Taming the dragon: Digital evidence
- Mike Harlow
- Sep 9, 2023
- 24 min read
Updated: Nov 17, 2024
CONTENTS
Introduction to digital evidence
○○ My purpose for this article on digital evidence innovation ○○
In this article I discuss the many industry-leading innovations we managed to achieve through 'issue-centrism' in the DMS and how important a central focus on issues and claims are to all resolution organizations. Without our 'issue-centric' approach, most of our transformative innovations would not have been possible.
This is a more functional and technical article than a story, as I am sharing deep insights and extensive details. This is a complex area of design that demands deep exploration. In this article I intend to to explain our design approach, the DMS features that resulted from this design approach, the many real-world benefits that resulted, and things I might have done differently in hindsight.
Introduction to digital evidence
○○ Understanding evidence in the digital age ○○
Welcome to our first article in our “Comprehensive Design” series. In this article, we are going to enter the design arena with a formidable beast in dispute resolution, digital evidence. To keep this discussion open and innovative, we’ll define digital evidence as ‘any electronically provided information that is being submitted to prove or disprove a claim or allegation’.
Before we dive into the deep end, lets review some examples and get familiar with the waters we'll be swimming in.
Imagine you need to return a defective product to a local store where you will need evidence that you purchased the product and to be able to prove there is something wrong with it.
The person at the return counter asks for a copy of your receipt and for you to demonstrate how the product is defective. You provide both and get your money back or a replacement.
Easy-peasy.
Now let’s use the same example but with the product being purchased and returned online (digital self-serve).
For most online returns you’ll be required to engage with a support team to validate the product is truly defective (did you try turning it off and on? can you prove it wasn't damaged in shipping?). You will also need to find the serial number, provide your purchase information, and prove you are the purchaser (not an online scammer). You will need to complete multiple online forms that have unfamiliar and confusing rules. Once completed, the original product also needs to be shipped back to the purchaser before you get a replacement or refund.
As you can see, the exact same online return was much more difficult than the in-person return and required you to know and do a lot more yourself.
○○ The complexity of dispute matters equate to complexity in evidence ○○
Keeping the more complex digital (online self-serve) process in mind, let's put ourselves into the shoes of someone that needs to submit more complex evidence, and where you will be facing someone with their own evidence and highly motivated to disprove your information.
Imagine the evidence you might provide for:
Ending workplace harassment: You're facing significant and ongoing harassment from a coworker or superior, who skillfully denies it when confronted and has lots of evidence of respectable behavior in public.
Seeking child custody: As you navigate a messy divorce, your ex-spouse is making dramatic claims of substance abuse, mental health issues, and social problems to paint you as an unfit parent, while also seeking to secure custody of your children.
Getting additional compensation for longer-term suffering: From a car accident years ago, you're still grappling with health issues that are affecting your work and daily life. You are seeking additional compensation for missed work, ongoing medical expenses, quality of life impacts, and emotional distress - all in opposition to an insurer that considers you fully treated based on similar cases and an independent medical opinion.
The evidence just got a lot more difficult.
Sticking with these more complex examples, also consider that:
You have a device in your pocket that can take pictures, screenshots or videos of anything, automatically stores text message, voicemails, emails, and can use the internet to find related information - giving you a virtually endless sources of information you could submit to support your case.
You probably don’t understand what information and evidence is legally relevant. While a lot of information may feel very important to you, it may not help your position. In fact too much emotional evidence is often harmful as it can blur your position or include information that can be used against you. Note: this is the reason lawyers recommend you both control and limit information you provide.
It is in your best interest for provided information and evidence to be well-organized and relevant. But you're unsure what relevant evidence is or how best to organize it.
Each time you provide your evidence, the opposing side provides evidence to counter your information or to make new assertions against you. This makes you feel an urgent and emotional need to respond (compounding on 1, 2, 3 above).
The resolution service providers are different for each of the dispute examples above, with each provider having their own unfamiliar legislation, rules, processes, timelines, forms and systems that you have to align to.
Evidence that you submit to the service provider who is resolving your dispute commonly must also be delivered (served by you) to the opposing parties before it will be considered in your case.
Did you feel the digital evidence dragon enter the room?
These quick examples only provide a glimpse of its true size. A lot of the dragon is still hidden in the shadows of complexities that have not been discussed.
○○ Truly addressing the many complexities of digital evidence ○○
In this article we are going to address the comprehensive list of information taxonomy, process, systems, resolution staff, and user experience considerations with digital evidence. We’ll also describe the many innovative evidence solutions that we incorporated into our open-source DMS in help tame the evidence dragon.
This article is focused on dispute resolution, but this information should be valuable to anyone building digital systems that require structured, relevant and complete submissions of information and files in support of digital services.
With the evidence waters tested, lets dive in.
What are innovative features that made up our evidence solutions?
Before we get into the detailed approach that we used to design our evidence solutions let's review a list of the evidence-related innovations in DMS that were enabled by this comprehensive design process. By combining the opening examples and this list of delivered features it should help you to enter the mental space necessary for a meaningful exploration of this complex domain.
I always find it very satisfying creating these lists of delivered innovations and recommend you take time to do this on your projects. Complex multi-year projects are a heads-down problem-solving affair that demand an immediate work focus, continual problem solving and relentless streams of releases. When we finally arrive at our transformation destinations, reflecting on achievements like these is a great way to validate our hard work and improve our sense of empowerment for our next undertaking.
Below is a summary of our 21 evidence-related innovations in DMS. These are not just ideas, but real production features proven in the real world with over 500,000 evidence files submitted in the past year in support of over 22,000 disputes.
As there are far too many complex features here to describe visually (e.g. with screenshots or process diagrams), you can contact us through the form on our web site to book a live discussion and demonstration where you can see exactly how we designed these solutions and how they work.
Reviewing this list should give you a sense of the complexity of evidence and the diverse array of integrated and targeted features that were required to address this domain.
01. Clearly defined required and recommended evidence for all available claims and allegations that make it easy for new disputants to know exactly what evidence to submit | 02. Automatic and configurable hot and cold file storage with instant access in both locations that greatly reduces storage costs and without any delay in accessing hot or cold files | 03. Fully configurable formatted help associated to required and recommended evidence that provides help, links, examples, and targeted instructions for every item |
04. Duplicate file detection (works with different filenames), configurable duplicate upload prevention and highly visible duplicate indication in evidence views | 05. In-flight renaming of uploaded files with original filename retention and user ability to retain existing filenames with 1 click where they are already clear | 06. Configurable whitelist of allowed file types with configurable max file sizes for each type that brings full control over the types and sizes of files that can be uploaded |
07. Clear visual indication of the 'side' that all evidence is associated to (claimant or defendant) and the specific disputant that provided the evidence that works with unlimited disputants | 08. Fully configurable deadlines for evidence submission with deadlines clearly displayed in all systems and evidence submission features that are only available when evidence is allowed | 09. The fully supported 'soft' deletion of evidence files associated to removed disputants or claims, with the ability for users to toggle the visibility of soft-deleted evidence as required |
10. Automatic and fully configurable file storage cleanup that ensures compliance with data retention rules and minimizes long-term storage costs | 11. User ability on all recommended or required evidence to indicate if they will upload it now, upload it later, send by alternative method, or don't have it | 12. Automatic thumbnail and key metadata generation (e.g. image resolution, video/audio length, pages in documents) for powerful visual displays of evidence information |
13. In-system evidence viewers that allow 95%+ of files to be viewed directly in DMS, for images to be rotated, zoomed and panned, and for multi page documents to be viewed | 14. Fully automatic creation of file packages for every evidence submission with automatically generated respondent records for tracking evidence service to all respondents | 15. An evidence override feature that allows the resolution staff to enable evidence uploads outside of normal rules to address special circumstances and information requests |
16. Full integration of evidence data with dispute information and resolution outcomes to enable full business intelligence, reporting and analysis that includes evidence | 17. Staff ability to indicate evidence that is being referenced in agreements, orders and/or decisions and for this information to be automatically inserted into auto-generated documents | 18. Automatic creation and email of detailed receipts for all evidence submissions with next step instructions for the submitter and links to support resources and relevant information |
19. Fully configurable evidence notifications that remind users of upcoming timelines for evidence provision with direct links to submission channels | 20. Chunked upload sub-systems that break large files into small chunks with automatic retry algorithms that ensure reliable uploads over sporadic internet | 21. Powerful configurable views that allow evidence to be sorted and viewed by claim, submitter, party orientation, submission date, and respondent service. |
How did we approach this complex domain definition?
As you can see from the features above, we ended up delivering a very comprehensive list of system capabilities to address this multi-faceted problem space.
Let's move into how we navigated this complex domain to come up with these capabilities and solutions.
Before we get into the details, as I have mentioned in other articles, you only have two real choices when it comes to complexity - you do the hard up-front work of breaking down and navigating the complexity, or you pay future costs in end user frustration, costly change management, reduced process efficiency, low adoption, lost innovation opportunities, expensive rework, and unintended consequences.
Complexity is a pay now or pay more later affair.
The worst possible time to realize your solutions have significant design gaps is after you release them into the real world. Post-release failures are demoralizing to teams and destroy hard-earned trust in your project. I strongly suggest you do your future team a favor, and make sure you identify complex domains and invest appropriately in up-front analysis and broad exploration of challenges and opportunities (design considerations).
Approach Recommendations
When pulling together complex domain definitions, I have a few general approach recommendations:
First, I utilize general problem, fact, risk and use case statements and avoid agile “ability to…” statements. In my experience, agile “ability to…” statements focus too narrowly on systems capabilities which creates barriers to non-technical evaluation and decreases engagement and the accessibility of documentation.
Second, it is very important to be as comprehensive and detailed as possible. Although generalization is a natural urge, try to avoid generic statements or summarization in this process as this naturally conceals complexity (and the goal of this process is to define complexity).
Third, make sure you include highly experienced experts across all key areas of the problem space and that these sessions are run by someone skilled at facilitating complex discussions, bringing order to chaotic discussions, and ensuring productive debate. Although availability of senior staff and experts is often limited, breaking down and documenting a complex domain is simply not suitable work for junior or inexperienced resources.
Fourth, most domain experts will not contribute efficiently without relevant examples to start from. I always create a seeded list of good examples with a small, hand-picked team of subject matter experts before moving into the larger group sessions. This maximizes individual contributions and greatly increases the value realized from these costly group sessions.
Fifth, continually use your complex domain definition to bring everyone to high levels of shared understanding and revisit your documentation often to keep everyone in a mindset of 'all things considered'. This will help ensure that you don't get overly focused on a single problem or solution and forget about all of the considerations that apply to that area of the problem or solution.
Sixth, if you find that in sessions users are starting to get excited about and prioritizing specific opportunities, make sure they are fully aware that most complex solutions require a 'Staircase' approach that starts with a highly planned foundational release that is extended through recurring releases that will achieve the end-state opportunity. This helps keep the focus on the all the work that would need to be done, and not just the elements people find exciting.
and Seventh, keep a constant eye on cognitive biases as they are a stealthy enemy of complex domain exploration. Make sure you address biases as they occur (as skillfully as you can) in order to eliminate them before they become entrenched. Below is my list of biases that I regularly review when performing complex design work:
Cognitive Dissonance: People don't like feeling uncertain and when presented with opposing options will make quick or irrational decisions to avoid feeling this uncertainty.
Dunning Kruger Effect: People with lower skills, experience and competence in a domain tend to overestimate their abilities and make worse decisions while displaying higher confidence.
Confirmation Bias: People prefer information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and push back on information that challenges these beliefs.
Anchoring Bias: People tend to rely too heavily on the initial information they encounter or what they feel is the most important and let this limited information restrict necessary broader thinking.
Availability Heuristic: People base judgements on information that is immediately available or particularly vivid, greatly narrowing their exploration of areas where they lack information - even when these areas are important to good decisions.
Status Quo Bias: People prefer the current state and what they know which limits the ability to explore new or novel opportunities for change and innovation.
Recency Bias: People prefer recent information and events which causes them to lose sight of important and highly relevant historical information.
Group Think: People are social animals that often seek to be agreeable and to conform their thinking to create harmony - at the cost of fully exploring difficult subjects and engaging in necessary debate.
Sunk Costs: People tend to continue to invest in endeavors because of the time, money and effort already expended even when the best decision is to abandon them.
Loss Aversion: People tent to spend more time preventing losses than obtaining gains which can significantly limit both opportunities and innovation.
Emotionality: People are feeling organisms that think, not thinking organisms that feel - this can result in more emotional than rational decisions when topics include provocative or stimulating elements.
Authority Bias: People tend to automatically believe or follow instructions of someone in a position of power, even in the face of significant and contradictory information.
What was our definition of the complex Digital Evidence domain?
The following is our digital evidence domain definition. This process not only validated that digital evidence is a dragon (and not a gecko), but is also a big, crafty, and intimidating. It's no wonder digital evidence is such a widespread problem in the dispute resolution space.
In reviewing these lists, maybe you can think of some considerations that are specific to your project or business needs that we missed and can further improve our solutions?
Note, I gave each of these items a unique code for mapping these statements to the DMS features we designed to address them and make sure our solutions were full-coverage (you will see them used again in the the next section of this article).
Information Taxonomy Considerations
IT01: You need to track all evidence by the user that submitted it and the date on which it was submitted, even if it is submitted on behalf of the user by a third party or external support agency.
IT02: Provided evidence can be associated to a lot of different things. For example, it may be evidence specific to a claim or allegation, evidence that spans claims and allegations, general information that is related to the dispute file, evidence that is related to proving service, and evidence that supports automated processes (like proof of income for fee waivers)
IT03: Disputes can have many participants that submit evidence.
IT04: Evidence can be in support of claims or allegations, or to defend against claims or allegations.
IT05: Multi-party disputes will include counter-evidence that refutes provided evidence but is still associated with a specific claim or allegation.
IT06: Some evidence is defined and always required, some evidence is known and important to have when it is available, and some evidence is completely unique to a submitters circumstances
IT07: Some evidence will be provided as written information and text descriptions, while other evidence is provided as uploaded files and documents.
IT08: Most uploaded evidence will benefit from an additional text description that explains what it is meant to prove (e.g. a description of why a photo was submitted)
IT09: Some users may submit pictures of specific pages of documents, while others will provide an entire multi-page documents that you need to find the pages in.
IT10: Phone cameras and scanning devices generate non-descriptive names that makes them very hard to tell apart unless renamed to something better (e.g. DCM12341234.jpg)
IT11: If users rename a file when they upload it, it will end up having a different name in your systems than the name is on their local version of the file.
IT12: After evidence is submitted that is associated to claims, allegations or participants – these claims, allegations and participants can be removed from a dispute file.
IT13: It is important to be able to view evidence in many ways, for example, by submitter, but submission date, or by associated claim or allegation.
IT14: The exact same evidence file may be uploaded more than once or by different participants in the dispute
IT15: Some evidence may not be considered in resolution processes due to service issue, illegibility (low quality), or other evidence rules.
IT16: Users may not have all their evidence available when they make their original submissions and may be planning to provide evidence later. Knowing if specific information is available and coming later is important to resolution service provision.
IT17: Evidence or it's associated parent information can be deleted, but both the deletion and the files may need to be retained as part of the permanent case record.
IT18: Due to delays in resolution some evidence may change over time and an updated item may need to be submitted that replaces a previously provided item.
User Experience Considerations
UE01: Users may not understand what an organization is seeking for evidence and many will need help understanding what to provide (e.g. specific required evidence, a monetary breakdown of expenses and a receipt photos to prove each item)
UE02: Users submit multiple pieces of evidence that prove the same thing (e.g. 10 different pictures of the same area of damaged carpet)
UE03: Users are generally provided specific timeframes to submit evidence.
UE04: Users may be required to fill out an associated form or worksheet that must be completed and submitted with their evidence.
UE05: Users may prefer to submit forms and text information on a desktop or laptop computer, and then switch to their phone to submit evidence.
UE06: Some users do not have access to technology and need alternative (non-digital) methods for providing their evidence
UE07: Sometimes bulk evidence that is submitted with paper forms
UE08: Some users may not have required or requested evidence. This is important information to know.
UE09: Due to application deadlines, users may need to provide some of their evidence after their initial submission to meet the deadline.
UE10: Initially provided evidence may change over time and need to be updated/replaced (e.g. new proof, new associated expenses, new repair estimates, etc.)
UE11: Users can forget which specific evidence that they have already submitted to the resolution organization.
UE12: All evidence submitted to the resolution organization must also be served to the other responding parties (evidence service)
UI12: Users often need to plan and organize their evidence before they are ready to upload the evidence and this can include a lot of files (high count) and significant upload time (large total MB)
UI13: Users are often in an emotional state when they provide evidence and don't know what evidence and information to provide which often results in the provision of a lot of useless information.
Staff Efficiency Considerations
SE01: Images can be scanned or provided sideways or upside down.
SE02: On some high-resolution images, only a small area of the large image may be relevant.
SE03: Some file types cannot be opened by standard staff software.
SE04: The process of downloading a file, clicking the file, and opening the file from a browser is a labor-intensive multi-step process.
SE05: Digital devices make it really easy to gather and submit evidence which often results in too much evidence or unnecessary evidence being provided.
SE06: Internal staff need to make notes on evidence as internal information that should not be visible to claimants and defendants.
SE07: Evidence can be referenced and included in settlement agreements, decisions and orders.
SE08: Emotional people have a tendency to write huge unstructured stories when given text description space in forms.
SE09: Large files can take a long time to download and open when providing resolution services and it is very useful to know how big a file is before you commit to opening it.
SE11: Some evidence is easier to locate visually than by filename, especially where there are a lot of similar files (e.g. imagine looking at your phone photo gallery only using filenames)
SE12: Long audio and video files may contain only small segments that are relevant.
SE13: Long documents may contain only specific pages or paragraphs that are relevant.
SE14: It is important to identify quickly if required or recommended evidence was not provided.
SE15: Evidence may be submitted after deadlines and needs to be visibly indicated.
SE16: Evidence is an important part of operational reporting, business intelligence and continuous improvement. It also provides an indication of participation levels.
General Process Considerations
GP01: Some evidence is only allowed during specific timeframes. These timeframes are often different for claimants and defendants.
GP02: Special circumstances may result in the resolution organization requesting specific evidence outside of standard timeframes
GP03: Evidence needs to be served to responding parties. This is a recurring activity each time new evidence is submitted, and this service needs to be tracked.
Technical & Systems Considerations
TS01: Images and files can have a wide variety of aspect ratios and resolutions (e.g. tall and skinny, HD images vs low-res images, landscape vs portrait orientations)
TS02: Some file types can contain viruses or malware and should never be allowed
TS03: Some files can be visually represented as thumbnails (e.g. images) while others cannot (e.g. most YouTube videos have a separate custom thumbnail as the first frame of the video is not descriptive)
TS04: Digital pictures and videos are getting bigger as cameras on phones are getting better.
TS05: Users will be uploading large files over weak or intermittent internet connections
TS06: Evidence files need to be kept for the retention period of the organization (e.g. 8 years) with off-site backups and disaster recovery
TS07: The storage and backup of evidence has associated recurring costs that need to be minimized and managed.
TS08: Evidence on open disputes is more important than evidence on closed disputes as open disputes have active evidence contribution and viewing
TS09: Most uploaded files have metadata that can provide additional and relevant information.
TS10: The evidence volumes are expected to be about 500,000 files per year and must retain them for 8 years.
Did we uncover any general rules, goals or foundational observations?
It is very common for these exercises to uncover general rules, goals and observations that are foundational to solution designs. The following are the rules, goals and observations that we uncovered in this process.
When it comes to getting 'good' evidence submissions, we identified three core factors; quality, quantity and organization
Quality: means that the evidence that is provided is relevant, clear, and complete
Quantity: means the 'right' amount of data to support the claims or allegations. Too little and facts may not be proven, too much and it can be very hard and inefficient to work with.
Organization: means the evidence should be stored in the right place (alongside the item it is proving), related evidence should be stored together (grouped), all files should have clear filenames, and all evidence should include a description of why it is relevant and what it is meant to prove.
Most resolution organizations have unique legislation, acts and rules that define the evidence that is acceptable for proving or disproving their allowed claims or allegations. This allows for the creation of defined evidence, instructions and help that will really help new disputants make the best possible submissions.
Improving the clarity and structure of evidence naturally leads to better structure in the other information that is being provided (e.g. more clearly defined evidence naturally means more clearly defined claims and allegations). It also created new and interesting opportunities for business intelligence, automation and innovation.
Longer wait times for dispute resolution services mean longer periods over which evidence can be submitted. These longer wait times are associated to higher volumes of evidence and higher rates of older evidence being replaced by newer evidence. All evidence processes and systems should consider the duration over which evidence is allowed as a critical design factor.
How did we describe the initial DMS design (initial solution definition)
The following is the list of evidence features that we designed and included in our open-source DMS solution. Beside each item is a list of the domain considerations that they address.
As you can see here, out of our full list of 58 considerations, we were able to successfully address 56 of them, or 96.5%. The comprehensive list of DMS features and input considerations from this process allowed us to group and sequence features into highly intentional phased releases. This strength in planning allowed the project to enjoy very fast initial adoption rates and for the organization to realize the intended benefits of the associated process transformation, automation, and technical innovation.
We created the following categories for the components and features: DM = data model and information taxonomy, UI = user interfaces for submitting and managing evidence, SYS = system or backend features that support evidence management.
Identified DMS Feature | Considerations Addressed |
DM: Allow evidence to be associated to fee waivers, issues and allegations, disputes, and notice service records or provided as bulk evidence that spans these items. | IT02, IT13, UE07, SE16 |
DM: Allow parent item text descriptions on all objects that evidence is related to. | IT07, IT08, SE13 |
DM: Allow evidence related objects to have many file descriptions (1..n), and for file descriptions to have many files (1..n) with flexible linking that allows files to be moved. | IT07, IT09, IT10, SE16 |
DM: Allow notes to be related to packages and specific evidence including both general notes and resolution notes and for evidence to be marked as referenced in the decision. | SE06 |
DM: Allow evidence to be defined and optional or required, and for evidence items to be created where there is no evidence provided let to indicate users will provide it later or do not have it. | IT06, UE01, UE08, UI13, SE14, SE16 |
DM: Clearly delineate all evidence by the disputant that submitted it and their role as a claimant or defendant. | IT03, IT04, IT05 |
DM: Scrape or obtain and store the creator, modifier, original file name, modified file name, file size, date submitted, on-behalf submitter name, category and key file metadata. | IT01, IT10, IT11, IT13, SE16 |
DM: Ensure that all evidence relationships and files can be soft deleted (removed but still available in the background). | IT12, IT17, SE16 |
DM: Ensure that all evidence is grouped into unique 'packages' that represent unique submissions with associated defendant service records. | IT15, GP03, SE16 |
UI: Build upload forms with duplicate detection and a configurable warning or blocking feature | IT14 |
UI: Detect and display a duplicate item warning in evidence views with ability to show/hide duplicates or click on one duplicate and see all related duplicates highlighted. | IT14 |
UI: Build repeatable evidence submission components with the ability for defined evidence to be required or recommended, for ad-hoc evidence to be provided, and for evidence to be indicated as upload now, upload later, alternatively provided later, or not available | UE04, UE08, UE09, UI13, SE14 |
UI: Allow a user description on all provided evidence so that they can provide details on why evidence was provided or what parts of the evidence are important | SE02 |
UI: Allow multiple evidence files to be uploaded and associated to any single evidence object | UE02 |
UI: Ensure that evidence provision features are only available when evidence is allowed, that separate disputant timeframes are defined and configurable, and that timeframes and deadlines are clearly communicated across systems and users receive notifications and reminders about these deadlines | UE03, UI13, GP01 |
UI: Build an end-to-end evidence override subsystem that allows evidence channels that are disabled due to timeframes and rules to be enabled by resolution staff under special circumstances | UE09, GP02 |
UI: Covert all evidence provided dates into days before or after deadlines and clearly show on-time and late evidence in all views | SE15 |
UI: Build in-system thumbnail views, quick previews and full file evidence viewers that allow evidence to be quickly identified and viewed, for images to be rotated, zoomed, and downloaded, and for general and resolution notes to be added to any file and viewed quickly | SE01, SE04, SE06 |
UI: Build full evidence service, not considered and referenced in decision features that allow complex evidence to be sorted into evidence important to resolution quickly and visually | SE07, GP03 |
UI: Restrict evidence titles and descriptions to reasonable volumes of information with limits clearly defined and remaining characters displayed as they type for real-time feedback | SE08, UI13 |
UI: Create defendant service records for all evidence packages that are submitted including the full ability for users to indicate service, for resolution staff to indicate service, or for service to be automatically indicated as acknowledged served or not served in batch routines. | GP03 |
SYS: Ensure that users can switch between devices with new logins replacing older logins to protect data integrity associated to workflows and business rules. | UE05 |
SYS: Build to channels that allow both front-desk (in-person) and self-serve (online) options are available for evidence provision | UE06, UE07 |
SYS: Implement configurable whitelists of allowed file types with configurable file size limits to ensure that submitted files can be viewed by staff and file sizes are reasonable | SE03, TS02 |
SYS: Implement a chunked upload strategy that breaks all large files into configurable sized 'pieces' so that each piece is more likely to be successfully uploaded over spotty internet connections, and the upload can automatically retry the upload when the latest chunk fails. | SE09, TS05, TS10 |
SYS: Implement a system for creating lists of evidence that can be organized and prepared before they are uploaded as a large batch of files | UI12 |
SYS: Implement a configurable thumbnail generation system that can create a small visual snapshot of uploaded file types (like the thumbnails in your file explorer on your laptop or desktop) | TS03, TS04 |
SYS: Implement a configurable system that scrapes targeted and important metadata from a whitelist of uploaded file type so that that it can be displayed easily in evidence views (e.g. resolution of photos, pages of documents, lengths of audio and video files) | TS03, TS09 |
SYS: Implement a configurable system of hot and cold storage with storage management reports, redundancy and off-site backup and controlled elasticity that allow storage to be expanded as necessary | TS07, TS04, TS08, TS10 |
SYS: Implement a configurable automated system that can remove (clean) files from permanent hot or cold storage | TS10 |
SYS: Implement a fully configurable notification and reminder system that automatically sends reminder emails based on timeframes that must be adhered to, reminds users of information they have indicated they will provide later, and reminds users to review and validate their provided information prior to resolution sessions. | UI03, UI08, UI09, UI10, UI11, UI12, GP01, GP03 |
What observations do we have in hindsight, and do any opportunities still remain?
It was a great achievement to hit 96.5% the identified considerations for this complex domain in our comprehensive solution. But no transformation project ever addresses all of the possible opportunities. Projects naturally uncover new problems and opportunities when the time, budget, and resources are no longer available to address them.
The following is a list of ideas and opportunities that we have not implemented at the time this article was created but believe would be valuable improvements to our solutions:
Improved response relationships for evidence: Allow evidence provided by parties to be indicated by the submitter as being related to specific evidence provided by the opposing parties where this association exists and to provide an additional description of what it proves or disproves (e.g. counter evidence to a specific file - related to IT18 above)
Improved Evidence replacement: Allow individual evidence items of the dispute file to be removed and replaced with a new item in a way that only the new version is displayed but the old version is still accessible as required by resolution processes or to align with retention rules (Related to IT14 above)
Soft limits to try to reduce excessive submissions of evidence: Use AI (reinforcement learning and adaptive learning) to create soft limits on the amount of evidence that can be provided for specific items based on the volume of evidence that has been provided for similar successful claims and allegations in the past. Create an automatic system that allows users to request an extension to provide more evidence that is always incrementally granted. (Related to SE05 above)
Include examples of winning and losing disputes before submissions: The DMS includes a built-in search engine for all decisions. This search engine knows the exact claims and allegations in the associated disputes and the outcomes of each claim or allegation, the outcomes of the decisions and the evidence referenced in the decisions. This built in search engine could allow users submitting evidence to review examples of positive and negative outcomes for similar disputes and the evidence that was provided - before they submit their evidence. (Related to UI01 above).
In closing
This complex domain analysis process worked extremely well for our project and the transformation of our client in their move to completely digital evidence. It allowed us to identify, design and deliver a full suite of industry-leading solutions in a very complex problem space.
I hope this approach helps you with your own complex domain analysis and has provided some innovative ideas for your own digital evidence solutions. If you enjoyed this article, make sure you check out our designing the future blog.
Until our next article, keep on innovating and sharing those working solutions!
Mike Harlow
Solution Architect
Hive One Justice Systems, Hive One Collaborative Systems
©2023
Where can you get more information?
If you have questions specific to this article or would like to share your thoughts or ideas with us, you can reach us through the contact form on our web site.
If you are interested in the open source feature-rich DMS system that includes the innovations outlined in this article, visit the DMS section of our web site.
If you want to learn more about the evidence domain and approach that we used to design our evidence solutions, we offer live sessions and lectures that provide much greater detail (including templates, analysis, and feature demonstrations). These sessions also allow breakout discussions around key areas of audience interest. To learn more about booking a live session, please contact us through our web site.
If you are an organization that is seeking analysis and design services to support your own explorations into a brighter transformed future, we provide the following services:
Current state analysis: where we evaluate your existing organizational processes and systems and provide a list of priority gaps, recommendations, opportunities, and solutions for real and achievable organizational improvement.
Future state design: where we leverage our extensive technology, design, creativity, and sector experience to engage in the "what is" and "what if" discussions that will provide you with a clear, compelling and achievable future state that you can use to plan your transformation.
Comentarios