Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Justice in time: applying TOC to the low courts system in Israel. Shimeon Pass

17,235 views

Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Justice in time: applying TOC to the low courts system in Israel. Shimeon Pass

  1. 1. JUSTICE IN TIME: APPLYING TOC TO THE LAW COURTS SYSTEM IN ISRAELPresented By: Shimeon Pass, Focused Management Ltd., IsraelDate: September 2012
  2. 2. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 2How would you schedule and managea typical district court?• 13,000 incoming cases per year• Work In Process (WIP) of 15,000 cases• 3 pre-trial meetings per case (on the average)• 7 evidence meetings per case (on the average)• 87 different types of cases, each one with a unique procedure• 20 “Mega” cases per year• 4 parties per case (on the average)• 52 judges with a broad spectrum of skills and specialization• Uncertainty regarding: • Number of meetings • Number of witnesses • Probability to close the case by a settlementCan current managerial approaches and tools (e.g.Theory of Constraints – TOC) cope with suchsystems?
  3. 3. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 3The Judiciary system compared toother complex systems• Lower flexibility: processes cannot be changed without legislation or regulation• Judges’ autonomy• A culture of Judicial professionalism, not a managerial one• 50% of the participants act against the system…
  4. 4. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 4Same problems everywhere…Worldwide survey findings:• Increasing demand• Increasing costs• Long lead time• Diminishing throughput• Dissatisfaction of the public
  5. 5. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 5The social aspectJustice delayed is justicedenied…
  6. 6. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 6The conceptual difference from othercomplex systems• Procedures and protocols dictated by law and regulation• Judges are autonomous• Lack of managerial culture• 50% of players act against the system• The level of complexity demands a different approach
  7. 7. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 7Maybe we need a good comprehensivemodel to resolve the problem…
  8. 8. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 8Results of using new managerialconcepts for 2 yearsIn pilot implementations:• Lead Time reduced by 47%• Throughput increased by 43%• Judicial quality improved
  9. 9. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 9The judiciary process in Israel Incoming cases Pre-trial sessions Pre-trial Settlement phase Final pre-trial session Settlement Evidence sessions Evidence Settlement phase Summation Settlement Ruling
  10. 10. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 10The challenges• Increasing the Throughput (T) of Law Courts and reducing their Lead Times (LT)• Tackling the complexity of law courts management• Tackling the improper functioning of the Law Courts that leads to poor public trust and high cost of doing business
  11. 11. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 11Step 1: Determine the system’s goal• Provide “ruling”• Provide justice in the global sense, rather than locally- optimize the specific case: “… taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases” (Lord Woolf)
  12. 12. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 12Step 2: Determine the systems’performance measures• Throughput – number of closed cases• Operating Expenses – cost of resources (including judges)• Inventory – number of open casesThese measures are not sufficient, hence:• Lead Time – case cycle time from the parties’ standpoint• Quality – % of accepted appeals (?)• Due Date Performance – % cases finished within the Service Level Agreement (SLA)
  13. 13. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 13Step 3: Identify the system’sconstraints• Judges are the Bottleneck
  14. 14. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 14Step 4: Exploit the system’s constraint Strategic Gating (SG) Reduction of Ineffective Time Alternative Dispute Resolution Over 50% ineffective (ADR), false claims, strive for time settlements
  15. 15. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 15Step 5: Subordinate the rest of thesystem to the constraintTactical subordination: Lawyers and Police and Witnesses Prosecutors Correction Auth. Judges Legal Experts Administration aides
  16. 16. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 16Step 5 (cont.)A need for a differential solutions for each phase: Pre-trial phase Evidence phase Percent of cases 100% 40% Effort per case 1 hour 4 days
  17. 17. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 17A mandatory comprehensive pre-trialsession: a “kick-off “ meeting• Preparing the complete kit for the evidence phase• Strategic gating on adversaries• “25/25” on witnesses and content• Planning and scheduling witnesses• Scheduling oral summations meeting
  18. 18. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 18Step 5 (cont.)Differential solutions for each phase: Pre-trial phase Evidence phase Percent of cases 100% 40% Effort per case 1 hour 4 days Daily Time frame 8-10 AM 10AM – 17PM Scheduling Nearest available slot Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR)
  19. 19. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 19Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR)Before:• Un-planned hearing• Work In Process (WIP) = 60 casesAfter:• Weekly hearing• Work In Process (WIP) = 5 cases
  20. 20. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 20DBR schematic presentationThe effect of hearing frequency on Buffer size:Buffer size is proportional to sessions’ frequencya b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r a b c …Un-planned hearing: WIP = 18a a a b b b c c c d d d e e e f f f g g g …Day-To-Day hearing: WIP = 1a b c d e a b c d e a b c d e f g h i j f …Weekly hearing: WIP = 5
  21. 21. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 21DBR analysis in evidence hearing Un-planned Weekly Day-to-day hearing hearing hearingStart Early Late Very lateFinish Late Early Very earlyUncertainty risk* 1 day max 1day max 4 days maxRisk mitigation (fillers) Not required Medium LowLead Time (LT) High Low Very lowQuality (Q) Low High HighThroughput (T) Low High HighBuffer High Low Very low*Assuming 4 evidence days per case
  22. 22. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 22DBR: Day-to-day vs. weekly hearing Day-to-day Shorter LT hearing Less Weekly cancelled hearing meetings Conflict resolution by a win-win solution: • Day-to-day hearing for “Mega” cases • Weekly hearing for all other cases
  23. 23. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 23DBR color zonesColor zones for releasing new cases (per judge): Next available slot for evidence Color zone Indication hearing <8 months Green Acceptable 8-12 months Yellow Late > 12 Months Red UnacceptableRed zone corrective actions:• Court-flour clean-up, overtime, mobilization• Court’s vice-president / president stops the release of new cases to the judge
  24. 24. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 24Step 6: Elevate the constraint Judges Legal aidesAlmost every judge has a legal aide for offloading
  25. 25. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 25Step 7: Go back to step 3The notion of Permanent Bottlenecks
  26. 26. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 26Pilot implementations – resultsA District Court in Israel – applying the 7 focusing stepsand dDBR for civil cases: Average Average Lead Lead Time Time for pre- % for pilot pilot cases Improvement cases (months) (months) Final pre-trial to 22 12 -47% Ruling Total case life-cycle * 56 41 -27% * Pre-trial phase to be further improved by implementing Due-Dates Performance (DDP) control
  27. 27. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 27Pilot implementations – resultsA Magistrate Court in Israel – Complete Kit pilot in RoadAccident Victim Compensation (RAVC) cases: Number of RAVC Torts Full Time Throughput Throughput Equivalent (no. of cases) (no. of cases) judges 2008 3548 4470 7.2 2011 4476 5733 6.0 % change +26% +28% -17% Total T increase 43%
  28. 28. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 28The implementation process• Steering committee headed by the Chief Justice and the manager of the courts system• Seminars to 96 presidents and vice presidents of courts on TOC and Focused Management
  29. 29. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 29The implementation process• Pilot implementation in 4 courts • Steering committee headed by the president of the court • Focusing on few improvement topics • Seminars for judges, legal aides and administration • Meetings and collaboration with the Bar Association of Lawyers, the District Attorneys, and the Public Defenders • Value-enhancement teams • Flexibility in the implementation: adaption of the solution to the special needs, culture and characteristics of each court • Measurements and control
  30. 30. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 30POOGI 1Introducing Due-Dates planning and Due-DatePerformance (DDP) measurements for the pre-trial phaseshould result in Lead Time reduction, and • Reduction of continuations • Taking advantage of “the student effect” and “Parkinson effect”
  31. 31. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 31POOGI 2Project Management (PM) and Critical Chain ProjectManagement (CCPM) implementation in “Mega” cases
  32. 32. September Justice in Time - Focused Management Ltd. 32 Thank you!

×