Made2Measure

Fourth in a multi-part series exploring the Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS) which was first summarized by Made2Measure (M2M) in October 2005. Q: Last week’s posting described Step 1, Assessing Currently Used Performance Measures , of the six-step design process in an individual court. Can this initial step be taken at the state level? M2M: Although no state has attempted it yet (folks in Arizona and California are thinking about it), doing some kind of inventory of performance measurement efforts already done or underway throughout the state seems a logical and necessary start to any kind of state-wide initiative. For example, California is moving toward the implementation of court performance measurement as a mechanism to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the work trial courts are doing and to establish clear goals for improving programs, services and processes. Specifically, the Office of Court Research (OCR) curren...

Third in a multi-part series of exploring the Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS) first summarized by Made2Measure (M2M) in October 2005. How does your court or court system currently measure its performance? How are the current measures distributed across inputs, outputs, outcomes, key success areas, perspectives, and core performance areas? Are they sufficient in terms of number, type, and balance of perspectives? Which of the measures seem more important than others? From what data sources are they drawn – administrative databases, surveys or third-party reports? By what methods are the measures taken and by whom? What required or desired performance information currently is not available to the court? What specific performance measures would provide that information? Answering these questions is the first important step in building an effective court performance measurement system (CPMS). This first step identifies existing dat...

Second in a multi-part series exploring Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS) summarized in Made2Measure (M2M) in October last year. Three Phases of a Performance Measurement Initiative Phase 1. Initiating and Planning . Proof of concept, education, readiness and feasibility assessment, identification of design team, project organization and management, planning and scheduling. Phase 2. Design and Development . Six-step process of building a court performance measurement system (CPMS). Phase 3. Implementation. Integration of performance measurement and the CPMS with key management practices and processes including strategic and operational planning, budgeting, resource management, communication, information technology, and quality improvement. Like any major court initiative – e-filing, an automated case management system, and business process reengineering – an effective design process (Phase 2) is not enough to guarantee success. A...

First in a multi-part series exploring the Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS) summarized in Made2Measure (M2M) in October last year. The choice and use of appropriate performance measures or indicators of court performance should be the result of a process undertaken in each court or court system. Measures and indicators are not chosen and used at random. There are two key requirements for designing an effective court performance measurement system (CPMS): --- Identifying, designing and developing those performance measures that will actually help to achieve desired results. --- Ensuring that the performance measures are available to the right people, at the right time, in the right place and in the right way. Over the last seven years, my colleagues and I have developed a design process of six overlapping steps and sub-steps (tasks) by benchmarking the performance measurement design processes used successfully in the private sect...