Mini Guide Workgroup · 2018-03-15 · Steps to Reengineering – Fundamental Rethinking for High-Performance Courts | 1 Mini Guide Workgroup Phillip Knox, Chair National Association

Steps to Reengineering – Fundamental Rethinking for High-Performance Courts | 1

Mini Guide WorkgroupPhillip Knox, Chair

National Association for Court Management

2012–2013 Board of Directors

Christopher Bleuenstein

Janet G. Cornell

Scott C. Griffith

Peter Kiefer

Laura Klaversma

Teresa Risi

Robert Zastany

PresidentPamela Q. Harris

President ElectDavid W. Slayton

Vice PresidentMichele Oken

Secretary/TreasurerStephanie Hess, J.D.

Immediate Past PresidentKevin J. Bowling, J.D.

Large Court DirectorYolanda L. Lewis

Judge DirectorHon. Grant Brantley

Urban DirectorRaymond L. Billotte

General Jurisdiction DirectorVicky L. Carlson

At Large DirectorScott C. Griffith

Small Court DirectorNina Thomas

Clerk of Court DirectorDuane Delaney

Rural DirectorKelly C. Steele

Limited Jurisdiction DirectorPhillip Knox

At Large DirectorKarl E. Thoennes III

Court Reengineering:Fundamental Rethinking forHigh-Performing Courts2012/2013 MINI GUIDE


I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. Case Study No. One: Business Process Reengineering

Superior Court of California, Orange County . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Case Study No. Two: The “Bucket List” – An Introduction to Reengineering and Rethinking

Scottsdale City Court, Scottsdale, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

IV. Case Study No. Three: Reengineering Rural Justice

Improving Efficiencies, Reducing Costs, and Enhancing Operations

Minnesota’s Eighth Judicial District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

V. Case Study No. Four: Reshaping Staff Organization to Support Higher Performance Lake County, Illinois – General Jurisdiction Court . . . . . . 21

VI. Case Study No. Five: Reengineering in Action The State of Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VII. Court Reengineering Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

VIII.Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix A: The Six Decision–Making Operations . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix B: Reengineering Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendix C: Process Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table of Contents

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT

4 | Steps to Reengineering – Fundamental Rethinking for High-Performance Courts

A New DayCourts move slowly toward improvements;most often they focus on individualprocesses and department efficiencies. It isthe dawn of a new day; it is the emergenceof a “new economic normal.” Manycourts across the nation now struggleunder staggering budgetary pressures thatoffer no respite for the foreseeable future.Courts are laying off staff, shutting downspecialized courts, locking courthousedoors, reducing business hours, and closing off construction projects.

“The courts recognize that things aren’tgoing to get back to whatever ‘normal’ is. There will be less revenue in the future, and they are preparing for that.”1

As part of this “new normal,” courts aregroping to find innovative ways to do busi-ness and administer justice. Many high-performing courts are revisiting an estab-lished approach to building efficiency andeffectiveness: Business Process Reengineer-ing (BPR). BPR is a management approachaimed at process improvement within andacross court organizations. The approachstarted in the 1990s as an intervention tofix and perfect business processes.

According to co–authors Dr. MichaelHammer and James Champy:2

[reengineering is] “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of thebusiness processes to achieve dramaticimprovements in critical, contemporarymeasures of performance, such as cost,quality, service and speed.”

BPR demands that companies radically redesign themselves, dramatically changecurrent processes, focus on the customer,and create a virtuous cycle of continual improvement.

Fundamental RethinkingMany analysts believe that organizationsmust face a truly existential crisis for BPRto succeed. A 1988 explosion on the PiperAlpha oil rig platform in the North Sea hasbecome a metaphor for the type of crisismany think organizations must face:

Two hundred twenty-six crew memberson the burning oil platform had tochoose between jumping 175 feet intothe raging North Sea or burning alive ifthey remained on the platform. Manyof the crew jumped; sixty-one survived.The metaphor has come to represent theBPR attitude “jump into the unknownor burn if you remain.3”

The global recession and subsequent gov-ernment budget firestorm has presentedcourts with a public sector version of an

I. Introduction: Fundamental Rethinking


We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be toarrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

T. S. Eliot, 1888 – 1965

1 Daniel J. Hall, vice president of the National Center’s Denver, Colo.-based Court Consulting Services.2 Dr. Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, 1993.3 Daryl R. Conner, Managing at the Speed of Change, Random House, 1993.


existential crisis. High-performing courts areelecting to explore radical reengineering options.

Radical RedesignBPR success requires a fresh perspective and afresh approach. Traditionally the distinction be-tween Total Quality Management (TQM) andBusiness Process Reengineering (BPR)has been that with TQM the workteam identifies process innovations;while BPR challenges the process itself.Starting with a clean sheet of paper, thework team identifies current processesand the desired process changes. Thekey is not only to change, but to radi-cally change within a short period. BPRdictates that courts can achieve changeonly by revamping organizationalstructure, overhauling business work-flow, rewriting job descriptions, em-bracing performance measures, andadopting information technology (Fig-ure I.1). Some basic characteristics are:• View court operations as a set of consumer(both internal and external) oriented processesrather than departmental functions;

• Ensure clear–cut ownership of each process; and• Eliminate activities that do not add value.

BPR is about throwing away existing assumptionsand conventions; it is about starting from scratch.

Primacy of TechnologyEmblematic of BPR process change is investmentin technology rather than employees. Technologyeliminates administrative task–oriented jobs previ-ously held by staff. Normally a reengineered courtsheds unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.

Critical funding is directed to where it is trulyneeded and adds to the court’s productivity.Money and time wasted on departmental over-head is saved by using information technology toimprove communications and by positioningskilled personnel where they can best serve cus-tomers.

The Virtuous CycleThe difference in BPR today from the concept ofthe 1990s is that now it is not a “one–hit won-der.” As Hammer & Champy point out:

‘‘Reengineering is not a one-time trip. It is anever ending journey, because the world keepschanging. Processes that have been reengi-neered once will someday have to be reengi-neered all over again. Reengineering is not aproject; it must be a way of life.”4

This mini guide offers five case studies on how different high-performing courts used BPR to improve their operations.

Case Study No. One:Orange County Superior CourtOrange County is a large, metropolitan trial courtthat made a compelling case for change; it instilleda continuous improvement mindset; it showedwhy reengineering must be aligned with the court’soverall goals; and it used a proven methodology.

Figure I.1The Reengineering Flowchart

“In the past the man has been first; inthe future the system must be first.”

Fredrick Taylor 1911

4 Michael Hammer & James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, 1993.


The court targeted processes incorporating largenumbers of transactions, severe backlogs, or higherror rates. It honored “quick wins” and culmi-nated the effort with an “Academy Awards” celebration.

Case Study No. Two:Scottsdale City CourtScottsdale is a moderate–size, limited jurisdictionmetropolitan court that introduced a simple, effec-tive, low–tech process for courts to assess their op-erations and staffing levels. The court collecteddata on staff assignments; it brought into sharp relief for senior management tasks performed andthe effort expended. The process serves as the cor-nerstone for future reengineering efficiencies.

Case Study No. Three:Minnesota’s Eighth Judicial DistrictThirteen counties comprise this rural Minnesotajudicial district. The National Center for StateCourts’ (NCSC) made recommendations that presented a progression of innovative changes, including: extensive use of Interactive Video Tele-conferencing (ITV), more effective caseflow man-agement practices, a regional call center torespond to customer inquiries, court reportermanagement of digital reporting, established uniform policies and procedures, part–time staff,self–help concepts, and shared emergency judicialservices with other counties.

Case Study No. Four:Lake County Circuit CourtThis is a large, metropolitan trial court that usedBPR to focus on staff planning in four specificareas: purpose, values, competence, and commit-ment. In response to the continuing budget crisis,the court concentrated on properly allocating re-sources, coordinating with justice system partners,linking goals to the court’s core mission, knowing

the data, and meeting time standards. It empha-sized team collaboration, results–driven manage-ment, enhanced areas of specialization, andincreased technology. This has resulted in thecourt embracing performance measurement, mak-ing evidence–based decisions, allocating the rightstaff in the right place, doing the right things, andshaping the court to deliver services in ways thatwill be required by funding reductions.

Case Study No. Five: The VermontCommission on Judicial OperationThis state judicial branch effort to reengineercourt operations at the state legislature’s directionshowcases interbranch cooperation. The supremecourt established a Commission on Judicial Oper-ation to craft recommendations on reorganizingthe courts’ administrative structure, and enhanc-ing the use of technology. The commission re-ported $1.2 million in potential savings.

In this ongoing effort to help the nation’s courtsweather the current economic storm and preparefor an uncertain financial future, the NCSC has either worked with or is currently assisting 10states to reengineer their court systems. For addi-tional information, please visit http://www.ncsc.org/services-and-experts/court-reengineering.aspx.

The contributors to the five case studies suppliedsubstantially more information on reengineeringthan could be presented in this mini guide; for ad-ditional information, forms, and graphics, pleaseaccess: http://nacmnet.org/publications/index.htmlFor a description of process improvement “in anutshell,” see Appendix C of this mini guide.


II. Case Study No. One:Business Process ReengineeringSuperior Court of California, Orange County


Superior Court of CaliforniaOrange County, California Chief Operations Officer: Teresa RisiPopulation: More than 3,000,000Caseload: 620,000 annual filingsThird largest in California – fifth largest in the nationBench Officers: 144Staff: 1,550 Six Justice Centers: Fullerton, Laguna Hills, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, andWestminster

“The goals of this initiative are 1) reduceoperations staffing levels by 100 positions;2) reduce backlog by 50 percent (or 7,500hours); and 3) reduce case destruction back-log by 25 percent.” Chief Operations Offi-cer Teresa Risi announced these lofty goalsat a January 2009 kick–off meeting before agroup of 150 court staff. The meeting com-menced a two-year courtwide reengineeringeffort. Facing the audience all she saw werewide eyes and open mouths: deer in theheadlights. The audience exchanged looksof disbelief, convinced that this woman wassimply out of her mind. This was OrangeCounty Superior Court’s first meeting withBusiness Processing Reengineering (BPR).

Two years later, despite initial fears and mis-givings, the 14 teams (covering all units andcase types in operations) achieved all threegoals and more. In addition, they succeededat institutionalizing a ‘continuous improve-ment’ mindset in the organization’s culture.Employees now routinely suggest improve-ments to business operations, which in turn

has helped reduce court expenditures andincrease service. Morale has improved.Employees feel like they are part of the solu-tion rather than victims of the state’s budgetcrisis.

So how did Orange County Superior Courtdo it? The court followed certain basicprinciples for implementing change of thismagnitude. It took the process step by stepand incorporated best practices along theway.

The basic principles for implementing effective BPR included the following:

Top Leadership SponsorshipPrior to the January 2009 kick–off meeting,the executive leadership team laid the foun-dation to make a program of this magnitudea success. They gathered reengineering in-formation, developed a methodology, so-licited buy–in from the management team,educated judicial leadership, developed atimeline, and defined measureable outcomes


with checkpoint meetings. The entire leadershipteam was involved, consistent, and supportivethroughout the effort.

Strategic AlignmentThe executive leadership had previously estab-lished weekly briefing meetings. The presidingjudge and assistant presiding judge regularly metwith the:

• Court executive officer (CEO)• Court operations officer (COO),• Court technology officer (CTO),• Court financial officer (CFO), and• Chief of human resources.

These pre–established forums permitted frequentdiscussions on alignment and prompted resolu-tion of policy and procedures issues. Alignmentdiscussions, an effective governance model, andthe ability to quickly communicate decisionshelped ensure the effort stayed on track and proj-ects were properly prioritized across departments.

Compelling Business Case for ChangeThe budget crisis provided a compelling case forchanging the way business was conducted, on theassumption that the change would reduce costsand avoid layoffs. Timing can be everything forcertain changes. For the court, impending anddrastic reduction in the operating budget gave itthe clear choice to guide its own future.

Proven MethodologyOrange County brought in leaders from the Sacra-mento Superior Court who had successfully imple-mented a reengineering program. This helped theOrange County teams realize that it could be doneand how to do it. Orange County, however, tai-lored its effort by using local resources to developtemplates and forms to assist in documenting boththe ‘as is’ and the ‘to be’ processes.

A court analyst served as “BPR czar” acting as a single resource for all teams. The czar ensuredteams had a foundation on what to do and how to do it, and ensured a consistent approach.

The czar reported directly to the COO so individ-ual team issues (e.g., how to complete forms, howto calculate staff savings, etc.) could be quickly re-solved and projects could be properly resourced.Although each team was provided a basic struc-ture, team leads were free to be creative in howthey led their teams. The results were amazing!

Effective Change Management Due to the budget climate, people were more will-ing to make and accept changes. Established gov-ernance and communication structures helpedensure proper vetting of issues and concerns in asafe environment. Discussions ensured a proper"check and balance" on proposed solutions andhelped mitigate resistance by addressing concernsearly on. Establishing measurable outcomesalong the way was crucial. Celebrating with theteams during milestone checkpoints and informingthe rest of the organization (staff and bench offi-cers) of successes ensured continued support andimproved morale during bleak times.

Line OwnershipLine staff were assigned to each team along withmembers from other court departments (finance,human resources, and technology). Team mem-bers from other departments were the crucial freshset of eyes that operations staff needed to helpchallenge existing processes. Further, interdepart-mental teams helped foster better working rela-tionships, which continue to reap rewards oncurrent projects.

The step–by–step process included the following:

• After the kick–off meeting, the teams spent thefirst 30 days identifying and prioritizing theprocess areas to review. The teams were encour-aged to focus on areas with large transactionvolumes, severe backlogs, or high transactionerror rates. Listing and prioritizing the areas led to the discovery of what became known as“quick wins.”

• Throughout the effort, many tasks were discov-ered that could be stopped or modified to


achieve “quick wins.” For example instead ofphotocopying the daily custody list for everycourtroom and other entities (many of the copieswere tossed directly into a recycle bin) a team in-quired to see who actually used it. A PDF ver-sion is now emailed to those who need it. Quickwins were implemented immediately and did notrequire full documentation.

• At a 90–day checkpoint meeting, the teamsshared some of the interesting (and perhaps em-barrassing) findings. The teams shared ideasand were reinvigorated to continue the journey.

• After one year of hard work, the teams cele-brated with an Academy Awards themed event.Again, sharing ideas helped other teams replicateconcepts applicable to other units.

Some of the best practices incorporated along theway, which helped make the reengineering effortsuccessful, included:

• Reaching out to other courts in the state to compare processes and/or replicate winningideas locally;

• Collaborating, coordinating project efforts, ensuring alignment, and resolving issues at quarterly team meetings; and

• Celebrating along the way both at the individualteam level and as a court.

The court held an Olympic closing ceremoniesthemed event in January of 2011. Although it wasthe end of a two year court–wide effort to reengi-neer business processes, the event symbolized thepassing of the ‘continuous improvement’ torch toall the managers in the court.

ConclusionSo what’s the secret recipe for making BPR work?It’s not just about following a set of steps andtasks and magically creating a reengineered work-place. Court leadership believes the secret of thesuccess stems from the ability of the executive andjudicial leadership team to make quick decisionsand work together in a collaborative way, focusing

on the vision and goals. Many individual projectshad roadblocks. Some projects were delayed orheaded down a wrong path for a period of time.The executive leadership team worked together toquickly solve problems and find solutions. Suc-cess is tied to a foundation of trust and confidencein each other and alignment behind the vision andgoals.

At the conclusion of the January 2009 kick–offmeeting, Teresa Risi left the teams with the follow-ing quote:

“The difference between a vision and an hallu-cination is the number of people who see it.”

She invited the teams to join her in seeing the vision and making it happen. The results tell thestory:

• 110 quick wins implemented• 125 documented processes were reengineered resulting in:

� O the reduced workload equivalent of 115 positions;

O $342,000 of non–labor savings;

� O 80 percent reduction in backlog; and

� O Significant progress on case preservation and destruction work.

By far the best outcome has been the continuousimprovement mindset that is now part of thecourt’s culture. Employees are encouraged to suggest ideas on how to work more efficiently and provide better service to the public. The courtcontinues to meet the challenge of decreased fund-ing by implementing improvements big and small,many of which have been ideas generated by thestaff doing the day–to–day work.


III. Case Study No. Two:The “Bucket List” – An Introduction toReengineering and RethinkingScottsdale City Court, Scottsdale, Arizona


Scottsdale City CourtScottsdale, Arizona Janet G. Cornell, Court Administrator (Retired)[email protected]: 219,900Caseload: Fourth highest volume municipal court in Arizona Significant winter tourist influx – only 37 percent of caseload from year-roundresidents2005 -2008 City operated photo enforcement freeway program

IntroductionThis case study details a simple, low–tech,no–cost process for a court to assess opera-tions and staffing levels, which can lead toreengineering. The methodology is simple:collect data on staff tasks performed daily.The Scottsdale City Court found that thisprocess provided steps to understand actualtasks performed, tasks assigned by eitherworkgroup or team, and major groupings ofcourt responsibilities.

The results can serve as a tool to explaincourt functions and justify resources duringdifficult court budget decisions. They allowcourt management to make decisions abouttask assignments, staffing allocations, andfuture reengineering directions.

What Is the “Bucket List?"Unlike the Jack Nicholson film, this “bucketlist” was a process whereby the court col-lected, analyzed, and reported on the taskscourt staff perform (Figure III.1). The term

“bucket list” depicted the tasks that wereorganized into ‘buckets’ or operationalareas.

Results The overall result was an inventory of du-ties, tasks, time, and reasons or mandates.The inventory increased awareness of theactual tasks court staff perform and the

Figure III.1The Bucket List


amount of time invested in those tasks. It allowedmanagement to analyze, brainstorm, and consideroperational changes. The inventory has helpedcourt management determine assignments andtask ‘leveling,’ staffing needs, and the eliminationof staff positions.

Why Scottsdale City Court?The Scottsdale City Court first dabbled with thebucket list process in November 2009. It cameabout when a senior manager was learning opera-tional issues with a subordinate supervisor. Therewas a realization that both would benefit from aclear inventory of the work a team performed on a daily basis. Each work team staff member wasassigned one or more single tasks, with each staffmember performing each task independently ofother team members. The variety of single–taskassignments seemed ripe for review and possiblereengineering. This was occurring while courtmanagement needed to consider operationalchanges and staffing allocations, with possible position eliminations.

Both management and supervisors realized theusefulness of the first bucket list process. It ap-peared to be a simple methodology to inventory,count, and publish numbers of tasks and work as-signments. It then became apparent that manage-ment could use the process to:

• increase knowledge of court functions;• assess and evaluate tasks; • efficiently and fairly level task assignments; and• consider staffing allocations in different areas.

The court conducted the bucket list process againin the spring of 2011, court–wide, using similaryet expanded processes. Court management reaf-firmed that it offered a simple tool that could leadto documenting court tasks and process reengi-neering.

Court BackgroundThe background of the Scottsdale City Court helps provide an understanding of why it used the bucket list process.

The court uses a variety of performance metrics,including an ongoing review of case and calendarsettings, court case clearance rates, and monthlyworkload comparisons. It includes the NationalCenter for State Courts’ CourTools Measures inthe annual court budget.

Technology assists in counting workload, trackingcustomer use rates, and reviewing event codes inthe statewide case management system (CMS).The CMS has internally developed modules in-cluding payment contract production, fine andsanction tracking, and defendant compliancetracking of court ordered screening, as well astreatment and home detention monitoring.

As with other public sector entities, the court hashad to manage with limited resources, as well asjustify its performance in response to local govern-ment concerns. Following one "negative reportcard" an effort was made to redouble mastery andknowledge of what the court does, revisit basiccourt tasks, and evaluate workloads. This led tothe use of the bucket list data collection and inven-tory.

MethodologyThe court administrator announced and supportedthe process at an all–staff meeting, which involveddetermining the data to collect, creating the datacollection process, and commencing the process.The unit manager or supervisor of each of the fivemain operational court areas (criminal court-rooms, civil courtrooms and public servicecounter, case processing, court IT operations, andcourt financial/ budget operations) announced andmonitored data collection.

An instruction sheet and spreadsheet were pre-pared for all staff to use. Supervisors briefedteam members on the process and expectationsand were available for questions. The data collec-tion times were set with some flexibility so eachteam could customize the time period needed togather data.


How the Information Was OrganizedAs unit supervisors received data from their team, they compiled and organized it for analysisand sharing with senior management. First,

supervisors arranged the data into key functionalareas. An example for the case processing team is displayed in Figure III.2, showing discrete taskswithin each functional area.

Second, supervisors identified discrete tasks bydesk assignments along with required amounts ofstaff time per week and the underlying reason ormandate. Figure III.3 shows selected examples ofthe essential tasks that comprise a desk and theunderlying mandate.

Third, where possible, supervisors listed tasks byspecific team members along with backup respon-sibilities. Figure III.4 shows an example of this.

Fourth, where applicable, supervisors identifiedperiodic, ad hoc, or cyclical tasks. These could befunctions that may not have appeared during thedata gathering process. Figure III.5 displays theproject data collection methodology.

Outcomes and ResultsCourt management observed the following resultsfrom both data collection events:

The process allowed management and staff to re-connect with the actual tasks performed. Aware-ness of the actual tasks performed, the volume ofwork, and the amount of staff time expended wasenhanced.

The process allowed court management to docu-ment tasks, along with the underlying mandates,and in a task inventory.

Each unit supervisor gained direct knowledge oftasks on their team. Some supervisors noted "ahha moments" (i.e. identifying areas of task dupli-cation, finding opportunities to modify assign-ments or redistribute work, and discovering tasksthat could be eliminated).

The data gave senior management (including thecourt administrator) a general understanding ofstaffing levels. It also provided insights regardingpotential areas where staff could be reassigned, rotated, or eliminated.

Figure III.2 Example of Functional Areaswith Discrete Tasks


The data spotlighted areas where work could beshared between work teams.

Overall, the process created management aware-ness of organizational “slack time,” or time wherestaff could be used to cover high-volume tasks.With the bucket list data, management had an

Figure III.3 Examples of Desk Assignments

Figure III.4Specific Tasks with Backup Responsibilities


additional performance metric for understandingcourt functions.

Court management found that the informationcould be useful for other purposes:

o Where could the court absorb staff attrition and defer or avoid new staff recruitment?

o In what areas are there efficiencies?o In which areas is there a need for greater efficiency?

Lessons Learned from the ProcessOverall, court management agreed the processwas a wonderful way to learn about the discretefunctions performed on a daily basis. The processwas fairly simple, and based upon the prior bucketlist process supervisors were prepared to conduct

it courtwide. There is stilla need for better task defi-nition at or before the datacollection stage. Supervi-sors learned to providemore and precise instruc-tions for the next datagathering. It was beneficialfor court management to have conducted theprocess before, as valuablelessons were learned. Thesecond administration ofthe bucket list data collec-tion was easier.

Initial reasons for theprocess included: manage-ment instinct that opera-tions could be streamlined,misunderstanding of whatstaff members actually do,need for manager and su-pervisor to talk from samepage on operations (whatis actually occurring), andbrainstorming about fu-ture changes. However,the process became a pre-

cursor to reengineering and a part of continuedperformance management. Because of the immedi-ate benefit, court management allowed the teamsupervisors freedom to implement changes with-out awaiting formal management approval – espe-cially changes that provided immediate results orefficiencies.

Where possible, it was good to include the mandate behind the task as it could serve as justification for court resources, should that ever be needed. Court management concluded that the bucket list information and materials wereuseful for training staff and managers. The visualdisplay of the results provided effective trainingmaterials.

Figure III.5 Key Steps of Data Collection


Ultimately, the process informed court manage-ment about tasks and to conduct operational as-sessments leading to improved efficiency andservices. The process can be replicated by othercourts.

“Don’t let what you can’t do interfere withwhat you can do.”

John Wooden - basketball coach

Notes and Comments1. The author expresses appreciation to Julie A.

Dybas, deputy court administrator, who con-ceived the bucket list idea in 2009, shortly afterjoining the Scottsdale City Court, as a way tolearn staff duties and assess staffing assignmentswithin her area of responsibility.

2. Appreciation is shared with court management:Julie Dybas and Daniel Edwards, deputy courtadministrators, and supervisors: Rod Wettlin(former employee, public service), SamanthaMounsey (case processing), Cliff Levine (crimi-nal courtroom team), Randy Kennedy (courtIT), Jack Miller (court finance), and GeraldRossler (court security).

3. Postscript note: The bucket list concept wasshared in 2010 with attendees of a court man-agers’ conference in the Federated States of Mi-cronesia. Attendees were taken with theconcept as a way to understand what staffmembers do each day. They then renamed theprocess the basket list in recognition of the localculture in which baskets are prevalent.


IV. Case Study No. Three:Reengineering Rural Justice-Improving Efficiencies, Reducing Costs, andEnhancing OperationsMinnesota’s Eighth Judicial District


Eighth Judicial District, MinnesotaJudicial District Administrator: Timothy L. Ostby

Regional Counties: Swift, Wilkin, Grant, Traverse, Stevens, Big Stone, Pope, Lac QuiParle, Chippewa, Kandiyohi, Meeker, Yellow Medicine, Renville Population: More than 125,000Bench Officers: 10

Project ImpetusThe work of court staff facilitates the verycore value of the judicial branch – DueProcess of Law. However, the state of theeconomy in 2010, when this case study wasconducted, led the National Center for StateCourts (NCSC) to examine Minnesota’sEighth Judicial District and determine, as in the state’s other jurisdictions, there was:

• declining population and workload;• diffusion of resources among multiplecourt facilities;

• a special “access to justice” problem; and• a challenge in providing staffing services.

Though the economy is improving, these is-sues transcend economic health. The courtsystem of the future must continue provid-ing excellent service in order to fulfill thecore value of due process of law while re-sponding to new social, economic, techno-logical, and legal challenges. Figure IV.1 Minnesota’s Judicial Districts

BackgroundThe Eighth Judicial District (Figure IV.1) consistsof 13 counties in west central Minnesota with atotal population of 125,000 making it the mostrural of the state’s 10 judicial districts. Given theissues it was facing, Minnesota’s judicial branchtransformed its trial courts from locally isolatedareas to a unified statewide system.

This case study introduces the changes that had tooccur out of the sheer need to deliver justice to allof the state’s population. Created by the NCSC in2010,5 it covers a number of areas needing adjust-ment and identifies modifications to managementand staffing structure.

The state’s judicial branch has analyzed its strate-gic direction many times over the years. Thisproject specifically addressed operational changesthat led to rural court downsizing. The changeswere in response to a combination of decliningpopulations, decreasing demand, and the need tomaintain access to justice. The bench and courtmanagement did not undertake this effort lightly.

As in the original project (NCSC, 2010), this casestudy placed the efforts made by the judicialbranch over the past several decades in historicalcontext. It began in 1959 when the state legisla-ture granted administrative authority to the statesupreme court. In the 1960s and 1970s, legisla-tion further modernized the state court system byconverting part–time justices of the peace to full–time judges and creating the State Court Adminis-tration Office (SCAO). In 1977, the statelegislature passed a Court Modernization Bill establishing statewide funding and defining theadministrative structure in each district.6 The last major unification initiative was 1982.7

Why Shift Now?The reengineering effort needed to address judicialdistricts with declining populations and reducedworkloads. Additionally, resources were diffused

across counties and court facilities, therebystretching clerical and administrative services.Lastly and probably most importantly was theissue of access to justice in the rural districts of thestate.

This project, although tough to accept, was appro-priate given the changing landscape in rural com-munities. It is human nature to protect what onehas, and most humans are adverse to change.However, as court administrators we have a dutyof stewardship to the state’s taxpayers to providehigh quality services at the lowest cost.

Changing Environment: NCSC RecommendationsThe following is an account of the 15 recommen-dations from the NCSC’s 2010 project:

Recommendation 1: Court administrators shouldbe professionals who are appointed by, responsibleto, and serve at the pleasure of the district admin-istrator.

Recommendation 2: One person (either the courtreporter or senior court clerk), should be assignedto the courtroom to monitor the digital recordingequipment, perform the in–court updating tasks,mark exhibits, and assist the judge as needed. Toeffectively implement this recommendation courtreporters should be fully trained on the MinnesotaCase Information System (MNCIS), court proce-dures, and specific in–court updating processes.

The court reporter’s supervising judge should es-tablish the expectation that court reporters per-form the in–court updating tasks at the directionof and to the satisfaction of the court administra-tor and delegate responsibility for training andperformance of in–court updating procedures tothe court administrator.

District leaders should explore remote monitoringof the digital recording equipment to enable a sen-ior court clerk working in another county in the


5 Gordon Griller, Lee Suskin, David Sayles, Erika Friess, Reengineering Rural Justice in Minnesota’s Eighth Judicial District, October, 2010.6 The Modernization Bill created a chief judge, associate chief judge, and a judicial district administrator to act as the senior managementteam in each judicial district.7 Trial Court Unification Act phased in a merger of the probate, county and municipal courts into a unified district court by 1987.

District to monitor the recording equipment whenneither a court reporter nor senior court clerk canperform that task on–site.

Recommendation 3: To enhance efficiency ofcourt staff and court users, each assignment areashould function as a single unit with uniform poli-cies and procedures designed to enable the assign-ment area to hear and dispose of cases, manage itsrecords, and provide services to court users inways consistent with state policies and appropri-ate to the counties within the assignment area.

To accomplish this, the NCSC consultants recom-mend that the chief judge designate a presidingjudge of the assignment area to work with thecourt administrators to manage the work: to es-tablish formal calendaring and assignment policiesthat optimize the deployment of judicial officersconsistent with the region's adjudication needsand an annual set of operational strategies andpriorities to improve productivity, lower costs, and improve access to justice in the region.Through attrition, each assignment area will in the future have one court administrator to work with the presiding judge.

Recommendation 4: Judges should routinely useInteractive Video Teleconferencing (ITV) for stan-dard motion and non–dispositive civil hearings. In addition, judges who travel to other court-houses for hearings should consider conductinghearings from their courthouse via ITV (consistentwith ITV rules).

Recommendation 5: The Seventh/Eighth Districtadministrator and a select group of court adminis-trators should advance plans to the judicial leader-ship for consistent work sharing between the staffof the two districts where efficiencies, travel dis-tance, and resources warrant. Further thereshould be regular work sharing assignments be-tween judges of the two districts where volumeand distance warrant.

Recommendation 6: The newly created single pre-siding judge and the court administrators in eachassignment area should meet periodically with law

enforcement, public lawyers, corrections, county,city, and state officials. These meetings would beaimed at coordinating initiatives to reducing dataentry and procedural redundancies in the flow ofinformation and cases.

Recommendation 7: All counties in the EighthDistrict should fully implement all of Minnesota’scurrent technology initiatives, as described inChapter III of this Report, as soon as possible

Recommendation 8: The district leadership shouldexplore the idea of centralized call centers withreal–time computer access to MNCIS and otherelectronic court databases as a pilot project. Callscould be routed to a central location or to one ormore of the courthouses within the district withsufficient staff to handle local calls and calls madeto other courts.

Recommendation 9: Should the district establishin–bound call centers, pro se calls should berouted directly to a center by widely advertising asingle phone number to call.

Recommendation 10: The district leaders shouldinvestigate the possibility of piloting MNCIS dataentry/management/ response hubs in one or morelocations.

Recommendation 11: District and judicial branchleaders should explore greater use of part–timelocal court employees to save personnel costs andprovide highly flexible staffing.

Recommendation 12: Court officials should col-laborate with the SCAO and Hennepin County’sSelf Help Center to explore ways that libraries cansupplement the assistance provided at courthousesor at centralized self–help centers.

Recommendation 13: Judicial branch and districtleaders should explore contracting with countygovernments to provide court assistance in low-volume rural courts on an emergency basis.

Recommendation 14: Upon detailed review of thetwo workforce studies conducted by the NCSCand the planned judicial branch staffing study,


Eighth District and judicial branch leaders shouldconsider strategically closing court administrationoffices to the public on non–court days duringtimes of limited customer demand.

District leadership should explore establishing re-sponsibility for certain district–wide processes inone or more courts when there are no scheduledcourt hearings.

Recommendation 15: The court administration of-fices in Grant, Big Stone, Lac qui Parle, and Tra-verse should selectively close on days that court isnot in session. Inexpensive, alternative ways toprovide public access to justice should be exploredpursuant to the suggestions in this study.

The “New Normal” and the Span of ControlValidity has no single agreed upon definition butgenerally refers to the extent to which a concept,conclusion, or measurement is well–founded and accurately corresponds to the real world(Wikipedia, 2012). The strength of the NCSC examination is in its well–founded proposals that correspond to the real world.

Feasibility studies aim to objectively uncover thestrengths and weaknesses of an existing businessor proposed venture, opportunities and threats aspresented by the environment, the resources re-quired to carry through, and ultimately theprospects for success. In its simplest terms, the twocriteria for judging feasibility are costs requiredand value to be attained (Wikipedia, 2012). TheNCSC proposals recommend cutting costs out ofnecessity, but are cognizant of our duty to main-tain quality access to justice.

Steps TakenIn 1990 (at the start of state funding), the EighthDistrict operated with 13 court administrators and72 staff; by 2005, staffing levels stood at 52 posi-tions, including 10 court administrators. Today, asa result of effective governance, management,leadership, and implementation of innovative pro-grams, the district has reduced staffing levels to 47positions, including five court administrators, and

for budget reasons has reduced the hours workedper week from 40 to 37.5 hours (NCSC, 2010).

Apart from decreasing workloads, the reduction inforce was the result of the district’s extensive useof technology, which included:

• The Statewide Case Management System;• In–Court Updating;• Centralized Payables Citation Processing;• e–Citation Processing;• Auto Assess, which automatically calculatespayable fines, fees, and fine/fee splits based onthe offense, prosecutor, law enforcement agency,and the fine and bail schedule; and

• Auto Referral, which permits delinquent debtsto be automatically referred for collection, reducing clerical workload, using consistent practices and enhancing collection of fines due.

A striking example of a regional mindset is thework–share program developed in the mid–1990s.The program’s genesis was the district administra-tor's use of administrative weights for the variouscase types filed with the court. The rolling 12-month quarterly case filings report measured theworkload in each county office. From that work-load measure, the district administrator madework–share adjustments by either sending workfrom one county to another or sending a stafferfrom one county to another to work a certainnumber of staff days per week. This was a short-term solution for equalizing workload. When avacancy occurred, the district administrator, afteranalysis, transferred the vacant position where itwas needed.

SummaryJudicial branch technology initiatives, such as e–filing and e–payment of fines, will certainly reduce required office work. Additionally, the judicial branch has a robust, homegrown casemanagement system that is flexible and adaptableover time. Although ITV is not being used to itsfull cost savings potential, this is perhaps a genera-tional issue that will also change over time.


Administrative innovations are changes in howcourt organizations prepare themselves to conductoperations or account for their achievements. TheNCSC consultants would expect the district’s lead-ership to reach out to local stakeholders in moreintense ways. Effective collaboration with justicesystem agencies should be a major emphasis, espe-cially regarding law enforcement and communitycorrections groups. Getting things done jointly ina shared environment depends a great deal ontrust beyond agency boundaries and achievingmutual benefits. Help by court leaders to advancee–citation processing is a prime example (NCSC,2010).

Effective collaboration with justice system agen-cies is vitally important, but if we push efficiencytoo far the wall separating the branches of govern-ment could begin to crack.

ConclusionReengineering does not necessarily mean eliminat-ing positions and closing facilities. But it doesmean what we currently do can be done better orfaster. However, becoming more efficient in areasthat have declining populations and hence a de-creasing workload will eventually mean a reduc-tion in force. Where possible this transition can be softened through attrition. Areas experiencingincreased population and hence an increasingworkload can benefit from all the IT initiativescurrently being used in the state.

Regardless of what area is selected for reengineer-ing, the public can continue to expect fair and efficient access to justice.



V. Case Study No. Four:Reshaping Staff Organization to SupportHigher PerformanceLake County, IllinoisGeneral Jurisdiction Court


Lake County Circuit CourtCounty Seat: Waukegan, Illinois Executive Director: Robert A. ZastanyPopulation: more than 706,2222011 Filings: 205,392Judges: 37Background Information: http://19thcc.lakeco.org/Organization/Pages/default.aspx

Project ImpetusThe court organization is labor intensive and largely dependent on staff to perform numer-ous critical tasks. Often those tasks are performed without direct supervision and dramati-cally impact the lives of those before the court. Given that the state of the economy is notlikely to change in the near future, a limited reshaping of this functional area is recom-mended to enhance effectiveness, increase efficiency, and promote economy. While cur-rent economic conditions may delay some boomer retirements that delay will likely be lessthan five years. The leading wave of boomers turned 64 in 2010, and retirements will likelyresult in a shortage of experienced workers. Finally, the court of the future must be preparedto maintain systems of excellence while responding to new social, economic, technologi-cal, and legal challenges.

OverviewThe Times They Are A–Changin’:How Limited Resources ReshapeHow We Organize to Embrace the FutureSinger and songwriter Bob Dylan, in Janu-ary 1964, sang “the times . . . they are a–changin’.” This impactful phrase, morethan 48 years ago, focused a nation onworld events. This same phrase has beenre–released, so to speak, to deal with organi-zation change, reengineering, and paradigm

shifts for these times. Today’s workforcemay never see the full return of the “goodtimes” experienced just a few short yearsago. A shrinking workforce, graying popu-lation, advancing technology, focusing onevidence–based practices, and other suchshifts will have far-reaching effects on avail-able resources and how we operate ourcourts.

This case study introduces adjustmentsneeded today to allow the court to with-stand the financial headwinds it will face foryears to come. It covers adjustments needed


to job duties, accountabilities, current manage-ment, and staffing structures.

Framework for Court ExcellenceThis framework consists of four sets of interre-lated elements (Figure V.1) as described in thepublished “Purpose of the Court:” 1) a set of rec-ognized core values; 2) individual competencies; 3)individual commitment to the court; and 4) com-mitment to those we serve. Becoming a court ofexcellence requires proactive management andleadership at all levels of the organization. It re-quires determining and attaining performance tar-gets. Informed decision–making requires soundkey performance measurement and reliable data.The driving force in performance targeting andmeasuring key performance areas is the Ccurt’sSMAART Program and its commitment to per-formance management (see court website).

Background:Staff Planning Process in the Development of Unit Managers In considering a better model for providing thecourt with the necessary staffing support, thegraphic (Figure V.2) depicts the variables this case study considered.

It is important to keep in mind what the plan isnot. It is not a static document that predicts the

future or describes the past. Rather, it focuses ondeveloping information to help the court makeshort- and long–term decisions based on changingstrategies

The staff planning process provides options re-lated to strategic shifts and tactical opportunities.It helps better manage employee movement into,around, and out of the court.

In its simplest terms, the goal of the staff planningprocess is getting "the right number of peoplewith the right skills, experiences, and competen-cies in the right jobs at the right time." This short-hand definition covers a comprehensive processthat provides policy makers with a framework formaking staffing decisions based on the court’s mis-sion, strategic plan, budgetary resources, and de-sired staff competencies. It is a simple yetsystematic process for addressing gaps betweenthe employees of today and the human capitalneeds of tomorrow. The goal of the process is toeffectively:

wAlign staff requirements directly to the court’sstrategic and annual action plans.

wDevelop a list of competencies currently pos-sessed and required in the future.

wIdentify and implement gap reduction strategies(train, recruit, cross–level, transfer, etc.)

Figure V.1 Framework for Court Excellence


wProvide adequate information to decide howbest to structure the court organization and deploy its employees.

Why Shift Now?The economic climate has created state andcounty revenue shortfalls. While the court ismaintaining services through a combination of expanded user fees and reduced expenses, manybudget balancing actions are unsustainable intothe future. Staff will continue to monitor eco-nomic developments and identify factors that mayinfluence the court’s future financial position. The court will proactively seek new revenuesources and identify operational inefficiencies.

The bottom line is that budget constraints are notgoing away any time soon. Leaders across thecountry are convinced that things will get better,but we will never go back to the way it was just afew short years ago. In addition, citizens are con-cerned [e.g., Tea Party efforts, Accountable Gov-ernment, Transparency in Government] over thevalue and type of service they receive for their taxdollars. Focusing on the long–run, prioritizingprojects, adjusting staffing patterns, and docu-menting new processes will help us meet thesechallenges.

Several years ago the National Association forCourt Management (NACM) and the National In-stitute of Corrections identified a number of corecompetencies specifically linked to effective andefficient case management (from filing to post dis-position), evidence–based practices, and perform-ance management. From those competencies

comes a list of critical knowledge, skills, and abili-ties court staff must possess to facilitate effectivemovement of cases from filing to closure. Theseskills are essential in process reengineering:

• Ability to properly allocate court resources:(e.g., judges, technical and administrative staff,appropriate technology, courtrooms, and otherfacilities) across courthouse operations.

• Ability to coordinate with the judiciary’s justicesystem partners.

• Skill in linking time standards to the numberand types of cases that must be processed tomeet disposition goals for all case types – byyear, month, week, day, and judicialdivision/team and judge.

• Knowledge of data needed for both continuoussystemic evaluation and day–to–day manage-ment,

• Knowledge of how to acquire and analyze theneeded data.

• Ability to use data to inform and influence deci-sion makers about what is and is not working.

• Ability to persuade the bench, staff, and justicesystem partners of the need to make changes andthe feasibility of proposed solutions.

• Ability to model desired behaviors, particularlylistening and teamwork with judges, court staff,and justice system partners.

So why explore changing court staffing patterns?There is now a confluence of events that has cre-ated powerful drivers to transform how personnel

Figure V.2 Staff Planning Process


will be aligned in the future. Figure V.3 puts thisall into perspective:

Budget Constraints: When funds are limited, thecourt must focus on improving employee produc-tivity and on each judicial division.

Workplace Challenge: The court must create aworkplace where individuals find fulfillment andsatisfaction, and can achieve their personal goalswhile working toward those of the court. Thechallenge is multifaceted and must be viewed fromseveral vantage points.

Attitudinal: The shift to “we” is required inorder to successfully accomplish future func-tional requirements and carry out the court’smission.

Career Development: The court must positionitself for the workforce of the future by improv-ing skill levels and providing long–term oppor-tunities for the present workforce.

Direction: At one time the court hired employ-ees to fit the characteristics of a particular job.Now it is critical for the court to select or re–al-locate employees who fit the characteristics notonly of the position, but also the court organi-zation.

Changing Environment:Expectations of the JobThe notion of “customers and stakeholders” is nottraditional thinking in courts, but it is importantto touch upon at this point in this case study.“External customers” include not only parties andlawyers, but also the wide range of people whocome to court in other capacities.

Critically important among a court’s “internalcustomers” are its judges, staff members, clerk’soffice, assistant state attorneys, assistant publicdefenders, and court security, all of whom are in-terdependent as they carry out a wide array ofbusiness processes to aid day–to–day conduct ofcourtroom proceedings.

A court‘s “stakeholders” include not only thosewho lead and work in the court, but also thebroad mix of institutional participants in courtproceedings, state and local funding authorities,and general government officials. Much of the rea-son why a court exists is to provide services tothese customers and stakeholders.

To ensure success in the office of the future, staffat each level needs to focus on developing or pos-sessing six key abilities, as represented by theacronym “ACTION.”

Analysis This skill is based on “3–C Thinking”:Critical, Creative and Connective. Critical think-ing involves evaluating information, developinginnovative solutions to challenges, and makingrecommendations based on understanding the ob-jective at hand. Connective thinking enables pro-fessionals to perceive the links between people,data, and ideas, and then use these links to workeffectively.

Collaboration Staff at all levels must be able toquickly establish rapport and facilitate team build-ing with coworkers. They must be sensitive to di-verse work styles and personalities.

Technical Aptitude This skill involves a willing-ness to adopt new technologies and be able totrain colleagues on how to use the latest tools.

Figure V.3 Why Shift Now?


Intuition Staff with well–tuned intuition willproactively identify the best ways to provide support based on the court’s goals and processes.

Ongoing Education The most successful individ-ual in this role will continually expand his or herknowledge base and pursue production enhancingsubjects.

Negotiation This skill involves using tact, diplo-macy, empathy, and business savvy to engage inproductive discussions with customers, judges and employees that result in positive outcomes.

What can be done to increase performance? Viewwork with an eye toward results! This may soundsimple and straightforward, but there are barriersone needs to be aware of in alignment. There area number of mismanagement matters that con-tribute to barriers. A few are noted here.

Looking at work from thirty-thousand feet doesnot get real work done. Leadership must spendmore time reviewing, evaluating, and (if necessary)modifying the level of detail that each position’sfunctionality provides to the organization.

Not clarifying and translating strategies into workhurts alignment and execution. Without a man-ager understanding, communicating, and translat-ing strategies into tasks, staff cannot align theirtasks to these strategies and do real work. Identi-fying what is expected of staff facilitates deliveringthe best service possible.

Delegating busywork creates confusion and con-flict. Off–the–cuff ideas blithely inserted into workprocesses lacking clear and complete communica-tions creates support staff whiplash. We are sur-prised when outcomes are not at the best levelpossible. Sitting around waiting to be told aboutthe “flavor of the day” will not produce expectedresults.

Based on staff research, the office of the futurewill have a professional staff, specifically “unitmanagers,” with the following attributes:

Workflow ControllerUnit managers will serve as “mission control” for divisions and organizations, ensuring that col-leagues working from various locations have thesupport and resources necessary to perform theirjobs. The workflow controller will facilitate inter-action between teams and coordinate informationtransfer and effective use of organizational resources.

Resource CoordinatorVirtual operations that employ numerous contractworkers will rely heavily on individuals adept atbringing together the correct resources for a giveneffort or project. Resource coordinators will un-derstand the goals of the various business unitsand know where to find the answer or most appropriate resources.

Knowledge ManagerFluid, project–based environments are the wave ofthe future. The central figure will serve as arepository of institutional information, history,and best practices. The knowledge manager willensure continuity and consistency, help new em-ployees and judges adapt to the court’s culture,and assist them in finding the data and documentsthey require to do their jobs.

Information IntegratorQuick information retrieval from sources such asintegrated justice, legislation, Westlaw and the likewill be essential to the workplace. Since the datawill be almost exclusively stored in electronic form(e–filing, e–tickets), we will need centralized, user–friendly databases accessible from multiple loca-tions within our operations. The integrator’s skillset can be compared to those skills of a modern librarian.

Figure V.4 displays the competencies that arealigned with the court’s mission, vision, andstrategic goals. The diagram depicts the future–oriented desired skill sets and thus identifies theideal unit manager. The competencies that makeup the diagram serve as the basis for management,since they play a key role in employee recruitment,


employee development, personal development,and performance management.

The “New Normal” and Span of Control Today, courts are confronting the imperative tocreate a new face of justice for the twenty-firstcentury. The current budget crisis, changing so-cioeconomic factors, and shifting demands on ouroperations require us to look beyond the short–term steps courts take to get through the currentyear. It is predicted by many that the fiscal crisiswill last years and what has been lost will not berestored; we have to prepare for a “new normal.”When the economy finally recovers, our court anda part of the larger statewide system will still lag.Creative innovation, structural adjustments, andredefined programs will no longer be just a goodidea; they will be a prerequisite for survival.

One area of adjustment is management–to–staffratio, which is often used to define an organiza-tion’s span of control. Our current structure hasnot been adjusted since the early 1990s; with thesuccess of our career path program for line staff,slight adjustments are needed.

Another force pushing our court to pay attentionis the aging baby boomer generation. While cur-rent economic conditions may delay some boomerretirements, the delay is likely to be less than fiveyears. The leading wave of boomers (those bornin 1946), have already turned 64. Boomer retire-ments will result in a shortage of experiencedworkers. The risk to our court is not simply thenumber of available skilled workers, it’s the exo-dus of organizational knowledge and job experi-ence that retiring boomers carry in their heads –and hearts!

Span of control has a direct bearing on the lengthof a court organization’s line of communicationand the way tasks are delegated to units and sub–units. One of the objectives in this effort is toshift to a knowledge–based structure where thestaff teams direct or control their own perform-ance through information obtained from peers,customers, annual plans, and the division’s man-agement team. More empowered staff teams,larger spans of control and flatter organizationalstructure should enhance our effectiveness and efficiency. The shift’s targeted benefits are:

• Improved communications

• Improved customer (internal and external) service

• Improved service delivery and effectiveness

• Improved performance efficiency

• Greater flexibility to respond to changes broughton by new laws or directives

• Reduced division personnel overhead costs

• Increased delegation by assistant directors

• Improved employee morale due to less detailedsupervision

• Increased job satisfaction due to more fulfillingjobs with increased responsibility

• Increased subordinate growth opportunity

• Increased reliance and trust from assistant directors

Figure V.4 Paradigm Shift for Staff Deployment


SummaryWe have always looked to the future with thehope that things will improve; this may no longerbe the case. We know that the workplace of thefuture will be totally different from what it is now. A new cultural framework needs to develop.We need to adjust our structure: flatten the hierar-chy, increase mangers’ span of control, and heavilyrely on technology to support flexible operations.Working smarter (and maybe a little harder); re-ducing bureaucracy; and increasing our focus onour customers will support our drive to adapt andredefine our future.

While the overall environment in Lake County ap-pears to be stable, this cannot be taken for grantedas a long–term indicator. Budgetary, legislative,and customer demanded pressure for better gov-ernment only tells part of the story. We must re-fine our strategic focus concerning service delivery.It needs to start with our operational culture, notsimply the challenges of a single program. Theareas that will help us achieve success are:

1) Teams that facilitate collaboration and partner-ships Roles and responsibilities need to be revisedto accommodate new problem–solving approachesto service delivery;

2) Results–driven management Done well, re-sults–driven management will produce more andbetter information about operational effectiveness– both good and not so good;

3) Enhance areas of specialization While this ap-proach generally requires smaller caseloads andadditional programs – team development will linkappropriate staff resources, cultivate human andservice resources and identify ways to enhancequality operations; and

4) Effective use of technology Implementing tech-nological solutions generally causes a slight de-cline in efficiency, but over the long–haul,operational benefits move the organization ahead.We must all fully immerse ourselves in technologydevelopment and use in our operations. The futureis ours to mold, alter, or just let happen.

Conclusion We are arguably experiencing the harshest eco-nomic conditions since the end of World War II.This case study outlines a number of action stepsour court is taking to reshape and realign servicesand structure – DOING NOTHING IS NOT ANOPTION!

Our leaders are being held more accountable formanaging the affairs of government. Taxpayersare demanding that public services be deliveredmore effectively and efficiently. The commonmantra during times of funding issues is to “DOMORE WITH LESS.” This simply cannot bedone over an extended period of time.

In order for us to fulfill our vision, our successmust involve critically reshaping traditional serv-ice delivery models and organizational structures.For some, reshaping might mean changing the organization’s size and functions in order to embrace the future:

H Embrace performance measurement and proper decision making based on the outcome evidence.

H Put the right number of people, in the rightplace, doing the right things in the organization.

H Deliver the right services, in the right amountand in an appropriate manner.

H Shape the organization so that it can deliverservices in ways that cost less.

The court of the future must be prepared to main-tain court system excellence while responding tonew social, economic, technological, and legalchallenges. This case study depicts our court’s firststeps at establishing a different framework formaking thoughtful, innovative, and efficient deci-sions about how to best use its resources to pro-vide the citizens of Lake County with a systemthat best meets the community’s needs.


Step 2:Identify the positive traits we want to maximize in our team leader positions.

Step 3:Identify the costs and benefits associated with theproposal and present the estimated budget to theappropriate funding authorities.

Step 4:Work with judicial human resources to developthe selection criteria for team leaders. The selec-tion criteria must be the best for court organiza-tion.

Step 5:Realign the current staff configuration based oncurrent skills, ability to develop additional skills,and ability to work in a team environment.

Lessons Learned• The common denominator in change involvesthe staff. Project success depends on impactedstaff adopting change.

• Spend more time studying the court’s DNA as itrelates to staff make up, level of readiness, levelof training, and tenure with the organization.

• Gain a better handle on the absorptive capacityof teams, unit managers, assistant directors, and

Step 1: Assess the Readiness for Change

Figure V.5 Court Organization AssessmentReadiness for Change


directors. This involves the ability to recognize,assimilate, and apply new information that willproduce change.

• Sharpen the focus/reality of how changes occurin a court organization.

• Use a proven model for change managementrather than creating one from nothing,

• Use a structured approach on projects of thismagnitude.

• Separate internal and external stimuli so servicesto impacted staff can be delivered more effec-tively.

Next Actions• Develop a leadership academy to deliver trainingfor newly appointed unit managers and recentlyappointed assistant directors. The greatest cata-lyst of positive transformation in any court isstrong and engaged leaders. The academy com-bines a range of learning methods, including on-line and in-person training that delivers insightsneeded to perform at the highest level as a unitmanager. In addition, the academy provides opportunities to increase awareness of issues, to learn the skills necessary to handle today’schanges, and to discover the leadership potential within each staff member.

• Develop and employ measures to assist executivemanagement in determining whether 1) unitmanagers are having the intended impact on op-erations; 2) additional training and or mentoringis needed; 3) any cost savings or productivitychanges are resulting from the project (e.g., elimination or combinations of functions); 4)line staff satisfaction is affected by the structuralchange.

• Make necessary changes as a new organizationalstructure matures, technology advances, andpositive outcomes in service delivery are realized.


VI. Case Study No. Five:Reengineering in Action – The VermontCommission on Judicial Operation


Vermont Judicial SystemState Capital: Montpelier State Court Administrator: Robert GreemoreE-mail – [email protected] Population: 626,431FY 2012 Filings: 67,451Judges: 35

The Context and the ChallengeIn the mid-2000s Vermont’s court system, like the systems in many other states, waschallenged to maintain an adequate level of services in the face of reduced or levelfunding.1 State appropriations for the judiciary had been essentially flat; the branchhad to rely on savings from unfilled vacancies to balance its budget. Between 1999and 2009, judicial branch vacancies increased from 3 to 25, or 7 percent of thebranch’s authorized staff.

During the 2008 legislative session, the supreme court asked the general assemblyto fund the branch at levels allowing it to fill vacancies and address importantbranch–wide needs. In response, the general assembly directed the supreme courtto establish a Commission on Judicial Operation, to develop recommendations regarding judicial branch needs and priorities.

The Fiscal ContextThe general assembly’s request that a com-mission be created was largely in responseto the national recession and its effects onstate government revenues. Vermont wasexperiencing a significant reduction in over-all statewide revenue, and these reductionswere being passed along to the courts.

In the fall of 2009, Vermont’s LegislativeJoint Fiscal Office estimated that due to therecession, deficits on the state’s general fund

would exist through at least 2014. Short-falls in upcoming fiscal years would run between 6 percent and 12 percent, and thatrevenue would not return to pre-recessionlevels for several years.2

Responding to this fiscal reality, the Ver-mont judiciary had already cut judicial andemployee pay through mandatory one dayper month furloughs and froze open vacan-cies. Some courts also reduced operatinghours.

1 See the National Center for State Courts Budget Resource Center at http://www.ncsc.org/Information-and-Resources/Budget-Resource-Center.aspx for more information on the impact on the recession on Vermont’s court system and on courts nationally.2 This and related information is available at Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office’s website at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/.


The Legal Framework of the Vermont Court SystemThe request that a commission be created also reflected a generally shared desire between the legislative and judicial Branches to find operatingefficiencies and cost savings that might result from,among other things, the restructuring of the courtsystem. Although Vermont’s constitution unifiedthe court system under the supreme court, statelaw provided for a hybrid state–county systemwhich court officials and others thought inhibitedthe effectiveness of state level initiatives designedto maximize efficiencies within the branch.

Specifically, diffuse authority for funding, policy,staffing, and operations among the supreme court,14 individual county governments, and 17 probatedistricts created an environment that constrainedthe supreme court from both reaping optimal ben-efits of plans and innovations, and from address-ing the need for streamlined operations in anydeep or tangible way.

In making its appeal to restore funding in 2008,the supreme court cited the following “structuralproblems and anomalies” in the state’s court system:3

• Notwithstanding constitutional provisions regarding a unified court system, the supremecourt does not have authority to run the judicialbranch as a single enterprise. It does not controlall revenues that support branch operations, andit does not hire or have management authorityover all the employees who work in the judicialbranch. This state of affairs leaves the courtwithout the ability to align personnel withstatewide branch priorities or with user demands, and it limits the impact of efforts designed to promote efficiencies.

• A state–county hybrid system has resulted in 63court points of service (i.e., district, family, supe-rior, and probate courts) in 32 buildings. These

facilities may have multiple managers. The supreme court does not have authority to direct staff who work in these courts.

• The judicial system is supported by a collectionof statutes that provide for different court juris-dictions, venues, geographical and functional divisions, facility usage, staffing, and salaries.Not all statutes even relate to all counties.

• The potential for efficiencies from new technol-ogy is significant, though this potential is con-strained by the fact that the supreme court doesnot have management authority over all statecourts.

Reengineering in Action: TheCommission on Judicial OperationThe general assembly asked that the supremecourt appoint members to the commission repre-senting the three branches of government and thecitizens of Vermont. The supreme court was au-thorized to set the size of the commission, whichwas to be chaired by the chief justice.

The court appointed 15 members to the commis-sion, which was staffed by the state court adminis-trator’s office.

The general assembly requested that the commis-sion address the following areas:4

• Consolidation of staff, including clerks of court,and consolidation of staff functions in individualcounties and statewide;

• Regionalization of court administrative func-tions performed at both the state and countylevel;

• The potential for technology to reduce unneces-sary expenditures;

• Flexibility in using resources to respond to thedemands on the judiciary and in particular in situations in which the amount and nature of demand for court services change;

3 These and other examples of problems and anomalies are highlighted in the Commission’s April 2009 Interim Report to the GeneralAssembly. The report is available at http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNew-CommissionJudicialOps.aspx.4 See Act No. 192 of the 2008 Regular Session of the General Assembly. Acts of the Vermont General Assembly are available athttp://www.leg.state.vt.us/.


• Reallocation of jurisdiction between courts; • Any other ideas for the efficient and effective delivery of judicial services; and

• A reduction of $1 million in the judiciary’sbudget.5

The commission was requested to submit propos-als dealing with the consolidation elements of thelegislative charge to the responsible legislativecommittees by January 2009 and to submit a finalreport to the general assembly by January 2010.

The Reengineering ProcessA Participatory Process

The commission met seven times between October2008 and September 2009. All meetings werepublic and agendas and minutes were posted onthe commission’s webpage. One of the first thingsdone by the group was to divide itself into threeworking groups: Public Input and InformationSharing; Resources, Facilities and Personnel; andRestructuring of the Judiciary and Access to Jus-tice. Each working group was expected to pro-duce a report for the commission.6

The Public Input and Information Sharing work-group conducted wide–ranging outreach to inter-ested parties on the issues before the commission.This outreach involved 44 focus groups and re-gional bar association forums throughout thestate. These focus groups were supplemented bysurveys of individual users dealing with the issuesraised by the general assembly. More than 800 in-dividuals responded.

Seventy-seven different stakeholder groups werealso invited to participate in the process. Amongthose participating were judges, court staff, prose-cutors, public defenders, local bar association rep-resentatives, legal aid offices, law enforcementagencies, the Vermont Department of Corrections,child welfare agencies, and others.

Through the Public Input and Information Sharingworkgroup’s efforts, more than 360 differentideas, suggestions, and proposals were generated.The workgroup prioritized and sorted these ideas,with the following broad themes emerging:• Consolidation of court structure and manage-ment;

• Professionalization of the entire court system; • Increased assistance to self-represented litigants; • Increased efficiency through redistribution of resources and greater use of technology;

• Regionalization of some cases and trials; • Standardization of business processes; • Centralization of basic services through technology;

• Transformation of staff into a virtual clerk’s office; and

• Redirection of staff from basic clerical duties totasks that economize judicial time.

A Data-Driven ApproachCommission members also reviewed statistical in-formation prepared by the state court administra-tor’s office on workload, personnel and thejudicial branch budget. This information in-cluded, among other things: • The number of cases filed and number of casesdisposed annually by county, case type, andcourt type;

• The size and age of pending caseloads, backlogsand clearance rates in certain courts;

• The number of staff in each of the 63 court loca-tions and the growth in the number of vacanciesin staff positions over the past 10 years;

• The judge time allocated to each court in eachcounty, staff to judge ratios, cases to staff ratios,cost per case based on number of cases filed; and

• Statewide budget information broken down bycourt type and by county, including cost per case filed.

5 This directive was added to the general assembly’s charge to the commission by law in 2009. See Act No. 1 of the 2009 Special Session ofthe Vermont General Assembly. Acts of the Vermont General Assembly are available at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/.6 These reports and other commission materials are available on the commission’s webpage at http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/Master-Pages/WhatsNew-CommissionJudicialOps.aspx.


This information provided both a context forcommission members regarding the impact of theproposals under consideration and a touch pointfor them in deliberations regarding their need andutility.

With grant funding from the State Justice Institute,the supreme court engaged the National Centerfor State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a weightedcaseload study. The study was done to generateinformation about workloads in the courtsstatewide for the purpose of informing decisionsabout how resources could best be allocated undera unified court system.

As part of the NCSC’s work, feedback was re-ceived from judges who reported whether theyhad sufficient time to handle cases docketed tothem generally, and about the case types that pre-sented them with the most difficulty (in terms ofthe time required to handle them) specifically.

NCSC consultants observed that there were signif-icant variations between jurisdictions in terms ofefficiency. The consultants also noted substantialpotential efficiency gains that could result fromupgraded technology, but in order to capitalize onthose efficiencies the management of Vermontcourts needed to be consolidated.

A Principled ProcessThe commission’s work was participatory and informed. The work was also connected to corejustice values commission members believed wereheld by Vermonters. One of the commissioner’sfirst steps was to adopt a set of principles to guideits work.7

In drafting these principles, the commission acknowledged that cutting $1 million (approxi-mately 3 percent) from the judicial branch budget(in addition to the funding cuts already likely from the economic downturn) would require either significantly changing judicial branch opera-tions or significantly reducing services and limitingaccess to the state’s courts. The commission

viewed these principles as an important point ofreference as they undertook their work to developcomponents of “a sustainable system based, firston values, and second, on reduced costs.”

Special Issue: TechnologyThe commission acknowledged that new technol-ogy had the potential to greatly improve serviceand reduce operating costs. It also felt, however,that a restructuring of the system was needed inorder to maximize the returns of investment intechnology.

The commission identified three areas likely tobenefit from new technologies: access to justice,improved efficiency, and improved capacity forcomplex trials.

The commission concluded, for example, that operational efficiencies and cost savings could berealized by making case files and related informa-tion available electronically, by using technologyto assist self–represented litigants through “helpdesks” and online forms, by providing for elec-tronic filing, and by making greater use of videotechnology for arraignments and criminal pro-ceedings.

In addition, the commission paid special attentionto efficiency gains that could result from enhanc-ing cumbersome and time consuming manualprocesses with technology tools. In its weightedcaseload study, the NCSC identified significantsavings of time and attendant personnel costs as-sociated with the introduction of court technologystatewide in Vermont.

The Reengineering ResultThe Commission’s Report and the General Assembly’s Response

The commission released an interim report inApril 2009 and a final report in November of thesame year. The findings were presented to thegeneral assembly in December 2009.8

7 The Statement of Commission Principles is below, identified as Exhibit A.8 See http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNew-CommissionJudicialOps.aspx for these reports and other Commission material.


The commission identified 25 findings in its finalreport that were marked by a clear understandingof the gravity of the situation facing the state andthe judicial branch. That understanding was con-textualized by the following statement:

... [I]t is the plain fact that Vermonters can no longer afford the present system. This is not a question of politics, but one offact. If the Legislature does not take action toreorganize and consolidate to a more efficientand less redundant system, the Judicial Branchcannot function in this economic climate... It isno overstatement to say that the Judicial Branchis at a crucial juncture in its history. As a state,we cannot make the choice to do nothing.

The commission’s findings were incorporated into a set of 14 recommendations that directly addressed the need for restructuring. Among thereport’s key recommendations were the following:9

• Unifying the Judiciary through the consolidationof trial court operations;

• Making all Judicial Branch employees state employees paid according to the state pay scale;

• Consolidating management of court operationsthrough the appointment of one courtmanager/clerk of court in each county;

• Eliminating redundant appeals; • Consolidating some judicial positions and reducing staff, as necessary; and

• Eliminating the judicial function of quasi–judicial officers known as assistant judges.

The commission estimated that the savings associ-ated with their recommendations totaled approxi-mately $1.2 million in state general fund dollars.These savings were to be realized through theelimination of certain middle management positions and from shifting resources to jurisdic-tions with higher demands for services. The

commission anticipated an additional $1.2 millionin local/county savings resulting from convertingcounty employees to state employees.

The general assembly passed legislation in 2010addressing all of the Commission’s findings, doingso generally in a manner consistent with the ap-proach the commission recommended.10

Lessons Learned Through the use of a principled, participatory anddata–driven approach, the Vermont Commissionon Judicial Operation offered the general assemblyspecific, actionable, and responsive recommenda-tions designed to streamline court operations, em-power management, and reduce costs.

While arguments could have been (indeed were),made that local government involvement and con-trol of certain judicial resources helped connectthe judicial branch to the state’s citizens in a desir-able way, a strong sense had emerged on the partof commission members and others that the cur-rent court structure was financially unsustainable.If the branch’s structural problems were not ad-dressed, court closures, case backlogs, and caseprocessing delays would become the norm – inshort, the quantity and quality of justice availableto Vermonters would be compromised.

Among the lessons learned are the following:

• Openness and Transparency Matter.The openness with which the project was con-ducted allowed for few surprises to be visitedupon the general assembly or the governor’s of-fice when the time came for action. This open-ness likely helped smooth the political path thatneeded to be taken to progress in the manner thecommission recommended.

• Communication and Outreach is Important.The scope and sweep of the proposed changesrequired up-to-date information and special

9 A video overview of the commission’s process and recommendations is available at http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/vermont-com-mission-judicial-operations-present-proposals. 10 See Act No. 154 of the 2009-2010 Regular Session of the General Assembly. Acts of the Vermont General Assembly are available athttp://www.leg.state.vt.us/. A reconciliation of the commission’s proposal with the final restructuring legislation is available on the commis-sion’s webpage at http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterPages/WhatsNew-CommissionJudicialOps.aspx.


attention to judges, employees, and key stake-holders. During the months leading up to thecommission’s final report, the chief justice heldweekly calls with local court officials and sentout weekly newsletters to all within the branch.The call and newsletters let staff know of thestatus of the commission’s work and identifiedstress points within the system that needed at-tention. Given what was at stake, it was criticalfor the process to be (and appear to be) credibleand supportive.

• Put Everything “On the Table” and Invite Participation.Vermont court officials speak about how thestate’s fiscal affairs and the charge from the gen-eral assembly forced them to “redraw the box”as it related to judicial branch needs, planningand performance, and begin to think outside ofit. Creativity, candidness, and inclusiveness allappear to have been valued throughout theprocess. The scope and potential impact of thecommission’s recommendations made it clearthat these elements were brought to bear on theprocess and the final product.

• Tether Brainstorming, Visioning and Planning toStakeholder Values.The adoption of a “Statement of CommissionPrinciples” reflected a commitment to not let theseriousness of the state’s financial situation leadto cost cutting at the expense of the quality of,or access to justice (Figure VI.1). As the com-mission pointed out in its final report, the chal-lenge was to build a sustainable system “first on values, and second, on reduced costs.”

• Using Data Helps Frame the Context and Supports Good Decision Making.The supreme court’s decision to incorporate caseprocessing, budget and related information fromthe state court administrator’s cffice into itswork and its decision to engage the NCSC toconduct a caseload study reflected an under-standing that issues of the magnitude such asthose being considered needed to be grounded infacts rather than conventional wisdom. Longstanding traditions, deeply rooted local customs,and strongly held beliefs provided the context inwhich the work was taken up. Introducingchange into this environment is difficult, but in-corporating reliable, timely, and relevant datainto commission deliberations helped keep theprocess focused and helped ensure a valuableand viable final product.


Figure VI.1 Statement of Principlesof the Vermont Commission on Judicial Operation

Statement of Principles

• The Judicial Branch is an independent, co-equal branch of government; its judges arefair, impartial and competent, and composed of men and women of integrity who willinterpret and apply the law that governs our society.

o The Supreme Court operates the state court system as a unified system, in accordance with the Vermont Constitution, Ch. II, § 4, which provides that “thejudicial power of the State shall be vested in a unified judicial system….:

• The Supreme Court manages, controls and is accountable for all resources and buildingsthat support state judicial services in Vermont in accordance with the Vermont Consti-tution, Ch. II, § 30, which provides that “the Supreme Court shall have administrativecontrol of all the courts of the state….”

• The Supreme Court deploys resources in a manner that is cost efficient for the taxpayerwhile providing access to court services that is cost effective to litigants.

• Court services are provided in a system that:

o Is open, affordable, understandable, and with a level of service appropriate to thecharacteristics of the case; and

o Ensures access to justice and respect for all litigants and members of the bar.

• Case decisions are made by appropriately educated and well-trained judicial officers; alljudges must be lawyers. Trial court judges are capable of working in any court, hearingany case that needs to be heard on a particular day.

• Judicial officers issue timely decisions that do justice for the litigants, establish clear andascertainable law, and apply the law correctly to the facts.

• The Judicial Branch is organized to minimize redundancies in court structure, proce-dures and personnel, and to provide an efficient balance of workload among courts.

• Funding authorities provide resources that are appropriate to the structure and providelong-term stability in the budgeting, funding and operation of the Judicial Branch.


NCSC Offers Steps for Court Reengineering Successhttp://www.ncsc.org/services–and–experts/court–reengineering.aspx

Reengineering Processes:http://www.ncsc.org/Services–and–Experts/Court–reengineering/Processes.aspx

Future Trends in State Courts 2010 Articles:Reengineering: The Importance of Establishing Principles

Reengineering: Governance and Structure Reengineering: Lessons from the Field

Future Trends in State Courts (2010):http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1605

Complete list of individual articles: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/Trends/

Reengineering Rural Justice – Minnesota (2010):http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1799

Access and Service Delivery – Minnesota (Reports I and II):

Report I: http://www.ncsc.org/Services–and–Experts/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Court%20reengineering/Minnesota%20ASD%201%20Final%20Report.ashx

Report II: http://www.ncsc.org/Services–and–Experts/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Court%20reengineering/Minnesota%20ASD%202%20Final%20Report.ashx

Business Process Reengineering (2011):http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Educa-tion%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2011/Business%20Process%20Reengineering.ashx

Court Business Process Enhancement Manual (2003):http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1040

The Court Business Process Enhancement Guide(2003): http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1039

Nebraska Reengineering Committee:http://www.ncsc.org/services–and–experts/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Court%20reengineering/Nebraska%20Reengineering%20Concepts.ashx

New Hampshire (2011):http://www.ncsc.org/services–and–experts/~/media/Files/PDF/Services%20and%20Experts/Court%20reengineering/New%20Hampshire%20Final%20Report.ashx

Achieving High Performance: A Framework forCourts (2010):http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1510

A Road Map to Improving Court Management(2010):http://www.ncsc.org/conferences–and–events/4th–symposium/~/media/files/pdf/conferences%20and%20events/4th%20symposium/hpc%20visual%20summary.ashx

CourTools – On Demand:http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1507

Stewardship and Business Reengineering: An UrbanCourt Perspective (2010):http://www.ncsc.org/conferences–and–events/4th–symposium/~/media/Files/PDF/Conferences%20and%20Events/4th%20Symposium/Stewardship.ashx

VII. Court Reengineering ResourcesNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT


Using Business Process Reengineering Strategies forCourts (2003):http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/ctc/showarticle.asp?id=64

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) (Orange County – 2010):http://www.myrobust.com/websites/ecourts2010/File/pdf/WhoKnew.pdf

Finding Opportunity in Crisis – Reengineering Oregon’s Courts (2011):http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/StateofJudiciarySpeech2011.pdf

Defining Operational Successes (2009):http://www.imagsoft.com/documents/defining–operational–success–jake–chatters.pdf

2003 Glossary of Reengineering and ProcessImprovement Terms:http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi–bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1107&filename=1108.pdf

Reengineering the Vermont Court System: A JudicialPerspective (2010): http://www.ncsc.org/confer-ences–and–events/4th–symposium/~/media/Files/PDF/Conferences%20and%20Events/4th%20Symposium/Davenport–VT.ashx

COSCA White Paper on Promoting a Culture of Accountability and Transparency (2008): http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/WhitePapers/2008WhitePaper–PerformanceMeasurement–Final–Dec5–08.pdf

Court Culture Module: http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Court–Management/Court–Culture/Resource–Guide.aspx

Leadership and Change Management Module:http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Court–Management/Leadership–and–Change–Management/Resource–Guide.aspx


Activity Analysis: Analysis and measurement (interms of time, cost, and throughput) of distinct unitsof work (activities) that comprise a process.

Alignment: The degree of agreement, conformance,and consistency within a court’s purpose, vision, andvalues; with its structures, systems, and processes;and with individual skills and behaviors. (FigureVIII.1)

“As Is” Process Model: A model or flowchart por-traying how a business process is currently struc-tured. In process improvement efforts, it is used toestablish a baseline for measuring subsequent busi-ness improvements.

Benchmark: A measurement or standard that servesas a point of reference by which to measure processinformation.

Benchmarking: A structured approach for identify-ing business or government best practices and com-paring and adapting them to the court’s operations.The approach identifies more efficient and effectiveprocesses for achieving intended results and suggestsambitious program goals for output, product/servicequality, and process improvement.

Benefit–Cost Analysis: A technique to compare vari-ous costs associated with a process with the benefitsa proposed new process will return, addressing bothtangible and intangible factors.

Best Practices: The processes, practices, and systemsthat are widely recognized as performing exception-ally well. Identifying and applying best practices can reduce expenses and improve organizational

efficiency.

Business Case: A structured pro-posal for improving functions usedby court decision makers. A busi-ness case 1) analyzes process per-formance and associated needs orproblems; 2) proposes alternativesolutions; 3) identifies assumptionsand constraints; and 4) analyzesrisk–adjusted cost/benefits.

Business Process Reengineering(BPR): A systematic, disciplinedimprovement approach that

critically examines, rethinks, and redesigns mission–delivery processes

in order to achieve dramatic improvements in per-formance in areas important to customers and stakeholders.

Cause–Effect Diagram: A popular diagram used toanalyze the causes of problems; it provides anoverview of all the possible causes. (Figure VIII.2)One starts at the right and lists the problem, thenextends a straight line to the left. From the line, onedraws tangential lines and lists causes of the prob-lems at the end of those lines. Lines can be drawn to the subsidiary lines as more discrete causes areconsidered, and so forth.

Change Management: Activities involved in 1) defin-ing and instilling new values, attitudes, norms, and

VIII. Glossary of TermsNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT

Figure VIII.1 Goal Alignment


behaviors within a court organization that supportnew ways of doing work and overcome resistance tochange; 2) building consensus among consumers andstakeholders on specific changes designed to bettermeet their needs; 3) planning, testing, and imple-menting all aspects of the transition from one orga-nizational structure or business process to another;and 4) the process by which changes to the projectscope, deliverables, timescales, or resources are for-mally defined, evaluated, and approved prior to im-plementation.

CMS: Case Management System

Communications Management: The process bywhich formal communication messages are identi-fied, created, reviewed, and communicated within aproject.

Communications Planning: Identifying the type andregularity of information to be provided to all proj-ect stakeholders, keeping them informed of the pro-ject’s progress.

Cycle Time: The time that elapses from the begin-ning to the end of the process.

Deliverable: A quantifiable outcome of the reengi-neering project, which results in the partial (or full)achievement of project objectives.

Dependency: A logical relationship between two or more project activities. The four types of

dependencies include: start–to–finish, start–to–start,finish–to–start, finish–to–finish.

Effectiveness: 1) Degree to which an activity or ini-tiative is successful in achieving a specified goal; 2)Degree to which a unit’s activities achieve the mis-sion or goal.

Efficiency: 1) Degree of capability or productivity ofa process, such as the number of cases closed peryear; 2) Tasks accomplished per unit cost.

Feasibility Study: A document identifying each solution option to a particular business problem (or opportunity), and assessing the likelihood ofeach option achieving the desired result.

Intermediate Outcome: An identified and measura-ble near–term activity outcome that is an indicatorof longer–term outcomes. This is practical whenlong–term outcomes are diffuse, delayed or other-wise difficult to measure. Intermediate outcomesoften relate to consumer satisfaction, which can bemeasured by surveys or interviews.

ITV: Interactive Video Teleconference

Key Performance Indicator (KPI): KPIs are descrip-tive time, cost, or quality indicators used to captureprocess performance.

Measurement: An observation that reduces theamount of uncertainty about the value of a quantity.

Figure VIII.2 Example of a Cause – Effect Diagram Often Referred to as a “Fishbone Diagram”


In the balanced scorecard, measurements are col-lected for feedback. The measurement system gath-ers information about all the significant activities ofa court, division, or unit. Measurement implies amethodology analysis system, involved with howparticular measurements are collected and managed.

Metrics: Often used interchangeably with measure-ments, however, it may be helpful to separate thesedefinitions. Metrics are the various parameters orways of looking at a process that is to be measured.Metrics define what is to be measured. Some metricsare specialized, so they can't be directly bench-marked or interpreted outside a mission–specificbusiness unit. Other metrics are generic and can beaggregated across business units, e.g., cycle time,customer satisfaction, and financial results.

Milestone: The recognition of an important projectevent, usually the achievement of a key project deliverable.

Modeling or Flowcharting: A graphic representationof the activities and sub–processes within a processand their interrelationships.

NCSC: National Center for State Courts

Objective: An aim or intended result of a strategy.

Outcome: The ultimate, long–term, resulting effects(both expected and unexpected) of customers’ use orapplication of the organization’s outputs.

Output: Products and services delivered. Outputs arethe immediate products of internal activity: theamount of work done within the organization

Performance Gap: The gap between what consumersand stakeholders expect and what each process pro-duces in terms of quality, quantity, time, and costs.

Performance Indicator: A particular value or charac-teristic used to measure output or outcome.

Performance Measurement: The process of develop-ing measurable indicators that can be systematicallytracked to assess progress made in achieving prede-termined goals and using such indicators to assessprogress in achieving these goals.

Project Plan: A document listing the phases, activi-ties, tasks, timeframes, and resources required tocomplete a project.

Process: A set of activities that produce products andservices for consumers.

Resource Planning: Identifying the resources re-quired to complete a project. This includes a list of the types of resources required and a scheduleproviding the use of and activities undertaken byeach resource.

Reengineering: Systematic starting over and rein-venting the way a business process is accomplished.A "fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of abusiness process to achieve dramatic improvementsin critical measures of performance such as cost,service, and speed.”1

Sensitivity Analysis: Analyzing how sensitive out-comes are to changes in assumptions. The assump-tion deserving the most attention should dependlargely on the dominate benefit and cost elementsand the areas of greatest program or process uncer-tainty.

Silo–Based Court Organization: A court where cor-porate goals, scope of responsibility, and controlsare distributed along departmental lines. In suchcourts, cross–functional processes are typically not well understood, managed, or controlled.

Strategic elements: Mission, vision, values, assess-ment data, strategic plans, and other informationthat supports strategic planning.

Strategic imperatives: Court organization values.

Strategic initiatives: Specific actions undertaken toachieve a strategic goal, including the plans andmilestones.

Strategic Measures or Metrics: Quantifiable indica-tors of a strategic action’s status.

SWOT Analysis: An assessment tool for identifyingthe overall strategic situation in an organization bylisting its Strengths, Weaknesses, (external) Oppor-tunities, and Threats. Sometimes Challenges are substituted for Threats.

1 Michael Hammer & James Champy, Reengineering The Corporation, 1993.


Target: A performance metric’s numerical value thatis to be achieved by a given date. Both the metricand the schedule need to be specified for targets. A stretch target is the same thing, but its numericalvalue is higher, demanding breakthrough perform-ance to achieve.

Total Quality Management (TQM): An approachthat motivates, supports, and enables quality man-agement in all activities of the court, focusing on the needs and expectations of internal and externalconsumers.

Value–Added: Activities or steps which add to orchange a product or service as it goes through aprocess; these are the activities or steps that con-sumers view as important and necessary.

Workflow: A graphic representation of the flow ofwork in a process and its related sub–processes, in-cluding specific activities, information dependencies,and the sequence of decisions and activities.


Option 1: UnanimousOccasionally there is a solution favored by every-one and 100 percent agreement seems to happenautomatically. Unanimous decisions are usuallymade quickly. They are relatively rare and oftenoccur in connection with more trivial or simple issues.

Pros: It is fast and easy; everyone is happy andit unites the team.

Cons: It may be too fast, so it is not for issues requiring in–depth discussion.

Uses: Works best with more trivial items orwhen discussion is not vital.

Option 2: One Person DecidesThe team decides to refer the decision to one person to make on behalf of the team.

A common misconception among teams is thatevery decision needs to be made by the wholeteam. In fact, one–person decisions are often afaster and more efficient way to make many teamdecisions. The quality of a one–person decisioncan be raised considerably if the designated person

seeks advice and input from other team membersbefore making the decision.

Pros: It is fast; accountability is clear; it makesuse of members’ expertise.

Cons: It can divide the team if the decisionmaker doesn’t first consult with members ormakes a decision that others can’t live with;lacks both the buy–in and the synergy of a team decision.

Uses: Works best with small issues, whenthere’s a clear expert on the team who shouldmake the decision; when only one person hasthe information needed to make the decisionand can’t share it; and when one person issolely accountable for the outcome.

Option 3: CompromiseThis is a negotiated approach to making a deci-sion or settling a dispute, applicable when thereare two or more distinct options and members arestrongly polarized (i.e., neither side is willing toaccept the solution put forth by the other side). A middle position is then created that incorporates

AppendicesNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COURT MANAGEMENT

Appendix A:The Six Decision – Making OptionsTo be truly effective, your team must learn to make effective decisions. One of thebiggest mistakes made by most inexperienced teams is assuming that decisionsneed to be made by “voting.” While voting is a fundamental decision–makingtechnique, there are five other decision–making techniques that can be used. Bothyou and your team need to understand each of them and be clear about which oneto use and when.

Each of the six decision options represents a different approach. Each has pros andcons associated with it. The decision option should always be chosen carefully atthe start of any decision–making discussion to be sure it is the most appropriatetechnique for the topic that is before the team. Below are the six techniques (in re-verse order of their relative value):


ideas from both sides. Throughout the process ofnegotiation, everyone wins a few of their favoritepoints but also loses a few. The outcome is there-fore something that no one is totally satisfiedwith. In compromises, no one feels they got whatthey originally wanted, so the emotional reactionis often: “It’s not really what I wanted, but I’mgoing to have to live with it.”

Pros: There is lots of discussion; creates a solution.

Cons: It forces people to negotiate; tends to beadversarial as people are pushing a favoredpoint of view; can divide the team; everyonewins but everyone also loses.

Uses: It is often the only alternative when facedwith a strongly polarized team or when thereare two opposing solutions, neither of which is acceptable to everyone.

Option 4: Multi–VotingWhen the team has a long list of options to choosefrom, it’s too cumbersome to use consensus. Teammembers priority rank order the options (usuallyusing a set of criteria), with the number one itembeing the best course of action.

Pros: It is systematic, objective; democratic,noncompetitive; and participative; everyonewins somewhat and minimizes feelings of loss;fast way of sorting out a complex set of options

Cons: It is often associated with limited discus-sion, hence limited understanding of the op-tions; may force team members to choosebetween unsatisfactory options; sometimes thereal priorities are not put on the table; teammembers may be swayed by others if the votingis done openly, rather than electronically or byballot.

Uses: Works best when there is a long list ofoptions from which to choose when applying aset of criteria and to clearly identify a course ofaction.

Option 5: Majority VotingAsking team members to vote for the option they

favor once clear choices have been identified. Theoption getting the most or “majority” of votes isthe best choice. Usual methods are a show ofhands or secret ballot. The quality of voting is al-ways enhanced if there is good discussion to shareideas before the vote is taken.

Pros: It is fast; high quality if voting takes placeafter thorough analysis; creates a clear decision.

Cons: It can be too fast; low in quality if peoplevote based on their personal feelings withoutthe benefit of each other’s thoughts; createswinners and losers; can divide the team; the“show of hands” method can put pressure onpeople to conform.

Uses: Works best when there are two distinctoptions and one must be chosen, when decidingon items where division of the group is accept-able, and when consensus has been attemptedand can’t be reached.

Option 6: ConsensusConsensus is the discussion-centric approach thatinvolves everyone in clearly understanding the sit-uation or problem at hand, analyzing all of therelevant facts, and then jointly developing solu-tions that represent the whole team’s best thinkingabout the optimal course of action. Consensus ischaracterized by a lot of listening, debate, andtesting of options. Because everyone is involved inoffering ideas, it results in a decision about whicheveryone says: “I can live with it.”

Pros: It is collaborative and unites the group. It is systematic, objective, fact driven; it fostershigh involvement; it builds buy–in and highcommitment to the outcome.

Cons: It is time consuming; low in quality ifdone without proper data collection or if mem-bers have poor interpersonal skills.

Uses: Works best when the whole group’s ideasare needed and buy–in from all members is es-sential and when the importance of the decisionbeing made is worth the time it takes.


Figure A 1: Decision–Making Options Worksheet


Tips for Conducting a Better Reengineering ProjectPull together a diverse, yet appropriate, group ofpeople to make up your planning team. Diversityleads to a better strategy. Bring together a smallcore team (between six and 10 people) of leadersand managers who represent every area of thecourt.

Allow time for big picture, strategic thinking. Wetend to try to squeeze the planning discussions inbetween putting out fires, normal daily routines,and going on a much needed vacation. To create asolid plan, your team needs time to think big. Dowhatever it takes to allow that time for big-picturethinking (including taking your team off–site).

Get full commitment from key people in yourcourt. You can’t do it alone. If your team doesn’tbuy into the reengineering planning process andthe resulting plan, you’re dead in the water.

Allow for open and free discussion regardless ofeach person’s position within the court. Try not tolead the planning sessions. When you do, peoplewonder whether you’re trying to lead them downthe path you wanted all along. Encourage activeparticipation, but don’t let any one person domi-nate the session. Hire an outside facilitator orsomeone who doesn’t have any stake in your success.

Think about execution before you start. It doesn’tmatter how good the reengineering plan is if itisn’t executed.

Use a facilitator, if your budget allows. Hire atrained professional or collaborate with facultyfrom a local college who has no emotional invest-ment in the outcome of the effort. An impartialthird party can concentrate on the process insteadof the end result and can ask the tough questionsothers may fear to ask.

Make your plan actionable. To have any chance at implementation, the reengineering plan mustclearly articulate goals, action steps, responsibili-ties, accountabilities, and specific deadlines. (SeeFigure B 1.) Everyone must understand the planand their role in it.

Don’t write the plan in stone. Good reengineeringplans are fluid, not rigid and unbending. Theyallow you to adapt to changes (i.e., a new chiefjudge, newly elected officials that can be impactedby this process, loss of key staff member(s), andthe like). Don’t be afraid to change your plan asnecessary.

Clearly articulate next steps after every session.Before closing each planning session, clearly ex-plain what comes next and who’s responsible forwhat. When you walk out of the room, everyonemust fully understand what they’re responsible for and when to meet deadlines.


Appendix B:Reengineering ProjectsBefore you get too far into your planning process, check out the tips below – your quick guide to getting the most out of your reengineering planning process:


Figure B 1: Goal Identification Worksheet


Checklist for Conducting a BetterReengineering Project

1. Get ready and organized: Identify specific issues and choices the process should address:o Determine organizational readinesso Create the planning committeeo Identify the information which must be

collected to help make sound decisions

2. Articulate the mission and vision: Managersclarify why the function(s) exists and what theend game is:o Determine its primary purpose and how it

is tied to the court’s purposeo Identify the court’s values as they relate to

the projecto Imagine what success would look like

3. Review tactical position: Gather up-to-date information to develop an understanding of the critical issues including:o Internal strengths and weaknesseso External opportunities and threats through

a competitive analysiso Opportunities through customer/clients/

user surveyso Synthesize into a SWOT

4. Agree on Priorities: Identify the broad approaches for addressing critical issues:o Solidifying the court’s advantage relating

to why this is important and measured outcomes

o Determine long-term goals/objectiveso Select strategies for customer/client/user

segmentso Establish measureable short–term goals

and objectives

5. Organize the reengineering plan: Put the piecestogether into one coherent document with thefollowing reports:o Complete Reengineering Plan – for referenceo One–Page Reengineering Plan – for

communicating

6. Roll out the plan: Communicate the plan acrossthe court organization:o Everyone in the court has received a copy of

the plan in some form (printed, emailed,and/or posted on a wall in the break room)

o Identify the reengineering plan leadero Provide budgetary and resource support

7. Identify next actions: Make the effort tangibleto each team member by clearly identifyingwhat he/she is responsible for:o Scorecard – for measuringo Action Sheets – for executing

8. Hold everyone accountable: Monitor your efforts/plan by reporting performance metricson a monthly or quarterly basis:o Identify the source of each metric associatedwith measurable goalso Set up systematic process for monthly orquarterly reportingo Communicate to each responsible personwhen and how to report on their goalso Hold monthly or quarterly strategy meetingso Regularly monitor, evaluate and adapt


Figure B 2: Evaluation Criteria for Reengineering Strategies


What is Process Improvement?You can keep your consumers happy by providingthem with the “best” possible service. “Best” isdefined as meeting the consumer’s needs and exceeding their expectations.

You can provide the best services only by improving the processes that produce them – by process improvement. You do not improve aprocess by weeding out the good from the badonce a service is produced or provided. To do sowould only encourage continued production ofbad service and raise the cost of the process.

Instead, process improvement is about improvingquality while reducing cost and eliminating waste.

To effect an improvement in a process, it’s impor-tant to measure the process. These measures willindicate how the process is performing relative toyour court’s desired or targeted performance lev-els. These measures will help you to check yourcurrent performance and to focus your correctiveor improvement actions.

Process improvement may mean making a processmore efficient, less costly, more “capable” ofmeeting consumer’s requirements or specifications,and/or more consistent and reliable in producingan output that is valuable to the consumer.

Benchmarking and Learning from OthersBenchmarking enables you to learn about theprocesses, tools, techniques, systems and structureof similar programs, reengineering projects and

process improvement efforts. Benchmarking caninclude:v Setting up site visitsv Conducting telephone interviewsv Conducting Skype interviews with groups

of individualsv Collecting survey datav Surfing the internetv Reading journals and magazinesv Conducting research at the library

Why are Process Measures Important?Process measures help determine the degree towhich your process activities and their results areconforming to your reengineering plan and to consumers’ requirements and needs.

Measures provide data that helps teams identifyand solve problems. Measures are also central todefining a problem, understanding how to solve it, and then informing the team and others in thecourt on how well the solution is working towardresolving the problem. In short, measures are important indicators for the health of a process.They help you answer the following questions:

• Is the process performing well?• Is it meeting the consumer’s need or

requirement?• If not, how far off is it?

There are many measures that will help you understand how your process is performing. For example:

Input measures (measure quality, cost, and conformity to requirements)


Appendix C:Process Improvement


• Information, materials, and/or services that youreceive from a supplier. Defective input from a unit, section, or outside stakeholder will adversely affect the overall quality of your output and/or process efficiency.

Process measures (measure different elementswithin the process)

• Cycle time: How much time do various steps inthe process take? Are there delays in some steps?

• Bottlenecks: What types of bottlenecks are youseeing? How frequently? How long is the delay?

•Quality: What types of defects are you seeing ina step?

Outcome measures (measure the final outcome of the process)

• Yield: How many of your services meet consumer requirements?

•Quality: Does the service meet the consumer’srequirements?

• Cost: How much does it cost to produce theservice and how does the cost compare to yourbenchmarks?

• Consumer satisfaction: How happy are yourconsumers with the service?


Figure C 1:A Quick Guide to the 7-Step Model: Steps, Key Tasks, and Tools


Describe the Problem: What conceptsmust I understand to do this step?Importance of Understanding the Problem

• Focus on the right problem. With limited timeand resources, it is essential to focus on aproblem that is most important to theconsumer, the team, and the court.

• Break the problem into manageablepieces. This prevents a team from feelingoverwhelmed by the larger problem andhelps the team identify the pieces they cancontrol and change.

•Gain more knowledge to better define the problem. This ensures the team keeps allits efforts focused on solving the rightproblem with the right people.

•Describe the problem as the gap betweenwhat “is” and what it should or could be.

Importance of Gathering Dataand InformationData can help teams:

• Reveal a problem. Teams can’t fix a prob-lem they don’t know about.

•Describe a problem. When teams understandwhat the problem is, they can fix the problemrather than just addressing the symptom.

•Monitor and control a problem. Teams canmake sure that the process they fix or improvestays that way.

• Prevent a problem. When there is a consistenttrend of cycle in the data, a team can take actionto reduce or eliminate the undesired trend orcycle in the process before it becomes criticaland/or apparent to the customer. It’s always easier to prevent a problem than to correct it.

Types of DataThere are two types of data to measure processperformance: variable data and attribute data. It is important to know which type of data you havesince it helps determine which tool to use.

• Variable data: Data is measured and plotted on a continuous scale over time, e.g., cost figures,times, clearance rate, filings, and the like. Userun charts, histograms, and scatter diagrams toillustrate this data.

• Attribute Data: data is counted and plotted asdiscrete events for a specific period of time,based on some characteristic, e.g., types of errors, types of consumer complaints, reasonsfor downtime. Use check sheets, Pareto charts,and attribute control charts for this type of data.

Implementing the Solution: What concepts must I understand to do this step?Leadership Responsibility

• It is the team’s responsibility to “sell” the bene-fits of the reengineering plan to judges, fundingauthorities, managers, associates, and otherswho are affected by the problem and the reengineering project.

• The team should widely communicate the actionplan through briefings, newsletters, posters, and

Figure C 2: Team Use of Data and Dialogue


other displays. This keeps the plan highly visibleand keeps others in the court informed about theteam’s progress and interim accomplishments.

• Leaders have a responsibility to ensure that peo-ple have the resources they need to implementthe action plan.

Accountability

• The team is accountable for completing thetasks in the reengineering plan. To do this,the team should make one person account-able for completing each task in the plan.

• It’s the team’s job to monitor and documentthe progress of the plan and any discrepan-cies that occur during the implementation ofthe plan. (These discrepancies are called"variances.")

• It’s important that the team schedule brief-ings with management to report onprogress, roadblocks, and modifications to theplan.

• As each plan objective is met, inform all theteam members and others in the court who needto know.

Motivation and Morale

• Leaders need to remove any barriers that mayimpede the progress of implementing the re-engineering plan.

• Leaders need to help team members stay focusedand motivated, and feel supported and rewarded

as they “work the plan.” This is especially im-portant during the early stages of implementa-tion, where misunderstandings and conflictsamong team members are likely to occur.

• Team members should remember to give eachother support and understanding during stressfultimes of the implementation.

What actions must be taken in this step?

• Practice good communication skills.

•Develop good team meeting skills.

• Analyze data to determine what changes areneeded, if any, and to document the team’s ongoing assessment of the reengineering plan.

•Make effective and timely decisions based ondata, not hunches, whenever possible.

Figure C 3: Three Tiered Team Organization


Create a Reengineering TeamThe best team model for reengineering is a simpleone. A three–tiered model is simple, clean, man-ageable, and effective.

Using this team management model, you can:

• Enable key leaders to provide direction to theproject and participate in key decision pointsthrough the “steering committee.”

• Engage other members of your court as subjectmatter experts on “extended teams” or includerepresentatives from the court that may be im-pacted by the reengineering project/plan design.

Keep the core team small and focused. Often–times reengineering teams become too large because every functional area wants to be repre-sented. As the team grows in size, it becomes unmanageable and ineffective. Use extendedteams to enable participation of these functionalrepresentatives. Keep the core team small.

Examples of Reengineering PitfallsReengineering or process improvement is as muchabout planning as it is about execution. Avoid

these planning pitfalls and the probability of success is increased:

3 Lack of ownership: The most common reasonan effort fails is that there is a lack of real own-

ership. If staff/peopledo not have a stake andresponsibility in the ef-fort, it will be businessas usual for all but thefrustrated few.

3 Lack of communica-tion: The effort doesnot get communicatedwithin the entire courtorganization and thusthey (the masses) donot understand howthey can contribute.

3 Getting stalled in theroutine: Consumed bydaily operations andthe problems that sur-face, it is easy to losesight of the big-pictureeffort and the short-term objectives.

3 Out of the routine: The reengineering effort istreated as something distinct and detachedfrom the management process.

3 An overwhelming effort: The goals, objectives,action plans, and the like that were generatedby the planning sessions are too numerous be-cause the leadership and/or team failed to maketough choices to eliminate non-critical actions.

� A meaningful approach: Statements are viewedas fluff and not supported by actions or do nothave buy-in by those who need to support thereengineering effort.

3 Frequency of discussion point: Effort is onlydiscussed at annual, semi–annual, or quarterlycourt meetings; during preparation of the an-nual budget; or during a retreat. Message andimportance of effort is lost.

3 Not considering implementation: No discussionduring the process. The document (plan) is seenas an end in itself.

Figure C 4: Areas to Address in Presenting Your Reengineering Project Results


3 Lack of progress reports: There’s no method totrack progress. No one in the court feels anyforward momentum.

3 No accountability: Accountability and highvisibility are needed to help drive the projectforward. This means that each selected meas-ure, objective, task, data source and initiativemust have an owner.

3 Lack of empowerment: While accountabilitymay provide strong motivation for improvingperformance, staff must also have the authorityto take the necessary and required steps to ac-complish the project. If not, staff may resist in-volvement and ownership.

Develop Engaged Team Members:Some Key Elements• Know what to do and be able to do it. Teamscannot function effectively if members lack clar-ity about what is expected of them. Team mem-bers need to know how what they do fits in theoverall project and have the tools to do theirwork.

• Contribute meaningfully to the project. Engagedteam members have the opportunity every dayto use their strengths to do what they do best.They also have a project manager who caresabout them and who provides coaching andrecognition.

• Work together as a team. Engaged team mem-bers are motivated and feel connected to theteam’s broader goals. They work together to cre-ate high-quality outcomes and develop trustingrelationships.

• Learn and grow. To be engaged, team membersneed feedback about their progress individuallyand as a team. They also need opportunities todevelop in areas related to their role or in areasthat will prepare them for future roles or jobs.





Figure C 5: Possible Problems, Action Steps, & Ways to Prevent

National Association for Court Management Publications Order Form

Revised: March 2012

Special prices available for individual mini guides:

Members: $5 each (20 or more copies—$3 each) Any 5 mini guides - $15 ($3.00 each) Nonmembers: $10 each (20 or more copies—$8 each) Any 10 mini guides - $25 ($2.50 each) Any 14 mini guides - $28 ($2.00 each)

Mini Guide Publications: Quantity Total 4th National Symposium on Court Management (2011) Achieving and Sustaining the Green Court (2009) Business Continuity Management Mini Guide (2006) Community Creativity Collaboration: A Community Dialogue for the Courts (2001) Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: What Court Leaders Need to Know and Be Able to Do (2004)

Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: Application and Uses (2004) Court Administrator: A Manual (2011) Court Reengineering: Fundamental Rethinking for High-Performing Courts Courts’ Response to Domestic Violence (1997) Court Security Guide (2005) Disaster Recovery Planning for Courts (2000) Holding Courts Accountable: Counting What Counts (1999) Making the Verbatim Court Record (2007) Managing the Message: The NACM Media Guide for Today’s Courts (2010) Model Code of Conduct for Court Professionals (2012) Succession Planning (2008) Other Publications: Priced as noted Trial Court Financial Management Guide $150.00 each + $5.50 S & H Trial Court Personnel Management Guide $300.00 each + $5.50 S & H

Virginia residents add 5% tax TOTAL DUE

NAME: COURT/COMPANY: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ________ ZIP CODE: PHONE: _______________________________________ FAX: E-MAIL: PAYMENT: Check made payable to NACM Cash MasterCard VISA CARD #: EXP. DATE: NAME: SIGNATURE:

SEND COMPLETED FORM TO: National Association for Court Management

c/o National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave., Williamsburg, VA 23185 (757) 259-1841 FAX: (757) 259-1520 Federal Tax ID #54-1327921

cosAslnaoitNaPubl

urCoroffon oitaiForrdeOronsiatciPubl

ntemegnaaMturmFor

hcae5$:srembMe01$:srebmemnNo

ublic Puideini GM4th sopmySlanoitNa

atsSudnagniveihAcssenisBu ytiunitnCo

seipocermoro02(h — h)eac$3 eromro02(hcae0 seipco — eac$8

:ionstaublic02(tnemeganaMtruConomuis

)9002(truoCneerGehtgninia002(ediuGiniMtnemeganaMy

iav asecir plaicepSinim5yAn

h)eac nim01yAnnim41yAn

)110

)6

ediu gini mlaudividn ir foelbalisediug - $3($15 0.0 h)eac

sediugi - h)eac50 $2.($25 sediugi - h)eac00 $2.($28

ytitnaQu

:se

latTo

ssenisBu ytiunitnCoivitaeCrytinummCoCuycnetepmCoerCo

)4002(oDotelAbCuycnetepmCoerCorotartsinimdAtruConireenigneRetruCootesnopsRe’struCo

diGtiStCo

002(ediuGiniMtnemeganaMyytinummCoA:noitaroballCoyt

CotahW:senilediuGmulucirrCu

mulucirrCu tacilppA:senilediGu)1102(launaMA:

rofgniknihtRelatnemadnuF:g)7991(ecneloiVcitsemDoo

)55)002((2d

)6)1002(struCoehtrofeugolaDidnaw onKotdeNesredaeLtruCo

)4002(sesUdnanoi

hgHi - struoCgnimrofrPe

)eBd

rt diuGytirriuceStruCoyrevocReretsasDi Pl

occAstruCognidlHom itabreVehtgnikMassMeehtgniganManoCfoedoCledMoninnaPlnoisseccSu

ionstaublic PrhetO

)55)002((2ed)0002(struoCrofgninnaPl

nuCotahWgnitnuCo:elbatnuo)7002(droceRtruoCm

fediuGaidMeM CANehT:egas02(slanoisseforPtruoCroftcud

)8002(g:ions de not tesd aeicrricPPr

)9991(stn

)0102(struoCs’yadoTrof10 2)

aicnanFitruoClaiTrnnosrePtruoClaiTr

:EMNA

:NYAPMCO/URTCO

e00.051$ediuGtnemeganaMla00.003$ediuGtnemeganaMle

H&S05.5$+ hcaeH&S05.5$+ hcae0

ddastnediserainigrViTATO

xat%5dEUDL TA

ESS:RDAD

:YTCI

_____________E:NOPH

E- :LIMA

TENPAYM :

:#RD CA

___________________________

CMNAotelbayapedamkceCh

E:ATST ________ PZI

AX:F

hsCa

E:ATDEXP.

:EDOCP

draCretsMa VI

SA

desivRe : hcrMaar 2012

:EMNA

FEDETPLMOCDSEN

OTMRO : lanoitNaoitaNoc/

ewN300 52) 75(7laredFe

E:RUATNGSI

nemeganaMtruCorofnoitaicossAstruoCetatSrofretneClano

23185AVg,bursamilliW,e.vAtporew95 -1841 XFA : 952) 75(7 -1520

45#DIxTa -1327921

tn

23185

Documents

Mini Guide Workgroup · 2018-03-15 · Steps to Reengineering – Fundamental Rethinking for High-Performance Courts | 1 Mini Guide Workgroup Phillip Knox, Chair National Association