Do it yourself: trying to figure out how to implement and manage document imaging on campus? Go into the document image delivery business - Document Imaging

University Business, Dec, 2003 by Gordon E.J. Hoke

In a world where "single solution" is now a panacea-like catchphrase for so many campus technology ills, why would an institution of higher education opt for a multi-faceted, multi-vendor document imaging technology solution--and then decide to play value-added reseller and application service provider?

At The Ohio State University where enrollment runs over 54,000 students, the use of myriad technology solutions and vendors across divisions and campuses is actually nothing new. The institution's colleges, departments, and administrative offices often choose, install, and run their own technology systems. This is in stark contrast to other mammoth IHEs such as Big Ten competitor Penn State, which routinely purchases a site license for a single technology solution and then deploys it at myriad departments over 27 campuses statewide.

Yet at Ohio State, administrative units enjoy considerable autonomy and purchasing discretion, and efforts to promote integrated solutions have often been met with reluctance and skepticism. It was no different when the issue became document imaging. As document imaging, workflow, report management, and related technologies developed through the 1990s, various units at Ohio State looked at an array of solutions, but there was no consensus. Every department had different needs and wants, and no universal technology solution or distribution method seemed suitable.

That was when administrators saw the opportunity for a new solution distribution model. Certainly they were aware of the more common methods for distributing solutions--those that run from direct vendor sales (even "single-partner" technology sales) and application service provider (ASP) partnerships, to sales via the reseller channel. They were even aware of newer, "hybrid" models of distribution and deployment--vendor-provided hybrids that can carry elements of direct sales, value-added reselling, systems integration, and the ASP model. But as it turned out, though these options were close to the mark, they were still not on target for Ohio State.

Going Into the Document Imaging Business

In 1996, University Retail Services (www.ohio-state.edu), one of Ohio State's business operations departments, was already caught up in the business of providing comprehensive--if not conventional--document services to the university. Then, as now, URS ran a large print shop, leased copiers, developed Web sites for campus organizations, and offered addressing services with mailing lists. The department also placed, supplied, and repaired printers on campus, and connected them to networks. It still does.

"Between mailing, printing, and copying, we were right in the middle of documents," says Jeff White, URS manager. Then, says White, "My boss called me in one afternoon in 1996, and said he had been looking at document imaging for quite a while. He said now was the time to offer it as a service to the university."

White and his staff then launched a document imaging technology study. They evaluated the marketplace, talked to vendors, hit the trade shows, and searched the Web for solutions. In the end, their research revealed what they had suspected: Document imaging was an expensive, complex technology. The technologies were also too big a commitment and resource drain for URS to develop and offer alone.

"So," White remembers, "we said, 'Let's buy the back end and operate as an ASP.'" Under the ASP model, end users buy software licenses for their front end (the capture and entry of information as well as the PC-resident image viewer) and the back end (hosting and maintaining the databases, indices, servers, and storage) is leased to users.

At first, URS struck an agreement with a local imaging company and began offering image capture, storage, and retrieval. This worked well for about three years. Then URS customers began asking for additional, related technologies such as computer report management, workflow, and Web content management. These were more complex requests that were clearly above the capabilities of the local imaging outlet.

Defining requirements. "We needed full-featured, state-of-the-art software, so we brought in multiple vendors and told them where we wanted to go," White explains. "Our criteria were: We needed to leverage the investment we already had, including the legacy images, the indexes, and (as much as possible) the hardware. We needed a comprehensive, integrated suite with a consistent interface. And we needed a scalable solution so we could start small and expand." Another critical requirement was for robust Internet capability. URS' service area includes Ohio State's five satellite campuses, and White knew he would need the Internet to deliver document and content management remotely.

Short-list winner. In the end, White and his team chose Optical Image Technology (www.docfinity.com) and its DocFinity suite of content management products. DocFinity met all of the URS criteria, and when White checked with other OIT customers (Vanderbilt University (TN), Penn State, and several others), he received good feedback. After validating the software and the company, White sat down with the OIT people to sketch out a functional, appropriate business relationship. Although there was no existing model that exactly fit his needs, OIT management was open to sculpting a mutually beneficial agreement. According to White, company president Scott Buchart recognized the value of a relationship that might not be replicated elsewhere.