SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Feedback on
Technology Governance,
Strategy, and Funding
Proposal: Executive Summary
for California Judicial Branch
Ron Dolin, J.D., Ph.D.
Fellow/Instructor, Center on the Legal Profession
Stanford Law School
June 16, 2014
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
The Call
• The Judicial Council of
California’s Technology Planning
Task Force posted for public
comment the Court Technology
Governance and Strategic Plan in
May 2014.
• “The proposal provides a structure
and roadmap for technology
initiatives and increases the
transparency and accountability of
how funds are managed for
technology projects in the judicial
branch.”
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
“As a branch, we need to provide
high-level service to a public
accustomed to doing business
online and at any time. We also
need to assist our courts by
keeping the electronic court
doors open. Updating our
technology plan and
governance model provides a
roadmap for increased services
to the public in an era of
decreased court funding and
staffing. …” - Judge James E.
Herman, advisory member of
the Judicial Council and chair
of its Tech Committee
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Feedback On
Executive Summary
•Governance
•Technology Principles
•Technology Initiative Categories
•Roles and Responsibilities
•Approval of New Branchwide Initiatives
•Program Prioritization Criteria
•Strategic Plan and Tactical Plan
•Technology Initiatives (2014-2016)
•Funding
•Technology Funding Categories
•Funding Sources and Governance
•Conclusion
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014

Recommended for you

Consultnet
ConsultnetConsultnet
Consultnet

The document provides information about Consult Net, a technical consulting and staffing company. It discusses the company's vision, history since being founded in 1996, services offered, and CEO Don Goldberg's background and leadership. It also lists current engineering and IT job openings and quotes from satisfied contractors about their positive experiences working with Consult Net.

The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...

The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Professors Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J. Bommarito - Illinois Tech Law / Univ of Michigan CSCS (Updated Version)

future of the legal professionlegal analyticsquantitative legal prediction
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...

This document provides an overview of legal analytics and empirical legal studies, comparing their methods and goals. Legal analytics uses machine learning and predictive modeling to predict outcomes, while empirical legal studies uses social science methods like regression analysis to determine the causal impact of policies. Both aim to improve legal rules and institutions but use different tools - prediction vs. causal inference. Prediction is important for tasks like litigation strategies, while causal inference is best for evaluating policy interventions. Recent work has shown growing interest in both rigorous predictive modeling of legal data as well as combining predictive and causal techniques.

legal analyticslegal datalegal prediction
Technology Principles
I don't understand why “preserving traditional access” is a guiding principle. It's self-
evident that in the spirit of access and fairness, traditional access is likely going to remain a
requirement for the foreseeable future. However, this is an artifact of the current system and
no more a basic requirement than arguing that we should continue to use cathode ray tubes.
Traditional access should not be a goal in and of itself. Where libraries want to maintain a
brick-and-mortar facility, there is generally a reduction in shelf space as material moves to
digital.
Thus, where courts require traditional access to fulfill some underlying objective,
those objectives need to be clarified directly and transparently. Even if there might be political
considerations here, those underlying goals should be made clear.
Designing for “ease-of-use” could be more broadly defined as
“human-centered design methodology”, which would include
ease-of-use, but extend to problem identification via
ethnographic work, rapid prototyping and testing, etc.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Principles
For “plan ahead”, I'm concerned that there's no
mention about using well-established technology.
While I highly recommend innovative approaches,
there are limits to the usefulness of trying to push
the boundaries of leading/bleeding-edge technology
within a system that must continually function –
like changing the wheel on a car while driving it.
Innovation in re-implementing a legal
function is harder if using technology that's
inadequately tested, robust, or stable.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Principles
I agree that “technology standards” are crucial. In fact, I don't think this
guideline goes far enough. All projects should be encouraged to align
with national or international standards where they exist.
To the degree that various states, or the federal court
system, or other adjudicative functions may be moving
to standards such as XML-tagged documents, it would
be helpful for the entire national legal system if CA
would participate in that. Furthermore, it would be
even more helpful if CA courts would participate in the
making of such standards, such as information
exchange, checksums of evidence documents, formats
and citation harmonization, etc.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Principles
There's no main principle mentioned for “evaluation”.
In order to assess any new technological implementation, the old and new
systems need to be compared in terms of efficiency, quality, robustness, etc.
Often the old system hasn't been adequately evaluated, and assumptions
exist as to its characteristics. An evaluation methodology is often quite complicated and can
require a lot of ground work and/or human input.
The new system works best if it can be tuned and optimized to ongoing metrics.
For example, the evaluation methodology of e-Bay seeks to optimize by lowering the number
of disputes per transaction, in addition to the number of disputes that require human
assistance.
Planning an evaluation mechanism for each system is crucial to the success of a
new implementation and requires its own planning, budget, etc. It can't be adequately
done as an afterthought. Proper evaluation is a central, core guiding principle. A guiding
principle might be something like “projects should have associated evaluations as equal
components of the work product.”
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014

Recommended for you

HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...

Evisort might just be the hottest legal tech and AI company you’ve never heard of. Born out of Harvard Law School, MIT and the Harvard Innovation Lab; funded by an investment firm backed by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and other Silicon Valley luminaries; recently profiled in a Columbia Business School case study on entrepreneurship; and its three founders named to Forbes 30 Under 30, it’s safe to say this is a company worth watching.

ai-owered contract management platformai-based contract management platformcontract management company
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...

The document provides an overview and summary of a report on how digital technology impacts and transforms the voluntary sector. The report was independently researched and sponsored by Tata Consultancy Services. It involved a literature review, workshop, mapping over 100 technology projects used by voluntary organizations, and 20 case studies. The report aims to show how technology can help address challenges, identify successful solutions, and barriers/enablers to implementation. It examines issues of adoption, disruption, and achieving technological maturity.

digital
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf

Article reviews how to deal with the deluge of new technological options and the aspects of a strategy for quick, high quality implementations of emerging technologies. Based on company success stories, article lays out what will work.

it implementationsoftware developmentproject management
Technology
Principles
Another missing principle relates to timing and expediency, and inevitable
development trade-offs.
The triple prong of technology development is generally cost, quality, and
time, where the client can optimize any two. I'm guessing that some
projects might need to emphasize timing. In any case, it's usually
worthwhile for developers and clients to recognize and discuss that these
trade-offs exist for most/all projects, and to get on the same page about
priorities, minimal viable product, etc.
While this inevitably will come out at some point, projects go smoother the
earlier this is resolved. A guiding principle might be something like,
“projects should have an appropriate and transparent balance of timeliness,
cost, and quality.”
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Initiative Categories
I'm concerned that the “local programs and solutions” examples include courtroom A/V, personal
computers, and electronic probable cause statements. All of these are amenable to standards that would
make life easier to court users.
The implication here is that there is a do-it-yourself approach to these applications without gaining from
broad standards or a consortium mindset. It's difficult for me to see how differences between
jurisdictions for any of these examples wouldn't be an impediment to the adoption of new technology.
Consider the role of a startup trying to create courtroom innovation and working with differences between
the courts in just the examples given. There could be much more clarity here about when it's OK to allow
for one-off approaches and where that doesn't make sense. The examples given imply to me that the
proposal is potentially perpetuating the free-for-all that we see across the county that makes courtroom
innovation so difficult to adopt.
Innovation for courts is likely to come from
outside the courts at least as much as within
the courts, so long as the courts work together
to adopt similar standards and thus increase
the market-based motivation for such outside
efforts.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Roles and Responsibilities
It is not clear from the document how committees handle
decision making. I don't assume that a majority vote is
necessarily optimal, nor that letting the chair decide with
committee advice necessarily works best either.
As an example, the structure of “evolving” CTAC goes from a
percentage of types of staff to, simply, an unspecified
increase in staff with expertise in technology and project
management. However, without knowing how the
committee makes decisions, it's difficult to assess what type
of committee composition would be most effective.
If these technical staff object to a project proposal and that
objection is overridden, you could be left with unrealistic
goals.
In addition, it's unclear what “technology expertise” means
here. Is this a self-described hacker, someone with an
engineering degree, someone with non-court technology
experience? The same could be said of project managers.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Roles and Responsibilities
Another point of confusion is the curious flipping of points 1 and 2 in
the “evolving CTAC” table in the row on “Responsibilities”.
A committee often has multiple charges that they need to balance,
and that might be listed in their charter without a presumed
prioritization, which can be left to the judgment of the committee.
By flipping 1 and 2, it implies that these are in priority order, and
thus CTAC's priorities are changing to emphasize project
development over rules and legislative proposals, while apparently
that was reversed currently. I would simply note that this is a non-
prioritized list, not switch it, and leave it to the committee to set
their priorities given their charter.
While “staffing” may change from AOC to the general court IT
“community”, the staffing of projects may well be ineffectual
without a clear line of authority to set staff priorities and
individuals' decision making values (see, e.g. Innovator's Solution
by Christensen and Raynor). Merely assigning bodies to a project
does not facilitate project management, and where the head of a
project has no authority over the staff assigned to the project, the
project can languish. It's not clear to me how organizational
hierarchies align with staff assignments under this model, or what
recourse a project manager has to expedite a stalled project.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014

Recommended for you

Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010

Experience report I presented at Agiles 2010 titled "Compromising with Hesitant Organizations - Agile Implementation Paralysis"

agiles2010
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...

This document proposes innovations to the design phase of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) workshops based on the author's research combining AI with enterprise engineering methods. It finds that many large-scale change projects, especially those involving information technology, fail due to poor preparation. The design phase is critical for success but can be improved using techniques from conceptual modeling, iterative design, and system engineering to reduce complexity and better align stakeholders. The paper presents these innovations as reusable design propositions explaining the problem, intervention, mechanism, and expected outcome.

Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management

This document provides information about getting fully solved assignments for various subjects and specializations by emailing or calling the provided contact information. It lists the assignment drive winter program details, including subject codes, credits, and marks. It provides a sample assignment question about managing new technology in a company and evaluating answers.

Roles and Responsibilities
The role of the JCTC vs. ITAC is confusing to me. The confusion is confounded by statements such as this: “In some cases the
Judicial Council Technology Committee will work directly with the IT community while in others they may delegate facilitation
to an advisory committee.”
In general, advisory committees are not tasked with hands-on facilitation. The goal of such committees is to review priorities and
active projects from the executing committee – in this case, JCTC. I wonder why an advisory committee is being placed
between JCTC and the “IT Community”, as opposed to it being a side-box that simply informs JCTC. On the face of it, asking an
“advisory” committee to “facilitate” work is an oxymoron, and the description of the ITAC's charge is consistent with this
confusion and blurring of roles and responsibilities.
I can't see any reason not to have the advisory committee as 100% advisory, and clarifying that execution mandates derive directly
from the JCTC. Any staff working on execution/facilitation can work directly through the JCTC, and that leaves the role of the
ITAC more clearly defined.
In a large bureaucracy such as the CA court system, the more that committee roles can be clear and focused, the
more likely staff will understand the decision making hierarchy, and the less likely they will be given
conflicting priorities by multiple committees. Alternatively, if the JCTC doesn't want to handle direct facilitation, an
implementation committee can handle staffing and project management rather than handing that to an advisory committee.
For governance of the strategic plan, I understand why the JC should give final approval. However, I don't see why the JC should be
involved in approving a tactical plan, which should simply be implementing goals set out by the JC. The point of separating
strategic and tactical planning is in part to minimize the work at the top levels of the court hierarchy, as well as to streamline
the execution of the high-level goals.
Thus, I would switch the final approval of the tactical plan to the JCTC and leave the JC out of it. In theory, the tactical plan should
be frequently updated (annually?), while the strategic plan should be more stable.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Roles and
Responsibilities
In the governance summary table (p. 16), taking a step
back, it starts looking like there could be too many
cooks spoiling the broth. And if that structure isn't
enough, the table is footnoted with this: “Note that
there will be a process to provide an opportunity for
review and comment on technology initiatives by other
advisory committees such as the Court Executives
Advisory Committee (CEAC), the Trial Court Presiding
Judges Advisory Committee (TCPJAC), and the
Appellate Advisory Committee.”
Going back to my prior comment that expediency should be
one of the guiding principles, note that this level of
feedback could grind project approvals to a halt. If all
these committees want to interject opinions,
than this needs to be streamlined at the policy
level, not at the project initiative level. Trying to
get approval or feedback from all these committees
seems burdensome.
At a minimum, there should be tight turn-around deadlines
for these committees to comment, and it should be
made clear whether or not they have authority to block
projects. And where is the “court-user” or “citizen-
representative” advisory committee (apropos to my
prior suggestion of the importance of design
methodology and user testing)?
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Approval of New Branchwide Initiatives
“If the proposal requires escalation due to urgency or impact, then it can be submitted directly to the Technology Committee.”
Who determines if there is sufficient urgency or impact?
Again, as with general governance, this feature seems to add needless complication and confusion. Why don't all proposals go to
one place, with a section for claiming urgency or high impact or any other reason to expedite, and have a uniform process for
evaluating those claims? What are the disincentives to submit all proposals directly to the TC?
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
The approval diagram has 6 “stops”, with approval required by
several committees, including the same committee multiple
times. In addition, it's not clear if committees are given a limited
time to reply, with the default being that the project moves
forward if the comment deadline isn't met. It's also not clear
what responsibility the initiators have with respect to negative
feedback other than, apparently, they must get specific sign-off
from each committee in the process. This seems to be a
heavyweight process that makes technology and innovation
difficult.
As stated before, this process might be streamlined, while
allowing for feedback, by 1) removing veto power from most of
these committees and switching to comments (which may need
to be addressed, though not necessarily accommodated), 2)
putting hard stops on feedback deadlines, 3) conceptually,
changing “stop” to “revise”, 4) removing redundant reviews by
the same committee, and 5) removing needless choices such as
the dual submission process.
Program Prioritization Criteria
The overall priority mechanism seems straightforward. However, it is
not clear where the weightings come from – who determines them
and why?
Also, if there are projects that might yield breakthrough results, they
might get low scores on several of the criteria and never have a
chance to move forward.
Another possible prioritization mechanism would allocate resources
according to some balance between incremental vs.
substantial impact, or sustaining vs. disrupting orientation
(again, see, e.g. Innovator's Solution). It's reasonable to allocate
some part of the budget to more risky endeavors that might yield
more substantial changes, and allow for a two-prong submission
rating system. It's not clear that pitting all proposals against each
other with a standard set of criteria in a one-size-fits-all framework
will lead to the optimal project portfolio that might otherwise
include some higher-risk projects.
It's reasonable to work with a framework of allocating, say,
10% of the technology budget to disruptive, rather than
sustaining, innovation.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014

Recommended for you

Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT

This document discusses using design checklists to help achieve consistent success in designing information systems projects. It proposes that checklists containing critical tasks from methodologies like the Systems Development Lifecycle can help address the problems of complexity and pressures that designers face. The author intends to create checklists populated with design tasks and evaluate their effectiveness in helping achieve successful system outcomes and understanding what tasks most influence results.

Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT

This document discusses using design checklists to help achieve consistent success in systems design projects. It proposes that checklists containing critical design tasks can help designers apply best practices appropriately given different situations. The author aims to create checklists based on the systems development lifecycle and other sources, and evaluate their impact on projects. Checklists may help address problems like delays, failures, and relationship issues if implemented properly considering factors like buy-in, pressures, and flexibility.

Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same

This document discusses different types of collaboration software solutions used to support construction projects. It describes three tiers of solutions: basic document storage systems, more advanced systems that enable organization and version control for multiple stakeholders, and integrated project controls systems. Effective collaboration requires externally hosted, cloud-based solutions that facilitate information sharing between project participants. Proper documentation and communication management is important for mitigating risks and supporting claims resolution if disputes arise. The role of common data environments in enabling BIM collaboration is also covered.

cloud computingconstructioncollaboration
Strategic Plan and
Tactical Plan
Why is the strategic plan four years, and the tactical plan two years? Will we
see a new strategic plan every four years? Where in the plan would we find a
publication mechanism for modern, standards-based, permanently publicly
available court opinions and other “public” associated documents such as
briefs, motions, and evidence? If this is not in the plan, why not?
How will we reconcile a move to digitization with the fact that the
most underserved are least likely to have access to the systems
required to utilize these changes? Will the courts provide access
points, and, if so, do we know that they're effective? What about the
development of mobile apps, given the prevalence of smart phones?
Are we looking into the possibility of remote video-based juries to expand the
jury pool and minimize the impact of serving on a jury?
What is the relationship between the court system and the increased use of
ODR – might we see ODR being rolled out in small claims? What types of
online assistance are being considered?
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Initiatives
It would be great to see a specific
initiative dedicated to the
publishing of court documents
within a framework of national
standards that incorporates
XML tagging of sections,
named entities, metadata (e.g.
procedural information),
citations, etc.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Funding
It's sad to see the sorry state of funding of the CA court system, with
the conclusion that the current situation will continue indefinitely:
“funding for technology must be restored by the Legislature.”
Such a predicament calls to question the entire plan, and certainly
makes questionable the 2014 start date. I'm reminded of the public
defender's office in FL refusing to take on more cases until funding
levels were raised due to a lack of constitutionally mandated access
to defense attorneys.
I wonder how broken the court system needs to be until it
might be viewed as no longer fulfilling its constitutionally
mandated mission.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Technology Funding Categories
It's great to see categories that include maintenance as well as
innovation. This section states that these categories form the basis
for “strategic” fund allocation, leaving one to wonder how “tactical”
fund allocation is decided. Furthermore, referring back to the
“Program Prioritization Criteria” section, the single scorecard
method proposed seems inconsistent with this funding allocation
discussion.
Here, it seems that funds might be organized by category, with some
amount going to maintenance, some for incremental improvements,
and some going for innovation.
These two models need to be reconciled – perhaps an overall budget
on a per-category basis, and then within each category, a separate
scorecard could be used to prioritize projects within the same
category.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014

Recommended for you

Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architecture

This document discusses creating a government-wide enterprise architecture to better integrate business and technology across departments. Currently, most departments operate independently with duplicate processes and systems. The goals of an enterprise architecture are to streamline processes, increase consistency, reduce costs through reuse, and improve services for citizens. It will be a significant challenge to implement due to the large, complex nature of government and need for inter-departmental collaboration.

enterprise architectureegovernmentcomputing
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docxChapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx

Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set The success of any IT project is determined at the very beginning of the project life cycle, when the IT staff meets with the business clients to gather the requirements. But IT's track record with this important phase is similar to its history with project management itself: abysmal. Requirements have been gathered for decades, but most IT organizations have yet to discover a consistently successful way of sitting down with business clients, discussing their needs, and translating those needs into a useful system, enhancement, customization, or software package selection. In fact, according to some statistics, poor requirements gathering is the cause of about 70 percent of today's technology project failures. That's because passing along one bad requirement is akin to throwing a stone into a pond and watching how far the ripples go. According to some calculations, each badly defined requirement results in 10 bad design statements, which then can multiply to 100 incorrect coding statements. Even if that's an exaggeration, you can easily see how poor requirements negatively affect application integrity, maintenance costs, and client satisfaction. This is true whether you're looking to build a custom system, buy a new software package, or enhance an existing system. Skipping requirements gathering is like building a house without a plan. For example, I've seen companies buy software that didn't meet their business needs, mainly because they wanted to save time on the requirements step. When they tried to modify the package to meet their needs, they discovered they didn't know the requirements. They sadly concluded that the step they skipped really did need to be done to make the package useful. I often see organizations turn to yet another vendor tool or methodology in their attempt to improve this situation. But just as with project management, IT is facing a problem that requires less of a scientific fix and more of a mind-set change that emphasizes the up-front work of really communicating with business clients to discover what they need. From what I've seen in my 24 years in the IT profession and from working with clients across the country, this is a mind-set change that's way past due, as business leaders grow increasingly frustrated with the gap between what clients need and what IT delivers. I learned about the importance of good requirements throughout my varied IT career, which included stints in analysis, development, production support, project management, and relationship management. It became clear to me that to have success in any of these roles, it all starts with good requirements. Everyone who has to read and use them appreciates them, they increase productivity and quality, and they add accountability. Finally, a good requirement is measurable because either the end product delivers on that requirement or it doesn't. Specificall ...

CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)

HR technology projects often fail to deliver expected results, leading stakeholders to point fingers. However, HR typically owns such projects and can take steps to maximize success. Key steps include clearly defining requirements, engaging the right stakeholders, prioritizing needs, and recognizing that implementation is not the end but the beginning of an ongoing optimization process. When done right, HR minimizes blame on others and ensures the technology best meets business needs.

Funding Sources and
Governance
If different types of funding are handled by different entities,
the relationship between prioritization and funding is
increasingly confusing, let alone the management of project
staff.
As an outsider, it's difficult to grok the interaction between all
the moving parts of the CA court system and the impact of its
structure on command and control, prioritization, and
funding. It would be nice to understand what BCP means,
though based on the other documents it seems to mean
“Budget Change Proposal.” Given that it's used for three of the
four categories of projects, it's probably worth explaining in
this document.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Conclusion
While I recognize that this is an Executive Summary, there are many important
details not mentioned, or, at a minimum, pointed to. For example, the
“Technology Initiatives (2014- 2016) section (p. 22) has placeholders for
actions such as “investigate and propose”, rather than a pointer to the
Tactical Plan that might give additional information. I assume that those
details do not yet exist, yet the details of the sought-after technology are
crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan.
Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
Moreover, the specific allocation of
resources split between innovation and
maintenance is important, but not directly
discussed. I assume that there is a
minimum budget required for system
maintenance, and knowing that would help
make clear how a given Legislative budget
would impact the Court's ability to initiate
new projects.

More Related Content

What's hot

The Future Legal Marketplace: Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
The Future Legal Marketplace:  Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...The Future Legal Marketplace:  Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
The Future Legal Marketplace: Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
Michele DeStefano
 
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
MyCase Legal Case and Practice Management Software
 
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environment
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environmentMaintaining productivity in a remote working environment
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environment
Clio - Cloud-Based Legal Technology
 
Consultnet
ConsultnetConsultnet
Consultnet
bmorelock
 
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
Daniel Katz
 
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Daniel Katz
 
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
Evisort
 

What's hot (7)

The Future Legal Marketplace: Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
The Future Legal Marketplace:  Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...The Future Legal Marketplace:  Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
The Future Legal Marketplace: Innovation, Extrapreneurship, and a Law Withou...
 
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
(Webinar Slides) Introduction to Legal Project Management - Why It Matters fo...
 
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environment
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environmentMaintaining productivity in a remote working environment
Maintaining productivity in a remote working environment
 
Consultnet
ConsultnetConsultnet
Consultnet
 
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction: Experts, Crowds and Algorithms -- Prof...
 
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
Legal Analytics versus Empirical Legal Studies - or - Causal Inference vs Pre...
 
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
HLS Students Harness Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize How Lawyers Dra...
 

Similar to Feedback on Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal: Executive Summary for California Judicial Branch

Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
NCVO - National Council for Voluntary Organisations
 
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
Steven Callahan
 
Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010
Tiago Garcez
 
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Jan De Winter
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
smumbahelp
 
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson
 
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson
 
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Phil Auguste
 
Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architecture
Alan Mather
 
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docxChapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
christinemaritza
 
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
Mark Berry
 
Analysis and Design of Information Systems
Analysis and Design of Information SystemsAnalysis and Design of Information Systems
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcare
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcareEnterprise architecture-for-healthcare
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcare
Maheswara Reddy N
 
Agile project management and normative
Agile project management and normativeAgile project management and normative
Agile project management and normative
Glen Alleman
 
From Technical Debt to Technical Health
From Technical Debt to Technical HealthFrom Technical Debt to Technical Health
From Technical Debt to Technical Health
Mikael Vesavuori
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
smumbahelp
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
smumbahelp
 
Questions On Technical Design Decisions
Questions On Technical Design DecisionsQuestions On Technical Design Decisions
Questions On Technical Design Decisions
Rikki Wright
 
Why is project management so hard?
Why is project management so hard?Why is project management so hard?
Why is project management so hard?
Glen Alleman
 
implementing an Applicant Tracking System
implementing an Applicant Tracking Systemimplementing an Applicant Tracking System
implementing an Applicant Tracking System
jkrumwie
 

Similar to Feedback on Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal: Executive Summary for California Judicial Branch (20)

Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
Digital technology and the voluntary sector: Disruption, transformation and m...
 
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
201207 Tech Decisions: 5 Keys to Fast Successful New Deployments.pdf
 
Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010Agiles 2010
Agiles 2010
 
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
Re-engineering the design phase of appreciative inquiry_WAIC2015_workshop pap...
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
 
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
 
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFTAdam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
Adam Wilson AP Final Project REVISED FINAL DRAFT
 
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
Not All Collaboration Solutions are Built the Same
 
Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architecture
 
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docxChapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
Chapter 9 Changing Your Requirements-Gathering Mind-Set Th.docx
 
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
CIO Review - Who is to Blame (June 2016)
 
Analysis and Design of Information Systems
Analysis and Design of Information SystemsAnalysis and Design of Information Systems
Analysis and Design of Information Systems
 
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcare
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcareEnterprise architecture-for-healthcare
Enterprise architecture-for-healthcare
 
Agile project management and normative
Agile project management and normativeAgile project management and normative
Agile project management and normative
 
From Technical Debt to Technical Health
From Technical Debt to Technical HealthFrom Technical Debt to Technical Health
From Technical Debt to Technical Health
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
 
Mi0040 technology management
Mi0040  technology managementMi0040  technology management
Mi0040 technology management
 
Questions On Technical Design Decisions
Questions On Technical Design DecisionsQuestions On Technical Design Decisions
Questions On Technical Design Decisions
 
Why is project management so hard?
Why is project management so hard?Why is project management so hard?
Why is project management so hard?
 
implementing an Applicant Tracking System
implementing an Applicant Tracking Systemimplementing an Applicant Tracking System
implementing an Applicant Tracking System
 

More from Ron Dolin

Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of LawLegal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
Ron Dolin
 
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal SystemAn Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
Ron Dolin
 
Innovation and Emerging Technology
Innovation and Emerging TechnologyInnovation and Emerging Technology
Innovation and Emerging Technology
Ron Dolin
 
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating EfficiencyLegal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
Ron Dolin
 
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
Ron Dolin
 
Legal tech startup weekend 2014
Legal tech startup weekend 2014Legal tech startup weekend 2014
Legal tech startup weekend 2014
Ron Dolin
 
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random WalkInconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Ron Dolin
 
Teaching Legal Technology
Teaching Legal TechnologyTeaching Legal Technology
Teaching Legal Technology
Ron Dolin
 
Legal Technology and Design
Legal Technology and DesignLegal Technology and Design
Legal Technology and Design
Ron Dolin
 
Legal Technology Pipeline
Legal Technology PipelineLegal Technology Pipeline
Legal Technology Pipeline
Ron Dolin
 
Legal Tech Startups
Legal Tech StartupsLegal Tech Startups
Legal Tech Startups
Ron Dolin
 
ODR and Legal Tech
ODR and Legal TechODR and Legal Tech
ODR and Legal Tech
Ron Dolin
 
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm SummitLegal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
Ron Dolin
 

More from Ron Dolin (13)

Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of LawLegal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
Legal Innovation: An Engineering Perspective of Law
 
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal SystemAn Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
An Engineer's Journey Through the Legal System
 
Innovation and Emerging Technology
Innovation and Emerging TechnologyInnovation and Emerging Technology
Innovation and Emerging Technology
 
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating EfficiencyLegal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
Legal ROI: Quality & Innovation, Incorporating Efficiency
 
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
A Legal Magic Carpet Ride: Slides from the College of Law Practice Management...
 
Legal tech startup weekend 2014
Legal tech startup weekend 2014Legal tech startup weekend 2014
Legal tech startup weekend 2014
 
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random WalkInconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
 
Teaching Legal Technology
Teaching Legal TechnologyTeaching Legal Technology
Teaching Legal Technology
 
Legal Technology and Design
Legal Technology and DesignLegal Technology and Design
Legal Technology and Design
 
Legal Technology Pipeline
Legal Technology PipelineLegal Technology Pipeline
Legal Technology Pipeline
 
Legal Tech Startups
Legal Tech StartupsLegal Tech Startups
Legal Tech Startups
 
ODR and Legal Tech
ODR and Legal TechODR and Legal Tech
ODR and Legal Tech
 
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm SummitLegal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
Legal Technology - State Bar of CA - Solo/Small Firm Summit
 

Recently uploaded

PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptxPPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
officialtusharsinha
 
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja DwivediGolden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
legalpuja22
 
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja DwivediHARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
legalpuja22
 
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma TranscriptSwinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
vaecyv
 
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform
 
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdfDeposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
Medico Legal Request LLC
 
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
Othman Advocates
 
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdfPetition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
almondtree2525
 
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSGWSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
detoate2
 
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly ArizonaTech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
Aaron Kelly Lawyer
 
Bristol degree offer diploma Transcript
Bristol degree offer diploma TranscriptBristol degree offer diploma Transcript
Bristol degree offer diploma Transcript
geesuk
 
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdfPetition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
almondtree2525
 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCEARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
addanews10
 
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptxOSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
danielsafety28
 
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND RegistrationUnderstanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
 
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma TranscriptQueensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
vaecyv
 
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture pptToday Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
getabelete
 
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
Curtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
Curtin University degree offer diploma TranscriptCurtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
Curtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
vaecyv
 
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdfGUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
ProexportColombia1
 

Recently uploaded (20)

PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptxPPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
PPT ON THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.pptx
 
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja DwivediGolden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
Golden Rule of Interpretation by Puja Dwivedi
 
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja DwivediHARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION RULE by Puja Dwivedi
 
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma TranscriptSwinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Swinburne University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
 
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR CORRUPTION AND CORRUPTION-RELATED OFFENSES (legisl...
 
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdfDeposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
Deposition Summary Sample - Deposition Transcripts.pdf
 
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
Fight Dubai Money Laundering: Protect Your Business Now!
 
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdfPetition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal.pdf
 
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSGWSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
WSDFSDFDFSDFSDFSDFDSFSDGGGGSGASGDDGGDGDSGSG
 
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly ArizonaTech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
Tech Startups: Expert Advice from Aaron Kelly Arizona
 
Bristol degree offer diploma Transcript
Bristol degree offer diploma TranscriptBristol degree offer diploma Transcript
Bristol degree offer diploma Transcript
 
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdfPetition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
Petition for Allowance of Appeal Revision.pdf
 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCEARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
 
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptxOSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
OSH Required 8 Hours Safety Training.pptx
 
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND RegistrationUnderstanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
Understanding the Requirements for FIU IND Registration
 
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma TranscriptQueensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
Queensland University of Technology degree offer diploma Transcript
 
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture pptToday Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
Today Legal History and Tradition Lecture ppt
 
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
VIETNAM FROM A FRONTIER MARKET TO AN EMERGING MARKET – RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACH...
 
Curtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
Curtin University degree offer diploma TranscriptCurtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
Curtin University degree offer diploma Transcript
 
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdfGUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
GUIA_LEGAL_CHAPTER-10_PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL.pdf
 

Feedback on Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal: Executive Summary for California Judicial Branch

  • 1. Feedback on Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal: Executive Summary for California Judicial Branch Ron Dolin, J.D., Ph.D. Fellow/Instructor, Center on the Legal Profession Stanford Law School June 16, 2014 Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 2. The Call • The Judicial Council of California’s Technology Planning Task Force posted for public comment the Court Technology Governance and Strategic Plan in May 2014. • “The proposal provides a structure and roadmap for technology initiatives and increases the transparency and accountability of how funds are managed for technology projects in the judicial branch.” Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 3. “As a branch, we need to provide high-level service to a public accustomed to doing business online and at any time. We also need to assist our courts by keeping the electronic court doors open. Updating our technology plan and governance model provides a roadmap for increased services to the public in an era of decreased court funding and staffing. …” - Judge James E. Herman, advisory member of the Judicial Council and chair of its Tech Committee Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 4. Feedback On Executive Summary •Governance •Technology Principles •Technology Initiative Categories •Roles and Responsibilities •Approval of New Branchwide Initiatives •Program Prioritization Criteria •Strategic Plan and Tactical Plan •Technology Initiatives (2014-2016) •Funding •Technology Funding Categories •Funding Sources and Governance •Conclusion Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 5. Technology Principles I don't understand why “preserving traditional access” is a guiding principle. It's self- evident that in the spirit of access and fairness, traditional access is likely going to remain a requirement for the foreseeable future. However, this is an artifact of the current system and no more a basic requirement than arguing that we should continue to use cathode ray tubes. Traditional access should not be a goal in and of itself. Where libraries want to maintain a brick-and-mortar facility, there is generally a reduction in shelf space as material moves to digital. Thus, where courts require traditional access to fulfill some underlying objective, those objectives need to be clarified directly and transparently. Even if there might be political considerations here, those underlying goals should be made clear. Designing for “ease-of-use” could be more broadly defined as “human-centered design methodology”, which would include ease-of-use, but extend to problem identification via ethnographic work, rapid prototyping and testing, etc. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 6. Technology Principles For “plan ahead”, I'm concerned that there's no mention about using well-established technology. While I highly recommend innovative approaches, there are limits to the usefulness of trying to push the boundaries of leading/bleeding-edge technology within a system that must continually function – like changing the wheel on a car while driving it. Innovation in re-implementing a legal function is harder if using technology that's inadequately tested, robust, or stable. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 7. Technology Principles I agree that “technology standards” are crucial. In fact, I don't think this guideline goes far enough. All projects should be encouraged to align with national or international standards where they exist. To the degree that various states, or the federal court system, or other adjudicative functions may be moving to standards such as XML-tagged documents, it would be helpful for the entire national legal system if CA would participate in that. Furthermore, it would be even more helpful if CA courts would participate in the making of such standards, such as information exchange, checksums of evidence documents, formats and citation harmonization, etc. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 8. Technology Principles There's no main principle mentioned for “evaluation”. In order to assess any new technological implementation, the old and new systems need to be compared in terms of efficiency, quality, robustness, etc. Often the old system hasn't been adequately evaluated, and assumptions exist as to its characteristics. An evaluation methodology is often quite complicated and can require a lot of ground work and/or human input. The new system works best if it can be tuned and optimized to ongoing metrics. For example, the evaluation methodology of e-Bay seeks to optimize by lowering the number of disputes per transaction, in addition to the number of disputes that require human assistance. Planning an evaluation mechanism for each system is crucial to the success of a new implementation and requires its own planning, budget, etc. It can't be adequately done as an afterthought. Proper evaluation is a central, core guiding principle. A guiding principle might be something like “projects should have associated evaluations as equal components of the work product.” Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 9. Technology Principles Another missing principle relates to timing and expediency, and inevitable development trade-offs. The triple prong of technology development is generally cost, quality, and time, where the client can optimize any two. I'm guessing that some projects might need to emphasize timing. In any case, it's usually worthwhile for developers and clients to recognize and discuss that these trade-offs exist for most/all projects, and to get on the same page about priorities, minimal viable product, etc. While this inevitably will come out at some point, projects go smoother the earlier this is resolved. A guiding principle might be something like, “projects should have an appropriate and transparent balance of timeliness, cost, and quality.” Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 10. Technology Initiative Categories I'm concerned that the “local programs and solutions” examples include courtroom A/V, personal computers, and electronic probable cause statements. All of these are amenable to standards that would make life easier to court users. The implication here is that there is a do-it-yourself approach to these applications without gaining from broad standards or a consortium mindset. It's difficult for me to see how differences between jurisdictions for any of these examples wouldn't be an impediment to the adoption of new technology. Consider the role of a startup trying to create courtroom innovation and working with differences between the courts in just the examples given. There could be much more clarity here about when it's OK to allow for one-off approaches and where that doesn't make sense. The examples given imply to me that the proposal is potentially perpetuating the free-for-all that we see across the county that makes courtroom innovation so difficult to adopt. Innovation for courts is likely to come from outside the courts at least as much as within the courts, so long as the courts work together to adopt similar standards and thus increase the market-based motivation for such outside efforts. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 11. Roles and Responsibilities It is not clear from the document how committees handle decision making. I don't assume that a majority vote is necessarily optimal, nor that letting the chair decide with committee advice necessarily works best either. As an example, the structure of “evolving” CTAC goes from a percentage of types of staff to, simply, an unspecified increase in staff with expertise in technology and project management. However, without knowing how the committee makes decisions, it's difficult to assess what type of committee composition would be most effective. If these technical staff object to a project proposal and that objection is overridden, you could be left with unrealistic goals. In addition, it's unclear what “technology expertise” means here. Is this a self-described hacker, someone with an engineering degree, someone with non-court technology experience? The same could be said of project managers. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 12. Roles and Responsibilities Another point of confusion is the curious flipping of points 1 and 2 in the “evolving CTAC” table in the row on “Responsibilities”. A committee often has multiple charges that they need to balance, and that might be listed in their charter without a presumed prioritization, which can be left to the judgment of the committee. By flipping 1 and 2, it implies that these are in priority order, and thus CTAC's priorities are changing to emphasize project development over rules and legislative proposals, while apparently that was reversed currently. I would simply note that this is a non- prioritized list, not switch it, and leave it to the committee to set their priorities given their charter. While “staffing” may change from AOC to the general court IT “community”, the staffing of projects may well be ineffectual without a clear line of authority to set staff priorities and individuals' decision making values (see, e.g. Innovator's Solution by Christensen and Raynor). Merely assigning bodies to a project does not facilitate project management, and where the head of a project has no authority over the staff assigned to the project, the project can languish. It's not clear to me how organizational hierarchies align with staff assignments under this model, or what recourse a project manager has to expedite a stalled project. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 13. Roles and Responsibilities The role of the JCTC vs. ITAC is confusing to me. The confusion is confounded by statements such as this: “In some cases the Judicial Council Technology Committee will work directly with the IT community while in others they may delegate facilitation to an advisory committee.” In general, advisory committees are not tasked with hands-on facilitation. The goal of such committees is to review priorities and active projects from the executing committee – in this case, JCTC. I wonder why an advisory committee is being placed between JCTC and the “IT Community”, as opposed to it being a side-box that simply informs JCTC. On the face of it, asking an “advisory” committee to “facilitate” work is an oxymoron, and the description of the ITAC's charge is consistent with this confusion and blurring of roles and responsibilities. I can't see any reason not to have the advisory committee as 100% advisory, and clarifying that execution mandates derive directly from the JCTC. Any staff working on execution/facilitation can work directly through the JCTC, and that leaves the role of the ITAC more clearly defined. In a large bureaucracy such as the CA court system, the more that committee roles can be clear and focused, the more likely staff will understand the decision making hierarchy, and the less likely they will be given conflicting priorities by multiple committees. Alternatively, if the JCTC doesn't want to handle direct facilitation, an implementation committee can handle staffing and project management rather than handing that to an advisory committee. For governance of the strategic plan, I understand why the JC should give final approval. However, I don't see why the JC should be involved in approving a tactical plan, which should simply be implementing goals set out by the JC. The point of separating strategic and tactical planning is in part to minimize the work at the top levels of the court hierarchy, as well as to streamline the execution of the high-level goals. Thus, I would switch the final approval of the tactical plan to the JCTC and leave the JC out of it. In theory, the tactical plan should be frequently updated (annually?), while the strategic plan should be more stable. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 14. Roles and Responsibilities In the governance summary table (p. 16), taking a step back, it starts looking like there could be too many cooks spoiling the broth. And if that structure isn't enough, the table is footnoted with this: “Note that there will be a process to provide an opportunity for review and comment on technology initiatives by other advisory committees such as the Court Executives Advisory Committee (CEAC), the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (TCPJAC), and the Appellate Advisory Committee.” Going back to my prior comment that expediency should be one of the guiding principles, note that this level of feedback could grind project approvals to a halt. If all these committees want to interject opinions, than this needs to be streamlined at the policy level, not at the project initiative level. Trying to get approval or feedback from all these committees seems burdensome. At a minimum, there should be tight turn-around deadlines for these committees to comment, and it should be made clear whether or not they have authority to block projects. And where is the “court-user” or “citizen- representative” advisory committee (apropos to my prior suggestion of the importance of design methodology and user testing)? Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 15. Approval of New Branchwide Initiatives “If the proposal requires escalation due to urgency or impact, then it can be submitted directly to the Technology Committee.” Who determines if there is sufficient urgency or impact? Again, as with general governance, this feature seems to add needless complication and confusion. Why don't all proposals go to one place, with a section for claiming urgency or high impact or any other reason to expedite, and have a uniform process for evaluating those claims? What are the disincentives to submit all proposals directly to the TC? Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014 The approval diagram has 6 “stops”, with approval required by several committees, including the same committee multiple times. In addition, it's not clear if committees are given a limited time to reply, with the default being that the project moves forward if the comment deadline isn't met. It's also not clear what responsibility the initiators have with respect to negative feedback other than, apparently, they must get specific sign-off from each committee in the process. This seems to be a heavyweight process that makes technology and innovation difficult. As stated before, this process might be streamlined, while allowing for feedback, by 1) removing veto power from most of these committees and switching to comments (which may need to be addressed, though not necessarily accommodated), 2) putting hard stops on feedback deadlines, 3) conceptually, changing “stop” to “revise”, 4) removing redundant reviews by the same committee, and 5) removing needless choices such as the dual submission process.
  • 16. Program Prioritization Criteria The overall priority mechanism seems straightforward. However, it is not clear where the weightings come from – who determines them and why? Also, if there are projects that might yield breakthrough results, they might get low scores on several of the criteria and never have a chance to move forward. Another possible prioritization mechanism would allocate resources according to some balance between incremental vs. substantial impact, or sustaining vs. disrupting orientation (again, see, e.g. Innovator's Solution). It's reasonable to allocate some part of the budget to more risky endeavors that might yield more substantial changes, and allow for a two-prong submission rating system. It's not clear that pitting all proposals against each other with a standard set of criteria in a one-size-fits-all framework will lead to the optimal project portfolio that might otherwise include some higher-risk projects. It's reasonable to work with a framework of allocating, say, 10% of the technology budget to disruptive, rather than sustaining, innovation. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 17. Strategic Plan and Tactical Plan Why is the strategic plan four years, and the tactical plan two years? Will we see a new strategic plan every four years? Where in the plan would we find a publication mechanism for modern, standards-based, permanently publicly available court opinions and other “public” associated documents such as briefs, motions, and evidence? If this is not in the plan, why not? How will we reconcile a move to digitization with the fact that the most underserved are least likely to have access to the systems required to utilize these changes? Will the courts provide access points, and, if so, do we know that they're effective? What about the development of mobile apps, given the prevalence of smart phones? Are we looking into the possibility of remote video-based juries to expand the jury pool and minimize the impact of serving on a jury? What is the relationship between the court system and the increased use of ODR – might we see ODR being rolled out in small claims? What types of online assistance are being considered? Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 18. Technology Initiatives It would be great to see a specific initiative dedicated to the publishing of court documents within a framework of national standards that incorporates XML tagging of sections, named entities, metadata (e.g. procedural information), citations, etc. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 19. Funding It's sad to see the sorry state of funding of the CA court system, with the conclusion that the current situation will continue indefinitely: “funding for technology must be restored by the Legislature.” Such a predicament calls to question the entire plan, and certainly makes questionable the 2014 start date. I'm reminded of the public defender's office in FL refusing to take on more cases until funding levels were raised due to a lack of constitutionally mandated access to defense attorneys. I wonder how broken the court system needs to be until it might be viewed as no longer fulfilling its constitutionally mandated mission. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 20. Technology Funding Categories It's great to see categories that include maintenance as well as innovation. This section states that these categories form the basis for “strategic” fund allocation, leaving one to wonder how “tactical” fund allocation is decided. Furthermore, referring back to the “Program Prioritization Criteria” section, the single scorecard method proposed seems inconsistent with this funding allocation discussion. Here, it seems that funds might be organized by category, with some amount going to maintenance, some for incremental improvements, and some going for innovation. These two models need to be reconciled – perhaps an overall budget on a per-category basis, and then within each category, a separate scorecard could be used to prioritize projects within the same category. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 21. Funding Sources and Governance If different types of funding are handled by different entities, the relationship between prioritization and funding is increasingly confusing, let alone the management of project staff. As an outsider, it's difficult to grok the interaction between all the moving parts of the CA court system and the impact of its structure on command and control, prioritization, and funding. It would be nice to understand what BCP means, though based on the other documents it seems to mean “Budget Change Proposal.” Given that it's used for three of the four categories of projects, it's probably worth explaining in this document. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014
  • 22. Conclusion While I recognize that this is an Executive Summary, there are many important details not mentioned, or, at a minimum, pointed to. For example, the “Technology Initiatives (2014- 2016) section (p. 22) has placeholders for actions such as “investigate and propose”, rather than a pointer to the Tactical Plan that might give additional information. I assume that those details do not yet exist, yet the details of the sought-after technology are crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan. Ron A. Dolin (c) 2014 Moreover, the specific allocation of resources split between innovation and maintenance is important, but not directly discussed. I assume that there is a minimum budget required for system maintenance, and knowing that would help make clear how a given Legislative budget would impact the Court's ability to initiate new projects.