JURISLINKThe Victorian Children’s

CourtCase Management System

Mr Dan Muling,Deputy Chief Magistrate

1995 REVIEW

Foster a more strategic and unified approach to the use of technology in business processes

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Business processre-engineering should

proceed changes in the application of technology

SCOPE

CountyCourt

SupremeCourt

Boards &Tribunals

Magistrates Court

• Children’s Court• Coroner’s Court

SOME FINDINGS• Unable to respond readily to change

• Poor tracking

• Lack of standardisation

• Duplication, rework, error checking

• Limited empowerment to employees

• Manually intensive

FOUR MAJOR PROCESSES

Courts and Tribunals1. Case Initiation

2. Case Management

3. Hearing Management

4. Post Final Judgement Management

PROCESS MAPS

14 Key Applications

CaseInitiation

CaseManagement

Hearing Management

Post Final Judgement Management

PROCESS MAPS

14 Key Applications

3 PRIMARY APPLICATIONS

• Electronic Data Exchange

• Workflow Systems

• Resource Management Systems

GENERIC SYSTEM CONCEPT

Server

SupremeCourt

Children’sCourt

CountyCourt

Magistrates’Court

Tribunals

• Test the viability

• Provide data on costs and benefits

PILOT PROJECT IN THE CHILDREN’S COURT

MELBOURNE CHILDREN’S COURT

7 Magistrates

14 Administrative staff

3,000 Family matters per year

2,600 Criminal matters per year

EXTERNAL AGENCIES

Dept ofHumanServices

CourtAdvocacy

Unit

Victoria Legal Aid

Children’sCourtClinic

VictoriaPolice

MelbourneChildren’s

Court

WHY THE CHILDREN’S COURT

•Discrete unit

•In need of a computer system

•Willingness to participate

OBJECTIVES• Streamlining of processes• Improved service delivery• Reduction in costs• Reduction in manual processing• Improved scheduling• Improved standard of documentation• Automated management reports• Improved access to data

PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT

March Review of existing business processes

June Development of functional specifications

1996

FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION• Scalability

• Flexibility

• Interoperability

• Audit Trail

• Security Features

• Management Reporting

• Future Capability

SOFTWARE SELECTION

Options

•Ground-up development

•Customising existing system

SOFTWARE SELECTION Customisation

1. Reduced risk2. Already under development3. Less cost4. Meets the requirements5. Proven generic system6. Will prove the concept of a generic system for Courts

& Tribunals7. Ground-up development would not prove the concept

until implementation in another jurisdiction8. Concept viability 12 months earlier

SOFTWARE SELECTION

•CCMS - developed by SA Courts

•Prime contractor - DMR

CURRENT STATUSCommenced Work August 1997

• Configured to support Family Division

• Customisations developed

• Training and Acceptance Testing established

• Impact analysis on scope changes underway

PLANNED IMPLEMENATION DATES

Mid 1998 Family Division

Early 1999 Criminal Division

PLANNED IMPLEMENATION DATES

Two Phase Implementation• Less impact

• Spread training

• Familiarisation can occur gradually

BENEFITS OF HINDSIGHT• Partial control

• Internal IT as a competitor

• External delays

• Functional specificationvs detailed analysis

FUTUREIf successful

JURISLINK will be adaptedto meet the upgrade of

COURTLINK