Court Executives (Should) Have Their Heads in the Clouds

The launch this month of Microsoft’s new operating system, Windows 7, marks the end of one era of information technology and the start of another, says the Economist (“Briefing Cloud Computing,” October 17, 2009). Windows is not going to disappear but it will be much less important in the future.

Cloud Computing

Much of the computing we do today on our computers in our homes and offices will soon be – so to speak - in the “clouds,” and not on our personal computers, where Windows resides today. Instead, desktop computing on personal computers – featuring full-featured database and spreadsheet capabilities – is being replaced by IT architectures that call for the heavy lifting to be performed by external data centers accessible to us over the Internet.

Cloud computing is attracting an enormous amount of attention. The term “cloud computing” is a metaphor that originated with IT architects who routinely used cloud shapes to depict the flow of data from unknown external sources instead of the squares, rectangles and cylinders representing internal servers, storage disks, and databases they used to represent internal sources.

We are already familiar with cloud computing technology, though we may not have grasped its revolutionary significance. Widely used services like Twitter, YouTube, Skype, and Google’s Gmail, Docs, and Spreadsheets are all built on cloud computing technology. They deliver content and services to our computers, smart phones, and other devices from external sources

An Attractive Option for Cash Strapped Courts

Chief information technology officers see in cloud computing the promise of lower costs, less complexity and work for their IT departments. Cloud computing enables a court to tap into computing, storage systems, and software applications like performance dashboards and other business intelligence over the Internet.

At least in theory, cloud computing technology all but eliminates the burden of software installation, maintenance, ongoing operation, and support. Coming up with new software versions or changing requirements is taken care of the by the service provider. Costs are a continuous expense, rather than a single expense at time of purchase.

Cloud computing lets courts avoid building their own performance dashboards and associated technology architecture. They pay only for the services they need, when they need them. Both big and small corporate computer and software vendors that have a presence in the court community will soon be offering performance dashboards based in cloud computing technology.

One company, Threshold CS, based in Clearwater, Florida, makes its court performance dashboard, Justice PM (Performance Measurement) available both as a traditional client site installation and as a cloud computing service (Threshold calls it by its antecedent name, Software as Service or SaaS). For a monthly subscription fee, after a brief data linkage to the court’s source (legacy) systems, a court’s performance data is automatically uploaded to Threshold’s data center and the performance dashboard is accessible to court users via a secure Web interface.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2009. 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

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
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