, Second Annual Thomson Reuters-National Association of Counties (NACo) Records Management Systems Research Study (in association with The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Clerks NACRC), amongst recording officials in U.S. counties. On June 26, 2012, a self-administered online questionnaire was sent by to records management officials in counties across the country. The ing database of 2,961 names was generated by NACo. As in last year s study, a major objective of the research was to investigate the present views and future needs of records management officials, and to compare, where appropriate, 2012 results with those obtained in the 2011 study. The research topics covered both general information descriptive of the processes used, and services offered by the officials offices, as well as specifics regarding their views and ratings of various records management systems and their features and benefits. By the cutoff date of July 30, 2012, a total of 213 (7.2% response) questionnaires had been completed online. The information contained in the total number of completed questionnaires, forms the basis for this report. The following information presents a summary of that data. About the Sponsors of this Study Thomson Reuters, the provider of GRM Recorder a leading software system in use in jurisdictions across the country, is the world's leading source of intelligent information for governments, businesses, and professionals. Combining industry expertise with innovative technology, we deliver critical information to leading decision makers. GRM our Government Revenue Management suite simplifies the revenue management lifecycle for governments around the world. Our unique combination of technology enhanced by experience enables you to optimize revenue generation, support sustainable growth and improve services to the public. For more information about GRM Recorder, visit The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal government, improves the public's understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. For more information about NACo, visit Research Notes: Specific counties and county officials are not identified in this report. addresses are not, and have not been matched to completed surveys, only recorded in order to provide premiums and Executive Report of findings to all respondents who made such requests. All information is presented in aggregate form, with additional cross-tabs by county population Small (S), Medium (M), Medium/Large (M/L) and Large (L) shown where appropriate. A research industry accepted statistical significance of 95% confidence interval and a +- 3% confidence level applies to the data presented here. As with all research studies, there are certain limitations to the data. Although improbable due to the high interval and confidence levels of this report, it is possible that certain data could be affected by nonresponse bias which is common to all market research. 3

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. About the Respondents Size of Counties Population size of responding counties ranged from less than 10,000 for the smallest responding county to a high of 2+ million for the largest. When grouped by size according to NACo s grouping guidelines, responding counties offer a fair representation of the average population range of counties across the United States. 59% of responding counties=populations of <50K compared to 70%* nationally 14% of responding counties=populations of K compared to 12.5%* nationally 13% of responding counties=populations of K compared to 9.7%* nationally 14% of responding counties=populations of 250K> compared to 7.3%* nationally *Source NACo Titles of Officials A variety of titles represented the officials who responded, including: Register of Deeds, County Clerk, Clerk, Registrar, and Deputy Recorder. B. General Information A majority of respondent s systems provide recording (98%), indexing/verifying (95%), scanning/imaging (95%), and on-site (internal) public inquiry (94%) functions. There are two areas that showed significant increases over the previous year Online Public Inquiry: 72%, up from 48%; and Backfile: 38%, up from 23%. Not surprisingly, the larger county systems indicate a greater use of functions such as: scanning/imaging, indexing/verifying, recording, online public inquiry, on-site public inquiry, and cashiering. The great majority (83%) of respondents also indicated that their systems provide them with a disaster recovery feature. There is no significant change from the previous year in the number and types of documents recorded by the respondent s offices with Real Estate at 92%; Map/Plat at 84%; DDR214 at 67% and Marriage records at 55% being the most mentioned document types. However, there have been changes in the mode of receipt of documents. The largest volume of documents (67%) comes in by mail, a fourteen-point (14%) increase from last year; walk-in and courier decreased slightly, with e-recording continuing to increase, moving from 11% up to 15% of document volume an increase recorded across all county sizes. In addition, there is a notable change in the number of recorded documents over the previous year with increases occurring in larger counties. For counties with populations of less than 50k there was a decrease of 9% in the number of recorded documents, while for counties with populations between 100k and 250k rose 7%. For counties with populations between 50 and 100k and over 250k the increase in the number of recorded documents was 14.8% and 11.8% respectively. The number of documents stored in 51% of respondents systems, numbered less than 500K; with an additional 19% reporting storage of between 500K-1MM documents, while 13% reported their document storage at between 1-5MM. The remaining 17% approximated the number of documents to be greater than 5MM. 4

5 Nearly five in ten of respondents who answered this question indicated having staff reductions in their offices, while one in ten indicated an increase in staff. These numbers have remained unchanged from the last year s study. All respondents indicated that they provide public (search and retrieval only) Workstations in their offices. However, access over the internet expanded over the previous year from 50% to 60% of all jurisdictions offering access over the internet, with over half of those charging for access. About six in ten of respondents indicated that the systems in use in their offices were purchased from a solution provider, a decrease of 5 basis points from the the previous year study. Slightly over a quarter of respondents indicated they operate on leased systems, consistent with the previous year study. About one in ten of the respondents systems have been internally developed, an increase to 11%, up from 5% from the previous year study. However, this figure is exponentially higher in the larger counties (Population of 250K+). There was a slight increase to 29%, up from 26% in the previous year study among respondents who purchased a system that was custom developed for their county. The age of systems in use in nearly one in ten of the respondent s offices is eight or more years, a slight increase to 55%, up from 53% in the previous year study. While there is a decrease down to 11%, down from 16% in newer systems 3 years or less. In addition, the degree of satisfaction with the respondents systems was very high with nine in ten (89%) indicating that their systems meet their present needs either very well or well, up from 74% in the previous study. Moreover, a decrease in dissatisfaction levels to 11%, down from 14% a year ago. As far as plans by respondents offices for backfile projects, more than three quarters of all respondents have plans to do so; an increase up to 77% from 74% in the previous year. When it comes to adopting new technology, slightly over one-third of respondents identified themselves as an Early Adopters (25%) or Innovators (13%). While almost one-third, selfidentified as Late Majority (25%) or Laggards (5%). C. Views on Records Management Systems A great majority of respondents indicated that a state-of-the-art records management system should offer key features such as: recording, scanning/image, indexing/verifying, on-site public inquiry, disaster recovery, cashiering, and on-site public inquiry in that order. There was a noticeable increase in two categories online public inquiry and backfile with those indicating their importance increasing to 75% from 61% and 67% from 54% respectively from the previous year. In addition, the importance of individual features such as automated redaction, online public inquiry, backfile, e-recording, automated assisted/indexing and others were accorded higher ranking by the larger counties, consistent with last year s report. Ranked in order of importance, the great majority (over 98%) of respondents indicated that the issues that were Very Important or Important to their jurisdictions when selecting a vendor were: support after installation, followed by cost, records domain knowledge and expertise. Conversion expertise, training quality, provision of periodic enhancements, leading edge 5

6 technology, and certified project management expertise were mentioned by at least 90% of respondents. When ranking the most important jurisdictional needs that a records management system must meet, the majority of respondents identified their number 1 or 2 need as improving efficiency (62%), improving accuracy (54%), improving records image quality (49%), and data safety (49%) as the top four needs. In addition, when rating the degree ( Very Good or Good ) to which their present Records system solve issues in their jurisdictions, respondents rated the top six areas as follows: Improves records image quality (90%), improves staff efficiency (89%), improves constituent satisfaction (89%), improves accuracy (89%), improves constituency access to records (88%), and improves data safety (87%). PRIA (27%) and NACo News (22%) are the top two read Industry or Association publications mentioned by respondents. According to respondents the top four Conferences, trade shows or forums that provide the best product and service information for Records systems are PRIA (78%), NACRC (59%), NACo (56%), and PREP (45%). 6

7 Section I General Information Number of Parcels In total, 46% of respondents reported the number of parcels in their counties to be less than 25,000; more specifically two of ten (20%) respondents indicated the number of parcels to be less than 10,000. The largest range of parcels per county (26%) was 10,000 to 25,000, with 20% of respondents reporting 25,001 to 50,000 parcels in their county, and 18% reporting 50,001 to 100,000 parcels. Of the respondents that indicated the number of parcels to be between 100,001-1,000,000+, 10% of respondents indicated the number of parcels in their county to be 101,001 to 500,000 parcels and 4% of respondents indicated a range of 500,000-1,000,000, while the balance of 3% of respondents reported 1,000,000+ parcels. 7

8 County Population About six in ten respondents (59%) reported the population of their county to be less than 50,000, with a quarter of those reporting a population of 10,000-25,000, and 16% of those reporting a population between less than 10,000. Approximately one in ten (13%) of respondents reported a population of 50,001 to 100,000, the same ratio (13%) for those reporting a population between 101,001 to 250,000. The remaining 14% of respondents represented counties with populations of 250,001 to 2 million+. 8

9 Functions Recording Office Provides Almost all respondents indicated that Recording (98%) was a function within their office. Respondents indicated Indexing/Verifying (95%), Scanning/Imaging (95%), Onsite Public Inquiry (94%), Cashiering (79%), and Online Public Inquiry (72%) as functions used by a large majority of the respondent s offices. Redaction (41%), Backfile (38%), E-commerce (29%), and Integration with other Jurisdiction Systems (21%) are relatively less prevalent in respondent s offices; Electronic Fraud Notification (13%), and E-certification (6%) are functions in about one out of ten of the respondent s offices. Functions County Offices Provide (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Cashiering 70% 86% 96% 93% Recording 98% 96% 100% 97% Scanning/Imaging 93% 93% 100% 100% Indexing/Verifying 93% 93% 100% 100% Onsite (internal) Public inquiry 92% 96% 100% 93% Online (web) Public Inquiry 58% 89% 89% 97% E-Commerce 16% 36% 44% 62% Redaction (Automated) 38% 57% 22% 62% E-Certification 3% 14% 7% 14% Backfile 31% 36% 44% 66% Integration with other jurisdiction systems 16% 21% 30% 34% Electronic Fraud Notification 8% 25% 7% 24% 9

10 Disaster Recovery Feature Eight in ten (83%) of respondents systems provide disaster recovery features. Present System Provides Respondents with Disaster Recovery Feature (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Yes 79% 93% 85% 90% No 21% 7% 15% 10% 10

11 Office Responsibility by Document Type Within the functions of each office, nine in ten of respondents indicated Real Estate (92%) to be a document their office was responsible for, followed by Map/Plat (84%), DDR214 (67%), Marriage Records (56%) and Birth & Death Records (41%). Approximately three in ten of respondents indicated that Assumed Names/DBA s (35%), Minutes/Agendas (33%), and Business Licenses/Passports (25%) are document types for which their offices have responsibility. 11

12 Number of Documents Recorded Daily Half (52%) of respondents indicated the average daily recorded documents in their offices was less than 50, While one in five of respondents indicated their daily recorded documents were on average in the 51 to 100 range (22%). Current Daily Average of Recorded Documents by Office. (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Less than 50 84% 14% 0% 3% 51 to % 71% 30% 0% 101 to 250 2% 11% 59% 14% 251 to 500 0% 4% 11% 41% 501 to 1,000 0% 0% 0% 24% 1,001 to 2,000 0% 0% 0% 3% 2,000+ 0% 0% 0% 14% Average Number of Recorded Documents in 2011 vs Estimated Number of Documents Recorded by County Offices in 2011/2010 (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Average ,460 15,197 30,222 78,802 Average ,983 17,442 32,239 88,062 % Diff vs % 14.8% 7% 11.8% 12

13 Mode of Receipt of Documents to be Recorded Nearly seven in ten (67%) recorded documents were received through the Mail, while recorded documents received through Walk-ins represented, on average, 26%. Documents received through courier (14%) and e-recording (15%) represented slightly less than a fifth of the respondents volume. Mode of Conveyance to County Offices of Documents to be Recorded ( By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 e-recording 10=4% 11=14% 10=16% 11=23% 10=17% 11=38% 10=17% 11=25% Courier 14% 21% 15% 13% Mail 55% 45% 38% 30% Walk-in 30% 25% 17% 13% Companies Submitting to County Offices By Percentage of total: Simplefile: 52% Ingeo: 33% ACS: 12% US Recordings: 13% Other combine: 21% 13

14 Number of Documents Currently Stored in Electronic Systems Half of (51%) respondents indicated less than 500,000 documents (not individual images) currently stored in their electronic system, while nearly two of ten respondents have 500,000-1,000,000 documents stored. The remaining 30% of responses indicated documents stored ranged from 1 million to 25+ million. Not surprisingly, as size of county population increased, so did the volume of stored documents in the system. Number of Documents (not individual images) Stored in Electronic System (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Less than 500,000 75% 38% 4% 4% 500,000-1,000,000 15% 29% 38% 11% 1,000,000-5,000,000 5% 25% 38% 7% 5,000,000-10,000,000 2% 0% 0% 37% 10,000,000-25,000,000 2% 0% 8% 22% 25,000,000+ 2% 8% 12% 19% Percentage of Documents Imaged and Available in Electronic System More than half (57%) of all respondents documents are imaged and available on their current systems. The Year Electronic Index Data Started The range of start dates cited by respondents was very broad. From the very earliest in 1629 to the present year 2012, respondents were very specific on this answer. The average start is Six in ten of all respondents start date falls after

15 Size of Office Staff Approximately nine in ten of respondents offices have a staff of ten or less employees. There is no change from the previous year study. Size of Office Staff (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Less than 5 89% 68% 37% 3% % 29% 44% 10% % 4% 7% 21% % 0% 11% 41% % 0% 0% 7% 75+ 0% 0% 0% 17% Changes in the Number of Staff Nearly five in ten of respondents who answered this question indicated having staff reductions in their offices, while one in ten indicated an increase in staff. These numbers have remained unchanged from the last year s study. 15

16 Number of Workstations Nearly six out of ten (56%) of the respondents indicated that their office staff uses less than 5 workstations in their office. As expected, there is a strong correlation between the number of employees and the number of workstations. Number of Workstations (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Less than 5 78% 46% 19% 3% % 46% 52% 10% % 7% 22% 24% % 0% 7% 48% % 0% 0% 7% 75+ 0% 0% 0% 7% 16

17 Public Workstations About seven in ten (71%) of respondents said their office provides less than 5 public workstations. Public (search & retrieval only) Workstations in County Offices (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Less than 5 93% 67% 26% 21% % 33% 52% 34% % 0% 19% 34% 20+ 0% 0% 4% 10% 17

18 Public Access to the Internet Over six in ten (65%) of all respondents allow access over the Internet vs. 50% the previous study year. This is a 15 basis point increase. Of those who allow access over the Internet, about eight in ten (78%) allow access to both indexes and images. The balance (22%) of respondents, allow public access only to indexes. Counties Allowing Public Access Over the Internet (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Indexes only 20% 19% 29% 23% Indexes and Images 80% 81% 71% 77% Charge for Access to Images over the Internet (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Yes 60% 58% 52% 42% No 40% 42% 48% 58% 18

19 Original Source of Present Records Management System (RMS) About six in ten (63%) of respondents reported their present RMS was purchased, with slightly over one quarter (26%) leasing their present RMS. Counties whose RMS have been internally developed represents 11% of total respondents. Source of Present Records Management System (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Internally Developed 6% 7% 19% 28% Purchased 70% 48% 65% 52% Leased 24% 44% 15% 21% 19

20 Purchased Records Management Systems Six in ten (60%) of respondents who purchased their RMS purchased a package product, while slightly over one quarter (29%) had their RMS custom developed. The balance of respondents did not know if their RMS had been purchased or custom developed. Satisfaction level from respondents of packaged products is 87% vs. 78% from those of internally developed systems. Packaged product or Custom Developed (By County Population Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Packaged Product 61% 63% 55% 71% Custom Developed 27% 32% 32% 29% 20

21 Length of Use of Current System Nearly six in ten (56%) of respondents said they have been using their current systems for eight years or more, while close to one third (33%) indicated use of their current system is between four to seven years. With the balance of respondents have been using their current system for less than 3 years. Length of Time Current System in Operation (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Less than 3 years 14% 11% 0% 10% 4-7 years 33% 33% 27% 38% 8+ years 53% 56% 73% 52% 21

22 Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location Seven in ten (73%) of respondents said that their records management system were being hosted in-house, with the balance of respondents indicating their RMS were being hosted in remote locations. System Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 In-House 61% 50% 72% 79% Remote Location 39% 50% 28% 21% 22

23 Satisfaction with Present Records Management System Overall, nine in ten (89%) of respondents indicated their RMS met their needs Very Well or Well, with the balance expressing some degree of dissatisfaction with their system. Nearly nine in ten (88%) of respondents operating an internally developed RMS indicated their system met their needs Very Well or Well. In contrast, satisfaction levels of respondents operating on purchased packages is only one point lower at 87%, while those operating on a leased RMS is 10 points higher at 98%. 23

24 Currently or Planning Backfile Projects Nearly eight in ten (77%) respondents are planning to do Backfile projects. Plans For Backfile Projects (By County Population) Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Yes 74% 75% 92% 72% No 26% 25% 8% 28% Respondents Which Have Plans for Backfiling In-House vs. By Vendor Other than for film duplication, a large majority of respondents will do most of their backfiling projects in-house. Although outsourcing numbers are relatively high amongst jurisdictions in the 50 to 250K population range in the areas of scanning/conversion (47%) and redaction (50%). 24

25 Adoption of New Technology Seven in ten of respondents self-identified as being on the upswing of Roger s Innovation Curve Innovators (13%), Early Adopters (23%) and Early Majority (34%), while three in ten of respondents identified themselves as an and Late Majority (25%) and Laggards (5%) when it comes to adopting new technology. 25

26 Start of the Fiscal Year In total 85% of respondents indicated their fiscal years starts in either January (56%) or July (29%). In addition, one in ten of respondents selected October as the start to their fiscal year. 26

27 Approval Date for Your Budget There was a wide range of answers from respondents on their approval date for jurisdiction s budgets. Two in ten of respondents indicated September (21%) as their approval date and about one in ten of respondents indicated December (12%), June (12%), October (11%), November (10%), and August (10%) to be their budget approval date. 27

28 Planning to Replace Present Recorder System Nearly nine in ten (87%) of respondents indicated they are not planning to replace their present recorder system. 28

29 Time-frame for Replacing Recorder System Of the 13% of respondents that indicated they are planning to replace their current recorder system, nearly nine in ten (85%) of them said they would do it within 12 months. One in ten (8%) of respondents said they would replace their present recorder system within 24 months. 29

30 Section II Views on Records Management Systems RMS Features that are Important to Recording Officials Over nine in ten (95%) of respondents indicated recording, scanning/images, and indexing/verifying are the most important features a state-of-the-art RMS should offer. Next most important features a state-of-the-art RMS should offer are: on-site public inquiry (89%), disaster recovery (85%), cashiering (76%), online public inquiry (76%), Backfile (68%), automated redaction (56%), e-recording (49%) and automated/assisted indexing (45%). 30

31 Important Features a State-of-the-Art Records Management System Should Offer (By County Population) 50, , ,000 Cashiering 64% 89% 96% 93% Recording 94% 93% 100% 100% Scanning/Image 95% 93% 96% 100% Indexing/Verifying 94% 96% 96% 100% On-site Public Inquiry 86% 85% 96% 100% Online Public Inquiry 63% 89% 93% 90% E-Commerce 32% 70% 67% 79% Automated Redaction 48% 78% 63% 66% Automated/Assisted Indexing 37% 56% 59% 66% E-Certification 16% 59% 41% 55% Backfile 61% 78% 74% 83% Disaster Recovery 81% 93% 89% 93% Online Business Forms 25% 22% 26% 48% Integration with other jurisdiction systems 32% 41% 52% 76% Hosted Solutions 13% 26% 11% 45% 31

32 Issues of Importance When Selecting a Vendor Nearly all respondents indicated the number one issue when selecting a vendor is support after installation and cost, closely followed by records domain knowledge and experience. And quality of training. Issues Of Importance When Selecting a Vendor (By County Population) Cost 50, , ,000 Very Important 83% 81% 67% 83% Important 17% 19% 33% 14% Somewhat Important 1% 0% 0% 3% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Records Domain Knowledge & Experience 50, , ,000 Very Important 82% 77% 84% 79% Important 16% 23% 16% 18% Somewhat Important 2% 0% 0% 4% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% 32

33 Certified Project Management Expertise 50, , ,000 Very Important 59% 56% 58% 54% Important 35% 36% 33% 39% Somewhat Important 4% 8% 8% 7% Not Important 2% 0% 0% 0% Leading Edge Technology 50, , ,000 Very Important 47% 64% 52% 66% Important 44% 36% 44% 28% Somewhat Important 9% 0% 4% 7% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Conversion Expertise 50, , ,000 Very Important 76% 72% 84% 76% Important 23% 24% 16% 17% Somewhat Important 1% 4% 0% 7% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Support After Installation 50, , ,000 Very Important 91% 100% 92% 96% Important 7% 0% 8% 4% Somewhat Important 2% 0% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Training Quality 50, , ,000 Very Important 81% 80% 80% 66% Important 16% 20% 20% 34% Somewhat Important 3% 0% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Robust Base of Successful Deployments 50, , ,000 Very Important 45% 48% 52% 57% Important 40% 39% 39% 25% Somewhat Important 12% 13% 9% 14% Not Important 3% 0% 0% 4% No "Offshoring" of Design & Development 50, , ,000 Very Important 55% 67% 65% 59% Important 31% 17% 17% 19% Somewhat Important 10% 17% 17% 15% Not Important 4% 0% 0% 7% 33

34 Less than 50,000 50,000 to 100, ,000 to 250,000 Prior Experience with Your Jurisdiction Very Important 37% 35% 43% 29% Important 41% 38% 35% 36% Somewhat Important 17% 19% 17% 21% Not Important 5% 8% 4% 14% Provides a Scalable System 50, , ,000 Very Important 41% 48% 52% 59% Important 41% 32% 33% 37% Somewhat Important 15% 20% 14% 4% Not Important 3% 0% 0% 0% Provides Periodic System Enhancements 50, , ,000 Very Important 63% 85% 64% 83% Important 34% 15% 32% 14% Somewhat Important 1% 0% 4% 3% Not Important 2% 0% 0% 0% Local vs. National Presence 50, , ,000 Very Important 44% 32% 21% 29% Important 33% 44% 33% 46% Somewhat Important 17% 12% 46% 18% Not Important 7% 12% 0% 7% Local Sales/Support Representation 50, , ,000 Very Important 54% 48% 61% 54% Important 35% 44% 26% 32% Somewhat Important 10% 4% 13% 14% Not Important 0% 4% 0% 0% 34

35 Needs a Records Management System is Required to Meet More than six in ten (62%) of respondents ranked improving efficiency either first or second as the most important need an RMS is required to meet; improving accuracy (54%), improving data safety (49%) and improve records images quality (49%) followed. Needs A Records Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) Less than 50, Decrease Office Foot Traffic 5% 6% 2% 1% 5% 6% 9% 29% 24% 14% Improve Efficiency 44% 15% 14% 16% 6% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% Improve Records Image Quality 24% 29% 17% 7% 11% 4% 5% 1% 0% 1% Improve Constituent Access To Records 17% 12% 6% 13% 24% 20% 5% 2% 0% 0% Integrate With other Jurisdictional 2% 7% 6% 3% 9% 7% 23% 15% 13% 14% Systems Improve Data Safety 35% 12% 16% 13% 9% 9% 3% 3% 0% 0% Improve Accuracy 30% 23% 22% 15% 5% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% Improve Constituent Satisfaction 14% 9% 4% 14% 18% 21% 13% 4% 1% 0% Reduce Headcount 5% 7% 0% 0% 3% 0% 5% 14% 24% 42% Increase Throughput 7% 10% 2% 1% 7% 12% 15% 14% 23% 8% 35

36 Needs A Records Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) 50, , Decrease Office Foot Traffic 4% 15% 4% 4% 4% 8% 0% 31% 12% 19% Improve Efficiency 50% 14% 21% 11% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% Improve Records Image Quality 22% 26% 11% 15% 15% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0% Improve Constituent Access 19% 19% 8% 15% 12% 19% 4% 4% 0% 0% To Records Integrate With other Jurisdictional 4% 15% 8% 4% 8% 4% 31% 8% 8% 12% Systems Improve Data Safety 33% 19% 11% 15% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improve Accuracy 39% 18% 14% 11% 11% 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% Improve Constituent 30% 4% 11% 4% 11% 19% 11% 11% 0% 0% Satisfaction Reduce Headcount 0% 16% 4% 0% 8% 0% 0% 8% 48% 16% Increase Throughput 8% 8% 4% 0% 17% 0% 21% 13% 0% 29% 100, ,000 Needs A Records Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) Decrease Office Foot Traffic 15% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 8% 23% 38% 8% Improve Efficiency 54% 8% 23% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improve Records Image Quality 15% 8% 15% 15% 15% 15% 8% 0% 8% 0% Improve Constituent Access 31% 0% 8% 8% 15% 31% 0% 0% 8% 0% To Records Integrate With other Jurisdictional 15% 15% 0% 8% 0% 8% 15% 8% 23% 8% Systems Improve Data Safety 31% 8% 15% 15% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improve Accuracy 23% 31% 15% 15% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improve Constituent 23% 15% 0% 8% 8% 15% 23% 8% 0% 0% Satisfaction Reduce Headcount 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 15% 8% 46% Increase Throughput 15% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 15% 38% 0% 15% 36

37 Needs A Records Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) 250, Decrease Office Foot Traffic 6% 6% 13% 6% 6% 6% 6% 19% 19% 13% Improve Efficiency 56% 6% 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improve Records Image Quality 13% 20% 20% 13% 0% 7% 13% 7% 7% 0% Improve Constituent Access 6% 19% 19% 0% 25% 19% 6% 0% 6% 0% To Records Integrate With other Jurisdictional 0% 7% 7% 7% 0% 20% 27% 7% 7% 20% Systems Improve Date Safety 27% 27% 20% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7% 7% 0% Improve Accuracy 38% 25% 13% 6% 0% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0% Improve Constituent 13% 0% 0% 25% 25% 13% 6% 13% 0% 6% Satisfaction Reduce Headcount 0% 13% 0% 7% 0% 7% 0% 13% 27% 33% Increase Throughput 0% 13% 0% 7% 13% 7% 20% 20% 7% 13% 37

38 Current Record Management Systems (RMS) Capability to Solve Issues Nine in ten (90%) of respondents gave their RMS Very Good or Good marks for improving records image quality. Followed closely (89%) for improving staff efficiency, constituent satisfaction, and accuracy. High marks were also given to improving constituent access to records (88%), improving data safety (87%), improving throughput (80%), and decreasing office foot traffic (77%). Degree Current Records Management System Solves Issues (By County Population) Decrease Office Foot Traffic 50, , ,000 Excellent 31% 28% 29% 48% Good 48% 64% 42% 19% Fair 17% 8% 25% 30% Poor 4% 0% 4% 4% Improves Staff Efficiency 50, , ,000 Excellent 56% 48% 46% 55% Good 35% 36% 42% 31% Fair 8% 16% 4% 14% Poor 2% 0% 8% 0% Improves Records Image Quality 50, , ,000 Excellent 54% 48% 38% 55% Good 39% 40% 46% 28% Fair 7% 8% 8% 17% Poor 0% 4% 8% 0% 38

39 Improves Constituent Access to Records 50, , ,000 Excellent 47% 36% 32% 55% Good 42% 56% 56% 31% Fair 11% 4% 12% 14% Poor 1% 4% 0% 0% Integrates With other Jurisdictional Systems 50, , ,000 Excellent 21% 5% 15% 23% Good 41% 43% 38% 46% Fair 25% 19% 38% 15% Poor 13% 33% 8% 15% Improve Data Safety 50, , ,000 Excellent 49% 46% 42% 46% Good 42% 38% 42% 36% Fair 9% 13% 12% 18% Poor 1% 4% 4% 0% Improves Accuracy 50, , ,000 Excellent 48% 20% 38% 45% Good 43% 64% 46% 38% Fair 8% 16% 12% 14% Poor 1% 0% 4% 3% Improves Constituent Satisfaction 50, , ,000 Excellent 42% 33% 32% 52% Good 50% 50% 56% 34% Fair 8% 17% 12% 14% Poor 1% 0% 0% 0% Reduce Headcount 50, , ,000 Excellent 20% 9% 23% 37% Good 52% 65% 38% 33% Fair 19% 26% 35% 30% Poor 9% 0% 4% 0% Increase Throughput 50, , ,000 Excellent 25% 22% 29% 30% Good 55% 61% 54% 48% Fair 18% 17% 13% 22% Poor 2% 0% 4% 0% 39

40 Awareness of Records Management System Providers Based on Very Aware or Somewhat Aware responses, nearly seven in ten respondents indicated their awareness of Manatron (68%), Fidlar and Tyler (66%), and ACS (58%) as either Very Aware or Somewhat Aware. 40

41 *The Best Records Management System Based on a 1 (best) or 2 (second best) rating by respondents, Fidlar (71%) and Tyler Technologies (69%) are ranked as the top records management systems. ACS (54%), TriMin (48%), Helion (44%) and Manatron (40%) were chosen as the next best recorders management systems. *Note: The data shown below, represents the views of respondents who indicated they were aware of the records management system provider mentioned in the previous question. Refer to previous chart (page 40) for percentage of awareness per company. 41

42 Vendor User Group Meeting Participation Six in ten (64%) of respondents indicate they participate in vendor user group meetings. Top Industry or Association Publications While a broad range of publications mostly county and state related are read by respondents, NACO (22%) and PRIA (27%) were the top two read Industry or Association publications mentioned by respondents. Additional publications mentioned included NACRC (11%) and Governing (8%) Ranking of Conferences, Trade Shows and Forums When ranking major conferences in order of importance, respondents chose as either #1 or #2: PRIA (78%) than any other, followed by NACRC (59%), NACo (56%), PREP (45%), and IACREOT (45%). 42