Case Management System for the Future – the LOVISA experience

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. 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 The information society – in Norway?

5. One jurisdiction Simple court structure District courts Courts of appeal Supreme Court National Courts Administration Established in 2002 The Norwegian Judiciary

6. The size of the District Courts

7. First wave Late 80-ies early 90-ies Private Public Sector initiative Technical infrastructure Land Registry Case Management System Accounting Software Technological development in the Norwegian Judiciary – I • Time standards • Reduction of administrative staff

8. 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 Technological development in the Norwegian Judiciary – II

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. Detailed planning Analysis and design CPn CP2 CP1 Progress Iterative construction phase Development Testing Analysis Solution Approval and of needs Description Completion phase HMP 0 HMP 1 HMP 2 HMP 3 Signing of Contract Appoved Solution Delivery ready Approved Description - for Approval Delivery 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 • 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 To meet the reality of tomorrow with the tools of tomorrow

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? 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. 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. 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. LOVISA is fun! I think this will be good, when we finally learn the system 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 %. We are doing things the way we used to … 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. 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 Modelling the case flow

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 • whether judicial mediation or mediation at a court sitting should be pursued, • whether the case should be dealt with pursuant to special provisions, • whether court sittings shall be held during the preparation of the case and whether the case maybe ruled on following such court sitting, • whether written submissions shall be made as part of the basis for ruling on the case, • whether the proceedings of the case should be split, • 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, • whether final written submissions shall be made, • 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, • whether expert or regular lay judges shall be appointed, and • other issues of importance to the preparation of the case.

22. GANTT diagram? Flow Chart?

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. 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 Why?

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. Police Prosecution Prisons Probation authority Organisational question

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. 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 Why?

35. 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 Introduction of a new system in a court • 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