Report 2010-102 Recommendations and Responses in 2013-041

Report 2010-102: Administrative Office of the Courts: The Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges Due to Poor Project Management

Department Number of Years Reported As Not Fully Implemented Total Recommendations to Department Not Implemented After One Year Not Implemented as of 2012-041 Response Not Implemented as of Most Recent Response
Administrative Office of the Courts 2 37 10* 4 2

Recommendation To: Administrative Office of the Courts

To better manage costs of future IT projects, the AOC should disclose full and accurate cost estimates to the Judicial Council, the Legislature, and stakeholders from the beginning of projects.

Response

In October 2012, the Chief Justice created the Judicial Branch Technology Planning Task Force which reports directly to the Judicial Council's broader Technology Committee. The committee oversees the council's policies concerning technology and is responsible in partnership with the courts for coordinating with the Administrative Director of the Courts and all internal committees, advisory committees, commissions, working groups, task forces, justice partners, and stakeholders on technological issues relating to the branch and the courts. The committee is responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and that specific projects proceed on schedule and within scope and budget. The committee seeks reports and recommendations from the Administrative Director, the courts, and stakeholders on technology issues. It ensures that technology reports to the council are clear and comprehensive and provide relevant options so that the council can make effective final technology policy decisions. The committee reports on technology affecting the branch and courts at each Judicial Council meeting.

Over the past year, the committee in partnership with the trial courts has completed among other accomplishments: A survey of the trial courts on their technology needs; Creation of the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group (JBTIWG) that has assisted the Judicial Council Technology Committee in the overall effort of defining and confirming requirements for branchwide technology initiatives; Regular ongoing meetings to review technology projects and make policy decisions; Working collaboratively with stakeholders to define technology governance and develop a long-term strategic plan for technology; and Hosting a Technology Summit in October 2012 that assembled branch stakeholders for a collaborative discussion on branch technology governance, vision, and roadmap.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: October 2012
  • Response Date: October 2013

Recommendation To: Administrative Office of the Courts

To better manage costs of future IT projects, the AOC should ensure that it has a long-term funding strategy in place before investing significant resources in a project.

Response

In October 2012, the Chief Justice created the Judicial Branch Technology Planning Task Force which reports directly to the Judicial Council's broader Technology Committee. The committee oversees the council's policies concerning technology and is responsible in partnership with the courts for coordinating with the Administrative Director of the Courts and all internal committees, advisory committees, commissions, working groups, task forces, justice partners, and stakeholders on technological issues relating to the branch and the courts. The committee is responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and that specific projects proceed on schedule and within scope and budget. The committee seeks reports and recommendations from the Administrative Director, the courts, and stakeholders on technology issues. It ensures that technology reports to the council are clear and comprehensive and provide relevant options so that the council can make effective final technology policy decisions. The committee reports on technology affecting the branch and courts at each Judicial Council meeting.

Over the past year, the committee in partnership with the trial courts has completed among other accomplishments: A survey of the trial courts on their technology needs; Creation of the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group (JBTIWG) that has assisted the Judicial Council Technology Committee in the overall effort of defining and confirming requirements for branchwide technology initiatives; Regular ongoing meetings to review technology projects and make policy decisions; Working collaboratively with stakeholders to define technology governance and develop a long-term strategic plan for technology; and Hosting a Technology Summit in October 2012 that assembled branch stakeholders for a collaborative discussion on branch technology governance, vision, and roadmap.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: October 2012
  • Response Date: October 2013

Recommendation 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.

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.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: 03/31/2014
  • Response Date: October 2013

Recommendation 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 work with superior courts to address concerns about hosting data at the California Court Technology Center (Technology Center). Further, the AOC should take steps to ensure that superior courts do not lose productivity or efficiencies by hosting data at the Technology Center.

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.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: 03/31/2014
  • Response Date: October 2013

Current Status of Recommendations

All Recommendations in 2013-041