What’s the trend in case management adoption among public sector organisations?

Public sector case management systems are designed to help organisations manage and organise their processes. The trend in this field is toward more configurable systems, as they are more flexible and easier to adapt to changing business needs. More specifically, with high-configuration case management systems like Canalix Case Management, organisations can adjust settings and options to fit their requirements without needing custom development. This approach often results in faster deployment and more efficient use of resources. 

Both customisation and configurability have benefits and drawbacks, and the best option depends on the organisation’s specific requirements and resources. It is always better to consult the vendor or a professional before deciding.

How the public sector is purchasing case management systems?

Many government agencies are purchasing case management system off-the-shelf – which means it’s from a trusted vendor – a system that can be customised or configured to meet the agency’s needs.

Such an example is Canalix. Canalix is a case management system designed to respond to the needs of regulators with a focus on inspection processes. Among the reasons our public sector clients choose an off-the-shelf case management software (like Canalix Case Management) is that it delivers the desired functions at a lower cost, has more effective administration of processes, and guarantees that the agency’s technology is always up to date. There are even more benefits to be listed, but these highlight the vendor-based case management adoption approach toward which the public sector is currently transitioning.



What other benefits stay behind the vendor-based case management system adoption?

Government agencies are no strangers to the business needs of the private sector. They all want a comprehensive, end-to-end case management solution that can be many things, including:

  • It can be customised to do anything.
  • It can provide the government agency with smooth workflow processes.
  • It’s easy to use.
  • It can integrate seamlessly with any other system in existence.
  • Can be updated to meet the constantly changing needs of the government agency
  • It’s easy to purchase, easy to adopt, migrate and operate. 

The reality is that there are many case management solutions for the public sector that promise all of these benefits. However, there are hidden traps in purchasing a case management system for governments. The core reason is that selling a CMS involves using many industry-specific terms that may mislead someone exploring the off-the-shelf CMS waters for the first time. 

What are the hidden traps in purchasing an off-the-shelf case management software?

For instance, an off-the-shelf case management system can be customised/configured to a certain degree. Some off-the-shelf systems may have a high degree of configurability, allowing the agency to tailor the system to their specific needs. While other systems may have limited customisation options, making it more difficult for the client to adapt the system to their specific requirements. But how can we tell the difference when all public sector case management services promise high customisation/configuration?

What should a government agency client know about purchasing a case management system from the vendor?

Many vendors promise high configuration possibilities, but what if their product has limitations that would present a problem in the future when the system needs additional functionalities? The promise of an “everything is possible” type of case management service should be a red flag for public sector organisations, because it may be a trap that puts the client into a loop of constantly developing and testing new functionalities that go beyond the core functions and modules of the product. This will eventually make the product more expensive and the government agency a “hostage” to the vendor’s development processes. Even if the vendor presents a solution that doesn’t require long development and testing, it may still cause trouble when in the future, it can’t be integrated with another system or scaled. 

These and many other problems can occur for a public sector organisation, if a single vendor’s core case management offering has system limitations hidden under the disguise of “flexibility through complete customisation.”

High configuration vs complete customisation

How can you recognise a high-configuration case management system that can respond to the business needs of your regulatory agency? For example, you’re a procurement officer in a regulatory agency. Naturally, the core suite of functions you’ll need would include the following: inspection scheduling and calendar management, inspection forms and checklists, data collection and analysis, workflow management, document management, etc. You would need a case management system that supports these core functionalities. Still, you can also be able to update it with additional modules for specialised tasks that are unique for the type of enforcement required by the agency. Both the core suite and modules can be modified to perform additional functions, with no need of development work over the major elements. This is what high configuration is. 

Related: How to write an RFP for an innovative case management system?

Strong vs weak case management systems

No CMS is perfect from the shelf; configuration will always be necessary. But with a strong, intelligently designed core case management system with relevant case-management practices, configuration is just a matter of minor rework over the existing CMS elements.

Unique but weak “customised” case-management systems can “trap” customers into a costly cycle of development, testing and retesting of software features that may be unexpectedly costly in the future. While a strong CMS with intelligently designed core functions and high-configuration possibilities may deliver its configuration promise with a minor rework of the existing elements to make them fit the regulator’s needs.

The difference between customisation and configuration of case management systems

A case management system that can be completely customised will take longer, cost more, and there’s no guarantee the resulting vehicle will even run. When a vendor promises “complete customisation”, you should ask some more questions to make sure whether the customisation is a trap or a real opportunity. If not, you should shift your focus toward a case management system designed to meet your government agency’s needs and can be configured to meet the rest of the wished-for functions. Don’t fall for “complete customisation” promises when the base product’s functions are insufficient for your agency’s needs.

Canalix offers a configurable, low-code case management system that follows the best practices for regulators and is flexible to match the different inspection processes. Our vision is for a connected regulatory ecosystem that can streamline your processes thanks to the most advanced technology. We realise this vision through a strong base product with built-in configurability that will provide your regulatory agency with technology that remains relevant not just now but also in the future. Our flexible purchasing options meet the needs of small regulatory agencies and regulators with a nationwide remit that needs to do more with our product.

When writing an RFP for inspection management software, it is important to clearly outline your organisation’s specific needs and goals for the software, as well as any specific requirements or features. To make your system future-proof, you should include an innovation section outlining your organisation’s interest in cutting-edge technology or new approaches to inspection services.

Unfortunately, most requests for proposals for a government case management system don‘t account for any of these possibilities and opportunities. Too often, these RFPs present little opportunity for innovation or even improvement. Instead, they drill down into technical requirements at extreme detail levels, resulting in a document that often does little to help differentiate vendors. The result: a process that is well suited to replicate paper- or DOS-based procedures but not to help bring a court into the future.

Can a flawed RFP process lead to adopting a bad case management system?

To answer this question, first we need to define what a good case management system is.

A good case management system for inspections might have the following characteristics:


  • Flexibility, allowing it to be adapted to the unique needs of different types of inspections and inspection agencies
  • Robust reporting and analytics capabilities, making it easy to track and analyse inspection data
  • Integration with other systems, such as document management or data analysis tools
  • User-friendly interface, making it easy for inspectors to navigate and use the system effectively
  • Scalability, allowing it to handle increasing volumes of inspections and data
  • Strong security features, protecting sensitive inspection data from breaches
  • Compliance with relevant regulations and legal requirements
  • Mobile accessibility and offline capability
  • Automated workflows, electronic signatures, and electronic submissions

inspection services


A bad case management system for inspections, on the other hand, might have the following characteristics:

  • Lack of flexibility makes it difficult to adapt to the unique needs of different inspections or inspection agencies.
  • Limited reporting and analytics capabilities, making it difficult to track and analyse inspection data.
  • Lack of integration with other systems, such as document management or data analysis tools
  • A poor user interface makes it difficult for inspectors to navigate and use the system effectively.
  • Limited scalability, making it difficult to handle increasing volumes of inspections and data.
  • Security vulnerabilities, exposing sensitive inspection data to risk of breaches

It’s important to note that the specific requirements for a good case management system will vary depending on the nature of the inspections, the size of the organisation, and the specific goals and needs of the inspection agency. If a flawed RFP (request-for-proposals) process impacts the decision making around choosing a new case management system, then that might lead to adopting a bad case management system that won’t be future proof. Which leaves us with another question. Should government agencies develop their own case management systems and not rely on vendors?


Should government agencies develop their own case management systems?

In the past, it‘s been largely up to government agencies to build their own technology. Now, government structures such as regulators and courts can take advantage of the experience and skills of accomplished technologists who specialise in different departments, e.g. regulatory case management, court case management, etc. These experts, for example, can bring a regulator a modern CMS that connects the various stakeholders of the regulatory enforcement process and helps the agency better plan inspection services and the big pool of resources that’s attached to them.

Of course, a regulator still needs to write an RFP to choose experts who can provide the CMS that best fits the agency’s needs. In this piece, the experts of Canalix – inspection management software and regulatory case management system – will offer ideas to help regulatory agencies to write an RFP that do just that.

Where to start from? The current state of the CMS system.

A Request for Proposal (RFP) should give vendors detailed information about the current state of a regulatory case management system’s technology for several reasons:

  1. It helps vendors understand the current technology landscape of the organisation. This will enable them to identify areas of improvement and tailor their solutions to the specific needs of the regulatory body.
  2. It can help vendors identify any potential integration issues. Suppose the regulatory body already has a case management system in place. Vendors need to know their capabilities and limitations to understand if their solution can be integrated with the existing system without causing disruptions.
  3. It can help vendors understand the scope of the project. If vendors know the system’s current state, they can better estimate the resources required to implement their solution.
  4. It can help vendors understand the organisation’s budget. By knowing the current system, vendors can better estimate the costs associated with the implementation of their solution, and this will help the regulatory body to make more informed decisions.
  5. It can help vendors understand the organisation’s priorities. Knowing the system’s current state will give vendors an idea of the organisation’s priorities, which will help them tailor their solutions to better meet the organisation’s needs.

In summary, providing vendors with detailed information about the current state of a regulatory case management system‘s technology in an RFP can help vendors understand the organisation’s needs and priorities, tailor their solutions to meet those needs, and provide accurate cost estimates. This will help the regulatory body to select a vendor and solution that best fits their needs, budget, and priorities.

Related: Improving resource efficiency in regulatory inspections: Ultimate Guide for 2023


What valuable information a good written RFP will give to a vendor?

In addition to the considerations listed above, an effective RFP will explain the following:

• The biggest challenges related to communications or data that the regulator has faced in the past five years
• New concerns that the regulator expects to become significant during the next five years
• The proposed lifetime of the new system
• The regulator’s ability and willingness to change its business processes to increase efficiency
• The inspection caseload and case lag
• The regulator’s data-entry challenges
• The technologies used by current employees to help run inspections efficiently
• Is the regulatory agency looking for a single vendor to fulfil a contract, or would the court consider multiple vendors to develop different modules (modular digital transformation)?


Frequently asked question on choosing a government case management systems

The Canalix experts shared several frequently asked technical questions that they get asked from government agency consultants and strategists, including:


  1. What types of data can be stored and tracked in the system?
  2. How are data security and privacy handled in the system?
  3. How does the system handle reporting and analytics?
  4. Can the system integrate with other systems, such as document management or data analysis tools?
  5. What are the system’s scalability and flexibility?
  6. Can the system handle automated workflows and electronic signatures?
  7. Is the system mobile accessible and offline-capable?
  8. Is the system compliant with relevant regulations and legal requirements?
  9. How is the system updated and maintained?
  10. What kind of support and training is available for the system?
digitalised inspection platform saas

Screenshot from the self-inspection software portal developed by Canalix.

 


If you’re a consultant or a strategist looking for a government case management system vendor, asking these questions will help you better understand the system’s capabilities and limitations and how well it will meet your organisation’s specific needs. It’s important to remember that the specific requirements for a good case management system will vary depending on the nature of the inspections, the size of the organisation, and the specific goals and needs of the inspection agency.


It’s important to choose a future-proof case management system because it will help to ensure that your organisation’s needs are met now and in the future. A future-proof system will be able to adapt to changing requirements, will support the growth of the organisation and will be able to integrate with new technologies and tools. This will help to ensure that your organisation can continue to operate efficiently and effectively, now and in the future.

Resource optimisation in inspections is essential because it helps ensure that limited resources, such as funding and personnel, are used effectively and efficiently.

There are several reasons why regulators should have a resource optimisation strategy in 2023:

  • Budget constraints: Many regulators face budget constraints and are under pressure to do more with less. A resource optimisation strategy can help regulators prioritise their workload and efficiently use their resources.
  • Increasing workload: The workload of regulators will likely continue to grow in the coming years due to various factors, including population growth, economic development, and new regulations. A resource optimisation strategy can help regulators manage this increasing workload and ensure they have the resources they need to carry out their duties effectively.
  • Improved outcomes: By optimising their resources, regulators can ensure that inspections are conducted thoroughly and consistently, which can lead to improved outcomes, such as increased compliance with regulations and a reduction in risks to public health, safety, or the environment.
  • Industry and public trust: A resource optimisation strategy can help regulators be more transparent about their inspection processes and priorities, improving accountability and building trust with the industry and the public.

Overall, a resource optimisation strategy can provide both: short-term and long-term benefits for regulators, including cost-effectiveness, improved efficiency, quicker results, sustainability, improved outcomes, and increased trust. In this piece, we’ll focus on the quick wins that resource optimisation strategy can bring to public sector regulators.


3 resource optimisation strategies for regulatory inspections

We’ll focus on three strategies that regulators can use in 2023 to optimise the resource allocation for inspection management and achieve quickly their first positive results. These strategies have been outlined by  our team and their experience with providing resource scheduling solutions to public sector regulators.

  1. Prioritise inspections based on risk: Regulators can prioritise inspections based on the level of risk that an industry or facility poses to public health, safety, or the environment. That can help ensure that limited resources are focused on the areas that pose the most significant risks and require the most attention.
  2. Use data analytics to identify patterns and trends: Regulators can use data analytics to identify patterns and trends in inspection data. That can help them target their inspections more effectively and identify areas needing additional attention.
  3. Collaborate with other agencies and the industry: Regulators can work with other agencies and the industry to develop and implement self-inspection services or joint inspection programs, or third-party certification programs, which can help reduce the need for regulatory inspections.

Implementing these strategies can help regulators optimise the use of their resources and achieve quick results in regulatory inspection management. Let’s explore in-depth how each of the three resource optimisation strategies help regulators improve their efficiency.

How the risk-based inspection process is helping regulators?

  • Risk-based inspections allow regulators to focus their limited resources on the areas that pose the most significant risks to public health, safety, or the environment. By prioritising inspections based on risk, regulators can ensure that they can address the most significant risks first.
  • Risk-based inspections can help regulators identify and address emerging risks more quickly, as they are more likely to target industries or facilities at higher risk of noncompliance.
  • Risk-based inspections can improve the efficiency of the inspection process, as they allow regulators to allocate their resources more effectively and avoid spending time and resources on inspections that are not likely to yield significant results.
  • Risk-based inspections can ensure that regulatory resources are used in the most cost-effective manner possible, allowing regulators to focus on the areas that pose the most significant risks rather than spreading their resources too thin.

How do data analytics enable regulators to perform inspections smarter?

There are several ways in which regulators can use data analytics to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of inspections:

  • Identify patterns and trends: Regulators can use data analytics to identify patterns and trends in inspection data. This can help them target their inspections more effectively and identify areas needing additional attention.
  • Improve resource allocation: Data analytics can help regulators optimise the allocation of their inspection resources by identifying high-risk areas or facilities that may require additional inspections.
  • Monitor compliance: Data analytics can be used to monitor compliance with regulations over time and identify trends or patterns of noncompliance that may require additional attention.
  • Identify best practices: Data analytics can help regulators identify best practices or effective strategies used by the industry to comply with regulations, which can inform future inspections and regulatory approaches.
  • Improve communication and transparency: Data analytics can be used to create reports or dashboards that can help regulators communicate their inspection activities and priorities to the industry and the public, improving transparency and accountability.

Why collaborating with other agencies and the industry can optimise the resource utilisation?

  1. Joint inspections: Regulators can work with other agencies to conduct collaborative inspections of facilities or industries that multiple agencies regulate. That can help optimise the use of resources and ensure that facilities are being inspected in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
  2. Information sharing: Regulators can share inspection data, reports, and other information with other agencies to improve coordination and reduce duplication of efforts.
  3. Collaborating with the industry: Regulators can provide self-inspection services to the industry. Self-inspection programs can help regulators to focus on high-risk cases while the industry is self-servicing the low-risk cases.

Overall, having a resource optimisation strategy can help regulators better manage their workload, optimise the use of their resources, and achieve improved outcomes in the coming years. Should you adopt a government case management system with resource scheduling module? Should you adopt a stand-alone workflow automation within existing inspection management system? Find the answer by asking our Canalix experts about resource optimization for public sector right now from the form below: