TERMS OF REFERENCE NON-KEY EXPERTS (NKE) MISSION NR. … · barangay justice system. ... and Highly Configurable Electronic Case Management System),6 the final version of the software

Government of the Republic of the Philippines European Union

Technical Assistance to the Justice Sector Reform Programme Governance in Justice (GOJUST) EuropeAid/136651/DH/SER/PH

TERMS OF REFERENCE NON-KEY EXPERTS (NKE) MISSION NR. 019

TITLE: THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF ECOURT SOFTWARE AND DEVELOPMENT OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ECOURTS VERSION 2.0

Technical Assistance Team (TAT)

GOJUST Programme, 1st Floor, Old Supreme Court Building, Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura, Manila

Endorsement of finalised ToR:

For internal use only: Endorsed by: Means of endorsement: Date:

2

1. BACKGROUND

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines with the support of the European Union is implementing the Justice Sector Reform Programme: Governance in Justice (GOJUST). GOJUST is funded by the European Union to the value of EUR 16,000,000 and with the support of the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (EUR 2,000,000). The overall objective of GOJUST is: To contribute to inclusive growth and poverty reduction through a strengthened justice system and its specific objective is: To increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the formal justice system. The programme is being implemented from April 2016 to September 2019. GOJUST seeks to achieve four major result areas, as follows:

Result 1: Sector-wide coordination of the justice system strengthened and long-term reform strategy developed;

Result 2: Backlog curtailed in courts and prosecution services and case management system streamlined and computerised (with focus on 'justice zones');

Result 3: Justice sector agencies’ administrative and financial management systems improved;

Result 4: National/Regional Human Rights Institutions and CSO’s capacity to promote accountability and fight impunity for major human rights violations strengthened.

The support provided under this programme will have a far reaching effect on the entire justice system, and will impact on three main agencies of government, namely the Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court at the apex, the Department of Justice, which includes the prosecution service, the correctional system, the public attorneys, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Interior and Local Government, which includes the police, the local detention facilities and the barangay justice system.

The programme is managed by a Programme Steering Committee headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, and the Secretary of Justice and other designated representatives from the justice sector and stakeholders. The day to day coordination is done by the Programme Coordinator. In line with the Direct Management component of the Financing Agreement, a Service Contract (EuropeAid/13665I/DH/SER/PH Nr.2016/37/788) for the provision of Technical Assistance for the Justice Sector Reform Programme: Governance in Justice (GOJUST) was awarded to a consortium of organisations under the leadership of the British Council in April 2016. The Service Contract requires the provision of a Technical Assistance Team consisting of three key experts that will be responsible for the three result areas. In addition, the service contract also includes the provision of 1,420 working days of non-key experts that will support the work of the key experts in the delivery of results under the programme. Supreme Court Enterprise Information System Plan (EISP) and the Judiciary Case Management System (JCMS) In 2009, the Supreme Court approved the Enterprise Information System Plan (EISP). “The EISP is

3

the Judiciary’s 5-year ICT Master Plan developed through a World Bank grant and originally approved by the Supreme Court in 2009. The 2009 EISP calls for the development of over 20 application systems to speed-up the adjudication of cases, increase personnel productivity, and automate case and document management and administrative systems.”1 The EISP identifies the Judiciary Case Management System (JCMS) as a priority or mission-critical project. The JCMS is envisioned to “manage the entire case flow from filing, payment of filing fees, through the case events and until disposal.”2 The JCMS was also envisioned to be a unified case management system for the use of trial courts and appellate courts. In Chapter 6 of the 2017-2022 Philippine Development Plan entitled “Pursuing Swift and Fair Administration of Justice, the Supreme Court affirmed the Judiciary Case Management System as one of the “key measures to address the twin problem of docket congestion and delay through the automation of the clerical processing of cases from inception to promulgation of decision.” eCourt as a case management for trial courts In 2013, the American Bar Association piloted the eCourt project in Quezon City.3 The eCourt software was eventually rolled out in Manila, Makati, Pasig, Angeles City, Cebu City, Lapu-Lapu City, and Davao City.4 While the eCourts was initially developed as a case management system for trial courts, the American Bar Association upon request by the Supreme Court, agreed to expand the eCourts to be an integrated case management system from trial all the way to appeal. This was to convert the eCourts into the Judiciary Case Management System envisioned in the EISP. ABA developed the eCourt software on a rolling basis simultaneously with the roll-out in 12 sites. Additional functionalities were included in the software as they were requested throughout the life of the eCourt project. Currently, eCourt version 1.2.4 is rolled out in Quezon City, Lapu-Lapu City, Tacloban City, Makati City, Pasig City, Davao City, Angeles City, Cebu City, Manila City, Mandaluyong City, Pasay City and Cagayan de Oro City. Throughout the pilot and roll-out, bugs have continually been reported by the users. The problematic areas of the software were mostly in the raffling of cases and reporting, among others. Based on the draft System Requirement Specifications for eCourt version 2.05 (Enhanced Modular and Highly Configurable Electronic Case Management System),6 the final version of the software ABA initially committed to submit should include the following functionalities:

Assessment of Filing Fees

Verification of Case Documents and Fees

Payment of Filing Fees

Docketing of Case

Electronic Raffling of Cases based on their case category

1 The Enterprise Information Systems Plan: Court Automation and Modernization 2015-2019, Paper presented at the

Supreme Court Management Committee Meeting, Baguio Country Club, 14 April 2016. 2 Indra, Enterprise Information System Plan Executive Summary, submitted to the Supreme Court, March 17, 2009.

3 A.M. No. 13-05-07, Re: Proposed Launching of the Quezon City eCourt Project.

4 A.M. No. 13-10-08, Re : Approval of the Proposed Locations for the Rollout of the eCourt Project.

5 SC MISO assigns the version number for the software. eCourt version 2.0 was the number originally assigned for

the final software that ABA was supposed to submit containing the functionalities in the System Requirement

Specification. 6 American Bar Association, Draft document version 0.4.1. as of May 12, 2016. (unpublished).

4

Exclusion of particular courts/judges/justices in electronic raffle of cases

Issuance of Clearance as per information available on the courts database.

Receiving of Subsequent Pleadings

Management of Case Documents

Management of Evidence

Management of Case Activities and Schedule

Case Referencing, automatic update of case details in the “mother” case to the “baby”

Cases.

Creation of Court Resolutions, Orders from predefined templates in which some of the things that can be done in the MS Word can also be done in the eCourt Templates e.g.

adjustment of font size, font style, margins, spacing, Bold, Underline, and Italicize.

Management of Mails (e.g. Summons, Orders, etc.)

Management of Users and System Roles

Tracking of Court Calendar

Generation of Reports

Management of Branches, Users, System Roles and Access Rights

Management of Drop-down Values (e.g. Case Incidents, Nature of Case, etc.)

Add and Update eCourt templates

Management and restriction of announcements for all users

Management of eCourt access to all courts’ users

Generation of Reports

Generation of Forms

Search of Case and Case Status

Viewing of Court Calendar

Transfer of cases from lower court to appellate court

Update of case status information to lower courts from appellate court

Transfer of case information for partially decided cases

By early 2018, ABA indicated that they would not be able to deliver eCourt version 2.0 which should have contained all functionalities requested and should have been a unified case management system envisioned in the EISP. However, ABA committed to address the bugs and include some new features requested by the Supreme Court (version 1.2.6) by December 2018. According to the ABA, eCourt version 1.2.6 contains all the functionalities in the Systems Requirement Specification (SRS) except for the aspect which will enable the judiciary to have a unified case management system from the trial courts to the appellate courts. The final version submitted by the ABA is purely intended for first and second level courts. Due to time constraint because the ABA eCourt project will end in December 2018, the SC Management Information System Office was not able to test the final version to be submitted by ABA. Despite the lack of final testing by MISO, during a meeting on November 21, 2108 in the Supreme Court, ABA was authorized by the eCourt Technical Governance Committee to roll-out eCourt version 1.2.6 in all the 12 sites prior to its end of project in December 2018. GOJUST roll-out of eCourts in new sites Result 2 of GOJUST involves providing support for the automation of case management processes

5

through the establishment of the eCourt systems. During the consultations with key stakeholders as part of the inception period, GOJUST was informed that the eCourt programme has leveraged resources from development partners and the judiciary. The consultations revealed that the software will be provided by ABA while the computer hardware will come from the Supreme Court. However, a clear gap identified was the lack of funding for the network infrastructure of the courts which is the backbone for the whole automation programme of the courts, including the eCourts. In order to address this gap, GOJUST was requested to conduct preparatory work for the new roll-out sites, which will include technical assessment and cabling. In line with this, GOJUST is currently implementing Non-Key Expert Mission No. 12 (Preparatory work for the roll-out of eCourts and the E-Dalaw Project). This was once again confirmed in the resolution of the Technical Governance Committee dated November 21, 2018. The preparatory work includes the assessment of the technical and financial feasibility of rolling out the eCourts in selected court stations, identification of court stations that will be included in the roll-out of the eCourts, and installation of the networking system in the selected courts. Once the technical assessment is completed, GOJUST will submit a list of proposed court stations to be included in the GOJUST roll-out sites for the approval of the Supreme Court. Request for a third-party review of eCourts version 1.2.6 Throughout the life of the eCourt project, the Supreme Court has received complaints from users about the eCourt software. In addition, the SC MISO has never had the opportunity to test the software and determine the suitability of the software for nationwide roll-out. Thus, in August 2017, GOJUST was requested to include in its workplan the third-party review of the eCourts. This was confirmed in the Technical Governance Committee Resolution initially discussed in May 2018 and confirmed and signed in November 21, 2018. GOJUST was requested to conduct a “t(T)hird-party expert review of eCourts version 1.2.6 as part of quality assurance and in preparation for the development of eCourts version 2.0.”7 The third-party expert review is also expected to provide inputs into the development of the terms of reference for the next upgrade version of the eCourts or what is envisioned in the EISP as the Judiciary Case Management System which would include a Document Records Archive Management System. Request for the development of terms of reference for an upgraded version of the eCourts On 5 April 2016, the Supreme Court approved the 3rd

iteration of the EISP budget amounting to P

4.811 billion which includes a budget for software development for the upgraded version of the eCourts, together with the Document Records Archive Management System (at P563.21 million). While the SC has the budget for software development, the Supreme Court has expressed the need for technical assistance to develop the “terms of reference (TOR) for eCourt version 2.08 by integrating the results of the third-party expert review of eCourts 1.2.6 with the terms of reference of the Document Records Archive Management System9 of the 2014 Updated Enterprise Information

7 Supreme Court Technical Governance Committee Resolution No. 2018-01.

8 In view of the fact that the final software that ABA submitted was eCourt version 1.2.6, MISO has labelled the

upgraded software that will be developed using the TOR produced from this mission as eCourt version 2.0. 9 A.M. No. 14-09-06-SC (Re: Approval of the Updated Enterprise Information Systems Plan Work Plan and

Budget), 14 July 2015.

6

Systems Plan,10 and Judiciary Case Management System and related apps under the 2009 Enterprise Information Systems Plan.”11 The TOR should include a Change Management12 Strategy to ensure acceptance and the commitment of all those who will be involved in the implementation of the eCourts. It should take into account a training and capacity building plan, as well as a data migration and conversion plan to ensure ease in the transfer of data into the new system to eliminate re-encoding. This particular mission calls for non-key expert support for a third-party review of the electronic court system (eCourt) software and the development of a Terms of Reference for an upgraded version of the eCourts. The mission has been approved by the EUD during the Justice Sector Coordinating Council Meeting/ Programme Steering Committee Meeting last September 27, 2018, as part of the Technical Assistance Provision Plan.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

2.1. Global objective

The over-all objective of the mission is to support an effective implementation of an automated case management system in the judiciary through the conduct of a third-party review of the existing eCourt software and the development of a terms of reference for the development of an upgraded software that will meet the current needs of the judiciary. The objective of this mission contributes to Result 2 focusing on curtailing backlog in the court and prosecution offices, streamline case management processes and automate the case management system of the courts and the prosecution offices.

2.2. Specific objective(s)

Specifically, the non-key experts are expected to achieve the following objectives: Third-Party Review of eCourt version 1.2.6

a) To review the software architecture of the eCourt version 1.2.6 in order to provide insight into the quality, issues of inefficiencies, and identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the system and provide recommendations on overall improvement of the software, preferably citing best practices/other experiences therein;

b) To review the existing functionalities and usability of the eCourt version 1.2.6 based on user feedback and recommend improvements and enhancements;

c) To review the security features of the eCourt version 1.2.6 and recommend possible additional security measures, if needed;

10

A.M. No. 14-09-06-SC (Re: Approval of the Updated Enterprise Information Systems Plan Work Plan and

Budget), 16 September 2014. 11

A.M. No. 08-11-09-SC (Re: Management and Consultancy Services for the Development of the Philippine

Judiciary’s ICT Capability Assessment Report Executive Summary [Final Report].) 12

“Change Management is the systematic process of applying knowledge, tools and resources to lead people through

change with minimal distress. The process requires a balance between processes, human resources, structure and

organizational culture.”, Indra, Final Report: Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP): Executive Summary,

submitted to the Supreme Court on March 17, 2009, page 31.

7

d) To review the software architecture and existing functionalities of selected electronic case management systems other than the eCourts also being used by trial courts in the Philippines; and

e) To review the status of the implementation of the eCourts in the 12 court stations covered by the roll-out of ABA, including an assessment of the level of use and functionalities used and not used, and recommend a strategy and implementation plan for the next phase of roll-out for the eCourts;

Business Process Analysis for developing the TOR for eCourts version 2.0

f) To analyse existing processes of the trial courts, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax, Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and the Supreme Court for the purpose of developing eCourts version 2.0 or the Judiciary Case Management System;

g) To review the software architecture and existing functionalities of the automated case management systems in the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court for the purpose of developing eCourts version 2.0 of the Judiciary Case Management System;

Development of Terms of Reference for eCourts version 2.0

h) To develop the Terms of reference (TOR) for eCourt version 2.0 by integrating the results of the third-party expert review of eCourts 1.2.6 with the terms of reference of the Document Records Archive Management System13 of the 2014 Updated Enterprise Information Systems Plan,14 and Judiciary Case Management System and related apps under the 2009 Enterprise Information Systems Plan; and

Development of Change Management Plan and Implementation Plan for the roll-out of the eCourts

i) To develop an implementation plan and strategy, including a change management strategy for the next phase of the roll-out of the eCourts.

2.3. Requested services, including suggested methodology

The scope of work of the consultant shall include the following:

a) Kick off meeting with the Technical Assistance Team on the requirements of this engagement and the programme context of GOJUST in relation to Result Area 2 on the roll out of the e-Courts in selected court stations;

b) Gather and review materials relevant to the eCourts, such as the System Requirement Specification for the eCourts and the case management system of the appellate courts, including materials related to the Supreme Court Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP);

13


Budget), 14 July 2015. 14


Budget), 16 September 2014.

8

c) Conduct consultation meetings with key officials of the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library, the eCourt Technical Governance Committee eCourt TGC), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court Project Management Office (SC-PMO), Management Information Systems Office (MISO) of the Supreme Court, Management Information Systems Division of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, other relevant offices in the Supreme Court, and the American Bar Association (ABA);

d) Review the software architecture, security features and functionalities of eCourt version 1.2.6; e) Develop a quality assurance plan for testing eCourt version 1.2.6 that MISO can implement; f) Review the list of issues and concerns gathered by the MISO in relation to the eCourt

software and its implementation; g) Ocular visit to all the eCourt sites to enable the NKEs to view a currently existing e-Court

installation and how it is presently operating and the concomitant issues that still need to be resolved for future installations;

h) Conduct of a survey of users of the eCourts on the status of use and implementation of the eCourts;

i) Conduct key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with different types of users from the 12 court stations (Office of Clerk of Court, Executive Judges, Presiding Judges, Clerk of Courts, Docket Clerks, among others), and users from the Supreme Court – Management Information Systems Office (MISO), Office of the Court Administrator (Office of the Chief Justice, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator, Assistant Court Administrators, Judicial Supervisors, and Court Management Office), among others;

j) Present initial findings on the Third-Party Review of eCourt version 1.2.6; k) Conduct business process requirements mapping and analysis in selected first and second

level courts (general jurisdiction and special courts), Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme Court;

l) Review the software architecture, security features and functionalities of the case management systems of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme Court;

m) Conduct KIIs and FGDs with key users in the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme Court;

n) Review the PNP Crime Information Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) and Case Information Database Management System (CIDMS), as well as the Prosecution Case Management Systems (PCMS) to identify opportunities for data exchange;

o) Conduct a gap analysis of eCourt version 1.2.6 and the case management systems of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme Court based on agreed system requirements as identified through the business requirements analysis;

p) Draft Terms of Reference for the development of software patches and fixes identified through the gap analysis if needed

q) Draft Terms of Reference for an upgraded eCourts by integrating the results of the third-party expert review of eCourts 1.2.6 with the terms of reference of the Document Records Archive Management System15 of the 2014 Updated Enterprise Information Systems Plan,16 and Judiciary Case Management System and related apps under the 2009 Enterprise Information Systems Plan. The draft Terms of Reference should include a Business

15




Budget), 16 September 2014.

9

Requirements Document (high-level), Systems Requirement Specification, and if needed also include a Functional Requirement Specification and a Requirements Traceability Matrix;

r) Draft the Implementation Strategy and Plan, including a change management strategy for the next phase of the roll-out of the eCourts;

s) Conduct validation workshops on the draft Terms of Reference for the upgraded eCourts and the Implementation Strategy and Plan for the next phase of roll-out of the eCourts;

t) Draft report for the mission, including the annexes; u) Present findings and recommendations to the Technical Assistance Team, relevant

stakeholders, and the Supreme Court; and v) Draft final report.

2.4. Required outputs

The outputs of this engagement are the following:

a) An Inception Report, submitted to the Technical Assistance Team (for the attention of Atty. Ingrid Gorre) no later than 5 days after the commencement of the assignment;

b) A presentation containing the initial assessment on the software architecture, functionalities, and implementation of eCourt version 1.2.6 to be completed 40 days after the commencement of the assignment;

c) A Final Mission Report, structured as follows:

Executive Summary

Introduction and Background

Main findings related to the over-all and specific objectives of this assignment

Key Recommendations

Relevant Annexes, which will include the following: o Schedule of interviews, workshops, and meetings o Documentation of Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews o Quality assurance plan to test eCourt version 1.2.6 for implementation of the MISO o Survey questionnaire and results on the status of implementation of the eCourts o Process maps and business process analysis for trial courts (general jurisdiction and

special courts), Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme court;

o Terms of reference (TOR) for the development of upgraded software for eCourt version 2.0 by integrating the results of the third-party expert review of eCourts 1.2.6 with the terms of reference of the Document Records Archive Management System17 of the 2014 Updated Enterprise Information Systems Plan,18 and Judiciary Case Management System and related apps under the 2009 Enterprise Information Systems Plan. The TOR should include a high-level Business Requirements Document (BRD) that describes the high-level business and stakeholder requirements of the project19 and the Systems

17




Budget), 16 September 2014. 19

The BRD should contain the purpose of the project, client, customers and stakeholders, users of the project,

business changes to be implemented, stakeholders detail, scope of the project, usability requirements, performance

requirements, assumptions and constraints, and risk analysis.

10

Requirement Specification (SRS) that describes the entire system flow, how data is going to flow into the system and overall functionality of the system.20 If necessary, the TOR should also include a Functional Requirement Specification (FRS) that defines system requirements and converts them into functionality that show how the requirement will be a part of the proposed system and a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) that takes all of the requirements into a document that will be used as a tool to develop test cases that will verify if requirements are addressed by the system. The TOR should be compliant with the procurement law and regulations of the Philippine Supreme Court; and an

o Implementation plan and strategy including a change management strategy for the next phase of the roll of the eCourts. The plan should include a training and capacity building plan, as well as a data migration and conversion plan to ensure ease in the transfer of data into the new system to eliminate re-encoding.

2.5. Number of requested experts and number of days required per expert

The following types of expertise are required:

Position Designation Type of Expertise Duration

(working days)

1 Senior Software Engineer, Team Leader

Computer Software Architecture 140

1

Senior Business Process Analyst

Business Process Analysis 130

1

Junior Organizational Development Expert

Change Management 30

The indicative breakdown of the level of effort of each of the consultants is as follows:

ACTIVITY

NO. OF DAYS

SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER

SENIOR BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYST

JUNIOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERT

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES

Kick-Off Meeting with the Technical Assistance Team 0.5 0.5 0.5

Review background materials on the eCourts 2 2 1

20

The SRS provides a brief description of the module functionality and may include “use case” that describes how

users interact with the system.

11

Conduct consultation meetings with key officials of the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library, the eCourt Technical Governance Committee eCourt TGC), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court Project Management Office (SC-PMO), Management Information Systems Office (MISO) of the Supreme Court, Management Information Systems Division of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, other relevant offices in the Supreme Court, and the American Bar Association (ABA)

5 5 5

Review the functionalities of e-Court version 1.2.6 and its security features

2.5 1

Prepare inception report 2 1 0.5

Prepare survey instrument and interview questions for Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

2 1 1

Develop a quality assurance plan to test eCourt version 1.2.6 for implementation of the MISO

2

DATA GATHERING ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF eCOURTS

Conduct key informant interviews (KIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with different types of users from the 12 court stations (Office of Clerk of Court, Executive Judges, Presiding Judges, Clerk of Courts, Docket Clerks, among others), and users from the Supreme Court – Management Information Systems Office (MISO), Office of the Court Administrator (Office of the Chief Justice, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator, Assistant Court Administrators, Judicial Supervisors, and Court Management Office), among others

33 10 8

Present initial findings on review of eCourt version 1.2.6 and implementation in selected court stations

5

BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSIS

Data gathering for business process analysis in sample courts covering different type of courts (general jurisdiction, drugs court, family court, and commercial court), levels of court (1st, 2nd level, and appellate courts), including a comparison between courts with eCourts and without eCourts

10 33 4

Review existing automated case management systems of Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Supreme Court

8 2

Review existing automated case management systems of Philippine National Police and the National Prosecution Service

2

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Analyse result of business process mapping 13

Prepare process design 10

Prepare blue print of future state processes 10

Review result of business process analysis, survey results, and data from FGDs and KII's

10

12

Gap analysis on implementation and on functionalities of the software

10 7.5

DEVELOPMENT OF TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR UPGRADED VERSION OF eCOURTS

Develop functional specifications for upgraded eCourts 8 6

Conduct consultations with key stakeholders and court users (including the conduct of a validation workshop)

5 2

Draft Terms of Reference for eCourts version 2.0 10 5

Develop Change Management Strategy for eCourts 2 3 5

Conduct validation workshops with key stakeholders and court users

5 5

REPORT DRAFTING

Prepare Draft Report Including Annexes 10 5 1

Review/Meeting with TAT and key stakeholders 2 2 1

Prepare Final Report 4 2 1

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Present Final Report to Supreme Court 2 2 2

140 130 30

The experts should have the following skills and competences:

Fluent in spoken and written English;

Excellent analytical competence, technical skills, and detail oriented;

Excellent interpersonal skills;

Active listening skills and strong writing skills;

Working knowledge on the networking environments of multifarious stations;

Ability to lead a team of technical experts (TL); and

Ability to coordinate and communicate with key stakeholders.

Profile required (Education, General and Specific Experience) Senior Software Engineer Qualifications and skills

University degree in computer science, software engineering, math or information systems. University degree can be substituted by twenty years (20) of relevant experience;

Advanced degree in computer science, software engineering, computer and IT architecture preferred; and

13

Additional certificates or courses on IT architecture, case management systems and similar courses would be preferred.

General professional experience

Minimum of 10 years of relevant professional experience, of which 5 is in a developing country in the field of software engineering, programming and the like;

Proven experience in software architecture for a large and diverse organization, experience in the justice sector in a developing country preferred;

Proven experience in third-party review of software architecture; and

Proven experience in developing security protocols for computer software preferably in a governmental setting.

Specific professional experience

Previous work on software architecture of an institution with multiple and diverse locations, preferably in developing case management systems in the justice sector;

Previous work on enterprise solutions;

Previous review and design of case management systems, its installation and debugging, in a justice sector agency; and

Previous experience in the Philippine justice sector preferred. Senior Business Process Analyst Qualifications and skills

University degree in industrial engineering, business administration, public administration, computer science, information systems or similar technology field. University degree can be substituted by twenty (20) years of relevant experience;

Master’s degree preferred; and

Additional certificates and course from Association of Business Process Management Professional International, Business Process Management Institute, Lean Six Sigma, and other similar institutions would be preferable.

General professional experience

Minimum of 10 years of relevant professional experience, of which 5 is in a developing country in the field of management, engineering, and another similar field.

14

Proven experience in business process analysis for a large and diverse organization, preferably in a governmental setting.


5 years’ experience required providing business process analysis and/re-engineering for large and complex organizations;

Demonstrated experience leveraging Lean Six Sigma Black Belt concepts is preferred; and

Previous experience on business process analysis/ re-engineering in the justice sector in the Philippines preferred.

Junior Organizational Development Expert Qualifications and skills

University degree in psychology, public administration, business administration, management, human resources management, or similar courses;

Advanced degree or additional certificates or courses on change management preferred. General professional experience

Minimum of 5 years of relevant professional experience, of which 3 is in a developing country in the field of organizational development, public administration, human resources management, and another similar field.


Proven experience and knowledge of change management principles, methodologies, and tools in a complex organization, preferably in a governmental setting;

Proven experience designing change management strategies for complex organizational technology-related transformations preferred; and

Experience in the justice sector in the Philippines preferred.

15

3. LOCATION AND DURATION

3.1. Starting period

The estimated start date for this assignment is January 15, 2019.

3.2 Foreseen finishing period or duration

The main mission period is 8 months. The final Mission Report is to be completed not later than the August 2019.

3.3 Location(s) of assignment

The mission will be based in the Manila office of the GOJUST programme and will require travel to different parts of the Philippines. In the event that such travel would require an overnight stay, the travel expenses shall be shouldered by GOJUST under the standard policies on travel and per diems.

4. REPORTING

4.1. Content

The content of the reports required for this assignment are described in section 2.3 above.

4.2. Language

All reports and correspondence must be in English.

4.3. Submission/comments timing

All reports must be submitted by the consultant electronically in the format provided at the start of the mission. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION The consultant shall be based in the GOJUST office, 1sth Floor, Old Supreme Court Building, Padre Faura, Manila. The main contact person for this mission shall be the following: Case Management Specialist Atty. Ingrid Gorre for technical matters and Ms. Katrina Abella for administrative and finance matters.