| |
2 - Superior Courts Case Management System
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
In Progress |
| JISC Priority |
2 |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin |
| Origination Date: |
| |
07/22/2010 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
|
| Request Type: |
New System
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Business Area: |
Court Case Management
|
| Communities Impacted: |
Superior Court Judges
Superior Court Administrators
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
High |
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
| ***Important Note***
This request was originally submitted as part of a pilot of the IT Governance process. The processing of this request took place before the IT Governance Portal was developed. As such, the information related to this request is being included in the portal for completeness. The history entries in this record are not indicative of either the actual processing dates or the bodies that performed the various steps of the governance process.
***The original request follows***
The Superior Courts (courts) of the State of Washington need the ability to adequately support case management, calendaring and judicial decision making activities.
Case Management: Courts lack the ability to: direct the progress of cases through the court process based upon business rules that establish case events and deadlines; monitor compliance with the business rules; and, enforce the business rules. Case events and deadlines represent requests for hearings to be held, the conduct of hearings before the court, activities that occur outside the direct purview of the court (i.e., mediation, settlement offers or efforts), exchange of information between parties and the filing of certain documents.
Further, courts lack the ability to create reports or view screen based information to assist in managing individual cases and groups of cases at the caseload level by case type. Courts do not have the ability to generate reports, letters, forms, and other documents necessary to communicate approaching or missed deadlines (compliance and enforcement). Court business rules vary by type of case, and sub-type of case.
Calendaring: Courts lack the ability to schedule cases for hearings, coordinating case actors (judges, attorneys, litigants, interpreters, etc.) and physical resources (court rooms, AV equipment, etc.) based on a set of conditions that include case type, hearing type, required actors, and required physical resources. For example, a request for a motion hearing in a domestic case before Judge A (conditions) would result in the hearing being set on the next future date that Judge A is scheduled to hear domestic case motions).
Courts lack the ability to automatically select dates for hearings based on a set of rules. Courts lack the ability to produce reports or view screen based information that details all of the scheduled hearings and hearing outcomes for a particular case. Courts lack the ability to establish, print, and distribute case schedules for individual cases.
|
| Expected Benefit: |
| Provision of a caseflow management and caledaring system at all Superior Courts in Washington State will increase the efficiency and effectivness of these courts by automating many business processes that are currently accomplished manually. |
| Any Additional Information: |
| This request was originated on 26 Feb, 2010 by the SCJA. |
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin |
| Origination Date: |
| |
07/27/2010 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
| Endorser’s Explanation and Comments |
| ***Important Note*** This request was originally submitted as part of a pilot of the IT Governance process. The processing of this request took place before the IT Governance Portal was developed. As such, the information related to this request is being included in the portal for completeness. The history entries in this record are not indicative of either the actual processing dates or the bodies that performed the various steps of the governance process. ***
This request was endorsed by the SCJA on February 26, 2010. |
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
09/09/2010
|
| Request Rationale |
| Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans: |
Yes |
| Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards: |
Yes |
| Breadth of Solution Benefit: |
Wide |
| Cost Estimates |
| Cost Benefit Analysis Complete? |
No |
| Positive Return on Investment? |
No |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
Yes |
| Court Level User Group |
| Superior Courts |
| Approving Authority |
JISC |
|
| Request Summary: |
***Important Note*** This request was originally submitted as part of a pilot of the IT Governance process. The processing of this request took place before the IT Governance Portal was developed. As such, the information related to this request is being included in the portal for completeness. The history entries in this record are not indicative of either the actual processing dates or the bodies that performed the various steps of the governance process. *** This request would provide caseflow management and calendaring functionality to the Superior Courts. |
| Business Impacts: |
A COTS Case Management System would allow Superior Court staff to automate many processes that are currently accomplished through labor intensive manual processes. |
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
A feasibility study is required to evaluate the offerings available in the market space against the requirements of the state's Superior Courts. |
| Proposed Solution |
The feasibility study will be used to evaluate products to fulfill this governance request. |
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin |
| Origination Date: |
| |
09/23/2010 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
| Endorser’s Explanation and Comments |
***Important Note*** This request was originally submitted as part of a pilot of the IT Governance process. The processing of this request took place before the IT Governance Portal was developed. As such, the information related to this request is being included in the portal for completeness. The history entries in this record are not indicative of either the actual processing dates or the bodies that performed the various steps of the governance process. *** This request was confirmed by the SCJA. |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Superior Courts |
| Chair of Group |
Superior Court IT Review |
| Date of Decision |
04/23/2010 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Not Prioritized |
|
| Scoring Detail |
|
In making their decision, detailed score values were not provided by Superior Courts.
|
|
| Additional Notes |
This request served as a pilot for the IT Governance process. As such, it was approved under a different structure prior to the stand-up of the full process. |
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This request was authorized and scheduled as a pilot for the current IT Governance process.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
At the May 6 , 2011 JISC meeting, this request was prioritized as #1.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
08/24/2011 |
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Revised feasibility study completed. Pending JISC decision.
|
|
|
|
|
