The Real Start-Up Costs of Performance Measurement

Performance measurement does not cause inefficiencies and poor practices. It just highlights them for improvement. The cost of fixing them should not be counted against the start-up costs of performance measurement and management.

This point often gets lost as courts and court systems embark on initiatives to build performance measurement and management systems. If nothing else, this point needs to be reinforced to blunt a favorite argument against performance measurement initiatives – it all takes too much time, effort and money (see Eight Reasons Not to Measure Court Performance, Made2Measure, April 5, 2006).

Some things just need to be fixed anyway.

For example, as courts consider the required elements of measures like case clearance rate, on-time case processing, and age of pending caseload, they need to define, in no uncertain terms, such things as: (1) what to count and what not to count; (2) how to classify what they count; (3) when to start and stop the clock; (4) when a case is opened and closed; (5) when a case is considered active and inactive; and, (6) what might be an appropriate time reference point for assessing timely performance. Inevitably, they will encounter inefficiencies and poor practices: poor classification of cases, lack of uniformity in case filing, automated case processing systems with inadequate data “reporting” functionality, and a host of other problems that existed and persisted long before any performance measurement initiatives were launched.

To be sure, all this takes time, effort and resources. But these costs should not be counted against performance measurement per se. As Judge Katherine R. “Kitty” Curtis, chair of Montana’s District Court Performance Measurement Advisory Committee (DCPMAC), noted in a meeting of DCPMA in Helena earlier this month, the task of defining the data elements of case processing measures is “both intellectually challenging and tedious.” At the same time, she recognizes that this task needs to be done eventually to ensure uniform case filing throughout the state, whether or not a performance measurement and management system is built.

No doubt, costs specific to performance measurement should be weighed against benefits. But some things uncovered while taking the steps for performance measurement just need to be done regardless of planned efforts for monitoring, analyzing and managing performance. The costs of doing these things should not be used as the reason why court should not measure its performance.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2008. All rights reserved

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

Taming “Wild Problems”: Measure Everything That Matters

Every problem is not solvable, but every problem is measurable. This assertion is the key to tackling problems in public services including courts, business, and life in general. Surprising to me is that even astute scholars take exception to this, among them  is Russ Roberts, the John and Jean De Nault Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the president of Shalem College in Jerusalem, and host of the award-winning podcast EconTalk: Conversation for the Curious. The belief that certain things, dubbed “wild problems” by Professor Roberts, cannot be measured does a disservice to courts and other public and private organizations. There are many benefits to measuring everything that matters. It allows organizations to   focus on and to operationalize the most important problems and issues facing them,   to track progress over time and identify areas of improvement,   to compare their performance to that of other organizations and learn from the d...
Read more