Workload Measurement System St. Louis County Circuit Clerk

Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program

Phase III Project May 2002

LaVerne Akers, Associate Civil Administrator, St. Louis County, Missouri

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express appreciation to the staff of the Associate Civil Department, for

their patience while this study was being conducted. To specifically the Associate Docketing

Section and the Summons/Central Control Section, for their cooperation and participation in the

logging and collection of data, while still performing their many duties and for answering the

employee’s survey questionnaire. To the Circuit Clerks, in the State of Missouri, who graciously

took the time to complete and return their administrative survey questionnaire and comments. To

the attorneys that practice in St. Louis County, for time taken out of their schedules to answer the

attorney survey questionnaire and for their comments. To Ms. Faye Coleman, HR Manager, St.

Louis County Circuit Clerk’s Office, for her assistance in copying research materials, collecting

and analyzing data. To Mr. Donald Cullen, Director of Special Projects, National Center for State

Courts, for his excellent editing abilities, feedback and encouragement. To Ms. Mary Sammon,

Director, Court Executive Development Program for inspiring me. To Ms. Joan Gilmer, Circuit

Clerk, St. Louis County, for her support and confidence in me and last to my manager, Ms. Glenda

Gill, Chief Deputy Circuit Clerk, who has been very patient, supportive and considerate of me with

allowing me the time needed to complete the study. This study would not have been possible

without all of them.

1

Table of Contents

List of Tables Page 3 List of Appendices Page 4, 5 Abstract Page 6 Introduction Page 9 Review of Relevant Literature Page 17 Methodology Page 18 Findings Page 23 Conclusions Page 33 Appendices Pages 37 - 67 Bibliography Page 68

2

List of Tables Table 1 Calendar Year Filings and Dispositions Page 13 Table 2 Trial Court Performance Standards Page 14 Table 3 Hours Available Per Year for Case Processing Page 19 Table 4 Assoc. Civil Department Organizational chart Page 21 Table 5 Work Component Descriptions Page 24 Table 6 Work Measurement Categories Page 25 Table 7 Summary of Measurement Technique efforts, Page 25 accuracy and cost Table 8 Staff Questionnaire Results Page 27 Table 9 Attorney Questionnaire Results Page 28 Table 10 Category Functions Page 31

3

List of Appendices Appendix A Clerks Comments Received from Questionnaire Page 37 Appendix B Page 38 Elements Involved in the Various Processing Methods – Associate Civil Docketing Appendix C Attorneys Comments Received from Questionnaire Page 40 Appendix D Memo to Notify Staff of Workload Page 43 Measurement Project Appendix E Development of Workload Measurements Page 44 Administrative Questionnaire Appendix F Memo to Attorneys Regarding Purpose Page 45 of Questionnaire Appendix G Attorney Questionnaire Page 46 Appendix H Workload Measurement Time Logging Page 47 Instructions Appendix I Data Collection Information Form Page 48 -Summons Clerk Appendix J Data Collection Information Form Page 50 -Docket Clerk Appendix K Data Collection Information Form Page 53 -Control Office Appendix L Data Collection Event Form Page 55

4

Appendix M Data Collection Event Chart Code Descriptions Page 56 Appendix N Staff Questionnaire Page 57 Appendix O Elements Involved in the Various Processing Page 58 Methods- Central Control Office/Summons Appendix P Memo to the Administrators of Notification Page 60 Of Workload Measurement Project Appendix Q Administrator Questionnaire Results Page 61 Appendix R Glossary of Terms Used in Study Page 63 Appendix S Staff Questionnaire Actual Results Page 66 Appendix T Attorney Questionnaire Actual Results Page 67

5

Abstract The primary objective of this research is to develop a performance measurement system

that will look at work processes for non-judicial staff and will become a framework for measuring

work processes within the Office of the Circuit Clerk of St. Louis County. This measurement

system will provide the clerk with a viable and successful method of resource management due to

a legislative inactment that required a mandatory reduction of non-judicial staff.

To develop the framework for measuring work processes, two separate groups (Summons

and Docketing) were used to demonstrate the use of these measurers. One of these groups, the

Associate Civil Summons Group, was used because it experiences a high volume of activity and

consistency of routine paperwork. The processing is very structured and repetitive. The second

group used was the Associate Civil Docketing Group. This group routinely processes complex

case activity work. The work varies with each assignment and the process is not easily tracked.

A total of three studies were conducted two of which included an attorney and an employee

questionnaire. These two groups were used to solicit their perceptions about the court and its

operational efficiencies. The third questionnaire was conducted with court administrators in order

to get a general idea of their interest and concerns about the project.

• The methodology used to measure the productivity of the employees as well as

determining the data necessary to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the court

was by use of the multiple regression system and work sampling method. Employees

completed a data collection information form that identified each task related to their

job. Under each task the employee was asked to identify each step taken to complete

the task. These documents were thoroughly reviewed and later compared with time

logged to determine if unnecessary steps were taken to achieve the same objectives.

6

Employees kept track of this by logging their time for three consecutive weeks. The

data was collected and the time for each task was determined per employee. Once the

time for each task was determined an average of the observed times were computed.

Once the time was determined for that task, it was added to a case event category and

the time it took to process the case event was determined. Time for specified tasks was

determined by the percentage of the time these tasks were processed. A result of the

calculation was that 2 FTE were needed. In order to arrive at the number of FTE

positions needed, the following elements were used in the calculation.

• The total number of clerk hours available per year was determined,

• The total cases for processing per calendar year, per clerk.

The attorney and employee questionnaire was used as a tool to identify potential processing

problems that could have been missed in a time and motion study. The attorney questionnaire was

also used as a means for measuring customer satisfaction. The questions were generated based on

the actual tasks being performed on a daily basis and from prior feedback given to us by the

attorneys.

Research Findings

The research findings indicated that the Associate Civil Docketing division and the

Summons/Central Control Division was not adequately staffed. In addition, the survey findings

indicated that most of the smaller courts in Missouri do not have performance standards or a

workload measuring system. Further, these courts saw no benefit in having a workload

measurement system installed. The attorney questionnaire however, did generate a concern by

them in the area of processing summonses. The employee’s assumptions of performance were

above average in this area.

7

Final Recommendations

Utilize the workload processing measurements and tools as outlined in this research to

develop performance standards for each division within the Office of the Circuit Clerk, St.

Louis County.

After findings have been determined within all divisions, use that information to reallocate

staff, restructure and realign the organization to increase productivity and improve overall

management of the courts.

8

Introduction

Background

On July 1, 2001, the governor of Missouri, along with the state legislator mandated a

budget cut that specified 91.5 FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) positions from the circuit court core

budget. In an effort to avoid any layoffs of current employees the Circuit Court Budget

Committee (a committee of thirteen judges in the State of Missouri), instituted a temporary hiring

freeze in the circuit courts. With a few exceptions, all non-statutory state circuit court positions

that was currently vacant or that would become vacant would remain vacant until further notice

from the committee. Prior to this budget cut, there were 23 FTE positions vacant within the St.

Louis County Circuit Clerk’s office. Under the Circuit Court Budget Committee’s direction, these

positions could not be replaced, as workload demanded. This was a huge impact on the

management staff within the Circuit Clerk’s Office. The current staff needed to meet the workload

requirements, which were not proportionately adjusted with the vacancies. The primary objective

of this research is to develop a framework that can be utilized throughout the Circuit Clerk’s

Office to measure and strategically align workflow processes.

The Circuit Court Budget Committee anticipated that 91.5 vacant FTE positions by July

1, 2001, would need to come from courts with the lowest (Weighted Workload/ FTE). The

weighted workload/FTE was a study conducted by the Office of State Court Administrator, in the

State of Missouri, to determine court staff ratio to judicial time requirements. Layoffs would apply

only to those counties that did not have vacancies equal to the FTE targeted in their budget cuts.

The planned 91.5 FTE positions being cut from the budget represented 80% of the 119 FTE

positions allocated to the circuit courts that were originally paid for through a federal child support

9

reimbursement fund. The county would no longer receive the reimbursement funds and now the

Governor, facing a budget crisis, wanted these positions back.

The Circuit Court Budget Committee suggested that the most common and acceptable

methods for equalizing workloads within the Missouri court system would be to either consolidate

or transfer workload from one division to another. For example, if there were two or more

vacancies in an understaffed county and the vacant positions belonged to two or more appointing

authorities e.g. (Sheriff and Circuit Clerk), the Presiding Judge of that county was to decide on a

method to determine which vacant position should be filled. There is currently no system or

method in place to guide the Presiding Judge in making these decisions.

Each county that was targeted for a reduction was provided a notice and an outline of a

complete weighted workload information sheet. This outline was by case type for all cases filed in

the county. The weighted workload information sheet was the same information that is used to

determine WWL/FTE in the staffing guidelines and can be used by the presiding judge to help

determine where the bulk of the workload is in the county. However, there was no viable or useful

measuring system that could be used by the Circuit Clerk to measure the need for staff between

divisions.

While weighted workload measures have been established in the state of Missouri to

determine court staff ratio to judicial time requirements, there are no workload measurements

established to determine clerical staff needs. The Office of the Circuit Clerk currently does not

have a viable means to determine staffing, resources, or service levels among workload processes.

(Bridges 1992) gives one fundamental reason for measuring productivity: “Some type of

benchmark (standard, average, mean) should be determined, if none exists. How can you be sure

of how much is being saved if you do not have a baseline?” (Peter Drucker 1974) has put it in a

10

more general way: “Without productivity objectives, a business does not have direction. Without

productivity measurement, it does not have control.”

The purpose of this research is to identify and document essential information in the

development of a simplified, flexible, workload measuring system that would become the

framework for use within and among all divisions of the Office of the Circuit Clerk. This

workload measurement system would supply invaluable data that the Circuit Clerk could use in

managing their resources and restructure or realign the organization.

Objectives

The primary objective of this report is to develop a workload measurement system by

establishing the basic parameters of the work processes needed to measure different elements of

the work content. To accomplish this purpose the following objectives will be pursued: 1) A

determination of the Circuit Clerk’s perceptions of the current personnel needs. 2) Identification of

the most significant quantifiable factors. 3) Development of a workload measurement system

based on the quantifiable factors identified. 4) Development of the framework for the measurement

system to be utilized throughout the office. 5) Comparisons of perceptions about effectiveness and

efficiencies among staff and the public.

Once developed, these criteria and workload measures should serve as an important means

by which the Circuit Clerk can have some type of benchmark (standard, average, mean) as a

management tool.

Approach

An extensive search of work measurement literature was conducted. Many journals, papers

and books were reviewed. Topical areas reviewed were work measurement, time and motion

studies, productivities, organizations, psychology, decision theories and quality improvements.

11

Several methodologies were examined for applicability to the kinds of work processes used in the

courts and the most promising of these were identified.

Realizing that there is a distinct difference in the productivity of an organization and the

productivity of a single work unit of that organization, Sardina and Vrat (1987) indicates that the

goal for each level of the organization should differ to represent the contribution that specific level

expects to make towards the overall organizational goals. Therefore, each level’s productivity

evaluation should be different, reflecting its unique goals. Productivity may be viewed in a

parallel manner, with macro-productivity, referring to productivity at the national level, micro-

productivity, referring to productivity at the business level, and nano-productivity referring to

productivity at sub-organizational levels (Thor 1998). This report was written at the level of nano-

productivity, where more detail is involved and where productivity evaluation must take into

account different types of work. The work at this level is when the output is mainly intangible, the

input is not clearly definable and a high degree of individual discretion in the task is involved.

Measurement discussed in this report is a determination of the labor involved in the tasks

performed by the work group.

In order to achieve the primary goals mentioned above, the Associate Civil Docketing and

the Summons/Central Control areas were chosen for the research. The Associate Civil Division

processes more cases than any other division in the Circuit Clerk’s Office. Developing a

measurement system using this division along with it’s variety and it’s volume, would allow for

minor adjustments to be made when the measurement system would be used in other divisions

throughout the office. Table 1 reveals the filings and dispositions per case type for calendar year

2001, 21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County. The Associate Civil Cases and Department of

Revenue Cases (includes Petitions for Review, Blood Alcohol and Hardship Driving) were

12

identified for this study because they are processed in the same physical areas. The Small Claims

division, although a division within the Associate Civil Department, is not a part of the study.

Table 1: Calendar Year Filings and Dispositions, St. Louis County Circuit Clerk

Calendar Year Filings Calendar Year Dispositions Case Type # Filed % Filed Case Type #'s Disposed % Disposed Circuit Civil 4595 5% Circuit Civil 4593 5% Family Court 13521 16% Family Court 13391 15% Circuit Criminal 5340 6% Circuit Criminal 5184 6% Assoc. Criminal 5163 6% Assoc. Criminal 5021 6% Traffic 15027 18% Traffic 16582 19% Juvenile 6688 8% Juvenile 6864 8% Assoc. Civil 30397 36% Assoc. Civil 30063 35% Dept of Revenue 1797 2% Dept of Revenue 1836 2% Small Claims 2844 3% Small Claims 3105 4% Total 85372 Total 86639

These two areas where chosen because of the distinct manners in which work is processed.

The Associate Civil Docketing’s work although high volume also varies with each assignment and

the process is not easily tracked. On the other hand Summons/Central Control’s work is very

structured, repetitive and also high volume but it is easier to measure.

When developing a workload measuring system several factors were taken into

consideration:

1) There had to be a common agreement with the Circuit Clerk that employees’

productivity could be measured.

13

2) Two divisions with distinct processing methods would be chosen to determine if minor

adjustments within the measurement system would sustain the simplicity and flexibility

of the measurement system developed.

3) The workers would need to be involved in the establishment and evaluation of the

measures of productivity.

4) A survey questionnaire would be developed to determine the extent in which the

divisions are able to perform their tasks and meet the Trial Court Performance

Standards. See table 2, Trial Court Performance Standards.

5) A survey questionnaire would be developed for administrators, to consider in the

development phase, administrators concerns or interest in a workload measurement

system.

In developing a workload measurement system for determining the workload processes, the

question has to be asked: 1) How can I develop a workload process measuring system that would

become the framework for measuring work processes within the Office of the Circuit Clerk? 2)

How can I as the clerk, use the information collected?

Table 2: Trial Court Performance Standards (National Center For State Courts)

Access to Justice Public Proceedings; Safety, Accessibility and Convenience; Effective Participation; Courtesy, Responsiveness and Respect; Affordable Cost of Access

Expedition and Timeliness Case Processing; Compliance with Schedules; Prompt implementation of Law and Procedures

Equality, Fairness and Integrity Fair and Reliable Judicial Process; Juries; Court Decisions and Actions; Clarity; Responsibility for Enforcement; Production and Preservation of Records

Independence and Accountability Independence and Comity; Accountability for Public Resources; Personnel Practices and Decisions; Public Education; Response to Change

Public Trust and Confidence Accessibility; Expeditious, Fair and Reliable Court Functions; Judicial Independence and Accountability

14

Applicability of Workload Measurements

It is clear that any measurement techniques used to evaluate a work group should match the

content of the work being performed by that group. In some units, each type of work performed

may require different types of measurements (Thor 1987; Drucker 1974).

In order to realize the applicability of the workload measurements, the following must be assured:

1. The work must be countable, it should be describable in precise quantitative terms such as

(a case, a form, a letter or a document).

2. The work must be done in a repetitive, reasonably uniform manner.

3. The work must be homogeneous in content over a period of time so that it is consistent

from one period to the next.

4. There must be a sufficient volume of work done in a regular manner, to make it

worthwhile to count and maintain records

Given these guidelines, it is clear that most of the work done by any court employee can be

measured. However, it would not be used where it is necessary to employ someone regardless of

work volume. For example, a clerk’s office in a small rural county would have to have a

minimum of staff regardless of the number of cases filed in that jurisdiction. It is understood

that in order to provide judicial service in even the smallest county that there is a threshold upon

which the court staff cannot fall below in order to just keep “the doors open.” In these situations,

a minimum staffing formula should be developed.

Judicial and staff cooperation is a major consideration before initiating any workload study.

A meeting was held with the immediate supervisors of the docketing and summons section to

explain the intent and methodology of the study in an effort to win their support. Winning

management support will help to win the support of line personnel. Because people generally do

15

not like to feel they are being watched or evaluated, the employees were well briefed prior to

conducting the study. An introductory letter was given to each employee, the letter briefly

described the methodology and purpose of the study. See Appendix D, Developing Performance

Workload Measurements Letter to Employees. A meeting followed with each employee. This

communication briefing was an effort to win their cooperation. Employees were brought into the

project by allowing questions and suggestions that helped structure the study.

In addition, a review of relevant literature regarding workload measurements, time and

motion studies, court management studies, customer relations and employee perception studies

helped in the preparation of the administrative questionnaire. The staff questionnaire and the

attorney questionnaire followed the same format. The literature review also provided insight

into the overall development and formation of the study. The methodology section of this paper

will outline the steps taken to access and analyze the data.

The results of the study provided a workload measuring system that could be used as a

framework for measuring workload processes within the Office of the Circuit Clerk.

Final Recommendations are:

Utilize the workload processing measurements and tools as outlined in this research to

develop performance standards for each division within the Office of the Circuit Clerk, St.

Louis County.

After findings have been determined within all divisions, use that information to reallocate

staff, restructure and realign the organization as to increase productivity and improve

overall management of the courts.

16

Review of Relevant Literature

The literature reviews shows that workload measurements are discussed from a wide

variety of viewpoints. A variety of implementation methodologies have been developed for

different applications. What seems to be lacking is a concept that unifies these diverse views.

Relevant literature reviewed in the development of a working outline for this study was

literature regarding workload processing measurements, time and motion studies, staffing

standard models, evaluating worker productivity, decision theory and quality improvement.

From the review and study of the documentation, measuring tools and methods were identified

and used in the development of the administrative, attorney and staff surveys. This Information

was also used to develop the data collection and instruction forms.

The most pertinent information used to structure the project was taken from: Evaluating

Knowledge Worker Productivity: Literature Review by Beverly E.Thomas and John P. Barron.

Workload Measurements in the Courts, by Harry O Lawson and Barbara J. Gletne. Staffing

Standard Model for Court Clerks’ Offices in the Commonwealth of Kentucky by Court Services

Division, Denver Colorado. Assessing the Need for Judges and Support Staff by Victore E.

Flango and Brian J. Ostrom and Staffing Levels in the Clerk’s Office, District Courts Division

11tth Judicial Circuit, Miami Dade County, Florida, by Eliada Rivers. The literature provided

the identifying elements to focus on in the study. It provided research and history of workload

measurements, measurement concepts and terms, the methodologies and the data instruments to

use in this study.

The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action, Donald A. Schon, and

Strategic Issues in Public Sector Productivity, by Marc Holzer and Arie Halachmi provided

insight into management and their sensitivity to the phenomena of uncertainty, change, and

17

uniqueness and the measuring requirements for efficiency, effectiveness, service quality and

equity in government organizations. This, in addition to the Court Performance Standards

Guiding the Courts into the Future Course, by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, provided

direction with determining the questions for the administrators, staff and attorney survey

questionnaires.

Methodology

Multiple Regression analysis and work sampling were used in this study. The Multiple

Regression System (MRS) was chosen because the work output and labor hours were easily

obtainable. The four basic elements of information necessary to develop a MRS system are:

1. A clear purpose of the Multiple Regression System

2. Specification of the activity elements for which unit times are being sought

3. An assessment of the scope of the study

4. Counts of the frequency of occurrence of the activity elements

The purpose of the MRS is to determine the amount of time to process a specific document

or post request (such as a transcript judgment request) through the analysis of the number of

requests prepared. The total time spent at work and the various documents processed were

identified as the known activity elements for which unit times were being sought.

The assessment of the scope of the study was determined when it was decided that the

number of days sampled was sufficient to represent the work of the court clerks. Estimating

available time for clerks is a critical step. This process involves two steps, 1) Determining the

number of total hours per year. 2) Subtracting the average number of sick, vacation, holiday

and training hours used each year. This reflects how much time is available to each clerk for

18

case processing. Deputy clerks in Missouri have a 37.5 hour workweek. The number of hours

multiplied by 52.2 weeks in a year is 1, 957.5 total number of hours available per year. Sick,

vacation, holiday and estimated training hours are subtracted from this figure to produce the

number of hours available to clerks to devote to work processing. Table 3 reveals how the

clerk availability time was calculated.

Table 3: Hours Available Per Year for Case Processing

Hours Available Per Year for Case Processing

Total Hours Available Per year: 1,957.50

Subtract:

Sick Leave 120.00

Annual Leave 120.00

Holidays 96.00

Training 16.00

Total Hours Available: 1,605.50

In addition the total time used by the clerk was identified in the log sheets when clerks

logged their personal time and unavoidable delays. The clerks also logged the number of

documents being processed so that the frequency of occurrences could be captured.

Work Sampling was also a part of the methodology used. After using the MRS and

determining the approximate time that it takes for example to process “an order” those elements

were then defined and categorized as part of a particular task. The available hours were calculated

and the methods were correlated with the corresponding fluctuations in output. Observations were

19

made, the number of minutes/hours spent for each task was calculated, and the time per unit of

work was established.

Data Collection Instruments

• An employee survey was used to get employees’ perceptions of their work performance.

(See Appendix N, Development of Workload Measures, Staff Questionnaire).

• An administrative survey questionnaire was used in an effort to get feedback from court

administrators concerning their use and benefit of a workload measurement system tool.

(See Appendix E, Development of Workload Measurements, Administrative

Questionnaire).

• A data information form was distributed to employees in order to log a step-by-step process

of each task being performed. (See Appendix I.J.K, Data Collection Information Form).

Those processes were timed and then reviewed and compared in order to identify

inefficiencies in the workflow process.

• A data collection form was used for employees to log their time. (See Appendix L, Data

Collection Form.)

A pretest was conducted on the instruments and as a result no changes were made to the

forms. Eleven employees participated in the data collection and time logging study in the

Associate Docketing Section. (See Appendix L, Data Collection Event Form) Only five

employees in that area participated in the study. (See Appendix J, Data Collection Information

Form). Six of the employees were new and still in training. Seven employees in the

Summons/Central Control Section fully participated. See table 4, organizational chart for the

Associate Civil Department, St. Louis County Circuit Clerk’s Office.

20

Table 4: Associate Civil Department Organizational Chart

Assoc. Civil Manager #090 Unit Manager II

Assistant Manager #246 Court Clerk V Vacant

Garnishments Court Clerk IV Position # 224

Small Claims Court Clerk III Position # III

Summons/ Control /File room Court Clerk IV Position # 214

Docketing Court Clerk IV Position # 164

Position # 204 CCIII Position # 189 CCII Position # 222 CCII Position # 251 CCII Position # 198 CCII Position # 198 CCI Position # 276 CCI Position # 179 CCI

Position # 232 CCI Position # 236 CCII

Position # 162 CCII Position # 165 CCII Position # A86 CCII Position # 191 CCII Position # 235 CCII Position # 275 Vacant Position # 268 Vacant Position # 192 CCII Position # 233 CCI Position # 249 RCII

Position # 181 CCII Position # 169 CCII Position # 188 Vacant Position # 197 CCII Position # 208 CCII Position # 217 CCII Position # 247 Vacant Position # 243 Vacant Position # 052 CCII Position # 241 CCII Position # 243 CCII Position # 256 CCII Position # 279 CCII

Three weeks was the length of chosen time for the data collection, this allowed enough

time for all task to occur. The data was collected daily and reviewed by the immediate

supervisor for quality control, corrections and time calculations. The immediate supervisor

would then document time for the day’s tasks and log processing events. The time for the tasks

or processing events were then recorded on a weekly log and an average time for each task or

21

event was estimated at the end of the three-week period. The estimate of time for each task

event was derived from the review.

Initially there was confusion among some employees who were not following instructions

concerning the logging on the data collection form. Examples were they were not logging the

number of documents being processed or they were grouping tasks together and giving a start and

end time for that group of tasks rather than for individual tasks being performed. These employees

were briefed again on the instructions and the errors were corrected.

22

Findings

Developing a workload measurement system: A common theme among researchers is

that knowledge worker’s productivity can be measured (Bernard 1986: Sink 1984: Anthony 1984:

Magliola-Zoch 1984). These writers offer several suggestions to make measurement simpler and

acceptable to the workers.

There are barriers to applying current work measurement methods. Productivity

measurement systems are often unwelcome to both managers and workers (Sink 1987). It is

critical to prepare the work area to be analyzed. Preparing the area in some manner makes it

possible to implement a work measurement system. Historically, work measurement systems

have produced detailed and highly organized results. The approach must be very structured and

well documented. People are highly reluctant to accept anything less structured, less well

documented, less detailed, and less accurate. Perhaps the strongest objection to knowledge

worker productivity is that its results are inaccurate (Chew 1988) Still it is better to measure

inaccurately than not at all.

First, the work should be categorized by content (Helton1991; Strassman 1985), as work

content is not one-dimensional. The authors propose categorizing work by eight components as

detailed in Table 5. The proposed methodology is expected to be refined over time. The authors

suggest that this approach demonstrates that the best way to describe work is by its component

content. Using this approach gave a true picture of the work structure and allowed a match of

measurement techniques.

The measures discussed in this study are for measuring the amount of work done.

Indirectly, these affect productivity. It is also a determination of the labor involved in the tasks

performed by the work group.

23

Table 5: Table of Work Component Descriptions

Component Description Decision making The application of knowledge in the determination of how to process the

work. This application of knowledge differentiates decision making from simple choices such as “stamp” or “do not stamp.”

Complexity The difficulty of the job. This component involves the number and difficulty of decisions and the amount of knowledge needed.

Knowledge Use The amount and complexity of information required to do the work. Structured Structure involves constraints on how, when, where and what is done.

Both complex and simple work can be very structured. The assembly-line job is usually fairly simple, but very structured. A legal case can be very complex, but it also is very structured.

Repetitive A function done the same way every time and will always be done the same way. If the job changes each time, then it is not repetitive.

Volume The number of times the profiled activity will occur in a give time cycle. This can be expressed in may ways, which will affect the gauge of high-low. To eliminate the relative value of this component, volume will be based on the number of completed actions per year.

Time per Job The total time spent completing the job from start to finish. Skilled Activity The physical difficulty of performing the work. This inversely relates to

the mental difficulty or complexity. There are activities that require both skilled physical and mental activity-surgery, for example.

Complex measures often produce the most accurate results, but they are the most difficult

to implement and often the most time-consuming. Very simple measures like employees logging

their time usually produce less accurate results compared to using a stopwatch however, these

measures are simple to implement and require less time. Simple measures are the most generally

applicable and can be used with any type of work. Table 6 groups techniques starting with the

most complex and ending with the simplest. The groupings are based on the complexity of the

measures. The techniques in category 2 were used in this study because set up involved simple

measures designed to be performed by those involved in the normal workflow. However, the

preparation in this category was difficult because the work had to be understood so that valid

measures could be designed.

24

Table 6: Table of Work Measurement Categories

WORK MEASUREMENT CATEGORIES Group Description Techniques

1 Complex setup, Complex implementation

Predetermined time-motion studies, Stop-watch studies, Logging

2 Complex setup, Simple implementation

Self-logging, Sampling, Counting

3 Simpler setup, Moderate implementation

Committee, Estimation

The work content in this study prohibits a high degree of accuracy and cost is a major

deterrent to measurement. Implementation, cost and accuracy was a concern when considering the

development of a workload measuring system. Because measurement techniques vary in

implementation, cost and accuracy, this study used the self-logging sampling measurement

technique, which was complex to setup. However, the implementation was simple, the accuracy

is moderate and the cost was low. Table 7 is a summary of measurement technique effort,

accuracy and cost that was used in determining the methodologies used in this study.

Table 7: Summary of measurement technique effort, accuracy and cost.

SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE EFFORT, ACCURACY AND COST Measurement Technique Set up Implementation Accuracy Cost Predetermined time-motion, stopwatch and logging.

Complex Complex High High

Self-logging, sampling Complex Simple Moderate Moderate Committee evaluation estimation Simple Simple Low Low

First, the workers must participate in the establishment and evaluation of the measures of

productivity. The more they are involved, the less likely they will feel threatened. An

introduction memo to employees (see Appendix D, Memo to Notify Staff of Workload

Measurement Project) and an interview to get their input was conducted. Employees suggested

25

that a period of three weeks would be a good data collection period to capture all tasks.

Employees also identified the list of elements to be studied (see Appendix B, O, Elements Involved

in the Various Processing Methods). The frequency of the elements identified was important

when calculating time.

An employee survey questionnaire, (see Appendix N, Staff Questionnaire), was

developed to get the employees perspective of their job performance. Results from this

questionnaire are found in Table 8. Comments made on this questionnaire are found in Appendix

A, Clerks Comments Received from Questionnaire. One observation of the employee

questionnaire points out that there was a tendency for employees to consistently agree and where

they disagreed, that was also consistent. This survey revealed that there was a problem in the

issuance of summonses and that employee’s perception is that we are understaffed.

26

Table 8: Staff Questionnaire Results Responses 4 and 5 (right of 3) are represented in the “Strongly Agree” column, and responses 1 and 2 (left of 3) are represented in the “Strongly Disagree” column. The neutral responses (3) are not represented in my analysis but can be reviewed in Appendix S, Staff Survey Questionnaire Results

Survey Question Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

Individuals can obtain information on a case quickly and easily.

88% 2%

Personnel in Associate Civil are courteous, helpful and polite to attorneys and the general public.

88% 7%

Clerks take the proper time to provide accurate information to attorneys and the general public

97% 3%

New clerks are trained sufficiently. 89% 6%

Summonses are issued within 24 hours of being filed.

31% 38%

This office is adequately staffed to handle the work or caseload.

59% 15%

Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the initial filing of the case.

79% 0%

Landlord tenant cases are given priority dates.

81% 3%

Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

86% 0%

Notices of court date or docket changes are timely.

90% 0%

Continuances of trial dates are monitored and controlled

100% 0%

Some parts of my work would be more effective if processed in another section/division

73% 8%

Clerks were given instructions (see Appendix H, Workload Measurement Logging

Instructions), the data collection form (see Appendix L, Data Collection Form and the code

descriptions in Appendix M, Code Descriptions). These documents were instrumental in

collecting and logging data for the study. Any process that seems too complex to measure is likely

to have less complex sub-processes, which are easier to measure. One should always use the best

measure for the job, even if several different measures must be pursued for different processes.

One should not expect absolute accuracy, but seek the best that is practical. Finally, regardless of

the shortcomings, measuring is better than not measuring (Bernard 1986; Sink 1984; Anthony

27

1984; Magliola-Zoch 1984). Therefore the best measure for the job had to be pursued due to the

variances in processing methods in Associate Civil Docketing as it compares favorably to

processing methods in the Summons/Central Control Section.

A letter to attorneys, (see Appendix F, Letter to Attorneys Regarding Questionnaire), and

an attorney questionnaire (see Appendix G, Attorney Questionnaire) was mailed to 294 attorneys.

We received 101 returned responses. Questions on the questionnaire were developed from actual

services being performed on a daily basis that are meaningful to the attorneys. The results of the

attorney questionnaire are shown in Table 9, below. This table reveals that there is a strong

customer satisfaction among lawyers and the satisfaction expressed is more than the employees

expected. The questionnaire revealed problems in the area of the issuance of summons and even

though the survey does not reflect in numbers a big problem in the transcript, certified and

authenticated copy area, the critical comments written by attorneys, Appendix C, Attorneys

Comments, reveals a need to improve processing in this area.

Table 9: Attorney Questionnaire Results

Responses 4 and 5 (right of 3) are represented in the “Strongly Agree” column, and responses 1 and 2 (left of 3) are represented in the “Strongly Disagree” column. The neutral responses (3) are not represented in my analysis. Actual Data may be found in Appendix T, Attorney Questionnaire Responses

Survey Question Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

Adequate time is given to me when requested of the docket clerk.

85%

2%

Personnel are courteous, helpful and polite. 82% 6%

Announcements when called in are received and documented accurately.

81% 4%

There is very good communications between the docket clerk and attorney regarding case management.

74% 7%

Summonses are issued within 24 hours of being filed. 27% 41% Alias summons are processed in time for the next available docket date.

48% 24%

Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the summons issuance date.

74% 8%

Landlord tenant cases are given prompt court dates. 41% 9%

28

Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

80% 9%

Notices of court date or docket changes are timely. 81% 5% Continuances of trial dates are monitored. 81% 3% Transcripts, authenticated and certified copy requests are processed in a timely manner.

53% 18%

A letter explaining the project found in Appendix P, Letter to Administrators and a

questionnaire, Appendix E, Administrator’s Questionnaire, was mailed to the Circuit Clerk of 40

Jurisdictions in Missouri, chosen at random. Questionnaires were also sent to the two jurisdictions

comparable in size to St. Louis County. There was an approximate 30% response rate. Results

and comments are in Appendix Q, Administrator’s Results and Comments. The majority of the

respondents felt, there was no interest or benefit to having a workload measuring system that

would measure their work processes. It should be noted those responders were from smaller

courts. The administrator’s perceptions regarding performance standards and work measurements

shed light on the fact that until the study conducted in California, by the Judicial Council, initiated

it’s weighted caseload study in 1963, workload measures had been virtually ignored as a planning

and management tool in the courts.

The clerks listed a step-by-step process for each task performed, see Appendix I, J, K, Data

Collection Form. A review of the elements being performed for each task and the steps in which

they were performed were considered by the employees as crucial steps in the efficiency of the

work process. Even though the end results were the same, the time differences were realized in the

manner in which employees performed those tasks and had a real impact on the organization.

The time for each task being performed was logged on a weekly basis. The times were

later averaged and calculated for that task or element. To calculate the time for a task being

performed in the Summons/Central Control area where the work content is high volume but

repetitive, the time was logged for each specific element that was being studied. Interruptions

29

such as phone calls were noted and the total time was then calculated. In calculating the time, the

individual task times were averaged. Frequency of events were determined, (for example an order

of publication is processed on 10% of the cases) those orders or events were calculated at the

percentage rate. After all of the time estimates were determined, the various tasks and events were

entered under major categories to determine if the Associate Civil Docketing and Summons

Divisions were adequately staffed. (Table 10 reveals the major categories and how this works for

measuring workload). For example, the average time required to process a Civil Case is 48

minutes.

The workload standard is calculated by first converting the 48 minutes into a fraction of an

hour. Forty-eight minutes is .78 of an hour. This fraction of an hour is divided into the number of

hours available to clerks to perform case processing functions (1,605.50). This result is 2,095

cases per year for processing, per clerk. There are 13.75 clerks in the Associate Civil Docketing

area. The number of cases to be processed per clerk (2,095) was multiplied by the number of

clerks (13.75) within the division and it revealed 28, 298 cases for processing, per year. This

division does not process Department of Revenue cases, as does the Summons Division. The total

number of cases processed within the Associate Civil Docketing section for calendar year 2001

was 30, 397 cases. The number of cases per year, per clerk (28, 298) was then subtracted from the

number of cases filed per year (30,397) to reveal an overage of 2,099 cases, more than what is

required for an additional clerk.

30

Table 10: Associate Civil Case Example -See Appendix B, Elements involved in the Various Processing Methods-Associate Civil Docketing, for detailed descriptions of functions listed under each category)

Category Function Case Management: Entering sheriff returns; receiving announcements; entering minutes; issuing alias summons; preparing and mailing notices; retrieving and filing case files Call Docket Hearing Time: Preparing call dockets scheduling motion and trial dates, courtroom activities Judgments: Receiving judgments, entering judgments, mailing judgments, continuing cases; preparing dismissal dockets Other Case Activity: Processing orders; processing transcript judgments, processing certified mail, certified and authenticated copies; assisting litigants& attorneys by phone and in person; opening file stamping mail; answer correspondence

Processing Minutes 15 11 7 15

TOTAL MINUTES TO PROCESS 48

The Summons/Central Control section processes both Associate Civil cases and

Department of Revenue Cases. The Department of Revenue cases are generated in Central

Control and initiated in the Summons area (Central Control is a subdivision of the Summons

division). When calculating time for this section the number of Associate Civil cases and the

Department of Revenue cases were considered. Because the Department of Revenue cases

requires no summonses, time was not determined for those cases when processing summons or

31

with the other activities. Those cases are generated and initiated (see generate cases and case

initiation) Appendix O, Elements Involved in the Various Processing Methods-Central Control

and Summons. The cases are then forwarded to the assigned division for case maintenance, activity

and docketing. The same scenario as above was used in determining if the Summons/Central

Control division was adequately staffed. The tasks were grouped under categories. The minutes

to process a case in these areas came to 29 minutes. The minutes were converted to a fraction of

an hour (.48) and then divided into the number of available hours per clerk (1,605.50) this resulted

into (3,345) cases per clerk, per year. There are 8.75 clerks processing cases in this area. The

number of cases calculated per year, per clerk (3,345) was then multiplied by the number of clerks

(8.75). This came to 29,267 cases for adequate processing within the division. The number of

Associate Civil cases and Department of Revenue cases filed for calendar year 2001 was (33,244)

cases. One hundred percent of them were generated and initiated. This left an overage of (3,977)

cases for processing. This also justifies the need for an additional clerk in the Summons/Central

Control division.

The potential for a work measurement system goes far beyond the process of determining

the volume of work done by any given employee. Its real impact is realized when the results are

translated into budgets, increased productivity, or when attempting to improve the overall

management of the court. Workload measures or standards, while certainly not a solution to all

problems, can be very helpful in managing and monitoring court operations (Lawson, Gletne,

1980).

Based on the results of this report. The knowledge and information obtained while doing

the study, the feasibility of the study and most of all the justification realized, the workload

measurement system developed would benefit the Office of the Circuit Clerk.

32

Conclusion

Extensive review of the literature indicates that workload measuring systems, even though

acknowledged by court administrators and clerks, lags far behind in practical implementation. The

causes of this lag are based on the perception that knowledge work is un-measurable and of little

significance. (Thomas and Baron, 1994)

Important Conclusions Drawn from the Study

Notwithstanding the comments of Thomas and Baron above this study will show that a

workload measurement system can become the framework for measuring workload processes

within the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk’s office and that the measurement system may be a

critical tool for use by the Circuit Clerk to reallocate staff, restructure or realign their organization.

The study concluded that there is a need for (2 FTE) one in Associate Civil Docketing

section, see page 31 and one in the Summons/Central Control section, see page 32, of the Circuit

Clerk’s Office, St. Louis County. The workload measurement system, with the methodologies

used in this study, may be used to measure workload processes within each division of the Circuit

Clerk’s Office and allow the clerk the information needed to make informed decisions within the

office, with the limited resources available.

Just as timeliness is seminal to American jurisprudence (Ostrom and Hanson, 1999),

effectiveness and efficiency in work processing within the courts is critical to such timeliness.

Court Administrators or Circuit Clerks faced with the situation that the court system in Missouri is

now experiencing can use the methodologies and processes outlined in this study. These

methodologies can also be used to determine resource needs internally to justify reallocating staff

and to become more efficient in their work processing methods as well as providing customer

service.

33

The current study involved two divisions within the Associate Civil Department of the

Circuit Clerk’s office. These divisions had distinct work processing methods. Two different

methodologies were used, one was called work sampling and the other is the multiple regression

system. Because two methodologies were used minor adjustments had to be made in how the data

was collected and analyzed. The benefits of this study outweighed by far the work that went into it

by staff and it provided the Circuit Clerk of St. Louis County and could provide any administrator

or clerk of the court a tool for process improvements and for managing resources.

In summary, administrators or clerks concerned with improving productivity, developing work

processing standards, providing good service, managing resources and making effective decisions

internally, need to begin by acknowledging the potential of and benefits derived from developing a

workload measurement system.

Implementing a Workload Measurement System

The first step in implementing a workload measurement system would be to involve the

participants in the planning, evaluation and in the establishing of the process. Second, a thorough

look at current work processing practices in order to become knowledgeable of the operation.

Also it is important to reach a working consensus with participants about its goals. Third, classify

the work by its component parts to better determine the types of measurements that should be

employed. The work to be analyzed should be classified by its components (decision-making,

complexity, knowledge use, structure, repetition, volume, time and skill level) as identified in table

5 of this study. Fourth, after the work is classified, the measuring techniques should be determined

by matching the components to the measuring techniques identified in table 6 of this study. The

complexity of the measurement technique is often a good indicator of the type of work that is best

suited to be measured. This facilitates the understanding of the work and how to best measure it so

34

that the measurement techniques can be evaluated. The complexity of the work should not be a

roadblock to measurement, but should only indicate which measuring technique is most

appropriate. Fifth, the data must be collected and analyzed.

The results concluded that a workload measurement system would benefit the Office of the

Circuit Clerk, St. Louis County. It also concluded that there is a need for resources in the

Associate Civil Department, St. Louis County.

Summary of Benefits are:

• Work processes are defined which allows the Circuit Clerk and managers to

become more knowledgeable in order to determine their department’s degree of

success in meeting its established goals and those provided to it through the Trial

Court Performance Standards.

• The Circuit Clerk is now equipped with an instrument that can be used throughout

the Clerk’s office to measure workload processes and make informed decisions.

• Attorneys expressed appreciation for being allotted the opportunity with the survey

questionnaire to express their opinions through answering questions of concern and

by given the opportunity to make comments. The court administrator or manager

can use feedback from the survey questionnaires to improve customer service and

to perfect work processing efficiencies.

• Obtaining feedback from the employees perspective are pertinent to the overall

work performance of the office. This could also be used as a management tool to

improve work processes, the work environment and morale. The court

administrator or manager can get a feel for the departmental culture as well as

identify and address concerns or issues that may never get discussed.

35

Based on the results of the study, my recommendations are as follows:

Utilize the workload processing measurements and tools outlined in this research to

develop performance standards for each division in the Office of the Circuit Clerk, St.

Louis County.

After findings have been determined in all divisions, use the information to reallocate staff,

restructure or realign the organization as to increase productivity and improve overall

management of the courts.

36

Appendix A

CLERK’S COMMENTS RECEIV ED FROM QUESTIONNAIRE

1. It would be more accurate if the Judge’s Clerks would enter pleadings that they have in

their office with files. Often times files will come back to docketing with a months worth of pleadings not entered into the computer. In my opinion these files have not been accurate according to computer for that period of time.

2. I think changes of judge and jury trials should be docket clerks responsibility. 3. In regard to certified mail returns, I feel the file room should be responsible for the filing of

the return letters/envelopes. I also feel that summons should be processing alias and pluries summons.

4. Personnel are not always courteous, helpful and polite to attorneys and the general public. Personnel should be trained more to help the attorney and general public more adequately. They should be given more data to answer questions. Personnel should also be more willing to help.

37

Appendix B

ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUS PROCESSING METHODS ASSOCIATE CIVIL DOCKETING

1. ENTERING SHERIFF RETURNS: The returns are received in mail, the time and date

are stamped on the paper, returns are separated by date, files are pulled, the index is then updated by entering (case #, party #, minute date, service date, service type and amount if applicable) minutes are printed, minutes and returns are place in file folder, files are re-filed in docket drawer.

2. PREPARING DOCKETS: Order dockets, separate dockets, mail and distribute dockets,

verify trial and motion docket information with schedule, attach minutes to dockets, pull files on that docket, locate any missing files, enter all minutes into case files, update docket manually with service information received after docket was ordered or with special information for the judge, number case files in accordance to how they are lined numbered on the docket sheet, file cases in basket in line number order.

3. RECEIVING ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM BULK FILERS: Insure that you have a

summons, continuance and a dismissal date. Pull docket, identify that particular bulk filer’s cases, receive attorney’s announcements (what they will do with that particular case i.e. continue it, dismiss it, request alias summons, etc.) and mark the docket accordingly.

4. ENTERING MINUTES: Minutes are received, date time stamp pleading, pull case file,

update the index with the appropriate minute entry, check the document with a red check mark, file minute into court file, re-file case file or relocate to another area for further action.

5. ISSUING ALIAS/PLURIES SUMMONES: Request for alias/pluries summons is

received, date stamp request, pull case file, verify appropriate form for special process server, whether it is a foreign sheriff or that there is a check for service by St. Louis County Sheriff, verify fee accuracy, assign new court date, issue summons, place summons for St. Louis County Sheriff in sheriff’s basket on the date it is issued, mail attorney all other summonses on issued date.

6. ENTERING JUDGMENTS: Case files are received from the division, verify judge’s signature is on judgment, verify that the judgment is date stamped, enter judgment into the judgment screen, print and place minutes into the court file, locate file to closed file room, place file in appropriate basket for file room pickup.

7. ENTERING CONTINUANCES: Identify continuance files on docket and separate

from all other files, Date stamp continuance memos, enter continuances on continuance screen, file case files by continuance date.

38

8. ORDERS OF PUBLICATION/UNLAWFUL DETAINERS: Date stamp order, check form for compliance, verify fees, set case on docket 30 days out, send to division for Judge’s signature, seal Judge’s signature, Issue order per instructions, sign order, make copies, write case number, vc & bar number of checks, separate copies, affix checks, prepare certified mail and regular mail.

9. ORDERS OF PUBLICATION/NEWSPAPER: Receive order and notice from

attorney, verify proper completion, date stamp documents, determine newspaper run date, take order to legal counsel for signature, set case on docket, court date, sign notice, place order and notice in file, copy notice, mail notice, prepare certified mail.

10. BODY ATTACHMENTS: Check for date stamp, verify proper completion of form, set

on court date, take to Judge to set bond and sign, verify proper fee, take to St. Louis County Sheriff for processing.

11. TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGEMENTS/CERTIFIED COPIES: Verify or date stamp

request, inquire to locate file, request file from closed file room or pull file from garnishment area, verify proper fee is received with request, remove fee and put pass to supervisor, make copy of judgment, stamp with transcript or certified stamp, sign in appropriate area provided by stamp, seal name, enter minute into system, mail or contact attorney for pickup.

12. AUTHENTICATED COPIES: Check for date stamp, verify that proper fee is received with requests, locate case file and request or pull file, type authentication certificate, seal

the judge’s name on the judgment, staple the judgment on top of the certificate, take file to the Circuit Clerk for signature, take file to the appropriate Judge for signature, affix a raised seal on the authenticated certificate, enter minute code, mail authenticated copy of call for pickup.

13. COURTROOM DUTIES: Arrive in courtroom by 8:30 a.m., post continuance dates on

the chalk board, distribute docket sheets to the judge, bailiff, clerk, table, insure that memos and forms are in supply on table in courtroom, receive last minute announcements, receive and file stamp memos being filed by attorneys in the courtroom, set trials and motions, answer questions from attorneys and clients, go through docket as judge calls cases identifying and separating them accordingly, pass files with judgments to be entered to attorneys, take all files not needing Judge’s signature back to office to clear docket.

14. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES: Answer phone calls, pull files to enter certified mail

returns in files, enter minutes from certified mail returns, contact attorneys with problem files, send post cards to no shows and assist walk in attorneys and litigants, pull files and prepare memos for special dockets i.e. service or dismissal dockets and bankruptcy dockets, walk files to divisions for judge’s signatures, mail notices.

39

Appendix C

ATTORNEYS COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Returns of service are not always ready and marked before court dates. This may be a problem with the sheriff’s department rather than the clerk’s office. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with the service received by the Associate Circuit Clerk’s Office. Occasionally have experienced clerks with negative attitude but has been rare. Almost all the clerks are very helpful when I have a problem. Concerned about the slowness in receiving summons after filing cases. Seems to take too long to find out what the case number is and the court date. Perhaps the problem is with the mail system. Retrieving files from storage and notifying attorney can be slow. Seems to have improved recently. Turn around time for new cases filed (bulk filings) have improved somewhat, but the wait is still two or more weeks.

2 Generally St Louis County does an excellent job from an administrative stand- point. Some times early scheduling conferences cause a problem for later added defendant or defendants that are not yet served.

3 No recent experience with docket clerk. Had bad experience with summons more than a year ago, nothing recent.

4 Takes 1-11/2 months to process transcripts, authenticated and certified copies. 5 Instead of 4 weeks next court date tends to be 6-7 weeks. 6 There have been serious delays in receiving garnishments back from the court. This results

in delays in our ability to forward garnishment request to the sheriff’s office in a timely manner. Concerns never go away or get fixed. Transcripts take forever. You are 4 times better than the City Clerk. Your turnover is too high and we are running into inexperience problems. I understand the workload is great for each clerk, but if I have questions when I telephone a clerk, seldom do I get an adequate response. Notices of conference and trial settings are often sent out before attorney enters for defendant. They are then sent to the client, who assumes attorney knows about it, so attorney never gets it. This has happened to me numerous times and I have missed settings. Once any attorney enters on a case, all notices should immediately be sent to him/her.

7 Too much delay between clerks and sheriff’s department. Better/quicker handling of mailed in filings would be helpful for all attorneys not located in Clayton.

8 Our only issue is with summons. Occasionally we have found that our summons was not prepared until the week before our hearing or if an alias was necessary it wasn’t complete in time to keep our hearing date. Also, certified copies take entirely too long (2 months for 1 page).

9 Frequently, mail is not sealed properly and gets torn in the mailing process. Summons including alias may be issued timely, however frequently they aren’t mailed or received in a timely manner.

10 I recently filed a case on October 17th, I did not receive the summons until October 26 for service by a Special Process Server. The court date is 11/4 and I did not have adequate time to serve the defendant prior to this date. Either later return date or more prompt summons issuance would help this situation. Otherwise I have had good experience with the docketing and other clerks in Associate Civil, especially Div. 39T docketing.

40

11 Setting never less than one month from filing even rent and possession. The lapse is between date of filing & issuance of summons. Sarah (Div. 36 Monday) is a joy. We have not had her diligence, follow up, courtesy and competence for a long time.

12 The biggest delay is when I file an alias or pluries summons, they are not coming back quickly.

13 The biggest problem experienced in my office is that concerning Alias and Pluries Summonses. By the time that the request is made, the Summons is processed and returned to my office, my special process server often has less than ten days to attempt service.

14 Generally excellent service. Only areas that could be improved are in issuance of alias summonses and processing of copy requests (particularly with older files).

15 The real downer seems to be moving brand new files from filing room to get summons issued. I have regularly consistently been advised, “I t takes at least a week to 10 days”, Hope this helps.

16 We have had many problems with alias summons requests taking too long to issue or occasionally being misplaced and not issued at all. Relations with the staff are generally good.

17 Announcements are expected to be provided with a line number when the attorney is not provided with the docket sheets. Executed copies of a default judgment are not mailed to the attorneys. Default judgment forms are not forwarded/or in a timely manner when requested with postage prepaid provided. Some difficulty may be caused by our office being located in Kansas City. Thank You.

18 Go back to letting attorneys prepare summons and allow for “walk-thru” It has never happened where summons were issued within 24 hours of being filed.

19 My experience has been that Summons takes an unusually long time to be received and processed. In addition, I recently had an experience where I did not receive my copy of the summons at all.

20 Documents for our office have been filed and lost on several occasions. Summons requests and garnishments occasionally takes over a month to be processed and put with the file. Communications between docketing clerk and courtroom clerk can break down resulting in errors.

21 Very satisfied except for summons and authenticated judgments. There is usually a 2-3 week delay in getting original summons or alias from the time of filing. For authenticated copies the Circuit Court responds in a day or two but the Associate Circuit Court takes 2-3 months to get me an authenticated copy. This is unacceptable to both me and my client. Please change this.

22 Certified records usually have their requests done within 24 hrs or less!! Great!! 23 Except for a few individuals, the clerks are very helpful. Setting up a method of

complimenting a clerk or complaining about one may be helpful to evaluate specific individuals. Now, can you do something about the judges?

24 Service has been very good and very helpful! 25 Generally, I find the staff courteous and helpful. I wish all courts were the same! 26 Overall, any concerns I have had in the past have been addressed in a timely manner, the

service is satisfactory. 27 Getting much better! 28 Our docket clerk Jerry and summons clerk Marla, are excellent and of great help.

41

29 I am consistently impressed with the knowledge & helpfulness of the Associate Civil Clerks. I have greatly benefited from their assistance. Thank you!

30 I couldn’t be more pleased with the way my cases are handled. Keep up the good work. 31 I am very happy with the performance of your staff. I think that other clerks’ offices in the

area could learn a lesson from you folks when it comes to proficiency. Sometimes your lines are busy and it is tough to get through and sometimes one clerk refuses to help because the right clerk is away from his/her desk. That can be frustrating, but is far outweighed by all the positives. Keep up the good work.

32 This Ill. Attorney Generals Office deals mainly in post-judgment (registered) collections and your service has been great!

33 Charlotte in Division 35 is great. She always has answers for when our office calls. We appreciate everything she has done for our office.

34 We wish all the clerks in the court would be as courteous and friendly and helpful. Thanks to them all.

35 Trenna is great! 36 Summons, not even close to be being issued within 24 hours of the case being filed. 37 On the whole, my dealings with the personnel in your office are very pleasant and efficient.

Thanks for asking for our input. 38 I have nothing but good things to say about the staff in Associate Civil Docketing. 39 The system works so much more efficient than the City’s. Overall-very good. 40 Because I’m a bulk filer, I deal with Charlotte Graham almost exclusively and she is one of

the finest clerks that I have dealt with in my 16 years of practicing law. 41 Generally the court’s staff is courteous, prompt and professional. 42 I file landlord suits that have a statutory time limit, your staff does an excellent job! 43 Service is Excellent. 44 I have a great respect for the clerks with whom I have contact. They are always helpful

and courteous.

42

Appendix D

OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK Circuit Court of St. Louis County

7900 Carondelet Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105

Joan M. Gilmer Circuit Clerk October 22, 2001 TO: Associate Civil Summons and Docketing Sections FROM: LaVerne Akers RE: Developing performance workload measurements

I would appreciate your assistance in a project I am doing to fulfill the certification requirement for the Institute for Court Management’s Court Executive Development Program. One of the requirements of the project is that it be job-related and beneficial to our court or the judicial system. I selected as my project “Developing Performance Measurements that will Measure Workload Processes.” Due to the recent FTE budget cuts in Missouri, the clerks’ office lost 22 full time positions. The clerk now has to determine efficient use of the remaining resources without sacrificing quality. This may require reallocating staff, restructuring and/or realigning the organization. Presently, there are no work measures for quality of the work processes in the Circuit Clerk’s Office.

The methodology of this measurement system will be a time/motion type study. You are very much a part of this project. I will meet with you individually to discuss how you feel it may be best accomplished. I will ask you to complete a data collection information form that will help identify process definitions and capture the task motion study. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire because each employee’s assumptions about their job is important to the study. You will also be asked to log your time daily for a specified time period. This should give me enough data to conclude my study. The study will be monitored through observation. Your input, your commitment and dedication is invaluable for completion of this project.

I look forward to working with all of you on this project.

43

Appendix E

Development of Workload Measurements

Administrative Questionnaire Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete this form. Your help will assist in a study to develop workload measurements that will help to improve services and respond to specific needs. 1. How many FTE are there in the Circuit Clerk’s Office under your jurisdiction? 2. Due to the recent budget cuts, how many FTE did your circuit lose? 3. Is there a need for you to make resource adjustments to maintain effective efficiency due

to the recent loss of staff? 4. Does your office have an internal workload measurement system in place? ___Yes ___No.

If yes, please attach a copy of the guidelines.

5. Has your office developed performance standards for your work processes? ___Yes

___No. If yes, please attach a copy of the standards. 6. Could you benefit from a viable workload measurement system that would become a

framework for measuring your office workload processes?

7. It is very important to me in my research that I identify general concerns and questions

that administrators would or should have in their management of resources, particularly when they are being asked to do more with less. What questions would you ask of your managers, your staff and of attorneys or the general public, when determining where adjustments may need to be made? Please use the backside of this sheet if needed.

44

Appendix F

OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK

Circuit Court of St. Louis County 7900 Carondelet Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105

Joan M. Gilmer Circuit Clerk October 25, 2001

I would appreciate you taking a few minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire and returning it no later than November 20, 2001. The questionnaire relates to the services being provided to you by the Control Office, Summons and the Docketing area in the Associate Civil Department for the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk’s Office. A questionnaire for the Garnishment area may be considered at a later date.

Completion of the questionnaire will assist us in our effort to improve services and

respond to specific needs. Your opinions and suggestions are important to us. Feel free to use the comment section and the back of the questionnaire form. Please return the completed questionnaire form to: LaVerne Akers, St. Louis County Courts Building, 7900 Carondelet Avenue, Room 218, Clayton, MO 63105. For your convenience, a basket labeled “Completed Questionnaires” will also be available in the Docketing area. Thank you, LaVerne Akers Associate Civil Administrator

45

Appendix G

St. Louis County Circuit Clerk Attorney Questionnaire Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete this form. Please rate your answers on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” being unsatisfactory and “5” being excellent. Your help will assist in a study to develop workload measurements that will help to improve services and respond to specific needs. 4. _____ Adequate time is given to me when requested of the docket clerk. 5. _____ Personnel is courteous, helpful and polite. 6. _____ Announcements when called in are received and documented accurately. 7. _____ There is very good communications between the docket clerk and attorney

regarding case management. 5 _____ Summons are issued within 24 hours of being filed. 6. _____ Alias summons are processed in time for the next available docket date. 7. _____ Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the summons issuance date. 8. _____ Landlord tenant cases are given prompt court dates. 9. _____ Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion. 10. _____ Notices of court date or docket changes are timely. 11. _____ Continuances of trial dates are monitored. 12. _____ Transcripts, authenticated and certified copy requests are processed in a timely manner.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please return questionnaire by November 20, 2001. Thank you!

46

Appendix H

WORKLOAD MEASUREMENT TIME LOGGING INSTRUCTIONS See Example Attached

1. Complete the log sheet every day for the next three weeks. 2. Record the time that you begin a specific task and the time that you end it. 3. Log all interruptions and give a brief description of the interruption activity. 4. Log your breaks, lunches, holidays, leave days, etc. 5. Log when you are awaiting something from someone else to complete the task at

hand, give a brief description of what you are awaiting and from where it is coming. (This will help us to identify task delays that are out of your control).

6. Be sure to count the number of documents being processed, i.e. (25) sheriff

returns being entered. 7. Turn your completed log sheet into your supervisor daily. 8. Feel free to ask questions. 9. When in doubt, log it. Thank you for all your time and effort towards this project. Upon completion, it will help us to become more efficient and effective in our work processes throughout the Circuit Clerk’s Office.

47

Appendix I

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION FORM Name______________________________ Date_________________ Following is a list of task associated with the duties of a Summons Clerk. Please identify the step-by-step process that you take from the beginning of each task to the end. Be as detailed as possible with your explanation. 1. CASE INITIATION 2. PROCESSING SUMMONS 3. PROCESSING PETITION FOR REVIEW CASES 4. WALK THROUGH PROCESS (IF DIFFERENT FOR CASE TYPES) IDENTIFY

THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES FOR EACH CASE TYPE. 5. PROCESSING BLOOD ALCOHOL CASES 6. PROCESSING HARDSHIP DRIVING CASES

48

7. DELIVERING AND PICKING UP SUMMONS AND REPORTS 8. DELIVERING CASE FILE FOLDERS TO DOCKETING

49

Appendix J

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION FORM

Name_____________________________ Date____________ Following is a list of tasks associated with the duties of a Docket Clerk. Please identify the step-by-step process that you take from the beginning of each task to the end. Be as detailed as possible with your explanation. 9. ENTERING SHERIFF RETURNS 2. PREPARE DOCKETS (INCLUDING MOTION & TRIAL DOCKETS) 3. RECEIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PHONE

50

4. ENTERING MINUTES 5. ISSUING ALIAS SUMMONSES 6. ENTERING JUDGMENTS 7. ENTERING CONTINUANCES 8. ORDERS OF PUBLICATION/UNLAWFUL DETAINERS

51

9. ORDERS OF PUBLICATION/NEWSPAPER 10. BODY ATTACHMENTS 11. TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGMENTS 12. AUTHENTICATED COPIES 13. CERTIFIED COPIES

52

Appendix K

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION FORM

Name________________________ Date____________________ Following is a list of tasks associated with the duties of a Summons Clerk working in the Control Office. Please identify the step by step process that you take from the beginning of each task to the end. Be as detailed as possible with your explanation. 10. PROCESSING CASES RECEIVED IN THE CONTROL OFFICE (Identify different

cases and case activities) 11. PREPARE CASES FOR GENERATION 12. GENERATE CASES

53

13. CASH RECEIPT PROCESSING 5. BALANCING PROCESS 6. MAKING DEPOSIT 7. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES

54

Appendix L

Data Collection Form

Name____________________________ Date________________________

EVENT CODES

1= Task Related 3 = Vacation, Sick Leave, Holiday, Bre 2= Non Task Related-Administrative 4 = Other

Time must be recorded from 7:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. daily Start Time

Event Code (1-4)

Activity

(Brief Description)

55

Appendix M CODE DESCRIPTIONS USED ON DATA COLLECTION FORM , APPENDIX L

Task Related = All activities are to relate directly to work processes. Include in this category: (1) providing assistance to attorneys, judges, litigants and court employees (2) document the time, and a brief description of the service being provided. Non Task Related Administrative = Examples in this category are time spent completing time sheets and meetings with your supervisor. Also, include in this category, time spent for judicial training and conferences. Vacation, Sick Leave, Holidays, Breaks = Record any time that you are not present. Identify the leave type in the activity section. Other = Record anything other than what has been identified in the above categories.

56

Appendix N

St. Louis County Circuit Clerk

Development of Workload Measurements Staff Questionnaire

Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete this form. Please rate your answers on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” being unsatisfactory and “5” being excellent. Your help will assist in a study to develop workload measurements that will help to improve services and respond to specific needs. 1. ____ Individuals can obtain information on a case quickly and easily. 2. ____ Personnel in Associate Civil are courteous, helpful and polite to attorneys and the general public. 3. ____ Clerks take the proper time to provide accurate information to attorneys

and the general public. 4. _____New clerks are trained sufficiently. 5. _____Summons are issued within 24 hours of being received or filed. 6. _____This office is adequately staffed to handle the work or caseload. 7. _____Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the initial filing of the case. 8 _____ Landlord tenant cases are given priority dates. 9 _____ Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion. 10 _____ Notices of court date or docket changes are timely. 11 _____ Continuances of trial dates are monitored and controlled. 12 _____Some parts of my work would be more effective if processed in another section/division.

If your rating for #12 is 1 or 2, what task would be more effective being processed where? comment on why you feel this way. Use other side if you need additional space.

COMMENTS: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Please return questionnaire by November 16, 2001. Thank you!

57

Appendix O

ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUS PROCESSING METHODS IN

CENTRAL CONTROL/SUMMONS OFFICE

1. PROCESSING CASES RECEIVED IN THE CONTROL OFFICE: Receive and accept petitions from attorneys and through mail, review documents to insure that they contain the required documents and number of copies, verify filing and service fees, time date stamp document.

2. PREPARE CASES FOR GENERATION: Assemble documents in proper form for case generation, staple sheriff check to the lower left hand corner of original petition on top, paper clip the clerk’s filing fee check or cash receipt to the petition right above the service fee.

3. GENERATE CASES: Pull out Landlord cases to generate priority, enter the case

entitlement, the filing date and the division and day assignment for bulk filers or randomly assign for non-bulk filers. The case number is generated and written on the petition and on the filing fee check or cash receipt. Stamp the case number with numbering machine onto the petition, verify that it matches the computer assigned case number and the number written on the petition. Place documents in basket to be walked over to summons at least twice daily. (Walk through Replevin Petitions and Friendly Suits, interrupt case generation to number all previous documents entered, date stamp all papers and copies, verify judge’s signature, generate case, send attorney to Docketing, to get court date).

4. CASH RECEIPT PROCESSING: write a receipt for monies being entered into the court

registry, copy check together with receipt, to provide copy to file and to bookkeeping. These monies are then entered into the computer system.

5. BALANCING PROCESS: Monies received for cases filed that day are compared to

actual checks and cash vouchers then balanced in the system. After all other areas within the department have balanced, balance for all users. Verify the monies received with the computer balance for all users, Complete a worksheet that encompasses all the monies collected for the department and balanced that day. Order the daily fee report , take the checks and the worksheet to bookkeeping.

6. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES: Answering and transferring phones to the appropriate

departments, answer questions of attorneys and litigants, reassign jury trial requested cases and change of judge cases, compare the printed report received daily to the balanced information from the previous day, do monthly statistics, keep log of state revivals and changes of judge.

58

SUMMONS

1. CASE INITIATION: Check to insure that documents are in the correct division/day basket, verify that case is marked over/under 5,000, mark court date and issue date on documents, verify the correct amount of money for service, initiate case in computer, verify that the filing date and division/day are generated correctly, verify plaintiff and defendant information is entered correctly, update with addresses and docket information, order summons from service request screen to complete initiation.

2. PROCESSING SUMMONS: When summons are printed, verify information with

petition, sign, break down and mark petition with case number, attach required letter if over 3,000 with original summons and yellow service copy, staple sheriff’s check on top and send to sheriff on issue dated, mail copies, attach pink copy of summons to original petition, paper clip minutes to pink copy, hole punch, make up file folder and carry case to the appropriate docket clerk, file folder under appropriate court date in numerical order.

3. PROCESSING PETITION FOR REVIEW CASES, HARDSHIP DRIVING, AND

BLOOD ALCOHOL CASES: Initiate cases, prepare forms, check for Judge’s signatures, set court dates, mail copies, print summons, relocate file to division.

4. DELIVERING AND PICKING UP SUMMONS AND REPORTS: Deliver summons

to sheriff department three times daily, pick up summons and reports on the third run of the day, separate summons and minutes, pass summons and minutes to the appropriate summons clerk, deliver reports to appropriate persons.

59

Appendix P

OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK Circuit Court of St. Louis County

7900 Carondelet Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105

Joan M. Gilmer Circuit Clerk October 23, 2001

I would appreciate your assistance in a project I am doing to fulfill the certification requirement for the Institute for Court Management’s Court Executive Development Program. One of the requirements of the project is that it be job-related and beneficial to our court or the judicial system. I selected as my project “Developing Performance Measurements that will Measure Workload Processes.” Due to the recent FTE budget cuts in Missouri, the Circuit Clerk’s Office in St. Louis County, lost 22 full time positions. The Circuit Clerk now has to determine efficient use of the remaining resources without sacrificing quality. This may require reallocating staff, restructuring and/or realigning organizationally. Presently, we have no workable measure of quality work processing in the Circuit Clerk’s Office. You can help me greatly in this project by completing and returning the attached questionnaire to me by October 31, 2001. Your participation in the project is essential in my development of a meaningful workload measurement system that will be beneficial to all the judiciary. I will share the results with everyone that completes and returns the questionnaire. The answers received from you will allow me to develop some consensus on administrative questions and concerns of managers, staff and the general public, when put in a situation of having to make adjustments to be more efficient and effective in your court.

I look very forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (314) 615-4756. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, LaVerne Akers

Associate Civil Administrator

60

Appendix Q ADMINISTRATORS QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

1. There was a total of 445 FTE’s in the Circuits that responded 221(St. Louis County) the next highest number was 50 with the lowest number being 1. St. Louis County held 40% of the total number of FTE’s in the responding circuits.

2. There were a total of 29.5 FTE’s lost with St. Louis County having 70% of the total FTE’s. 3. Only 2% of the administrators responded yes to having to make resource adjustments due

to FTE loss. 4. 100% of all responders said no to having an internal workload measuring system. 5. 99% of all responders stated that there were no established performance standards for their

work processes. 6. Only 2% of the responders felt that they could benefit from a workload measuring system

that would measure their office workload processes. 7. Question number 7 asked the administrator to identify general concerns and questions that

they would have in their management of resources, particularly when they are being asked to do more with less. It asked what questions they would have of their managers, staff, attorneys and the general public when determining where adjustments may need to be made. There were 4 administrators that did not answer this question. Responses to question # 7 were as follows:

1. Look at workload statistics for each case type. 2. Solicit, through questionnaires/surveys, ideas from attorneys and the employees

in an effort to receive their feedback to make the workflow smoother and efficient.

3. Investigate ways/options for streamlining work processes. For example: Install a voice response system to handle large volume calls in certain areas in an effort to free up personnel to process other work assignments.

4. Suggest that as projects are identified, that they need to be prioritized. 5. Identify ALL non-statutory tasks being performed and work on a plan to phase

them out. 6. Explore the idea of forming task teams on a permanent basis to handle the on-

going shifts in workload. 7. Investigate and explore ways to attract new employees in an effort to fill

vacancies. 8. Explore ways of rewarding all employees for the good work done, as well as

develop incentive programs for all employees in an effort to boost and maintain morale.

9. COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATE, and COMMUNICATE on a regular basis to the managers, supervisors and employees regarding CHANGE. This is one of the most important activities to do when faced with a cut in full-time employees.

10. I would ask attorneys to be patient while files are being entered in our system. I would ask the Computer Staff to create forms on the computer rather than filling in blanks.

11. I don’t know how to answer this, anxious to see the results. 12. Always look for ways to do things differently. Get out of the block.

61

13. I would wonder who did your work while you were doing this survey. I realize I know nothing of the workload of a huge office, but I know I see a lot of wasted time, effort and expense in surveys.

14. I’m not sure. In our small office everyone just pitches in and does whatever needs to be done. Resources are limited.

15. If I could hire the additional FTE we qualified for, it would be very beneficial. 16. Not of this particular group would I have questions. I would ask the Supreme

Court and OSCA to make resources of clerks, equipment, time and finances before passing new laws. This would certainly help instead of mandatory laws without previsions of resources.

62

Appendix R

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN STUDY Terms Crispness The lack of ambiguity in the representation being discussed. Formulas and

measures are crisp when they can be defined and applied with no ambiguity. Effectiveness Refers to the quality of the output produced considering the inputs used. In

comparing effectiveness to efficiency, effectiveness is referred to as “doing the right thing.”

Efficiency Efficiency is defines by the use of inputs in relation to the production of

outputs. Efficiency is used in defining productivity, which is a broader term.

Evaluation A means of classifying something. The quantifier used need be numerical.

If it is numeral, it does not need to be hi-structured. This is the feature that differentiates evaluation from measurement.

Goal In productivity, a level of productivity that is anticipated may also refer to a

level of quality that is anticipated. Input The beginning element of a process. Additional input may be during the

process. Input is normally a physical, quantifiable but may also be intangible-knowledge, for instance. To quantify intangible input, work hours are often used for a variety of nonphysical inputs.

Knowledge Relational information about objects or groups of objects. Allows the

worker to use data in performing an activity. Knowledge work A process that requires knowledge from both internal and external sources

to generate a product that is distinguished by its specific information content.

Macro-productivity Parallels the scope covered by the term “macro-economics.” Refers to

productivity at the national or industry level. Compare with micro-productivity, which refers to the business division, or department; and nano-productivity, which refers to the department, work group, or an organizational unit. Different productivity measures are required at each different structural level.

Measurement Several categories of measurement techniques apply to measuring

productivity:

63

Predetermined-a specified set of functions is used along with a map of the work process to calculate the time require to complete a task.

Timed-a stopwatch is used to record actual times to complete a task on several repetitions.

Log-individuals maintain a log of their own activities to establish average times to complete tasks.

Short-interval-scheduling, a variant of logging in which an analyst records what a number of people are doing at short intervals

While these are the major categories of measurement techniques each

category has a subset of techniques that vary in their implementation, level of detail, and objective.

Micro-productivity Parallels the scope covered by the term “micro-economics.” Refers to the productivity of the organizational unit size being examined, such as business, division, or department. Cover larger units than the term “nano-productivity.” Nano-productivity Refers to productivity of the work unit. The term does not refer to individual productivity. Productivity at the individual level is not typically a goal of productivity measurement. Output The result of performing a process. A physical quantifiable output is easiest

to measure, but many outputs are intangible (such as an idea). Quantifying non-physical output is more difficult than quantifying non-physical input, but it essential when measuring the relative output of knowledge work.

Productivity According to the classic definition, the ratio of inputs to outputs (P=I/O.

Straight quantities can be used. Efficiency and effectiveness are related to productivity. Efficiency is defined by the relationship between the input and outputs. Effectiveness, however, relates to the quality of the output.

Productivity Measurement Can refer to the act of measuring an organization’s productivity, or it can

refer to the quantifier that results from the measurement of the productivity.

Proficiency A broader usage of the term “effectiveness.” It addresses how well a process allocates its resources.

Process The activity involved in accomplishing a goal. A task, job, assignment,

function, etc., may all be a process or part of a process. Quality A measure of how well an item meets expectations. In manufacturing it is

possible to quantify some measures of quality because expectations are expressed in numeric. For example, a sheet of plastic specified to be 6 cm by 10 cm plus or minus 0.1 cm would not be of adequate quality if it

64

measured 6.2 cm or 9.8 cm. In knowledge work it is often impossible to define quality in such absolute terms. A letter with one typographical error might be accepted or rejected, depending on the purpose of the letter.

Time Expressed in hours, minutes, and seconds, it is a constant. Time as a work

input may not always have a linear relationship to the quantity of output. A linear relationship is most common, but a nonlinear relationship may result from economies of scale, for example. The larger the volume of production, the less time each unit takes, so the increase in time input is not constant (or the average time per unit decreases).

Work The human processes and sub-processes involved in changing inputs into

outputs.

65

Appendix S STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE ACTUAL RESULTS Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” being unsatisfactory and “5” being excellent.

Survey Question 5 4 3 2 1

Individuals can obtain information on a case quickly and easily.

75% 13% 10% 2%

Personnel in Associate Civil are courteous, helpful and polite to attorneys and the general public.

75% 13% 5% 7%

Clerks take the proper time to provide accurate information to attorneys and the general public

69% 28% 3%

New clerks are trained sufficiently. 45% 44% 5% 4% 2% Summonses are issued within 24 hours of being filed.

17% 14% 31% 35% 3%

This office is adequately staffed to handle the work or caseload.

33% 26% 26% 13% 2%

Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the initial filing of the case.

36% 43% 21%

Landlord tenant cases are given priority dates. `39% 42% 16% 3% Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

44% 42% 11 3%

Notices of court date or docket changes are timely.

57% 33%

Continuances of trial dates are monitored and controlled

59% 41%

Some parts of my work would be more effective if processed in another section/division

31% 42% 19% 4% 4%

66

Appendix T Attorney Questionnaire Results Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” being unsatisfactory and “5” being excellent. N/A+ not applicable, U= unknown, No=No response Survey Question 5 4 3

2 1 N/A U No

Adequate time is given to me when requested of the docket clerk.

61% 24% 12% 1% 1% 1%

Personnel is courteous, helpful and polite. 56% 26% 10% 6% 1% 1% Announcements when called in are received and documented accurately.

51% 30% 9% 3% 1% 5% !%

There is very good communications between the docket clerk and attorney regarding case management.

40% 34% 15% 4% 3% 2% 2%

Summons are issued within 24 hours of being filed. 11% 16% 23% 20% 21% 4% 4% 2% Alias summons are processed in time for the next available docket date.

21% 27% 22% 14% 10% 3% 3%

Initial court dates are generally 30 days from the summons issuance date.

38% 36% 14% 4% 4% 2% 2%

Landlord tenant cases are given prompt court dates. 17% 24% 11% 8% 1% 24% 6% 9% Questions or concerns are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

37% 43% 11% 7% 2%

Notices of court date or docket changes are timely. 44% 37% 13% 4% 1% 1% 2% Continuances of trial dates are monitored. 43% 38% 11% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% Transcripts, authenticated and certified copy requests are processed in a timely manner.

21% 32% 18% 11% 7% 4% 2% 5%

67

Bibliography

Anthony, G. Michael, IE’s Measure Work, Write Standards for White Collar Workers at Financial

Institution, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers,

1984, pp 8487.

Barnes, Ralph M., Motion and Time Study: Design and Measurement of Work, 7th ed. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, 1980.

Bernard, Paul, Structured Project Methodology Provides Support for Informed Business Decisions,

IE (03/86), pp 5257.

Bridges, Bernisha M., “To Measure or Not to Measure, That is the Question,” Productivity and

Quality Improvement in Government, edited by John S.W. Fargjer (Institute of Industrial

Engineers, 1992, p 412419.

Chew, W.B., No Nonsense Guide to Measuring Productivity, Harvard Business Review Journal,

1288, p110118.

Conley, Frank “Hiring Freeze” Memo to Appointing Authorities and Personnel Officers, State of

Missouri Circuit Courts, 1 May 2001.

Drucker, Peter F., Management, Harper & Row, 1974, p1839.

Edmundson, Carroll, Developing Evaluation Criteria for Assessing the Non-judicial Personnel

Needs of North Dakota’s District Courts, State Court Administrator’s Office, North Dakota

Supreme Court, April, 1986.

Flango, Victor E and Brian J Ostrom, Assessing the Needs for Judges and Court Support Staff,

Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1996.

68

Forte, Darlene, The Challenge: Measuring Productivity in the Federal Government,” Productivity

and Quality Improvement in Government, edited by John S.W. Fargher, Institute of

Industrial Engineers, 1992, p 343346.

Helton, B. Ray, Achieving White Collar Whitewater Performance by Organizational Alignment,

National Productivity Review, Spring 1991, pp 227244

Lawson, Harry O. and Barbara J. Gletne, Workload Measures in the Court, Williamsburg, VA:

National Center for State Courts, 1980

MagliolaZoch, Doris and Ronald G. Weiner, Service organizations Can Use IE Techniques to

Improve Productivity of Professional Workers, Part I, Issues in White Collar Productivity,

Industrial Engineering and Management press, Institute of Industrial Engineers, 1984, pp

99103

Mundel, M.E., Motion and Time Study, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1978.

National Center for State Courts, Staffing Standard Model for Court Clerk’s Offices in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Court Services Division, Denver, Colorado, 1997.

National Center for State Courts, Nonjudicial Weighted Caseload Study for Municipal & Justice

Courts, Final Report, November, 1983.

Ostrom, Brian J. and Hanson, Roger A., Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective

From Nine State Criminal Trial Courts, National Center for State Courts, 1999.

Rivera, Eliada, Staffing Levels in the Clerk’s Office, District Courts Division, 11th Judicial Circuit,

Miami-Dade County, Florida, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, May

2000.

69

Sardana, G. D., and Prem Vrat, A Model for Productivity Measurement in a MultiProduct

Organization Using Programming and Multi Attribute Utility Theory, Productive

Management Frontiers I, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1987, pp 3548.

Sink, Scott D., Paul E. Rossler and A.K. Dhir, An Update On The Study of Productivity

Measurement and Incentive Methodology, Productivity Management Frontiers I, Elsevier

Science Publishers B. V., 1987, pp 165176.

Strassman, Paul A., Information Payoff, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., 1985, pp

1300.

Thor, Carl G., Knowledge Worker Gainsharing, “Productivity Management Frontiers I”, Elsevier

Science Publishers B.V., 1987, pp305313.

Thor, Carl G., Using Nominal Group Technique to Establish a White Collar Productivity

Measurement System, Productivity Brief #51, American Productivity Center, April 1986,

pp 18.

70