Docstoc

A Guide to Process Reengineering In The Courts

Document Sample
A Guide to Process Reengineering In The Courts Powered By Docstoc
					Conference of State Court Administrators and National Association for Court Management Joint Technology Committee Technology Reengineering Subcommittee

COURT BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT MANUAL
AN AID TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PROCESS REENGINEERING FOR JUDGES, COURT MANAGERS, AND COURT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORS

David C. Steelman May 2003

This manual was prepared by the Technology Reengineering Subcommittee of the Joint Technology Committee of COSCA (Conference of State Court Administrators) and NACM (National Association for Court Management) and by staff of and consultants to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, under grant number MU-MU-0005 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, NCSC or SEARCH.

ii

COSCA/NACM JOINT TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Hugh Collins, COSCA Chair Bob Wessels, NACM Chair Jerry L. Benedict Hon. Duane Benton Michael L. Buenger David K. Byers Janet Cornell Hon. Robert Fall Hon. Judith Ford Sheila Gonzalez D.J. Hanson Robert Hobgood Steven C. Hollon Suzanne James Mary Campbell McQueen Hon. Gerald Marroney Gregg T. Moore J. Denis Moran Frederick Ohlrich John T. Olivier Thomas J. Ralston David L. Ratley Michael J, Roggero Robert B. Roper Richelle G. Uecker Alan Slater Patricia Yerian

TECHNOLOGY REENGINEERING SUBCOMMITTEE
Hon. Judith Ford, Chair Michael Buenger Mike Carroll John Davenport Guy Gallaway Sheila Gonzalez John Greacen, Consultant Jim Pritchett Bob Roper, Consultant* Alan Slater Ron Titus Richelle G. Uecker Bob Wessels

PROJECT STAFF
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
David C. Steelman, Principal Author Laura Klaversma, NCSC Project Manager Dale Kasparek Ed Papps Henry Townsend

SEARCH
Francis L. Bremson, SEARCH Project Manager Dave Roberts Teri Sullivan Larry Webster

iii

COURT BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT MANUAL
AN AID TO PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PROCESS REENGINEERING FOR JUDGES, COURT MANAGERS, AND COURT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee and Technology Reengineering Subcommittee ............................................................................................................ iii About the Author ............................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................x Foreword.......................................................................................................................... xii A. Why Should We Focus on Business Processes in Courts? ................................... xii B. The COSCA/NACM Committee and Business Processes in Courts ................... xiv C. The Technology Reengineering Subcommittee and This Manual ....................... xiv An Introduction to Business Process Enhancement .......................................................1 A. What is Business Process Enhancement? ................................................................1 B. What are Process Improvement and Process Reengineering? .................................2 C. How Does Business Process Enhancement Relate to Information Technology? ....4 D. What are the Steps to Enhance Business Processes in My Court? ..........................5 E. What Tools Are Available to Help Me With Business Process Enhancement?.......6

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PART I. STEPS TO ENHANCE BUSINESS PROCESSES IN YOUR COURT Page Step One. Establish An Appropriate Foundation..........................................................9 A. Develop an Appropriate Governance and Management Structure ..........................9 B. Set Priorities in View of the Court’s Strategic Mission and Goals........................11 C. Assess Organizational Readiness and Decide on a Process Enhancement Approach................................................................................................................16 D. Begin to Manage Expectations and Build Support for Change .............................22 E. Appoint a Project Owner and a Capable Project Team..........................................23 F. Determine the Role of Consultants.........................................................................26 Step Two. Measure “As Is” versus “To Be” Gap and Develop Feasible Alternatives to Existing Court Business Processes ..................................28 A. Document and Analyze the Current “As Is” Processes .........................................28 B. Benchmark and Set Enhancement Goals ...............................................................31 C. Develop Alternative Process Solutions ..................................................................36 D. Identify and Assess Potential Implementation Barriers.........................................39 E. Analyze Alternatives in Terms of Costs and Benefits............................................42 Step Three. Choose the Desired Solution and Plan for its Implementation ..............45 A. Choose the Best Alternative...................................................................................45 B. Develop the Broad Conceptual Design ..................................................................47 C: Develop the Details of the Desired Solution..........................................................52 D. Develop A Plan to Manage Implementation..........................................................59 E. Plan Specifically to Manage the Change Process...................................................64 Step Four. Implement the Enhanced Business Process Solution and Make Further Process Improvements as Needed ...................................................70 A. Conduct a Pilot Test...............................................................................................70 B. Measure and Revise the Pilot-Tested Process........................................................73 C. Go Forward with Full Implementation...................................................................75 D. Manage Reactions to Change.................................................................................78 E. Capitalize on Success and Make Ongoing Further Process Improvements ...........81

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PART II. TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES TO SUPPORT BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT IN YOUR COURT Page Process Documentation Tools .........................................................................................86 A. Block Diagrams......................................................................................................86 B. Process Flowcharts.................................................................................................88 Process Analysis Tools.....................................................................................................90 A. Brainstorming.........................................................................................................90 B. Affinity Diagrams ..................................................................................................91 C. Fishbone Diagrams.................................................................................................92 D. Focus Groups .........................................................................................................94 E. Force-Field Analysis ..............................................................................................96 F. Histograms..............................................................................................................98 G. Nominal Group Technique...................................................................................100 H. Pareto Analysis ....................................................................................................101 I. Workflow Analysis...............................................................................................104 Simple Project Planning and Management Tools.......................................................105 A. Action Plans .........................................................................................................105 B. Matrix Diagrams ..................................................................................................106 C. Tree Diagrams ......................................................................................................109 Advanced Project Planning and Management Tools .................................................111 A. Critical Path Method (CPM), Gantt Charts, and PERT Charts............................111 B. Joint Application Development (JAD) Teams .....................................................117 Software Tools................................................................................................................119 A. Computer-Based Collaborative Tools..................................................................120 B. Software-Supported Tools....................................................................................121 C. Vendor-Neutral Modeling Tools..........................................................................122 D. Vendor-Specific Workflow Systems and Software Tools ...................................122 Basic Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement ............................126 A. Benchmarking ......................................................................................................126 B. Cost-Benefit Analysis ..........................................................................................128 C. Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................130

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page Advanced Methodologies Supporting Business Process Enhancement ....................133 A. Activity-Based Costing (ABC) ............................................................................133 B. Balanced Scorecard ..............................................................................................136 C. Capability Maturity Model...................................................................................137 D. Simulation ............................................................................................................139 E. Six Sigma..............................................................................................................140 F. Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System............................142 Appendices......................................................................................................................144 A. Glossary ...............................................................................................................145 B. Process Reengineering Organizational Readiness Self-Assessment Form ..........156 C. Risk Analysis Form..............................................................................................161 D. Suggested Elements of a Formal Business Case for Business Process Enhancement........................................................................................................164 E. Sample Process Flowchart: U.S. District Court Criminal Case Process ..............168 F. Selected Web Sites ...............................................................................................174 G. Suggestions for Further Reading..........................................................................182

vii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page Figure 1. Relationship of a Court’s Mission and Business Processes to Its Information Technology ................................................................................................5 Table 1. Considerations Bearing on Whether to Use Process Improvement (BPI) or Process Reengineering (BPR) .................................................................................17 Table 2. Relative Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Court Employees versus Consultants in a Business Process Enhancement Effort...................................27 Table 3. Innovative Impact of Technology on Business Processes ..................................34 Table 4. Impact of Different Information Technologies on the Way that Organizations Operate .................................................................................................35 Table 5. Potential Implementation Barriers and Their Causes .........................................40 Table 6. Potential Cost and Benefit Categories and Items................................................43 Figure 2. Sample Role-Transition Worksheet for an Assistant Court Clerk Position .................................................................................................49 Figure 3. Generalized Model of Life-Cycle Management for a Court Information System............................................................................................58 Table 7. Helping People Make the Change Transition .....................................................80 Table 8. Levels of Business Process Quality ....................................................................83 Figure 4. Block Diagram of Hiring Process in a Hypothetical Court...............................87 Figure 5. Late Entry of Court Event Date: Sample Fishbone Diagram with Potential Causes...................................................................................................93 Table 9. Hypothetical Force Field Diagram for Trial Court with a Civil Delay Problem ....................................................................................................97 Figure 6. Histograms on Case and Population Trends per Judge in Texas Courts, 1995-2001 ....................................................................................................................98 Figure 7. Sample Pareto Chart: 1979 Criminal Trial-Date Continuance Reasons in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .........................................................................102 Figure 8. Sample Matrix Diagram: Assigning Levels of Responsibility for Tasks in the Preparation of a New Clerks’ Manual Based on Enhanced Business Processes.....................................................................................................108 Figure 9. Sample Tree Diagram: Partial Detail on Tasks to be Accomplished in Upgrading a Court’s Voice Mail System...............................................................110 Figure 10. CPM Analysis of a Simple Court Computer System Installation, Presented as a Gantt Chart .........................................................................................115 Figure 11. CPM Analysis of a Simple Court Computer System Installation, Presented as a PERT Chart ........................................................................................116 Table 10. Examples of Generic Collaborative (Groupware) Tools ................................120 Table 11. Sources of Information About Vendor-Specific Software Tools ...................124 Table 12. Risk Mitigation or Contingency Planning in View of Likely Risk Occurrence and Impact......................................................................................133 Table 13. When Simulation May or May Not Be Appropriate.......................................140 Table 14. Six Sigma “DMAIC” versus “DMADV” .......................................................141

viii

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David C. Steelman is a principal court management consultant with the National Center for State Courts, and he prepared this manual as a project staff member for the Technology Reengineering Subcommittee. Since he came to the National Center in 1974, he has led hundreds of consulting projects for courts in most American states and several foreign countries. His book entitled, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium (2000), is in its second printing as part of the National Center’s “Court Management Library Series.” He can be reached by telephone and fax at (603) 647-4143, or by e-mail at dsteelman@ncsc.dni.us.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the leadership and contributions of a number of judicial leaders whose shared vision led to the development of this document. The need for a Guide for Court Managers on the application of business process review techniques and tools to the use of technology in court systems was first proposed by Bob Roper Colorado Court CIO, at a meeting of the COSCANACM Joint Technology Committee in March 2000. John Greacen, COSCA Chair of the JTC, appointed Judge Judith Ford to chair a 10-member steering committee to develop a “Reengineering Toolkit”. Subsequently, a smaller working group, including Judge Ford, John Greacen and Bob Roper, along with staff from the National Center for State Courts led by Laura Klaversma, and staff from SEARCH, led by Courts Program Director Fran Bremson, worked as a team to document the use of reengineering tools and best practices in courts throughout the country and to develop the outline for the final product. NCSC Principal Court Management Consultant David Steelman joined the team in 2002 and assumed complete responsibility for the writing of both this manual and the 50-page “Business Process Enhancement Guide” to which it is a companion volume. We also wish to express our appreciation to the National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration, the project advisory committee to BJA’s Court Technical Assistance grant to SEARCH, which authorized grant funding to staff this research effort. Special thanks to Ms. Amanda Murer and Ms. Anne Skove of the National Center’s Knowledge and Information Service for their extensive research in support of this project, and to all the judges, court managers and court IT professionals in Phoenix, Houston, Oakland (CA) and the new Jersey AOC who graciously shared their reengineering experiences with the project team during our site visits and offered realworld advice regarding the use of BPR techniques and tools. Intended as an aid for judges and court managers who deal with information technology in the courts, this manual draws on an extensive body of hard copy and

x

electronic literature on process improvement and process reengineering. It relies the insights of such experts as Michael Hammer, Richard Chang, James Harrington, and other prominent process-improvement and process-reengineering professionals from the private and public sectors. An especially valuable resource is from the federal government – the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide (1997) (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf). That document was crucial in framing Part I of this manual, and ideas from it appear throughout our discussion there of business process enhancement steps.

xi

FOREWORD

Developed under the auspices of the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management (the COSCA/NACM Committee), this manual is a work product of its Technology Reengineering Subcommittee. The manual is addressed to judges, court managers, and court information technology (IT) directors at both the state level and the trial court level. It is intended to help you prepare for technology change and adjust to the changes that technology brings to the courts.

A. Why Should We Focus on Business Processes in Courts?
H. James Harrington wrote about business processes in private business organizations in the early 1990’s, and much of what he wrote about the history of business processes in general can be related to the history of business processes in the courts. The business processes employed in clerk’s offices, court administration offices, courtrooms, and judges’ chambers were first developed to accomplish specific tasks when courts had a small staff and a relatively small number of cases and customers. They were developed quickly to meet immediate needs, and then they were either (a) not updated to keep pace with changes in the court environment, or (b) changed primarily for the convenience of the people in the process rather than for the best interest of the court or its customers. As courts grew and responsibilities were divided among different offices and departments or divisions, processes and operations became more bureaucratic. In general, nobody stepped back to observe this development, and nobody analyzed the business processes to determine if they were operating efficiently or effectively. Along the way, focus on the citizens – the court’s external customers – may have been lost as courts became larger and more complex. As a result, the business processes in courts, as in private businesses, “became ineffective, out of date, overly complicated, burdened xii

with bureaucracy, labor intensive, time consuming, and irritating to management and employees alike” (Harrington, Business Process Improvement, p. 19). Now courts are faced with at least three developments that bear on their business processes: the availability of information technology; issues of whether there is public trust and confidence in the courts; and pressure to deal with workloads that may be increasing more than the resources being appropriated by funding authorities. The application of information technology in the courts will not by itself help courts deal with problems of public trust or confidence or resource limitations. It is an error to think that maintenance of ineffective business processes in the courts has no cost – in fact, errors, “churning” of case processing, and bureaucracy add thousands and thousands of dollars to the cost of court operations without yielding any better justice services for citizens. Moreover, such errors, churning, and bureaucracy contribute enormously to a lack of public trust and confidence in the courts – citizens are less concerned about whether court decisions are “right” or “wrong” than they are about how difficult and costly it is to have cases decided in courts. Focusing on the business processes in the courts is a way to optimize the potential that information technology provides.* It permits judges and court managers dealing with technology to see that courts make more efficient use of finite resources and are more effective in serving citizens as customers, thereby promoting greater public trust and confidence in the judicial branch of government.**

In its core competency curriculum guidelines for information technology, the National Association for Court Management (NACM) observes that when courts overlay technology incrementally on complex and archaic procedures and processes, the new technology alone will not improve inefficient work processes in the courts. Yet effective technology management in a court includes the use of technology as a tool to help judges and court managers in their efforts to enhance the structure, alignment, efficacy and efficiency of court business processes. See NACM, Professional Development Advisory Committee, “Information Technology Management Curriculum Guidelines,” Court Manager (Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002) 16.
**

*

The federal government has recognized the need to optimize the potential of technology to improve performance, rather than simply automating inefficient pre-existing business processes. Under the Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA, also known as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, P.L. 104-106), federal agencies cannot undertake major IT purchases without specific justification from the standpoint of their ability to support organizational mission requirements. Agency heads are required to analyze the missions of their organizations, benchmark and assess the performance of their business processes and, based on this analysis, redesign their mission-related administrative processes as appropriate before making significant investments in information technology to support those missions.

xiii

B. The COSCA/NACM Committee and Business Processes in Courts
The COSCA/NACM Committee has been promoting the development and adoption of innovative technology in the courts for nearly a decade. As its strategic plan indicates, the Committee recognizes that many lessons have been learned during this time, including the need to link business process enhancement with the implementation of technology, if success is to be achieved: Courts … design automated systems to reproduce their existing work processes rather than take advantage of technological capabilities to redesign those processes to do them more efficiently. … At best, we can be said to have moved from the quill pen to the typewriter to the keyboard. The Joint Technology Committee’s vision is to use technology to help trial courts serve the needs of the public more fully, at an affordable cost. To do so, courts must radically change the way they offer services to the public and conduct business as they implement these new tools. Information technology provides an opportunity to improve automated support of court operations, which will facilitate the movement of court services from “quill pens” to the 21st century. While the technology to do so is available, courts require education and assistance in improving business processes. For this reason, the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee established the Technology Reengineering Subcommittee.

C. The Technology Reengineering Subcommittee and This Manual
The goals of the Technology Reengineering Subcommittee are to: • • • help court leaders understand how to improve business practices and why these improvements are essential to success with technology; provide resources and methodologies to support the full range of process improvement approaches; and teach court leaders how to apply these tools in their individual courts. This manual is a companion to our Court Business Process Enhancement Guide, and it is intended to help the subcommittee achieve these goals. In other words, the objective of this manual is to show judges, court managers, and court IT directors why business process enhancement is important, and to help you understand the methods and xiv

tools for process change. We accomplish our objectives by focusing on the processes and tools that courts can use to improve, redesign, or re-engineer the court work process, and thereby to leverage the value of technology in order to help courts become more effective and efficient in their delivery of services to citizens. We do this by elaborating on what we discuss more briefly in the Court Business Process Enhancement Guide, providing more detailed discussion of the four steps to achieving business process enhancement (Part I) and of the different methods, tools, and techniques to aid that effort (Part II). Parts I and II are both “user friendly” and visually attractive, so that they will serve as helpful aids for process improvement and process reengineering in your court. See Appendix A for a glossary of terms relating to business process enhancement. For a list of helpful web sites, see Appendix F. For suggested further reading, see Appendix G.

xv

AN INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT

A. What is Business Process Enhancement?
The purpose of this manual is to help judge leaders, court administrators, clerks of court, court IT directors, and other court managers who deal with information technology prepare for technology change and adjust to the changes that technology brings to the courts. Our focus is on how to enhance the business processes in courts. We begin by defining what we mean by “process” and “business process:”

“Process” is a set of related activities that together create value through products or services for internal or external customers. ***** “Business Process” is a group of related activities by which a court or any other organization uses its resources to provide defined results in support of its mission, goals and objectives.

In every court, there are hundreds of business processes going on every day. There are a host of business processes associated with such court activities as the creation, maintenance, and updating of case records; the calendaring of cases, conduct of courtroom proceedings, and entry of court decisions in the record; and the management of caseflow, personnel, finances, equipment, and facilities. A large number of them are repetitive – tasks or activities that people do over and over again – and these may be potential candidates for enhancement with the use of court technology. In a book on caseflow management in the courts,* the lead author observes that improving the day-to-day management of a court or any other organization involves the
*

See David Steelman, John Goerdt, and James McMillan, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium (Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 2000).

1

establishing of goals or expectations, studying what is actually happening, and then taking responsibility to bring what currently happens into greater compliance with those goals or expectations. “Business process enhancement” can be defined in a similar fashion:

“Business Process Enhancement” involves the establishment of goals or expectations for one or more processes, analysis of how those processes are actually carried out in a court or any other organization, and adjustment of those processes if their results do not meet the goals or expectations. Different approaches, such as process improvement or process reengineering, may be used together or separately to enhance business processes.

This general definition of business process enhancement gives us a broad idea of what this manual is about in relation to information technology in the courts. The details of business process enhancement methodology are given in Part I, while Part II offers methods, tools and techniques to aid such an effort.

B. What are Process Improvement and Process Reengineering?
Both “process improvement” and “process reengineering” are business process enhancement approaches aimed at enhancing the way that a court or other organization does its work. It is worthwhile to define them, and then to compare them with each other. “Process improvement” involves less dramatic immediate departures from more traditional practices in the courts, although the cumulative effect of ongoing improvements can be substantial. The following definition of process improvement is based on discussion by H. James Harrison in the first chapter of his book, Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness (1991):

“Process Improvement” is a disciplined approach to the simplification and streamlining of business processes, using measurements and controls to aid continuous improvement.

2

Process reengineering has to do with making more extensive changes in a court’s business processes. Here is a standard definition of process reengineering:

“Process Reengineering” is a disciplined approach to the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to bring about dramatic improvements in performance.

How different is “process improvement” from “process reengineering”? The two concepts share a lot of common themes, since they both focus on processes to meet customer requirements. In this manual we consider process improvement and process reengineering to be related but distinct approaches, however, because they differ significantly with regard to scope and pace of change. Process improvement programs, work from existing processes and seek to achieve continuous, incremental change. Through reengineering, on the other hand, a court seeks to achieve rapid and dramatic improvements by replacing old processes with new ones. This difference might become a bit clearer if we looked at some specific court examples. Revising forms, creating cover sheets, and reorganizing staff assignments from specific duties to case management functions constitute process improvement. Putting a commercial copy center in the courthouse is process improvement – people are still making copies, but there just are different people doing it. The court is following the same process, but doing it better. In contrast, changing from paper to electronic documents, and converting from paper-driven to electronic-driven workflow, both represent process reengineering. Building a new self-help center for pro se parties could be considered process reengineering (or even process engineering), because it creates an entirely new function and process within the court along with redefined roles and functions for the court and outside entities. In some circumstances, a specific business process enhancement in a court might constitute process improvement, while in others it might represent process reengineering. Instituting differentiated case management (DCM) is probably more process improvement than process reengineering, unless the court completely changes its

3

structure and what different hearings are intended to accomplish. Information sharing constitutes process improvement, unless it entails fundamental redesign of the functions performed in different entities.

C. How Does Business Process Enhancement Relate to Information Technology?
Court leaders everywhere have discovered that simply computerizing old methods for doing things in clerk’s offices, chambers, and courtrooms will not necessarily improve court efficiency and yield improved court performance. Acquiring new court technology in the belief that simply introducing it will lead to improved operations is a primary cause of bad investments in court technology systems. As Figure 1 suggests, a court’s work processes and information needs are interdependent with its technology. The day-to-day work processes execute court management decisions based on information that technology can provide, and those processes are (or should be) activities in furtherance of the court’s mission. Technology in turn processes information to support management decisions by court leaders, which guide work processes in the accomplishment of the court’s mission. In view of the experience that many courts have had with information technology that has not improved their results, it is clear that courts seeking to make prudent use of public resources must take steps to maximize the potential of technology to improve performance, rather than simply automating old and inefficient processes. Information technology is an enabler of business process enhancement in the courts, and not a substitute for it. Judge leaders and court managers must insist that business process enhancement in the courts drive the acquisition of new technology, and not the other way around.

4

FIGURE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF A COURT’S MISSION AND BUSINESS PROCESSES TO ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY*

Court Mission Defines Accomplish

Court Business Processes Execute Guide

Management Decisions Consider Supports Information Employs Processes Technology

D. What are the Steps to Enhance Business Processes in My Court?
In almost every state, courts and other government entities are being asked to improve services to citizens while at the same time reducing (or at least not increasing) the costs of day-to-day operations. To respond effectively to these twin pressures, you and your court must consider changing the way that you carry out your every-day work activities – in other words, enhancing your business processes – without running afoul of procedural requirements in individual cases. As agents of stability and continuity in society, your court may often find itself operating with business processes that were developed in earlier times and designed before the emergence of today’s information technologies. As a result, you may not be in a position to meet your mission and strategic goals in an effective and efficient fashion. Consequently, you may need to consider
*

SOURCE: See GAO, Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide (Version 3, 1997), Figure 1, http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf.

5

changing outmoded work processes in order to use the new technologies as tools to aid the delivery of improved justice services to parties and other citizens using your court. Part I of this manual offers a four-step approach to changing the business processes in your court, either through process improvement or process reengineering.*

Step One: Establish An Appropriate Foundation Step Two: Measure “As Is” versus “To Be” Gap and Develop Feasible Alternatives to Existing Processes Step Three. Choose the Desired Solution and Plan for its Implementation Step Four. Implement the Enhanced Business Process Solution and Make Further Process Improvements as Needed

An underlying premise of this manual is that you must take a systematic approach to business process enhancement. The approach that we suggest here can be used in both large and small efforts to change business processes. It offers a means for court officials to consider the impact of such changes not only within a court itself, but also their impact on other institutional participants in the work that courts do every day.

E. What Tools and Methodologies Are Available to Help Me With Business Process Enhancement?
Your court’s business process enhancement steering committee and project team can apply the steps described in Part I to any business process in a court, regardless of its complexity. Especially with large and complex processes that have many details, your project team will be able to act much more quickly and efficiently with the aid of appropriate tools and methodologies. Part II discusses some of the tools and methodologies commonly used in process improvement or process reengineering:

*

An especially valuable resource for Part I was GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide (Version 3, 1997) (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf). That document was crucial in framing Part I, and ideas from it appear throughout the discussion of the four steps to business process enhancement.

6

Process Documentation Tools Process Analysis Tools Simple Project Planning and Management Tools Advanced Project Planning and Management Tools Computer-Based Collaborative Tools Other Software Tools Basic Business Process Enhancement Methodologies Advanced Business Process Enhancement Methodologies

You must consider different factors before using any specific tool or methodology, including how a problem is defined, how significant it is, or how complex it is. In addition, there are different tools or methodologies for different kinds of tasks, such as information and data gathering, analyzing alternative solutions to problems, or evaluating costs and benefits. Most tools and methodologies are designed for a specific kind of activity, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Some of the tools and methodologies discussed in Part II had their genesis in the development of process improvement, while others are associated with systems engineering, information systems, and project management. This overlap reflects the fact that process improvement and process reengineering are on a continuum, and that any successful enhancement effort typically calls for people with varied knowledge, skills, and abilities.

7

PART I. STEPS TO ENHANCE BUSINESS PROCESSES IN YOUR COURT

8

STEP ONE. ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION

Like any other important undertaking, successful business process enhancement in a court often depends more on basic strategy than on specific tactical decisions. When experts have identified the key ingredients for successful business process enhancement, they have emphasized the critical importance of such fundamentals as leadership, a bold vision, having an organization that is ready for change, and having a capable project team to undertake the enhancement effort. It is therefore of utmost importance that court leaders preparing for a business process enhancement effort assure that it is well grounded. Key to that effort will be the steering committee described here.*

A. Develop an Appropriate Governance and Management Structure
Any business process enhancement effort in a court must be organized and managed, so that everyone knows what are its objectives, what specific people must do, and when activities are to be completed. It is therefore important to develop and effective management structure for the undertaking. Those overseeing the effort must determine its scope, define expectations for it, determine what resources will be needed (especially in terms of people and information technology), and how the project team (see section E) will go about its work. 1. Establish a steering committee to oversee the project. Leadership is vital to the success of any court improvement effort, and it is vital to success in a business process enhancement effort. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler wrote in 1993 that nothing
*

The guidance we give in this step is to the members of the process enhancement steering committee. Later in this part of the manual, we give suggestions for efforts by the project team working on business process enhancement details. When it might not otherwise be clear whether we are addressing the steering committee or the project team, we will be specific in indicating the group to whom we are offering suggestions.

9

is more important than leadership for reinventing government; and in his book The Reengineering Revolution, reengineering expert Michael Hammer calls leadership the primary ingredient for successful process reengineering. In a court, continuity of leadership is especially important as well – if the judges filling court leadership roles change too often, it may be impossible to sustain the vision, momentum, and oversight that come from effective leaders. To support and oversee the business process enhancement effort from start to finish, a court should have a steering committee, headed by the chief or presiding judge. Only the chief judge and other key leaders of the court can

Build credible support for the enhancement project among judges and court staff as well as other stakeholders in the work of the court Mobilize the talent and resources needed for the business process enhancement project Authorize the actions necessary to change court operations Create and effectively use the support and advice of any advisory committee of court users and stakeholders for the project

The steering committee should usually also include the court administrator and the clerk of court, and possibly other appropriate supervisors from the court who have major responsibility for aspects of the process under scrutiny. It is important for members of the steering committee to know its role in the business process enhancement effort. The steering committee should have the following functions and responsibilities:

Define the scope of the business process enhancement project Allocate court resources for the project Ensure that the project’s goals are consistent with the court’s strategic objectives and other improvement efforts Monitor the progress of the project Approve the recommendations of the project team

10

2. Appoint a project sponsor. Designate one of the members of the steering committee as the “project sponsor.” This may be the court administrator, the clerk, or the head of the one of the functions in the process to be enhanced. The responsibilities of the sponsor are the following:

Serve as the liaison between the steering committee and the project team (see section E) Work with the project team to resolve policy issues Work with the project team to address internal barriers and problems Keep the project going in keeping with the timetable and expectations set by the steering committee

B. Set Priorities in View of the Court’s Strategic Mission and Goals
Business process enhancement involves changing the way that a court’s every-day work is done so that it supports the purposes of the court in a more effective and efficient manner. In order to support a determination whether its business processes have indeed been “enhanced,” the steering committee should thus undertake process improvement or process reengineering with an eye toward the mission and goals of the court and the needs of the people who come to court. Ask these three basic questions:

Does the court’s mission need to be redefined? Are the court’s goals aligned with its mission? Who are the court’s customers and stakeholders, and what are their needs?

As a member of the steering committee, you may find that you have been operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms of the wants and needs of court “customers” and “stakeholders.” How do we define “customers” and “stakeholders” for courts? 11

A “customer” of a court is a court user – any person or group that has business with the court, and that receives and uses or is directly affected by its services. Customers can be external to the court, in that they receive its ultimate end results, or internal customers who receive intermediate outputs of other people within the court and then undertake process activities that result in final work products or services for external customers. ***** A “stakeholder” of a court is anyone who has a vested interest in the work of the court and in the outcome of improving or reengineering any of its business processes. Any individual or group with an interest in the success of the court in delivering justice and in maintaining the purposes of the court is a stakeholder.

The notion of “customers and stakeholders” is not a traditional way of thinking about courts, but it is an important one for a court to understand. “External” customers include not only parties and lawyers, but also the wide range of people who come to court in other capacities. Critically important among a court’s internal “customers” are its judges and the staff members of the court and the clerk’s office, all of whom are interdependent as they carry out a wide array of business processes to aid the day-to-day conduct of courtroom proceedings. “Stakeholders” in a court include not only those who lead and work in the court, but also the broad mix of institutional participants in court proceedings, as well as state and local funding authorities and general government officials. Much of the reason why a court exists is to provide services to these customers and stakeholders. Only after steering committee members have thought carefully about what the court and its staff members should be doing in their work processes can you go on to consider how to carry out those processes in the most effective and efficient way. 1. Develop or review the court’s strategic mission and priorities. Unlike a private business, a government entity like a court cannot of its own volition make major shifts in its mission, kind of business activities, and kinds of customers. Yet courts and other government entities are being forced to look closely at their primary purposes and responsibilities. After looking at the needs of customers and stakeholders, as well as at

12

the other factors of change, the steering committee can take steps regarding the strategic context for any possible changes in business processes. Such steps include the following:

Identify any important changes that could result in a major redefinition of the roles and responsibilities in the court. Focus strategic planning on the highest priority needs of customers and stakeholders. Develop explicit goals and strategies addressing the needs of key internal and external customers. If necessary, revise and refine the court’s strategic plan and form a consensus among court leaders about the goals that the court is trying to accomplish, for whom, and by when.

One valuable approach to assessing the court is to look at it in terms of a “balanced scorecard.” This approach involves the measurement of organizational performance from four perspectives: (1) organizational learning and growth; (2) business processes; (3) internal and external customer perspectives; and (4) organizational finances. (See Part II for more details of this methodology.) Taking these steps can help you understand the source, nature, and priority of demands being made on court resources. The reassessment might show that goals, priorities and activities that once were a key part of the court’s efforts are now relatively less important. Similarly, new legislative mandates and new social issues – such as the explosion of domestic violence cases, or the changes mandated by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) – may mean that there are new elements in the main business of the court, while others activities – such as civil disputes – are now being addressed more in alternative forums. 2. Determine how well the court’s practices, procedures, and services align with the needs of customers and stakeholders. Business process enhancement is customer focused and outcome oriented. As the steering committee embarks on a process-improvement or process-reengineering endeavor, you should determine the needs and expectations of internal and external court customers, because this information will provide key information for improving the cost, quality, and timeliness of services that 13

the court provides. The Trial Court Performance Standards suggest possible areas in which there are may be requirements: (1) access to justice; (2) expedition and timeliness; (3) equality, fairness, and integrity; (4) independence and accountability; and (5) public trust and confidence.* In addition, see the NACM guide, Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts (1999). Stakeholders (including law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, probation and parole agents, child protection agents, family service providers, and local funding authorities, among others) are another important source of requirements for the court. They can have a great impact on any court effort to change its business processes, and they can jeopardize the success of the effort if they are ignored. It is probably not possible for a court to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders. As a result, the steering committee must identify areas of consensus and set priorities among key stakeholders’ needs. It is also critical to identify areas of fundamental disagreement with or among stakeholders, since they may hinder chances for success. 3. Identify and assess the impact of other forces for change, such as a changing mission, demographic shifts, and budget cuts. Considerations other than the needs of customers and stakeholders also have an important effect on a court’s strategic direction. Some of these changes may be fundamentally altering the nature of the work that courts do.** While the demands on courts may be changing, the resources available to courts to meet those demands are changing as well. In many states they have dwindled since our economy has passed beyond the growth years of the 1990’s. Although financial circumstances for state and local courts may improve in the future, the beginning of the new century sees the courts facing prospects of budget austerity. In such a setting, it will be doubly important to set priorities in strategic terms and to find ways to enhance

See Bureau of Justice Assistance and National Center for State Courts, Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1997), http://www.ncsc.dni.us/RESEARCH/tcps_web/index.html. See Part II for discussion of the performance standards and measurement system as a tool to aid business process enhancement.
**

*

The steering committee may be aided in the identification of major trends by the National Center for State Courts. See National Center for State Courts, Knowledge & Information Service, Annual Report on Trends in the State Courts: 2001 Edition (Williamsburg, Va.: NCSC, 2001), http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_CtFutTrends01Pub.pdf, and subsequent editions of that report.

14

business processes in ways that will allow them to meet the needs of court users better and more efficiently. 4. Define the court business processes that are key to meeting customer and stakeholder needs. Develop a general understanding of the court’s business processes. Like businesses and other government organizations, courts have a confusing web of interconnected business processes that cut across court departments and that involve other institutional participants – like attorneys, probation officers and case workers – in case proceedings. Define the components of each process, where there are connections to other processes, and where the court interacts with court-related agencies. As part of this first step in business process enhancement, identify the court’s “core processes” and document each of those processes. Do not worry about giving detailed attention to every activity, however, since that will be done when the court’s project team documents and analyzes “as is” processes in Step Two:

“Core Processes” in a court are those that directly affect its ability to achieve its mission. “Core” processes can be distinguished from "support" processes, which contribute to the delivery of core processes, but may not have as direct an effect on the court’s success in meeting it basic purposes.

A tool for simplified documentation of core processes is a “block diagram.” (See Part II.) This kind of high-level documentation of core processes should result in a graphic representation of inputs, outputs, constraints, responsibilities, and interconnections among the core processes. It will provide the basis for deciding which processes are most important to improve or reengineer in order to meet the strategic goals of the court. 5. Select and prioritize court business processes to be enhanced. Begin by identifying the process performance gaps that must be narrowed or closed, either because of the size of the gaps in view of the strategic importance of the processes, or because it is foreseeable that a bad problem will get worse. This should yield a list of processes that are candidates for process improvement or process reengineering.

15

Then identify the processes that should have highest priority in terms of such criteria as the following:

Processes that have the highest importance in terms of the court’s mission Processes that have the highest impact on internal and external customers Processes with the biggest potential “return on investment” in terms of the resources that will be needed for process improvement or process reengineering Processes for which change management issues (see Step Four) can be more easily resolved because there is a strong consensus within the court, with court users, and with stakeholders Processes that can be improved or reengineered with resources currently available to the court and within its current infrastructure Processes that are less complex, where enhancement goals can be achieved within a short period of time through process improvement or simpler reengineering, thereby letting the court gain experience with reengineering

C. Assess Organizational Readiness and Decide on a Process Enhancement Approach
After having completed the activities described in parts A and B above, you should know what core processes are most in need of change in order to meet the court’s strategic objectives and the expectations of customers and stakeholders in a cost-effective way. But process enhancement is not something to undertake lightly, and you need to understand what skills and resources may be needed for success and the possible changes in internal organization and local court culture that may be associated with it. 1. Decide whether poorly performing processes should be targeted for more incremental or more dramatic process enhancements. You may find that court staff members have valuable insights into business process enhancement opportunities and whether they can be accomplished through process improvement or process reengineering. Other factors to be considered in deciding between process improvement and process reengineering include those in Table 1.

16

TABLE 1. CONSIDERATIONS BEARING ON WHETHER TO USE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT (BPI) OR PROCESS REENGINEERING (BPR)*
Consideration Change in external court environment – e.g., size or mix of court workload, budget cutbacks, or statutory changes Change in internal court environment – e.g., court organization and structure Use BPI If the changes are modest and slow. Use BPR If there have been rapid or substantial changes (e.g., ASFA impact on abuse & neglect case processing) If a substantial change, such as trial court consolidation or the creation of a family court combining juvenile and domestic relations If processes span multiple locations and require critical exchange of data or paper

If changes are small, such as a change in number of judgeships

Locus of business process

If process does not involve more than one or two offices or small work groups and if data or paper exchange is not critical If new software or hardware is limited to one or two offices and cannot affect data or paper exchange

Introduction of new information technology

If existing processes are premised on manual information processing; if technology will affect multiple processes and multiple locations; if technology will affect critical data or paper exchanges If the process involves a substantial interaction with attorneys and parties. If court leaders are able to dedicate meaningful financial resources and substantial involvement in the change effort. If an existing business process is failing or when the situation is drastic and significant improvement must be achieved in a relatively short time period.

Involvement of Attorneys and Parties Cost and Staffing Allocation

If a relatively low level of involvement by attorneys and parties is necessary. If it is not possible for court leaders to dedicate more than limited financial resources and periodic, part-time involvement in the change effort. If court has not previously been much involved in any prior business process enhancement and change is not urgent.

Level of Urgency

*

See Richard Chang, Process Reengineering in Action: A Practical Guide to Achieving Breakthrough Results (1995), pp. 8-9.

17

This table suggests some of the fundamental problems that the steering committee must address in deciding whether to make only incremental business process changes or to seek more dramatic changes. If your court has not previously engaged in efforts to change its processes, it may be better to “learn to walk (by making incremental process improvements) before learning to run (by making more dramatic reengineering changes).” In addition, the level of commitment (both in terms of finances and dedicated staff assignments) required for a successful reengineering effort may be beyond what court leaders are able to provide. Yet if the court faces a substantial change in its external or internal environment, process reengineering may be appropriate. If its business processes are failing and the need for change is urgent, it may be critically necessary to reengineer. The introduction of new information technology often creates a situation in which process reengineering is highly desirable, particularly (as may be the case with many business processes in courts) if the new technology will affect processes spanning a number of separate offices, the exchange of critical data and information, and substantial interaction with attorneys and parties. As NACM’s Professional Development Advisory Committee has observed about information technology in the courts, simply automating pre-existing court business processes will not necessarily eliminate problems or bring about any noticeable improvements in productivity.* (Indeed, the introduction of computers may simply add more layers of cost, complexity, and delay.) In particular, process reengineering may be critically necessary in order for the court to take advantage of the potential of information technology in such areas as the following:

Reducing redundant data entry Gathering and sharing case-related data and information Expediting access to case information and data for judges, court staff, attorneys, and other institutional participants in the processing of cases

See “Information Technology Management Curriculum Guidelines,” Court Manager (Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002) 16.

*

18

2. Assess the court’s organizational readiness to engage in process improvement or process reengineering. Even if it is clear that a core business process needs to be changed, it is important to assess organizational readiness for the kind of change that would be involved in a process enhancement effort. After such an assessment, the steering committee may decide that it is not now prudent to proceed with efforts to change one or more processes because the court and its environment are not ready for what would have to be done for there to be a reasonable chance for success. Because process improvement would involve less dramatic change than process reengineering, it might be an easier undertaking in many courts. Yet if you seek to implement a process improvement program, you should recognize the conditions that would be necessary for successful process improvement beyond the simplest changes. Based on the observations by H. James Harrington in his book on business process improvement, you should be prepared for the following in order to determine if its judges and staff are ready for process improvement:

The leaders of the court must be prepared to drive the process improvement effort, forming a process improvement oversight team to be deeply involved in setting priorities, appointing those responsible for the processes to be changes, and reviewing progress. Judges and staff members must accept that those involved in the actual process improvement may be called on to commit considerable time to the effort for at least a period of several weeks. It may be necessary to run parallel business processes (the old process and the new process simultaneously) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed change.

For process reengineering, it is important to have or to create the kind of conditions in the court that will support success. In a 1996 book, Sarah Cook identified four key enabling conditions for process reengineering:

19

Leadership to articulate a vision for the way ahead Human resource practices that are flexible enough to permit the possibility of dramatic change Willingness and capacity to provide extensive and intensive education and training Access to suitable information technology

In Appendix B, we present a self-assessment form for you to determine if your court is organizationally ready for process reengineering. The instructions for that form suggest that if after completing it you do not give the court a total of at least 75 points out of 100, then the court may not be ready for process reengineering. In such a circumstance, it would be prudent for you to wait until circumstances are more auspicious. In the meantime, consider making efforts in at least two areas:

Take affirmative, ongoing steps to change the local court culture and create an internal and external environment for the court that will be more favorable for the degree of change that may be necessary for a reengineering effort to succeed. Engage in incremental process improvement efforts to see how much benefit they can yield short of the dramatic changes in culture and structure that might be necessary in order for process reengineering to succeed.

3. If process reengineering is desirable, develop and communicate a preliminary business case for initiating a business process enhancement effort. Any single step in an ongoing process improvement effort may succeed in bringing about positive change without a need for additional resources beyond the time of those involved in bringing it about. Yet a process enhancement effort that involves more than one court department or that involves agencies outside the court proper may call for additional resources, and process improvements over time may also call for further resources that might have to be justified internally within the court and in a budget proposal to a funding authority. And the more dramatic potential changes involved in process

20

reengineering might call for the proponents of change to prepare and present a preliminary “business case” (a structured justification for business process enhancement to aid decisionmakers in the court or in a funding body) in support of the proposed effort to court leaders and funding bodies. Such a justification might be relatively brief if the degree of change is small, and it should be more detailed if the level of resources that may be needed for change and the degree of anticipated change is greater. The preliminary business case should include the following:

Reference to relevant legislative mandates or strategic goals Reference to expectations of internal and external customers and stakeholders Discussion of performance shortcomings in the business process under consideration Opportunities for improvement based on benchmarking results Consequences of failing to improve performance in terms of the court’s strategic goals or any potential political ramifications

This preliminary business case can be useful for convincing internal and external customers and stakeholders that reengineering the selected process is the appropriate way to achieve better results in a cost-effective way. It is a valuable tool for court leaders not only to communicate the rationale and objectives of the process reengineering effort, but also to help manage expectations about possible changes (see section D below) among staff members in the court and the clerk’s office. An updated and more detailed business case can be developed later in the process enhancement effort to give details about the desired approach to a new business process. (See Step Three.) 4. Integrate the process enhancement effort into the court’s overall strategy for improving performance in keeping with its mission. The steering committee’s decision to undertake process enhancement in one area of the court’s operations may be made independent of other court improvement efforts that are in progress. You may decide to reengineer one or more processes after experience with process improvement

21

efforts begun earlier but still in progress. Or you may develop a plan over 3-5 years to implement a sequence of process improvement and process reengineering efforts. The steering committee should have an overall strategy to provide ways to harmonize and integrate different efforts, establish priorities, and make necessary budget decisions, so that the efforts do not conflict with each other and also serve together to support the court’s strategic objectives. If the court has two or more projects underway at the same time, you should consider how they may be interrelated and how they should be coordinated.

D. Begin to Manage Expectations and Build Support for Change
The steering committee should begin an early effort to build support for process enhancement within the court and among court users and stakeholders. The chief or presiding judge of a court is well positioned to explain the court’s situation and goals, both internally and externally, and to determine appropriate criteria for success. The sustained and conspicuous involvement of the judges sends a strong signal to both the court community and the broader community that the court is serious about improving its performance. Within the court, start involving key judges as well as supervisors and staff members in the process enhancement effort as soon as possible. Begin to think about how to manage the change process. Among external court users and stakeholders, work to develop a consensus in support of the level of changes that will be needed to achieve the court’s strategic objectives. To help prepare for potential change, you should reach out early to court users and stakeholders and involve them where possible in the change effort. Ongoing communication about the goals and progress of the effort is crucial, since negative early perceptions might create a “self-fulfilling prophecy” and undermine chances for success. Change management needs to be well underway before the new process is about to be implemented, because it will otherwise be difficult to build and sustain support and momentum among court staff members for the new process.

22

E. Appoint a Project Owner and a Capable Project Team
Beyond leadership, an appropriate vision, and organizational readiness for change, the success of the business process enhancement effort will turn on the quality of the steering committee’s strategic decisions about ownership of the new business processes and the quality of the team that will address the details of business process change. 1. Identify an “owner” for each process to be reengineered or improved. From the beginning, it is important for the steering committee to identify the person who will ultimately be responsible for managing the performance of the newly improved or reengineered process, and to designate him or her as its “owner.” Doing so early in the process will fix accountability and responsibility for the process in one person. This person may be someone who is currently associated with the existing process to be enhanced, but this is not absolutely necessary. What is critical is that the “process owner” should work closely with the project team, or even lead it. 2. Form a well-qualified project team to enhance each target process and its supporting structures. The actual business process enhancement effort should be carried out by a project team working under the supervision of the steering committee. The responsibilities of the project team should include the following:

Detailed documentation of the process to be enhanced Designate alternative options for a new process (including doing away with the process if appropriate) Defining process measures for the option considered most desirable Facilitating an implementation plan

It is important for the project team to be one that will be able to accomplish the objectives of the process enhancement effort. Therefore, it is important that the steering committee pay particular attention to the makeup of the project team members, the resources and training available to the team, and the amount of time they are able to commit to the process enhancement effort. Incremental process improvement efforts may

23

be accomplished with just part-time involvement of appropriate staff members. To give due consideration to the more significant changes that are likely come from process reengineering, however, the committee should consider reallocating work assignments for at least some project team members, so that they can give full-time attention to the process enhancement effort for an appropriate period of time.

The project team should include members who represent all of the different areas affected by the project and who represent the viewpoints of their respective areas. The team should include some members from outside the process under consideration, in order to have the benefit of different perspectives on how to change the current process. The team members should have an opportunity to learn about process analysis and process enhancement techniques and they should have access to tools and techniques that will support their work (see Part II). The team members should have access to technical support or expertise from within or outside the court. Project team members should have their work assignments arranged to give them enough time to do their work properly.

3. Provide clear guidance to the project team. The steering committee or the project sponsor, or both, should work with the project team to develop written guidelines for the team. These guidelines should address the following:

The scope and goals of the project The project team’s authority The way that the project team should work with the project sponsor and the steering committee Any special considerations that may limit the range of potential solutions that the project team might develop and consider

24

4. Prepare a project plan. The project sponsor and the project team should prepare a draft project plan for approval by the steering committee. The project plan should define the activities, deliverables, and timeframes for the effort, and it should serve as a reference point for managing the activities and progress of the project team. The plan should include the following:

Clear and measurable goals and objectives Explicitly stated assumptions Identification of all tasks, responsibilities and deliverables Clearly stated schedules and deadlines Skills and resources that are needed

While the project plan should be clear and specific enough to provide a clear basis for shared understanding about the project between the steering committee and the project team, it should not be inflexible. The project team members should be able to direct their own work and be able to adapt the plan to unanticipated problems or opportunities. 5. Define the methods, tools, and techniques that the project team will use to accomplish the project. Success in a process enhancement effort turns on following a well-considered approach giving a structured framework for the project team to know in detail what it must do and the issues that it must address. Moreover, the effectiveness and efficiency of the effort can be greatly enhanced by using the appropriate tools and techniques. (See the methods, tools and techniques discussed in Part II.) An example of a tool used by the courts in Houston to aid the introduction of a new criminal justice information system is discussed in the sidebar below.

25

TOOLS AND CONSULTANTS IN HOUSTON, TEXAS In February 2002, a team from the Technology Reengineering Subcommittee of the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee visited Harris County (Houston), Texas. The purpose of the visit was to document the process and tools used by the Harris County courts in transitioning from their legacy integrated criminal justice information management system (“JIMS1”) to their developing new integrated criminal justice information management system (“JIMS2”). A tool in the undertaking was the “Rational” suite of products (a version of UML – see Part II), using “RUP” methodology (see http://www.rational.com/), which was employed to bring discipline to both the business development and the documentation processes. “Rational Rose” (http://www.rational.com/products/rose/index.jsp) will be used to generate basic Java code that will need to be refined and supplemented with original Java code. Rational tools use a complete integrated life-cycle solution that assists the team with each step of soft ware development: requirements and analysis, software development, and system testing. Among the lessons learned was that the “Rational” software and methodology provided the structure needed to design and maintain the system’s documentation and business rules accurately. Automated tools such as “Rational” can be very helpful to help document your court’s business rules. Yet you should not expect to use them to generate new business processes, which must be developed carefully by those who thoroughly understand the old processes and what is to be achieved by any new or improved processes.

F. Determine the Role of Consultants
Consultants can help a business process enhancement effort by bringing specialized knowledge, skills, and experience. One of the ways they can help is by providing general education for the steering committee about process enhancement in general and more detailed education and training for the project team in the methodology, tools and techniques for either process improvement or process reengineering. It is critical, however, that ownership of the process enhancement effort remain in the court – that the steering committee maintain effective direction and oversight, and that the project team actually carry out the enhancement effort. Some of the relative advantages and disadvantages of court employees versus consultants are presented below in Table 2. In the end, you must balance issues of cost, objectivity and ownership of the effort in deciding whether to engage a consultant to aid a process enhancement effort. Any consultant that you engage should have demonstrated knowledge of courts and extensive

26

experience with the process enhancement approach the court is taking. You should closely check the references that any prospective consultant offers. TABLE 2. RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING COURT EMPLOYEES VERSUS CONSULTANTS IN A BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT EFFORT*

Description
Employees

Advantages
1. Understand current processes 2. Understand the court and its environment 3. Will be around after project completion 1. Know other courts’ experiences 2. Provide access to essential skills 3. Have outsider objectivity

Disadvantages
1. May lack necessary skills & knowledge 2. May lack necessary objectivity 3. May be constrained by self interest or politics 1. Risk of “outsourcing” an important capability 2. May be a significant expense 3. May cause diffusion of accountability

Consultants

*

See Bennis and Mische, The 21st Century Organization (1995), pp. 96-99, as well as Hammer and Stanton, The Reengineering Revolution (1995), p. 78.

27

STEP TWO. MEASURE “AS IS” VERSUS “TO BE” GAP AND DEVELOP FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO EXISTING COURT BUSINESS PROCESSES

Changing the business processes in a court through either process improvement or process reengineering requires that the project team have a full understanding of the activities in the current process. The team’s analysis of the current “as is” situation should include assessment of current performance in terms of appropriate measures or indicators, as well as comparison with a desired “to be” state of affairs reflecting strategic goals and objectives. Based on this assessment and comparison, develop alternative solutions that might permit the court to achieve more of its goals and objectives. There may be barriers to implementing alternative processes, and you should consider how these barriers might be addressed. Conclude this step by doing a cost-benefit analysis that compares the alternatives with each other and with “as is” processes.

A. Document and Analyze the Current “As Is” Processes
Once the project sponsor and the project team have agreed on the team’s approach, identified the methods, tools and techniques it will use (see Part II), and developed appropriate skill in the use of those tools, the team must develop a thorough understanding of the business processes to be addressed in the enhancement effort. This will involve deeper documentation of workflow, identification of problem areas, and discovery of improvement opportunities. 1. Document and model current processes. If the business processes under investigation involve not only the court but also other court-related agencies, the documentation effort can be complicated. For a brief description of the documentation of business processes in Nashville, Tennessee, see the sidebar below. 28

DETAILED DOCUMENTATION OF CURRENT PROCESSES IN DAVIDSON COUNTY (NASHVILLE), TENNESSEE* In 1992, the justice officials in Davidson County, Tennessee decided to work together formally to automate and integrate the justice agencies within the county. In order to accomplish this goal, a unique, cooperative organization, the Justice Information System (JIS) agency was created under authorization from a metropolitan government ordinance. One of the primary goals of JIS was to avoid automating the existing manual processes. In order to help accomplish this goal, operational project teams (comprised of vendor representatives, JIS staff, and justice agency staff members) were formed and educated on basic reengineering principals. In order to electronically document the business processes, Popkin’s System Architect was chosen as the case/process-modeling tool. The teams used the IDEF component of the tool, which was a structured modeling methodology widely, used to improve business processes and systems. The IDEF models provided a graphical representation and consistent interpretation of the business processes and enhanced the communication between the technicians and the justice users. The first step in the process was to develop the “AS IS” business model. Each agency had to document its existing workflow down to the smallest detail. To develop the enterprise model interagency process flows were documented and all existing paper forms were collected and analyzed to determine the information exchange points. The next step was to develop the “TO BE” business model, which is how they wanted the system to be designed. The two models were then compared and from that comparison the functional requirements for the system were developed. The teams spent over a year on this part of the project. This detailed analysis enabled the teams to design the future integrated system, identify how each agency fit into the overall “big picture”, determine which parts of the system would be automated and which would remain manual, identify the processes that would be modified and the effect on the organizational resources, and gain a better understanding of how each agency’s processes impacted the overall justice system.

To document current processes, you should build upon the “block diagrams” or other simplified documentation of core processes already completed by the steering committee in Step One. For each process, identify all activities and tasks; specify staff roles and responsibilities; and note links and interactions with other processes. You may want to use software modeling tools (such as IDEF0 or UML) and analysis techniques

This example is based on a case study of the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) in Davidson County, Tennessee, done by Teri B. Sullivan of SEARCH and Michaela Mathews of the District Attorney General’s Office in Nashville.

*

29

that include flowcharting. (See Part II.) Full documentation and analysis of the current situation should include the following elements.

The documentation and modeling of the court business process to be enhanced should have the following features: Workflow in the process should be mapped down to the activity or task level, so that all the key elements that drive performance in the process have been identified and understood. Performance data, such as cost, time, and computer “throughput,” should be gathered for the activities within the process. The documentation of the process should be validated by the people who actually do the work, as well as by the process “owner” (see Part E under Step One). The information flow associated with the process should be documented. As part of this, supporting information systems and other key enablers should be identified. The project team should use disciplined methods for quantitative measurement of the cost and performance of activities and resources for the process. (For example, in Part II see “activity based costing,” “benchmarking,” and the “trial court performance standards and measurement system.”) The jobs, skills, and specialized knowledge of the people performing the work should be identified. The location of the process in the court’s own organizational structure should be determined, so that those who serve to provide internal “input” to the process, as well as those who are the internal “customers” of the process, are all identified. All interfaces with external court users and stakeholders should be identified. All statutes, court rules, administrative orders, policies, and other authoritative sources guiding and directing the process should be specified. Specific assumptions underlying the process should also be identified and articulated.

2. Avoid getting bogged down at this stage. There is a risk that the project team may end up become mired in the effort to document and analyze the process under study. The sponsor and the steering committee should be careful not to let this happen.

30

PRACTICAL SUGGESTION ON “AS IS” DOCUMENTATION & ANALYSIS Relative speed is important in completing the documentation and analysis of a court’s “as is” processes. To avoid getting bogged down in elaborate analysis that will slow down the overall enhancement effort, the project team should spend no more time on this part of the effort than is reasonably necessary. Especially if the enhancement effort is addressing process activities not just within the court, but also involving activities by officials and staff members of other court-related agencies, the sponsor and the steering committee may want to work out a realistic timetable for completion of this activity. This should be done in coordination with the project team and, if appropriate, other institutional actors in the work of the court.

B. Benchmark and Set Enhancement Goals
By finding out if there is a gap between “as is” processes – how the court now does its business – and “to be” processes – where the court needs to be in order to achieve strategic goals, the project team can focus on business processes that are most in need of change, set realistic enhancement goals, and decide whether process improvement or process reengineering is more suitable. An important part of this undertaking is “benchmarking.” Through benchmarking, you can develop reference points by which the steering committee can set ambitious but achievable performance goals and learn what other courts have found most effective to meet their process enhancement objectives. 1. Benchmark against goals and performance of leading courts or other comparable organizations. Benchmarking is a key tool for project team members to use in order to develop ideas about alternative ways to do things and to set realistic improvement objectives. (See Part II for more details about benchmarking.) The benchmarking that you do may be either “internal” or “external.” Internal benchmarking can be done, for example, when staff members in its criminal division are finding out how to improve case processing by seeing how it is done in the civil and family divisions, and why it is being done better in those divisions. Or in a court with individual calendars, it might involve efforts by the judge and his or her staff to see what other judges and staff with individual calendars do in order to achieve better results.

31

External benchmarking involves an effort by one court to see how other courts that are similarly situated carry out a business process in a more effective and efficient way. What constitutes “more effective” may be indicated by national standards, such as the Trial Court Performance Standards (see Part II). Other courts suitable for benchmarking may be in the same state; they may be courts in other states that have been identified through the suggestions of a judge’s or court manager’s peers; they may be identified through a state association of judges or administrators; or they may be identified with the assistance of such organizations as the Conference of State Court Administrators, the National Association for Court Management, SEARCH, or the National Center for State Courts. Here are suggested benchmarking steps:*

1. Select a business process in your court to benchmark. 2. Decide the most important ways to measure performance in that process. 3. Measure your own court’s or your own department’s performance in the process. 4. Find other departments or other courts that are achieving better results than you are according to the measures you have chosen. 5. Investigate the process in the other courts or other departments to determine how and why they are achieving better results. 6. Decide whether the process features that make their results better will work (perhaps with some modification) for you. 7. Develop an action plan and implement what you have learned, whether as part of process improvement or process reengineering.

2. In the benchmarking process, assess court technology. As part of the benchmarking process, look at the status, capabilities, effectiveness, and orientation of the court’s information technology in relation to the court’s strategic goals. Here are the steps, based on those suggested by Warren Bennis and Michael Mische in The 21st Century Organization (1995):

*

See Manganelli and Klein, The Reengineering Handbook, p. 121.

32

Determine where the court is now in terms of the evolution of its information technology. Ascertain where information technology should be in the court to give the greatest contribution to business process enhancement. Evaluate whether the court’s use of information technology should or can evolve naturally, whether its evolution should accelerate, or whether it needs to make a quantum jump to a higher level.

In determining priorities and the court’s capacity to transform itself with the support of technology, determine whether technology can help to provide solutions in a cost-effective and timely manner. Based on Bennis and Mische, the issues facing the court are these:

The current and future sophistication of technology The level at which the court now integrates technology into its day-to-day operations The software applications that are available for courts Ways to obtain and use data in the court The attitude of judges and court employees toward technology

It is important to understand the extent to which business processes in the court may have to change in order to optimize the potential of information technology In earlier parts of this manual, we have emphasized that many business processes in the courts may have been developed decades before the availability of today’s information technology. During the process of benchmarking, you should thus be sensitive to the scope of change that may be necessary in order to fully leverage the value of information technology. Consultant Thomas Davenport has identified nine areas in which information technology can be used for business process innovation. Table 3 shows those areas: 33

TABLE 3. INNOVATIVE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON BUSINESS PROCESSES* Impact
Automating Information Sequential Tracking Analytical Geographical Integrative Intellectual “Dis-intermediating”

Explanation
Eliminating repetitive human labor from a process Capturing process information for purposes of understanding Changing process sequence, or enabling parallel processing Closely monitoring process status and objects Improving analysis of information and decisionmaking Coordinating processes across distances Coordination between tasks and processes Capturing and distributing intellectual assets Eliminating intermediaries from a process

Reengineering advocate Michael Hammer observes that information technology can change not only business processes, but can also potentially change the basic character of an organization. He identifies eight areas where different kinds of information technology cause old rules and expectations to be broken and replaced by new ones. The areas identified by Hammer are shown below in Table 4.

SOURCE: Kai Simon, “Towards a Theoretical Framework for Business Process Reengineering” (1994, http://www.informatik.gu.se/~kai/pub/thesis.pdf), Table 3.2, citing T.H. Davenport, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993).

*

34

TABLE 4. IMPACT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ON THE WAY THAT ORGANIZATIONS OPERATE* Old Rule
Information can appear in only one place at one time Only experts can perform complex work Organization must choose between centralization and decentralization Managers make all decisions Field personnel need offices where they can receive, store, retrieve and submit information The best contact with a customer is personal contact You have to find things where they are Plans get revised periodically

Technology
Shared databases Expert systems Telecommunication networks Decision support tools Wireless data communication and computers Interactive video Automatic identification and tracking High performance computing

New Rule
Information can appear simultaneously in as many places as are needed A generalist can do the work of an expert Organization can simultaneously reap the benefits of both Decisionmaking is everyone’s job Field personnel can send and receive information wherever they are The best contact with a customer is effective contact Things tell you where they are Plans get revised instantaneously

Given the rapid pace with which information technology is changing, you must recognize that exploiting its potential cannot be a “one time” process. On the other hand, it is impossible in even the most flexible organizational environment to exploit new technological opportunities every day. You should consider technology opportunities in terms of their utility for the business of the courts, and in terms of their potential to support and improve the business processes in the courts. Court technology is not an end in itself, but is instead a means to achieve better justice services through sensible application to the business processes of the courts.
*

SOURCE: Simon, Table 3.3, citing Hammer and Champy, Reengineering the Corporation (1993).

35

3. Establish ambitious performance improvement goals that are missionoriented and meaningful to customers and stakeholders. Using the requirements of internal and external customers and those of stakeholders, the project team should identify and assess the performance gaps between the results the court now achieves and the results that customers and stakeholders can reasonably expect. Then the team should make recommendations to the steering committee on goals to improve by closing the gaps. These goals should be linked to the court’s mission. Goal setting should be approached with care. Improvement goals should be realistic and achievable, so that the process enhancement effort will not be doomed to failure from the outset. At the same time, however, the goals should be ambitious enough so that the court will indeed have achieved substantially better service if it meets or nearly achieves those goals.* A measure of what is realistic can be derived from the results of the benchmarking exercise. Here are some suggestions for developing appropriate goals:

Base goals on a careful analysis of the court’s performance and environment, and link them to the court’s mission, the needs of customers, and current performance. State goals in measurable terms, such as cost, quality, and timeliness. Make sure that the goals reflect improvements that are valued by internal and external customers and by stakeholders. Adopt goals that call for results comparable to those of the courts or court units found in benchmarking to have the best results. Establish reliable and efficient means to measure the performance of any changed business processes.

C. Develop Alternative Process Solutions
Begin by determining the gap between the current “as is” process and the desired “to be” situation. This should provide a point of reference for the team to develop new
Examples of very ambitious quality criteria for setting goals include (a) the criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program – see the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/mbnqa.htm; and (b) Six Sigma – see Part II and the “iSixSigma” website, http://www.isixsigma.com/.
*

36

alternative processes that are both practical and innovative. If the gap is not great, then process improvement methods may be suitable to bridge the gap and define alternative solutions. If the gap is significant, however, then it may be necessary to develop and consider alternative solutions that would involve more dramatic process reengineering steps. It would be optimal for you to develop more than one alternative, and then to assess the risks, costs and benefits of each alternative. If you are engaged in process reengineering, you must consider not only a new work process, but also the broader changes to the court’s operations and systems that would be necessary to put a new alternative into effect. 1. Conceptualize the Nature of the “Ideal” Process. As a basis for determining what might be appropriate alternatives to the “as is” process, consider the answers to a series of questions about the specific shortcomings of the current process:*

Simplifying the “as is” process Can we create more “Plain English” court forms? Can we otherwise simplify our forms, or reduce or combine them? Are we asking for reports or data that we don’t need? Are there any parts of the process that can be eliminated? Reducing time or cost Where are the delays in our current process? Where is there “churning,” in terms of effort that is excessive in terms of what we actually accomplish? Are the steps in the process in the right order? Information technology What tools or equipment can improve the process? How would they improve it? Is new computer software or hardware necessary for our enhancement effort? Will we need to provide training for any new equipment? Do we now provide adequate training for use of the equipment we already have?

The answers to these questions should help you to refine your thinking about the deficiencies in the current “as is” process. The answers should also help you identify some of the desired key attributes of the alternative process solutions.
*

See Richard Chang, Process Reengineering in Action, pp. 52 and 58.

37

2. Identify Potential Alternative “To Be” Process Solutions. The project team can brainstorm (see Part II) to develop possible alternatives to the current process:

Use the detailed flowchart of the current “as is” process as a reference. Determine what are the key tasks and results that must be accomplished in the process. For each key task and result, note the current activities in the “as is” process, and suggest ideas about alternative ways to accomplish the key task. Discuss the alternative ideas and compile them into simple block diagrams (see Part II) of one or more alternative processes for accomplishing the key tasks and results that the process must accomplish. Share the team’s ideas about the alternative approaches with the “process owner” and other court staff members who will be affected by any changes resulting from the enhancement effort. Incorporate their ideas into a revised set of block diagrams.

3. Prepare Detailed Descriptions of the Alternative Solutions. For each alternative, prepare a more detailed process flowchart that elaborates on the block diagram you produced earlier. In preparing these flowcharts, note any interfaces and dependencies with other processes. In addition to the flowchart for each alternative, prepare written answers to each of the following questions as a way to think through the potential impact of each alternative.

By what criteria (e.g., quality, cost, speed, accuracy, or productivity) would each alternative provide improved benefits in terms of the court’s strategic goals and the requirements and expectations of internal and external customers and stakeholders? What is the information flow for each alternative, and how would it otherwise affect existing information and system architectures in the court? How might an alternative affect the organizational structure of the court or the clerk’s office?

38

What impact might an alternative have on court staff, in terms of job descriptions, skill requirements, compensation, and need for training? Does an alternative have any implications in terms of court facilities?

Would any alternative require changes in any statutes, court rules, court administrative orders, or court department policies and procedures? How can information technology best be used to support each alternative work process?

Then review the documentation of the alternatives with the “process owner” and other court staff members who will be affected by changes. This not only helps to promote buy-in, but it also helps you to see if anything has been overlooked, to find flowchart steps that should be changed, and to find out what might not be practicable.

D. Identify and Assess Potential Implementation Barriers
As a member of the project team, you should identify potential barriers to implementing alternative business processes in the court. In a process improvement effort, these barriers may be modest. For a more dramatic reengineering effort, there may be significant obstacles to overcome in order to introduce a new process. These barriers may be presented because the reengineering implementation might involve substantial changes in the local court culture, which might evoke political issues, changes in skills required for the new process, possible union issues, and requirements for a different organizational pattern, not to mention possible changes in court administrative policies and funding issues. The magnitude of these barriers and the cost of addressing them must be assessed and included in a cost-benefit analysis to be done as part of building the case for implementing the desired new process. (See Step Three.) 1. Identify all potential barriers to implementation. It is important for you to give early attention to any factors that might serve as potential barriers to the implementation of any of the alternative process solutions. It is conceivable that an alternative with great potential for meeting the strategic goals of the court and the requirements of internal and external customers and stakeholders might face such major 39

obstacles that it might have a high risk of failure if were to be implemented. Potential barriers and their causes might be conceived in the following fashion: TABLE 5. POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS AND THEIR CAUSES*
Potential Barriers “Hard” Barriers (those having to do with things, structures, or laws) 1. Resource Problems: These might include lack of funding for improvements or inadequate court space, or having an insufficient number of employees with required skills. 2. Legal Obstacles: There might be statutes, rules, or collective bargaining agreements. 3. Organizational Problems: There could be a court-level, court department, or clerk’s office organizational structure that is incompatible with possible process enhancements. 4. Information Technology Problems: For example, having a legacy system in which the court or funding source has a high investment, but which is not suited for potential process enhancements, could present problems. “Soft” Barriers (those having to do with people) 1. Internal Individual Resistance: This may arise out of a desire not to loose something of value (such as a job, competence in a known set of responsibilities, or a desired office, courtroom or chambers); misunderstanding of the process enhancement and its implications; a belief that the enhancement effort or a specific alternative to current “as is” processes does not make organizational sense; or a low tolerance for change in general. 2. Internal Group Resistance: This may arise because formal or informal groups in the court may perceive that one or more process enhancement efforts might result in their no longer being able to work together, being forced to work with people they do not like, having a lower work status, or having to work in a less desirable location. 3. External Resistance: This may come from people outside the court, such as members of the bar, representatives of court-related organization, or local public officials, and it might present political issues. Potential Causes of Barriers 1. Project-Related Causes: These might have to do with the objectives of a process enhancement effort, the processes chosen for improvement or reengineering, or the prospect of introducing new information technology. 2. People-Related Causes: These would involve any of the “soft” potential barriers noted above, and which arise among those who would be affected by a process enhancement effort. 3. Organizational Causes: These have to do with potential bureaucratic resistance to change or other factors in the “local legal culture” that would yield inflexibility. 4. Environment-Related Causes: These can include existing laws or court rules, the attitudes of stakeholders in the court process, or resistance from the public.

*

See Wolf Schumacher, “Managing Barriers to Business Reengineering,” Chapter 3, BPR OnLine Learning Center, http://www.prosci.com/w_3.htm.

40

2. Assess potential barriers in terms of potential impact on implementation. Carefully consider all of the potential barriers to implementation of given alternatives and decide how likely it is that any given barrier is likely to be present. You should accept that in any group there is always likely to be a group opposing change, whose attitudes cannot be altered, and who must either be offset (if their opposition might defeat process enhancement) or politely ignored (if their attitude will not affect the outcome of an implementation effort). You should include any potential barriers that might have a high possible impact on the implementation of any alternative process solution in your costbenefit analysis (see section E below and section B under Step Three). 3. Develop appropriate ways to overcome barriers. Identify ways to address potential barriers. For example, internal resistance from individual persons or groups may be overcome by education, discussions with peers, or successful pilot testing. External barriers, such as the development of adequate funding or changes in laws or rules, may require ongoing negotiation by the steering committee with state-level or local officials. To deal with potential barriers at this stage, do the following:

Estimate the level of effort and resources that may be required to address potential barriers adequately. Consider the resources required to address barriers in your cost-benefit analysis. Develop a contingency plan to deal with key barriers if they persist when the desired alternative process solution is being implemented in Step Five. Incorporate information on key barriers into the design of alternative process solutions. In Step Four, ensure that key cultural barriers (such as training and skills needed for new jobs, the existing “local legal culture,” incompatible support structures, or staff fears about downsizing) are addressed in the project team’s change management strategy.

41

E. Analyze Alternatives in Terms of Costs and Benefits
For each alternative process solution, the project team should complete a costbenefit comparison.

“Cost-Benefit Analysis” is a technique to compare the various costs associated with an

investment, activity, or program with the benefits that it proposes to return. It is a means to provide the following:
It will provide a means to compare the process alternatives with the benefits and costs of the current “as is” process. It will give the steering committee the information it needs to decide on the project team’s recommendation about the process alternative that is most suitable for implementation.

See Part II for more discussion of cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis should include an assessment not only of tangible costs and benefits, but also intangible considerations. As we suggest in the preceding section, it should include the estimated costs (such as those of hiring new staff or providing staff training) to deal with potential barriers to implementation. Finally, the cost-benefit analysis should include consideration of economic, operational, and technological risks that are associated with any alternative process solution. (See Appendix C for a risk analysis form, and see Part II for discussion of risk analysis.) Begin the process by reaching agreement on the cost and benefit categories that are applicable for the court. Some of the specific items that might be identified are suggested below in Table 6. Then gather for each item, making reasonable estimates where necessary. Next, calculate the relationship between costs and benefits for the current “as is” process and each of the alternative process solutions.

42

TABLE 6. POTENTIAL COST AND BENEFIT CATEGORIES AND ITEMS*

Costs Labor Salaries Benefits Training Fees for vendors or consultants Fees for appointed counsel

Benefits Labor Higher productivity Reduced absenteeism Reduced fees for vendors or consultants Reduced appointed counsel fees Reduced cycle time Improved timeliness Increased safety Reduced turnover New skills Improved accuracy Equipment & Materials Reduced downtime Improved efficiency or performance Reduced cycle time Improved accuracy Improved quality Less equipment needed Less expensive equipment needed Other Improvements relating to needs of internal customers Improvements relating to needs of external customers & stakeholders Improved service quality Fewer problems with such things as reports or court orders Improved fine and fee collection Other functional measures in clerk’s office or court departments Less tangible items, such as improved morale or fewer complaints

Equipment & Materials Information hardware & software Court facilities Other courtroom, chambers, or office equipment Furniture Supplies Data Other Reduced downtime for judges, court staff, or court users Less tangible items, such as court staff morale or complaints from citizens, judges, court staff, lawyers, or others

*

See Richard Chang, Process Reengineering in Action, p. 68.

43

The project team should be careful in performing its cost-benefit analysis. Be sensitive to issues that might arise from characterizing certain consequences of an alternative process solution as “benefits.”

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS ON COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN A COURT The cost-benefit comparison of alternative process solutions need not be exhaustive or unduly time consuming. One approach would be to call other courts or vendors, and to obtain informal verbal cost estimates, in order to develop a quick understanding of potential cost differences among the different alternatives. Some things that might be considered unambiguous “benefits” in a private business are fraught with danger in a court environment. The project team completing a costbenefit analysis of alternative process solutions in a court should be sensitive to the

dangers of such cost-benefit justifications as those based on reducing judges and court staff, or on other changes that might threaten the vested interests of judges.

44

STEP THREE. CHOOSE THE DESIRED SOLUTION AND PLAN FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION

Having developed and analyzed one or more alternatives to the current “as is” process in the court, the project team must make a recommendation for decision by the steering committee about the business process enhancement solution that the court should implement. With assistance from the project team, the steering committee must then address broad conceptual issues, before the project team works on the details the details of the desired solution. Having chosen and developed an improved or reengineered business process, your must then prepare an implementation plan spelling out the work to be done, including timeframes, milestones, decision points, and resource allocation arrangements. It is important as part of this planning that you address training and workforce issues. Finally, you need to make specific plans for managing the changes that the implementation of the new or improved business process will cause in the court and the court community.

A. Choose the Best Alternative*
For recommended adoption by the steering committee, the project team should select a process alternative that is best in terms of accomplishing the strategic mission and goals of the court, meeting the needs of internal and external customers, overcoming barriers to change, and yielding benefits that will justify court expenditures. 1. Evaluate the alternatives. If the project team has done a good analysis of the alternative process solutions available to the court (see section D under Step Two), then
See generally, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Decision Process Guidebook: How to Get Things Done in Government, http://www.usbr.gov/guide/step8.htm.
*

45

the team’s presentation of its conclusions and recommendations should provide the steering committee with a sound basis for choosing the most desirable solution. With the aid of the project team, the steering committee may have to analyze the tradeoffs to be made among competing needs and solutions. The cost-benefit comparison of the alternative solutions with the current “as is” process will provide critical information about the advantages and disadvantages of different possible choices. The steering committee should give attention not only to tangible costs and benefits, but also to potential risks and to potential barriers to implementation that may exist in the local court environment and legal culture. Criteria may conflict – the least costly alternative may provide many fewer benefits than an alternative that costs much more, and there may be serious resistance from some quarters to an option that otherwise seems to offer a desirable benefit-to-cost ratio. 2. Involve appropriate court and general government leaders and stakeholders in the decision by the steering committee. It is important that the steering committee make its choice of an alternative within the context in which the decision is to be made. If the appropriate choice is a process improvement step that will have modest impact outside the court or a unit of the court, that will be very different from a process reengineering decision that may yield valuable positive results but will have cost consequences and may affect other institutional participants in the day-to-day operations of the court. Depending on the magnitude of the change that will result from the implementation of the desired solution (whether incremental change under a process improvement initiative or more dramatic change under a process reengineering effort), revisit the court’s relations with other key actors at the local and state levels. Work within this context to determine how to communicate with others about the desired solution in terms of what is practicable. Consultation with these stakeholders may lead to suggestions on how to put a workable solution into effect, and it will result in greater support for the implementation effort when that begins. It may also lead to the identification of further potential implementation barriers that might qualify as “showstoppers” – issues, concerns or needs

46

that may end up preventing implementation of an otherwise-desirable solution – as well as potential selling points in favor of the steering committee’s desired solution. 3. Make the selection and articulate reasons. Choose the alternative that offers the best balance between costs and benefits, with attention to potential barriers, risks and showstoppers. Articulate a rationale for the decision – why the chosen alternative outranks other possibilities. No matter what decision you make, remember that no choice will totally satisfy everyone, and recognize the tradeoffs you have made among benefits and impacts. You may have to settle for an alternative solution that provides 85% of the possible benefits but costs one-fourth what the alternative giving 95% of the benefits would cost. Document the decision, with reasons why, and share it with those who will be affected by it. Doing this offers the following advantages:

It helps rally support that will be needed to put the decision into effect. It shows others what issues are important to the court. It demonstrates to supporters of other alternatives that your decision was a reasonable one. It helps avoid active opposition by giving reasons to support or at least accept the decision. It helps to ”sell” the desired solution as a benefit to judges and others.

B. Develop the Broad Conceptual Design
Having chosen the alternative process solution that is most desirable, the steering committee, with the assistance of the project team, must lay the groundwork for more detailed efforts. This means looking more closely at what will be needed to support the new or improved process, in terms of people, information technology, and finances, and then making the case for the support that will be needed for the new or improved process. 1. Determine how implementation of the desired solution will affect the work of court personnel. It is critical to consider the human element in business process enhancement, since judges and other employees of the court and the clerk’s office carry out most of the activities in court business processes. Process improvement or process 47

reengineering may well involve redesigning the way that court staff members do part of their work, or eliminate steps, and it might even totally change how they do their jobs. Part of developing an enhanced business process is to discover how it would change the work that people do. For example, court finance personnel may be required to learn how to use new financial management software. Even more dramatic would be the creation of a new family division bringing together domestic staff members and juvenile staff members who formerly worked in separate units, or the creation of a single “criminal” division in a clerk’s office, where there formerly were separate misdemeanor and felony units. In Process Reengineering in Action, Richard Chang suggests that you may want to complete a “role-transition worksheet” for each court staff position that may be changed as the enhanced process goes into effect. Figure 2 shows a sample of how such a worksheet might be filled out. By listing present and likely future job responsibilities in such a worksheet, you will develop greater understanding of new job requirements. As the example in Figure 2 suggests, this effort may indicate areas in which specific training will be needed for current staff members in the court or the clerk’s office, it may suggest areas where changes will be required in job descriptions, and it may suggest changes in skills or educational requirements expected of new job applicants in the future.

48

FIGURE 2. SAMPLE ROLE-TRANSITION WORKSHEET FOR AN ASSISTANT COURT CLERK POSITION*

Current Title: Court Clerk I (file clerk)

Future Title: Imaging/Electronic Filing Clerk

Present Responsibilities
Key Functions
Create and Maintain Case Files in Clerk’s Office

Future Responsibilities
Key Functions
Maintain Electronic Filing and Imaging System

Key Responsibilities
Enter case file numbers on manila folders for new cases and insert new case initiation documents in file folders after filing Maintain case files on file shelves Insert subsequent case documents in file folders Retrieve case files from file shelves for court proceedings and return files to shelves after court hearings

Key Responsibilities
Assure that new electronic case “files” are created when new case initiation documents are filed electronically Make data entry to create computer tracking for each new electronic case file Make electronic images of paper documents and enter them properly (with computer tracking) in electronic files Assure accurate computer tracking information for each new filing

2. Review any technology acquisitions needed to support the new or improved business process. Today’s technology has enormous potential for helping courts manage cases, control work, manage finances, communicate, and provide concurrent access to case information, among other important support tasks. It can involve sophisticated computer systems, audio or video technology, or even something as basic as improved telephone communications and fax machines. During the benchmarking element of Step Two, the project team probably identified how other courts or other court departments are using technology effectively to
*

See Chang, Process Reengineering in Action, pp. 62-63.

49

improve court operations. If you have identified a technology that will support the enhanced process, include it in your process design. While technology is an important tool to support process improvement or reengineering, it is not a “magic bullet,” and the entire notion of process enhancement is premised on recognition of the fact that successful process change will require much more than just new technology. Decide how critical technology is for enhancement of the process under study, and choose the kind of technology that is most appropriate. 3. Identify other necessary process support requirements. While information technology may be a high-visibility component of your thinking about the new or improved process, give due attention to other support requirements that are needed for the success of the new or improved way of doing things. Such things as office furniture, new telephones, and new forms may be necessary. Look at the flowchart for the new process. What changes will be necessary to forms, office procedures, courtroom procedures, clerks’ manuals, or benchbooks? List all of the necessary changes, and include them in your design of the new or improved process. 4. As part of your funding strategy for a process reengineering effort, develop a formal “business case” for implementing the new process that describes its benefits, costs, and risks. Once the steering committee has made a decision about the desired process alternative, the project team should refine the steering committee’s earlier preliminary business case for change (see section C.3 in Step One) and provide more detailed support for the desired alternative. For a process reengineering effort, the revised business case should provide sufficient information on which the court, funding authorities, and other critical actors can decide whether to go forward with the chosen approach to process enhancement. The formal business case that you develop for the desired solution is a document that presents relevant information in a cohesive fashion about the court’s process enhancement effort, answering such questions as the following:*

See Nancy Maluso, “The Business Case – Friend or Foe?” BPR OnLine Learning Center, http://www.prosci.com/bus1.htm.

*

50

Why is the enhancement effort needed (issues and opportunities)? How will the effort solve the issues or opportunities facing the court? What is the recommended solution? How does the solution address the issues or opportunities (benefits)? What will happen to the court if the enhancement effort is not undertaken (the do nothing scenario)? When will the solution be deployed? How much money, people, and time will be needed to deliver the solution and realize the benefits?

To revise the preliminary business case prepared in Step One, you should provide up-to-date information about how the current “as is” process fails to meet the expectations of internal and external customers and stakeholders, along with information from the benchmarking effort. You should describe the new process and the measures that will show whether it is meeting process enhancement goals and achieving expected benefits. For suggestions on what might be included in a full business case, see Appendix D. 5. Give ongoing attention to preparing for change.* Once you have prepared the broad conceptual design for the desired solution, make sure to look ahead to prepare the environment in which it will be introduced. Improve chances for success by communicating about it with the people who will be affected. Inform judges, court supervisors, and court staff members how the desired solution relates to what they do and to the court’s strategic mission and goals. Inform external court users and stakeholders as well. Communicate openly to show that this is a responsible course of action:

*

See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Decision Process Guidebook: How to Get Things Done in Government, http://www.usbr.gov/guide/step8.htm.

51

Describe the broad conceptual design for the alternative process solution that has been chosen Indicate in general terms how the solution will be implemented Show how it will be monitored and evaluated Indicate what further detailed planning must be done before implementation begins

You can use the formal business case as the source for much of this information. In addition to communicating about these matters, make sure of the following:

That the “project owner” and others who will be involved and affected by the implementation effort have been contacted and will support the effort. That external court users and stakeholders have been contacted and will support the implementation effort. That the resources are available to put the desired solution into effect. That everyone who will be involved understands and agrees to the commitments that are being made.

C: Develop the Details of the Desired Solution
Once it is clear that the concept for the enhanced business process has sufficient financial and organizational support to permit further progress, the project team should begin to work on more detailed design of the new or improved process. This will involve more specific details about work flow, the work responsibilities of individual court staff members, requirements analysis for automated systems, and the commencement of system development for automated applications. 1. Involve court staff in the development of the desired solution. The members of the project team should involve the court staff members who will actually carry out the enhanced business process concept in the development of its details. Such involvement will provide two benefits to the enhancement effort. First, it will assure that

52

the improved or newly designed process is grounded in the actual nature of the work to be done; and second, it will promote staff buy-in and help to overcome staff resistance to change. 2. Develop detailed process flow and definition. It is important at this point to prepare a very detailed description of how the new or improved business process is likely to work. Take the flowchart of this process that you prepared in order to compare it with the “as is” process and other alternative process solutions, and focus on documenting the specific details of all the sub-processes, activities, and sub-activities in the enhanced process. (Just as you may have used such a software modeling tool as IDEF0 or UML to document the “as is” process in detail, you may want to use the same tool to help develop the required level of detailed description of the improved or reengineered process. See Part II.) 3. Write systems requirements. After you have detailed workflow under the new or improved process, the next step is to define the system requirements for it. To define the requirements, complete a requirements analysis. Address such issues as the following:*

Requirements under current system: Identify the uses, functions, workload, cost, equipment, software, and other aspects of the current system. Performance evaluation: Review the assessment already done of the current process and system in terms of the court’s mission and goals and the requirements of internal and external customers and stakeholders, to determine if it is complete. Present and projected workload and capacities: Determine the following: Growth and expandability requirements over system life; Data entry and associated telecommunications support; Databases and database management; Data handling or transaction processing by type or volume; Input and output needs and associated telecommunications; Any other elements affecting workload requirements.

*

See U. S. Government Services Agency (GSA), “Guide for Requirements Analysis and Analysis of Alternatives” (1998), http://www.law.uh.edu/cdrom/USGMP_oct98/ZDATA/ITPUBS/RAAA.pdf.

53

Compatibility requirements: Address the following issues: Whether existing software is essential, without redesign, to meet the court’s critical needs; The risk of harm if compatibility requirements are not made and if conversion fails; Adverse impact of delay or reduced court staff productivity if compatibility requirements are not used; The need to continue the old system in parallel operation with the new or improved system until it is fully meeting court needs. Records management issues: Determine the following: Court records retention requirements; Integration of electronic records with paper records; Need for court forms; Production of reports; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. Training requirements: To avoid under-use or misuse of the new system, determine the training needs for judges and court staff members. (Note: It may be desirable to have judge-to-judge training on any new or improved systems.) Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery: Determine the place of the system in the court’s emergency preparedness and disaster recovery plans. Security and privacy requirements: Address the need for appropriate safeguards for data about individual parties to cases. ADA compliance: Identify requirements to make office automation technologies suitable for use by disabled employees or others. Court facilities issues: Address court space needs, power needs, and HVAC requirements, as well as fire and safety considerations. Other constraints and assumptions: Identify any other factors (e.g., state or local policies and regulations) that might affect the requirements for the new or improved business process.

An important part of the systems requirements for the new or improved process may include those for information technology. One valuable resource in determining the new information requirements is the set of functional standards that have been developed for civil, criminal, domestic relations, and juvenile cases, as well as for electronic filing and XML, under the sponsorship of the COSCA/NACM Consortium for National Case

54

Management Automation Functional Standards.* Beyond the guidance provided by the functional standards, use such factors as the following to determine information requirements:**

Information that is currently being received in the court. Information that is needed, but which is not currently being received. Information that needs to be provided to or obtained from parties, witnesses, prospective jurors, other case participants and citizens, and from court-related organizations Sources that are available to obtain the needed information Information relationships and outputs (reports) The requirements for validation, integrity, accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information to be processed or stored Quantity, timeliness, location and format of information required The requirements for accessibility, privacy and security of the stored information Functional processing requirements

Finally, give particular attention to performance measures in the requirements for the new or upgraded system. Your IT requirements should be developed on the assumption that the IT system will provide a more efficient and/or more effective business process that supports the mission of the court. [In the federal government, this is a requirement of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, P.L. 103-62) of 1993.] Develop performance measures for the IT system as part of the new or improved business process to measure its progress toward accomplishing the court mission. Among the resources you can use for this are (a) the NACM guide, Holding
See Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards, Functional Standards Project, http://www.ncsc.dni.us/ncsc/ctp/htdocs/standards.htm.
** *

See GSA, “Guide for Requirements Analysis and Analysis of Alternatives,” http://www.law.uh.edu/cdrom/USGMP_oct98/ZDATA/ITPUBS/RAAA.pdf.

55

Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts (1999); and (b) the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (see Part II). Generic management performance measures that you might consider in the IT system requirements include the following:*

Percent change in cycle time for the court’s new or improved business process over the prior “as is” business process Percent change in the functional quality of services (e.g., fewer errors rates in transactions) under the new process Percent change in satisfied internal court customers and external court users Percent change in IT life-cycle costs (see section 5 below) Acquisition time to deliver the new or upgraded IT system Whether the IT project is on schedule, within budget, and achieves expected results

4. Initiate system development of automated applications to support and implement the new or improved business process. Based on your completed needs analysis, prepare a request for proposals (RFP) for any new or upgraded information technology that may be required for the enhanced business process. The model RFP developed by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee (see http://www.search.org/courts/modelrfp/intro.htm) can be a helpful resource. When you are appraising vendors who bid in response to the RFP, take steps to assure the quality of any software applications that will be developed for use in your court. In addition to checking with other courts given as references by a vendor, consider the value of such tools as the “Capability Maturity Model® (CMM®)” discussed in Part II. Throughout the system development effort, work with the vendor to assure that appropriate attention is given to the role of the new or upgraded software in enabling the enhanced business process to meet the court’s strategic goals and the needs and requirements of internal and external customers and stakeholders. (See Step One.) Work
*

See National Institutes of Health, Office of Information Resources Management, Information Technology Management Guide Draft (1996), http://www.oirm.nih.gov/itmra/itmgmtgd.html.

56

with the vendor as well to make sure that the new or upgraded system meets the requirements you have established (see section 3 above) to measure the performance of the enhanced business process in light of those goals and expectations. 5. Include attention to information technology life-cycle management. Give consideration to the anticipated life cycle for the new or modified system. Consider such factors as the following in order to determine system life:*

The period of time that the new or improved system will satisfy the needs of the court. The rate at which you expect technology to advance. The likely continued availability of such support items as maintenance, parts, and software support. The likely lead time that would be required to develop a replacement system to meet court needs after the modified system now being contemplated has passed its utility. Any other requirements that could be met by using the system in some other way in the court or a court-related agency.

Having estimated the likely life of the new or modified system, the court IT director must systematically plan and monitor the events in its acquisition and operation. This involves “life-cycle management (LCM)” – the process for administering an IT system from the identification of a need through the replacement or termination of the implemented solution. These events require specific management decisions and actions to make sure that the system is developed and managed efficiently and economically to meet the objectives of the court’s business process enhancement effort. Figure 3 below presents a simple model for the life cycle of a typical IT system, in the form of a flowchart. (For more on flowcharts and flowchart symbols, see the discussion of “process flowcharts” in Part II, including the sample flowchart in Appendix D.) As Figure 3 suggests, a process improvement effort might involve modernizing the

*

See GSA, “Guide for Requirements Analysis and Analysis of Alternatives,” http://www.law.uh.edu/cdrom/USGMP_oct98/ZDATA/ITPUBS/RAAA.pdf.

57

FIGURE 3. GENERALIZED MODEL OF LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT FOR A COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM*

Start of Cycle

Production & Deployment

A
Mission Needs Justification Need? Yes No Operations & Support

A

Concept Exploration & Definition

No Discontinue

Modify?

Terminate

Develop New System

Upgrade Modernize Current System

B
Develop?

No Yes

Discontinue

Dispose of Current System

B
Development No
Deploy?

Yes

Discontinue

*

SOURCE: See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Information Management – Life Cycle Management of Automated Information Systems (1993), Appendix C, http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/s-r/er25-12/a-c.pdf.

58

current IT system as part of incremental changes being made in the court business process under review. Process reengineering, on the other hand, might involve the development of an entirely new IT system to support the operation of a new business process. 6. Validate the new or improved system design with regard to user requirements. As the new or upgraded IT system is being developed, test its details against the requirements and needs of internal and external customers and stakeholders. Within the project team, review the documentation of the process against what you learned earlier about the expectations of customers and stakeholders. Then members of the steering committee and the project team can consult about the new process with other judges and with court staff who are internal customers in the process, and with courtrelated officials and other stakeholders to solicit their thoughts, show how you expect the new or improved process to meet their needs and those of private citizens and other court users. On the basis of feedback from these consultations, make any refinements in the enhanced business process and IT system that may be appropriate.

D. Develop A Plan to Manage Implementation
For review and approval by the steering committee, the project sponsor and the project team must develop a detailed implementation plan that provides a “roadmap” for the introduction of the new or improved business process. If only minor incremental changes are needed to make the current “as is” business process more efficient and effective, then this plan can be relatively simple. It is especially important that the chief or presiding judge and other steering committee members champion the improvement or reengineering effort and provide highly visible leadership and encouragement as planning is being done for implementation of the new or improved business process. Court leaders must demonstrate unambiguously that they are personally committed to seeing the business process enhancement successfully put into operation. There are several tools you can use to develop the implementation plan. Select an appropriate mix from the following options (see Part II for more details):

59

Action plans Matrix diagrams Tree diagrams Critical path analysis Gantt or PERT charts Joint Application Development (JAD) teams

1. Address critical implementation issues. The more dramatic your contemplated process changes are, the more detailed your implementation plan should be. Your plan should identify critical elements and milestones, so that the steering committee can closely monitor implementation. The plan should include the following specifics:

Identification of all tasks to be done. Configuration of implementation tasks to suit the nature of the business process involved and the work and structure of the court. Timeframes for the completion of each task. Appropriate performance measures and means to gather data about performance. Identification of all resources needed for an orderly transition. Assignment of implementation roles and responsibilities to specific persons. Means to identify, document, consider, and solve implementation problems and issues, and to measure, assess and refine the effectiveness of those solutions. Control mechanisms for the steering committee to monitor implementation closely.

If the business process enhancement to be put into effect involves only incremental changes associated with process improvement, it may be possible to complete the implementation with only the part-time involvement of the project team members and others. For a process reengineering effort, on the other hand, the more 60

dramatic departure from prior practices will call for having team members with a dedicated assignment to the implementation effort. You will need to plan for reallocation of work responsibilities in order to allow this to happen. Another dimension of the assignment of tasks to people has to do with continuity. Be prepared to cultivate successors in critical staff roles if you can foresee that a person will be temporarily absent for a period of time or will leave his or her present assignment because of retirement, return to school, child care, or a new job opportunity. It will probably be prudent to have a contingency plan for continuity of implementation efforts in case one or more critical people are not available to complete the entire implementation effort. 2. Address Training and Job Redefinition Issues. If the desired process solution involves incremental changes through a process improvement effort, it will be important to provide for court staff members to receive any required training they will need, and it may be necessary to update procedures manuals and job descriptions. A process solution that involves reengineering may present much more substantial issues of training and staff redeployment. When a process is substantially redesigned and one or more new IT systems are introduced, many of the work procedures done by staff members in the court or clerk’s office may be radically changed or even redistributed. As the example in Figure 3 above suggests, staff members may have to handle a broader range of responsibilities, possibly with less direct supervision, and they may have to develop new skills. Positions may not only be modified; new positions may be created. Moreover, a new process will change the setting in which the judges work, so that education and training may be needed for them as well. Planning for change of this magnitude often requires substantial preparation time. Consider such issues as the following:

61

Identifying new tasks, roles, responsibilities, reporting relationships, and training needs required by the new or improved process. Revising job descriptions and classifications to reflect new roles and responsibilities of court staff members. Identifying how many court employees, and which ones, will be affected by reassignments or retraining, and developing appropriate training programs. Working closely with court employee unions to minimize adverse effects on union members and to make good use of any helpful union suggestions. Investigating education and training needs and issues for judges, and developing appropriate programs, including one-to-one peer training by other judges in such areas as how to use new software programs.

3. Decide on Simulation and Pilot Testing. If your desired process solution involves incremental change through process improvement, you may find it desirable simply to plan for a straightforward “just do it” implementation, without prior simulation or pilot testing. Planning simply to go forward may also be the appropriate approach to implementation in a process reengineering effort, if your court is small and the setting for implementation is not overly complex. For process reengineering that will involve a larger court and a more complex implementation environment, however, you should contemplate simulation or pilot testing, or both, as part of your planning for implementation. With the aid of computer software, simulating the operation of the new or improved business process may be possible to test the operation of the enhanced process in advance of actual implementation. (In Part II we discuss simulation further, and we consider the circumstances where it is most appropriate or may not be suitable.) Simulation has in fact been used to aid business process enhancement in a court. An example of the successful use of simulation is in the business process enhancement effort undertaken by the municipal court of Beaverton, Oregon:

62

Simulation to Aid BPE in the Municipal Court of Beaverton, Oregon* Between 1994 and 1996, this municipal court had a dramatic increase in case filings. It was also facing growing pains associated with conflict between its traditional business processes and the introduction of photo-radar citations. Case volume was exceeding the capacity of municipal court staff and their current processes and systems. The court required business process solutions to (a) provide users with quick, easy, and reliable access to current documents; (b) ensure document completeness and accuracy; and (c) address formal procedures and technologies. Simulation was used as a tool to plan a phased migration from a traditional paper-based court operation to a “paperless” court. The simulation model was also used to aid communication of new concepts and provide financial justification for them, as well as to plan staffing for revised operational procedures. Changes as a result of implementing enhanced business processes in the court saved the city $100,000 - $250,000 per year, while permitting the court to improve its operations by (a) reducing citation processing by 35%; (b) improving customer service through reduction of citation search and retrieval by 20-50%; (c) increasing citation processing capacity by 78%; and (d) eliminating risk of document loss through systematic document archiving.

Pilot testing is an effective and often necessary tool for a court to proceed successfully to full implementation of a process enhancement solution. Pilot testing allows the court to do the following:

To evaluate the soundness of the proposed process enhancement solution in practice; To identify and correct problems with the new or improved process; To strengthen support for full-scale implementation from judges, court staff members, representatives of court-related agencies, funding bodies, and other stakeholders; To develop and refine performance measures and data gathering procedures.

4. Define criteria by which to measure implementation success. In Step Three, we noted the importance of developing performance measurement criteria as part
See John Petrakis and Michael Engiles, “Creating a Paperless Municipal Court,” in Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference 2029, http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc00papers/278.pdf. See also, City of Beaverton, Oregon, “Municipal Court,” http://www.ci.beaverton.or.us/departments/court/default.asp.
*

63

of the requirements for any new IT systems that may be employed to aid the process improvement or reengineering effort. As part of the implementation plan, complete the identification of practicable measures by which the steering committee can monitor and assess the performance of the new or improved business process. As we indicate above in Step Three, the resources you can use for this include (a) the NACM guide, Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts (1999), and (b) the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (see Part II). 5. Have a backup plan/safety net available if there are critical operational problems during implementation. While a process improvement effort may have relatively low risk of failure, there can be much more risk associated with a process reengineering effort. In Step Two, you identified risks and potential barriers associated with alternative approaches to business process enhancement, and one or more of them may actually materialize during the implementation of the desired business process solution. As part of your planning for implementation, review the risks and potential barriers identified for this process solution during Step Two. Which are most likely to appear during the implementation effort? Regardless of their likelihood, which are likely to have a critical negative impact on the implementation effort? For those most likely to occur, and for all that would cripple implementation, brainstorm about ways to provide for continued operations in the areas that would be affected. Record the solutions as a backup operating plan for steering committee review and consideration, and provide explicitly for periodic reconsideration of the backup plan during the implementation effort.

E. Plan Specifically to Manage the Change Process
Especially for the introduction of significant changes in a process reengineering effort, the human element – resistance to change based on elements of the “local legal culture” – is likely to be a major source of danger facing the implementation of a different business process. As we have indicated earlier in this manual (see section D under Step One, section D under Step Two, and section B.5 under Step Three), the steering committee and project team should begin early in their efforts to overcome

64

potential barriers and build support for process enhancement, both within the court itself and externally among court users and stakeholders. Change management needs to be well underway as the new or improved business process is about to be implemented, because it will otherwise be difficult to build and sustain support and momentum among judges, court staff members and representatives of court-related organizations for the enhanced process. As part of your planning for implementation, you should develop an explicit change management strategy. 1. Be sure to assess personalities of key court leaders and stakeholders. The chief judge and other court leaders must take special responsibility to deal with the social, emotional, and political resistance that may arise to changing the way that court work is done as the result of the implementation of business process changes. It may be necessary for judges to recognize that their own roles and responsibilities may have to change in order for a business process enhancement implementation effort to succeed. The chief judge and the members of the steering committee, with information and suggestions from the project team, should consider the ways that new or improved processes may affect the way that judges and other key participants and stakeholders in the day-to-day operations of the court may be affected by the planned implementation. Some of these people may always oppose any change, and you will have to find ways to deal appropriately with them. The majority of them are likely to be either enthusiastic about or open to considering the proposed changes, and you should take steps to address their concerns and ensure that they perceive the enhancement effort as proceeding in a reasonable fashion. Those who are clear and active supporters can serve to assure that there is a solid base of support for the enhancement effort as it goes forward. 2. Prepare a change management strategy. By the time you are planning for implementation, you will already have substantial information from Steps One, Two and Three on how to manage the change process. Consider the following information to develop a change management strategy:

65

Look at the potential barriers to change (see section D under Step Two). Look at the risk analysis reflected in cost-benefit analysis (section E under Step Two) and the formal business case (section B.3 under Step Three) that you made for the desired process solution. Consider any developments that have occurred since you prepared the above materials to see how circumstances in the court or the court environment may have changed. Review the backup plan you included in the implementation plan in section D.5 under Step Three.

Based on your review of this information, brainstorm with the project team to develop a proposed strategy for discussion, review and approval by the steering committee. Your proposed strategy should have a combination of both “process” and “structural”(or “programmatic”) components. In part, your change management strategy will involve “process” – how you will go about managing change. In this respect, your strategy should have the following components:

Based on your analysis and update of the potential risks and barriers facing the implementation effort, organize the strategies into an integrated list of specific tasks to address the issues they present. Define specific steps to address key cultural barriers to implementation, such as training and skills needed for new jobs, the existing “local legal culture,” incompatible support structures, or staff fears about downsizing. Include ways to help judges and court staff members overcome concerns about the new ways of doing business reflected in the enhanced process. Align the above change management tasks with the timetables in the implementation plan. Assign responsibilities to specific persons to carry out the change management tasks.

66

For judges, court staff, and other stakeholders, provide for periodic assessments of their needs, concerns, and reactions to the implementation effort. Provide for periodic review of risks and barriers, as well as of the utility of steps to deal with them.

The second dimension of your change management strategy involves “structure” or “programs.” This will interact in many important ways with the “process” dimension of your strategy. Programmatically, think about change management in terms of these four areas:*

Human Resource Management Strategies. With the aid of consultants, court system human resource personnel, or a special task force, review court policies and institute any new policies that may be necessary about job changes; job description, classification and compensation changes; and career path changes. If court staff members are unionized, foster union involvement in the process enhancement effort. Re-orient selection and training practices toward creation and maintenance of staff skills in support of teamwork and innovation. Information Resource Management Strategies. Modify information management and information technology applications as much as possible to support process change. This may involve changes in the court IT organizational structure to align with court management needs; evaluation of IT management performance in view of the strategic objectives addressed in Step One; and creating a “strategic systems environment” with IT that will support future business process enhancement efforts. Support Resources. Your court may have relatively limited experience with business process enhancement, so that its scarcest commodity may be the means to blend what you are learning from your own ongoing enhancement effort with the skills, expertise and knowledge that other courts or organizations have gained. (For example, you may need training or expertise on how to use some of the tools and techniques described in Part II.) Through your own state court administrator’s office, judges’ association, or court managers’ association, as well as through such resource organizations as COSCA, NACM, SEARCH, and the National Center for State Courts, build a network of support resources to aid your enhancement effort.

*

See Sharon Caudle, Reengineering for Results: Keys to Success from Government Experience, Section 6, “Practice Change Management and Provide Central Support,” Electronic College of Process Innovation, http://www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/3002s6.htm.

67

Communication and Education Programs. Finally, develop programs for educating judges, court and clerk’s office staff members, representatives of court-related organizations, and other stakeholders, about business process enhancement in general, the specific effort you are undertaking, the nature of the change process, and the kinds of skills and techniques that will be necessary for its success.

3. Encourage judges and court staff to accept new ideas and adopt the new or improved process represented by the desired solution. Changing the local legal culture can be difficult and uncomfortable for judges, court staff members, and representatives of court-related agencies. It is important in anticipation of the implementation of the new or improved business process that the chief judge and members of the steering committee reiterate the problems with the prior “as is” process and the benefits that will accrue to judges, staff members, and stakeholders from the implementation of the enhanced process. The chief judge and steering committee members should encourage people to question the pre-existing assumptions about how the court’s work should be done. In this way you can create an atmosphere that is more open to admitting frustrations, offering suggestions, and supporting the new or improved approaches. By doing so, you can introduce three important new ideas to the local legal culture:

A view of the court centered on its business processes and service to internal and external customers The possibility that “things can change in our court” The idea that individual persons and groups can get credit for implementing business process solutions in the court

4. Prepare judges, court staff, and other court users and stakeholders for the changes that will affect them. Before the new or improved process is to be implemented, make a formal announcement of the forthcoming changes in the operations of the court. In their book entitled, The 21st Century Organization, Warren Bennis and 68

Michael Mische suggest that your announcement should be based on the implementation plan and the change management strategy, and it should let you address a wide range of issues:

You can share information about the nature of the forthcoming change with judges, court staff members, representatives of court-related agencies, and other stakeholders. You can announce a training program for judges, court staff members, and others. You can present an implementation and transition schedule. You can establish the methods for conveying information about the process enhancement effort throughout the implementation period. You can specify any new court or court office organizational structure, the related requirements for staffing, and the means by which performance will be measured.

The training program is very important. There should be at least four elements to the training: (1) general orientation; (2) the details of the process enhancement implementation plan; (3) the use of new technology that will aid the enhancement effort; and (4) what actions and behaviors will change under the new or improved process.

69

STEP FOUR. IMPLEMENT THE ENHANCED BUSINESS PROCESS SOLUTION AND MAKE FURTHER PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS AS NEEDED

Now that you have chosen a desired business solution and planned for its implementation, it is time to take action and turn concepts and plans into reality in your court. Unless you have decided to go forward with a full implementation from the beginning, you will begin with a pilot test. As you do the pilot test, you need to monitor the effort, determine if the new or improved process is actually achieving its desired results, and make any necessary changes or refinements. If the pilot test has been successful, then you can go forward with full implementation of the enhanced process. As you do so, you will need to manage reactions to change. Over time, you will want to evaluate process performance on an ongoing basis, and you may find additional opportunities to make further incremental improvements in the process.

A. Conduct a Pilot Test
Unless you decided during implementation planning to adopt a “just do it” approach, it is time to conduct testing – whether by a pilot project or by deployment and refinement – prior to full implementation. 1. Get the implementation process started. The transition from implementation planning to execution does not take long, but it is important. You should make any refinements that are needed in the implementation plan as a result of such things as contract negotiations with an IT vendor. Formal steering committee approval of the revised implementation plan represents a commitment to its scope, timetable, and budget. The project sponsor, the project team members, the process owner, and others who will be involved in the implementation effort should be clear about the nature of the

70

implementation plan. Work assignments for these people should be adjusted if necessary to permit them to give implementation the level of effort that it requires of them. Hold an implementation project kick-off meeting as the event that officially starts the implementation process. The purpose of this meeting is to outline your expectations about the implementation effort and your expected end result, and to outline the specific activities that will be necessary to reach the implementation objectives. 2. Do the pilot test. There are several considerations that bear on the success of the pilot testing effort. Many of these can appropriately be considered during implementation planning, and it is important that you give them full consideration before commencement of pilot testing.

Make sure that the pilot testing strategy is well suited to the new or improved business process, and that it addresses the concerns of internal and external customers and other stakeholders that have been identified during the earlier steps in the enhancement effort. Make sure that court staff members involved in pilot testing are sufficiently trained, and that they understand their roles. Make sure you have performance measures and data gathering procedures developed for use during the pilot testing, and that the measures reflect the court’s strategic objectives for the process enhancement effort. Make sure that the steering committee has defined its success criteria for the pilot test. After the pilot test has begun, carefully measure its performance and identify any corrective actions that may be required. Gather feedback from judges, court staff members, court users, and other stakeholders about the pilot test, and identify any corrective actions that may be required as a result of that feedback. Make changes to the enhanced business process as a result of cost or performance problems you uncovered during the pilot test. Test the revised business process, and do not proceed to full implementation until the revised process yields satisfactory results in terms of the success criteria agreed on by the steering committee.

71

Pilot testing is a particularly effective way to see how a proposed business process change will operate “in the real world,” and it will provide critical information about any weaknesses or unforeseen problems in your process design or implementation plan. The sidebar below shows an example of system testing by the justice community of Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee.

SYSTEM TESTING IN DAVIDSON COUNTY (NASHVILLE), TENNESSEE* In 1992, the justice officials in Davidson County, Tennessee, decided to formally work together formally to automate and integrate the justice agencies with the county. In order to accomplish this goal, a unique, cooperative organization, the Justice Information System (JIS) agency, was created under authorization from a metropolitan government ordinance. When the project team working under JIS oversight began testing their new system, they made a special point not to rely on vendor testing. They perceived that the vendor’s test scripts would always “work,” regardless of how well the system might actually operate in a day-to-day court environment with real cases. The first step was to identify the employees with the most experience, the most interest in their jobs - and the most important ingredient – imagination. The group then planned to designed test scripts that would “push” the system. They tried to imagine as many different and difficult situations as possible. They had specific demographics written for each person type – such as a defendant, a victim, a witness, and an attorney. They checked each form and report after altering any data. Since the planned system would integrate previously separate systems from all parts of the court process, they had to design end-to-end tests. They created fake persons in the police department mainframe and started at booking. They checked if demographic information would come through the interface between the mainframe and CJIS. Next they moved on to court – some cases were disposed of in the lower court and others went through a grand jury. At that point charges were changed and added, defendants were added, and grand jury reports were generated. Finally, they proceeded to the next level of court for motions, trials and dispositions. They recognized that this would be a difficult and time-consuming process. Yet they expected it to be one that would pay dividends. They reasoned that more time and imagination they spent in this activity, the better their system would perform. The agencies in the CJIS project that spent the most time in designing test scripts and testing now have the fewest problems.

This example is based on a case study of the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) in Davidson County, Tennessee, done by Teri B. Sullivan of SEARCH and Michaela Mathews of the District Attorney General’s Office in Nashville.

*

72

B. Measure and Revise the Pilot-Tested Process
It is critical for you to monitor the operation of the new or improved process during the pilot test phase. This will involve measurement of performance in terms of the success criteria that the steering committee has established. Before you undertake full implementation of the enhanced process, you may need to make refinements and changes. 1. Determine if the Enhanced Process is Achieving Desired Results. Whether you have undertaken process improvement or process reengineering, you and your court will have no way of knowing if the new or improved process has produced the desired results unless you have meaningful performance measures. Good performance measures usually include the following:

Outcome measures, which assess whether the new or improved process has actually achieved the goals and objectives you set in Steps One and Two. Output measures, which examine the services that the court or the clerk’s office produces under the business process, such as the number of cases processed from case initiation through the conclusion of all postjudgment court work. Efficiency measures, which evaluate such things as the cost of the process and the elapsed time it takes to deliver an output.

As we have noted already, the resources you can use in your thinking about performance measurement include (a) the NACM guide, Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts (1999); (b) the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (see Part II); and (c) the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, P.L. 103-62), passed by the U.S. Congress in 1993. From the commencement of implementation, you will want to make sure that performance data are being gathered on the enhanced process, and that it is complete, accurate, and consistent enough for you and the steering committee to determine how well the process is meeting your performance goals and success criteria. If it is not, you may need to make refinements and changes so that further improvements can be made.

73

2. Make Refinements and Changes. The need to make adjustments in the enhanced process may arise throughout the implementation effort, but it will be most critical in light of what you learn during the pilot test. How you deal with such adjustments at these two junctures will make the difference between an effective implementation effort and one that is less successful. To make changes effectively, do the following:*

Identify the need for any changes early. The sooner you know about the need for a change, the more options you will have to deal with it. Define the change that must be made. What does it consist of? What does it directly affect? In what specific ways? Determine costs. Find out the most effective and least expensive way to make the change. Determine any delays. Seek ways to incorporate the change without as little negative impact on the implementation schedule as possible. See if another task can be done first. Then decide how much delay there will be, and give reasons for the delay to the steering committee. Identify any “ripple effect” from the change. Study the interrelationship among implementation tasks to determine if there will be any indirect consequences from the changes. Document the effects. Show what the change is, how you will address it and why, and what effects the change will have on the costs and timetables in the implementation plan. Seek steering committee approval of the refinement plan. Share the rationale for the changes and delays with the steering committee as soon as possible. Share the changes with other stakeholders. Decide with the steering committee when to share the revisions with judges and others who will be affected.

*

See USBR, Decision Process Guidebook, “Implementation,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/step9.htm.

74

C. Go Forward with Full Implementation
Once you decide on the basis of your pilot test that you are ready for full implementation of the enhanced business process, you can put your full implementation plan into effect. Implementing the enhanced business process is an exercise in project management, which involves project start-up, management of project execution, and control of the project.* It also involves celebration of successes and dealing appropriately with failures. 1. Actively manage the implementation project. When the work actually begins on carrying out the implementation plan, you should assure that the project team proceeds with the tasks in the plan and accomplishes the results that it envisions. It will be necessary during the implementation period to deal with problems as they arise, and to make any adjustments that may be necessary in work assignments and timetables. The following are some of the issues to be addressed in the management of the effort:

Verify the scope of the effort. Make sure with the steering committee that all the judges, court staff, and other stakeholders understand what the implementation effort is about and what specifically it will accomplish. After this is done at the beginning of full implementation, revisit it from time to time as a way of reviewing work progress. Provide for team development. This involves steps to enhance the skills of individual project members to accomplish necessary implementation tasks, but also steps to enhance their ability to work as a team and to enhance contributions from judges and other stakeholders to the effort of the project team. The main objective here is to improve performance in the implementation effort, not only in terms of the implementation process, but also in terms of the ultimate results. Assure quality. To provide assurance to judges and other stakeholders that the implementation effort will meet expectations, arrange for regular review of the implementation process and its progress toward meeting the expectations of the implementation plan. This may lead not only to adjustments in the way that the project team does its work, but also to slight adjustments in the implementation plan in view of problems encountered by the team.

See Kansas Department of Human Resources, Change and Transition Management Board, Revolutionizing Government Services, “Tips for Successful Project Start-Up, Execution, and Control,” http://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/tipscontents.htm.

*

75

Arrange for timely information distribution. This involves making sure that needed information is made available in a timely manner to project team members, the project sponsor, the steering committee, the process owner, judges, and other stakeholders. It may include regular project meetings, one-on-one meetings with project team members and others, and weekly or monthly progress reports to the steering committee and others.

2. Provide controls for steering committee oversight. The implementation effort should proceed under the supervision of the steering committee. In order for the steering committee to exercise effective oversight, you should provide such control mechanisms as the following, which can be the subject of regular implementation progress review by the steering committee:

Risk management. The risks identified in Steps Two and Three, along with plans for risk mitigation developed there, now provide the basis for steps to avoid having the implementation effort derailed. Review and update the work done earlier and set priorities among the risks in terms of likelihood of occurrence and potential impact on the timeliness, budget or quality of the implementation effort. Prepare or update mitigation strategies and contingency plans for each risk, and be prepared to put them into effect. Quality Assurance. You may want to have an independent person speak from time to time with judges, project team members, and others periodically about issues such as team leadership, dynamics within the team, and contacts with judges and other stakeholders, as they affect the team’s progress toward successful implementation. Share the results and recommendations from this inquiry with the project team leader before making any report to the steering committee. Time Management. The implementation plan will have timetables for completion of tasks by the project team. One of the regular and routine control features should involve an assessment of team progress in terms of the timetables in the plan, as well as consideration with the team and the steering committee of reasonable adjustments to the timetables that may be necessary. Cost Management. The project team will have begun the implementation effort with a budget that has been made part of the implementation plan. You should routinely review the status of costs with the project team and the steering committee, to see if actual expenditures are meeting budgeted costs, and to consider how to make any adjustments that may appear to be necessary.

76

Procurement Management. A final dimension of the implementation effort may involve the acquisition of goods and services. Create a framework, in the form of a plan with timetables, for the steering committee to exercise appropriate oversight of the complete procurement cycle, including planning, solicitation, selection, contract administration, and closeout. Once the cycle has begun, make this an area for regular steering committee review. Performance Measurement: In earlier steps, you will have identified the data necessary for routinely assessing the performance of the new or improved process. You should make sure that the data are available and are complete, accurate, and consistent, so that you can assess performance at an appropriate time.

3. Celebrate successes, and especially early successes. Be prepared from the time you are planning for implementation to recognize success any place you can. Acknowledge the planning, hard work, and effort that went into the success. Letting everyone know about early accomplishments can be particularly helpful as a means to promote enthusiasm and motivation in favor of the new or improved business process, and it will help to promote the value of the effort to those in the local legal community who have reservations about the changes reflected in the implementation effort. Throughout the implementation effort, continue to recognize and celebrate successes. Use the accomplishment of milestones as a tool (a) to mark your progress, (b) to help indicate where you are going, and (c) to help build and maintain ongoing motivation, commitment, and support for the effort. 4. Deal effectively with any failures. If something is not working as expected, or if the implementation effort is heading for an impasse, do not give up hope. What may in the short run appear to be a failure may in the long run be no more than a turning point in the implementation effort. When something goes wrong, do the following:*

See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Decision Process Guidebook, “How to Handle Failure,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/handfail.htm.

*

77

Respond quickly. Recognize that you may have to “go back to the drawing board,” except that now you will have more knowledge about the business process and its problems. See if it is possible to agree on and address one or more parts of the problem. A partial solution may build the credibility, support, and cooperation you may need to solve the rest of the problem. If you cannot fix the problem, end the process as quickly as possible both politically and substantively. Examine why the effort did not work. Figuring this out may lead to success and avoidance of like problems in the future. Apply the lessons you have learned to other efforts.

D. Manage Reactions to Change
Your success in the full implementation of the new or improved process will depend in part on how much “buy-in” you have from judges, court staff members, and others affected by the implementation effort. Most business process enhancement failure is directly attributable to failure to manage “the human dimension” of the changes that are presented during implementation. Some say that change is the single most difficult feature that people must face in an organization. Especially if your court’s process enhancement effort involves significant changes from process reengineering, change management is thus critical to the success of the effort. In a formal sense, this involves your carrying out the change management strategy you developed in Step Three, which in human terms may include your management of training, work redeployment, and grievance issues. In a less formal (but no less foreseeable) sense, however, you will also need to help judges, court staff members, and others make the emotional transition to the new way of operating. Experts say that there are four main stages of emotional transition, and you need to help people make their way through these stages:*
*

See Kansas Department of Human Resources, Change and Transition Management Board, “Tips for Managing People Through Change,” http://www2.hr.ks.state.us/tips/html/hrmgt.htm.

78

Denial: Like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, a person wonders when “all this” will pass by and things will return to normal. Resistance: Those who have been made uncomfortable may be angry and critical of the changes that are underway. Exploration: Having let go of the past, people begin to believe that the worst is over, and they begin to make adjustments, asking questions about the new or improved process. Commitment/Acceptance: A person acknowledges that things have changed, and that the change is here to stay, so that resistance and the temptation to sabotage the effort will be over, even if the person is not enthusiastic about the changes.

As you are managing this transition, you will have to do different things as you (a) discontinue the old way of doing business, (b) undertake migration to the new way, and (c) start doing things the new way. Most of them involve open and honest communication throughout the transition period. They will be most successful if it is clear that the chief judge and other leaders of the court are unambiguously in favor of the changes underway, even as they are sensitive to the concerns people may express about change. Table 7 below shows some of the things you will want to consider doing. Ultimately, changes in your local legal culture must be made in order to achieve the business process enhancement goals you established in Steps One and Two. To the extent that information technology is involved in support of the implementation effort, full use of its potential may require such changes. Remember that people – judges, court staff members, and court users – must carry out the plans you have made. Ultimately, you need to help people make incremental changes in how they view things, so that they see more benefit than loss from the changes associated with the implementation effort.

79

TABLE 7. HELPING PEOPLE MAKE THE CHANGE TRANSITION*

Discontinuing the old way of doing business: At the beginning of the implementation process, you are likely to see many reactions to change, and you need to do such things as the following to help people give up the old way: Identify who is losing what. Accept the reality and importance of subjective losses. Do not be surprised at overreactions. Acknowledge losses openly and sympathetically. Expect and accept signs of grieving. Compensate for losses. Give people information – over and over again. Define what is over and what is not. “Mark” the ending. Treat the past with respect. Let people take a part of the old way with them. Show how endings assure the continuity of what is really important. Avoid dragging it out: what must end, must end.

Migration: This is the in-between part of the transition, when people have to let go of the old way but haven’t yet grasped the new way fully. This may be a time when people ask about the wisdom of the changes underway, and they may feel anxious, overloaded, and vulnerable. To help people through this stage, you should do such things as the following: Recognize that this behavior is “normal” and expected. Create temporary systems or ways for people to deal with things. Protect your people. Review policies and regulations to assure they are flexible enough to deal with the changes underway. Strengthen and encourage connections within the group. Communicate and keep people informed.

Starting the new way of doing business: This is when lasting change is made, and when you solidify the changes that the court has gone through. To reinforce this new beginning, do such things as the following: Be consistent. Ensure quick success. Symbolize the new identity. Celebrate success.

*

See Electronic College of Process Innovation, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Fundamentals, Chapter 7, “Business Process Reengineering and Organizational Change,” http://www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/mhome.htm.

80

E. Capitalize on Success and Make Ongoing Further Process Improvements
Congratulations! You and your court have succeeded in a business process enhancement effort that is yielding improved court performance in view of the court’s strategic goals and the needs and requirements of its internal customers and external court users. You should build on this success, and you should use the performance measures and other tools you have mastered to bring about even further process improvements in the court. 1. Take advantage of success. If the implementation effort has been successful, make good use of it. Be sure to recognize all those whose planning, work, determination, and support contributed to the positive outcome. Be sure to let everyone – judges, court staff, representatives of court-related agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public—know what happened and why. Be sure to do the following:*

Take the success into other court problem-solving efforts. Analyze the entire history of this process enhancement effort to see what might successfully be transferred into other court programs and business processes. Advise others about what worked and what did not. Advertise the success.

2. Use performance measures as a feedback loop for further process improvements. The world will not stand still after you have succeeded in introducing the new or improved business process. There will be continuing further changes – new trends in case volume and case mix; changes in legislation; changes in your group of judges and court staff members; a new prosecutor and other new local officials; demographic changes in the community your court serves; new developments in information technology; and other changes in society in general.

*

See USBR, Decision Process Guidebook, “Handling Success,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/handsucc.htm.

81

In the face of such changes, the gains achieved by the enhancement effort process can erode unless the court continually monitors its performance and makes further refinements. You should use performance information as a tool to aid continuous improvement of work processes. To make this happen, do the following:

As a matter of routine, continue to review data and apply the performance measures to the now enhanced business process to identify any performance gaps that may arise. Encourage judges and court staff members to use performance data to find further ways to improve the new or improved process. Periodically assess the performance goals and objectives you have for this process to see if it would be appropriate to seek even higher levels of performance.

3. Continue to refine and improve the process. As your business process becomes one that may serve as a benchmark for other courts, you have good cause to be proud of the efforts of everyone in your court who has contributed to this accomplishment. But you cannot stand still, because there will be continuing changes like the examples we note earlier in this section. You should now see your court as being at the beginning of an ongoing cycle of continuous process improvement. Why should you continue to seek further process improvement? The potential benefits are significant:

Improved work environment for judges and court staff members More effective and efficient justice services to court users Greater support from court system leaders and funding bodies Broad recognition as a court that with a high quality operation Greater public trust and confidence in courts and the administration of justice

82

It is worthwhile to see what kinds of goals for even higher improvement are appropriate for your court. Examples of very ambitious quality criteria for setting higher performance goals include (a) the criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program – see the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/mbnqa.htm); and (b) Six Sigma – see Part II and the “iSixSigma” website (http://www.isixsigma.com/). In terms of a perspective for measuring performance, think about six levels of process quality suggested by process improvement expert H. James Harrington and shown below in Table 8: TABLE 8. LEVELS OF BUSINESS PROCESS QUALITY*

Level
6 5 4 3 2 1

Status
Unknown Understood Effective Efficient Error-Free World-Class

Description
Process status has not been determined. Process design is understood and operates according to prescribed documentation. Process is systematically measured, streamlining has started, and expectations of internal and external customers are met. Process is streamlined and is more efficient. Process is highly effective (error-free) and efficient. Process is among the best in any court in the country or the world, and it continues to improve.

If your court is like many courts, the results of your successful business process enhancement effort will have brought the court from Level 6 to Level 4, or from Level 5 to Level 3, in terms of the framework offered in Table 8. The question is whether it is possible for your court to advance to Level 2 or even Level 1. To make such a further leap forward, Harrington suggests that the kinds of steps to take include the following:

See H. James Harrington, Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness, p. 206.

*

83

Periodically assess where your court is in terms of the levels in Table 8. Define and eliminate problems in your business processes. Evaluate the impact of changes on court operations and court users. Do further benchmarking about best practices in other courts. Provide further education and training for judges and court staff members.

84

PART II. TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES TO SUPPORT BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT IN YOUR COURT

85

PROCESS DOCUMENTATION TOOLS

There are several techniques you can use to help understand and document your court’s business processes. Two of them are block diagrams and process flowcharts.

A. Block Diagrams
A block diagram is the simplest form of a flowchart. It provides a quick and uncomplicated view of a business process. Block diagrams are helpful to simplify large, complex processes, or to document individual tasks. Rectangles (to show activities) and arrows (to show information flow or relation between activities) are the primary symbols in a block diagram, and elongated circles can be used to show the start and end of a process. The five steps in creating a block diagram are the following:

Step 1: Determine the process to be represented in the diagram, using it to simplify large, complex processes or to document individual processes. Step 2: Study the process to develop an understanding of its major activities. Step 3: Enter elongated circles, arrows and blocks on a flip chart, a piece of paper, or a personal computer to diagram the process. Step 4: Include a short descriptive phrase in the block representing each activity. Step 5: Have the accuracy of the block diagram validated by staff members responsible for carrying out the activities in the process.

An example of a block diagram is shown in Figure 4. Block diagrams provide a quick overview of a process, not a detailed analysis. Normally, they are prepared first to document the magnitude of a business process. They are therefore most suitable for your

86

FIGURE 4. BLOCK DIAGRAM OF HIRING PROCESS IN A HYPOTHETICAL COURT*

Start of Process

7. Screen Candidates

1. Request Funding

8. Interview Candidates

2. Approve Funding

9. Prioritize Candidates

3. Provide List of Internal Candidates

10. Make Employment Offer

4. Interview Internal Candidates

11. Wait for Acceptance of Offer

5. If a Candidate is Suitable, Go to Step #10

12. Introduce New Employee to Court

6. Conduct Outside Search

End of Process

With minor modifications to represent a court setting rather than a private business, this example is based directly on one given by H. James Harrison in Business Process Improvement, at p. 89.

*

87

court’s steering committee to use as information for determining which business processes may be most in need of enhancement. (See Step One in Part I.) As Step Two in Part I indicates, your project team can subsequently prepare a more detailed process flowchart (see section B), building on the block diagram of a process, to analyze that process in more detail.

B. Process Flowcharts
The preparation of flowchart that is more detailed than a block diagram provides the basis for defining and analyzing a court process – for example, in the creation of a case file in a clerk’s office – by building a step-by-step picture of the process for analysis, discussion, or communication. There is a standard set of symbols typically used in the creation of a flow chart. See Appendix E for a sample process flowchart using some of the common flowcharting symbols. If a flowchart has been prepared thoroughly, the analysis of it can help your steering committee and project team understand and identify court process bottlenecks, including points of delay, waiting time, and queuing time. It can also aid your identification of key “customers” –both internal (such as individual judges) and external (such as parties and citizens seeking court information) – at different points in each process. Flowcharting can also be useful for you to identify sources of error, waste, and “non-value-added” operations and to identify possible areas for change. The five recommended steps for constructing a flowchart are shown on the following page.*

See Richard Chang and Matthew Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 2), pp. 49-61, Johnson Edosomwan, Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering. pp. 104-106; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Decision Process Guidebook, http://www.usbr.gov/guide/toolbox/flowchar.htm.

*

88

Step 1: Prepare for flowcharting by developing an understanding of the standard symbols used in flowcharting or flowcharting software (e.g., an elongated circle to show the start and end of a process; a box for any process task; a diamond for any decision point; the symbol for a paper document; and the zigzag arrow for an electronic data transfer). Step 2: Identify the major tasks in the process under analysis. Step 3: Create the flowchart beginning with the first activity or event, connecting all activities or processes with arrows in a chronological order. Step 4: Analyze the process flow chart. Identify the key problems (such as too much time per event; duplication of effort; unnecessary tasks; or non-value-added tasks) by reviewing every step and element specified. Step 5: Develop a solutions strategy for problems, identifying and implementing corrective actions for ongoing process improvement.

89

PROCESS ANALYSIS TOOLS

There are several techniques that you can employ to analyze business processes and show the results of that analysis. Those discussed here are: (a) brainstorming; (b) affinity diagrams; (c) fishbone diagrams; (d) focus groups; (e) force-field analysis; (f) histograms; (g) nominal group technique; (h) Pareto analysis; and (i) workflow analysis.

A. Brainstorming
This is a planning technique that you can use to determine possible causes or solutions to problems, or to decide which business process problems are most in need of attention. You can also use it to plan out the steps in a project. It is a means to elicit the creativity of a group of people, when it is desirable to generate a large number of ideas or to build consensus. The four key steps for brainstorming are the following:*

Step 1: Bring together participants and initiate the brainstorming session. Establish ground rules to promote an effective session: Keep it fast, furious, and short. Don’t edit what is said and don’t criticize any ideas. Get as many ideas as possible, eliminating some ideas only later. Encourage creativity by inviting even the wildest or most exaggerated ideas. Encourage participants to build on the creativity of others, since one person’s observation might suggest a new idea for another person.

See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), pp. 5-11, and USBR, “Decision Process Guidebook,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/toolbox/brainsto.htm.

*

90

Step 2: Choose an appropriate brainstorming method: Freewheeling: Share ideas all at once. List all ideas as they are shouted out. Round robin: Everyone takes a turn offering an idea Anyone can pass on any turn. Continue until there are no more ideas. List all ideas as they are offered. Step 3: When everyone has had a chance to participate and no more ideas are being offered, sort large amounts of information according to common themes and prioritize the ideas that have been suggested as a way to decide where to start. Step 4: After the conclusion of the brainstorming session, go forward with the activities that have been decided on.

B. Affinity Diagrams
An affinity diagram is a tool that is helpful to add structure to your project team’s thinking about a complex issue, by breaking it down into manageable categories, in order to gain agreement about how to deal with it. The seven steps for you to create an affinity diagram are the following:*

Step 1: The group leader should present the issue or problem to the group, and the group should reach agreement on a clear and objective problem or goal statement. Step 2: Initiating a brainstorming exercise (see B.1 above), the group leader should hand out index cards or “Post-It” notes to each group member and ask everyone to write one brieflystated idea on each card or note about how to deal with the problem. Step 3: The group leader should then collect all the cards or notes, mix them up to assure anonymity, and then spread them out or stick them on a flat surface, which may be a large table, a wall, a blackboard, or a flipchart.

See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), pp. 15-23; USBR, “Decision Process Guidebook,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/toolbox/affinity.htm; and Quality Library (Vanderbilt University), http://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mt322/Affinity.htm.

91

Step 4: Group members should then pick out cards or notes that have related ideas and rearrange all of them into related groups on the flat surface. Step 5: The group should develop a title or heading that best describes the central theme for each group of cards or notes. Place similar groups next to one another, and combine groups that are very similar. Step 6: The group should discuss the ideas until there is consensus about the grouping of cards or notes. Step 7: Finally, the group should decide on next steps suggested by the affinity diagram in terms of how to deal with the issue or problem.

C. Fishbone Diagrams
The fishbone diagram (also called “Ishikawa diagram” or “cause-and-effect diagram”) helps you to relate the elements of a process, linking possible causes to specific effects. Possible causes for a resulting effect are identified through a brainstorming technique. The fishbone diagram provides a setting for you to consider all the people and factors in a specific business process to see how various considerations come together to make up the outcome in that process. Figure 5 is an example of a fishbone diagram that you might prepare to analyze a specific business process problem in a court.

92

FIGURE 5. LATE ENTRY OF COURT EVENT DATA: SAMPLE FISHBONE DIAGRAM WITH POTENTIAL CAUSES*

Places
No consolidated point to drop papers Not enough computers

Procedures
No set procedures Procedures not followed Complex Out of date

Late data Too slow Doesn’t work System down

Complex Too slow No accountability No set policy

Procedures not followed Late data Bad data

Late Entry of Court-Event Updates in Case Mgt Info System

Systems

Policies

People

As this example shows, the fishbone diagram is a way to record and display potential causes for a problem that may be encountered in one of the business processes of a court or clerk’s office. The steps for you to construct a fishbone diagram and then implement recommended solutions are the following:**

*

See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1, 1993), p. 52.

**

Ibid., see pp. 47-57; see also, Edosomwan, Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering, pp. 113-114, and USBR, “Decision Process Guidebook,” http://www.usbr.gov/guide/toolbox/fishbone.htm.

93

Step 1: Perform a thorough analysis of the court work unit and identify the issue (a problem or process condition) that needs to be changed. Step 2: Initiate group meetings involving all persons likely to be affected by the problem. Step 3: Use a brainstorming technique to identify all possible causes of the specific problem and identify its potential impact on quality, performance, productivity and customer satisfaction. Step 4: Identify the main categories of causes for the problem, which may include such things as places, procedures, information systems, policies or people. Step 5: Using a brainstorming approach, list the possible specific causes for the problem under the major categories identified earlier. Step 6: Look for causes that appear in more than one category and identify the most likely causes for the problem. Step 7: Develop alternative solutions to fix the problem identified. Step 8: Implement the solution considered most appropriate and follow up with further corrective action and process improvement.

D. Focus Groups
Dr. Anita Gibbs has written (see http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html) that focus groups are structured group interviews involving organized discussion with a selected group of persons to gain information about their views and experiences of a topic. They are particularly suited for you to obtain several perspectives about the same topic. The benefits of focus groups include gaining insights into people’s shared understandings of everyday life and the ways in which others influence individual persons in a group situation. Focus group meetings provide you an excellent opportunity for obtaining feedback from internal and external customers about how well court or clerk’s office staff members provide services. Since the conduct of focus groups involves a disciplined methodology (see the Focus Group Kit edited by Morgan, Krueger and King), it may be prudent for your steering committee or project team in a business process enhancement effort to have a professional focus group facilitator, unless a member of the committee or

94

team has had prior experience conducting focus groups. Carter McNamara (see http://www.mapnp.org/library/grp_skll/focusgrp/focusgrp.htm) suggests eight general steps for conducting a focus group session:

Step 1: Limit each session to about 6-10 people of a similar nature and to a duration of 60-90 minutes. Carefully develop 5-6 questions to be answered by the group. To assure that all information is gathered, plan to record the session, with either an audio or video recorder, or with a co-facilitator taking detailed notes, and at its commencement explain why the session is being recorded. Step 2: Hold sessions in a conference room or other setting with adequate airflow and lighting. Provide refreshments, especially box lunches if the session is held during the lunch period. Step 3: Follow a planned agenda – welcome; review of agenda; statement of meeting goal; announcement of ground rules; introduction of each participant; questions and answers; and wrap-up. Establish ground rules to assure that all members participate as much as possible, while at the same time making sure that the meeting moves along and generates useful information. Step 4: During the session, focus on its major purpose – to collect useful information about the purpose of the meeting. Step 5: Carefully word each question asked during the session. Allow each group member a few minutes to answer. Ensure even participation, so that one or two people do not dominate the session. Then facilitate discussion around the answers to each question, one at a time. At the end of discussion of each question, the facilitator (or the co-facilitator keeping the record of the session) should reflect back a summary of what group members said. Step 6: At the close of the session, tell participants that they will each receive a copy of the report prepared from their answers. Thank the participants and adjourn the meeting. Step 7: Immediately after the session, verify that the record of the session has been made in full by tape or notes. Make any supplemental notes that may be necessary. Write down observations about the session – where and when it happened; what was the nature of participation; and whether there were any surprises. Step 8: If possible within available resources, take steps to test and verify the observations and hypotheses that came from the focus group sessions.*

Many major companies have invested substantial resources in focus group sessions but have then not done statistical follow-up research to verify hypotheses generated in those sessions, largely because it might take too much time or be too expensive. Lack of follow-up on focus group findings thus leads some statisticians to point out the limits of such findings – without follow-up research, one cannot say with any degree of precision what percent of a target population actually goes along with those findings. See “SurveyGuy,” http://www.surveyguy.com/homepage.shtml.

*

95

E. Force-Field Analysis
Force-field analysis is a way for you to identify factors that stand in the way of achieving a goal (restraining forces), as well as factors that will promote achievement of that goal (driving forces). This analysis can help your project team identify some of the causes and potential solutions to a business process problem. It also helps the team to focus on ways to develop a plan of action that will have a greater chance of success. The eight steps for you to take in completing a force-field analysis and creating a force-field diagram are the following:*

Step 1: Use a flip chart, large notepad, blackboard, or overhead transparency as a force field diagram to record the results of the group discussion. Step 2: Use brainstorming methods (see technique #1 above) to generate ideas. Step 3. Identify the problem in the current situation and reach consensus on how to define it accurately. Write the description of the problem on the force field diagram. Step 2: Reach consensus on a goal for addressing the problem. Write the goal on the diagram. Step 4: Brainstorm about “driving forces” that will help the court achieve the goal, and write them on the diagram. Step 5: In the same fashion, brainstorm about “restraining forces” that will stand in the way of achieving the goal. Step 6: Prioritize the driving and restraining forces, sorting or combining them based on common themes (see the affinity diagram in B.2 above). Step 7: Before proceeding further, gather data to prove or disprove the existence of the driving forces and restraining forces. Step 8: As a means to develop a strategy and action plan for achieving the goal, brainstorm about ways to eliminate or weaken the restraining forces and to capitalize on the driving forces. Develop a plan with a timetable for steps to move toward achievement of the goal.

*

See Edosomwan, Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering, pp. 124-125, and Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), pp. 37-43.

96

Table 9 is a sample force-field diagram showing hypothetical driving forces and restraining forces in a hypothetical court with a civil delay problem. TABLE 9. HYPOTHETICAL FORCE-FIELD DIAGRAM FOR TRIAL COURT WITH A CIVIL DELAY PROBLEM

Current Situation: Pending civil inventory is too large, with too many pending cases
older than applicable time guidelines.

Goal: Reduce size of pending inventory by 10% this year, and dispose of all open cases
more than three years old, except those on appeal or pending completion of bankruptcy proceedings. Driving Forces
Judges are fair and dedicated Hard working court staff Key members of trial bar want improvement Court leadership from chief judge Trial court administrator works well with judges and clerk of court Good support from state court administrator’s office Chair of county board is a business person who understands the court’s problems Newest judges on bench are progressive and want to try new approaches to court problems

Restraining Forces
Priority of criminal and juvenile docket limits judge availability for civil docket Number of judges has not kept up with caseload growth Inadequate number of staff members in clerk’s office Legacy computer system Falling revenues limit funding Some insurance companies refuse to settle cases and instead demand trials in soft tissue/chiropractor cases Old and inadequate court facilities – not enough courtrooms Lack of effective communication within court Too many cases do not settle until the day of trial Calendar clerk is overworked

97

F. Histograms
A histogram is a bar chart representing a frequency distribution, in which the heights of the bars represent observed frequencies. You can use it to communicate information about the variation in a process, or to aid decisionmaking about where to focus improvement efforts. Two examples of histograms are shown in Figure 6, which present information from a census of the Texas court environment that was conducted in 1998 for the Supreme Court of Texas. The histograms show that court workloads and the constituency that courts served were both growing steadily between 1995 and 2001. FIGURE 6. HISTOGRAMS ON CASE AND POPULATION TRENDS PER JUDGE IN TEXAS COURTS, 1995-2001*

Supreme Court of Texas, Judicial Committee on Information Technology, First Annual Report, “Executive Summary” (1999), http://www.courts.state.tx.us/jcit/report/execsum.htm.

*

98

A histogram is useful for you to show the distribution of data, to show where there may be a problem, or to track changes over time, as Figure 6 illustrates. As Chang and Niewdzwiecki discuss in their book, Continuous Improvement Tools, creating a histogram involves seven major steps:

Step 1: Gather and tabulate data regarding the process under study, arranging the results into clusters around an average of observations. Step 2: Calculate the range in terms of the difference between the lowest and highest numbers in the collected data, and then decide how many bars to show on the histogram (the “interval width”). Step 3: Draw the horizontal and vertical axes, with horizontal numbers running up to the highest numbers found in the data collection, and with even intervals from zero to the highest number. Step 4: Organize the data into the intervals determined in Step 2. Step 5: Plot the data on the graph, with the height of vertical bars corresponding to the number of measures for each interval on the horizontal axis. (There are many software programs that complete the graphic representation of data once the data values have been entered in a table.) Step 6: Analyze the histogram to find out what is happening in the process under study. Step 7: Decide what further steps to take. If the analysis has shown useful information, it may be possible to take corrective steps to change the distribution to a different pattern before further data is gathered to plot another histogram. Or the data may present clues about the process that give guidance on further investigative steps.

99

G. Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
This technique provides your project team with a participative process to identify problems and issues, or to develop potential solutions to previously identified problems. It is a method to generate ideas, record those ideas, and prioritize them in order to reach consensus. As Johnson Edosomwan writes in Chapter 5 of Organizational Transformation, it can be particularly useful to help resolve complex problems, when a group is under time pressure, or to avoid potential conflicts associated with discussing and prioritizing sensitive issues. Edosomwan suggests the following six NGT steps:

Step 1: Especially with a larger group, or if there are sensitive issues and the group leader recognizes the value of having everyone’s ideas (including his or her own) presented anonymously, the group leader may arrange for the participation of a facilitator from outside the group to aid the process. Step 2: The group leader should identify the purpose of the meeting, which might be to generate ideas for resolving a particular problem with a business process activity in a court. The leader should give group members time to record ideas silently on paper. Step 3: Using one of two methods, the ideas that have been written on paper should be reported in round-robin fashion: If the ideas are sensitive or if the number of participants is very large, a facilitator should collect the ideas and record them anonymously for the group; or Each person can present his or her ideas one at a time in turn, with no response or comment by other group members, while the facilitator records the ideas. Step 4: Once they have all been recorded, the group should discuss each idea separately for accurate interpretation, to clarify misunderstandings, and to combine any ideas that are identical, very similar, or otherwise closely related. Step 5: Each group member should then prioritize the ideas. By simple voting or other means, the group should then rank-order the ideas based on the priorities suggested by each individual participant. The goal of the ranking effort is to promote consensus and a group decision on the idea(s) considered most appropriate. Step 6: Once the group has selected one or more ideas for recommendation or implementation, the group should work on an implementation plan and timetable.

100

H. Pareto Analysis
Pareto analysis is usually required when there are many complex reasons for problems happening within a court’s operational unit or within a specific business process. Vilfredo Pareto was an Italian economist who worked in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; and from his study of distributions of wealth in different countries, he concluded that a fairly small minority (about 20%) of the population typically controls the great majority (about 80%) of a society's wealth. This same distribution has been observed in other areas, and it has been called the “Pareto effect.” The Pareto effect may often be observed in a court’s efforts to analyze and improve its business processes – 80% of its problems may stem from only 20% of all causes. Figure 7 shows an example of a Pareto chart, involving the most common reasons found for criminal trial date continuances in criminal cases. As the figure shows, a Pareto chart combines a bar graph with a cumulative line graph. The bar graph shows the number of continuances by specific reason in descending order from left to right, with bar height reflecting a recorded number of different continuance reasons. The cumulative sum line shows the aggregate total percentage of all preceding bars. The results of this kind of analysis can permit a court to focus specifically on the most significant reasons for a problem (rather than diffusing its efforts over many more trivial reasons, such as those reflected by the highlighted bar #8 in Figure 7), thereby allowing the court to seek potential solutions that will have the greatest likelihood of bringing about substantial improvements.

101

FIGURE 7. SAMPLE PARETO CHART: 1979 CRIMINAL TRIAL-DATE CONTINUANCE REASONS IN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA*

100 74 66 57 46 23 350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 -82 87 -- 100 -- 85 -- 70 -- 55 -- 40 -- 25

Cumulative Percent of Total

Observed Number of Continuances (N = 1,434)

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 Continuance Reasons

8

LEGEND FOR CONTINUANCE REASONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = = = = = = = = Prosecution witness problem Prosecutor/defense attorney in another courtroom Defendant without attorney Excused absence of prosecutor/defense attorney Plea/diversion being negotiated Defendant ill Prosecutor/defense attorney needs more time to file motions (highlighted by diagonal lines) All other reasons combined

*

SOURCE: See Samuel Conti, William Popp, and Don Hardenbergh, Finances and Operating Costs in Pennsylvania’s Courts of Common Pleas (North Andover, Mass.: National Center for State Courts, Northeastern Regional Office, 1980), p. 78.

102

To create and use a Pareto chart effectively for process improvement in a court, you should take the following eight steps:*

Step 1: Determine why Pareto analysis is required, and create a clear definition of the items to be ranked and organize them into a handful of categories. Step 2: Determine the measurement criteria for the problems or issues, which could be measures of such things as frequency, duration, cost, volume, or size. Step 3: Collect and record data for each item to be ranked. (For example, this could include the number of times a problem occurred with each item and the relative significance in terms of cost, time or other criterion.) Step 4: Calculate percentages in terms of the measurement criteria (e.g., how often a problem occurs or a situation arises) for each item and rank them in descending order. Step 5: Create a chart with a horizontal axis (for listing categories of errors) and vertical axes (to show frequency of occurrence and percentage of the total). Step 6: Plot bars showing cumulative magnitudes of problems in terms of all criteria. Step 7: Analyze the results and consider the following: What makes the biggest difference to judges, parties or court staff? What will it cost to solve this problem? What will it cost if this problem is not solved? Step 8: Take appropriate process improvement steps in keeping with the results of the analysis.

See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 2), pp. 19-29, and Edosomwan, Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering, pp. 114-116.

*

103

I. Workflow Analysis
This is a structured approach to improving work processes by identifying and eliminating unnecessary tasks and streamlining the flow of work activities and tasks. The technique would call for you to create cross-functional teams (made up of persons from different departments and perspectives, to create an opportunity for exchange of fresh ideas) to analyze functions, activities and tasks and identify unnecessary steps. In Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering, Johnson Edosomwan suggests that workflow analysis involves the following steps:

Step 1: Define the process in terms of purposes, objectives, starting points, and ending points. Step 2: Identify functions and major responsibilities of the court, including staffing and planning. Step 3: Identify business processes within each function. Step 4: Identify basic steps to perform each activity in a business process, thereby developing a detailed description of that process. Step 5: Have a cross-functional team analyze each process. Step 6: Have the cross-functional team identify lengthy tasks, choke points, repetitious tasks, and other problems in the process. Step 7: Determine and implement an action plan for process improvement.

104

SIMPLE PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS

After you have appointed a project team to undertake the detailed work involved in business process enhancement, as well as when it is time to begin implementation of a new business process, it is desirable to take steps to plan and manage such activities. For this purpose, there are several tools available for you. Among the simple tools are (a) action plans; (b) matrix diagrams; and (c) tree diagrams.

A. Action Plans
An action plan can be a simple way for you to set forth the specific steps that will be taken to carry out a strategy or a task after a decision has been on what course to follow. An action plan is a way you can record and communicate intended actions, responsibilities, time frames, and needed resources. It is also a point of reference against which your business process enhancement steering committee and project team can measure activities and events. Ten steps to complete an action plan are the following (see USBR, Decision Process Guidebook, http://www.usbr.gov/guide/actplan.htm):

Step 1: Undertake the action planning effort as a group exercise involving all the members of the team. Begin by making sure that the problem to be addressed is well defined, and that everyone understands what is to be accomplished. Step 2. For each objective, identify major tasks to be accomplished. Step 3: For each task, prepare a separate action planning worksheet. For complex tasks, prepare a separate worksheet for major subtasks. Step 4: Brainstorm about the specific steps that must be taken in order to complete each task. Record the steps in the chronological order they should be taken on the worksheet.

105

Step 5: For each step, assign primary responsibility to a specific person. Assign secondary responsibility if necessary. Step 6: Determine a suitable timetable for each step, with a starting date and a date for expected completion. Step 7: Determine what other persons must be involved in order to complete each step successfully. Step 8: Indicate what special resources will be needed (especially if new resources must be purchased or provided, or if persons will need to have work assignments temporarily altered to complete their part of the effort). Step 9: Distribute the action plan to other key people for comment, and make any necessary refinements or adjustments in the plan. Step 10: Be prepared to modify the action plan as changes occur and the project or implementation effort develops.

B. Matrix Diagrams
There are many different kinds of matrix diagrams. One is a planning tool to help organize large groups of tasks and responsibilities. You can use this kind of matrix diagram to:

Match tasks with individuals or organization responsible to complete them Rate the level of a person or organization’s responsibility for a task. Assign accountability and plan actions.

According to Chang and Niedzwiecki, in Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), there are five steps you can take to prepare and use this kind of a matrix diagram:

106

Step 1: Prepare for the matrix diagram session by calling together the project team and putting a diagram like that in Figure F on a flip chart or an overhead transparency. Identify a person to serve as the recorder for the session. Step 2: Write the tasks or responsibilities that the team needs to complete on the left hand column of the diagram. As a group, brainstorm to identify the tasks that the team can complete. Step 3: Along the top of the chart, write the names or the team members or other persons, departments, or other organizations that will complete the tasks or responsibilities that have been listed in Step 2. Step 4: For each block on the diagram for the intersection of a task and the name of a person, department, or other organization, enter one of the following symbols to show the nature and level of responsibility for the task: P = Primary responsibility S = Secondary responsibility C = Communications/need to know + = Higher level of responsibility blank = No responsibility

Step 5: After the matrix diagram has been completed and all levels of responsibility have been assigned, distribute copies of the completed diagram to all project team members, to the steering committee, and to others who will be affected by the activities. Then use the matrix diagram as a tool to aid the management of task completion.

107

Figure 8 is an example of a completed matrix diagram assigning levels of responsibility for the tasks associated with the preparation of a new clerks’ manual after business processes in that office have been enhanced through a process improvement or process reengineering effort. FIGURE 8. SAMPLE MATRIX DIAGRAM: ASSIGNING LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TASKS IN THE PREPARATION OF A NEW CLERKS’ MANUAL BASED ON ENHANCED BUSINESS PROCESSES*

Court H.R. Director P P

Benjamin

Task Writing Proofreading Editing Researching Binding Copying Training Distribution C C S C S+ P

S S S P S+

P C C

C P

S P P

*

SOURCE: See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), p. 31.

108

Printing Company

Elizabeth

Charlene

Responsibility Alice

Dennis

C. Tree Diagrams
A tree diagram is a planning tool that helps your project team to map out the path and tasks that must be accomplished to achieve a primary goal and the objectives or subgoals associated with that ultimate goal. In Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 1), Chang and Niedzwiecki suggest that you take the following steps to complete and use a tree diagram:

Step 1: Call the project team together and agree on a brief and simple statement describing the problem solution or corrective action that will be the ultimate goal of this undertaking. Write that statement as the “ultimate goal” in the box on the left side of the tree diagram form. Step 2: Select someone to be the recorder for the group. The recorder should write potential project tasks or process steps on a flip chart, on “post-it” notes, or on 3”x5” index cards. Step 3: Have the group members brainstorm all the steps or tasks that need to be completed in order to reach the ultimate goal. Step 4: When the initial brainstorming is completed, the group should choose the tasks that everyone considers the most important overall things to do. These should be posted “major tree headings,” which are the next level of detail on the tree diagram. They should be placed to the right of the “ultimate goal” on the diagram. Step 5: The “major tree headings” are the sub-goals for accomplishment of the ultimate goal. All other brainstorming tasks should fall under these sub-goals. Select the tasks that must be done to achieve the sub-goals, and line them up vertically in sequential order to the right of the respective sub-goals to which they relate. Continue this task until all of the detailed tasks are arranged on the tree diagram. Step 6: Review the tree diagram to determine if it makes sense, and to see if there are any gaps in the logic of the process that it suggests. Invite other groups or departments to review the diagram to see if they find any gaps or can add additional details. Step 7: For reach detailed task on the far right of the tree diagram, prepare an action plan (see section C.1) that identifies specific further steps that must be taken to accomplish each detailed task, assigns responsibility, and establishes a timetable for action.

Figure 9 shows an example of a partially completed tree diagram. It shows the “major tree headings” and two of the “detailed tasks” to be accomplished in order to upgrade a court’s voice mail system.

109

FIGURE 9. SAMPLE TREE DIAGRAM: PARTIAL DETAIL ON TASKS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN UPGRADING A COURT’S VOICE MAIL SYSTEM* Detailed Tasks Major Tree Headings
Remove Old System
Negotiate System Trade-In Create Contingency Plan

Ultimate Goal Upgrade the Court’s Voice Mail System

Install New System

Train Court Employees

*

SOURCE: See Chang and Niedzwiecki, Continuous Improvement Tools (Vol. 2), p. 13.

110

ADVANCED PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS

While you will find the simple tools we describe above to be helpful in many circumstances, there may be many business process enhancement situations in your court that are more complex and require more advanced tools. Among these tools are (a) critical path method (CPM), Gantt charts, and PERT charts; and (b) joint application development (JAD) teams. You can use the simpler tools we discussed in the previous chapter in combination with these tools. A. Critical Path Method (CPM), Gantt Charts, and PERT Charts* You can use an action planning worksheet effectively for many tasks, and especially to plan and manage simpler process improvement efforts. It can be helpful to use other tools to show graphically not only how long activities and tasks will take, but also how they might relate to one another. Three tools that you can use either manually or with the assistance of project software are analysis by the critical path method (CPM), Gantt charts, and program evaluation and review technique (PERT) charts. An essential concept behind project planning (and analysis using the critical path method, or CPM) is that some activities are dependent on other activities being completed first. These dependent activities need to be completed in a sequence, with each stage being more-or-less completed before the next activity can begin. You can call dependent activities “sequential.” Other activities are not dependent on completion of any other tasks. These may be done at any time before or after a particular stage is reached. They are nondependent or “parallel” tasks. CPM is an extremely effective method for you to analyze a complex project: It helps your project team to calculate the minimum length of time in which the project can
See Mind Tools, “Gantt Charts,” http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/new PPM_03.htm, and Mind Tools, “Critical Path Analysis & PERT Charts,” http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_04.htm.
*

111

be completed, and which activities should be prioritized to complete by that date. Where a job has to be completed on time, critical path analysis helps you to focus on the essential activities to which attention and resources should be devoted. It gives you an effective basis for the scheduling and monitoring of progress. CPM is an effective and powerful method of assessing the following:

What tasks must be carried out. Where parallel activity can be performed The shortest time in which you can complete a project Resources needed to execute a project The sequence of activities, scheduling and timings involved Task priorities The most efficient way of shortening time on urgent projects.

A Gantt chart is another useful tool for analyzing and planning more complex projects. It provides you with the following assistance:

It helps your project team to lay out the tasks that need to be completed. It gives the team a basis for scheduling when these tasks will be carried out. It allows the team to plan the allocation of resources needed to complete the project. It helps the team to work with the critical path method (CPM) to determine the critical path for a project where it must be completed by a particular date.

When your business process enhancement project is under way, Gantt charts help your steering committee and the project team to monitor whether the project is on schedule. If it is not, it allows you to pinpoint the remedial action necessary to put it back on schedule.

112

Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) is a variation on CPM that takes a slightly more skeptical view of time estimates made for each project stage. To use it, you estimate (a) the shortest possible time each activity will take, (b) the most likely length of time, and (c) the longest time that might be taken if the activity takes longer than expected. You then calculate the time to use for each project stage in a PERT chart with the following formula:

(Shortest Time) + [(Likely Time)(multiplied by 4)] + (Longest Time) divided by 6

Your use of this formula acts as a corrective, to adjust time estimates away from unrealistically short timetables that may otherwise be assumed under CPM. The five steps for you to carry out a CPM analysis manually are the following, with presentation by either a Gantt chart or a PERT chart:

Step 1: List all activities in the project plan. Show the earliest starting date for an activity, its estimated duration, and whether the tasks are parallel or sequential. If the tasks are sequential, show the other tasks on which they depend. Step 2: Head up graph paper with the days or weeks through to task completion Step 3: Plot the tasks on the graph paper. Start on the earliest start dates, and mark on the duration. Show the tasks as arrows, and the ends of tasks with dots. Above the tasks arrows, mark the time taken to complete the task. Do not worry about task scheduling yet - all we are doing is setting up the first draft of the analysis. Once the tasks are plotted, add in lines to show dependencies. Step 4: Use the draft analysis to schedule the actions in the plan, in such a way that sequential actions are carried out in the required sequence. Parallel actions should be scheduled so that they do not interfere with sequential actions on the critical path, if possible. While scheduling, bear in mind the resources you have available, and allow some slack time in the schedule for hold-ups, over-runs, failures in delivery, etc. Step 5: To present the analysis, prepare a clean final copy of the analysis in the form of either a Gantt chart or a PERT chart. . This should combine the draft analysis with the scheduling and analysis of resources to show when it is anticipated that jobs should start and finish.

113

While the steps above describe how you can complete a CPM analysis and present it manually with either a Gantt chart or PERT chart, your project team would probably prefer to use software tools to create such charts. Not only do these ease the drawing of these charts, but they also make modification of plans easier and provide facilities for monitoring progress against plans. The presentation of CPM analysis for the hypothetical installation of a simple customized court computer system is illustrated below in Figure 10 (Gantt chart) and Figure 11 (PERT chart). The “critical path” is the longest sequence of dependent activities that lead to the completion of the plan. Any delay of a stage in the critical path will delay completion of the whole plan unless future sequential activities are accelerated. As illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, the CPM analysis in this hypothetical situation yields the following project planning and management conclusions:

That if all goes well the project can be completed in 10 weeks. That if the court want to complete the task as rapidly as possible, it needs: One analyst for the first 5 weeks One programmer for 6 weeks starting week 4 One programmer for 3 weeks starting week 6 Quality assurance for weeks 7 and 9 Hardware to be installed by the end of week 7 That the critical path is that for the development and installation of supporting modules. That hardware installation is a low priority task as long as it is completed by the end of week 7.

114

FIGURE 10. CPM ANALYSIS OF A SIMPLE COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM INSTALLATION, PRESENTED AS A GANTT CHART*

Week 1 (1) 2 (4) (6) (5) (2) (11) (14) (12) (13) (3) 1 2 3 4 5 Week 6 (15) 7 8 9 10 (7) (9) (8) (10) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Legend: (Critical Path Action) (Non-Critical Path Action)

List of Tasks Illustrated Above (with estimated time to achieve each task) (Those on the “Critical Path” are shown in Bold Print and Italics)

(1) High Level Analysis (1 week) (2) Selection of Hardware Platform (1 day) (3) Installation of Hardware (2 weeks) (4) Analysis of Core Modules (2 weeks) (5) Analysis of Supporting Modules (2 weeks) (6) Programming of Core Modules (3 weeks) (7) Programming of Support Modules (3 weeks)

8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules (1 week) 9. QA, Supporting Modules (1 week) 10. Core Module Training (1 day) 11. Develop Accounting Reporting (1 week) 12. Develop Management Reporting (1 week) 13. Develop MIS (1 week) 14. Detailed Training (1 week) 15. Documentation (2 weeks)

*

SOURCE: See Mind Tools, “Critical Path Analysis & PERT Charts,” http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/new PPM_04.htm.

115

FIGURE 11. CPM ANALYSIS OF A SIMPLE COURT COMPUTER SYSTEM INSTALLATION, PRESENTED AS A PERT CHART*

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(6) (1) (2) (3)
1 2 3 4 5 Week

(8) (7) (11)

(10) (9) (12) (13) (14)

(4) (5) (15)
6 7

8

9

10

Legend:
(Critical Path Action) (Non-Critical Path Action)

List of Tasks Illustrated Above (with estimated time to achieve each task) (Those on the “Critical Path” are shown in Bold Print and Italics)

(1) High Level Analysis (1 week) (2) Selection of Hardware Platform (1 day) (3) Installation of Hardware (2 weeks) (4) Analysis of Core Modules (2 weeks) (5) Analysis of Supporting Modules (2 weeks) (6) Programming of Core Modules (3 weeks) (7) Programming of Support Modules (3 weeks)

8. Quality Assurance, Core Modules (1 week) 9. QA, Supporting Modules (1 week) 10. Core Module Training (1 day) 11. Develop Accounting Reporting (1 week) 12. Develop Management Reporting (1 week) 13. Develop MIS (1 week) 14. Detailed Training (1 week) 15. Documentation (2 weeks)

*

SOURCE: See Mind Tools, “Critical Path Analysis & PERT Charts,” http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/new PPM_04.htm.

116

B. Joint Application Development (JAD) Teams* “Joint Application Development (JAD)” is a management process that would help your court’s information technology (IT) staff members work effectively with other court staff members or stakeholders to develop information technology solutions that really work. The purpose of JAD is to define the project at hand, design a solution, and then monitor the project until it reaches completion. The JAD process is based on four simple ideas:

People who actually do a job in a court have the best understanding of that job. People who are trained in IT have the best understanding of the possibilities of court technology. Court IT systems and court business processes rarely exist in isolation. Instead, they transcend the confines of any single court IT system or court office and affect work in other court or court-related departments. People who working in those related areas have valuable insight on the role of a system within the larger environment of the court or the court community. The best court IT systems are designed when all of these groups work together on a project as equal partners.

Your JAD effort should cover the complete development life cycle of a court IT system. The JAD undertaking is usually a well-defined project lasting 3-6 months. You should approach a more large-scale effort incrementally, using separate JAD's for each increment. There are three steps for you to get a JAD team started. After the JAD team has had its first meeting, there should then be a series of further meetings as the project proceeds through its different phases from planning, analysis, and design through the development and implementation of a system and completion of the effort.

See University of Texas at Austin, Human Resources Services/Information Services, “Joint Application Development,” http://www.utexas.edu/hr/is/pubs/jad.html.

*

117

Step 1: The JAD project leader should meet with the business process enhancement project sponsor to define the project. Step 2: The project sponsor and JAD project leader should form the JAD team, making sure that all areas that will be affected by the project are represented. The JAD team should consist of the project sponsor, the project leader, court and court-related users, and systems analysts. Optimally, a JAD group should have eight or fewer total members. It is hard for the group to be effective with more than 15 members. Step 3: The first JAD meeting may have the following agenda items: Share problem definition and overall goal. Get consensus on these two items. Train the members of the new group on what a JAD team is, so that they will understand the purpose, the roles and how JAD works. Establish JAD team expectations/responsibilities. Determine meeting frequency, time and place. Determine the roles of different members of the JAD team. Step 4: Continue holding JAD meetings approximately every week or every other week until the group has reached consensus on a design. Throughout the effort, the project leader should asign as many of the project duties as possible to members of the JAD team. This will help to build “buy in” and a feeling of ownership towards the project. Step 5: In JAD meetings during the planning, analysis, design phase: Review and map out the current process. Identify problems and challenges in the current process. Brainstorm solutions for those problems and challenges. Benchmark other organizations for possible solutions. Consider the issue of whether to buy or build a new IT system. Survey internal and external court customers for problems and ideas. Generate a list of options and evaluate them. Decide on a course of action and on the tasks to be accomplished. Develop an action plan with a list of specific steps for each task, who is assigned to do them, and when each step and task is to be completed. Present a proposed system design to the project sponsor and the steering committee for approval. Give continuous attention to communication within the team, with the project sponsor and steering committee, and with internal and external customers. Step 6: During the development, execution, and completion phase, meet every two weeks to make sure the development and implementation effort stays on track. The agenda for such meetings should be: How did we do on our goals? Discuss problems and challenges Make decisions jointly Set goals for next meeting Assign tasks

118

SOFTWARE TOOLS

There are a number of automated tools available to help your court’s business process enhancement project team with at least some aspects of its undertaking. Among these are (a) computer-based collaborative tools; (b) software-supported tools; (c) vendor-neutral modeling tools; and (d) vendor-specific workflow systems and software tools. While software cannot substitute for the quality of human reasoning that business process enhancement in a court will require, there are many process improvement or process reengineering tasks that can be assisted by software tools. Some of the tasks that can be helped by software tools are the following:*

Recording or structuring data Supporting decisionmaking (e.g., decision support systems) Diagramming process flows

Modeling and simulating process layouts Performing dynamic “what-if” analysis on flow paths Pinpointing bottlenecks in a process

Isolating flow paths according to user-specific conditions Calculating process metrics Optimizing flow paths

Generating reports and plotting process-performance statistics Planning and tracking an enhancement project Diagnosing team behavior, values and resistance to change

*

See Lon Roberts, Process Reengineering: The Key to Achieving Breakthrough Success, p. 159.

119

A. Computer-Based Collaborative Tools
Collaborative tools (groupware) are computer-based tools that help your people work together and share information. They allow for virtual on-line meetings and data sharing. Some examples of collaborative tools include those shown in Table 10: TABLE 10. EXAMPLES OF GENERIC COLLABORATIVE (GROUPWARE) TOOLS* Tool
Chat (Audio and text) Whiteboard Bulletin board Video Discussion groups (newsgroups) File sharing tools Presentation tools Text tools E-mail Persistent capability

Description
Use this to conduct toll-free conversations. No need to wait for something to arrive in your mailbox. Permits real time display of drawings, pictures or documents for group discussion and comment. Participants can annotate in real time as well. Used to post notices and facilitate discussions on any topic. Use video at a desktop computer or a video teleconferencing center to see the person or group with whom you are working. Topics are posted to a web site for discussion and comment where participants can follow a line of discussion on a topic. Virtual file cabinets allow information to be stored on web servers, and are available to anyone having access to the site and electronic permission to use the files. These are used in a virtual auditorium and allow lectures and briefings to be given to an audience. Allows live text input and editing by group members. Once complete, the text document can be copied into word processing software. The most popular way of exchanging communications electronically. This is the ability to preserve files, briefings or other team/ project material for future reference. Properly organized, it becomes a knowledge management device and is invaluable to a long-term effort. Most popularly known as "text chat," this allows real time exchange of notes and messages.

Instant messaging

SOURCE: BPR On-Line Learning Center, BPR Tutorial Series, “Knowledge Management and Collaboration Tools in Business Process Reengineering – Tutorial 1” (http://www.prosci.com/collaboration-tools_2.htm).

*

120

Collaborative tools are great for bringing geographically dispersed teams together for virtual meetings. A benefit for your steering committee or project team is that they would be able to interact more easily with process experts in other locations. This could bring more information to you faster and can elicit important inputs that may have been missed just because it was inconvenient or expensive for someone to travel physically to a meeting. In addition, collaborative tools allow better change management by permitting the project team to communicate continuously with other staff members in the court.

B. Software-Supported Tools
These tools are paper based, although some are computer supported to the extent of providing drawing support and consistency checking. There are several tools available to you in this category, and three that are relatively popular: (a) IDEFO; (b) Petri Nets; and (c) role-activity diagrams (RAD), which Jay Bal describes in the following fashion (see “Process Analysis Tools for Process Improvement” (Business Processes Resource Centre, 1998), http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/jay.html.):

IDEF0: This is the best-known method in the IDEF (“Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing Definition”) Family. (Other options include “IDEF1,” “IDEF1x,” “IDEF2,” and “IDEF3.”) It is a tool for functional modeling – a top-down hierarchical method that provides a description of functions and processes in a court or other organization. This topdown break down makes IDEF0 a very suitable tool for the visualization of complex systems. PETRI NETS: These constitute a graphical and mathematical tool that can be used to represent procedures, processes, machines and organizations. They can be used to describe, analyze and study various business processes in a court. They use tokens to reflect the dynamic nature of a process.

ROLE ACTIVITY DIAGRAMS (RAD): These diagrams show the dynamics of a process. They are oriented toward the “people” aspect of a process in relation to the organization. A RAD shows people’s roles in a process, along with their component activities and their interactions, together with external events and the logic that determines the sequence of the activities.

121

C. Vendor-Neutral Modeling Tools
There are some tools that you can use with software provided by different vendors. Two that are helpful for business process enhancement are: (1) Unified Modeling Language; and (2) SEARCH Justice Information Exchange Modeling (JIEM) Tool. A brief description of each of these tools is offered below (see “UML Resource Center,” http://www.rational.com/uml/index.jsp, and “SEARCH JIEM Project,” http://www.search.org/integration/info_exchange.asp.):

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML): The trademark for this computer language belongs to the Object Management Group (http://www.omg.org/), which sets vendor-neutral software standards and enables distributed, enterprise-wide operability. UML is the industrystandard language for specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts of a software system. It simplifies the complex process of software design, making a “blueprint” for construction. It provides application modeling for (a) business process modeling with use cases; (b) class and object modeling; (c) component modeling; and (d) distribution and deployment modeling. JUSTICE INFORMATION EXCHANGE MODELING (JIEM) TOOL: Created by SEARCH under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the U.S. Justice Department, JIEM is a web-based software application that enables data collection, analysis, and reporting by users and researchers. It was developed as part of a project that also created a framework to define universal dimensions of information exchange by a court with court-related agencies, as well as a research and planning methodology for modeling the operational dynamics of this information exchange. JIEM can be used with that methodology to capture detailed information regarding the processes, events, agencies, information, and exchange conditions associated with justice information integration.

D. Vendor-Specific Workflow Systems and Software Tools
In Process Reengineering: The Key to Achieving Breakthrough Success, Lon Roberts observes that business processes often consist of a number of well-defined steps, which are often repeated in every process cycle. To some degree, such steps are found in the processes of every organization, whether it is a private business or a public organization like a court. A characteristic feature of these common process steps is that they almost always involve the treatment of information that is routed from point to point in a business process.

122

The prevalence of such steps, and the inherent inefficiency of moving documents, forms, memoranda and other such papers from one work station to the next, has prompted the development of software tools known as “workflow systems.” Workflow systems developed by different vendors may have a variety of features, but they share the capacity to map workflow and route work products among various points in a business process as it has been mapped. Most commonly available software tools of this nature allow a business process enhancement project team to map business processes and make changes without extensive programming. The most important feature of workflow systems is that they allow a proposed alternative process to be modeled easily and tested before being implemented. The actual workflow routing capabilities of such systems can only be used beneficially once the process configuration has been determined. There are a broad number of workflow systems and other software tools that are potentially available to you from specific vendors. Beyond the brief descriptions given here, you should seek additional information from an independent consultant or from a product vendor. As Lon Roberts has suggested in Chapter 13 of his book on process reengineering, there can be a long learning curve and considerable cost associated with any software tool, so that your court should exercise care before purchasing software:

Seek a testimonial from at least one or two other courts or other end users before making a capital purchase. Beware of product vendors who are unresponsive to your request for information or who use “doublespeak” or esoteric language to describe their product. Be careful of discipline-specific language from a vendor that reflects a bias or orientation toward a particular process improvement or process reengineering solution, which may or may not be best for the court. Make sure that hardware available to the court has the speed, memory, and sophistication to support the requirements of a particular software product in order to take full advantage of its purported capabilities.

To make a judgment about vendor-specific software tools that would be most suitable, you and your project team should find out what tools are currently available and

123

then seek a comparative analysis of them. The team should look for comparative analyses made by independent and knowledgeable appraisers. A number of Internet web sites identify the software tools that are currently available, and Table 11 below shows some of those sites that list vendors and their products. TABLE 11. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT VENDOR-SPECIFIC SOFTWARE TOOLS

Business Process Change, “Business Process Reengineering Tools Search Page” (http://dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/grover/mgsc796/present/srtoolp.htm) Business Process Management Initiative (http://www.bpmi.org/) Business Process Reengineering Advisory Group (http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/tool/BPR.html) Business Process Reengineering & Innovation (BRINT) (http://www.brint.com/BPR.htm) Business Processes Resource Centre (http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/bp-tool.html) “dmoz” open directory project, “Computers: Software: Business: Management” (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Business/Management/) Doculabs, “Special Report on Workflow Products” (http://www.doculabs.com/catalog/TOC/wf_toc.htm) Gartner Group (http://www3.gartner.com/Init/) Infogoal, “Directory of Process Remodeling and Business Process Reengineering Resources”(http://www.infogoal.com/dmc/dmcprc.htm) iSixSigma, “Six Sigma and Quality Software” (http://www.isixsigma.com/tt/software/) KnowledgeStorm (http://www.knowledgestorm.com/) Software Technology Support Center, “Business Process Reengineering Tools List” (http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/RENG/Docs/bpr.doc) Workflow and Reengineering International Association, “WARIA Databases,” (http://www.waria.com/databases/databases.htm)

124

Some of these web sites require the payment of a fee for access to comparative analysis results. Others simply list vendor products and describe them, or provide links to vendors’ own web sites describing their products. Some vendor lists may be less current than others. Your project team should therefore be careful to determine how recent a tool list is and whether a rigorous vendor comparison has been made.

125

BASIC METHODOLOGIES SUPPORTING BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT

Some of the key steps in your court’s business process enhancement effort involve the application of particular methods that have their own detailed procedures. Basic methods include (a) benchmarking, (b) cost-benefit analysis, and (c) risk analysis, which is closely tied to cost-benefit analysis.

A. Benchmarking
This is a performance measurement tool used in conjunction with business process enhancement initiatives to measure comparative operating performance and identify “best practices.” You can use it with either process improvement or process reengineering, and you can also use it to blend them together into a single change management system. The American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) suggests that there are three themes common in all successful benchmarking and best-practice transfer efforts in business, government, healthcare, and education (see APQC, “What is Benchmarking?” http://www.apqc.org/best/whatis.cfm):

Transfer of best practices is a people-to-people process. Relationships precede meaningful sharing and transfer. Learning and transfer is an interactive, ongoing, and dynamic process that cannot rest on a static body of knowledge. Employees are inventing, improvising, and learning something new every day. Successful benchmarking stems from a personal and organizational willingness to learn. A sense of curiosity about what other courts are doing and a desire for learning are critical.

126

One of the essential elements of a successful benchmarking effort by a court is for your project team to follow a rigorous process. Benchmarking is a dynamic process that often involves finding and collecting internal knowledge and best practices, sharing and understanding those practices so they can be used, and adapting and applying those best practices in new and existing situations to enhance performance levels. APQC recommends a four-phase approach to benchmarking (see “Benchmarking Methodology,” http://www.apqc.org/best/method.cfm):

Phase 1 – Initial Planning: During this phase the specific study focus area, key measures, and definitions are established and clearly documented. Additionally, the data collection tools are refined and finalized, and research is conducted to identify the best-practice organizations to study. Representatives from the sponsor organizations select the best-practice organizations to be visited. Phase 2: Collection of Information: This phase has two distinct objectives: (1) collect qualitative data, and (2) learn from the best. The study questionnaire is administered to all participants, and the site visits are conducted at selected best-practice organizations. Phase 3: Analyze Information: Key activities during this phase include analyzing trends and identifying practices that enable and hinder superior performance in the court(s) under study. That is followed by a presentation of key findings. After this presentation, there is an opportunity for discussion and interaction with officials of the court(s) studied. Phase 4: Adapt Findings to the Benchmarking Court’s Own Situation: Adaptation and improvement resulting from the best practices identified throughout a benchmarking study occur after the study participants decide how to translate the findings into the situation in their own court.

You and your court may refine this model to meet your needs as you become more experienced in benchmarking. APQC estimates that the total time allocation among the first three phases is typically:

30 percent of time for planning the study 50 percent for collecting best practices information 20 percent of time for analyzing performance gaps

127

The amount of time to be allocated to adapting superior practices to your own court is dependent upon the scope of the study.

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis*
This is a relatively simple and widely used technique for you to decide whether to make a change. As its name suggests, using the technique involves simply adding up the value of the benefits of a course of action, and then subtracting the costs associated with it. Costs may be one-time, or they may be ongoing. Benefits are most often received over time. To build this effect of time into the analysis, it is necessary for you to calculate a payback period. This is the time it takes for the benefits of a change to repay its costs. Many organizations look for payback over a specified period of time - e.g. three years. In its simple form, cost-benefit analysis is carried out using only financial costs and financial benefits. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis for introducing a new system for monitoring traffic court fine and fee collection would measure the cost of installation and subtract this from the benefit of improving traffic fine and fee revenues. It would not measure either the cost of learning to use the new system or the societal benefit of greater compliance with court fine and fee orders. A more sophisticated approach to cost-benefit analysis is for you to try to put a financial value on these intangible costs and benefits. This can be somewhat harder to measure – what exactly is the cost of learning to use the new system? It can also be highly subjective - what is the relationship of higher compliance with court orders to greater traffic safety or greater trust and confidence in the court process? A common purpose for preparing a cost-benefit analysis has to do with the potential introduction of new court technology. Your performance of such an analysis for new court information technology typically involves the following steps, which are identical to those for considering the costs and benefits of any alternative business process enhancement potential solution (see New Venture Tools, Technology Evaluation,

*

See Mind Tools, “Cost/Benefit Analysis: Evaluating Quantitatively Whether to Follow a Course of Action,” http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_08.htm.

128

“Cost Benefit Analysis Components,” http://www.newventuretools.net/toolbox?toolwindow=cba/index.html):

Step 1: Document the environment under which each analysis is done such as the objectives, the assumptions, and the IT system life cycle. Step 2: Plan to consider the costs and the benefits for each of the alternative scenarios options. The array of alternatives should include no change from the current situation. Step 3: Define all of the benefit factors and cost factors involved with each of the alternative scenarios. There should be two broad categories – the ones that are relatively straightforward to measure and the ones that are not very easy to measure. Step 4: Identify risk factors and complete a risk analysis. (See Step Two in Part I and the blank risk analysis form in Appendix C.) High risk factors should be included in the cost-benefit analysis as potential cost factors. Step 5: For each of the alternatives defined in Step Two, identify the value of each benefit and cost for each year through the life cycle of the system. After the costs and benefits for each year of the system life cycle have been estimated, they should be converted to a common unit of measurement to properly compare competing alternatives. That is accomplished by discounting future dollar values, which transforms future benefits and costs to their "present value." The present value (also referred to as the discounted value) of a future amount is calculated with the following formula: P = F x [1/(1+I)n] where “P” = Present Value, “F” = Future Value, “I” = Interest Rate, and “n” = number of years. Step 6: Compare the alternative solutions. Rank the discounted net value (discounted benefit minus discounted cost) of the competing alternatives. If the alternative with the lowest discounted cost provides the highest discounted benefits, it is clearly the best alternative. Step 7: Determine how sensitive the results are to changes in the costs and benefits. This sensitivity involves costs and benefits whose definition is not straightforward or is not easy to be exactly defined. Sensitivity analysis tests the sensitivity and reliability of the results obtained from the cost-benefit analysis. If a relatively small change in the value of a cost or benefit factor changes the alternative selected, then the analysis is considered to be sensitive to that factor. If the value of a factor has to be doubled before there is a change in the selected alternative, the analysis is not considered to be sensitive to that parameter. The estimates for sensitive cost or benefit factors should be re-examined to ensure that they are as accurate as possible.

129

C. Risk Analysis*
As we note in the preceding section, risk analysis interacts significantly with costbenefit analysis. All business process enhancement projects inherently have some degree of risk that may affect the timely completion, cost, and quality of a project. The goal of risk analysis is to acknowledge and deal with high risk. A project with a significant benefit may have a good chance of approval in spite of a high risk of failure. Unless the risk is mitigated, the benefits are less likely to be realized and might be less significant than anticipated. If you cannot mitigate the risks, then you should have a contingency plan to deal with the impact of the risk on the project. You can use the blank risk analysis form in Appendix C to identify and assess risks in a court’s business process enhancement effort. Some risks are qualitative in nature, such as court leadership support and involvement, or degree of potential impact on the court. You must consider these factors to determine if the enhancement effort is a “high risk,” “medium risk,” or “low risk” project. If you judge the project to be medium or high risk, then your project team must define an approach to mitigate those risk factors. For risks so high that they may be “showstoppers,” you should develop a contingency plan. A three-step process can be used to identify these risks:

Step 1 – Identification: In the identification step, an evaluation is made of the areas of potential risk for a project. These will include the factors listed in the Risk Assessment worksheet, but may also include other risk factors that are unique to the project. Step 2 – Classification: In the classification step, each risk factor is reviewed and determined to be either high risk, normal risk, or not applicable. If any single factor is considered high, the entire project is considered high risk. Step 3 – Documentation: The project team should document each high risk factor and as well as the team’s proposed plan to mitigate the risk. Inherent in this risk mitigation narration is a description of how the implementation of an alternative interacts with the team’s mitigation approach.

See Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration, Office of Information Resources, “1999 Cost Benefit Analysis Methodology,” http://www.state.tn.us/finance/oir/prd/cba.html.

*

130

You should also assess and deal with risks in terms of the likelihood of their occurrence. In view of the fact that your court has limited time, money and staff resources to deal with all risks, greatest attention should be paid to risks with greater potential impact and greater likelihood of occurrence. Table 12 presents suggested approaches for risks at different levels of likely occurrence and impact. TABLE 12. RISK MITIGATION OR CONTINGENCY PLANNING IN VIEW OF LIKELY RISK OCCURRENCE AND IMPACT* Potential Impact on Time, Schedule, Budget, or Quality Low Mitigation strategy and outline of contingency plan Mitigation strategy only High Medium Mitigation strategy and outline of contingency plan Mitigation strategy and outline of contingency plan Mitigation strategy only High Mitigation strategy and detailed contingency plan Mitigation strategy and outline of contingency plan Mitigation strategy and outline of contingency plan

Likelihood of Occurrence

Medium Low

Treat as assumption and document

For a potential risk that has a high likelihood of occurring and also is likely to have high impact, you should develop a strategy not only to mitigate the risk, and also a contingency plan in case risk mitigation does not work. For a medium risk, you need only a mitigation strategy. For a risk that has a low likelihood of happening and would have a low impact, you need only to make a note in your planning effort. High risk factors may cause cost estimating difficulties for specific items in your project team’s cost benefit analysis categories. For example, a particular hardware item may have a wide range of costs resulting from rapidly developing technology. It may not
*

See Kansas Department of Human Resources, Change and Transition Management Board, “Tips for Successful Risk Management,” http://www2.hr.state.ks.us/tips/html/riskmgmt.htm.

131

be feasible for you to determine a precise cost before you define the needed requirements in detail. To handle these types of risks, your project team should include the risk in its cost-benefit analysis along with a potential range of costs. Your project team should estimate the cost using the high end of the potential range, and they should explain the risk and their impact on the cost estimate.

132

ADVANCED METHODOLOGIES SUPPORTING BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT

In addition to the basic methodologies of benchmarking and cost-benefit analysis, you may need to employ other methods as well if you are seeking to enhance a more complex business process or set of processes. Among the methods you might use are (a) activity-based costing (ABC), (b) balanced scorecard, (c) capability maturity model; (d) simulation, (e) Six Sigma; and (f) the trial court performance standards and measurement system.

A. Activity-Based Costing (ABC)*
This is an accounting technique that allows you to determine the actual cost associated with each of its services, without regard to its organizational structure. In order to achieve the major goals of business process enhancement, you need to fully understand the cost, time, and quality of activities in the court’s business processes. ABC methods enable your process enhancement project team to apply cost measurements for business process enhancement. While ABC can be done manually, there are software programs (such as IDEF0, which is discussed above) that can be used to provide a structured approach to identification and analysis of the activities in a business process. With ABC, the project team can accomplish the complex task of identifying discrete activities and then identifying the primary output measure for each activity. For your business process enhancement effort, ABC has the following benefits:

See Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Business Process Improvement (Reengineering) Handbook, Chapter 5, http://www.faa.gov/ait/bpi/handbook/chap5.htm.

*

133

It captures the current cost of performing an activity It targets high-cost activities It provides a context for establishing and monitoring performance measures It provides the link between activity modeling and economic analysis It is useful for forecasting financial baselines

Activity-based costing has been used from time to time to analyze court costs. In 1979, for example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) used a simple form of it to measure the cost of continuances for the general-jurisdiction trial court serving greater Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania [see Conti, Popp and Hardenbergh, Finances and Operating Costs in Pennsylvania’s Courts of Common Pleas (1980), pp. 66-81.]:

The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is a trial court of general jurisdiction that serves Pittsburgh and surrounding communities. In 1979, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts engaged NCSC to determine the cost of continuances to the courts (excluding costs to other case participants) in Allegheny County and other counties in the western part of the state. To assess the cost of continuances of criminal trial dates in Pittsburgh, the NCSC researchers used a simple form of activity-based costing (ABC) to determine the cost per continuance to the court in terms of facilities, equipment, and the time and fringe benefits of judges and their staff; the clerk of court; the court’s calendar control and other support staff; and the sheriff’s department. In 1979 dollars, each criminal trial continuance cost the court an estimated $79 (adjusted for inflation, this is about $196 per continuance in 2002 dollars.) Looking at the reasons for criminal trial continuances, they estimated that about 47% of the continuances were generally avoidable. Assessing the cost of trial continuances in Pittsburgh civil cases, the NCSC researchers calculated costs for facilities, equipment, and the time and fringe benefits of judges and their staff; the staff in the office of the prothonotary (civil clerk); and the court’s calendar control and other support staff. Again in 1979 dollars, they concluded that each continuance of a civil trial cost the court an estimated $174 (about $432 per continuance in 2002 dollars).

134

Your project team should apply ABC under the supervision of the steering committee, with possible support from consultants. The costing effort can take anywhere from a few days to a few months, depending on level of detail, complexity of your court’s processes, and the extent to which project team members can work full time on the effort. According to FAA’s Business Process Improvement (Reengineering) Handbook, Chapter 5, there are five steps in the use of ABC.

Step 1 – Analyze Activities: The business processes under analysis must be analyzed in detail, as is discussed above under Step Two in Part I. Step 2 – Gather Cost Data: Data for such costs as those for salaries, expenditures for research, machinery, and office furniture, among others, should be gathered. These costs are used as the baseline activity costs. When documents for the costs incurred are not available, it may be necessary to use cost estimating and assignment methods. Step 3 – Trace Costs to Activities: The results of analyzing activities and the gathered organizational inputs and costs should be brought together to determine the total input cost for each activity. A simple formula for costs can be used – outputs consume activities that in turn have consumed costs associated with resources. This leads to a simple method to calculate total costs consumed by an activity – multiply the percent of time expended by a court organizational unit (e.g., department, division, or office) on each activity by the total input cost for that entity. This allows the project team not simply to calculate costs, but rather to determine their source. Step 4 – Establish Output Measures: Calculate activity unit cost by dividing the total input cost, including assigned costs from secondary activities, by the primary activity output volume. The primary output must be measurable and its volume or quantity obtainable. From this, cost of activities can then be calculated which contains or lists a set of activities and the amount of each activity consumed. The amount of each activity consumed is extended by the activity unit cost and is added up as a total cost for the activity. Step 5 – Analyze Costs: Identify candidates for enhancing business processes. Judges and court managers can use the information by stratifying, for a Pareto analysis, the activity costs and identifying a certain percentage of activities that consume the majority of costs. The identification of non-value added activities is likely to occur through this process with a clarity that ultimately allows the project team to recommend their elimination, while at the same time permitting the service to be provided to internal or external customers with greater efficiency.

135

B. Balanced Scorecard
Using this management and performance measurement system effectively enables you to clarify your court’s vision and strategy, and to translate them into action. The balanced scorecard provides feedback around both the internal business processes and external outcomes in order to improve or reengineer processes to achieve better strategic performance and results. The balanced scorecard approach suggests that your steering committee and project team should see the court’s business processes in a broad perspective. You should view the court from four viewpoints, and you should develop and apply performance measures reflecting all four of those viewpoints (see Balanced Scorecard Institute, “What is the Balanced Scorecard?” http://www.balancedscorecard.org/basics/bsc/bscl.html):

Organizational Learning and Growth in the Court: Courts are essentially “knowledge organizations,” because their work revolves around continuing mastery of a body of information – the law, court procedures, and the practices of the courts – in a constantly changing environment. Yet courts and other government agencies may find themselves unable to hire new technically-skilled workers while at the same time showing a decline in their training of existing employees. In a process improvement or process reengineering environment, court leaders and court managers should focus training funds and programs where they can help the most. Court Business Processes: Measurements addressing internal business processes. allow court leaders and court managers to know how well their organization is running, and whether its services conform to the needs of internal and external customers. These performance measures have to be carefully designed with the intensive involvement of court personnel – those who know these processes most intimately – and not solely by outside consultants. Perspectives of Internal and External Customers: Recent management philosophy has shown an increasing realization of the importance of customer focus and customer satisfaction in any public or private sector operation. These are leading indicators: (a) if internal customers are not satisfied, then there will be tension and loss of productivity within the court; and (b) if court users are not satisfied, then the court cannot necessarily count on support from state or local funding authorities.

136

Court Finances: Timely and accurate funding data will always be a priority, and court managers will do whatever necessary to provide it. In fact, there is often more than enough handling and processing of court financial data. With the implementation of a an effective court database, however, it is important to relate financial information to other perspectives. For effective process enhancement in the court, it may be desirable to include capacity to provide risk assessment and cost-benefit data.

C. Capability Maturity Model® (CMM®)
Developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University, this is a conceptual framework based on industry best practices to assess the process maturity, capability, and performance of a software development organization. The concept for this model was developed in the 1980’s, when computer experts concluded that the quality of a software application was directly related to the sophistication of the application development company and the quality of its software development processes. This tool assesses software application development organizations in the following areas:*

Commitment to perform (policies and leadership) Ability to perform (resources and training) Activities performed (plans and procedures) Measurement and analysis (measures and status) Verification of implementation (oversight and quality assurance)

Organizations using this model for self-improvement in the past decade have reported gains in productivity, quality, time to delivery, and accuracy of cost and schedule estimates. Your court may use CMM to assess the capability of a vendor
*

See Larry Whittington, “The SEI Software Capability Maturity Model,” http://home.earthlink.net/~rpronline/LW-CMM.htm.

137

providing software development services to the court. Perhaps more importantly, however, the IT department of your court may use it as a self-assessment tool to measure its own capability and maturity as an organization that develops software applications for the court. Based on such an assessment, the model rates software development companies on five levels of maturity:*

Level 1 – Initial: The organization’s application development practices and results are undefined. Development processes rarely are defined, and sound practices often are sacrificed to meet unreasonable schedules. Level 2 – Managed: A stable environment has been established that facilitates the repetition of successful practices. Focus is on developing the capabilities of project managers to plan achievable commitments and establish control of requirement baselines and product configurations. Level 3 – Defined: Having been able to repeat successful practices, the organization can identify best practices from different projects and integrate them into application development processes deployed across the organization. Level 4 – Quantitatively Managed: Having established common application development practices, the organization develops statistical capability baselines that characterize the expected results from performing these procedures. Level 5 – Optimizing: The organization continuously evaluates the capability of its processes to pinpoint areas requiring the greatest improvement. Continuous improvements can be developed opportunistically by deploying the results of lessons learned, or they can be produced proactively by evaluating new development methods, processes, or technologies for potential adoption.

*

See Michael Epner, Robert Solon, and Carolyn LeVasseur, “Capability Maturity Model,” Measure IT (Special Edition 2001), http://www3.gartner.com/4_decision_tools/measurement/tq/pdf/cmm.pdf.

138

D. Simulation*
A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. Whether done by hand or on a computer, simulation involves the generation of an artificial history of a business process in a court, and the observation of that artificial history permits you to draw inferences concerning the operating characteristics of the court’s actual business process. The behavior of a business process over time is studied by developing a simulation model. This model usually takes the form of a set of assumptions concerning the operation of the process. These assumptions are expressed in mathematical, logical, and symbolic relationships between the entities, or objects of interest, of the process. Once developed and validated, you can use a model to investigate a wide variety of "what if" questions about the real-world process. Simulation thus has significance potential for aiding efforts to improve or reengineer business processes in your court:

Potential changes to a business process in a court can first be simulated in order to predict their impact on system performance. Simulation can also be used to study business processes in the design stage, before such processes are actually created. Thus, you can use simulation modeling both as an analysis tool for predicting the effect of changes to existing processes, and as a design tool to predict the performance of new processes under varying sets of circumstances.

The availability of special-purpose simulation languages, massive computing capabilities at a decreasing cost per operation, and advances in simulation methodologies have made simulation one of the most widely used and accepted tools in operations research and systems analysis in the federal government and in private businesses. Yet for all its potential, why is simulation not used more widely in court business process enhancement efforts? One reason is that simulation can be still be expensive, despite constantly dropping costs, while many problems in court processes can be addressed by simpler and less costly tools. Table 13 presents a summary of situations when simulation is and is not appropriate:
See New Jersey Center for Multimedia Research, “Introduction to Simulation,” http://www.njcmr.org/mpids/deep-eng/IE/Simulation/Chapter1%20-%20Final.htm.
*

139

TABLE 13: WHEN SIMULATION MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE*

When Simulation Can be Used To aid study and experimentation with internal interactions of a complex business process To observe the effect of informational, organizational, and environmental changes in a process To gain knowledge that may be used to suggest improvements in a process To experiment with new process designs or policies prior to implementation, in order to prepare for what may happen if they are implemented To understand processes so complex that interactions can be treated only through simulation

When Simulation Should Not be Used When a problem can be solved using common sense If the problem can be solved using other less costly analytical tools If it is easier to perform direct experiments If the costs of simulation exceed the savings If court resources or time are not available for simulation If the heavy data needs of simulation cannot be met If there is not enough time or court personnel are not available to verify and validate the simulation model If a business process is too complex or cannot be defined

E. Six Sigma*
In its purest form, Six Sigma is a disciplined, data-driven methodology for eliminating defects in any process. In many organizations, it simply means a measure of quality by which the organization strives for near perfection in its business processes. Statistically, Six Sigma describes quantitatively how a process is performing, with the goal of having a process that produces no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. (A “defect” is anything that does not meet customer needs; an “opportunity” is any activity from which a defect can result.) The basic objective of the Six Sigma methodology is to implement a measurement-driven strategy that focuses on process enhancement through the reduction of defects.

*

SOURCE: See New Jersey Center for Multimedia Research, “Introduction to Simulation,” http://www.njcmr.org/mpids/deep-eng/IE/Simulation/Chapter1%20-%20Final.htm. See iSixSigma, “What is Six Sigma?” http://www.isxsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp.

*

140

There are two main variations of the Six Sigma methodology: “DMAIC” (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) and “DMADV” (Define, Measure, Analyze, Design and Verify). These two approaches have similarities, in that they are both oriented toward dramatic reduction of defects, and both are data intensive, relying on quantitative measures rather than intuition. The differences between them in terms of process and application are shown in Table 14. TABLE 14. SIX SIGMA “DMAIC” VERSUS “DMADV”*

DMAIC Steps Define the project goals and customer (internal and external) deliverables Measure the process to determine current performance Analyze and determine the root cause(s) of the defects Improve the process by eliminating defects Control future process performance

DMADV Steps Define the project goals and customer (internal and external) deliverables Measure the process to determine current performance Analyze and determine the root cause(s) of the defects Design a detailed process to meet customer needs Verify the design performance and ability to meet customer needs When to Use DMADV A process is not in existence in the court and one needs to be developed An existing court process requires more than just incremental improvement to meet customer needs

When to Use DMAIC An existing court process is not meeting internal or external customer needs The process can be improved through incremental improvement

As the table suggests, the DMAIC variation of Six Sigma is most suitable when your court’s business process needs incremental improvement through process improvement. If you must create a new process, or if you require reengineering of an existing business process in the court, then DMADV is more suitable.

*

See Kerri Simon, “DMAIC versus DMADV,” http://isixsigma.com/library/content/c001211a.asp.

141

There are several frameworks for implementing the Six Sigma methodology. Different consultants have developed proprietary variations of the Six Sigma methodology, based on their management philosophies and the different tools they apply.

F. Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System*
This system is the culmination of an eight-year initiative begun in 1987 by the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards to develop measurable performance standards for the nation's state and local trial courts. It expresses a philosophy and framework for defining and understanding the effectiveness of trial courts by focusing attention on performance, self-assessment, and self-improvement. The system sets forth 22 standards of performance for trial courts in five performance areas:

Access to justice Expedition and timeliness Equality, fairness, and integrity Independence and accountability Public trust and confidence

The system’s measurement component consists of field-tested measures for evaluating how well the court is meeting these performance standards. It encourages trial courts to conduct regular self-assessments and improvements, treating them as routine court administrative activities. To this end, the measurement component is designed to gather information that the court can use in a variety of ways, including budgeting, case management, implementing court improvement projects, and strategic planning. The initial application of the measures would aid your court in identifying business process areas requiring attention or potentially in need of improvement. You may also use the measures to establish benchmarks with regard to court performance on
See Bureau of Justice Assistance and National Center for State Courts, Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System, http://www.ncsc.dni.us/RESEARCH/tcps_web/index.html.
*

142

each standard the court wishes to address. Subsequently, you can use the measures to determine whether court performance with respect to a particular standard is better, about the same, or worse than when you originally applied the measures. The information that you gather through the measures also is helpful in determining whether your court's prior business process enhancement efforts have been successful or need to be altered in some way. The measurement system employs numerous data-gathering methods and taps diverse data sources. The data sources and collection methods used include both familiar processes, such as court and case record reviews and tallies of case filings and dispositions, as well as other social science techniques used less commonly by courts, such as systematic observations, structured interviews, surveys of various reference groups, simulations, group techniques, and public opinion polls. The measurement methods most commonly recommended in the system are the following:

Court Record Reviews and Case Data Examination. Because a primary function of courts has been to make and preserve records of civil and criminal matters as well as court operations, court and case record reviews are the most traditional and familiar of the measurement methods. Observations and Simulations. The measurement system incorporates several measures that involve observations of court proceedings or simulations of court activities and interactions with court staff. Surveys and Questionnaires. Other measures incorporate the use of surveys. The surveys seek a variety of information from different court constituencies including employees, attorneys, jurors, and the general public. Interviews. In addition to surveys, the measurement system employs interviews to gather information and opinions from court staff and court users. Group Techniques. Group techniques are used in five measures. These techniques include review panels composed of knowledgeable practitioners, and more structured interactions that require a facilitator to guide the group through the activity. An example of techniques in the latter group is the Nominal Group Technique (NGT).

143

APPENDICES

144

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY

145

GLOSSARY

A number of terms relating to business process enhancement are employed in this manual and in the literature on process improvement and process reengineering. Definitions of many of those terms are offered below. Action plan: A simple way to set forth the specific steps that will be taken to carry out a strategy or a task after a decision has been on what course to follow. It is also a way to record and communicate intended actions, responsibilities, time frames, and needed resources. Activities: The major components of the work done in a process. Each activity consists of (1) input, (2) process, and (3) output. See “Input,” “Output,” and “Process.” Activity-Based Costing (ABC): An accounting methodology designed to present a clearer picture of product and service costs through a better identification of the costs of activities (such as machine installations or purchase orders) within processes. Under ABC, costs are analyzed at four different levels: (1) individual unit level (labor, materials, energy), (2) batch level (setups, material movements, inspections), (3) product-line level (engineering specifications, process engineering, engineering change notices), and (4) facility level (building costs, plant maintenance, administration). Affinity Diagram. Affinity grouping is a brainstorming method in which participants write down their ideas, organize them, and identify common themes. The affinity diagram was developed to discovering meaningful groups of ideas within a raw list. In doing so, it is important to let the groupings emerge naturally, rather than according to preordained categories. Usually, an affinity diagram is used to refine a brainstorm into something that makes sense and can be dealt with more easily. The affinity diagram should be used when facts or thoughts are uncertain and need to be organized, when preexisting ideas or paradigms need to be overcome, when ideas need to be clarified, and when unity within a team needs to be created. “As Is” Process Model: A model that portrays how a business process is currently structured. In process improvement efforts, it is used to establish a baseline for measuring subsequent business improvement actions and progress. See “Model” and “Process.” 146

Balanced Scorecard. A strategic management and measurement system that enables organizations to clarify their vision and strategy and translate them into action. It provides feedback around both the internal business processes and external outcomes in order to continuously improve strategic performance and results. The balanced scorecard suggests that an organization should be viewed from four perspectives, and that performance measures reflecting each of these perspectives be developed and applied: (a) organizational learning and growth; (b) business processes; (c) the needs of customers; and (d) the finances of the organization. Benchmarking: A structured approach to identify best practices in industry or government, then comparing and adapting them to an organization’s own operations. This approach is aimed at finding more efficient and effective processes for achieving intended results, by which ambitious goals can be developed for program output, quality of products or services, and process improvement. See “Benchmarks.” Benchmarks: Specific results achieved by different organizations through comparable processes. Measurements or standards that serve as points of reference by which process performance can be measured. See “Benchmarking.” Best Practices: The processes, practices and systems identified in public and private organizations that perform exceptionally well. Such processes, practices and systems are widely recognized as improving an organization’s performance and efficiency in specific areas. Successfully identifying and applying best practices can reduce business expenses and improve organizational efficiency. See “Benchmarking” and “ Benchmarking.” Block Diagram: Also known as a “block flow diagram,” this is the simplest form of a flowchart. It provides a quick and uncomplicated view of a business process. Block diagrams are helpful to simplify large, complex processes, or to document individual tasks. Brainstorming: A group technique to generate ideas, options, or issues. It is helpful to “jump start” a stalled process, to ensure that all dimensions of an issue have been addressed, and to gather comments. It can be used to produce new ideas that can support or refine objectives, while also providing the basis for future consensus. It can also help a group to establish priorities, as well as to identify and resolve differences. Business Case: A structured proposal for business improvement to aid organizational decisionmakers. A business case includes an analysis of business process performance and associated needs or problems; proposed alternative solutions; assumptions; constraints; and a risk-adjusted cost-benefit analysis.

147

Business Process: A group of related activities by which a court or any other organization uses its resources to provide defined results in support of its mission, goals and objectives. See “Process.” Business Process Enhancement: The establishment of goals or expectations for one or more processes, analysis of how the processes are actually carried out in a court or any other organization, and revision of those processes if their results do not meet the goals or expectations. Different approaches, such as process improvement or process reengineering, may be used together or separately to enhance business processes. Business Rule: An explicit statement of a constraint that exists within a court’s or other organization’s work setting. Business rules, in effect, are statements about the basic structure of data in the day-to-day operations of an organization. Generally, they are described in terms of (a) the things in those operations that people need to know information about; (b) the descriptors of those things; and (c) the relationships among those things. Capability Maturity Model® (CMM®): A computer model that provides a conceptual framework based on industry best practices to assess the process maturity, capability, and performance of a software development organization. Change Management: Activities involved in (1) defining and instilling new values, attitudes, norms, and behaviors within an organization that support new ways of doing work and overcome resistance to change; (2) building consensus among customers and stakeholders on specific changes designed to meet their needs better; and (3) planning, testing, and implementing all aspects of the transition from one organizational structure or business process to another. Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106)[also known as the Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA)]. Under this act of Congress, major information technology (IT) purchases cannot be undertaken without specific justification from the standpoint of their ability to support organizational mission requirements. Specifically, agency heads are required to analyze the missions of their organizations, benchmark and assess the performance of their business processes and, based on this analysis, redesign their mission-related administrative processes (as appropriate) before making significant investments in information technology to support those missions. An ultimate aim of this legislation is to force organizations into maximizing the potential of technology to improve performance, rather than simply automating inefficient business processes. Core Processes: Also referred to as "key" processes, these are business processes that directly affect an organization's ability to achieve its mission. “Core” processes can be distinguished from subprocesses that collectively form a total process, and from "management" or "support" processes, which contribute to the delivery of core processes, but may not have as direct an effect on the success of the organization in meeting it basic purposes. See also, “Process” and “Business Process.”

148

Continuous Process Improvement: An ongoing effort to achieve incremental improvements in the way that products and services are provided and internal operations are conducted. See “Process Improvement,” “Kaizen,” and “Total Quality Management.” Cost-Benefit Analysis: A technique to compare the various costs associated with an investment, activity, or program with the benefits that it proposes to return. The technique seeks to address and account for both tangible and intangible factors. Critical Path Method (CPM): A method of analyzing the sequence of events in a planned course of activity to permit realistic scheduling and monitoring of progress. The “critical path” is the longest sequence of dependent activities that leads to the completion of a plan. Customer: A person or group that has a business relationship with an organization, that receives and uses or is directly affected by the products and services of that organization. Customers can be external to the organization, in that they receive its ultimate end products or services, or internal customers who receive intermediate outputs of other people within the organization and then undertake process activities that result in final products or services for external customers. See “Stakeholder.” Cycle Time: The time that elapses from the beginning to the end of a process. Extensible Markup Language (XML): The universal format for data on the Web. It allows developers to describe and deliver structured data from any application in a standard, consistent way. Fishbone Diagram: A graphic technique for identifying cause-and-effect relationships among factors in a given situation or problem. Also called “Ishikawa Diagramming.” Focus Groups: Focus group research involves organized discussion with a selected group of persons to gain information about their views and experiences of a topic. It is particularly suited for obtaining several perspectives about the same topic. Gantt Chart: A horizontal bar chart that is frequently used in project management, a Gantt chart provides a graphical illustration of a schedule that helps to plan, coordinate, and track specific tasks in a project. Gantt charts may be simple versions created on graph paper or more complex automated versions created with the aid of project management software applications. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)(P.L. 103-62): The primary legislative framework through which federal government agencies are required to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which goals are met. Under GPRA, each federal agency is required to develop strategic plans that cover a period of at least five years, and include the agency's

149

mission statement; identify the agency's long-term strategic goals, and describe how the agency intends to achieve those goals through its activities and through its human, capital, information, and other resources. These plans are meant to serve as the starting point for annual goals for programs and to measure the performance of these programs in achieving those goals. Histogram. Also called a “bar chart, a histogram provides a simple, graphical view of accumulated data, including its dispersion and central tendency. In addition to the ease with which it can be constructed, a histogram provides an easy way to evaluate distribution of data. IDEF0: This is the best-known method in the IDEF (“Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing Definition”) Family. (Other options include “IDEF1,” “IDEF1x,” “IDEF2,” and “IDEF3.”) It is a tool for functional modeling – a top-down hierarchical method that provides a description of functions and processes in a court or other organization. This top-down break down makes IDEF0 a very suitable tool for the visualization of complex systems. Information Technology (IT): Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the executive agency. The term includes computers, ancillary equipment, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources. Information Technology Architecture: An integrated framework for developing or maintaining existing information technology and acquiring new information technology to achieve an organization’s strategic goals and information resources management goals. Information Technology Life-Cycle Management (LCM): The process for administering a major automated information system from the identification of a need through the replacement or termination of the implemented solution. LCM is based on the rationale that certain events in the acquisition and operation of major automated information systems must be systematically planned and monitored. These events require specific management decisions and actions to make sure that the system is developed and managed efficiently and economically to meet program objectives. Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA): See “Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996." Information Technology System: The process and procedures by which IT resources are used to store, process, retrieve or transmit data or information using IT hardware and software.

150

Input: The financial or nonfinancial resources that an organization has obtained or received to produce its outputs. See “Activities,” “Process,” and “Output.” Integrated Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF): A family of modeling techniques designed to capture the process and structure of information in an organization. “IDEF0” is a process modeling technique; “IDEF1X” is a rule or data modeling technique. Ishikawa Diagramming: See “Fishbone Diagram.” Joint Application Development (JAD): A management process which helps information technology staff members work effectively with users to develop information technology solutions that really work. Its purpose is to define a project, design a solution, and monitor the project until it reaches completion. Kaizen: This is a Japanese word meaning gradual and orderly, continuous improvement. A “Kaizen” business strategy involves all the members of an organization working together to make improvements without large capital investments. See “Process Improvement” and “Continuous Process Improvement.” Compare “Total Quality Management (TQM).” Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award: Established by the U.S. Congress to promote quality awareness, to recognize quality and business achievements of American organizations, and to publicize these organizations’ successful performance strategies, this award is presented annually to American organizations by the President of the United States. Awards are given in manufacturing, service, small business, education, and health care. In conjunction with the private sector, the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST) manages the award and the Baldrige National Quality Program. The Baldrige criteria for performance excellence have played a valuable role in helping U.S. organizations improve. The criteria are designed to help organizations improve their performance by focusing on two goals: delivering ever improving value to customers and improving the organization’s overall performance. Matrix Diagram: A tool used for systematic organization of information that must be compared on a variety of characteristics in order to make a selection or choice. A matrix diagram is used for (a) assigning tasks to complete a project; (b) making comparisons between competing alternatives that involve multiple characteristics; (c) prioritizing combinations of new and old activities tot maximized the number of total objectives met. Model: A representation of a set of components of a process, system, or subject area. A model is generally developed for understanding, analysis, improvement, or replacement of a process.

151

Modeling or Flowcharting: A graphic representation of the activities and subprocesses within a process and their interrelationships. Nominal Group Technique (NGT): A structured process that allows the identification and ranking of major problems or issues when normal group dynamics of conformity and pressure might possibly distort decision-making and problem-solving in groups. When it is conducted properly, NGT reduces the pressure on individuals to conform and allows separate opinions to emerge. Unlike brainstorming, this somewhat more formal technique may foster the development of ideas from members who may otherwise remain silent. Because of the added anonymity in the process, attention can be directed away from personalities and more to the ideas themselves. The resulting ideas are likely to be better than those that might be obtained by other methods. Output: The defined results from the application of the work done in a process with the use and consumption of available resources. See “Activities,” Input,” and “Process.” Pareto Chart or Diagram: A graphic representation of identified causes, shown in descending order of magnitude or frequency. It enables one seeking process improvement to identify key problems, projects or issues on which to concentrate. Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT): A variation of the critical path method (CPM) that takes a slightly more skeptical view of time estimates made for each project stage. To use it, a person estimates the shortest possible time each activity will take, the most likely length of time, and the longest time that might be taken if the activity takes longer than expected. This helps to adjust time estimates away from the unrealistically short time-estimates that might otherwise be made. A PERT chart is the graphic presentation of the results of such an analysis. Performance Measurement: The process of developing measurable indicators that can be systematically tracked to assess progress made in achieving predetermined goals and using such indicators to assess progress in achieving those goals. Petri Nets: These constitute are a graphical and mathematical tool that can be used to represent procedures, processes, machines and organizations. They can be used to describe, analyze and study various business processes in a court. They use tokens to reflect the dynamic nature of a process. Process: A set of related activities that together create value through products or services for internal or external customers. See “Business Process,” “Core Processes,” “Activities,” “Input,” and “Output.” Process Improvement: A disciplined approach to the simplification and streamlining of business processes, using measurements and controls to aid continuous improvement. See “Continuous Process Improvement,” “Kaizen,” and “Total Quality Management.”

152

Process Management: A philosophy of management that advocates an integrated approach to the management of an end-to-end process, including its lower level activities, which produces a product or service for a given customer. Process Owner: An individual person held accountable and responsible for the workings and improvement of one of an organization’s defined processes and its related subprocesses. Process Redesign: A variation of process reengineering, involving the adaptation of workflow and work methods to achieve benefits from strategic advantage (arising from changes in market opportunities, technological advances, or access to new or better resources) to reduce costs, increase revenue, and improve services or products. Compare “Process Improvement” and “Process Reengineering.” Process Reengineering: A disciplined approach to the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to bring about dramatic improvements in performance. This approach involves the critical examination, rethinking, and redesign of mission-delivery processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in performance in areas important to customers and stakeholders. Project: A one-time effort to accomplish an explicit objective by a specific time. Each project is unique, although similar projects may exist. Like an individual activity, a project has a distinguishable start and finish and a time frame for completion. Project Management: Leadership of a project, which includes (1) setting objectives in terms of time, cost, quality, and quantity; then (2) defining project tasks, methods, and schedules; and (3) carrying out those project tasks; while (4) controlling risks, quality, time, cost and procurement; and at the end (5) measuring success. See “Project.” Risk Analysis: A technique to identify and assess factors that may jeopardize the success of a project or achievement of a goal. This technique also helps its user (a) to define preventive measures to reduce the probability that those jeopardizing factors would occur, and (b) to identify countermeasures to deal successfully with constraints on performance. Role Activity Diagrams (RAD): These diagrams show the dynamics of a process. They are oriented toward the “people” aspect of a process in relation to the organization. A RAD shows people’s roles in a process, along with their component activities and their interactions, together with external events and the logic that determines the sequence of the activities. Simulation: An imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. Whether done by hand or on a computer, it involves the generation of an artificial history of a system. Observation of that artificial history permits one to draw inferences concerning the operating characteristics of the real system.

153

Six Sigma: A disciplined, data-driven methodology for eliminating defects in any business process, driving toward six standard deviations between the mean and the nearest specification limit. To achieve Six Sigma, a business process must not produce more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. A Six Sigma “defect” is defined as anything outside customer specifications. Stakeholder: Anyone who has a vested interest in a process and in the outcome of improving or reengineering the process. Any individual or group with an interest in the success of an organization in delivering its intended results and in maintaining the viability of the organization’s products and services. See “Customer.” Strategic Management: An approach to management of a court or other organization to achieve its purpose as an organization, involving (a) identification of its mission, goals and high-level objectives; development of strategies and plans; implement and execute the plans; and ongoing efforts to achieve continuous improvement in light of organizational purposes. Strategic Plan: A set of statements describing the mission, goals and objectives of a court or other organization, along with strategies for achieving them. A court’s strategic plan communicates its commitment to the achievement of its mission. Strategic Planning: A disciplined and systematic effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is and ought to be, what it does, and why it does it. See “Strategic Plan.” For a court, strategic planning provides a framework for effective decisionmaking by establishing a vision of where the court wants to be in the future. It helps to build consensus on the critical needs of the court, and it provides a rational context for change in the direction of the court’s desired future. Strategic Visioning: A disciplined approach to redefining the environment in which an organization operates by recognizing opportunities to create material changes in that environment and creating the structure, processes, and technology required to exploit the redefined environment. Subprocess: A collection of related activities within a process. See “process” and “activities.” Telecommunications – Information technology resources whose primary purpose is the transfer of information, including all hardware, software, or services (including support services) resources associated with telephones, pagers, radios, television, facsimiles or electronic mail. Throughput. In computer technology, “throughput” is the amount of work that a computer can do in a given time period. In data transmission, ”throughput” is the amount of data moved successfully from one place to another in a given time period.

154

“To Be” Process Model: The process model result of a business process redesign or reengineering effort. The “to be” model shows how the business process will function after the improvement action is implemented. See “Model” and “Process.” Total Quality Management (TQM): A continuous process improvement approach that focuses on providing products or services that conform to the needs and expectations of both internal and external customers. To meet customer needs, quality must be “designed in,” both to the products or services and to the processes by which they are produced. See “Continuous Process Improvement” and “Process Improvement.” Compare “Kaizen.” Tree diagram: A planning tool that helps one to map out the path and tasks that must be accomplished to achieve a primary goal as well as the objectives or sub-goals associated with that primary goal. Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System. A philosophy and framework for defining and understanding the effectiveness of trial courts by focusing attention on performance, self-assessment, and self-improvement. There are 22 standards in the system, which offer goals for effective court performance in five areas: access to justice; expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence and accountability; and public trust and confidence. The measurement component consists of field-tested measures for evaluating how well a court is meeting the performance standards. Unified Modeling Language (UML): A computer language for specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts of a software system. It simplifies the complex process of software design, making a “blueprint” for construction. It provides application modeling for (a) business process modeling with use cases; (b) class and object modeling; (c) component modeling; and (d) distribution and deployment modeling. Workflow: A graphic representation of the flow of work in a process and its related subprocesses, including specific activities, information exchanges, and the sequence of decisions and activities. Workflow Analysis: A structured approach to improving work processes by identifying and eliminating unnecessary tasks and streamlining the flow of work activities and tasks. XML: See “Extensible Markup Language.”

155

APPENDIX B. PROCESS REENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS SELF-ASSESSMENT FORM

156

PROCESS REENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS SELF-ASSESSMENT FORM*

Instructions. Circle the number on the rating scale for that corresponds to how
strongly you agree or disagree with each of the 20 statements below. Then add up all of the numbers you have circled. If your total score is 75 or higher, then your court is ready for process reengineering. If it is lower than 75, then your court may not be ready, and you should create a more positive environment for change before you seek to reengineer business processes in the court. ________________________________________________________________________ Leadership 1. The person who would lead the reengineering effort is a judge who is strongly committed to reengineering and has the position and authority necessary to institute fundamental change in the court’s business processes.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

2. The judge who would lead the reengineering effort truly understands the nature of process reengineering and the magnitude of the change – especially in the court culture – that it might entail.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

3. The judge who would lead the reengineering effort has a vision of the kind of court organization he or she wants to create and is able to express that vision clearly and in simple operational terms.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

*

SOURCE: See Hammer and Stanton, The Reengineering Revolution (1995), pp. 85-99.

157

ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS SELF-ASSESSMENT (continued)
4. The judge who would lead the reengineering effort is ready and able to exercise leadership – through communications, personal behavior, and ways to measure and reward performance – in order to make reengineering succeed.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

5. The judge who would lead the reengineering effort is prepared to commit both the court resources and personal attention that reengineering requires.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

6. Other judges and the non-judge court managers share the enthusiasm of the judge who would lead reengineering and will affirmatively support the effort.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

Organizational Readiness 7. Judges and court managers, as well as court and clerk’s office staff members and stakeholders in the court, all recognize the need for reengineering and fundamental change.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

8. Judges and staff members understand the nature of reengineering, including the fact that it might result in many changes, including not only to business processes in the court, but also to job descriptions, organizational structure, and management responsibilities.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

9. Staff members believe that the judges and court managers are truly committed to reengineering, and that this commitment will be long-lasting.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

158

ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS SELF-ASSESSMENT (continued)
10. Judges, managers and staff members are not too complacent to consider the prospect of improving operations through process reengineering.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

11. The judges, court managers, and staff members are free of skepticism, mistrust, or ambivalence toward one another.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

12. The court has the financial, human, and technological resources needed to implement reengineering.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

13. Non-judge supervisors and staff involved in such key areas as human resources, finance, and information systems are positive about the prospect of reengineering and capable of innovative responses to its demands.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

14. The court has had a positive prior experience with process improvement (BPI) or total quality management (TQM), and that has created an environment that is receptive to process reengineering.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

15. The court and the clerk’s office place a high value on serving customers and have a solid understanding of the needs of court users.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

159

ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS SELF-ASSESSMENT (continued)
Implementation of Process Reengineering 16. Judges, court managers, staff members, and other stakeholders are comfortable with the fact that reengineering may well involve risk taking, learning new ways of doing things, and ambiguity.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

17. The team(s) that will carry out reengineering will feel empowered to “break the rules” and to challenge long-standing assumptions.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

18. The process reengineering effort is directed at the court’s core business processes and not at individual persons or organizational units in the court.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

19. Court managers have been given full responsibility for the processes to be reengineered and are motivated to assure that the reengineering effort is successful.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

20. Reasonable performance goals, as well as reliable and practical means to measure performance, have been established to chart the progress of the court’s reengineering effort.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Agree Somewhat 4 5 Strongly Agree

________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE:

160

APPENDIX C. RISK ANALYSIS FORM

161

RISK ANALYSIS FORM*

Instructions
Use a separate risk analysis form like the one here for each option you are considering as an alternative business process enhancement solution in your court. Circle the number on the scale from “1” (lowest risk) to “10” highest risk) that best represents your risk assessment for each of the nine questions below. Then for each of the risk areas – economic, operational, and technical – add up your scores. If your total score in any risk area is 12 or higher (medium or high risk), then you should develop a risk mitigation plan for that alternative. If your total score in any risk area is 24 or higher, then that alternative has high-risk features that you must address as potential costs in your project planning and in your cost-benefit analysis for that alternative. RISK AREA
Economic Risk 1. 2. Length of project payback: The shorter the payback period, the lower the risk. Length of project development time: The shorter the development time, the less likely it is that objectives and key participants will change. The shorter the development time, the lower the risk. Levels of confidence: The smaller the differences in estimates that people make about costs, benefits, and life cycles, the greater the confidence that the court will achieve the expected return. Low

LEVEL OF RISK
Medium High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10 Low Medium High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10 Low Medium High

3.

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Total Points

Risk Assessment

*

SOURCE: See State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, Information Resources Management Division, “Cost-Benefit Study, Form 6: Risk Analysis,” http://spr.das.state.or.us/pdf/form6.pdf.

162

RISK ANALYSIS FORM (continued)
RISK AREA
Operational Risk 4. User acceptance: The more that judges, court staff and court users support the project, the lower the risk. Changes to court policies and structure: The more a project may change relationships within the court, or the more it will modify existing court policies, the greater the risk. Changes in local legal culture: The more a project necessitates major changes or modifications to standard operating procedures or shared expectations in the court or court community, the greater the risk. Low

LEVEL OF RISK
Medium High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10 Low Medium High

5.

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Low 6.

Medium

High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Total Points Technical Risk Low 7. Problems and design requirements: Technical risk is reduced where similar problems have been solved before, or where the design requirements are understandable to all project participants. Proven and accepted software and equipment: Tried and tested hardware and software components carry lower risk. Projects that are novel or that break new ground carry higher risk. Project complexity: A project requiring high technical skills and experience has higher risk than one that can be handled by less specialized people.

Risk Assessment

Medium

High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Low 8.

Medium

High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Low 9.

Medium

High

1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Total Points

Risk Assessment

163

APPENDIX D. SUGGESTED ELEMENTS OF A FORMAL BUSINESS CASE FOR BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT

164

SUGGESTED ELEMENTS OF A FORMAL BUSINESS CASE FOR BUSINESS PROCESS ENHANCEMENT*

Instructions: Getting support from funding authorities and other key decisionmakers to implement a business process enhancement (BPE) effort in a court can be difficult, especially if your court is competing for funding or if your project is particularly large. Such officials are more likely provide support if you present them with a cohesive justification. A complete business case contains all of the facts that justify the enhancement effort. This appendix presents 12 suggested sections for a full and detailed business case. Not all situations will require all sections, however, and you should tailor your business case format to meet the needs of your audience and your project. ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Executive Summary: Provide a short (one to three pages) snapshot of your business case. It must be persuasive. The remainder of the business case provides the detail and analysis to support the statements you make in the summary. For a more effective executive summary, complete all other sections of the business case first. 2. Situational Assessment and Problem Statement: Begin with an explanation of the issues facing the court and the conclusions of the steering committee and project team about what is wrong or not performing well. A strong situational assessment will assess the historic, current and future issues related to (a) operational performance; (b) the court’s internal and external customers; (c) judges and court employees; (d) other courts; and (e) national or state trends. 3. BPE Project Description: Describe the objective of the enhancement effort. Define the processes, systems and organizations included within the scope of the effort. Summarize the activities performed by the steering committee and the project team. Finally, include an overview of the stakeholders for whom this effort is being undertaken (including internal and external court customers, court-related organizations, other court users, and other stakeholders in the operation of the court).

SOURCE: See Nancy Maluso, “The Business Case – The Essential Elements,” BPR OnLine Center (2001), http://www.prosci.com/bus2.htm.

*

165

SUGGESTED BUSINESS CASE ELEMENTS (continued) 4. BPE Solution Overview: Define the desired “ideal” situation sought by the enhancement effort, including discussion of how the desired solution relates to the court’s strategic mission and goals. This provides the framework for the solution definition. Then give a brief summary description of the desired solution. 5. Further BPE Solution Details: Give a description of how the desired solution, in terms of (a) changes to the organization of the court or the clerk’s office, including such areas as people, culture, and training; (b) changes to business processes in the court; and (c) changes to support systems in the court. It is important that you present the solution from the viewpoint of those who will benefit from it. For example, present the solution through the eyes of citizens coming to court if the goal of the effort is to improve customer service at the front desk of the clerk’s office. The solution details should clearly point out how issues presented earlier are being resolved by this solution. 6. Solution Alternatives: Discuss the alternatives to the proposed solution that you considered. This must include a discussion about the implications to the organization if this enhancement effort does not go into effect (that is, a “do-nothing” scenario that would continue the current “as is” processes). 7. Costs: Include an estimate for every anticipated cost of the project. This includes costs for the steering committee and project team, as well as those anticipated for development, quality assurance, testing, parallel operations during transition, implementation. It should also include any ongoing maintenance or administrative costs. Calculate the impact upon the operation due to the implementation. This would include productivity losses or the need to make temporary arrangements to cover for court employees while they are in training. 8. Benefits: The benefit section should quantify or qualify those benefits that were touched upon in the solution detail. Count benefits for the court and any other organization that will reap positive results from the solution. Benefits should be both qualitative and quantitative. Include cost reductions, revenue increases, and such less tangible measures as improved customer satisfaction, improved court employee morale, and lower court staff turnover. Activity Based Costing (ABC) models are useful tools for capturing the benefits associated with a reengineered process (see Part II for a description of ABC). Categorize benefits into groups for ease in understanding. Approaches to categorizing benefits include: (a) organization affected (e.g.; court, clerk’s office, or probation department); (b) type of benefit (e.g., cost reduction or increased revenue); and (c) timing of benefit (e.g., immediate, first year, second year, or more distant future).

166

SUGGESTED BUSINESS CASE ELEMENTS (continued) 9. Anticipated Implementation Timetable: Depict each major step in the implementation of the solution in a timetable. Major steps should include: development, testing, training, initial implementation, and rollout. Consider any impacts to the organization from a productivity or operational viewpoint. 10. Critical Assumptions: List all assumptions made by steering committee and the project team. Include assumptions about: the current state of the court operation, the status of other courts or court-related organizations, processes and systems that are outside the scope of the project, and any estimating factors used in the cost-benefit analysis. Your description should indicate the impact to the solution if the assumptions did not hold true. 11. Risk Assessment: Discuss the results of your analysis of the risks of the implementation. Discuss what will happen to the organization if the benefits from the enhancement effort do not come to fruition. Include an assessment of the impact of implementation on the day-to-day operation of the court. Discuss the steps that will be taken to minimize or mitigate each risk. 12. Conclusions and Recommendations: Summarize the issues, costs and benefits of the solution. Demonstrate that the financial and other benefits outweigh the costs by including a financial return on investment analysis. Convey a sense of urgency. Reiterate how the solution will promote achievement of the court’s strategic mission and serve the needs of internal and external customers and stakeholders.

167

APPENDIX E. SAMPLE PROCESS FLOWCHART: U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS

168

SAMPLE PROCESS FLOWCHART: U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS*

Many standard symbols are used in process flowcharting. Among those are the following symbols used in this sample process flowchart.** Symbol
Grand Jury Charges

Name
Elongated Circle Straight Arrow

Explanation of What Symbol Indicates
Shows the starting and ending points of a flowchart.

Shows direction of process flow.

A
Indictment

Connector

A small circle with a letter is used to connect one task of a flowchart to another task in the flowchart. Any workflow task. Each box should contain a short description of the task being performed.

Box

Waiver of Indictment?

Diamond

Any decision point. Each diamond should contain a question for which there is a "yes" or "no" answer. (The process flow for a “yes” answer will go in a different direction than that for a “no” answer.)

Appeal Process

Rectangle with Used to identify a process that follows steps not directly relevant to Parallel Lines this flowchart and not shown on this flowchart.

Go to Next Page

Off-Page Connector

Used to show that the process continues on the following page or is continued from the preceding page.

SOURCE: U.S. District Court, No. District of Oklahoma, “U.S. District Court Criminal Case Flowchart,” http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/publicweb/attorney.nsf/37ff90ded72952f386256b870077ef51/6cfe8cc15a9b 9e1186256b9700592e83?OpenDocument. For more information on standard process flowchart symbols, see Harrington, Business Process Improvement, pp. 95-98. See also, National Open School, Certificate in Computer Applications, “Flowcharting,” http://www.nos.org/htm/basic2.htm.
**

*

169

SAMPLE PROCESS FLOWCHART: U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS*

Grand Jury Charges

U.S. Attorney Charges

Magistrate Complaint

No
Waiver of Indictment?

Preliminary Hearing

Yes No Dismissed

C

Indictment

D

Information

Probable Cause Found?

Yes Yes
Consent to US Magistrate Judge?

Warrant Issued?

No

Summons Issued

Misdemeanor?

No Yes No B Yes A

Go to Next Page

Go to Next Page

SOURCE: U.S. District Court, No. District of Oklahoma, “U.S. District Court Criminal Case Flowchart,” http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/publicweb/attorney.nsf/37ff90ded72952f386256b870077ef51/6cfe8cc15a9b 9e1186256b9700592e83?OpenDocument.

*

170

U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS (continued)

From Prior Page

From Prior Page

B

Voluntary Appearance?

Yes No

No Arrest Warrant Issued
Waiver of Indictment?

Indictment

Yes Initial Appearance

C Information

Bond Set?

No

Incarcerated

D

Yes Preliminary Hearing Yes Dismissed
Incarcerate? Probable Cause Found?

Released

No

No Released

Yes Incarcerated

Go to Next Page

171

U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS (continued)
From Prior Page

Arraignment

Guilty Plea?

Yes Sentencing

Appeal of the Sentence

No Not Guilty Plea

Limited Discovery

A

Jury Trial? Yes

No

Court Trial

Guilty Verdict?

Acquittal No No

Found Guilty?

Yes

Yes

Go to Next Page

172

U.S DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL CASE PROCESS (continued)
From Prior Page

No

Post-Trial Motions?

Yes Yes Relief by Judge

Granted?

No

Sentenced

Motion to Correct Sentence?

No

Appeal Process

Yes Yes

Granted?

Sentence Reduced

No Appeal Process

173

APPENDIX F. SELECTED WEB SITES

174

SELECTED WEB SITES

There is an enormous amount of information about process improvement and process reengineering on the Internet. An advance search on one Internet search engine, for example, yields thousands of items on “business process improvement” and “business process reengineering.” Here is a short list of private and public sector web sites that address different aspects of business process enhancement. They should be particularly helpful to judges, court administrators, clerks of court, court IT directors, and other court managers who deal with technology. American Society for Quality (http://www.asq.org/) Originally incorporated as the American Society for Quality Control in 1946, this organization changed its name to the American Society for Quality in 1997. Products and services include (a) Quality Press, a group publishing books and standards on quality; (b) the monthly magazine, Quality Progress; (c) certification programs in ten different areas of expertise, including quality engineers, quality managers, and software engineers; (d) administration of the “Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce; and (e) a Quality Information Center, offering reference, referral, and research services on quality-related topics. Balanced Scorecard Institute (http://www.balancedscorecard.org/) The Balanced Scorecard Institute is an independent, nonprofit source of information about the application of the balanced scorecard approach to management in government and other nonprofit organizations. Its mission is to provide web-based guidance, information and tools to government and nonprofit managers as they attempt to design and implement measurement-based management in state, local and federal government environments. It is also a web clearinghouse for managers to exchange information, ideas and lessons learned in building strategic management systems using the balanced scorecard approach. Benchmark Exchange, The (TBE) (http://66.124.245.130/index.htm) (http://benchnet.com/) TBE has developed and hosts several services that provide comprehensive and cost effective means for improving an organization’s processes through benchmarking. These include (a) “BenchNet,” an electronic communication and information system 175

designed specifically for use by individuals and organizations involved in benchmarking and process improvement; (b) “Self Assessor,” an online service that provides users the ability for real-time self-measurement against several sets of quality standards; (c) “Surveyor,” an online survey service where companies (survey sponsors) can solicit answers to their specific questionnaires and have the responses collected and e-mailed directly back to them along with a copy of cumulative database containing all responses to their survey; (d) “Bintranets,” which is TBEs Benchmarking Activity Service (BAS) that companies use for their internal benchmarking research and collaboration needs; and (e) also services in areas such as literature research, benchmarking presentations, speaker engagements, survey design assistance and internal corporate assessment design and hosting, benchmarking and best Practice conferences, and hands-on classes. Benchmarking Network (http://www.benchmarkingnetwork.com/) The Benchmarking Network leads studies worldwide and provides benchmarking training and research. Included in the network are (a) the Information Systems Management Benchmarking Consortium (http://www.ismbc.org/); (b) the Customer Satisfaction Measurement Association (http://www.csmassociation.org/); (c) the Human Resources Benchmarking Association (http://www.hrba.org/); (d) the Procurement and Supply-Chain Benchmarking Association (http://www.pasba.org/); the Six Sigma Benchmarking Roundtable (http://www.sixsigmabenchmarking.com/); and the Telecommunications Benchmarking International Group (http://www.tbig.org/). BetterManagement.com (http://www.bettermanagement.com/) This is an Internet resource for performance management information. It aggregates content from over 200 leading organizations. Its library is organized into “Authorities” – key topic areas include: scorecard; cost management; planning and budgeting; value chain; and business intelligence. “Resource Centers” are more narrowly focused areas of performance management subjects. This list is expanding as demand for specific content increases. The site also hosts single educational courses or entire degree programs. BPR Online Learning Center (http://www.prosci.com/) Prosci (Quality Leadership Center) is involved in reengineering and change management research, providing reengineering toolkits and benchmarking information. Its BPR Online Learning Center has a tutorial series on reengineering that addresses such issues as methodology, tools, change management, business case development, best practices, and continuous process improvement. Business Process Reengineering & Innovation (BRINT) (http://www.brint.com/) The Brint Institute calls itself a “knowledge creating company,” with a mission to develop leading edge thinking and practice on contemporary business, information, technology and knowledge management issues to facilitate organizational and individual performance, success and fulfillment. Its “BizTech” web site provides a significant amount of reference materials on business process enhancement.

176

Business Guide to Reengineering Books (http://www.reengineering.net/) This site offers a broad listing of reengineering books, handbooks and reference material for project teams and consultants. In addition to reengineering and change management books, it also features books on best practices in customer service and human resources. Business Process Management Initiative (http://www.bpmi.org/) The Business Process Management Initiative (BPMI) is a non-profit corporation that empowers companies of all sizes, across all industries, to develop and operate business processes that span multiple applications and business partners, behind the firewall and over the Internet. BPMI’s mission is to promote and develop the use of business process management (BPM) through the establishment of standards for process design, deployment, execution, maintenance, and optimization. BPMI develops open specifications, assists IT vendors for marketing their implementations, and supports businesses for using business process management technologies. Business Process Reengineering Advisory Group (http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/tool/BPR.html) This group is associated with the Enterprise Integration Laboratory in the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Toronto. The section on BPR tools addresses specifications for software tools to support BPR, and it lists other related sites. Business Processes Resource Centre (http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/index.html) Funded by the Economic & Social Research Council in the United Kingdom the Business Processes Resource Centre (BPRC) at Warwick University has established three major themes on which to base its work – (1) complexity, (2) knowledge management, and (3) professional development and business restructuring. The BPRC also provides access to BPR research and management best practices. Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement (CQPI) (http://www.engr.wisc.edu/centers/cqpi/pcn/mission.htm) This is a research center formed in 1985 at the University of Wisconsin, and it emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach to quality improvement. CQPI focuses on the development of new techniques for improving the quality of products and processes. Council for Excellence in Government (www.excelgov.org/) The Council provides research, studies and papers about the latest issues affecting change management in the public sector. Electronic College of Process Innovation (http://www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/) This web site is maintained by the Defense Technical Information Center of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. The web site has a significant number of electronic publications offering information on process improvement and process reengineering at both introductory and higher levels.

177

Emerald (http://matilde.emeraldinsight.com/index.htm) “Emerald” is the trade name of MCB UP Ltd, which publishes over 100 management and information services journals. It also has a specialist set of engineering, applied science and technology journals to provide additional material. It has three databases (full text, management reviews, and abstracts) available by Internet. E-Workflow – the Workflow Portal (http://www.e-workflow.org/) This web site defines “workflow” as “the automation of business process, in whole or part, during which documents, information or tasks are passed from one participant (human or machine) to another for action, according to a set of procedural rules.” The site provides access to publications, other web sites, white papers, case studies, and workflow standards. First Gov (http://firstgov.gov/) This is an interagency initiative administered by the U.S. General Services Administration. It is the official U.S. gateway to all government information, reflecting a growing electronic government, and seeking to transcend the traditional boundaries of government, with a global vision to connecting the world to all U.S. government information and services. The web site permits a search of more than 51 million web pages from federal and state governments, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, most of which are not available on commercial websites. GovExec.com (http://govexec.com/) This is a “free e-mail newsletter” that provides information on a variety of governmental change issues and projects. Governing Magazine (http://www.governing.com/) This is a publication about change and innovation at all levels of government, with particular focus on state and local government. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) (http://informs.org/) INFORMS is a society representing professionals in the fields of operations research and the management sciences. “INFORMS Online” is its information service. Subdivisions include such sections as a center for the practice of operations research and the management sciences (CPMS); a public programs and processes section; a quality, statistics, and reliability section; a revenue management section; a college on simulation; a technology management section; a technical section on telecommunications; an information systems society; a decision analysis society; and a manufacturing and service operations management society.

178

International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS) (http://www.ifors.org/) IFORS is an international organization of national societies, whose primary object is the advancement of operational research. Its aims are the development of operational research as a unified science and its advancement in all nations. International Society for Process Improvement (http://www.ispi.org/) Called the leading international association dedicated to improving productivity and performance in the workplace, this organization has its headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. Its web site offers information on conferences, publications, and other issues relating to improvement of human and organizational performance. iSixSigma (http://www.isixsigma.com/) iSixSigma is a private company created in 2000 to meet the needs of business professionals seeking proven methodologies for improving process efficiency, implementing data driven decision making and focusing on customer needs Its mission is to provide a free information resource to help business professionals successfully implement quality within their. This site offers information, unique tools, checklists, calculators, and advice to help quality and management professionals implement Six Sigma quickly and successfully within their organizations. National Academy of Public Administration, Alliance for Redesigning Government/Public Innovation Learning Network (http://alliance.napawash.org/) This arm of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) advocates performance-based, results-drive governance, seeking to identify and champion important innovations. It seeks to reach out proactively to partnerships that achieve good results through the workings of traditional and non-traditional partners -- not-for-profits, forprofits, neighborhood and civic groups, faith-based organizations, regional organizations (both multi-locality and multi-state), state and local governments, and associations of governments. Additionally, it focuses on citizen engagement in governance and citizen trust. It does this in keeping with the NAPA goal of providing practical assistance to the wide array of groups that serve the public. National Archives and Record Administration (NARA), Archives Library Information Center (ALIC) (http://www.archives.gov/research_room/alic/index.html) NARA is an independent federal agency that oversees the management of all federal records. ALIC provides access to information on American history and government, archival administration, information management, and government documents to NARA staff, archives and records management professionals, and the general public. Its “Organizational Change: An Annotated Bibliography” lists hundreds of book and article titles on such topics as benchmarking, business process reengineering, continuous improvement, performance measurement, process management, project management, strategic planning, and total quality management (TQM).

179

National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (http://www.ncsconline.org/) In its “Court Information Database,” NCSC has compiled extensive court-related information in 18 major subject areas. Information on reengineering and change management is available in the database’s “Court Administration and Performance” folder. NCSC’s “Best Practices Institute” (http://www.ncsc.dni.us/RESEARCH/bestpractices/index.html) actively seeks to identify and promote best practices established by state and local courts across the country. Also available on this web site is the “Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System,” (http://www.ncsc.dni.us/RESEARCH/tcps_web/index.html), which offers goals and measures relating to court performance. NCSC also provides consulting, research, publications, and educational services on court technology and all other areas of court management. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (http://nist.gov/) NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department. Its mission is to develop and promote measurements, standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life. It does this through four cooperative programs: (1) the NIST Laboratories; (2) the Baldrige National Quality Program; (3) the Manufacturing Extension Partnership; and (4) the Advanced Technology Program. Processworld (http://www.processworld.com/) “Processworld” offers process managers, organizers, IT managers, consultants, scientists and others an Internet platform for discussing business process management topics and exchanging information. Theoretical concepts can be developed to further and the exchange of practical experiences and to promote more efficient and effective business process management. Project Management Institute (http://www.pmi.org/) Established in 1969, this is a nonprofit project management professional association with a worldwide membership. Products and services include (a) professional standards for the practice of project management; (b) a professional certification program; (c) research on project management; (d) three periodicals; (e) education and training programs; and (f) a “knowledge and wisdom center” providing information on the practice and profession of project management Quality Library (http://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mt322/library.htm) As part of the educational program at Vanderbilt University, this site provides information that may be helpful for judges and court managers about continuous process improvement (including total quality management). It may serve as a vehicle for distance learning as well as a source for information. SEARCH (http://www.search.org/) In addition to providing a wide range of information on technology for courts and other participants in the justice process, SEARCH (the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics) offers a court information systems technical assistance

180

project. This project is a national effort that focuses exclusively on developing practical resources for state and local courts in their efforts to automate and integrate information systems, both within the courts and between courts and other justice agencies. Society for Computer Simulation International (http://www.scs.org/) The Society for Computer Simulation International is the principal technical society devoted to the advancement of simulation and allied computer arts in all fields. The purpose of the society is to facilitate communication among professionals in the field of simulation. To this end, the society organizes meetings of regional councils, sponsors and cosponsors national and international conferences, and publishes the monthly technical journal, Simulation, as well as the quarterly journal, Transactions of The Society for Computer Simulation. Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) (http://www.sra.org/) The Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) provides an open forum for all those who are interested in risk analysis. Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to risk. SRA members analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public and private sector organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. The society’s membership is multidisciplinary and international. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, “Decision Process Guidebook” (http://www.usbr.gov/guide/index.htm) In the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation has prepared this website as a large reference manual for the steps in decision process, with accompanying concepts. Among other things, the web site includes a “toolbox” (http://www.usbr.gov/guide/toolbox.htm) with a tool list and a worksheet to decide which tools are most appropriate in different situations. U.S. Chief Financial Officers Council (CFOC) (http://www.cfoc.gov/) The CFOC is an organization of the CFOs and Deputy CFOs of the largest Federal agencies, senior officials of the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury who work collaboratively to improve financial management in the U.S. Government. U.S. State and Local Gateway (www.statelocal.gov/) This is a link to federal government information for state and local employees. Workflow and Reengineering International Association (http://www.waria.com/) The charter of the Workflow and Reengineering International Association (WARIA) is to identify and clarify issues that are common to workflow, electronic commerce and those who are in the process of reengineering their organizations. The web site has publications, industry news, and information about databases, vendors, consultants, other web sites, and workshops.

181

APPENDIX G. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

182

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

The literature on reengineering and process improvement is voluminous. Rather than trying to be exhaustive, we have kept this appendix relatively short – distilling the list of titles to those that may be most helpful, including some that appear often in the literature. Aikman, Alexander. Total Quality Management in the Courts: A Handbook for Judicial Policy Makers and Administrators. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1994. Bennis, Warren, and Michael Mische. The 21st Century Organization: Reinventing through Reengineering. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. Boardman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 2d ed. Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001. Bureau of Justice Assistance and National Center for State Courts. Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (Program Brief NCJ 161569), and Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System Implementation Manual (Monograph NCJ 161567). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1997, http://www.ncsc.dni.us/RESEARCH/tcps_web/index.html. Caudle, Sharon. Reengineering for Results: Keys to Success from Government Experience. Washington, D.C.: Academy of Public Administration, 1995. Electronic College of Process Innovation, http://www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/3002.htm. Chang, Richard. Process Reengineering in Action: A Practical Guide to Achieving Breakthrough Results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer, 1995. Chang, Richard, and Matthew Niedzwiecki. Continuous Improvement Tools: A Practical Guide to Achieve Quality Results. 2 vols. Irvine, Calif.: Richard Chang Associates, 1993. Chang, Richard, and P. Keith Kelly. Satisfy Internal Customers First! Irvine, Calif.: Richard Chang Associates, 1994.

183

Cook, Sarah. Process Improvement: A Handbook for Managers. Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing, 1996. Edosomwan, Johnson. Organizational Transformation and Process Reengineering. Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press, 1996. Epner, Michael, Robert Solon, and Carolyn LeVasseur, “Capability Maturity Model,” Measure IT (Special Edition 2001), http://www3.gartner.com/4_decisiontools/measurement/t1/pdf/cmm.pdf. Feldmann, Clarence. The Practical Guide to Business Process Reengineering Using IDEF0. New York: Dorset House, 1998. Grover, Varun, and William Kettinger (eds.). Business Process Change: Reengineering Concepts, Methods and Technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 1995. Hammer, Michael, and James Champy. Reengineering the Corporation. New York: Harper Business, 1993. Hammer, Michael, and Steven Stanton. The Reengineering Revolution: A Handbook. New York: Harper Business, 1995. Harrington, H. James. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. Kansas Department of Human Resources, Change and Transition Management Board. Revolutionizing Government Services (2001), ftp://ftp.hr.state.ks.us/tips/forms/pdf/bptasks.pdf. [Also available as Tips to ‘Success’ Guides, 2001, http://www2.hr.ks.us/tips/html/tipscontents.htm.] Maluso, Nancy, “The Business Case – Friend or Foe?” (http://www.prosci.com/bus1.htm) and “The Business Case – The Essential Elements” (http://www.prosci.Com/bus2.htm), BPR OnLine Learning Center, 2001. Manganelli, Raymond, and Mark Klein. The Reengineering Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Business Transformation. New York: American Management Association, 1994. Martin, John, Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey, Steven Weller, and David Price. Strategic Planning in the Courts: Implementation Guide. Denver, Colo.: Center for Public Policy Studies, 1995. Morgan, David, Richard Krueger, and Jean King (eds.). Focus Group Kit. 6 vols. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1997.

184

National Association for Court Management, Comprehensive Public Information Programs Subcommittee. Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts. Williamsburg, Va.: National Association for Court Management, 1999. National Association for Court Management, Professional Development Advisory Committee, “Information Technology Management Curriculum Guidelines,” Court Manager (Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002) 16. Petrakis, John, and Michael Engiles, “Creating a Paperless Municipal Court,” in Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference (J. Jones, R. Barton, K. Kang, and P. Fishwick, eds.) 2029, http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc00papers/278.pdf. Roberts, Lon. Process Reengineering: The Key to Breakthrough Success. Milwaukee, Wisc.: ASQC Quality Press, 1994. Roztocki, Narcyz. Introduction to Activity-Based Costing. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh, 1998, http://www.pitt.edu/~roztocki/abc/abctutor/. Schumacher, Wolf, “Managing Barriers to Business Reengineering Success,” BPR OnLine Learning Center, 1997, http://www.prosci.com/w_0.htm. Sethi, Vikram, and William R. King (eds.). Organizational Transformation Through Business Process Reengineering: Applying the Lessons Learned. Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998. Turnay, Kerim, “Business Process Simulation,” Enterprise Reengineering (Jan./Feb. 1996), reproduced, http://www.c3i.osd.mil/bpr/bprcd/5311.htm. U.S. General Accounting Office. Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide (Version 3). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997, http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/bprag/ai10115.pdf. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Decision Process Guidebook: How to Get Things Done in Government (as updated August 2002), http://www.usbr.gov/guide/index.htm. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Information Technology. Business Process Improvement (Reengineering): Handbook of Standards and Guidelines, Version 1.0. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, 1995, http://faa.gov/ait/bpi/handbook/index.htm. Wagenknecht-Ivey, Brenda, David Price, and John Martin. Continuous Quality Improvement in the Courts: A Practitioner’s Guide. Denver, Colo.: Center for Public Policy Studies, 1998.

185


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:813
posted:2/6/2008
language:English
pages:200
user002 user002
About