The products developed during the Models for Action project are being tested and evaluated in the context of a practical application at the New York State Adirondack Park Agency (APA). APA was selected based on its business need to integrate information from a variety of formats in the creation of a record of a transaction. In particular, APA's land use permit process was selected based on the need to integrate information from a geographic information system (GIS), relational database, paper maps in a variety of sizes, legal documents, as well as a variety of others in order to create a record of a transaction. The agency is currently in the process of evaluating a network-based solution to replace its current predominately paper-based system. The goal of system implementation is to increase staff productivity and decrease customer turnaround time.

To date, only the Business Process Level portion of the RREC has been tested. This portion of the RREC was used and evaluated during a two-day business process improvement workshop conducted with agency staff. The workshop was preceded by a series of staff interviews which resulted in a preliminary model of the land-use permit process. During the first day of the workshop, the preliminary process model was revised by the group and sub-tasks were identified. The questions indicated in the table above were then applied to each of the various sub-tasks.

Overall, the results of the test with the APA were extremely positive. The information gathered through the use of the tool was considered to be highly relevant to both records management issues and the examination of the process improvement alternatives. For example, many instances of proofs of authenticity were identified and categorized as legal, regulatory or agency policy and practice. This information will inform system developers that electronic alternatives to these proofs of authenticity will have to be implemented or redundant paper systems will have to be maintained. The tool also supported the identification of sub-tasks that could potentially be eliminated or shifted to other sub-tasks. The tool, therefore, greatly assisted in identifying areas for process improvement.

The tool was very easily and seamlessly integrated into the business process improvement activities. It never appeared as though there was a shift in focus from the process to records management requirements. In many cases, the questions from the tool brought to the forefront details about the sub-tasks that would not otherwise have been captured. The questions contained in the RREC were readily understood by the workshop participants. It is important to note that the ease of use of the tool, particularly ease with respect to the ability to answer the questions, is highly dependent upon appropriate participation. In other words, in order to identify whether a requirement falls under the legal, regulatory or another category, the individuals brought together to answer the questions must have this knowledge. In many cases, participation in these process improvement efforts will have to be expanded to include individuals who are not only familiar with the business process, but also those who have a knowledge about the laws and regulations that influence the business process and associated records management requirements. The workshop at APA had this type of participation and this contributed greatly to the success of the activity.