The Truth about 99% Accuracy

Every day when I come into the office I’m greeted with a poster from an old ECM conference that reads, “If 99.9% is good enough, then…” and it proceeds to rattle off staggeringly large consequences of inaccuracy ranging from incorrect medication dosages to parents receiving the wrong newborn child. Even with that perspective, variations of the “99%” accuracy statements are all over in the technology industry. Despite some of these statements being technically accurate, they often lead to misunderstandings and misaligned expectations.

So, what does 99% accuracy really mean? for example, if your organization wants to automate data entry for invoice processing, then you are collecting date, number, and total amount on individual documents. Your objective is to have as much of this data automated as possible, but to be useful data it must be accurate.

Here’s the claim: a solution can deliver you 99% accurate data. While not untrue, this claim can be supported if the only measurement is of the amount of data you need. This measurement should be true regardless of the volume of data, and regardless of the number of fields that need to be automated. If a solution is claiming to be 99% accurate, but only on a small, controlled data set, then overall it is not a useful solution.

This is where we can reframe the discussion to ensure your needs are being met. Measuring specifics like “more than 85% of my data entry fields are now automated at 99% accuracy” provides a clear and measurable goal that defines the true amount of automation required per process. Also, it addresses not just data accuracy, but on the entire set of expectations.

So, the next time you begin a dialog with a solution provider that claims 99% accuracy, ask them, “how much data?”

Content Migration

Moving data from one location to another, from one system of record to another or onboarding a new business process can all generate common pain points and concerns.

In our experience, our customers migrate from one primary system of record to another for 3 primary reasons.

1. The cost of the current system has grown out of budget. Costs of version upgrades by major solution providers, coupled with the cost of annual maintenance and the man-hour costs of managing an upgrade become risky. These budget decisions alone make organizations reconsider their renewal decisions.
2. Loss of support. Software manufacturers may decide to drop a specific feature that is the one key benefit to your organization. Feature changes, depreciation or drop is a quite but common occurrence (check out the list of “depreciated” features in Oracle 12c https://bit.ly/2lOQKE1). When the cost of maintenance, a major upgrade, and man-hours are under consideration it is especially painful to accept paying more for what your organization perceives as less.
3. Big Data Problems. This may sound like a business problem Netflix or Amazon has, but consider how many places and individuals save and share the same document within your organization. This may be trivial storage cost, but it is a great big compliance and security risk. It also seems to be one of the first indications that a department or business problem is being partially automated, and could benefit from a more thoughtful migration to your system of record or platform of choice. If data is being stored, shared or extended through multiple locations (think desktop, email, back up to share, FTP, repository, cloud, Dropbox/Box) you may have a big problem. Multiple content locations make corporate/organizational policies, security practices and even regulations easy to ignore.

Solutions for Rural Justice

Rural Justice Crisis Has Consequences for States

The Rural Justice crisis and the pressure on State and County governments to find solutions is well documented. States that otherwise may not have much in common like Alaska, Nevada, New York, and North Dakota have all worked on policy and incentive programs for law enforcement and lawyers to reside and practice or serve in rural communities. It’s also recognized that urban courts have rural justice reach as they need to communicate to all involved in a court-related matter regardless of their location. Studies agree that traveling 200+ miles to see a lawyer or make a court appearance is not equal justice under the law.

The state of Nevada has found that leaving problem up to counties to solve has created legislative consequences. The state introduced a bill in 2015 that died in committee and passed Bill 377 in 2017 that created a commission to find solutions, but none have been implemented. In those two years, various counties in Nevada attempted to solve the problem independently. In November 2017, the ACLU filed suit against the state of Nevada for violating the 6^th amendment in six rural counties (ACLU Sues Nevada).

Rural justice initiatives and solutions must include collaboration between systems of record for Law Enforcement, Child Welfare Services, and Tribal Courts.  In 2006, the State of Alaska recognized the expansion of technology as one of the top five solutions to their rural justice crisis. They integrated their public health records, law enforcement records, tribal records, and court records to facilitate communication between all the organizations. This has been especially useful in communities where internet access isn’t guaranteed. Law Enforcement and Legal professionals can access all information in real-time and share with the individuals participating in the court system. The state has been especially creative holding court sessions in local facilities like high school gyms, decreasing the amount of travel for a defendant, plaintiff, lawyer or witness.

 Are your counties, public departments, and indigenous communities communicating seamlessly to improve rural justice?

The full Initial Report and Recommendations of the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission can be found here: Alaska Rural Justice

Information Processing Visibility & Control for Banking—Boost Your Bottom Line (part 5 of 6)