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 The information presented is out of date and may be neither accurate nor useful.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.
May/June 1997 Volume 9 Number 3
Critical Factors in Technology Success
For the uninitiated, computers, scanners, networks, real-time court reporting, and other technologies are often cloaked in mystery. Selecting and implementing the right technology can strike fear in the hearts of even the most experienced judge or court administrator. Interestingly, these same judges and administrators will jump into a project to redesign their courthouse with great enthusiasm. Why does the thought of introducing technology intimidate some court professionals, while designing a new courthouse, working out courtroom design, and coordinating the move from an old facility do not?
To implement technology successfully, courts must approach the project in much the same manner as they would approach building a new courthouse. Court leadership has to commit its support to the project. Subsequently, when designing a courthouse, courts must assess the needs of courthouse occupants, contact architects to determine their courthouse experience, and hire construction management teams to oversee the actual construction and to ensure conformance to specifications and the satisfaction of courthouse occupants. Finally, courts must plan for the future transition from the old facility to the new facility, a traumatic process for those working in the courthouse.
If the new courthouse fails to meet the needs of the judges or clerks, the courthouse itself is not to blame. Instead, a critical element in the process was likely overlooked or improperly executed by those charged with designing and building the courthouse. If a computer system fails to meet the needs of the deputy clerks, for example, it is not the computer system that has failed. Instead, those individuals charged with developing and implementing the system may be at fault.
When considering the implementation of technology, courts must coordinate four major elements: policy, human, technical, and marketing elements. These elements are not independent of one another; rather, they may overlap and take on different levels of importance, depending on when they come into play during the project.
The Policy Factor
The policy elements include the need for organizational commitment to the project and a clear identification of the needs for the technology and the goals to be achieved. Without a clear understanding of why the technology is necessary and what the new environment will look like after the technology is implemented, how will the organization know if it has arrived in the promised land?
The Human Factor
Perhaps the most critical element in implementing technology successfully is the human element. This element can be broken down into separate groups that will participate in a technology project, including court leaders, system users, and vendors.
It is important to establish the appropriate level that court leadership will take in a technology project. On a statewide project, it may be appropriate to have a supreme court justice chair a technology committee. However, it is critical to determine whether that individual has any interest in the project and sufficient time to devote to it. Court leadership must be involved, but a judge who does not have the time or is not committed can stall the progress of the project. It may be more useful to determine who, at the highest level of court leadership, will be directly affected by the new technology and get their commitment. Their interest may be higher because of their proximity to the project and the likelihood of their having more direct experience with the project area.
The involvement of system users cannot be overemphasized. Their involvement not only will provide valuable input but, more importantly, should result in their taking ownership of the final product. Involving critics in a project can be helpful. At a minimum, their criticism can be based on fact rather than perception. Optimally, they can be won over and can become advocates rather than detractors.
With the explosion of technology comes the explosion of vendors wishing to provide solutions to the courts. Vendors can bring extensive expertise to a technology project. However, they want to minimize their risk and maximize their profits. Court officials need to acknowledge this reality and work to acceptably distribute the risk between the vendor and the customer while allowing the vendor to make a reasonable and justifiable profit.
The Technical Factor
Of the four critical elements, the technical element can be the most intimidating. While the technical expertise of non-data processing court officials is much higher today than just a few short years ago, there is a certain mystique to technology projects.
Certified network engineers, database administrators, wide area network coordinators, and computer programmers all have critical technical expertise. They are the mechanics responsible for making the system run smoothly. They are not, nor should they be, responsible for driving a technology project. They should operate in their areas of expertise while allowing court leaders and system users to operate within theirs.
The Marketing Factor
It has been said that the best computer system in the world can be rendered useless if it is forced on those people who will ultimately have to make it work. Courts that have implemented technology successfully have given extensive attention to marketing the new technology to those who will be responsible for its operation. Care must be given in the marketing process to avoid raising expectations to unrealistic heights. If something is promised, it needs to be delivered; otherwise, the credibility of the project and its ultimate product may be jeopardized.
Conclusion
In these days of fiscal belt tightening, it is unrealistic to expect that funding bodies will be willing to provide adequate personnel to meet the increasing needs of the judiciary. Therefore, court professionals must look towards technology to enhance the capacity of existing personnel to handle the demands of an increasing caseload. By understanding the critical factors of technology success, judges, administrators, and clerks will have the confidence they need to identify, acquire, implement, and manage a court technology project to meet those demands.
John R. Peay is the director of information systems and trial court services at the Idaho Supreme Court. At the upcoming Fifth National Court Technology Conference (CTC5), Mr. Peay will give a presentation on the critical factors that courts should consider to minimize risk and to ensure success when selecting technology.
Back to Court Technology Bulletin
Send comments to webmaster@ncsc.dni.us!
