The Courts’ Big Data: What If Only?

Close to 2.5 quintillion bytes of new data are created daily. ....Organizations know this data is rich in information and potential insight, but it’s as if they receive a fresh-minted library daily with answers to all their questions, except the books are written in languages they cannot understand. 

The above words appeared in a full-page ad by IBM in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal under the headline “Watson Goes To Work.” The ad touted IBM’s Watson, the supercomputer Jeopardy! champion over two human challengers in a pop culture event in February 2011.  Watson’s performance improved as the game progressed as it built on each bit of information acquired from each new clue and answer.  Watson demonstrated the advanced form of computing IBM calls a cognitive system, “a system that is not simply programmed but is trained to learn based on interactions and outcomes.” 
 
The ad brought to mind a “what if” question my National Center for State colleague Jim MacMillan and I have been pondering for while now. 
 
What if we could tap into the massive amount of data that is entered and stored in a court’s case management system, and other data systems like states’ criminal justice repositories?
For example, an approach – I believe first suggested by Jim McMillan and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin, which already may be in the experimental stages of development by judiciaries outside of the U.S. -- uses information in modern automated case management systems to measure case complexity and dynamically create and adjust the individual case weights and the total case weights for individual judges and staff, departments, and courts. Potential factors and data elements related to case complexity in criminal cases, for example, might include the number and seriousness of criminal charges, the number of defendants, criminal history of the defendant, number of documents submitted in evidence, number of witnesses, witness availability, and the number of exhibits.  Workload assessments and assignment of cases, among myriad other functions, would be based on up to date adjustment in real time. 
 
Which brings me to the the takeaway question: Why not a Watson in the courts?  No doubt the courts today have Big Data that a “Justice Watson” could devour fur lunch. 
 
My wish is that a case management system company or a business intelligence vendor with court or justice system interests would throw some skin into the research and development (R&D) game for this exciting prospect.  It might begin modestly with dynamic workload assessment.  The R&D could be funded directly or by means of some leveraged development in cooperation with an individual court or court system.  
 
© Copyright CourtMetrics and the National Center for State Courts 2012. 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

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