Court Business ProcessEnhancement Guide

An Aid to Process Improvement and Process ReengineeringFor Judges, Court Managers, and

Court Information Technology Directors

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statisticsand

National Center for State Courts

Prepared under the direction ofConference of State Court Administrators andNational Association for Court Management

Joint Technology CommitteeTechnology Reengineering Subcommittee

May 2003

i

This document was prepared under the direction of the Technology ReengineeringSubcommittee of the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State CourtAdministrators (COSCA) and the National Association for Court Management (NACM).Staff of and consultants to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Informationand Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts prepared this document undergrant number 1999-MU-MU-0005, awarded to SEARCH by the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims ofCrime.

ii

COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee

Dr. Hugh M. Collins, COSCA ChairBob Wessels, NACM Chair

Jerry L. Benedict Hon. Gerald MarroneyHon. Duane Benton Gregg T. MooreMichael L. Buenger J. Denis MoranDavid K. Byers Frederick OhlrichJanet Cornell John T. OlivierHon. Robert Fall Thomas J. RalstonHon. Judith D. Ford David L. RatleySheila Gonzalez Michael J. RoggeroD.J. Hanson Robert T. RoperRobert Hobgood Richelle G. UeckerSteven C. Hollon Alan SlaterSuzanne James Patricia YerianMary Campbell McQueen

Technology Reengineering Subcommittee

Hon. Judith D. Ford, Chair

Michael L. Buenger Jim PritchettMike Carroll Robert T. Roper, ConsultantJohn Davenport Alan SlaterGuy Gallaway Ron TitusSheila Gonzalez Richelle G. UeckerJohn M. Greacen, Consultant Bob Wessels

Project Staff

SEARCH, The National Consortiumfor Justice Information and Statistics National Center for State CourtsFrancis L. Bremson, Project Manager Laura Klaversma, Project ManagerDavid J. Roberts Dale F. Kasparek Jr.Teri B. Sullivan Edward L. PappsLawrence P. Webster Henry K. Townsend

David C. Steelman, Principal Author

iii

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge theleadership and contributions of a numberof judicial leaders whose shared visionled to the development of this document(see page ii).1 The need for a guide forcourt managers on the application ofbusiness process review techniques andtools for employing technology in courtsystems was first proposed by Mr. BobRoper, Colorado Court CIO, at ameeting of the COSCA/NACM JointTechnology Committee (JTC) in March2000. Mr. John Greacen, who at the timewas COSCA Chair of the JTC,appointed Alameda (CA) Superior CourtJudge Judith Ford to chair a 10-membersteering committee to develop a“Reengineering Toolkit.” Subsequently,a smaller working group, includingJudge Ford, Mr. Greacen and Mr. Roper,along with staff from SEARCH, TheNational Consortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics, led by CourtsProgram Director Francis L. Bremson,and the National Center for State Courts(NCSC), led by Ms. Laura Klaversma,Court Services Operations Manager,Court Services Division, worked as ateam to document the use ofreengineering tools and best practices incourts throughout the country, and todevelop the outline for the final product.NCSC Principal Court ManagementConsultant David Steelman joined theteam in 2002, and combined thecommittee’s documentation and analysiswith his own independent research intobusiness process review literature toproduce this Guide (available online at

1 Background on SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice Information andStatistics, and the National Center for StateCourts, and biographical information aboutproject staff are included as Appendix A.

both the SEARCH and NCSC Websites,www.search.org andwww.ncsconline.org). We also wish toexpress our appreciation to the NationalTask Force on Court Automation andIntegration, the project advisorycommittee to the Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA) Court InformationSystems Technical Assistance Projectgrant to SEARCH, which authorizedgrant funding to staff this research effort.

Special thanks go to Ms. Amanda Murerand Ms. Anne Skove of the NationalCenter’s Knowledge and InformationService for their extensive research insupport of this project; to Ms. TwylaCunningham, Ms. Linda Townsdin, andMs. Jane Bassett of SEARCH for theirassistance in editing and preparing theGuide for publication; and to all thejudges, court managers, and courtinformation technology professionals inPhoenix, Arizona, Houston, Texas,Oakland, California, and the New JerseyAdministrative Office of the Courts, whograciously shared their reengineeringexperiences with the project team duringour site visits, and offered real-worldadvice regarding the use of businessprocess enhancement techniques andtools.

Intended as an aid for judges and courtmanagers who deal with informationtechnology in the courts, this Guidedraws on an extensive body of print andelectronic literature on processimprovement and process reengineering.It relies on the insights of such experts asMr. Michael Hammer, Mr. RichardChang, Mr. James Harrington, and otherprominent process-improvement andprocess-reengineering professionalsfrom the private and public sectors. An

iv

especially valuable resource is from theFederal government — the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office’s Business ProcessReengineering Assessment Guide (1997)(http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf), which served as animportant reference source throughoutthis Guide.

Technology Reengineering SubcommitteeJoint Technology CommitteeCOSCA/NACM

v

Foreword

Developed under the auspices of theJoint Technology Committee (JTC) ofthe Conference of State CourtAdministrators (COSCA) and theNational Association for CourtManagement (NACM), this Guide is awork product of the JTC’s TechnologyReengineering Subcommittee. TheGuide is addressed to judges, courtmanagers, and court informationtechnology (IT) directors at both theState and the trial court level. It isintended to help courts prepare fortechnology change and adjust to thechanges that technology brings to thecourts.

Why Focus on Business Processes inCourts?

The business processes employed inclerks’ offices, court administrationoffices, courtrooms, and judges’chambers were first developed toaccomplish specific tasks when courtshad few staff and a relatively smallnumber of cases and customers.Processes and procedures weredeveloped to respond to needs as theyarose, and were rarely updated to keeppace with changes in the courtenvironment, or were modifiedprincipally to respond to the needs of thecourt staff rather than the public.

As courts grew and responsibilities weredivided among different offices anddepartments or divisions, processes andoperations became more bureaucratic.Courts rarely stepped back to address theimpacts of changes or to analyze thebusiness processes to determine how tooperate most efficiently or effectively.Along the way, customer service becamea luxury rather than a priority. Business

processes became less effective, morelabor-intensive, and more time-consuming.

Over the past 30 years, three relatedtrends have combined to bring pressureon the courts to reexamine existingpolicies and procedures: (1) theproliferation of IT resources; (2)declining public trust and confidence inthe courts;2 and (3) workloads increasingfaster than the ability of fundingagencies to meet them.3 Proliferation ofIT increased the public’s expectationthat the justice system should be able toknow instantly everything it needed toknow about criminal defendants. Thesystem’s inability to deliver on thisexpectation has led to the growingdecline in the level of public respect forthe justice system in general, and for thecourt system in particular.4 And astechnology has enabled us to do morewith less, resources have continued todecline, even as workloads havecontinued to increase.5

2 Yankelovich et al., “Highlights of a National

Survey of the General Public, Judges andCommunity Leaders,” State Courts: A Blueprintfor the Future (Williamsburg, VA: NationalCenter for State Courts, 1978) p. 21 [Hereafter,Yankelovich]; American Bar Association,Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System (Chicago:1999); and National Center for State Courts,How the Public Views the State Courts, A 1999National Survey (Hearst Corp.: 1999).

3 National Center for State Courts, State CourtWorkload Statistics, 2000-2001 (Williamsburg,VA: 2002). Hereafter, NCSC.

4 Yankelovich, ibid.5 NCSC.

vi

The COSCA/NACM Joint TechnologyCommittee and Business Processes inCourts

The JTC has been promoting thedevelopment and adoption of innovativetechnology in the courts for nearly adecade. As its strategic plan indicates,the Committee recognized that manylessons have been learned during thistime, including the need to link businessprocess reengineering with theimplementation of technology, if successis to be achieved.6 The JTC’s strategicplan warns about designing solutionsthat electronically replicate manualsystems. Business process reengineeringis the discipline that assumes that inorder to be effective, we must allowtechnology to drive changes in processesand we must change processes toleverage the potential of technology:

“Courts … design automatedsystems to reproduce theirexisting work processesrather than take advantage oftechnological capabilities toredesign those processes todo them more efficiently. …At best, we can be said tohave moved from the quillpen to the typewriter to thekeyboard.”7

The JTC’s vision is to use technology tohelp trial courts serve the needs of thepublic more fully, at an affordable cost.To do so, courts must radically change

6 Conference of State Court

Administrators/National Association for CourtManagement Joint Technology Committee,Third Long Range Plan: July 2001 – June 2004,First Draft, May 4, 2001, p. 2.

7 Ibid.

the way they offer services to the publicand conduct business as they implementthese new tools. IT provides anopportunity to improve automatedsupport of court operations, which willfacilitate the movement of court servicesfrom quill pens to the 21st century. Whilethe technology to do so is available,courts require education and assistancein improving business processes. For thisreason, the JTC established theTechnology ReengineeringSubcommittee.

The Technology ReengineeringSubcommittee and this Guide

The goals of the TechnologyReengineering Subcommittee are to:

• Help court leaders understandhow to improve businesspractices and why theseimprovements are essential tosuccess with technology.

• Provide resources andmethodologies to support the fullrange of process improvementapproaches.

• Teach court leaders how to applythese tools in their individualcourts.

This Guide (available online at bothwww.search.org andwww.ncsconline.org) is intended to helpthe subcommittee achieve these goals.The objective of this document is toshow judges, court managers, and courtIT directors why business processenhancement is important, and to helpthem understand the methods and toolsfor process change. These objectives areaccomplished by focusing on theprocesses and tools that courts can use toimprove, redesign, or reengineer thecourt work process, and thereby to

vii

leverage the value of technology to helpcourts become more effective andefficient in their delivery of services tocitizens. This Guide discusses the foursteps to achieving business processenhancement and the different methods,tools, and techniques to aid that effort,which are both user-friendly and visuallyattractive, so they will serve as helpfulaids for process improvement andprocess reengineering in the courts.

viii

Contents

Chapter I. An Introduction to Business Process Enhancement .................................. 1

What is Business Process Enhancement? ............................................................. 1

What are Process Improvement and Process Reengineering? ............................... 1

Chapter II. How to Enhance Business Processes in Your Court................................. 6

Step One: Establish an Appropriate Foundation................................................... 7A. Develop an Appropriate Governance and Management Structure ....................7B. Align Business Objective Priorities to the Court’s Strategic

Mission and Goals................................................................................................8C. Assess Organizational Readiness and Decide on a Process

Enhancement Approach .......................................................................................8D. Begin to Manage Expectations and Build Support for Change..........................9E. Appoint a Project Owner, a Project Manager, and a Capable

Project Team.......................................................................................................10F. Determine the Role of Consultants ....................................................................10

Step Two: Measure “As Is” Versus “To Be” Gap and Develop Feasible Alternatives to Existing Court Business Processes .......................................... 11

A. Document and Analyze the Current “As Is” Processes....................................12B. Benchmark and Set Enhancement Goals; Conduct Gap Analysis....................13C. Develop Alternative Process Solutions..............................................................14D. Identify and Assess Potential Implementation Barriers...................................15E. Analyze Cost/Benefit Alternatives......................................................................15

Step Three: Choose the Desired Solution and Plan for its Implementation ......... 16A. Choose the Best Alternative ...............................................................................17B. Make the Case for the Desired Solution............................................................17C. Develop the Details of the Desired Solution .....................................................18D. Develop a Plan to Manage Implementation......................................................20E. Plan to Manage the Change Process.................................................................21

Step Four: Implement the Enhanced Business Process Solution and Make Further Process Improvements as Needed ............................................. 22

A. Conduct a Pilot Test, System Test, or Simulation ............................................22B. Measure and Revise the Pilot-tested Process...................................................24C. Implement the Business Process ........................................................................24D. Manage Reactions to Change ............................................................................24E. Capitalize on Success and Make Further Process Improvements....................25

Chapter III. Tools and Methodologies to Support Business Process Enhancement in the Courts ..................................................................................... 26

Process Documentation Tools............................................................................ 28

Process Analysis Techniques and Statistical Presentation Tools......................... 31A. Analytical Techniques ........................................................................................31B. Statistical Presentation Techniques...................................................................34C. Simple Project Planning and Management Tools.............................................38D. Advanced Project Planning and Management Tools........................................41

ix

E. Software Tools ....................................................................................................45F. Basic Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement ..................52G. Advanced Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement ...........52

Chapter IV. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 57

Appendix A. About SEARCH, The National Center for State Courts, and Project Staff.............................................................................................................. 60

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Project Scope Continuum ............................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Checklist of Steps to Enhance Business Processes in the Courts ................... 7

Figure 3. Checklist of Tools and Methodologies to Support Business Process Enhancement in the Courts............................................................ 27

Figure 4. Standard Process Flowchart Symbols ........................................................... 29

Figure 5. Block Diagram of Hiring Process in a Hypothetical Court ............................ 30

Figure 6. Late Entry of Court Event Data: Sample Fishbone Diagram with Potential Causes ............................................................................................... 35

Figure 7. Histograms on Case and Population Trends per Judge in Texas Courts, 1995-2001 ................................................................................................................ 36

Figure 8. Sample Pareto Chart: 1979 Criminal Trial-date Continuance Reasons in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 37

Figure 9. Sample Matrix Diagram: Assigning Levels of Responsibility for Tasks in Preparing a New Clerks Manual, Based on Enhanced Business Processes ............ 39

Figure 10. Sample Tree Diagram: Partial Detail of Tasks to be Accomplished in Upgrading a Court’s Voicemail System................................................................ 40

Figure 11. Critical Path Method Analysis of a Simple Court Computer System Installation, Presented as a Gantt Chart..................................................................... 43

Figure 12. Critical Path Method Analysis of a Simple Court Computer System Installation, Presented as a Program Evaluation and Review Technique Chart .......... 44

Table 1. Practical Examples of Process Improvement and Process Reengineering in Courts ........................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Hypothetical Force-field Diagram for Trial Court with a Civil Delay Problem................................................................................................. 32

Table 3. Examples of Generic Collaborative (Groupware) Tools ................................. 46

Table 4. Sources of Information about Vendor-specific Software Tools ...................... 51

Table 5. Levels of Business Process ............................................................................ 59

1

Chapter I. An Introduction to Business Process Enhancement

What is Business ProcessEnhancement?

The purpose of this Guide is to helpchief judges, court administrators, clerksof court, court information technology(IT) directors, and other court managerswho deal with IT prepare for technologychange and adjust to the changes thattechnology brings to the courts. TheGuide’s focus is on how to enhance thebusiness processes in courts.

“Business Process” is agroup of related activitiesby which a court or anyother organization uses itsresources to providedefined results in supportof its mission, goals, andobjectives.1

In every court, there are hundreds ofbusiness processes going on every day.There are a host of business processesassociated with such court activities asthe creation, maintenance, and updatingof case records; the calendaring of cases,conduct of courtroom proceedings, andentry of court decisions in the record;and the management of case flow,personnel, finances, equipment, andfacilities. A large number of theseprocesses are repetitive tasks oractivities, and these may be potentialcandidates for enhancement with the use

1 H. James Harrington, Business Process

Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy forTotal Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991). Hereafter,Harrington.

of court technology. By businessprocess enhancement (BPE), we mean:

The establishment of goals orexpectations for one or moreprocesses, analysis of howthose processes are actuallycarried out in a court or anyother organization, andadjustment of those processesif their results do not meet thegoals or expectations.Process improvement andprocess reengineering referto the scope of the processreview, from processimprovement of a specificfunction or activity to afundamental restructuring orreengineering of a majorfunction or system.

What are Process Improvementand Process Reengineering?

Process improvement and processreengineering are BPE approaches aimedat streamlining the way a court or otherorganization does its work, and exist atopposite ends of the BPE continuum (seeFigure 1):

2

Figure 1. Project Scope Continuum

Process Improvement________________________________________________Reengineering

Fine-tuning Processes Radical Redesign

Process improvement focuses on fine-tuning existing processes:

Process improvement is adisciplined approach to thesimplification andstreamlining of businessprocesses, usingmeasurements and controls toaid continuous improvement.2

Process reengineering involves a totalre-thinking of an existing function orcreation of a new function:

Process reengineering is adisciplined approach to thefundamental rethinking andradical redesign of businessprocesses to bring aboutdramatic improvements inperformance.3

Judges and court managers routinelylook for ways to improve operatingefficiencies because some business needhas been identified. Regardless of theproposed solution, process improvementand process reengineering providedisciplined approaches to the analysis ofexisting processes to facilitate designand implementation of that solution.Frequently, the solution will involve

2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

either the application of new technologyor the modification of existingtechnology used in the process. At thesame time, the differences betweenprocess improvement and reengineeringare less important than theircommonalities — either or both may beapplied at any point in the developmentor enhancement of any operationalsystem.

An example of the difference in scopebetween business process review andreengineering may be seen in how courtsare responding to the business need toprovide greater physical and datasecurity in the aftermath of the events ofSeptember 11, 2001. By and large,courts have opted to tighten upprocedures — installing metal detectors,inspecting briefcases, requiring photoIDs, etc.4 Each procedural change orintroduction of technology involved areview and restructuring of existingprocesses. On the other hand, a courtthinking “outside the box” might wish toconsider conducting judicial processeselectronically, thereby eliminating or

4 Lawrence P. Webster, “Survey of Court

Responses to Events of 9/11,” unpublishedsurvey developed for the SEARCH/Bureau ofJustice Assistance (BJA) National Task Force onCourt Automation and Integration, April 2002.Interestingly, a significant minority of courtsresponding to the survey reported they hadreduced security equipment and personnel due toa decline in revenues that had also followed theevents of September 11, 2001.

3

substantially reducing the need for thecourt’s physical facilities and, therefore,the need for increasing expenses for thephysical facilities.5 Business processreviews resulted in incremental efforts toimprove courthouse security. The virtualcourthouse proposal would require atotal reengineering of the judicialprocess to evaluate whether the purposesof the courts and the justice systemcould be accomplished as well or betteroutside conventional court facilities,conceivably at a reduced risk to courtfacilities and the public, and at a reducedoverall cost to the court. In both cases,technology could be acquired orenhanced to facilitate the new processes.In either case, a business need requiredthe development of a new solution,which may or may not have beendetermined, designed, or implementedthrough the application of disciplinedprocess improvement or processreengineering approaches, and thedesign for which may have includedmethodologies, techniques, and tools toleverage the potential impact of existingor new technologies.

5 Exploration of the feasibility of moving to a

virtual courthouse was one of ninerecommendations issued by the SEARCH/BJANational Task Force on Court Automation andIntegration at a meeting held at St. Simon’sIsland, Georgia, in November 2001 to assess theimplications of those events on court IT.

Other examples of the differencesbetween process improvement andreengineering approaches to similarproblems appear in Table 1. In nearlyevery case, each project was developedto address a business need; eachpresumes the need to analyze existingprocedures (As Is) and design of newprocedures (To Be), either as a processimprovement or a process reengineeringeffort. Most involve or could involvemodification of existing or newtechnology. Integrating technology intothe system design would enhance theeffectiveness of the overall solution.

4

Table 1. Practical Examples of Process Improvement and Process Reengineeringin Courts

Business Needs Process Improvement Reengineering

1. Multiple jurisdictions incounty use different trafficcitation forms; data entryprocess slow

Create a uniform citation a. Paperless court; convertfrom paper to imageddocuments

b. Convert from imaged to e-filed documents

2. Court dismisses criminalcases due to failure tocomply with speedy trial rule

a. Reassign judicial resourcesto hear more cases

b. Establish case-processingtime standards; track andreport time between eventsand from filing todisposition

Resource allocation:

Plan to try all pending casesin record time (e.g., 30 days)via massive infusion oftemporary or visiting judgesand access to virtuallyunlimited rented or temporarycourtroom facilities

3. Mail unsorted; unstampedcomplaints not on ROA atend of day/shift; increasedovertime

a. Establish time processingstandards for mail,complaint processing

b. Revise processes

a. Automated processes

b. Reorganize clerk staff fromspecialists to generalists

4. Imbalance in judicialcaseloads; case assignmentsystem does not account forcomplexity

Assign case weights inassignment process

Assign case weights inassignment process

5. Judges treating complexcases differently; bar irate

Establish uniform process forall complex civil cases

6. Noncompliance withmandate to report alldomestic violence (DV)orders to law enforcement

Develop manual process;separate DV orders forreporting purposes

Automate protective ordersystem; automatically populateState and Federal protectiveorder databases

7. Attorney scheduling Bar, courts agree to establishpolicy, criteria,communications protocol;system self-executing

Automated conflict scheduleresolution system tied to allcourts, all attorneys

8. Backlog at counter; clerkscan’t process filings due todemands to retrieve files,copy documents, etc.

a. Provide access to files,public copier

b. Allow public orders byphone

c. Hire contractors to makecopies, retrieve files

Provide access to courtdatabase via computer

5

9. Numerous examples ofpublic need for information,explanation; public, media,funding agency criticism;court call for improvedcustomer service

a. Better public informationmaterials, brochure, Website regarding procedures,parking, directions to thecourthouse

b. Information booth

c. Assign more experiencedstaff to front counter

d. Improved courthousesignage

10. 90% of divorce litigantsunrepresented by counsel;lack of understanding ofprocessing, thus causingprocessing delays

Pamphlet, brochuresdescribing parties’ rights,processes; sample forms

Self-service Center program toadvise pro se litigants in allaspects of divorceproceedings and working outthe interrelationships amongthe court, clerk's office, legalservices, pro bono attorneys,process servers, State motorvehicle licensing agency, andState and local barassociations

11. Redundant data entry;delay in getting warrants fromcourt to law enforcement inthe field; losing defendants injail and at the courthouse

Need for better informationexchange; identify needs andsources; review all informationexchange processes in localjustice system

Develop integrated justiceinformation system; datacaptured at case initiation andused many times; provideaccess to information nototherwise available needed toimprove quality of decision-making; timely sharing ofcritical data; informationautomatically published andsubscribed to populatedatabases throughout thesystem

6

Chapter II. How to Enhance Business Processes in Your Court

In almost every State, courts and othergovernment entities are being asked toimprove services to citizens while at thesame time reducing (or at least notincreasing) the costs of day-to-dayoperations. To respond effectively tothese twin pressures, the court mustconsider changing the way it carries outits everyday work activities — in otherwords, enhancing business processes —without running afoul of proceduralrequirements in individual cases. As anagent of stability and continuity insociety, the court may find itselfoperating with business processes thatwere designed before the emergence oftoday’s information technologies. Courtsmay thus not be in a position to meettheir mission and strategic goals in aneffective and efficient fashion. Courtsmay consequently need to considerchanging outmoded work processes inorder to use the new technologies astools to aid the delivery of improvedjustice services to parties and othercitizens who use the court.

This chapter outlines a four-stepapproach to changing the court’sbusiness processes, either throughprocess improvement or processreengineering. Figure 2 shows thosesteps along with a checklist of theactivities involved in completing thesteps. In this chapter, we provide a briefoverview of the four steps and relatedactivities.6

6 See U.S. Government Accounting Office,

Accounting and Information ManagementDivision, Business Process ReengineeringAssessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.15, 1997)www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf.

An underlying premise of this Guide isthat judges, court managers, and court ITdirectors must take a systematicapproach to BPE. The approach wesuggest here can be used in both largeand small efforts to change businessprocesses. It offers a means to considerthe impact of such changes not onlywithin the court itself, but also theirimpact on other institutional participantsin the work the court does every day.

7

Figure 2. Checklist of Steps to Enhance Business Processes in the Courts

Step One: Establish an Appropriate Foundation• Develop an appropriate governance and management structure• Set business objectives and priorities to court’s strategic mission and goals• Assess organizational readiness and decide on a process enhancement approach• Begin to manage expectations and build support for change• Appoint a process owner, a project manager, and a capable project team• Determine the role of consultants

Step Two: Measure “As Is” versus “To Be” Gap and Develop Feasible Alternatives toExisting Court Business Processes

• Document and analyze the current “as is” processes• Benchmark and set enhancement (“to be”) goals; conduct gap analysis• Develop alternative process solutions• Identify and assess potential implementation barriers• Analyze cost/benefit alternatives

Step Three: Choose the Desired Solution and Plan for its Implementation• Choose the best alternative• Make the case for the desired solution• Develop the details of the desired solution• Develop a plan to manage implementation• Plan to manage the change process

Step Four: Implement the Enhanced Business Process Solution and Make Further ProcessImprovements as Needed

• Conduct a pilot test, system test, or simulation• Measure and revise the pilot-tested process• Implement the business process• Manage reactions to change• Capitalize on success and make ongoing further process improvements

Step One: Establish anAppropriate Foundation

Like any other important undertaking,successful BPE in a court often dependsmore on basic strategy than on specifictactical decisions. When experts haveidentified the key ingredients forsuccessful BPE, they have emphasizedthe critical importance of suchfundamentals as leadership, a boldvision, having an organization that isready for change, and having a capableproject team to undertake theenhancement effort. It is therefore of

utmost importance that court leaderspreparing for a BPE effort ensure that itis well-grounded. Key to that effort willbe the steering committee structuredescribed here.

A. Develop an AppropriateGovernance and ManagementStructure

Any court BPE effort must be organizedand managed so that everyone knows itsobjectives, what functions specificpeople must perform, and whenactivities are to be completed. It is

8

therefore important to develop aneffective management structure for theundertaking. Those overseeing the effortmust determine its scope, defineexpectations, determine what resourceswill be needed (especially in people andIT), and how the project team will goabout its work (see section “E” on page9).

Leadership is vital to the success of anycourt improvement effort, and it isparticularly vital to success in a BPEeffort.7 To support and oversee the BPEeffort from start to finish, the projectshould have a steering committee,headed by the chief or presiding judge orother executive sponsor. The executivesponsor has decisionmaking authoritywithin the organization, acceptsaccountability for the project, and hasthe authority to sanction the project andmake it a priority. The steeringcommittee should also include the courtadministrator, the clerk of court, andpossibly other appropriate supervisorsfrom the court who have majorresponsibility for aspects of the processunder scrutiny.

B. Align Business ObjectivePriorities to the Court’s StrategicMission and Goals

BPE involves changing the way a court’sdaily work is done so it supports thepurposes of the court in a more effectiveand efficient manner. In order to supporta determination of whether its businessprocesses have indeed been “enhanced,”the steering committee should undertakeprocess improvement or process

7 Michael Hammer and Steven Stanton, The

Reengineering Revolution: A Handbook (NewYork: HarperBusiness, 1995). Hereafter,Hammer and Stanton.

reengineering with an eye toward themission and goals of the court and theneeds of the people who come to court.The main purpose of a court is toprovide services to citizens who come tocourt. Only after steering committeemembers have thought carefully aboutwhat the court and its staff membersshould be doing in their work processescan they consider how to carry out thoseprocesses in the most effective andefficient way.

C. Assess Organizational Readinessand Decide on a ProcessEnhancement Approach

Before undertaking processenhancement, the court needs tounderstand what skills and resourcesmay be needed for success and thepossible changes in internal organizationand local court culture that may beassociated with such enhancement. Theintroduction of new IT often creates asituation in which process reengineeringis highly desirable, particularly (as maybe the case with many businessprocesses in courts) if the newtechnology will affect processesspanning a number of separate offices,the exchange of critical data andinformation, and substantial interactionwith attorneys and parties.

As the National Association for CourtManagement’s ProfessionalDevelopment Advisory Committee hasobserved about IT in the courts, simplyautomating preexisting court businessprocesses will not necessarily eliminateproblems or bring about any noticeable

9

improvements in productivity.8 Indeed,the introduction of computers maysimply add more layers of cost,complexity, and delay. In particular,process reengineering may be criticallynecessary in order for the court to takeadvantage of the potential of IT in suchareas as:

• Reducing redundant data entry.

• Gathering and sharing case-related data and information.

• Expediting access to caseinformation and data for judges,court staff, attorneys, and otherinstitutional participants in thecourts’ day-to-day activities.

Even if it is clear that a key businessprocess needs to be changed, it isimportant to assess organizationalreadiness for the kind of change thatwould be involved in a processenhancement effort. Is the chief judge orhis/her designee authorized and preparedto drive the process? Are judges andstaff amenable to committing the timeand effort that will be required todocument the process and analyze theresults? Are staff and judges willing torun parallel business processes duringthe testing phase? After such anassessment, the steering committee maydecide that it is not prudent at the presenttime to proceed with efforts to changeone or more processes because the courtand its environment are not ready forwhat would have to be done for there tobe a reasonable chance for success.

8 National Association for Court Management,

Professional Development Advisory Committee,“Information Technology ManagementCurriculum Guidelines,” The Court Manager(Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002).

D. Begin to Manage Expectationsand Build Support for Change

The steering committee should begin anearly effort to build support for processenhancement within the court andamong court users and stakeholders. Thechief or presiding judge of a court is wellpositioned to explain the court’ssituation and goals, both internally andexternally, and to determine appropriatecriteria for success. The sustained andconspicuous involvement of the judgessends a strong signal to both the courtcommunity and the broader communitythat the court is serious about improvingits performance.

Within the court, start involving keyjudges as well as supervisors and staffmembers in the process enhancementeffort as soon as possible. Begin to thinkabout how to manage the changeprocess. Among external court users andstakeholders, work to develop consensusin support of the level of changes thatwill be needed to achieve the court’sstrategic objectives.

To help prepare for potential change,reach out early to court users andstakeholders and involve them wherepossible in the change effort. Ongoingcommunication about the goals andprogress of the effort is crucial, sincenegative early perceptions might create a“self-fulfilling prophecy” and underminechances for success. Changemanagement needs to be well underway before the new process isimplemented; otherwise, it will bedifficult to build and sustain support andmomentum among court staff membersfor the new process.

10

E. Appoint a Project Owner, aProject Manager, and a CapableProject Team

Beyond leadership, an appropriatevision, and organizational readiness forchange, the success of the BPE effortwill turn on the quality of the steeringcommittee’s strategic decisions aboutownership of the new business processesand the quality of the team that willaddress the details of business processchange. From the beginning, it isimportant for the steering committee toidentify the person who will ultimatelybe responsible for managing theperformance of the newly improved orreengineered process, and to designatehim or her as its “owner.” Doing so earlyin the process will fix accountability andresponsibility for the process in oneperson. This person may be someonewho is currently associated with theexisting process to be enhanced, but thisis not absolutely necessary. It is criticalfor the “process owner” to have theappropriate authority to develop andimplement change and be able to workclosely with the project team, or evenlead it.

A project team working under thesupervision of the steering committeeshould address the details of the actualBPE effort. The steering committee mayappoint a project manager to beresponsible for liaison between thesteering committee and the project team,for working with the project team toresolve policy issues, and for keepingthe project on schedule and withinbudget. It is important for the projectteam to accomplish the objectives of theprocess enhancement effort. Therefore, itis important that the steering committeepay particular attention to the makeup ofthe project team members, the resources

and training available to the team, andthe amount of time they are able tocommit to the process enhancementeffort. Incremental process improvementefforts may be accomplished with justpart-time involvement of appropriatestaff members. To give dueconsideration to the more significantchanges that are likely to come fromprocess reengineering, however, thecommittee should consider reallocatingwork assignments for at least someproject team members, so they can givefull-time attention to the processenhancement effort for an appropriateperiod of time.

The steering committee or the projectmanager, or both, should work with theproject team to develop writtenguidelines for the team. The projectmanager and the project team shouldprepare a draft project plan for approvalby the steering committee. The projectplan should define the activities,deliverables, and timeframes for theeffort, and it should serve as a referencepoint for managing the activities andprogress of the project team. While theproject plan should be clear and specificenough to provide a clear basis forshared understanding about the projectbetween the steering committee and theproject team, it should not be inflexible.The project team members should beable to direct their own work and be ableto adapt the plan to unanticipatedproblems or opportunities.

F. Determine the Role ofConsultants

Lastly, the steering committee shoulddetermine whether and to what extentthe court should seek consultantassistance in the process enhancementeffort.

11

Consultants can help a BPE effort bybringing specialized knowledge, skills,and experience. One of the ways theycan help is by providing generaleducation for the steering committeeabout process enhancement, and moredetailed education and training for theproject team in the methodology, tools,and techniques for either processimprovement or process reengineering.It is critical, however, that ownership ofthe process enhancement effort remainsin the court; that the steering committeemaintains effective direction andoversight; and that the project teamactually carries out the enhancementeffort. In addition, it is important thatconsultants know how courts functiongenerally and are knowledgeable aboutcourt best practices. The decision toengage consultants in addition to or inlieu of court staff requires that the courtbalance issues of cost, objectivity, andownership of the effort. Consultants canbring knowledge of other courts’experiences; access to essential skills,including use of process enhancementtools and techniques;9 and outsiderobjectivity. The downside may be thatthe consultants were hired due to afailure to develop important capabilitiesinternally. The risk of diffusingaccountability and significant costincreases are also issues that must beaddressed. On the other hand, relyingsolely on existing staff members whounderstand current processes and thecourt’s culture and environment may bemore economically feasible and morelikely to succeed following projectcompletion. The downside of thissolution might be that existing staff maylack the requisite knowledge and skills,may lack necessary objectivity, and may

9 See Chapter III.

be constrained by self-interest or localpolitical conditions.10

Step Two: Measure “As Is” Versus“To Be” Gap and Develop FeasibleAlternatives to Existing CourtBusiness Processes

Prior to undertaking a BPE effort, thecourt should have defined its vision,goals, and objectives in a strategicplan11 and articulated the businessproblems to be addressed by theproposed project in a business case.12

For example, the court may havedecided to streamline its operationalprocesses to increase the quality andaccuracy of information, to improve thequality of decisionmaking, and toultimately increase public safety. Thebusiness case may have identifiedspecific and dramatic anecdotesregarding the limitations of the currentjustice system to, for example, providewarrant information or domesticviolence order information to the sheriffor other law enforcement officer whohad contact with the subject in theinterim.

10 Warren Bennis and Michael Mische, The 21st

Century Organization: Reinventing ThroughReengineering (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1995) pp. 96-99 [Hereafter, Bennisand Mische]; see also Hammer and Stanton, p.78.

11 John Martin and Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey,Strategic Planning in the Courts: AnImplementation Guide (Denver, CO: Center forPolicy Studies, 1995).

12 Nancy Maluso, “The Business Case —Friend or Foe?”http://www.prosci.com/bus1.htm; and “TheBusiness Case — The Essential Elements,”http://www.prosci.com/bus2.htm, (BPR OnLineLearning Center, 2001).

12

With increasing frequency, however, thebusiness driver has been a budget cutresulting from State and localgovernmental budget deficits — withsmaller reductions generating efforts tostreamline existing processes, andmassive cuts resulting in calls forcompletely new ways of doing thecourt’s business at substantially reducedcosts. Regardless of the businesspurpose, changing the businessprocesses in a court through eitherprocess improvement or processreengineering requires that the projectteam have a full understanding of theexisting processes, including howcurrent technology is used to accomplishthe court’s business objectives. Theteam’s analysis of the current “as is”situation should include assessment ofcurrent performance in appropriatemeasures or indicators, as well ascomparison with a desired “to be” stateof affairs reflecting strategic goals andobjectives.

Based on this assessment andcomparison, the court then developsalternative solutions that might permitthe court to achieve more of its goals andobjectives. There may be barriers toimplementing alternative processes, andthe court will need to determine howthese barriers might best be overcome.Costs and benefits of each alternativeneed to be defined, both in comparisonto each other as well as to the “as is”processes.

A. Document and Analyze theCurrent “As Is” Processes

The project team’s first step is to defineand categorize each business processinto subprocesses and activities and todocument the “who, what, when, where,and why” of each process. For example,

the process of Filing a Complaintincludes the subprocess detail of who,what, and when (the counter clerk opensthe mail and time-stamps the document),whereas the activity level of detaildescribes who, what, when, and howmuch (the counter clerk opens allmorning mail by 8:30 a.m., time-stampsthe document, opens a new folder, scansthe document and prints address and filelabels, and passes all new folders toRecords within 30 minutes). Projectteam members then draw diagrams ofeach process, subprocess and activity,with each participant identifiedseparately. Process documentation maybe conducted manually, for relativelyuncomplicated projects using blockdiagrams or simple workflow charts, orwith the assistance of automateddocumentation or modeling tools.13 Each

13 In Davidson County (Nashville), Tennessee,

the Criminal Justice Information Systemoperational project teams (comprised of vendors,Justice Information System (JIS) staff, andjustice agency staff) electronically documentedall “as is” business processes in the local justicesystem using Popkin’s System Architectcase/process-modeling tool. The teams used theIDEF (“integration definition”: a group ofmodeling methods that can be used to describeoperations in an enterprise) component of thetool to generate graphical representations andconsistent interpretations of the businessprocesses and enhanced communication betweenthe technicians and JIS users. To develop theenterprise model, the project teams documentedinteragency process flows, and collected andanalyzed all existing paper forms to determinethe information exchange points. The “as is”model was subsequently compared to the “to be”model in order to define functional requirements.This detailed analysis enabled the teams todesign the future integrated system; identify howeach agency fit into the overall “big picture”;determine which parts of the system would beautomated and which would remain manual;identify the processes that would be modifiedand their resulting effect on the organizationalresources; and gain a better understanding of

13

process description will also identifyhow existing technology is used toaugment the process. Subsequently, theproject team will analyze the process toidentify existing or potential bottlenecksor barriers in the process to begin toidentify opportunities for improvement.

B. Benchmark and Set EnhancementGoals; Conduct Gap Analysis

The next step is to develop the “to be”business model, comparing existingsystem results to the court’s strategicgoals. Strategic goals are based on thelevel of production and servicereasonably expected by the court’sinternal and external customers, and byhow other successful courts performthose functions. Existing processes maythen be compared to proposed processesto identify where and how they can bestreamlined to more effectively achievethe court’s desired results. The projectteam needs to focus its attention onchanging those business processes mostin need of change, on setting realisticenhancement goals, and on decidingwhether process improvement or processreengineering is more suitable.

Through benchmarking, the steeringcommittee can set ambitious butachievable performance goals based onwhat other courts have done.Benchmarking may be conducted eitherinternally (compared to other divisionswithin the court) or externally(compared to other courts). For example,a criminal division process identified asproblematic may be handled better in thecivil division. Or a court with anindividual calendar case assignment

how each agency’s processes impacted theoverall justice system.

system might study the individualcalendar system used in another court tosee how that court achieves betterresults, e.g., lower caseloads, fasteraverage time to disposition, etc.

Assess Technology. As part of thebenchmarking process, the team shouldassess the status, capabilities,effectiveness, and orientation of thecourt’s IT in relation to the court’sstrategic goals.14 In determiningpriorities and the court’s capacity totransform itself with the support oftechnology, ascertain whethertechnology can help to provide solutionsin a cost-effective and timely manner. Itis important to understand the extent towhich business processes in the courtmay have to change in order to optimizethe potential of IT. This Guidepreviously emphasized that manyexisting court business processes mayhave been developed decades before theavailability of today’s IT. During theprocess of benchmarking, the courtshould thus be sensitive to the scope ofchange that may be necessary in order tofully leverage the value of IT.

Conduct Gap Analysis and EstablishAmbitious Performance ImprovementGoals. Using the requirements ofstakeholders and of internal and externalcustomers, the project team shouldidentify and assess the performancegaps between the results the court nowachieves and the results customers andstakeholders can reasonably expect.Then the team should makerecommendations to the steeringcommittee on goals to achieve byclosing the gaps. These goals should belinked to the court’s mission.

14 Bennis and Mische, pp. 61-62.

14

Goal setting should be approached withcare. Improvement goals should berealistic and achievable, so the processenhancement effort will not be doomedto failure from the outset. At the sametime, however, the goals should beambitious enough so the court will haveachieved substantially better service if itmeets or nearly achieves those goals.

C. Develop Alternative ProcessSolutions

Next, compare the gap between thecurrent “as is” process and the desired“to be” situation. Based on this gapanalysis, the team should begin todevelop new alternative processes thatare both practical and innovative. If thegap is not great, then processimprovement methods may be suitableto bridge the gap and define alternativesolutions. If the gap is significant,however, then it may be necessary todevelop and consider alternativesolutions that would involve moredramatic process reengineering steps.

During the early 1990s the DomesticRelations Division of the MaricopaCounty (AZ) Superior Court tried twoalternative solutions to the problem ofincreasing delays, which demonstrate thedifference between solutions requiringbusiness process review versusreengineering:

• The business process reviewsolution: Following research,analysis, and discussionsdesigned to identify theshortcomings of the existingprocess, the first alternativesolution implemented was thereplacement of the currentsystem of clerks providing non-legal advice at the counter (as is)

with a divorce guide (to be) tohelp unrepresented litigantsnavigate their way through theprocess. Implementation of thatsolution had limited impact onexisting operations, which wererevised through a review ofexisting business processes.Unfortunately, it did not result inreduced delays and, in fact,highlighted the need to providelitigants with better access tolegal services.

• The reengineering solution:Subsequently, the court identifiedanother alternative — thedevelopment of a fully staffedlibrary and resource center ableto help litigants address the fullrange of divorce-related issues,including providing a way tointegrate the bar in the process toprovide litigants with legaladvice on limited aspects of acase (unbundled services). Thegap between existing servicesand the “self-service center”vision, integrating the bar,redefining the role of the courtand court staff, and developingself-help manuals and facilities,etc., required completereengineering of the processesfor providing litigant assistanceand for referring litigants to thebar association, as well asengineering the development of avirtually new court function. Thenext phase of business processreview in Maricopa County willinvolve an assessment of howautomation can help streamlinethe self-service center processesto better enable the court toachieve its business objectives.

15

Whether alternatives are compared toeach other or developed serially, thecourt needs to evaluate the risks, costs,and benefits of each, including not onlynew work processes, but also the broaderchanges to the court’s operations andsystems that would be necessary to put anew alternative into effect.

For each alternative, the team shouldprepare a detailed process flowchart,noting any interfaces and dependencieswith other processes, as well as writtenanswers to key questions, such as:

• How can IT best support eachproposed process?

• How will we know if the projectis successful (what measurescompared to what court goals)?

• How might the proposedprocesses impact theorganizational structure of thecourt, staffing, and facilityrequirements?

• What changes might be neededin statutes, policies, andprocedures of the court or otherorganizations?15

The project team should then review thedocumentation of the alternatives withthe “process owner” and other court staffmembers who will be affected bychanges. This not only helps to promotebuy-in, but it also helps determine ifanything has been overlooked, findflowchart steps that should be changed,and discover what might not bepracticable.

15 Richard Chang, Process Reengineering in

Action: A Practical Guide to AchievingBreakthrough Results (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1996) pp. 52, 58.

D. Identify and Assess PotentialImplementation Barriers

The team also needs to identify potentialbarriers to implementing alternativebusiness processes in the court. In aprocess improvement effort, thesebarriers may be “hard” or “soft,”16

modest or substantial. “Hard” barriersare items, structures, and laws that mayneed to be addressed, includingresources, legal issues, organizationalstructures, and IT. “Soft” barriers referto people-related problems, includinginternal and external individual andgroup resistance. Modest barriers mightinclude the need to arrange for stafftraining, revise policy and proceduresmanuals, develop new forms, etc.Substantial barriers could include theneed for a fundamental change in thelocal legal culture (such as the courttaking control over case scheduling in ajurisdiction where it has beentraditionally controlled by the bar);political issues; changes in skillsrequired for the new process; unionissues; as well as changes in statutes,rules, court administrative policies, andfunding scenarios. The magnitude ofthese barriers and the cost of addressingthem need to be assessed and included ina cost/benefit analysis to be done as partof building the business case forimplementing the desired new process.(See Step Three, page 16.)

E. Analyze Cost/Benefit Alternatives

For each alternative process solution, theproject team should complete a

16 Wolf Schumacher, “Managing Barriers to

Business Reengineering,” Chapter 3 (BPROnline Learning Center)http://www.prosci.com/w_3.htm.

16

cost/benefit analysis.17 Cost/benefitanalysis is a technique to compare thevarious costs associated with aninvestment, activity, or program with thebenefits that it proposes to return. In itssimplest form, cost/benefit analysis iscarried out using only financial(tangible) considerations, for example,the cost to acquire and install newsoftware to enable the public to paytraffic tickets at automated tellermachines versus the additional amountof revenue generated as a result ofimplementing the new program. A moresophisticated cost/benefit analysis of thesame project could include the lesstangible costs of marketing the newservice to the public; the time and effortinvolved in training bank liaison andstaff; and the less easily quantifiedbenefits of increased compliance withtraffic laws, such as improved trafficsafety.

The cost/benefit comparison need not beexhaustive or unduly time-consuming.One approach would be to call othercourts or vendors to obtain informal costestimates to develop a quickunderstanding of potential costdifferences among the variousalternatives. Courts should be cautiousabout assuming (or about assuringfunding agencies) that expected projectefficiencies will necessarily translateinto overall cost savings to theorganization. Keep in mind that mostcourts have other, understaffed functionsto which underutilized resources canalways be reallocated. It is alsoimportant to recognize that qualitative

17 Mind Tools, ÒCost/Benefit Analysis:

Evaluating Quantitatively Whether to Follow aCourse of Action,Óhttp://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_08.htm.

benefits may not always be as easilydocumented as quantitative costs. Forexample, when assessing theintroduction of new IT to improve theadministration of justice,18 the costs ofsystem acquisition may be easier toquantify than the benefits of increasedpublic safety or the improved quality ofdecisionmaking.

Cost/benefit analyses should also includethe estimated costs of dealing withpotential barriers to implementation andshould consider the economic,operational, and technological risks. Inthe risk analysis component of theassessment process, the team evaluatesboth quantitative (financial and staffresources) and qualitative (judicialleadership support) risks. The greater thelikelihood a factor will put the project atrisk, the greater the need to mitigate thatrisk and to have a contingency plan inplace in the event of failure.19

Step Three: Choose the DesiredSolution and Plan for itsImplementation

Having developed and analyzed one ormore alternatives to the current Òas isÓprocess in the court, the steeringcommittee must then select which BPEsolution to implement and prepare an

18 See New Venture Tools, ÒTechnology

Evaluation, Cost Benefit Analysis Components,Ófor recommended steps for evaluating anybusiness process enhancement solution,http://www.newventuretools.net/toolbox?toolwindow=cba/index.html.

19 Tennessee Department of Finance andAdministration, Office of InformationResources, ÒCost Benefit AnalysisMethodology,Óhttp://www.state.tn.us/finance/oir/prd/cbaguide.pdf.

17

implementation plan, includingtimeframes, milestones, decision points,resource allocation arrangements, andchange management strategies.

A. Choose the Best Alternative

For recommended adoption by thesteering committee, the project teamshould select a process alternative that isbest at accomplishing the strategicmission and goals of the court, meetingthe needs of internal and externalcustomers, overcoming barriers tochange, and yielding benefits that willjustify court expenditures. If the projectteam has done a good analysis of thealternative process solutions available tothe court, then the teamÕs presentation ofits conclusions and recommendationsshould provide the steering committeewith a sound basis for choosing the mostdesirable solution.

It is important that in choosing analternative, the steering committee takeinto consideration the context andimpact of its decision. A decision toimprove an existing process willordinarily have far less impact on thecourtÕs budget, culture, and operationsthan a decision to reengineer thatfunction. If the appropriate choice is aprocess improvement step that will havemodest impact within or outside thecourt or a unit of the court, that will bevery different from a processreengineering decision that may yieldvaluable positive results but which willhave cost consequences and maysubstantially affect other institutionalparticipants in the day-to-day operationsof the court. (In the court securityexample cited in Chapter I, installing ametal detector at the courthouse entrancewould obviously have far less impact onthe court and litigants than

implementation of the virtual courthouseconcept.)

Once the court has chosen the alternativethat offers the best balance betweencosts and benefits, with attention topotential barriers and risks, the steeringcommittee should articulate a rationalefor the decision Ñ why the particularalternative was chosen. This will:

• Help to rally the support that willbe needed to put the decision intoeffect.

• Show others what issues areimportant to the court.

• Demonstrate that the decisionwas reasonable.

• Avoid active opposition bygiving reasons to support thedecision.

• Help sell the desired solution byarticulating the benefits to thecourt.

B. Make the Case for the DesiredSolution

Having chosen the most desirablealternative process solution, the steeringcommittee, with the assistance of theproject team, must next lay thegroundwork for more detailed efforts.This means looking more closely at whatwill be needed to support the new orimproved process, in terms of people,IT, and finances, and then making thebusiness case for the support that will beneeded for the new or improved process.

It is critical to consider the humanelement in BPE, since judges and otheremployees of the court and the clerkÕsoffice carry out most of the activities incourt business processes. Processimprovement or process reengineering

18

may well involve redesigning the waythat court staff members do part of theirwork, or eliminate steps, and it mighteven completely change how they dotheir jobs. Part of developing anenhanced business process is to discoverhow it would change the work peopledo. For example, court finance personnelmay be required to learn how to use newfinancial management software. Evenmore dramatic would be the creation of anew family division that brings togetherdomestic staff members and juvenilestaff members who formerly worked inseparate units, or the creation of a single“criminal” division in a clerk’s office,where there were formerly separatemisdemeanor and felony units.

The team should review any technologyacquisitions needed to support the newor improved business process. Today’stechnology has enormous potential tohelp courts manage cases, control work,manage finances, communicate, andprovide concurrent access to caseinformation, among other importantsupport tasks. It can involvesophisticated computer systems, audio orvideo technology, or even something asbasic as improved telephonecommunications and fax machines.While technology is an important tool tosupport process improvement orreengineering, it is not a “magic bullet,”and the entire notion of processenhancement is premised on recognizingthat successful process change willrequire much more than just newtechnology. Decide how criticaltechnology is for enhancement of theprocess under study, and choose the kindof technology that is most appropriate.

While acquisition and implementation ofnew, off-the-shelf case managementsoftware will automate existing court

processes, it will inevitably requirechanges in how cases were processedpreviously, and will require modificationof the software to meet the unique legal,procedural, and operational requirementsof the court. New metal detectorequipment or information system accesscodes designed to provide betterphysical or data security will requirechanges in court operations and mayrequire modifications in theresponsibilities and, therefore, theposition descriptions and jobqualifications of court security and ITstaff.

Summarize the business need, theproposed solution and all affectedpeople, technology, and financialimplications in a “business case” thatjustifies the hard and soft costs of theproject in terms of quantifiable benefits(return on investment).20 The businesscase can then be used to providesufficient information on which thecourt, funding authorities, and othercritical actors can decide whether to goforward with the chosen approach toprocess enhancement.

C. Develop the Details of the DesiredSolution

Once the concept for the enhancedbusiness process has gained sufficientfinancial and organizational support, theproject team should begin detaileddesign of the new or improved process.This will require:

• Development of a “to be” systemworkflow.

• Definition of the operationalresponsibilities of individual

20 See note 12, “The Business Case — The

Essential Elements.”

19

court staff members and/ordetailed specification of userrequirements for automatedsystems.

• Commencement of systemdevelopment for automatedapplications.

• Expansion of the project team toinclude those court staffmembers who will actually carryout the enhanced businessprocess concept in thedevelopment of system details.

The same modeling tools used todocument the “as is” process21 may beused to develop the required level ofdetailed description of the improved orreengineered process.

Once the detailed workflow under thenew or improved process has beencompleted, the project team will begin todefine system requirements. Systemrequirements should include:

• Documentation of existingsystems and processes.

• Assessment of the existingsystem’s limitations towardmeeting the court’s businessneeds.

• Anticipated workload changes.

• Assessment of life cycle ofexisting systems and ofcompatibility of existingprocesses, hardware, andsoftware with proposed processesand or systems.22

21 See note 13.22 For court case management projects,

compare existing requirements to court casemanagement standards for civil, criminal,domestic relations, juvenile, and court filing

• Assessment of recordsprocessing, storage, and retrievalsystems.

• Judicial and nonjudicial stafftraining requirements.

• Other relevant factors, includingsecurity, emergency planning anddisaster recovery, Americanswith Disabilities Act compliance,facilities impacts, workforceissues, etc.23

Next, quantify performance measures toenable the court, funding agencies, andthe public to evaluate project success.24

Finally, initiate system development ofautomated applications to support andimplement the new or improved businessprocess. The court first needs to decidewhether to “build or buy,” a decisiondictated largely by the availability of in-house resources and expertise. If thedecision is to buy, the court needs todevelop a procurement plan to include:

1. Whether it will use a Request forProposal (RFP), Request forInformation (RFI), Request for

XML functions developed by the NationalConsortium for Court Case ManagementAutomation Functional Standards:http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm.

23 U.S. Government Services Agency,Information Resources Management Service,Guide for Requirements Analysis and Analysis ofAlternatives (1998),http://www.law.uh.edu/cdrom/USGMP_oct98/zdata/itpubs/raaa.pdf.

24 National Association for Court Management,Comprehensive Public Information ProgramsSubcommittee, Holding Courts Accountable:Counting What Counts Guide (Williamsburg,VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999); andAmerican Bar Association, Trial CourtPerformance Standards (1990).

20

Qualifications (RFQ), Invitationto Bid (ITB) or sole sourceprocurement process.25

2. Project functional specifications.

3. Bid evaluations criteria andmethodology.

This is a critical stage in any technologyproject and courts should consult withprocurement experts at theirjurisdictional level for guidance.26

D. Develop a Plan to ManageImplementation

The next step is to develop a detailedimplementation plan that provides a“roadmap” for the introduction of thenew or improved business process. Ifonly minor incremental changes areneeded to make the current “as is”business process more efficient andeffective, then this plan can be relativelysimple.

It is especially important that theexecutive sponsor — the chief orpresiding judge — as well as othersteering committee members championthe improvement or reengineering effort

25 Kelly Harris and William Romesburg, Law

Enforcement Technology: How to plan, purchaseand manage technology (successfully!)(Washington, DC: Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services, U.S. Department ofJustice, pp. 176-179)http://www.search.org/leit/default.asp.

26 See www.itpba.com/#mission, the site of theInformation Technology ProcurementBenchmarking Association; see alsowww.search.org/it-clearinghouse, the SEARCHdatabase of justice agency procurementdocuments to use as models, including the modelRFP developed by the COSCA/NACM JointTechnology Committee,http://www.search.org/courts/modelrfp/intro.htm.

and provide highly visible leadershipand encouragement as planning is beingdone for implementation of the new orimproved business process. Courtleaders must clearly demonstrate theirpersonal commitment to the successfulimplementation of the BPE effort.

Risks and potential barriers associatedwith alternative approaches to BPEidentified during the risk assessmentphase of the cost/benefit analysis(described earlier in this chapter) maymaterialize during the implementation ofthe desired business process solution.For those most likely to occur, and forall that would cripple implementation,the project team will need to plan forhow to continue operations in theaffected areas.

Implementation planning requires:

• Identification of all tasks to bedone, including time frames,milestones, and deliverable dates.

• Assignment of staffresponsibilities for each task,training requirements, andidentification of key staffsuccessors.

• Establishment of performancemeasures and determination ofdata to be collected to evaluateprograms.

• Establishment of a problemresolution process.

• A progress reportingmethodology and process.

A key consideration will be whether topilot test the solution, conduct paralleloperations, and/or conduct computerizedsimulations of the new processes toidentify and resolve potential problems.For example, between 1994 and 1996,

21

the Beaverton (OR) Municipal Court’suse of simulation software in the designof a new traffic citation processingsystem enabled the court to plan itsmigration from a paper-based to a“paperless” court, facilitatecommunication regarding the newconcepts within and outside the court,provide financial justification for theproject, and plan staffing for revisedoperational procedures.27

E. Plan to Manage the ChangeProcess

Especially for the introduction ofsignificant changes in a processreengineering effort, the human element— resistance to change based onelements of the local legal culture — islikely to be a major challenge facing theimplementation of a different businessprocess. As indicated earlier in thisGuide, the steering committee andproject team should begin early in theirefforts to overcome potential barriersand build support for processenhancement, both within the court itselfand externally among court users andstakeholders.

Change management needs to be wellunderway as the new or improvedbusiness process is about to beimplemented, because it will otherwisebe difficult to build and sustain supportand momentum among judges, courtstaff members, and representatives ofcourt-related organizations for theenhanced process. As part of planningfor implementation, the court should

27 John Petrakis and Michael Engiles,

“Creating a Paperless Municipal Court,” inProceedings of the 2000 Winter SimulationConference, http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc00papers/278.PDF.

develop an explicit change managementstrategy.

The chief judge and the members of thesteering committee, with informationand suggestions from the project team,should consider the ways that judges andother key participants and stakeholdersin the day-to-day operations of the courtmay be affected by the plannedimplementation. Some people willalways oppose any change, and the courtmust deal appropriately with them. Themajority of people are likely to be eitherenthusiastic about or open to consideringthe proposed changes. The court shouldtake steps to address their concerns andensure that they perceive theenhancement effort as proceeding in areasonable fashion. Those who are clearand active supporters can serve to ensurethat there is a solid base of support forthe enhancement effort as it goesforward.

The steering committee and project teamshould prepare a change managementstrategy plan addressing personnelissues (impacts on existing staff);information technology (align ITorganization to support new operationalstructure); education and trainingrequirements; and communications. Inpreparing the plan, the steeringcommittee and project team should drawupon support resources, includingoutside consultants, governmentalagencies, professional associations, andcourt management sources such as theNational Center for State Courts.28

28 Sharon Caudle, Reengineering for Results:

Keys to Success from Government Experience,Section 6, “Practice Change Management andProvide Central Support,” Electronic College ofProcess Innovation (Washington, DC: National

22

The change management strategy shouldinclude a plan for rolling out the processreview project to the court and otherjustice agencies and individuals,including the proposed implementationand schedule, training activities, anyorganizational and staffing changes, andhow project progress and success will bemeasured and reported.

Step Four: Implement theEnhanced Business ProcessSolution and Make FurtherProcess Improvements as Needed

The next step in the process isimplementation. As discussed in StepThree, the court will have alreadydetermined if the new system will bepilot tested, implemented in parallel,implemented without testing, orsimulated. Business process tools used todevelop the “to be” solution maycontinue to be used during the pilotsystem testing or simulation phases ofimplementation.

A. Conduct a Pilot Test, SystemTest, or Simulation

Unless the court has decided toimplement without testing, it is now timeto conduct testing — whether by a pilotproject or by system testing — prior tofull implementation. Pilot or systemtesting are particularly effective ways tosee how a proposed business processchange will operate “in the real world,”and these efforts will provide criticalinformation about any weaknesses orunforeseen problems in the court’sprocess design or implementation plan.For example, the Criminal Justice

Academy of Public Administration, 1994)www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/3002s6.htm.

Information System (CJIS) team inDavidson County (Nashville),Tennessee, used the IntegrationDefinition (IDEF) tool initially todocument “as is” and “to be” aspects ofthe new process design; the team thenused test scripts to assess the capabilityof the new system to meet userrequirements:

23

System Testing in Davidson County, Tennessee

In 1992, the justice officials in DavidsonCounty, Tennessee, decided to formally worktogether to automate and integrate the justiceagencies with the County.29 In order toaccomplish this goal, a unique, cooperativeorganization, the Justice Information System(JIS) agency, was created under authorizationfrom a metropolitan government ordinance.The system was designed using the IDEFtool,30 and the system design was then assessedthrough the use of test scripts. The team felt itwas important to the future success of theproject that the project team assume ownershipof responsibility for system testing rather thanrely on the system design vendors to conductsystem testing.

Because all parts of the JIS were to beintegrated, end-to-end tests had to be designed.Profiles of fake individuals were created in thePolice Department mainframe, and the testingstarted at the booking process where the teamchecked whether demographic informationwould come through the interface between themainframe and CJIS. Next, the test informationwas processed through the General Sessionscourt module; some cases were disposed of inthe lower court, and others through the grandjury. If the cases were disposed of in the lowercourt, the test team verified that the dispositioninformation was transferred to the Policemainframe and the Sheriff Office JailManagement System (JMS).

During the grand jury testing, charges werechanged and added, defendants were added,and grand jury reports were generated. At thispoint, the testing proceeded to the State TrialCourt module for motions, trials, anddispositions and was finally completed when

the outputs from the court processing wereelectronically transferred to the Policemainframe and the JMS. These end-to-end testsallowed users to verify that information wasflowing correctly from the initial bookingprocess, into the grand jury and court systems,and back into the police criminal historyrecords.

Davidson County subsequently developed thecapability to run test scripts through anautomated testing tool. This tool speeds up thetesting process while providing an objectivestatistic on response time for “before” and“after” results. System testing is an ongoingresponsibility. The system must be retestedafter each new build or upgrade. It is inevitablethat something that worked before an upgradewill be damaged after the enhancement orreplacement. Locating the ripple-effect errorsbefore an upgrade is rolled out to the usercommunity will save time and trouble.Agencies should maintain records of their tests;doing so will result in cost savings. Accuraterecords will assist an agency’s case if theagency needs to show the vendor that aparticular part of the delivered system workedthe last time the test scripts were run, and thecurrent problem was created by the vendor’smost recent upgrade.

CJIS staff recognized that testing would be adifficult and time-consuming process. Yet theyexpected that it would pay dividends. Theyreasoned that the more time and imaginationspent in this activity, the better their systemwould perform. The agencies in the CJISproject that spent the most time in designingtest scripts and testing now have the fewestproblems.

29 Teri B. Sullivan and Michaela Mathews, “Davidson County Integrated Justice Information System,”

Case Study series (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., 2002):http://www.search.org/integration/about_integration.asp#publications. Hereafter, Sullivan and Mathews.

30 See note 13.

24

B. Measure and Revise the Pilot-tested Process

Based on the system test or pilot study,the team will coordinate further changesneeded prior to final implementation.31

C. Implement the Business Process

Implementing the enhanced businessprocess is an exercise in projectmanagement, which involves projectstart-up, management of projectexecution, and control of the project.32 Italso involves celebration of successesand dealing appropriately with failures.

Project management tasks includeverifying project scope, providing forteam development, assuring productquality, and arranging for timelydistribution of information. The steeringcommitteeÕs oversight responsibilitiesinclude ongoing assessment of risk,quality assurance, and monitoring andmanagement of time, cost, procurement,and performance.

It will be necessary during theimplementation period to deal withproblems as they arise, and to make anyadjustments that may be necessary in

31 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Decision

Process Guidebook: How To Get Things Done inGovernment, ÒStep 9: Implement,Óhttp://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/step9.htm.Hereafter, USBR Guidebook.

32 Kansas Department of Human Resources,Change and Transition Management Board,Project Leadership Series, ÒTips for SuccessfulProject Startup,Óhttp://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/startup.htm,and ÒTips for Successful Project Execution,Óhttp://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/projectex.htm.

work assignments and timetables. Inorder for the steering committee toexercise effective oversight, the teamshould establish a problem resolutionmechanism.

Celebrate successes whenever possible.Use the accomplishment of milestones tomark progress, to help keep the teamfocused on the project goals, and to helpbuild and maintain ongoing motivation,commitment, and support for the effort.

Acknowledge the planning, hard work,and effort that went into the success.Letting everyone know about earlyaccomplishments can be particularlyhelpful as a means to promoteenthusiasm and motivation in favor ofthe new or improved business process,and to help promote the value of theeffort to those in the local legalcommunity who may have hadreservations about the changes reflectedin the implementation effort.

D. Manage Reactions to Change

Your success in the full implementationof the new or improved process willdepend in part on how much Òbuy-inÓyou have from judges, court staffmembers, and others affected by theimplementation effort. Most BPE failureis directly attributable to failure tomanage Òthe human dimensionÓ of thechanges that are presented duringimplementation. Some say that change isthe single most difficult feature thatpeople must face in an organization.33

33 Dealing with change in the workplace is not

unlike the grieving process people go through indealing with loss, from denial to resistance toexploration to acceptance. Kansas Department of

25

Carrying out the court’s changemanagement strategy requires open andhonest communication throughout thetransition period. Successfulcommunications require theunambiguous support of the changes bythe chief judge and other court leaders,even as they remain sensitive to theconcerns of people affected by thechanges, through each of the three stagesof change:34

1. Discontinue the old way ofdoing business: Treat the pastwith respect; provide informationover and over; “mark” theending.

2. Migration: Encourage supportgroup communications; protectyour people.

3. Starting the new way of doingbusiness: Be consistent;celebrate success.

Human Resources, Change and TransitionManagement Board, Human ResourceLeadership Series, Part III, “Tips for ManagingPeople Through Change,”http://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/hrmgmt.htm.

34 U.S. Department of Defense, BusinessProcess Reengineering (BPR) Fundamentals,Chapter 7, “Business Process Reengineering andOrganizational Change,” The Electronic Collegeof Process Innovation,www.defenselink.mil/c3i/bpr/bprcd/7223c7.htm.

E. Capitalize on Success and MakeFurther Process Improvements

If the implementation effort has beensuccessful, make good use of it. Be sureto recognize all those whose planning,work, determination, and supportcontributed to the positive outcome. Besure to let everyone — judges, courtstaff, representatives of court-relatedagencies, stakeholders, and members ofthe public — know what happened andwhy. The gains achieved by theenhancement effort process can erodeunless the court continually monitors itsperformance and makes furtherrefinements on an ongoing basis. Useperformance information as a tool to aidcontinuous improvement of workprocesses.

26

Chapter III. Tools and Methodologies to Support BusinessProcess Enhancement in the Court

The court’s BPE steering committee andproject team can apply the stepsdescribed in Chapter II to any businessprocess in a court, regardless of itscomplexity. Especially with large andcomplex processes that have manydetails, the project team will be able toact much more quickly and efficientlywith the aid of appropriate tools andmethodologies. This chapter discussessome of the tools and methodologiescommonly used in process improvementor process reengineering. Figure 3 showsthose different tools and methodologies.

The project team should considerdifferent factors before selecting anyspecific tool or methodology, includinghow a problem is defined or howsignificant or complex it is. In addition,there are different tools ormethodologies for different kinds oftasks, such as information and datagathering, analyzing alternative solutionsto problems, or evaluating costs andbenefits. Most tools and methodologiesare designed for a specific kind ofactivity, and each has strengths andweaknesses.

Some of the tools and methodologiesdiscussed in this chapter had theirgenesis in the development of processimprovement, while others areassociated with systems engineering,information systems, and projectmanagement. This overlap reflects thefact that process improvement andprocess reengineering are on acontinuum, and that any successfulenhancement effort typically calls forpeople with varied knowledge, skills,and abilities.

27

Figure 3. Checklist of Tools and Methodologies to Support Business ProcessEnhancement in the Courts

A. Process Documentation Tools• Block Diagrams• Process Flowcharts

B. Process Analysis Techniques and Statistical Presentation Tools• Process Analysis Techniques

o Brainstormingo Focus Groupso Force-field Analysiso Nominal Group Techniqueo Workflow Analysis

• Statistical Presentation Toolso Affinity Diagramso Fishbone Diagramso Histogramso Pareto Analysis

C. Simple Project Planning and Management Tools• Action Plans• Matrix Diagrams• Tree Diagrams

D. Advanced Project Planning and Management Tools• Critical Path Method, Gantt Charts, and PERT Charts• Joint Application Development Teams

E. Software Tools• Computer-based Collaborative Tools• Software-supported Tools• Vendor-neutral Modeling Tools• Vendor-specific Workflow Systems and Software Tools

F. Basic Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement• Benchmarking• Cost/Benefit Analysis• Risk Analysis

G. Advanced Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement• Activity-based Costing• Balanced Scorecard• Capability Maturity Model• Simulation• Six Sigma• Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System

28

Process Documentation Tools

There are several documentationtechniques that can be used to helpunderstand and document a court’sbusiness processes. Two of them areblock diagrams and processflowcharts.

Block diagrams. A block diagram is thesimplest form of a flowchart. It providesa quick and uncomplicated view of abusiness process. Block diagrams arehelpful to simplify large, complexprocesses, or to document individualtasks. Rectangles (to show activities) andarrows (to show information flow orrelation between activities) are theprimary symbols in a block diagram, andelongated circles can be used to showthe start and end of a process. Anexample of a block diagram is shown inFigure 4. Block diagrams provide aquick overview of a process, not adetailed analysis. Normally, they areprepared first to document themagnitude of a business process. Theyare therefore most suitable for thecourt’s steering committee to use asinformation for determining whichbusiness processes may be most in needof enhancement.

Process flowcharts. The project teamcan prepare a more detailed processflowchart, building on the block diagramof a process, to analyze that process inmore detail. The preparation of a processflowchart that is more detailed than ablock diagram provides the basis fordefining and analyzing a court process— for example, in the creation of a casefile in a clerk’s office — by building astep-by-step picture of the process foranalysis, discussion, or communication.A standard set of symbols is typicallyused in the creation of a flowchart.35

35 U.S. District Court, Northern District of

Oklahoma, “U.S. District Court Criminal CaseFlowchart,”http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/publicweb/attorney.nsf/37ff90ded72952f386256b870077ef51/6cfe8cc15a9b9e1186256b9700592e83?OpenDocument. For more information on standardprocess flowchart symbols, see Harrington, pp.95-98. See also, National Open School,Certificate in Computer Applications, “Lesson25: Flowcharting,”http://www.nos.org/htm/basic2.htm.

29

Figure 4. Standard Process Flowchart Symbols

Symbol Name What Symbol Indicates

Elongated Shows the starting and ending points of a flowchart.

Circle

Straight Shows direction of process flow.

Arrow

Connector A small circle with a letter is used to connect one task of a flowchart

to another task in the flowchart.

Box Any workflow task. Each box should contain a short description

of the task being performed.

Diamond Any decision point. Each diamond should contain a question for

which there is a “yes” or “no” answer. (The process flow for a “yes”

answer will go in a different direction than that for a “no” answer.)

Rectangle with Used to identify a process that follows steps not directly relevant to

Parallel Lines this flowchart and not shown on this flowchart.

Off-page Used to show that the process continues on the following page or is

Connector continued from the preceding page.

If a flowchart has been preparedthoroughly, the analysis of it can helpthe steering committee and project teamunderstand and identify court processbottlenecks, including points of delay,waiting time, and queuing time. It canalso aid the team’s identification of key“customers” — both internal (such asindividual judges) and external (such asparties and citizens seeking courtinformation) — at different points ineach process. Flowcharting can also beuseful to identify sources of error, waste,and “nonvalue-added” operations and toidentify possible areas for change.

Grand JuryCharges

Indictment

Waiver ofIndictment?

A

AppealProcess

Go toNextPage

30

Figure 5. Block Diagram of Hiring Process in a Hypothetical Court36

36 With minor modifications to represent a court setting rather than a private business, this example is

based directly on one given by H. James Harrington in Business Process Improvement, p. 89 (see note 1).

Start of Process

1. RequestFunding

2. ApproveFunding

3. Provide List ofInternal

Candidates

4. InterviewInternal

Candidates

5. If a Candidate isSuitable, Go to

Step #10

6. Conduct OutsideSearch

7. ScreenCandidates

8. InterviewCandidates

9. PrioritizeCandidates

10. MakeEmployment Offer

11. Wait forAcceptance of

Offer

12. Introduce NewEmployee to Court

End of Process

31

Process Analysis Techniques andStatistical Presentation Tools

There are five general techniques onecan employ to identify business processissues (brainstorming, focus groups,force-field analysis, nominal group (orDelphi) technique, and workflowanalysis). A range of presentation toolsis available to document quantitative andstatistical data used to analyze theprocesses or issues identified (affinitydiagrams, fishbone diagrams,histograms, and Pareto analysis). Eachof these analytical techniques andstatistical presentation tools is describedbelow.

A. Analytical Techniques

Brainstorming. This is a planningtechnique used to determine possiblecauses or solutions to problems, or todecide which business process problemsare most in need of attention. It can alsobe used to plan the steps in a project. Itis a means to elicit the creativity of agroup of people when it is desirable togenerate a large number of ideas or tobuild consensus. Brainstorming relies onfour principles:37

1. Take turns proposing one idea ata time, until the group runs out ofideas.

2. Do not criticize any other idea.

3. Build on any other idea.

37 Richard Chang and Matthew Niedzwiecki,

Continuous Improvement Tools: A PracticalGuide to Achieve Quality Results (Irvine, CA:Richard Chang Associates, 1993) Vol. 1, pp. 5-11 [Hereafter, Chang and Niedzwiecki], andUSBR Guidebook, “Brainstorming,”http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/toolbox/brainsto.htm.

4. Select criteria by which toevaluate all ideas to narrow downto top three ideas/solutions.

Focus groups. Focus groups arestructured group interviews involvingorganized discussion with a selectedgroup of persons to gain informationabout their views and experiences of atopic.38 They are particularly suited togenerate several perspectives about thesame topic. The benefits of focus groupsinclude gaining insights into people’sshared understandings of everyday life,and the ways in which others influenceindividual persons in a group situation.

Focus group meetings provide anexcellent opportunity to obtain feedbackfrom internal and external customersabout how well court staff or clerk’soffice staff provide services. Since theconduct of focus groups involves adisciplined methodology, it may beprudent for the steering committee orproject team in a BPE effort to have aprofessional focus group facilitator,unless a member of the committee orteam has had prior experienceconducting focus groups.

Force-field analysis. This tool providesa way to identify factors that stand in theway of achieving a goal (restrainingforces), as well as factors that willpromote achievement of that goal(driving forces). This analysis can helpthe project team identify some of thecauses and potential solutions to abusiness process problem. It also helps

38 Anita Gibbs, “Focus Groups,” Social ScienceUpdate, University of Surrey Department ofSociology,http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html;see also The Focus Group Kit, edited by DavidMorgan and Richard Krueger (Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 1997).

32

the team to focus on ways to develop aplan of action that will have a greaterchance of success. Table 2 is a sampleforce-field diagram showing

hypothetical driving forces andrestraining forces in a court with a civildelay problem.

Table 2. Hypothetical Force-field Diagram for Trial Court with a Civil DelayProblem

Current Situation: Pending civil inventory is too large, with too many pending cases older thanapplicable time guidelines.

Goal: Reduce size of pending inventory by 10% this year, and dispose of all open cases morethan three years old, except those on appeal or pending completion of bankruptcy proceedings.

Driving Forces Restraining Forces

Judges are fair and dedicated Priority of criminal and juvenile docket limits judgeavailability for civil docket

Hard-working court staff Number of judges has not kept up with caseloadgrowth

Key members of trial bar want improvement Inadequate number of staff members in clerk’s office

Court leadership from chief judge Legacy computer system

Trial court administrator works well with judges andclerk of court

Falling revenues limit funding

Good support from State court administrator’s office Some insurance companies refuse to settle casesand instead demand trials in soft tissue/chiropractorcases

Chair of county board is a business person whounderstands the court’s problems

Old and inadequate court facilities — not enoughcourtrooms

Newest judges on bench are progressive and wantto try new approaches to court problems

Lack of effective communication within court

Too many cases do not settle until the day of trial

Calendar clerk is overworked

33

Nominal Group (or Delphi)Technique. This technique provides theproject team with a participative processto identify problems and issues, or todevelop potential solutions to previouslyidentified problems. It is a method togenerate, record, and prioritize ideas inorder to reach consensus. It can beparticularly useful to help resolvecomplex problems when a group isunder time pressure, or to avoid potentialconflicts associated with discussing andprioritizing sensitive issues.39

Workflow analysis. This is a structuredapproach to improving work processesby identifying and eliminatingunnecessary tasks and streamlining theflow of work activities and tasks. Thetechnique would call for the court tocreate cross-functional teams (comprisedof persons from different departmentsand perspectives, to create anopportunity for exchange of fresh ideas)to analyze functions, activities, and tasksand to identify unnecessary steps.Johnson Edosomwan recommends thatworkflow analysis involve the followingsteps:40

39 Johnson Edosomwan, Organizational

Transformation and Process Reengineering(Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press, 1996) Ch. 5.

40 Ibid.

Step 1: Define the process purposes,objectives, starting points, andending points.

Step 2: Identify functions and majorresponsibilities of the court,including staffing and planning.

Step 3: Identify business processeswithin each function.

Step 4: Identify basic steps to performeach activity in a businessprocess, thereby developing adetailed description of thatprocess.

Step 5: Have a cross-functional teamanalyze each process.

Step 6: Have the cross-functional teamidentify lengthy tasks, chokepoints, repetitious tasks, andother problems in the process.

Step 7: Determine and implement anaction plan for processimprovement.

34

B. Statistical PresentationTechniques

Affinity Diagram. An affinity diagramis a way of organizing ideas generatedby brainstorming into common areas(affinities) through facilitated discussionto arrive at a group consensus and thenpresenting ideas organized by affinity ina diagram.41

Fishbone Diagram. The fishbonediagram (also called ÒIshikawaDiagramÓ or Òcause-and-effectdiagramÓ) is the graphic result of theapplication of a technique combiningbrainstorming and affinity organizing toidentify possible solutions. Participantsbrainstorm all possible aspects of theproblem in generic terms (people,places, systems) and then brainstormpossible causes under each category (toomany, too few, lack of training). It helpsrelate the elements of a process, linkingpossible causes to specific effects. SeeFigure 6.

41 Chang and Niedzwiecki, pp. 15-23; USBR

Guidebook, ÒAffinity Diagrams,Óhttp://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/toolbox/affinity.htm; and Vanderbilt University, ÒAffinityDiagrams,Ó http://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mt322/Affinity.htm.

35

Figure 6. Late Entry of Court Event Data: Sample Fishbone Diagram withPotential Causes42

Late Entry ofCourt-Event

Updates in CaseManagement Info

Places Procedures

Systems Policies People

No consolidated

point to drop papers

No set

procedures Procedures not

followed

Complex

Out-of-date

Not enough

computers

Late data

Too slow

Doesn’twork System down No set

policy

Complex Procedures not

followed

Bad data

Late data

No

accountability

Too

slow

42 Chang and Niedzwiecki, p. 52.

36

Histograms. A histogram is a bar chartrepresenting a frequency distribution, inwhich the heights of the bars representobserved frequencies. One can use it tocommunicate information about thevariation in a process, or to aiddecisionmaking about where to focusimprovement efforts. Two examples ofhistograms are shown in Figure 7, whichpresent information from a census of theTexas court environment that was

conducted in 1998 for the SupremeCourt of Texas. The histograms showthat court workloads and theconstituency that courts served wereboth growing steadily between 1995 and2001. As Figure 7 illustrates, ahistogram is useful to show thedistribution of data, to show where theremay be a problem, or to track changesover time.

Figure 7. Histograms on Case and Population Trends per Judge in Texas Courts,1995-200143

43 Supreme Court of Texas, Judicial Committee on Information Technology, First Annual Report,

“Executive Summary” (1999) http://www.courts.state.tx.us/jcit/report/execsum.htm.

37

Pareto Analysis. This technique isusually required when there are manycomplex reasons for problems that areoccurring within a court’s operationalunit or within a specific businessprocess. Figure 8 shows an example of aPareto chart, involving the mostcommon reasons found for criminal trialdate continuances in criminal cases. Asthe figure shows, a Pareto chartcombines a bar graph with a cumulativeline graph. The bar graph shows thenumber of continuances by specificreason in descending order from left toright, with bar height reflecting a

recorded number of differentcontinuance reasons. The cumulativesum line shows the aggregate totalpercentage of all preceding bars.

This kind of presentation can enable acourt to focus specifically on the mostsignificant reasons for a problem (ratherthan diffusing its efforts over many moretrivial reasons, such as those reflected bythe highlighted bar number 8 in Figure8), thereby allowing the court to seekpotential solutions that will have thegreatest likelihood of bringing aboutsubstantial improvements.

Figure 8. Sample Pareto Chart: 1979 Criminal Trial-date Continuance Reasons inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania44

44 Samuel Conti, William Popp, and Don Hardenbergh, Finances and Operating Costs in Pennsylvania’s

Courts of Common Pleas (North Andover, MA: National Center for State Courts, Northeastern RegionalOffice, 1980) p. 78. Hereafter, Conti, Popp, and Hardenbergh.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

350 --300 --250 --200 --150 --100 --

50 --

-- 100-- 85-- 70-- 55-- 40-- 25

2346 57 66

7482 87

100

ObservedNumber of

Continuances(N=1,434)

CumulativePercent of

Total

Continuance Reasons

(See legend, next page)

38

Legend for Continuance Reasons

1 = Prosecution witness problem

2 = Prosecutor/defense attorney in another courtroom

3 = Defendant without attorney

4 = Excused absence of prosecutor/defense attorney

5 = Plea/diversion being negotiated

6 = Defendant ill

7 = Prosecutor/defense attorney needs more time to file motions

8 = All other reasons combined (highlighted by diagonal lines)

C. Simple Project Planning andManagement Tools

Once a project team has been appointedto undertake the detailed work involvedin BPE, or when a court is ready to beginimplementation of a new businessprocess, it is desirable to take steps toplan and manage such activities. For thispurpose, there are several toolsavailable, including: (1) action plans, (2)matrix diagrams, and (3) tree diagrams.

Action plans. An action plan can be asimple way to set forth the specific stepsthat will be taken to carry out a strategyor a task after a decision has been madeon what course to follow. An action planis a way to record and communicateintended actions, responsibilities, timeframes, and needed resources. It is also apoint of reference against which thecourt’s BPE steering committee andproject team can measure activities andevents. An action plan should includetasks, subtasks and dependencies,responsibilities, deliverable dates, tasktime frames, and needed resources.45

45 USBR Guidebook, “Action Plan,”

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/actplan.htm.

Matrix diagrams. There are manydifferent kinds of matrix diagrams. Oneis a planning tool to help organize largegroups of tasks and responsibilities, suchas: (a) matching tasks with individuals ororganizations responsible to completethem; (b) rating the level of a person’s ororganization’s responsibility for a task;or (c) assigning accountability and planactions. Figure 9 is an example of acompleted matrix diagram that assignslevels of responsibility for the tasksinvolved in preparing a new clerks’manual (after business processes in thatoffice have been enhanced through aprocess improvement or processreengineering effort).

Tree diagrams. A tree diagram is aplanning tool that can help the projectteam map out the path and tasks thatmust be accomplished to achieve aprimary goal and the objectives orsubgoals associated with that ultimategoal. Figure 10 shows an example of apartially completed tree diagram. Itshows the “major tree headings” and twoof the “detailed tasks” to beaccomplished in order to upgrade acourt’s voicemail system.

39

Figure 9. Sample Matrix Diagram: Assigning Levels of Responsibility for Tasks inPreparing a New Clerks’ Manual, Based on Enhanced Business Processes46

Responsibility

Task Alic

e

Ben

jam

in

Ch

arle

ne

Den

nis

Eliz

abet

h

Co

urt

H.R

.D

irec

tor

Pri

nti

ng

Co

mp

any

Writing S P C

Proofreading S+ S C P

Editing P S C

Researching P S+ S

Binding C P

Copying C P

Training S P

Distribution C P

46 Chang and Niedzwiecki, p. 31.

40

Figure 10. Sample Tree Diagram: Partial Detail of Tasks to be Accomplished inUpgrading a Court’s Voicemail System47

Detailed Tasks

Major TreeHeadings

Ultimate Goal

47 Richard Chang and Matthew Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools: A Practical Guide to

Achieve Quality Results (Irvine, CA: Richard Chang Associates, 1993) Vol. 2, p. 13.

Upgrade theCourt’s

VoicemailSystem

Install NewSystem

Remove OldSystem

Train CourtEmployees

NegotiateSystemTrade-In

CreateContingency

Plan

41

D. Advanced Project Planning andManagement Tools

While the tools described above may beadequate for many projects, moresophisticated tools are needed to managemore complex BPE efforts, including:(1) critical path method, Gantt charts,and Program Evaluation and ReviewTechnique (PERT) charts; and (2) jointapplication development teams.

Critical Path Method, Gantt Charts,and PERT Charts.48 While action-planning worksheets can be used to planand manage simpler processimprovement efforts, other tools shouldbe used to graphically track and describehow long activities and tasks will take,as well as how they might relate to oneanother. Three tools that can be usedmanually or with the assistance ofproject software are: analysis by thecritical path method (CPM), Ganttcharts, and PERT charts.

An essential concept behind projectplanning and analysis using CPM is thatsome activities are dependent on otheractivities having been completed first.These dependent activities need to becompleted in a sequence, with each stagemore-or-less completed before the nextactivity can begin. You can calldependent activities “sequential.” Otheractivities are not dependent oncompletion of any other tasks. Thesemay be done at any time before or after aparticular stage is reached. They arenondependent or “parallel” tasks.

48 Mind Tools, “Gantt Charts,”

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_03.htm, and “Critical Path Analysisand PERT Charts,”http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_04.htm.

CPM is an extremely effective methodfor analyzing a complex project; it helpsthe project team calculate the minimumlength of time in which the project canbe completed, and which activities needto be completed by that date. Where ajob has to be completed on time, criticalpath analysis helps to focus on theessential activities to which attention andresources should be devoted. It providesan effective basis for scheduling andmonitoring progress.

Once the BPE project is underway,Gantt charts can help the steeringcommittee and the project team monitorwhether the project is on schedule. If aproject is off-schedule, a Gantt chart willenable the project manager to pinpointthe remedial action necessary to put itback on track.

PERT is a variation on CPM that takes aslightly more skeptical view of timeestimates made for each project stage.To use PERT, estimate:

a. The shortest possible time eachactivity will take.

b. The most likely length of time.

c. The longest time that might betaken if the activity takes longerthan expected.

While CPM analysis can be conductedand presented manually with either aGantt chart or PERT chart, the projectteam would probably prefer to usesoftware tools to create such charts. Notonly do computer-based projectmanagement software packages ease thedrawing of these charts, but they alsomake modification of plans easier andprovide facilities for monitoring progressagainst plans. The presentation of CPManalysis for the hypothetical installationof a simple customized court computer

42

system is illustrated in Figure 11 (Ganttchart) and Figure 12 (PERT chart). The“critical path” is the longest sequence ofdependent activities that lead to thecompletion of the plan. Any delay of astage in the critical path will delaycompletion of the whole plan unlessfuture sequential activities areaccelerated.

Joint Application DevelopmentTeams.49 Joint ApplicationDevelopment (JAD) is a managementprocess that will enable the court’s ITstaff members to work more effectivelywith other court staff members orstakeholders in developing IT solutions.The purpose of JAD is to draw upon theresources within the court most familiarwith the processes and systems beingreviewed in order to best define theproject objectives, design a solution, andthen monitor the project until it reachescompletion. The JAD process is basedon four simple ideas:

49 University of Texas at Austin, Human

Resources Services/Information Services, JointApplication Development (JAD) – What do youreally want,http://www.utexas.edu/hr/is/pubs/jad.html.

1. People who actually do a jobin a court have the bestunderstanding of that job.

2. People who are trained in IThave the best understandingof the possibilities of courttechnology.

3. Court IT systems and courtbusiness processes rarelyexist in isolation. Instead,they transcend the confines ofany single court IT system orcourt office and affect workin other court or court-relateddepartments. People workingin those related areas havevaluable insight on the role ofa system within the largerenvironment of the court orthe court community.

4. The best court IT systems aredesigned when all of thesegroups work together on aproject as equal partners.

43

Figure 11. Critical Path Method Analysis of a Simple Court Computer SystemInstallation, Presented as a Gantt Chart50

Week

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(1) (4)

(6) (8) (10)

(5) (7)

(2) (9) (11)

(14)(12)

(13)(3) (15)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Week

List of Tasks Illustrated Above (with estimated time to achieve each task)

(Those on the “Critical Path” are shown in Bold Print and Italics)

(1) High-level Analysis (1 week) 8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules (1 week)(2) Selection of Hardware Platform (1 day) 9. QA, Supporting Modules (1 week)(3) Installation of Hardware (2 weeks) 10. Core Module Training (1 day)(4) Analysis of Core Modules (2 weeks) 11. Develop Accounting Reporting (1 week)(5) Analysis of Supporting Modules (2 weeks) 12. Develop Management Reporting (1 week)(6) Programming of Core Modules (3 weeks) 13. Develop MIS (1 week)(7) Programming of Support Modules (3 weeks) 14. Detailed Training (1 week)

15. Documentation (2 weeks)

50 See note 48, “Critical Path Analysis and PERT Charts.”

Legend:

(Critical Path Action)

44

Figure 12. Critical Path Method Analysis of a Simple Court Computer SystemInstallation, Presented as a Program Evaluation and Review Technique Chart51

Week

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(6) (8) (10) (1) (4) (7) (9) (14)

(5) (11)(2) (12) (13)

(3) (15)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Week

List of Tasks Illustrated Above (with estimated time to achieve each task)

(Those on the “Critical Path” are shown in Bold Print and Italics)

(1) High-level Analysis (1 week) 8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules (1 week)(2) Selection of Hardware Platform (1 day) 9. QA, Supporting Modules (1 week)(3) Installation of Hardware (2 weeks) 10. Core Module Training (1 day)(4) Analysis of Core Modules (2 weeks) 11. Develop Accounting Reporting (1 week)(5) Analysis of Supporting Modules (2 weeks) 12. Develop Management Reporting (1 week)(6) Programming of Core Modules (3 weeks) 13. Develop MIS (1 week)(7) Programming of Support Modules (3 weeks) 14. Detailed Training (1 week)

15. Documentation (2 weeks)

51 Ibid.

Legend:

(Critical Path Action) (Non-critical Path Action)

45

E. Software Tools

There are a number of automated toolsavailable to help the court’s BPE projectteam with at least some aspects of itsundertaking. Among these are:

• Computer-based collaborativetools.

• Software-supported processanalysis tools.

• Systems workflow and softwaremodeling tools.

While software cannot substitute for thequality of human reasoning that BPE ina court will require, there are manyprocess improvement or processreengineering tasks that can be assistedby software tools. Some of the tasks thatcan be helped by software tools are thefollowing:52

52 Lon Roberts, Process Reengineering: The

Key to Achieving Breakthrough Success(Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press, 1994) p.159.

Recording or structuring data

Supporting decisionmaking (e.g.,decision support systems)

Diagramming process flows

Isolating flow paths according touser-specific conditions

Calculating process metrics

Optimizing flow paths

Modeling and simulating processlayouts

Performing dynamic “what-if”analysis on flow paths

Pinpointing bottlenecks in aprocess

Generating reports and plottingprocess-performance statistics

Planning and tracking anenhancement project

Diagnosing team behavior, valuesand resistance to change

Computer-based collaborative tools.Collaborative tools (groupware) arecomputer-based tools that help theproject team work together and shareinformation. They allow for virtualonline meetings and data sharing. Someexamples of collaborative tools includethose shown in Table 3.

46

Table 3. Examples of Generic Collaborative (Groupware) Tools53

Tool Description

Chat (Audio and text) Use this to conduct toll-free conversations. No need towait for something to arrive in your mailbox.

Whiteboard Permits real-time display of drawings, pictures, ordocuments for group discussion and comment.Participants can annotate in real time as well.

Bulletin board Used to post notices and facilitate discussions on anytopic.

Video Use video at a desktop computer or a videoteleconferencing center to see the person or group withwhom you are working.

Discussion groups (newsgroups) Topics are posted to a Web site for discussion andcomment where participants can follow a line ofdiscussion on a topic.

File-sharing tools Virtual file cabinets allow information to be stored on Webservers, and are available to anyone having access tothe site and electronic permission to use the files.

Presentation tools These are used in a virtual auditorium and allow lecturesand briefings to be given to an audience.

Text tools Allows live text input and editing by group members.Once complete, the text document can be copied intoword processing software.

Email The most popular way of exchanging communicationselectronically.

Persistent capability This is the ability to preserve files, briefings, or otherteam/project material for future reference. Properlyorganized, it becomes a knowledge management deviceand is invaluable to a long-term effort.

Instant messaging Most popularly known as "text chat," this allows real-timeexchange of notes and messages.

53 BPR On-Line Learning Center, BPR Tutorial Series, “Knowledge Management and Collaboration

Tools in Business Process Reengineering – Tutorial 1,” http://www.prosci.com/collaboration-tools_2.htm.

Collaborative tools are useful forbringing geographically dispersed teamstogether for virtual meetings. A benefitfor the court’s steering committee orproject team is that they would be able tointeract more easily with process expertsin other locations. This could bring moreinformation to the team faster and can

elicit important inputs that may havebeen missed just because it wasinconvenient or expensive for someoneto travel physically to a meeting. Inaddition, collaborative tools allow betterchange management by permitting theproject team to communicate

47

continuously with other staff members inthe court.

Software-supported process analysistools. These tools are paper-based,although some are computer-supportedto the extent of providing drawingsupport and consistency checking. Thereare several tools available to you in thiscategory, and three that are relativelypopular are Integration Definition(IDEF), Petri Nets, and Role-ActivityDiagrams (RAD).

IDEF software generates graphics foreach step in a given process. Petri Netsare graphical and mathematical toolsused to describe the dynamics ofprocesses in an organization. They usetokens to reflect the dynamic nature of aprocess. Role Activity Diagrams, on theother hand, depict the human dynamicsof processes.

Systems workflow and software designmodeling tools: Project teams shouldconsider the use of computer-based toolsto create models of new systems or togenerate computer code to support newsystem designs.

Unified Modeling Language (UML).The trademark for this computerlanguage belongs to the ObjectManagement Group(http://www.omg.org/), which sets vendor-neutral software standards and enablesdistributed, enterprisewide operability.UML™ is the industry-standard languagefor specifying, visualizing, constructing,and documenting the artifacts of asoftware system. It simplifies thecomplex process of software design,making a “blueprint” for construction. Itprovides application modeling for: (1)business process modeling with usecases; (2) class and object modeling; (3)

component modeling; and (4)distribution and deployment modeling.54

The Harris County (Dallas,Texas) Justice InformationSystem team has used the“Rational” suite of modelingsoftware products to facilitatetheir transition from a legacyintegrated criminal justiceinformation managementsystem (JIMS1) to a newintegrated system (JIMS2). Thesoftware was used to bringdiscipline to both the businessdevelopment and thedocumentation processes, and tohelp document the court’sbusiness rules. “Rational Rose”(http://www.rational.com/products/rose/index.jsp) will beused to generate basic Java codethat will need to be refined andsupplemented with original Javacode. Rational tools use acomplete integrated life-cyclesolution that assists the teamwith each step of softwaredevelopment: requirements andanalysis, software development,and system testing.

Systems Workflow. Business processesin a court typically consist of a numberof well-defined steps, which are oftenrepeated in every process cycle. Theprevalence of such steps, and theinherent inefficiency of movingdocuments, forms, memoranda, andother such papers from one workstationto the next, has prompted thedevelopment of software tools known as“workflow systems.” Workflow systemsdeveloped by different vendors may

54 IBM, “UML Resource Center,”

http://www.rational.com/uml/index.jsp.

48

have a variety of features, but they sharethe capacity to map workflow and routework products among various points in abusiness process as it has been mapped.

Most commonly available software toolsof this nature allow a BPE project teamto map business processes and makechanges without extensive programming.The most important feature of workflowsystems is that they allow a proposedalternative process to be modeled easilyand tested before being implemented.The actual workflow routing capabilitiesof such systems can only be usedbeneficially once the processconfiguration has been determined.

One example of a workflow system,which also allows modeling of solutions,is the public domain Justice InformationExchange Model (JIEM)55 softwaredeveloped by SEARCH for the Bureauof Justice Assistance, U.S. DOJ. JIEM isa Web-based software application thatenables information exchange analysisamong justice agencies. It was originallydeveloped as an analytical tool tofacilitate comparison of functionsperformed by different jurisdictions. Thesoftware defines universal dimensions ofinformation exchanges between courtsand court-related agencies, as well as a

55 SEARCH Justice Information Exchange

Model Project,http://www.search.org/integration/info_exchange.asp.

research and planning methodology formodeling the operational dynamics ofthis information exchange. JIEM can beused with that methodology to capturedetailed information regarding theprocesses, events, agencies, information,and exchange conditions associated withjustice information integration. Thefollowing are sample outputs of thesoftware:

49

Business Process Enhancement in the Courts - Basic Principles: Document the System

Integrated Justice Information System (JIEM)

OpenCaseFile

MisdemeanorCharge?

SufficientEvidence?

OpenCaseFile

Review byScreeningDeputy

Prosecutor Screening Process

FilingDecision

Pre-disposition Court Process

CriminalComplaint

Agency Centric Report

Filter Criteria: Agency = 'All'Create Date: Wed Jun 04 13:34:57 PDT 2003

SendingAgency

Initiating Process Initiating Event Condition DocumentReceivingAgency

SubsequentProcess>

Sub-sequentEvent

CommunityCorrections

Post-DispositionCourt

Pre-SentenceInvestigationCompletion

• No conditionspecified.

• Pre-SentenceInvestigationDocument

ProsecutorsOffice

Post-DispositionCourt

UpdateCaseFile

• No conditionspecified.

• Pre-SentenceInvestigationDocument

District CourtPost-DispositionCourt

SentenceHearing

• No conditionspecified.

• Pre-SentenceInvestigationDocument

PublicDefendersOffice

Post-DispositionCourt

UpdateCaseFile

Post-DispositionSupervision

ProbationRevocation

• If subject fails tocomply with termsof probation.

• Notice of AllegedViolation ofProbation

ProsecutorsOffice

Post-DispositionSupervision

UpdateCaseFile

50

51

A number of Internet Web sites identify the full range of public domain and proprietarysoftware tools currently available, and Table 4 shows some of those sites that list vendorsand their products.

Table 4. Sources of Information About Vendor-specific Software Tools

• Business Process Change, “Business Process Reengineering Tools Search Page”(http://dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/grover/mgsc796/present/srtoolp.htm)

• Business Process Management Initiative (http://www.bpmi.org/)

• Business Process Reengineering Advisory Group(http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/tool/BPR.html)

• Business Process Reengineering and Innovation (BRINT)(http://www.brint.com/BPR.htm)

• “dmoz” open directory project, “Computers: Software: Business: Management”(http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Business/Management/)

• Doculabs, “Special Report on Workflow Products”(http://www.doculabs.com/catalog/TOC/wf_toc.htm)

• Gartner Group http://www3.gartner.com/Init

• Infogoal, “Directory of Process Remodeling and Business Process ReengineeringResources” (http://www.infogoal.com/dmc/dmcprc.htm)

• iSixSigma, “Six Sigma and Quality Software”(http://www.isixsigma.com/tt/software/)

• KnowledgeStorm (http://www.knowledgestorm.com/)

• Software Technology Support Center, “Business Process Reengineering Tools List”(http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/resources/tech_docs/reng.html)

• Workflow and Reengineering International Association, “WARIA Databases”(http://www.waria.com/databases/databases.htm)

52

F. Basic Methodologies SupportingBusiness Process Enhancement

Some of the key steps in a court’s BPEeffort involve the application ofparticular methods that have their owndetailed procedures. Basic methodsinclude:

• Benchmarking.

• Cost/benefit analysis.

• Risk analysis, which is closelytied to cost/benefit analysis.

Benchmarking.56 This is a performancemeasurement tool used in conjunctionwith BPE initiatives to measurecomparative operating performance andidentify “best practices.” Benchmarkingcan be used with either processimprovement or process reengineering,and can also be used to blend themtogether into a single changemanagement system.

Cost/benefit analysis.57 This is arelatively simple and widely usedtechnique to help the court decidewhether to make a change. As its namesuggests, using the technique involvessimply adding up the value of thebenefits of a course of action, and thensubtracting the costs associated with it.Costs may be one-time, or they may beongoing. Benefits are most oftenreceived over time. To build this effectof time into the analysis, it is necessary

56 American Productivity and Quality Center,

“Benchmarking Methodology,”http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/generic2?path=/site/benchmarking/benchmarking_methodology.jhtml and “Benchmarking andBest Practices,”http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/generic?path=/site/benchmarking/overview.jhtml.

57 See Mind Tools, note 17.

to calculate a payback period. This is thetime it takes for the benefits of a changeto repay its costs. Many organizationslook for payback over a specified periodof time — e.g., three years.

Risk analysis.58 As noted in thepreceding section, risk analysis interactssignificantly with cost/benefit analysis.All BPE projects inherently have somedegree of risk that may affect the timelycompletion, cost, and quality of aproject. The goal of risk analysis is toacknowledge and deal with high risk. Aproject with a significant benefit mayhave a good chance of approval in spiteof a high risk of failure. Unless the riskis mitigated, the benefits are less likelyto be realized and might be lesssignificant than anticipated. If the courtcannot mitigate the risks, then it shouldhave a contingency plan to deal with theimpact of the risk on the project.

G. Advanced MethodologiesSupporting Business ProcessEnhancement

In addition to the basic methodologiesof benchmarking and cost/benefitanalysis, the team should consideremploying other methods to enhance amore complex business process or set ofprocesses. Among the methods onemight use are:

• Activity-based costing.

58 See Tennessee Department of Finance and

Administration, Office of InformationResources, “1999 Cost Benefit AnalysisMethodology,” note 19; see also KansasDepartment of Human Resources, Change andTransition Management Board, ProjectLeadership Series, Part VII, “Tips for SuccessfulRisk Management,”http://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/riskmgmt.htm (January 2001).

53

• Balanced scorecard.

• Capability maturity model.

• Simulation.

• Six Sigma.

• The trial court performancestandards and measurementsystem.

Activity-based costing (ABC).59 This isan accounting technique that allows anorganization to determine the actual costassociated with each of its services,without regard to its organizationalstructure. In order to achieve the majorgoals of BPE, the project team needs tofully understand the cost, time, andquality of activities in the court’sbusiness processes. ABC methodsenable the process enhancement projectteam to apply cost measurements forBPE. While ABC can be done manually,there are software programs (such asIDEF, which is discussed above) thatcan be used to provide a structuredapproach to identify and analyze theactivities in a business process.

ABC has been used from time to time toanalyze court costs. In 1979, forexample, NCSC used a simple form of itto measure the cost of continuances forthe general-jurisdiction trial courtserving greater Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.60

59 Federal Aviation Administration, Business

Process Improvement (Reengineering)Handbook, Chapter 5, “Activity Based Costing,”http://www.faa.gov/ait/bpi/handbook/chap5.htm.

60 Conti, Popp, and Hardenbergh, pp. 66-81.

In 1979, the AdministrativeOffice of PennsylvaniaCourts engaged the NationalCenter for State Courts(NCSC) to determine the costof continuances to the courtsin Allegheny County(Pittsburgh) and othercounties in the western partof the State.

Using ABC analysis, NCSCdetermined that each criminaltrial continuance cost thecourt an estimated $79 ($196in 2002 dollars), and that47% of continuances weregenerally avoidable. Thestudy found the cost of civilcontinuances was even higher($174, or $432 in 2002dollars).

Balanced scorecard.61 Using thismanagement and performancemeasurement system effectively canenable the court to clarify its vision andstrategy, and to translate them intoaction. The balanced scorecard providesfeedback around both the internalbusiness processes and externaloutcomes in order to improve orreengineer processes to achieve betterstrategic performance and results.

61 See Balanced Scorecard Institute, “What is

the Balanced Scorecard?”http://www.balancedscorecard.org/basics/bsc1.html.

54

The balanced scorecard approach allowsthe project steering committee andproject team to see the courtÕs businessprocesses in a broad perspective, fromfour perspectives:

1. Organizational learning andgrowth in the courts.

2. Court business processes.

3. Perspectives of internal andexternal customers.

4. Court finance.

Capability Maturity Model¨ (CMM).Developed by the Software EngineeringInstitute at Carnegie-Mellon University,CMM¨ is a conceptual framework basedon industry best practices to assess theprocess maturity, capability, andperformance of a software developmentorganization.62 The concept for thismodel was developed in the 1980s, whencomputer experts concluded that thequality of a software application wasdirectly related to the sophistication ofthe application development companyand the quality of its softwaredevelopment processes.

This tool assesses software applicationdevelopment organizations in thefollowing areas:63 (a) commitment toperform (policies and leadership); (b)ability to perform (resources andtraining); (c) activities performed (plansand procedures); (d) measurement andanalysis (measures and status); and (e)

62 Larry Whittington, ÒThe SEI SoftwareCapability Maturity Model,Óhttp://www.whittingtonassociates.com/v2/resources/articles/sei_cmm.shtml.

63 For additional information on decision tools,see Gartner, Inc., ÒDecision Tools,Óhttp://www3.gartner.com/4_decision_tools/measurement/decision_tools/decision_tools.html.

verification of implementation(oversight and quality assurance).Organizations using this model for self-improvement in the past decade havereported gains in productivity, quality,time to delivery, and accuracy of costand schedule estimates. Any court mayuse CMM¨ to assess the capability of avendor providing software developmentservices to the court. Perhaps moreimportantly, however, the IT departmentof the court may use it as a self-assessment tool to measure its owncapability and maturity as anorganization that develops softwareapplications for the court.

Simulation.64 A simulation is theimitation of the operation of a real-worldprocess or system over time. Whethermanual or automated, simulationinvolves the generation of an artificialhistory of a business process in a court,and the observation of that artificialhistory permits inferences to be drawnconcerning the operating characteristicsof the courtÕs actual business process.The behavior of a business process overtime is studied by developing asimulation model. This model usuallytakes the form of a set of assumptionsconcerning the operation of the process.These assumptions are expressed inmathematical, logical, and symbolicrelationships between the entities orobjects of interest of the process. Oncedeveloped and validated, the court canuse a model to investigate a wide varietyof Òwhat ifÓ questions about the real-world process. An excellent example ofthe use of simulation for businessprocess improvement in a limited-

64 New Jersey Center for Multimedia Research,

ÒIntroduction to Simulation,Óhttp://www.njcmr.org/mpids/deep-eng/IE/Simulation/Chapter1%20-%20Final.htm.

55

jurisdiction court is the municipal courtof Beaverton, Oregon, which usedsimulation software to: (a) provide userswith quick, easy, and reliable access tocurrent documents; (b) ensure documentcompleteness and accuracy; and (c)address formal procedures in the face ofsuch new technologies as photo-radartraffic tickets.65

While the availability of special-purposesimulation languages, massivecomputing capabilities at a decreasingcost per operation, and advances insimulation methodologies have madesimulation one of the most widely usedand accepted tools in operations researchand systems analysis in the Federalgovernment and in private businesses,simulation has not been used widely incourt BPE efforts. One reason for this isthat simulation can still be expensive,despite constantly dropping costs, whilemany problems in court processes can beaddressed with simpler and less costlytools.

Six Sigma.66 In its purest form, SixSigma is a disciplined, data-drivenmethodology for eliminating defects inany process. In many organizations, itsimply means a measure of quality bywhich the organization strives for nearperfection in its business processes.Statistically, Six Sigma describesquantitatively how a process isperforming, with the goal of having aprocess that produces no more than 3.4

65 See Petrakis and Engiles, note 34,

http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc00papers/278.PDF. See also, City ofBeaverton, Oregon, “Municipal Court,”http://www.ci.beaverton.or.us/departments/court/default.asp.

66 See iSixSigma Web site,http://www.isixsigma.com.

defects per million opportunities. (A“defect” is anything that does not meetcustomer needs; an “opportunity” is anyactivity from which a defect can result.)The basic objective of the Six Sigmamethodology is to implement ameasurement-driven strategy thatfocuses on process enhancement throughthe reduction of defects.

Trial Court Performance Standardsand Measurement System.67 Thissystem is the culmination of an eight-year initiative begun in 1987 by theCommission on Trial Court PerformanceStandards to develop measurableperformance standards for the nation’sState and local trial courts. It expresses aphilosophy and framework for definingand understanding the effectiveness oftrial courts by focusing attention onperformance, self-assessment, and self-improvement. The system sets forth 22standards of performance for trial courtsin five performance areas:

1. Access to justice.

2. Expedition and timeliness.

3. Equality, fairness, and integrity.

4. Independence and accountability.

5. Public trust and confidence.

67 Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.

Department of Justice, and National Center forState Courts, Trial Court Performance Standardsand Measurement System,http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/TCPS.

56

The system’s measurement componentconsists of field-tested measures forevaluating how well the court is meetingthese performance standards. Itencourages trial courts to conductregular self-assessments andimprovements, treating them as routinecourt administrative activities. To thisend, the measurement component isdesigned to gather information that thecourt can use in a variety of ways,including budgeting, case management,implementing court improvementprojects, and strategic planning.

57

Chapter IV. Conclusion

BPE is not for the short-winded.Successful completion of a processreview or reengineering project shouldbe celebrated and recognized both as anend and a beginning. Even after the courthas undertaken a successful BPE effortthat is yielding improved courtperformance in view of the courtÕsstrategic goals and the needs andrequirements of its internal customersand external court users, the courtÕswork is not done. The court needs tocontinue to build on this success, and touse the performance measures and othertools used in the BPE project to bringabout even further processimprovements in the future.

Take advantage of success. If theimplementation effort has beensuccessful, make good use of it. Be sureto recognize all those whose planning,work, determination, and supportcontributed to the positive outcome. Besure to let everyone Ñ judges, courtstaff, representatives of court-relatedagencies, stakeholders, and members ofthe public Ñ know what happened andwhy. Be sure to do the following:68

• Apply the success achieved toother court problem-solvingefforts.

• Analyze the entire history of thisprocess-enhancement effort tosee what might successfully betransferred into other courtprograms and business processes.

• Advise others about what workedand what did not.

68 See USBR Guidebook, ÒHandling Success,Ó

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/handsucc.htm.

• Advertise the success.

Use performance measures as afeedback loop for further processimprovements. The world will not standstill after the court has succeeded inintroducing the new or improvedbusiness process. There will becontinuing further changes Ñ newtrends in case volume and case mix;changes in legislation; changes injudicial and support staff; newprosecutors and other new localofficials; demographic changes in thecommunity; new developments in IT;and other changes in society in general.

In the face of such changes, the gainsachieved by the enhancement effortprocess can erode unless the courtcontinually monitors its performance andmakes further refinements. Useperformance information as a tool to aidcontinuous improvement of workprocesses. To make this happen, do thefollowing:

• As a matter of routine, continueto review data and apply theperformance measures to thenow-enhanced business processto identify any performance gapsthat may arise.

• Encourage judges and court staffmembers to use performance datato find further ways to improvethe new or improved process.

• Periodically assess the courtÕsperformance goals and objectivesfor this process to see if it wouldbe appropriate to seek evenhigher levels of performance.

58

Continue to refine and improve theprocess. Even as the court celebratescompletion of the project, the courtshould also recognize it is at thebeginning of an ongoing cycle ofcontinuous process improvement.Continuous process improvement willprovide the following benefits:

• Improved work environment forjudges and court staff members.

• More effective and efficientjustice services to court users.

• Greater support from courtsystem leaders and fundingbodies.

• Broad recognition as a court witha high-quality operation.

• Greater public trust andconfidence in courts and theadministration of justice.

It is worthwhile to see what kinds ofgoals for even higher improvement areappropriate for the court. Examples ofvery ambitious quality criteria for settinghigher performance goals include thecriteria for the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Program at theNational Institute for Standards andTechnology Web site.69 Anotherexcellent resource on qualityperformance is the SixSigma Web site.70

See also the six levels of process qualitysuggested by process improvementexpert H. James Harrington:

69 See, National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) Web site:http://www.quality.nist.gov.

70 See www.isixsigma.com.

59

Table 5. Levels of Business Process71

Level Status Description

6 Unknown Process status has not been determined.

5 Understood Process design is understood and operates according to prescribeddocumentation.

4 Effective Process is systematically measured, streamlining has started, andexpectations of internal and external customers are met.

3 Efficient Process is streamlined and is more efficient.

2 Error-free Process is highly effective (error-free) and efficient.

1 World-class Process is among the best in any court in the country or the world,and it continues to improve.

71 Harrington, p. 206.

For most courts, the results of asuccessful BPE effort will have raisedthe court from Level 6 to Level 4, orfrom Level 5 to Level 3, in terms of theframework offered by Harrington. Thequestion is whether it is possible for thecourt to advance to Level 2 or evenLevel 1. To make such a further leapforward, Harrington suggests that thekinds of steps to take include thefollowing:

• Periodically assess where thecourt is in terms of these levels.

• Define and eliminate problems inexisting business processes.

• Evaluate the impact of changeson court operations and courtusers.

• Do further benchmarking aboutbest practices in other courts.

• Provide further education andtraining for judges and court staffmembers.

60

Appendix A:About SEARCH,

the National Center for State Courts,and Project Staff

61

SEARCH, The NationalConsortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics

SEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics, is anonprofit membership organizationcreated by and for the States, which isdedicated to improving the criminaljustice system and the quality of justicethrough better information management,the effective application of informationand identification technology, andresponsible law and policy. Since 1969,SEARCH’s primary objective has beento identify and help solve theinformation management problems ofState and local justice agenciesconfronted with the need to automateand integrate their information systems,and to exchange information with otherlocal agencies, State agencies, agenciesin other States, or with the Federalgovernment. SEARCH’s headquartersare in Sacramento, California.

The National Center for StateCourts

The National Center for State Courts(NCSC) is a nonprofit corporationdedicated to the modernization of ournation’s courts. The Center acts as afocal point for judicial reform, serving asthe catalyst for implementing standardsof fair and expeditious judicialadministration, and helping to determineand disseminate solutions to problems ofState and local judicial systems. NCSC’swork includes providing information,technical assistance, and consultingservices to courts and other interestedparties, and conducting research andevaluations in all areas of courtoperation.

NCSC also publishes journals,newsletters, bulletins, books,monographs, and reports to keep theState courts informed of its ownactivities and activities in the Statecourts.

Project Staff

Francis L. Bremson. Mr. Bremson isDirector of the Courts Program forSEARCH, and served as SEARCHProject Manager in the development ofthe Court Business ProcessEnhancement Guide. At SEARCH, he isresponsible for managing the CourtInformation Systems TechnicalAssistance Project funded by the U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ). Prior tojoining SEARCH in 1997, Mr. Bremsonheld a variety of management positionsin State and Federal courts. He hasserved as Circuit Executive for the NinthU.S. Circuit in San Francisco,California; Director of the AlaskaJudicial Council; Regional Director ofNCSC in St. Paul, Minnesota; andDirector of the Cleveland (OH) CourtManagement Project. He also has servedin government marketing positions forlegal publishers LEXIS-NEXIS andLegitech.

Mr. Bremson holds a bachelor’s degreefrom Hobart College in New York andobtained his J.D. from the GeorgetownLaw Center. He is also a Fellow of theInstitute for Court Management.

Honorable Judith D. Ford. Judge Fordserved as a Judge of the Superior Courtof Alameda County (Oakland),California, from 1988-2002, as a Judgeof the Oakland-Piedmont-EmeryvilleMunicipal Court from 1983-1988, and asPresiding Judge of that court from 1987-

62

1988. Judge Ford is a nationallyrecognized expert in the application oftechnology to improve judicialadministration, having served as chair ofthe California Judicial Council’s CourtTechnology Advisory Committee from1998-2001; as a member of the board ofLegalXML; and as a member of theteam that drafted Standards forElectronic Filing Processes, an effortsponsored by NCSC. As a judicialmember of the COSCA/NACM JointTechnology Committee, Judge Fordserved as chair of the TechnologyReengineering Subcommittee and led theeffort to develop this Guide from theproject’s inception in 2000 throughpublication in 2003.

Judge Ford received the LifetimeAchievement Award from the WomenLawyers of Alameda County in 2000;the LEXIS-NEXIS CourtLinkExcellence in Legal Technology Awardin 2002 in recognition of her leadershipand innovation and for championingtechnology to deliver breakthroughadvances in the practice of law; and theDistinguished Service Award fromNCSC in 2003, presented annually to a“State trial court judge who has madelongstanding contributions to theimprovement of the justice system andwho has supported the mission of theNational Center.”

Judge Ford received her bachelor’sdegree in Business Administration fromthe University of California, Berkeley,and her J.D. from Boalt Hall School ofLaw, University of California, Berkeley.She was admitted to practice by the StateBar of California in 1974.

John M. Greacen. Mr. Greacen is aPrincipal of Greacen Associates, LLC, acourt management consulting firm inRegina, New Mexico. He served as co-chair of the COSCA/NACM JointTechnology Committee at the time theBusiness Process Enhancement Projectwas initiated, and subsequently served asa consultant to the TechnologyReengineering Subcommittee inconducting this project and indeveloping this Guide. He previouslyserved as State Court Administrator forthe State of New Mexico from 1996-2001, during which time he served aschair of the Court TechnologyCommittee for COSCA; co-chair of theJoint Technology Committee ofCOSCA/NACM; and as chair of theElectronic Court Filing TechnicalCommittee of the OASIS Legal XMLMember Section.

Prior to becoming the State CourtAdministrator of New Mexico, Mr.Greacen was Clerk of the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District ofNew Mexico in Albuquerque; Clerk ofthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit in Richmond, Virginia; andDeputy Director for Programs at NCSCin Williamsburg, Virginia. Mr. Greacenhas an A.B. from Princeton Universityand a J.D. from the University ofArizona. He has received the Director’sAward for Excellence in Leadershipfrom Ralph Mecham, Director of theAdministrative Office of the UnitedStates Courts, for his leadership inappellate court automation andmanagement, the 1999 Award of Meritfrom NACM, and the Pioneer Awardfrom the New Mexico State Bar.

63

Dale F. Kasparek Jr. Mr. Kasparek is aPrincipal Court Management Consultantat NCSC. He served as staff to theTechnology Reengineering Committeeduring the design stages of the BusinessProcess Enhancement Project. At theNational Center, he provides consultantservices to courts seeking to applytechnology to improve their efficiency.Prior to joining the National Center, Mr.Kasparek was Director ofAdministration for Day, Ketterer, Raley,Wright and Rylbolt, Ltd., in Canton,Ohio; Deputy Court Administrator forthe Court of Common Pleas ofAllegheny County (Pittsburgh),Pennsylvania; the Tenth Judicial DistrictAdministrator in Minnesota; and theCourt Administrator in Common PleasCourt in Stark County (Canton), Ohio.

Mr. Kasparek holds a bachelor’s degreein Criminology from Indiana Universityof Pennsylvania and a master’s degree inPublic Administration from theUniversity of Pittsburgh.

Laura Klaversma. Ms. Klaversma isCourt Services Operations Manager forthe Court Services Division of NCSC.Throughout the Business ProcessEnhancement Project, Ms. Klaversmawas responsible for coordinating NCSCstaff and consultant resources and foronsite review and analysis of projectsites. While at the National Center, Ms.Klaversma has managed the TennesseeAdministrative Office of the CourtsReview, the SEARCH (IntegratedJustice) Technical Assistance Project,the Wichita Drug Court Evaluation, andthe Washington, D.C., Fiscal OfficeReview, and she has facilitated a qualityreview process on many other projects.Prior to joining the National Center, Ms.Klaversma served as Executive Director

of nonprofit social services agencies inDenver, Colorado; Provo, Utah; Cairo,Egypt; and Houston, Texas; and asPresident of the American InternationalSchool Board in Tunis, Tunisia. Ms.Klaversma has a bachelor’s degree fromBrigham Young University and an MBAfrom the University of Houston.

Edward L. Papps. Mr. Papps is aSenior Court Technology Associate forNCSC and served as staff to theTechnology Reengineering Committeein the development of the project design.He has over 34 years of experience inthe computer field. His experience hasbeen in the manufacturing, publishing,financial, military, and electrical powerareas in the private sector and thejudicial branch of government. Prior tohis position with NCSC, he worked forthe 16th Judicial Circuit Court ofMissouri. Mr. Papps is a past member ofthe Advisory Committee on Technologyfor NCSC, and has served on the Boardof Directors of the World IT Congress.He is founder of the National Judicial ITDirectors Organization. Mr. Papps’published articles have appeared in anumber of computer trade publicationsand association newsletters. Mr. Pappsreceived a bachelor’s degree in BusinessAdministration with a major in SystemsManagement from Rockhurst College inKansas City.

Robert T. Roper. Dr. Roper is ChiefInformation Officer for the ColoradoState Courts. He is an original memberof the Colorado Integrated CriminalJustice Information System Task Force.He is actively involved in numerousconsulting and training activitiesthroughout the trial courts in the UnitedStates and internationally. Dr. Roperserved as both a member of the

64

Technology Reengineering Committeeand as a consultant to the committee insurveying and documenting the use ofbusiness process enhancementtechniques in courts.

Dr. Roper was a Senior Staff Associateat NCSC’s Institute for CourtManagement (ICM) between 1988-1992,where he designed and taughtICM/NCSC’s course on ConductingCourt Evaluation Projects. Beforejoining the ICM office in Denver,Colorado, Dr. Roper was a Senior StaffAssociate at NCSC in Williamsburg,Virginia, where he directed the CourtStatistics and Information ManagementProject between 1985-1988.

Dr. Roper received his Ph.D. in politicalscience and research methods from theUniversity of Kentucky in 1978.

David J. Roberts. Mr. Roberts isDirector, Integrated Justice Programs,J&PS Global Industries, Public Sector,for Unisys. At the time of hisparticipation in the preparation of thisGuide, Mr. Roberts was DeputyExecutive Director of the Technologyand Research Division of SEARCH. Mr.Roberts provided technical assistance tojustice agencies nationwide, addressingsuch issues as the integration ofinformation systems and automationplanning, with funding from the Bureauof Justice Assistance (BJA) and Bureauof Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. DOJ. Inaddition, Mr. Roberts served as Directorof an Office of Justice Programs/BJAproject to identify and defineinformation exchanges that enableintegration of justice informationsystems at the State and local levels, andas Director of a joint BJS/FederalBureau of Investigation project on

implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)among law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Roberts is a frequent keynotespeaker at justice technologyconferences and workshops across theUnited States and Canada, and hasprepared numerous articles and reports.Mr. Roberts is a member of numerousadvisory committees and professionalassociations, including the CriminalJustice Information Systems Committee,International Association of Chiefs ofPolice; the Architecture Committee,National Association of State ChiefInformation Officers; theInfrastructure/Standards WorkingGroup, Global Justice InformationSharing Initiatives Advisory Committee;the Board of Directors, Legal XML;Chair, Integrated Justice WorkingGroup, Legal XML, OASIS; and theAmerican Society of Criminology.

Mr. Roberts holds a master’s degreefrom the School of Criminal Justice,State University of New York at Albany;a Master of Criminal JusticeAdministration from Oklahoma CityUniversity; and a bachelor’s degree inLaw Enforcement and Criminology fromMetropolitan State College in Colorado.

David C. Steelman. Mr. Steelman is aPrincipal Court Management Consultantwith NCSC, and he served as principalauthor of this Guide as a project staffmember for the TechnologyReengineering Subcommittee. In over 28years with the National Center, includingfive years as Director of theNortheastern Regional Office, he has ledhundreds of projects for courts in dozensof States and six foreign countries, insuch areas as court organization; trial

65

and appellate court case flowmanagement; drug courts; family andjuvenile courts; management of courtreporting services; and management oftraffic courts. He is author of CaseflowManagement: The Heart of CourtManagement in the New Millennium(2000), and the opening chapter ofDeveloping a Court Leadership andManagement Curriculum (JERITT,2002): “What Really Makes Managingthe Courts So Challenging?”

From 1977-1983, Mr. Steelman was anadjunct professor in the EveningDivision of Boston College. A Phi BetaKappa undergraduate student and FordFoundation Teaching Fellow with amaster’s degree in history from theUniversity of New Hampshire, hereceived his law degree from the BostonUniversity School of Law. He isadmitted to the practice of law inMassachusetts and New Hampshire.

Teri B. Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan is aJustice Information Systems Specialistfor SEARCH, and served as a consultantto the Technology ReengineeringCommittee in the development of thisGuide. At SEARCH, Ms. Sullivanprovides technical assistance tooperational State and local justiceagencies nationwide that are in theprocess of acquiring, developing,upgrading, or integrating their computersystems. This assistance is providedunder SEARCH’s National TechnicalAssistance Program funded by BJA,U.S. DOJ.

For six years prior to joining SEARCHin 2001, Ms. Sullivan was Director forthe Metro Davidson County JusticeInformation System, a complex, event-driven, enterprise-based system that

serves the justice agencies in Nashvilleand Davidson County, Tennessee. Inprevious positions, Ms. Sullivandeveloped and implemented hightransaction volume relational databasesystems for health care industryapplications. Her responsibilities haveincluded management of significantvendor (subcontractor) activities, as wellas development of in-housedatabase/application and supportinfrastructure.

In May 1997, Ms. Sullivan was acceptedas a Fellow of the Institute of CourtManagement after completing therequired course work for the CourtExecutive Development Program fromNCSC. Ms. Sullivan received a J.D.from the Nashville School of Law and abachelor’s degree in InformationSystems Management from BelmontCollege in Tennessee. She is a memberof the Nashville Bar Association.

Henry K. Townsend. Dr. Townsend isTechnology Operations Manager forTechnology Services at NCSC. As staffto the Technology ReengineeringSubcommittee during the initial stages ofthe project, Dr. Townsend conductedbackground research for the committeeon the use of business process reviewtools and techniques in the public sector.At the National Center, Dr. Townsendmanages all budget, human resource,and business development issues for theTechnology Operations Group; providessoftware engineering and IT architectureconsulting services to State, local, andinternational courts, and theiradministrative offices; and conductsinformation systems audits for clientorganizations. Dr. Townsend’s extensiveexperience prior to joining the NationalCenter includes 8 years in supervisory

66

technical positions at the U.S.Government Accounting Office; 12years of college and university teachingin information systems, statistics,management science, operationsmanagement, organizational theory, andorganizational behavior; and as aconsultant in both the public and privatesector on applied statistics and logistics,organizational theory, organizationalbehavior, database management systems,and information systems audit andcontrol topics.

Dr. Townsend earned a bachelor’sdegree in Economics from CatawbaCollege; an MA in Sociology (ConflictManagement) from the University ofNorth Carolina-Greensboro; an MSBA(Information Systems Audit) fromCalifornia Polytechnic State University,Pomona; and a Ph.D. in OrganizationalTheory, Organizational Behavior, andUrban Systems from Emory University.Dr. Townsend is a graduate of theAdvanced Management Program of theInformation Resource ManagementCollege of the National DefenseUniversity and holds professionalcertification as a Certified InformationSystems Auditor, Certified InformationSecurity Manager, and a CertifiedGovernment Financial Manager.

Lawrence P. Webster. Mr. Webster isManager of the Justice InformationExchange Model Project with SEARCH,and served as a consultant to theTechnology Reengineering Committeein the development of this Guide. Priorto joining SEARCH, Mr. Webster servedas Delaware’s State CourtAdministrator; Executive Director ofCourt Technology Programs at NCSC;Director of Data Processing for the Utahcourts; System Manager for the U.S.

Attorney, District of Colorado; andManager of Operations and SystemsDevelopment for the Colorado DistrictAttorneys’ Council. He has deliverednumerous seminars, presentations, andcourses and has headed or participated inresearch, education, and consultingprojects related to technology in thejustice system. He was principal authorof A Guidebook for Electronic CourtFiling and Automating Court Systems,and has prepared or assisted with manyother books, articles, and papers onsimilar topics.

Mr. Webster holds a Master of Sciencein Judicial Administration degree fromthe University of Denver College ofLaw, is a fellow of the Institute for CourtManagement, and is a graduate of itsCourt Technology Certificate Program.