Eferson Credit Center

This case is a continuation of the company's background presented in Chapter 4. In this section, two alternative systems are described and a preliminary choice is made for implementation.

Problem Definition

As described in the first part of the case (see Chapter 4J,the current problem in the operations of the Jefferson credit center is inefficient storage and retrieval. In the present file system, both customer inquiries and payment slips are stored in physical paper files under date indexes. Consequently, misfiles and the tertiary relevance of the account number and document type make the search process highly inefficient. This reduces the credit center's ability to properly respond to customer inquiries.

Goals and Considerations

With the preceding problem in mind, the study was oriented to­ ward (1) locating and evaluating microfilm processing and data storage and retrieval systems capable of meeting the Jefferson credit department's needs and (2) recommending the system best suited to the unique needs and limitations {)f credit center operations.

In the system feasibility study, the following goals were expected to be achieved by the candidate system:

   a. File control-All out-of-file or misfiled conditions should be eliminated.

   b. Multiple access-Multiple users should have access to the same information simultaneously.

   c. Labor savings-Fewer personnel should be able to retrieve mo~ information in less time, providing greater productivity per employee.

   d. Storage capacity-The system should be large enough to allow unlimited expansion.

   e. Document organization-Retrieval of documents can be specified in any order regardless of date or order filmed. '

 f. Information revision-The system must be capable of accept' additional information via the CRT terminal.

  g. Future flexibility-The system should be capable of adding mo files (readers if needed) in the event of future growth.

In addition to these goals, each system was evaluated in light of t following considerations:

   a. Compatibility with the present credit management system on t IBM 3031 and 4341.'

   b. Feasibility of in-house (versus contracting) conversion and updating of existing paper file records.

   c. Ease of transition, which involves implementation procedures a employee training.

   d. Affordability

Of the systems evaluated, two top candidates were chosen. Ea system is briefly described here.

Kodak Microimagination System

The Kodak Microimagination System is delineated into two se rate areas: 'the reliant 800 Microfilmer performs filming, and storage and retrieval functions are performed by the IMT –I50 Intelligent Terminal. The Reliant 800 microfilms checks at the rate of 700 minute. The machine has reduction capabilities and a film capacity of either two 100-feet rolls of SA-mm film or 1\"'0 21S-feet rolls of 2.5­ film. The unique aspects of the system are its flexibility and sp Accessories can be added with ease. The indexing system developed while microfilming the document allows for a retrieval time of less t five' seconds.

The Reliant 800 is equipped with an intelligent controller that receives program signals and translates them into operations that suit the indexing needs. The client can select any four indexing options from 13 available programs. These indexing choices can be changed, as the user's needs change.

 

The second component of the system is basically a microcomputer that has a built-in memory and short-term (temporary) storage that can be erased when not in use. The unit is capable of searching through several varieties of film formats. "When the document is brought to screen, the IMT-1S0 has an automatic image position feature that "locks in" a clear, complete picture on the viewing screen. Once on the viewing screen, a print can be obtained in 12 seconds.

An aspect of the Kodak system that is of vital importance to Jefferson stores is its easy adaptability and compatibility with Jefferson's existing mainframe computer. The Computer-Assisted Retrieval (CAR) allows the user to keep the images on inexpensive, easy-to-use micro­ film magazines, while the computer database maintains an index of the location of each microfilm image. With the CAR, the computer does all the sorting and indexing of randomly filmed documents while the IMT-1S0 retrieves the document.

CARMS/11 Microimage System

The second candidate system considered was the CARMS/l1 system. The California-based vendor is one of the leading suppliers of rapid-access information-retrieval systems using micrographic and computer technologies. The proposed system is a fully automated, computer-controlled record management system. It is designed to:

   1. Eliminate misfiles and out-of-file documents.

   2. Provide instant retrieval of payment and customer inquiries.

   3. Increase productivity by creating instant access to data.

   4. Allow for incremental expansion into other areas within the Jefferson credit center.

When the operator initiates a search by depressing a function key, he/she receive prompts querying as to what functions are to be performed. In addition to system status, the system can be used to update, amend or append information to a file, thus providing the operator with complete information whenever it is needed.

Comparative Analysis

The next step in this project was to evaluate the pros and cons of the two candidate systems. The present system used by Jefferson's credit center is already obsolete. Both systems considered, the Kodak Reliant and the CARMS/11 are completely compatible with the IBM 3031. In the case of the Kodak system, a small software package is all that required to integrate the two systems. On' the other hand, the

CAKMS/11 system would require extensive database and file cont software to control indexing, storage, and retrieval of large amounts of information.

A second consideration is storage requirements. Jefferson's CI center receives and microfilms between 12 and 2S batches of 2S0che per day. It also receives 725 customer inquiries per week. The proposed system must be capable of storing two years of such data. This amounts to 2 million to 3 million documents. The CARMS/II system, with a storage capacity of 100,000 documents per ultrastrip cassette, would require 20 to 25 cassettes. On the other hand, the Kodak system would require 150 cassettes to store two years of documentation.

Related to storage requirements is quick retrieval time. The maximum time for accessing a document should be 15 seconds; 25 second if a hard copy is required. This criterion favors the CARMS/l1 system With 20 to 25 total storage cassettes, the CI\HMS/11 access times is between 2 and 12 seconds. The Kodak system, with more than live times as many film cassettes, would require mom search time for the cassette. In addition, the chance for misplacing the cassette is greatly increased with the Kodak system.

A third criterion to consider is document filming and indexing. Both systems are complete. Filming and indexing take five to eight hours per day.

A final criterion used in the evaluation is vendor service and support. Kodak’s vendor is in Lynchburg (home of the credit center) whereas the CARMS/l1 dealer operates out of the Washington, D. areao-140 miles away. 1\ system engineer must be within easy reach to remedy malfunctions and provide an ongoing training program.

Cost Comparison

Most of Kodak's cost is for hardware Jefferson would have purchase a new microfilmer, two intelligent terminals, some peripheral accessories, and a fairly inexpensive software package (see Exhibit 7-­ On the other hand, the CI\KMS/l1 system's cost is mainly the software package and its two work stations. Compared to Kodak's software package, which merely provides the interface between the IMT-1S0, a the 113M: 30:11, the CI\HMS/11 software package provides data base management services, but also redundant operating system services (see Exhibit7-6).

Development costs present some interesting features. The CARMS/11 system requires over twice the processing and development costs incurred by the Kodak system. This is best shown by Exhibits 7-7 and 7-8, which represent the processing and development costs for t next two years' business volume. The increased cost of CARMS/ll c be attributed solely to the ultrastrip conversion. The ultrastrip's benefi seem  to outweigh its I'athel' expensive' price tag, however.

In comparing the tWo systems, it is necessary to weigh the cost vendor reputation, nearby service center, and support of the Kodak system against the greater flexibility, speed, and storage capabilities 0 the CARMS/ll system. Because such a large portiol) of the credit cen­ ter's activity centers around customer service, speed and efficiency are of prime importance. Consequently, the CARMS/l1's ability to increac;e the speed of access/retrieval was the deciding ad~antage. Although Kodak operates a sel'vice center in Lynchbul'g, CARMS's dealer can

provide same-day service as well. '

Finally, although' the CARMS/ll system costs $30,000 more than the Kodak system, no budget constraints were provided. Furthermore, the system's unique attributes justify the additional cost.