Technology Services

Please note that these materials are provided for historical purposes only. The information presented is out of date and may be neither accurate nor useful. External hyperlinks may no longer be valid. For current court technology information, please see the new Court Technology Bulletin.

March/April 1995 Volume 7 Number 2

The Challenging Voyage to Statewide Court Automation

Venturing out upon the ocean for an extended voyage into unfamiliar waters was the ultimate challenge for mariners of old. With few charts, poorly equipped ships, and crews of questionable abilities and loyalties, captains had to be both fearless and highly motivated to leave port for a largely unknown destination.

There is a strong analogy between the sea voyage of centuries ago and the statewide court automation project of today. While the direct hazard to human life is not the concern, the potential problems that confront a statewide automation project are similar. There is a very real possibility of a failure or major setback, which can have serious political and economic repercussions. Indeed, nearly a dozen states have experienced one or more failures, aborted attempts, or near catastrophic setbacks in their efforts to attain statewide automation of their trial courts.

Fortunately, most of the states managed to overcome these mishaps and implement successful systems; and others accomplished statewide automation with a minimum of false steps or reversals. To date, 35 states have statewide automated court systems at least partially implemented. Several other states are actively pursuing the planning, acquisition, or development of systems for their trial courts.

With funding from the State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) recently studied the issues involved in managing the process of statewide court automation. The NCSC identified eight major issues that must be addressed adequately and appropriately for the statewide project to succeed.

Selling the Concept of Statewide Court Automation. A fundamental issue unique to a statewide court automation project is the necessity of promoting the statewide concept instead of letting each local court decide whether to automate and, if so, how to accomplish it. The scale of a statewide project and the set of obstacles inherent in the process require diligent efforts to generate widespread and long-term support for this concept.

Funding Statewide Projects. Because statewide automation requires such a concentration of funding and such a long-term commitment of funds, shortcuts in the process are very tempting. Yet it is essential to ensure adequate long-term funding before a statewide project progresses beyond the early planning stages.

Organizing People--Statewide Committees and Task Forces. A statewide automation project will succeed only with the involvement of key persons outside the judicial information systems staff, and even outside the administrative office of the courts. The judiciary must establish effective committees, task forces, and other working groups of knowledgeable individuals from the trial courts. In addition to involving judges, court administrators, and different levels of clerk's office staff, it is important that various courts around the state be represented. Committee structure, composition, leadership, and responsibilities must all be carefully considered.

System Requirements and Design Considerations. In a local automation project, each office or department has a set of requirements that must be identified and analyzed to design or specify software system components. In a statewide system, however, each office or department is mirrored, in one form or another, in every court around the state. No matter how the courts support the concept of uniform procedures, there are operational differences of varying degrees between individual courts--especially between the smallest and largest courts. The task of melding all of these subtleties into a single, uniform software system is a challenging one.

Testing and Piloting Statewide Systems. Implementing software in a single, local court before it has been thoroughly tested can be problematic, frustrating, and expensive. Replicating that flawed software and implementing it around the state can be disastrous! Even software that performs satisfactorily in one court may turn out to be inadequate in other courts under different conditions. Selecting one or more appropriate pilot courts to work with developers is imperative in a statewide project.

Training. Although training court staff in the use of a new automated system is important to any court automation project, there are unique concerns to be addressed when developing a statewide training program. The training staff must reach the entire state in an organized fashion, while coordinating with the hardware installation and software implementation schedule. Furthermore, the training must ensure that local court staff will be competent to use the new system without resident technical or training staff immediately available. Also, the trainer serves as a vital liaison between the local court and the administrative office.

Statewide Deployment. Like a carefully rehearsed dance in a Broadway show, implementing an automated system in all the trial courts around the state must be meticulously planned and coordinated. With limited resources, the administrative office must progress not only as rapidly as possible, but in the most cost-effective manner as possible. Moving too fast can strain staff capabilities and increase the likelihood of user dissatisfaction. Moving too slowly can result in impatience among the courts, idle hardware, and multiple versions of installed software.

On-going Support. Businesses realize the importance of maintaining customer satisfaction after an appliance has been installed or an automobile has been delivered. In the court, laws, rules, and procedures change over time, and staff turnovers occur in the most stable of offices. Computer hardware and operating system software also continually evolve. Computer software must keep pace with all of these changes. This dynamic process requires a responsive posture from the judicial information systems staff and an effective program for maintaining good rapport with the end users.

The Challenging Voyage to Statewide Court Automation: A National Assessment explores these issues in greater detail and provides a snapshot of the status of statewide court automation around the nation. A limited number of copies of this report are available from the NCSC Court Technology Programs. For more information call  757-259-1503.

J. Douglas Walker is the Director of Court Technology Research of the Court Technology Programs Department of the National Center for State Courts. Doug directed the National Assessment of Statewide Court Automation Project