From Possibilities to Projects: Introducing new technology

into the Court

Brought to you by the letter ‘P’ and… Hon. Kim Menninger, Judge

Cherie Garofalo, Director Criminal Operations Snorri Ogata, Chief Technology Officer

CITOC Court Information Technology Officers Consortium

CITOC is comprised of the “senior most” State and trial Court level information technology leaders (typically CIO or CTO) from around the country.

Goals: Assist Judicial Branch resolve business and technology challenges

through the application of technologies Provide a forum for improving communication among court

information technology officers Support the professional development of CITOC members Sponsor/Support conferences, webinars, educational programs Support “Joint Technology Committee” (JTC) of COSCA and NACM

More information: www.citoc.org October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 2

A Framework for Introducing “New” Technology

Purpose: Why are we thinking about new technologies? Possibilities: What technologies are out there? Probabilities: What technologies are we most likely to be

successful with? Prototypes: Will it really work? Policy: Do we have to change how we get things done? Partners: What external entities are critical to a successful

implementation? Prioritize: Which ideas should turn into full projects? Projects: How can we ensure success? Payouts: What results can we expect?

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 3

Historical Approach Historically, the introduction of new technology was

seen as the responsibility of the CIO Someone finds something cool Over-hype the benefits Get funding Rollout the technology Determine why users are resistant Find someone to blame

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 4

The Results were NOT good

Less than 35% of projects were “successful” (Standish Group Chaos Report)

40% of projects failed to achieve their business case within one year of implementation (Conference Board Survey)

70% of projects fail in some respect (OASIC Study)

Change Management Principles and Techniques Improve Results

At the beginning of a change (e.g. “new technology”) you should ask yourself: What do we want to do Why do we want to do it How will we get it done Who is impacted and how will

they react

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 6

It takes more than a CIO to get all this done!

Introducing New Technology Successful introductions typically involves the

coordinated effort of: Judicial Officers Administrative / Operational Leadership Technology Leadership

Successful introductions start with good planning and roughly moves through 9 stages:

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 7

Payout Partners Projects

Possibilities Probabilities Purpose

Prototypes Priorities Policies

“Introducing Technology” Framework

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 8

Please refer to two page handout

Judge Administrator CIO Purpose Strategic: Technology must be aligned with Court strategy

Tactical: We do technology to improve service, improve quality and reduce costs

Possibilities What systemic change is required to advance justice?

What processes should be redesigned or optimized?

What technologies are out there?

Probabilities Which ideas seem the most promising?

What business problems would benefit from this technology?

What technologies have the greatest chance of success?

Prototypes Should this become a project? What challenges will we face and how will we measure success?

Will this really work?

Priorities Which projects go first? What is the benefit (ROI)? For which projects do we have capacity and competency?

Policy What changes will be required to ensure success?

What obstacles are we likely to encounter?

Will this change the way people work?

Partners How to ensure alignment and support?

How to align processes with partners?

Who do I need to be successful?

Project How to ensure project success? How to ensure project success? How to ensure project success?

Payout How should I thank the CIO? How do we ensure that the promised benefits are realized?

How shall we celebrate?

Profiled “New Technology” Projects

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 10

Case Access

Varying levels of access to Criminal Information for Public, Attorneys and Justice Partners

DA Interface

GJXDM data exchanges with District Attorney. Electronic

complaints, hearing information.

E-Probation

NIEM data exchanges with Probation. Leverages GFIPM Identify Management Tools.

E-Signatures

Electronic signatures integrated into Smart Forms.

Infraction Payment

IVR (Phone) and IWR (Web) payment engine for infractions.

Smart Forms

Interactive, intelligent forms (Adobe) that exchange data (XML) through web services.

Countywide Collaborative Planning Meeting

In 2007, the Court convened a meeting with key Justice Partners to explore a series of opportunities for greater collaboration and efficiency both within the Court and across the justice system. It resulted in: Expanded video

hearings, courtroom at the jail, case packaging and e-probation – to name a few.

PURPOSE “We do not introduce technology for the sake of advancing technology. We introduce technology to advance the principles of justice.”

-- Unknown

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 11

Doing the right things.

Purpose

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 12

Quality of Justice

Access, Fairness & Diversity

Independence & Accountability

Modernization of Management

Professional Excellence

Branch-wide Infrastructure

To serve the public by administering justice and resolving disputes under the law, thereby protecting the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitutions of California and of the United States.

Our Goals… Our Mission…

Doing the Right Things

POSSIBILITIES “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.”

-- Albert Einstein

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 13

In search of innovative ideas.

Possibilities

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 14

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Identify opportunities for

systemic change enhanced by technology

Identify processes to optimize or reengineer

Identify “new” technologies with

potential application

Sample Activity*

County Justice Partner Collaboration Technology Research

Sample Process

Countywide Collaborative Planning Meeting (“the art”)

Technology Research (“the science”) (see next page)

What worked

• High participation promotes buy-in and alignment • Blend of Policy Makers and Implementers balances

theory and reality

- Helps narrow a sea of possibilities

Risks • REALLY need to understand Justice Partner readiness

• Finding win-wins

- REALLY need to understand Court readiness

- Understand big benefit drivers for the Court

- REALLY need to understand vendor readiness

- REALLY need to understand what Court IT can deliver

In Search of Innovative Ideas * See handout for other suggested activities in this stage.

Possibilities – “The Science”

Gartner: Hype Cycles Identifies technologies that

have the potential transform organizations.

CIOEB: Emerging Trends Roadmaps the adoption of

emerging technologies.

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 15

Research buys down risk. Find a way to get it!

PROBABILITIES “It is a truth very certain that when it is not in our power to determine what is true we ought to follow what is most probable.”

-- Descartes

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 16

Improving the odds.

Probabilities

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 17

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Guide/direct refinement

of ideas into prototypes Identify processes that might benefit from a particular technology

Advocate technologies that balance cost and risk

Sample Activity

- Sponsorship of promising ideas

- Identify promising opportunities

- Survey other courts

Sample Project

E-signatures: Incorporate electronic signature capture into core Court processes Status: Moving to projects (PCD, eWarrants)

What worked

Court Tech Committee: • Discussion on other

Court experiences (e.g., San Antonio)

• Direct areas of legal research

Ops Manager Meeting: • IT R&D areas of focus

presentation • Challenge staff to

identify opportunities

- Survey to see what other Courts were doing

- Discussions with thought leaders

- CTC 2009 vendors

Risks • Underestimating judicial resistance

- Technology in search of a problem

- Straying from your overall technology architecture

Improving the Odds

PROTOTYPES

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 18

Promising what we can deliver.

“I didn’t fail the test. I just found 100 ways to do it wrong.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

Prototypes

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 19

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Evaluate and assess

prototypes to determine readiness.

Provide input on promising test cases to vet out the technology.

Build prototypes and capture benefits and

concerns

Sample Activity

- Identify candidate project(s)

- Assess potential impacts

- Build Proof of Concept to determine feasibility

Sample Project

Smart Forms: Interactive forms that facilitate automated information exchange. Status: Rolled out in other case types, working through Criminal opportunities.

What worked

• Judicial demos are participative and spur discussion

• Identify new opportunities for application

- Highly participative process allows you to SEE the possibilities

- Generates LOTS of ideas for application

- Finding operational units to prototype with

- Network with other courts

- Identify early on potential challenges

Risks • A prototype is NOT a final system! MANAGE EXPECTATIONS!!

- It’s “an” answer, not always “THE” answer

- Do not violate Procurement Policies!

Promising What We Can Deliver

PRIORITIES

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 20

First things first.

“It is not enough to be busy, so are the ants. The question is, 'What are we busy about?' “

-- Henry David Thoreau

Prioritize

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 21

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Determine which projects

will move forward Quantify anticipated

benefits Quantify anticipated costs

and timeline

Sample Activities

• Approve project(s) • Project Business case • Recommend priorities

Sample Projects

All of them! Status: Every project (>200 hours and/or >$10,000) is prioritized

What worked

Alignment on priorities Occasionally STOP

projects Judicial sponsorship

Alignment on priorities

The “business” owns the benefits

Alignment on priorities

IT owns the costs IT provides

Risks Aligning Judicial desires Aligning justice partner

priorities

Not enough relevant information to make a fully informed decision

Under-estimate “operational” costs PJ’s change and sometimes change priorities

First Things First.

POLICY

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 22

Doing things Right

“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.”

-- Dr. Paul Batalden

Policy

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 23

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Create / Change policies as

needed Make Policy change recommendations

Sample Activities

- Make policy decisions - Educate on policy implications

- Research and identify policy challenges

Sample Project

Criminal Case Access: Varying levels of access to Criminal case information. Status: Public Justice Partner Private Attorney

What worked

• Advocate for transparency

• Field by field level approval for each entity

• Commissioned legal research in grey areas

- Identified privacy risks - Recommend data fields

to be shared (or not shared)

- Improve data quality

- Defined/implemented security appropriate for each entity

- Privacy

Risks • Ensure technology does not tip scales of justice

- Public access exposes data entry issues

- Data miners

Doing things right

PARTNERS

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 24

Together Everyone Achieves More

“If we are together nothing is impossible. If we are divided all will fail.

-- Winston Churchill

Partners

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 25

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Manage the justice partner

policy makers Ensure Court and Partner readiness

Manage external project dependencies

Sample Activities

• Find win-win solutions • Drive to standards

Sample Project

eProbation: Electronic data exchange with Probation Department. Status: Implemented phases 1-2. Phase 3 prioritized.

What worked

• Prioritizing their needs earned goodwill (significant labor savings on their side)

• Collaborative project approach ensures alignment in planning and delivery

- NIEM-like interface(s) - GFIPM (Global

Federated Identify & Privilege Management)

Risks - May wait months/years for the “other” win - Differences across case types (e.g., Criminal,

Juvenile)

- Partner technical capabilities

Together Everyone Achieves More.

PROJECTS

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 26

Delivering solutions.

“Of all the things I've done, the most vital is coordinating the talents of those who work for us and pointing them towards a certain goal.“

-- Walt Disney

Projects

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 27

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Ensure project success!

Sample Activities

- Sponsor projects - Co-lead projects

Sample Project

DA Interface: Data exchanges and “e-filing” with District Attorney Status: Case information Complaints Amended Complaints

What worked

• Top-level support • Executive Checkpoint

meetings (with DA) drive project deadlines and resolve issues

• Internal Court meetings improve communications

- Prioritizing “features” allows project to be broken into pieces

- Aligned codes - High accuracy - Labor savings

- Phased implementation allows benefits to be captured

- Agreed on technology standards with DA

Risks • Ensuring judicial consistency

- Must clarify PM roles early to avoid missteps

Delivering Solutions

PAYOUTS

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 28

Realizing Benefits.

“Low end user adoption is a greater driver of (unrealized benefits) than flawed project execution or IT-business misalignment.”

-- CIO Executive Board

Payouts

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 29

Judge Administrator CIO Core Role Reinforce Judicial

sponsorship Ensure benefits are being

realized Keep it Running

Sample Activities

- Reinforce project goals with other judges

- Post implementation assessments

- Keep it running

Sample Project

Phone/web Infraction Payment: Pay infractions on the phone or on the web. Status: Deployed county wide.

What worked

• Keeping the bench informed on what changes are being made

- Ops controlled the IVR script

- Ops controlled the regular call center

- Designed everything to drive toward self sufficiency

- Good outsourced vendor/partner

- Cost recovery funds project and on-going operations

Risks • Org resistance to change - People that value traditional service delivery will resist

- Move on to the next project too quickly

Realizing the Benefits

Conclusion From possibilities to projects, the introduction of

“new” technology into the Court environment is a shared responsibility

Identifying and fulfilling Judicial, Administrative and

Technology roles improves the odds of success

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 30

Payout Partners Projects

Possibilities Probabilities Purpose

Prototypes Priorities Policies

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 31

or

APPENDIX

Introducing New Technology Framework

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 32

October 5, 2011 Introducing Technology into the Court 33

Core Role Judge Administrator/Operations Technologist Purpose “Doing the right things”

Strategic: Technology must be aligned with Court strategy Tactical: We do technology to improve service, improve quality of justice and reduce costs

BUSINESS DRIVES TECHNOLOGY Possibilities “In search of innovative ideas”

Identify opportunities for systemic change enhanced by technology - Branch-wide/Court -

planning - County Justice Partner

Collaboration - Attend conferences

Identify processes to optimize or reengineer - BPR (Business Process

Reengineering) - County Justice Partner

Collaboration - Survey Other Courts

Identify “new” technologies with potential application - Technology Research - CITOC (Court Information

Technology Officer Consortium)

- Survey Other Courts

Probabilities “Improving the odds”

Guide and direct the refinement of ideas into prototype projects - Talk to justice partners to

solicit ideas, obtain feedback and buy-in

- Sponsor promising ideas - Decide what to prototype

Identify processes that might benefit from a particular technology - Survey other Courts - Talk to justice partners - Identify promising test

concepts - Make recommendations

Advocate technologies that balance cost and risk - Survey other courts - Enterprise Architecture - Talk to the vendors - Make recommendations

Prototypes “Promising what we can deliver”

Evaluate and assess prototypes to determine readiness - Candid feedback on POC - Confirm findings - Reject pursuit of

technologies that don’t work (now)

- Identify candidate project(s)

Provide input on promising test cases to vet out the technology - Confirm direction (ROI) - Envision new applications in

other areas (go back to possibilities)

- Identify potential impacts (policy, procedure, workflow)

Build prototypes and identify benefits and concerns - Build Proof of Concept (POC)

to determine feasibility - Share findings and

implications

Core Role Judge Administrator/Operations Technologist Priorities “First things first”

Determine which projects will move forward - Rank project(s) - Approve project(s) - Fund project (s)

Quantify the expected benefit - Project Business Case - Understand Operational

capacity - Recommendation

Quantify the cost and timeline - High level cost estimate - High level time estimate - Understand IT capacity - Recommendation

Policy “Doing things right”

Create/Change policy as needed - Direct areas of research - Make policy decision

Assess policy impacts (if any) - Research and identify policy challenges

- Educate on policy implications - Make policy recommendations

Partners “Together Everyone Achieves More”

Manage the justice partner policy makers - Convene impacted

partners - Advocate for Court goals - Find win-win solutions - Drive toward solutions

Ensure Court and Partner readiness - Align operational processes

with justice partners - Conduct readiness

assessments - Find win-win solutions

Manage external project dependencies - Manage vendors - Advocate for standards

with agencies (e.g., NIEM, GFIPM)

- Align technology procedures with justice partners

Projects “Making it happen”

Ensure project success - Sponsor projects - Obtain judicial buy-in - Make go/no-go decisions

Ensure project success - Co-lead project - Define requirements - Testing and training - Implement

Ensure project success - Co-lead project - Manage cost - Manage timeline - Deliver technology solution

Payouts “Delivering results”

Reinforce judicial sponsorship - Reinforce project goals

with Judges - Recognize the team

(especially the CIO!!)

Ensure benefits are being realized - Post implementation

assessment - Recognize the team

Keep it Running - Quick fixes - Recognize the team