Report 2010-102 Recommendation 8 Responses

Report 2010-102: Administrative Office of the Courts: The Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges Due to Poor Project Management (Release Date: February 2011)

Recommendation #8 To: Administrative Office of the Courts

Although the Judicial Council has the legal authority to compel the courts to adopt CCMS, to better foster superior court receptiveness to deploying CCMS, the AOC should continue to work with the superior courts that have deployed the civil system to ensure it is addressing their concerns in a timely and appropriate manner.

Agency Response*

At the Judicial Council meeting of August 22, 2014 the council approved the Court Technology Governance and Strategic Plan which has the three primary components:

1. Technology Governance and Funding Model

2. Strategic Plan for Technology

3. Tachtical Plan for Technology

Below is the item number of the agenda item and the address at which it can be located.

Item 4 3:20-4:20 p.m.

Judicial Branch Administration: Court Technology Governance and Strategic Plans (Action Required)

- Presentation

- Audiocast (41:57)

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140822-item4.pdf

As previously discussed, at the time of the above being formally adopted by the council the issue would be considered fully implemented.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: September 2014
  • Response Date: August 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

At yesterdays Judicial Council meeting the council approved the new IT governance, strategy, tactical, and funding proposal. As in all things of this nature, it will go out for public comment before finalization at the June meeting of the council. They have been implemented now and this does correspond to your request to see them formalized and in place for the remaining two issues that are outstanding. The documents are now approved, in place, and formalized. Below is the council summary and the links to the documents.

Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding: The council reviewed a report and accompanying proposal from its Technology Planning Task Force, which provides a structure, roadmap, and process for managing technology initiatives and increases the transparency and accountability of how funds are managed and allocated for technology projects in the judicial branch. The task force is comprised of judicial officers, court executive officers, court information technology officers, and other stakeholders representing 17 trial courts, the appellate courts, and the public.

The council approved the proposal in concept to be used in support of the budget change proposal process for technology initiatives. The task force will post the proposal for public comment and then re-submit it for final approval at a future council meeting.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: January 2014
  • Response Date: January 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

The Administrative Office of the Courts' links did not transmit over with their response. The links are as follows:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20140123-itemI.pdf http://www.courts.ca.gov/3046.htm#acc20898.


Agency Response*

The recommendation that the AOC continue to work with the superior courts that have deployed the civil system to ensure it is addressing their concerns in a timely and appropriate manner has been adhered to. The V3 support team continues to hold weekly meetings, attended by court project managers, technical analysts, and operational staff, where court representatives discuss operational issues and prioritize items for next software release. Following established processes, any enhancements and defects exceeding a pre-defined level of effort (LOE) are escalated for approval. In addition to the weekly group meetings, individual court meetings are held each week to provide each court the opportunity to discuss their specific issues specific. To further support the courts, metrics are used to track compliance with service-level agreements, application performance, and reliability. Over the past 12 months there have only been a few severity 1 (critical) issues recorded and only one in the last six months. The CCMS V3 application has been stable.

As a further indication of progress, the V2/V3 maintenance workstream has concluded that the V3 civil system is a significant branch asset that is working well for the courts. The workstream, established by the Technology Committee and represented by staff from superior courts in the counties of Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, Ventura, San Joaquin, and Fresno, acknowledge that V3 supports approximately 25% of all cases across the state and it is stable and the courts consider V3 a viable solution.

The current status ofV3 represents substantial progress in implementing the state auditor recommendations 3.1 b and 3 .lc. - To further demonstrate the commitment and substantial work effort of the Technology Committee and designated workstreams, we have compiled documentation which was sent to the State Auditor in February 2013.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date: 03/31/2014
  • Response Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

Currently the Information Technology and Information Services Office (ITSO) [formerly the Information Services Division (ISD) of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) conducts weekly conference calls with five superior courts that have deployed CCMS V3. The V3 support project manager facilitates weekly meetings which are attended by court project managers, technical analysts, and operational staff. During these meetings court representatives discuss operational issues and prioritize items for the next software release. Following established processes, any enhancements and defects exceeding a pre-defined level of effort (LOE) are escalated to the governance committee for approval. In addition to the weekly group meetings, weekly meetings are held with each individual court, providing an opportunity to discuss issues specific to their court.

To further support the courts, metrics are maintained to track compliance to service level agreements, as well as application performance and reliability. Over the past 12 months there has been only one severity 1 (critical) issue recorded. The CCMS V3 application has been extremely stable.

Regarding the future, the Judicial Council Technology Committee created the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group and developed multiple workstreams to address various technology issues facing the branch. Their goal is to make recommendations to the Judicial Council to specifically address the technology issues. One such workstream is the V/2V3 Maintenance workstream tasked with determining how the courts that are currently using V2 or V3 will be supported. The V2/V3 workstream is chaired by the Court Executive Officer for Orange County and the Court Information Technology Officer from Fresno. It is a collaborative effort. Representatives from V3 and V2 courts including Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, Ventura, San Joaquin, and Fresno, with participation by AOC Information and Technology Services staff. The courts are preparing a proposal regarding the future of the V2 and V3 case management systems. The document addresses maintenance and support, governance, funding, addition of courts, hosting, and life expectancy of the case management systems. Current Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are being met.

In consideration of current support activities and those planned for the future, we believe the concerns of the courts using the civil case management system, CCMS V3, are being addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

All Recommendations in 2010-102

†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.

*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader