Case Management System for the Future – the LOVISA experience Morten S Hagedal Project Manager (c) Morten S Hagedal, 2005

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

Case Management System for the Future - the LOVISA Experience Norway … App 4,5 mill inhabitants 324 220 km2 GDP/Capita App $40 000 Oil export 3 466 000 bbl/day slightly larger than New Mexico 1Luxembourg $ 58,900 2004 est. 2United States $ 40,100 2004 est. 3Guernsey $ 40,000 2003 est. 4Norway $ 40,000 2004 est. 5Jersey $ 40,000 2003 est. 6British Virgin Islands $ 38,500 2004 est. 7Bermuda $ 36,000 2003 est. 8San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est. 9Hong Kong $ 34,200 2004 est. 10Switzerland $ 33,800 2004 est. 1Saudi Arabia 7,920,000 2003 2Russia 6,110,000 2003 3European Union 5,322,000 2001 4Norway 3,466,000 2001 5United Arab Emirates 2,500,000 2004 est. 6Iran 2,500,000 2004 est. 7Venezuela 2,100,000 2004 est. (c) Morten S Hagedal, 2005

The information society – in Norway? 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 Norwegian Judiciary One jurisdiction Simple court structure District courts Courts of appeal Supreme Court National Courts Administration Established in 2002

The size of the District Courts Number of courts Permanent judges Deputy judges Administrative staff 39 1 1-2 3-6,5 25 2 1-2,5 4-16,5 7 3 6,5-25,5 6 4 1-3 8,5-35,5 5 2-5 12-46 13-14,8 8 7-12 0-3 10,5-73 17 18,5 66 19 75,5

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

Technological development in the Norwegian Judiciary – II 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

Agreement with an external developer 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

PS2000 Contract Standard Iterative construction phase Analysis of needs Approval and Completion phase Detailed planning Analysis and design Testing Development Progress Iterative construction phase CP1 CPn CP2 HMP 0 Signing of Contract Solution Description HMP 1 Appoved - HMP 2 Delivery ready for Approval HMP 3 Approved Delivery

PS 2000 Contract Standard Characteristics 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

To meet the reality of tomorrow with the tools of tomorrow vision and goals To meet the reality of tomorrow with the tools of tomorrow 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

Case flow Reports Statistics Court fee calculation External services Office applications Physical documents Journal / Archive Registries User admin Scheduling Electronic documents Internal External Exchange / Outlook

– 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.

Thesis one a modern case management system should be based on case flow, steering each case trough the court

Modelling the case flow 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

How do we present the case flow to the user?

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

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

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.

GANTT diagram? Flow Chart? Case Management System for the Future - the LOVISA Experience GANTT diagram? Flow Chart? Final report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales – 1996 (Woolf-report – Access to Justice) Annex IV (c) Morten S Hagedal, 2005

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.

E-filing – e-courts – e-documents – e-services Electronic transfer of documents Formats Accessibility External services

Why? Communication Access Reuse of data Document management Identifying parties, etc Reuse of contents of documents Document management Data management Post Court registry Retyping Access to the physical file

and e-communication Incoming Outgoing Liquidation Liquidation The Register of Business Enterprises The Register of Company Accounts XML Webservices Outgoing Liquidation The Register of Bankruptcies All liquidations

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

How can it be done?

Thesis four a modern case management system should be a part of an integrated criminal justice chain

Organisational question Police Prosecution Prisons Probation authority

and criminal justice information exchange Outgoing Public prosecutor Prison and probation services Incoming Public prosecutor XML SMPT transfer Mickey Mouse solution

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

Why? 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

Introduction of a new system in a court 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 Management of the court(s)

How does the attitude of the court management affect the motivation and user perception of a CMS?

and the future?

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

Contact information Morten S Hagedal Pilestredet Park 23 0176 Oslo Norway morten@hagedal.no Phone +47 97 06 04 45 Facsimile + 47 850 34 022