Case Management System for the Future

1
Case Management System for the Future the
LOVISA experience

• Morten S Hagedal
• Project Manager

2
A modern Case Management System

• should be based on case flow, steering each case
  trough the court
• should open for a flexible way of managing each
  case individually, based on the characteristics
  of the individual case, so the case might be
  brought to an end within a reasonable and
  foreseeable time frame
• should be integrated with e-filing, in developing
  e-courts, where the parties are able to integrate
  their own case management system with the case
  management system of the courts, and also take
  responsibility for trivial managing of the case.
• should be a part of an integrated criminal
  justice chain
• needs a strong involvement from judges, court
  administrators and administrative staff to
  succeed, both in developing new business
  procedures and getting acceptance from these
  groups in the courts

3
Norway

• App 4,5 mill inhabitants
• 324 220 km2
• GDP/Capita
• App 40 000
• Oil export
• 3 466 000 bbl/day

4
The information society in Norway?

• 60 of households have Internet access
• 30 of households have broadband access
• 75 of pop. have used Internet the last 3 months

• Public Sector
• Ministry of Modernisation
• E-Norway 2009
• Ministry of Justice

5
The Norwegian Judiciary

• One jurisdiction
• Simple court structure
• District courts
• Courts of appeal
• Supreme Court

• National Courts Administration
• Established in 2002

6
The size of the District Courts
Number of courts Permanent judges Deputy judges Administrative staff
39 1 1-2 3-6,5
25 2 1-2,5 4-16,5
7 3 1-2 6,5-25,5
6 4 1-3 8,5-35,5
3 5 2-5 12-46
2 6 2 13-14,8
8 7-12 0-3 10,5-73
1 17 3 18,5
1 66 19 75,5
7
Technological development in the Norwegian
Judiciary I

• First wave
• Late 80-ies early 90-ies
• Private Public Sector initiative

• Technical infrastructure
• Land Registry
• Case Management System
• Accounting Software

• Time standards
• Reduction of administrative staff

8
Technological development in the Norwegian
Judiciary II

• Second wave
• Strategy from 1997
• Focusing on goals
• New system portfolio
• Should be the basis for e-courts

• WAN
• A new CMS for the judiciary
• Land Registry System
• Common portal on the web
• Intranet
• E-mail
• Accounting system

9

• The LOVISA-project
• Development (2001 2004)
• Introduction in the judiciary (2001 2005)
• Budget
• NOK 173 mill / USD 27,6 mill
• 78 on development
• 22 on introduction to the courts
• Personal resources
• Total 75 persons
• Judges, administrative staff, technical staff,
  consultant
• At the most 50 persons
• Agreement with an external developer
• Computas AS
• Based on PS 2000

10
PS2000 Contract Standard
11
PS 2000 Contract Standard

• Increased efficiency of the procurement and
  tender process
• Development model based on documented best
  practice
• Defined deployment model, based on stage by
  stage, iterative processes
• Benefits from increased understanding of
  requirements and challenges
• Governs both parties obligations
• Integrated co-operation between customer and
  vendor
• Risk management included
• Incentive schemes (target pricing) included as a
  motivating factor
• Procedures for conflict resolution with an expert
  as a mediator

Characteristics
12
vision and goals
To meet the reality of tomorrow with the tools of
tomorrow

• Secure the quality of the case management
• Achieve new and goals with the same resources as
  before
• Better service
• More modern and attractive tools
• Easier integration with other ICT systems

13
Reports
Statistics
Court fee calculation
Case flow
External services
Office applications
Physical documents
Journal / Archive
Registries
User admin
Scheduling
Electronic documents
Internal
External
Exchange / Outlook
14
what do the users say?
In my view LOVISA is an outstanding system. It
has probably given the administrative staff more
work, but the system gives more information in
return. It is more challenging for the
administrative staff, which, in my view, in
positive. I feel that my capacity, as a judge,
has increased to a large extent, which has
improved the effectiveness.
The quality assurance vests in the last hand with
the user, i.e. the employee.
LOVISA is improving, and there is a positive
effect as LOVISA proposes the correct step when
actions are not taken (by parties) at the proper
time. This implies quality assurance, and a more
uniform way of operation in different courts.
The reuse of personal data can improve, i.a. in
judgements and court hearing reports.
It is positive that we had to scrutinize our
routines in lieu of LOVISA. The internal
workflow is clear for everybody, and we have got
written instructions.
After all the negative rumours, I am positively
surprised. When we get the necessary routine,
this will be good
The system gives a nice overview it has a
potential, but it is time consuming, involves
many unnecessary operations, slow access and
technical instability.
I think this will be good, when we finally learn
the system
LOVISA is fun!
We are doing things the way we used to
LOVISA is the most stupid, the most unmanageable
computer system ever developed. Throw it out,
get the old one back, and my effectiveness will
increase with 25 and my comfort with 50 .
I am not sure that the time used on registration
is justified by the output.
LOVISA is probably an improvement for the courts
and the administrative staff, but in my view not
for the judges.
As a judge, LOVISA gives me good access to
information on the handling of a case.
15
Thesis one

• a modern case management system should be based
  on case flow, steering each case trough the court

16
Modelling the case flow

• The procedural regulation
• The case from A to Z
• Main tracks
• Deviations from the main tracks
• Transfer tedious tasks from judges and
  administrative staff to a CMS

17
(No Transcript)
18
How do we present the case flow to the user?
19
Thesis two

• a modern case management system should open for a
  flexible way of managing each case individually,
  based on the characteristics of the individual
  case, so the case might be brought to an end
  within a reasonable and foreseeable time frame

20
Adapting the general case flow to one specific
case.

• Focus on active case management by the judge
• Assessment of the case by the judge at
  appropriate times to decide the management of the
  case, with deadlines, and activities.
• Develop relevant tools to actively manage each
  case

21
The new Norwegian Civil Procedure Act s. 9-4

1. whether judicial mediation or mediation at a
   court sitting should be pursued,
2. whether the case should be dealt with pursuant to
   special provisions,
3. whether court sittings shall be held during the
   preparation of the case and whether the case
   maybe ruled on following such court sitting,
4. whether written submissions shall be made as part
   of the basis for ruling on the case,
5. whether the proceedings of the case should be
   split,
6. review of the presentation of evidence, including
   whether access to evidence, production of
   evidence or judicial inspection of a site is
   being requested, whether evidence shall be
   secured and whether an expert should be
   appointed,
7. whether final written submissions shall be made,
8. setting the date of the main hearing, which date
   shall fall within 6 months of the submission of
   the writ of summons, unless special circumstances
   otherwise require,
9. whether expert or regular lay judges shall be
   appointed, and
10. other issues of importance to the preparation of
    the case.

22
GANTT diagram? Flow Chart?
23
(No Transcript)
24
Thesis three

• a modern case management system should be
  integrated with e-filing, in developing e-courts,
  where the parties are able to integrate their own
  case management system with the case management
  system of the courts, and also take
  responsibility for trivial managing of the case.

25
E-filing e-courts e-documents e-services

• Electronic transfer of documents
• Formats
• Accessibility
• External services

26
Why?

• Communication
• Access
• Reuse of data
• Identifying parties, etc
• Reuse of contents of documents
• Document management
• Data management

• Post
• Court registry
• Retyping
• Access to the physical file

27
and e-communication

• Incoming
• Liquidation
• The Register of Business Enterprises
• The Register of Company Accounts
• XML
• Webservices

• Outgoing
• Liquidation
• The Register of Bankruptcies
• All liquidations

28
External services

• Court listings
• www.domstol.no
• Transfer of cases to legal information retrieval
  systems
• Today ftp etc
• www.lovdata.no
• Future (2006)
• Compliance with the directive on reuse of public
  sector information (2003/98/EC)
• Web services solution

29
How can it be done?
30
Thesis four

• a modern case management system should be a part
  of an integrated criminal justice chain

31
Organisational question

• Police
• Prosecution
• Prisons
• Probation authority

32
and criminal justice information exchange

• Outgoing
• Public prosecutor
• Prison and probation services

• Incoming
• Public prosecutor
• XML
• SMPT transfer
• Mickey Mouse solution

33
Thesis five

• a modern case management system needs a strong
  involvement from judges, court administrators and
  administrative staff to succeed, both in
  developing new business procedures and getting
  acceptance from these groups in the courts

34
Why?

• Development
• The judges and administrative staff are the users
  of the system
• They are probably the best to define the system
• At least parts thereof

• Use
• They are humans, with feelings
• They shall use the system

35
Introduction of a new system in a court

• Resistance to change
• Motivation
• Understanding

• Shall it be mandatory to use the system?
• How will the system effect the workflow for
• The administrative staff
• The judges

• Management of the court(s)

36
How does the attitude of the court management
affect the motivation and user perception of a
CMS?
37
and the future?
38
and the future?

• Life Cycle Costs
• Further development
• Integration
• E-filing
• NOK 10 mill / USD 1,6 mill
• Active case management
• NOK 7 mill / USD 1,1 mill
• Continuous work on organisational change in the
  courts

39
Contact information

• Morten S Hagedal
• Pilestredet Park 230176 OsloNorway
• morten_at_hagedal.no
• Phone [phone]
• Facsimile 47 850 34 022