JURISLINK The Victorian Children’s Court Case Management System Mr Dan Muling, Deputy Chief...
-
Upload
agatha-simmons -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of JURISLINK The Victorian Children’s Court Case Management System Mr Dan Muling, Deputy Chief...
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