Implementation: Lesson of the History of E-Filing

Previous posts (Implementing Performance Measurement, November 12, 2005; and Implementation: How It Looks When You Get There, December 13, 2005), explored what it takes to implement a court performance measurement system (CPMS). It was pointed out that is one thing to build a CPMS and quite another to get it to be used effectively. Even a well-conceived, well-designed CPMS will not necessarily get used unless it is woven into the very fabric of a court’s management practices and processes. “If you build it, they will come” works in the movies (e.g., in the 1989 film Field of Dreams) but not for court performance measurement

The history of electronic filing – a system that uses digital documents instead of paper filings – is instructive. Implementation may be inevitable, but moving from roll-out to full use of the system takes time and effort. The ABA Journal reports that the move to digital filing systems in the State courts is often very slow and confusing. Even though the system might be up and running, there is no guarantee that it will be used. For example, DuPage in suburban Chicago County launched its e-filing system in October 2004, but nothing much happened. “It was like we opened a business and then sat there twiddling our thumbs waiting for somebody to walk in the door,” said Bob Keltner, a supervisor in the court clerk’s office and the man responsible for DuPage’s e-filing system.

True, e-filing systems are not the same as CPMSs, but the issues in moving from roll-out to effective implementation, from innovation to use, are similar. Courts first need to figure out precisely how they want the CPMS to work and how it should be integrated with court operations and management processes. But even when courts figure out how they want the system to work, the potential users cannot be forced to adopt a system they neither understand nor have any interest in using.

As indicated in the earlier posts, performance measurement can fundamentally change the way a court does business, but it will not happen by simply rolling out the CPMS. If a court’s leadership and management are to become truly performance-based, performance measurement has to become hard-wired into the very DNA of the court’s organizational culture and operating environment. Much of this implementation is not rocket science, but like implementing e-filing, it comes at a price of time and effort.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more

A Logic Model of Performance Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Increasingly, the courts' stakeholders -- justice system partners, the general public, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and even the courts’ own court employees -- demand clear evidence that the resources courts expend actually produce benefits for people. Looking for this evidence starts early in the development of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) (see Step 2, Identifying and Defining the Performance Measures Needed and Desired to Help Achieve Goals, October 15, 2005 posting, “Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System”). For every strategic initiative, program or specific strategy, court managers should develop a simple logic model that describes how the initiative, program or strategy theoretically works to achieve the desired results from program inputs through end outcomes. Critical thinking and discussion of the logic of how a proposed program or strategy may bring about results that benefit citizens and the community can reap g
Read more