Q & A: How long will it take? Three months to a year.

Q: My court is considering the building a court performance measurement system (CPMS). Your June 12 posting, Introduction to the Six-Step Process (Part 2), outlined the three phases of a typical performance measurement initiative. Can you give me an estimate of how long Phase 2, Design and Development, will take to complete?

M2M: Depending on the size of your court, and the time and effort already spent on strategic planning, three months to one year is most likely. Several weeks is possible.

Within this typical 3 – 12 months timeframe, the drivers of “shorter versus longer” include:

  • Degree to which the court has engaged in strategic planning, goal setting, mission development, and so forth.
  • Organizational complexity of the court (e.g., general jurisdiction court that includes adult and juvenile probation, and all court clerk functions)
  • Inventory of current performance measures
  • Current capacity for data collection and measurement (e.g., automated case management and financial systems)
  • Size of the court (e.g., number of judicial officers, staff, locations, and caseload)
  • Level of senior leadership and stakeholder support
  • Commitment, dedication and skill level of design team
  • Court “character” and culture (e.g., commitment to innovation and experimentation)
  • Resources including expert facilitation and consultation

These time estimates do not take into consideration the time and effort that may be required to reach the decision to proceed with building a CPMS. This is Phase 1 in which your court may, for example, need to spend more time than you thought proving the concept of performance measurement, changing people’s attitudes, breaking down resistances, educating staff and stakeholders, getting the right people on the bus, and so forth. Effective organizational performance measurement provides both incentives and powerful tools for change. For many, this prospect will be exciting, for other it will be troubling. The 3 – 12 months timeframe also does not include Phase 3, Implementation, which may take as long as two years, though partial or phased implementation is likely during or immediately after Design and Development.

For more information on this topic, click:

Q & A: Getting Started with Performance Measurement – The Right Attitude, December 04, 2005

Q & A: Getting Started with Performance Measurement – Breaking Down Resistance, December 5, 2005

Attitudes and Beliefs: A Quick Reality Check, February 13, 2006

Eight Reasons Not to Measure Court Performance, April 5, 2006

Q & A: Getting Started with Performance Measurement -- The Right People on the Bus, November 23, 2005

Q & A: Why Measure Performance? September 22, 2005 (Please scroll down to the September 2005 postings to find this very first Made2Measure blog)

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement, September 26, 2005

See also:

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73 (2) (May/June), 59-67.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday.


Planning Guide for Using the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System (1997). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance (Monograph NCJ 161568).

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more