5/1/2007 6:33:51 PM
Re: Scanner Hit Rate
If you're using the same scanner, but are having vastly different results on CAR / LAR reco rates on a thin client vs. thick client operational model, the most likely cause is the Reco software being used in the thin environment is not as complicated / sophisticated as the version you had locally installed. This makes logical sense as the more horsepower the reco software has / needs equates to the need for more horsepower centrally, more data from the scanner, and more time to transmit and process the data.
In conversations we've had with hosted solutions providers, there is a delicate balance between processing time and robustness of the CAR/LAR and IQA/IQU software. Most solution providers have a goal of performing the reco process in the background without any impact to the end user. Based upon the experiences you've outlined above, maybe this isn't the right goal?
Similar to all the various versions of Microsoft Office and other competing software packages, Reco Software comes in many degrees of competency, from basic to editions lebelled as "platinum", and results are further complicated by source documents, the scanner being used, the condition of the scanner and more.
Most of the reco rates I am familiar with are part of a thick-client installation where the reco software may very well be better than the capabilities currently available in a thin-client environment. In a thick-client environment, we have heard from the industry to expect 80% success on printed checks and 60% success would be good on hand-written checks, on average. Please keep in mind, though, any success rate results in new processing efficiencies for the end user.
Hopefully, a couple of solution providers might be able to post some additional insights on this issue.