International Laboratory for the Study of
Judicial Systems
Parthenope University Naples
XXVI Convegno SISP
Università Roma Tre - Facoltà di Scienze Politiche, Dipartimento di Studi Internazionali e Dipartimento di Istituzioni pubbliche, Economia e
Società
13 - 15 settembre 2012
Court Management in the Justice System:
A Performance Evaluation Model
Luigi Lepore
Assistant professor and Researcher of Business administration and Public management
Department of Business Administration and Public management
“Parthenope” University of Naples - Italy
[email protected]
Concetta Metallo
Associate professor of Organization
Department of Business Administration and Public management
“Parthenope” University of Naples - Italy
[email protected]
Rocco Agrifoglio
Assistant professor and Researcher of Organization
Department of Business Administration and Public management
“Parthenope” University of Naples - Italy
[email protected]
Court Management in the Justice System:
A Performance Evaluation Model
Abstract
The aim of this research is to develop and evaluate the usefulness of a Performance
Measurement System (PMS) for Italian courts in planning and control activities. The
tool developed, named “Court Performance Measurement System” (CPMS), is based on
Balanced Scorecard framework and it consists of five perspectives. We decided to add
another perspectives to the traditional four of the BSC (financial, customer, internal operating, innovation and learning), that is the perspective of Information System success
(IS success). We tested CPMS in the Bari and Naples courts. Data were collected by using a qualitative and quantitative methodology. We analyzed data collected by calculating CPMS indicators for each court and comparing them by an ad-hoc statistical technique, t-test, in order to verify the similarities and the differences. Our results have
shown that these tools could be useful to support managers in decision making processes in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency, and that there is not a clear
relationship between the perceived improvement of individual performance deriving
from the ICTs implementation and organizational performance. Our findings have important implications for theory and practice for court administrators and presiding judges.
Keywords: Judicial System, Court Management, Performance Measurement System, IS
Success
1. Introduction
This study is part of wider research project of the “International Laboratory for the
Study of Judicial Systems” of Parthenope University of Naples aiming at developing
and testing a Performance Measurement System (PMS) for courts that could be useful
in planning and control activities. The work was also conducted with the cooperation
and support of network involved in the European project “Menu for Justice - Toward a
European Curriculum Studiorum on Judicial Studies” that is a project aiming to assess
the key gaps in legal and judicial education in all European countries at all stages of
education: from undergraduate to graduate and PhD programs to vocational training of
lawyers and judges.
In particular, the aim of our research is to test and to evaluate the usefulness of this
tool in supporting manager/court administrator and presiding judges in decisionmaking, in order to improve the resources allocation, the timeliness of cases resolution,
the quality of judicial services, and the accountability of Italian Judicial System.
Judicial System (JS) plays an important role in socio-economic progress in every
country. Like other public services, efficient and effective judicial services may be a
critical factor in creating development opportunities for businesses, credit availability,
and in attracting financial resources from other countries. However, over the last twenty
years Italian JS has been facing a dramatic crisis of performance, such as the unacceptable length of its proceedings, a very large amount of both pending civil and penal proceedings and a significant amount of money invested.
As a consequence, Italian Legislator and several national institutions are making efforts to realize a modernization process of the JS in order to recover functionality and
efficiency. This modernization process seems to place ever greater emphasis on management approaches and performance measurement in order to improve JS productivity.
Italian courts have experimented innovative management and organizational solutions,
such as greater autonomy for court administrators and new ways to work supported by
Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Italy has been one of the European Countries that has spent the most in ICTs in order
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its JS. The Italian Legislator, through
considerable investment in ICT, is trying to develop an “e-government approach” for
the JS (e-justice). For instance, the project “Processo Civile Telematico” (PCT), through
use of ICTs in the courts’ activities, aims to allow full on-line transaction between ministry of justice, courts, lawyers, and other actors of the JS.
Despite the modernization process and the considerable investments in ICT, to date
the results achieved have been very few. In fact, the Italian JS is still characterized by
bad performances.
In this context, a managerial approach for the courts, and the use of PMSs in particular, could be useful for court administrators and presiding judges in order to monitor the
court activities, the achievement of goals and thus to improve courts efficiency and effectiveness.
The importance of these tools is shown by the efforts made over the last decades by
scholars of Court Management and Judicial Administration, which aim was to produce
systems for measuring the performance of the US courts. As suggested by literature,
“performance measurement is crucial to a court’s ability to provide high quality yet
cost-effective and efficient services to its customers. Court managers and presiding
judges increasingly embrace the idea of systematically integrating performance measurement into the daily operations of the courts” (Ostrom et al., 2008: i).
In particular, the decision support tool that we used to evaluate the Italian courts performance is based on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework. We have chosen the
BSC to measure court performance because it, more than any other PMSs, makes extensive use of qualitative and non-financial indicators to demonstrate the overall ability of
the organization to adequately satisfy the stakeholders. The BSC, thus, appears to be
particularly suited to measuring the results in complex institutions such as courts, whose
mission includes the achievement of several goals, in combination with other institutions of the State.
Considering the substantial efforts the Italian Legislator is doing in order to develop
an “e-government approach” for the JS, we decided to add another dimension to the traditional four of the BSC (financial, customer, internal operating, innovation and learning), that is the dimension of Information System success (IS success). The inclusion of
this dimension is useful to evaluate the contribution of the ICTs to the performance improvement of JS. Thus, our PMS, named “Court Performance Measurement System”
(CPMS), consists of five dimensions. For each dimension of the CPMS, we have identified different indicators.
Our CPMS was tested into Naples and Bari courts, in order to verify its usefulness in
planning and control activities. Data were collected by using a qualitative and quantitative methodology. Based on case-study method, we conducted a qualitative analysis in
order to collect data on organization and performance of courts using ethnographic interviews and document analysis techniques. Moreover, a quantitative analysis was car-
ried out administering a questionnaire to administrative staff of Bari and Naples Courts.
The questionnaire was aimed to measure some CPMS variables, such as IS success and
organizational culture. Subsequently, we analyzed data collected by calculating CPMS
indicators for each court and comparing them by an ad-hoc statistical technique, t-test,
in order to verify the similarities and the differences.
Our findings could be useful to support the court management, the resources allocation, the organizational change, the e-justice success and more generally the process of
performance improvement in the two courts investigated. These results offer important
theoretical and practical implications for court administrators and presiding judges.
The structure of this paper is as follows. First, we introduce the theoretical background, we begin by explaining PMSs and BSC in particular within non-profit organizations; then we deepen the dimension of IS success in the Italian courts. Second, we present the PMS proposed, the CPMS. In the following section, we describe the research
methodology and the results of the analysis. Finally, we discuss the findings and their
implications for research and practice.
2. Measuring performance in non-profit organizations and the Balanced Scorecard
Measuring the performance of non-profit organizations is a well-consolidated topic
in the literature. Over the years, various systems have been proposed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations which, not operating in a market system, cannot
refer to profit and to the traditional indicators of performance.
In non-profit organizations and in public administration institutions in particular, the
importance of non-financial indicators is demonstrated by the relevance assumed during
last decades by those models, like the BSC, that through these indicators can be used to
best represent the complex and articulate goals of public organizations (Kaplan, Norton,
1992, 1996a, 1996b; Kaplan, 1999).
Several PMSs have been developed to evaluate the business performance of both
profit and non-profit oriented organizations such as: BSC (Kaplan, Norton, 1992,
1996a); Integrated Performance Measurement System (Nanni et al., 1992); Intangible
Asset Monitor (Sveiby, 1997); Piramide SMART (Lynch, Cross, 1991); Macro Process
Model (Brown, 1996); the Performance Prism (Neely, Adams, 2001); Skandia Navigator (Edvinsson, Malone, 1997). These systems assume a very important role in organizations, supporting their strategic and operational decision making. Scholars and practitioners have used the BSC framework to investigate performance in non-profit organization (Niven, 2003; Busco et al., 2008) and, especially, in court (Ostrom et al., 2008).
These PMSs have begun to play an important role also in public management approaches due to the spread of inefficiency in PA activities, the wasteful use of resources
and the consequent crisis of public confidence. In fact, these PMS are considered useful
for motivating and sanctioning, as well as simply to monitor the processes and the results (Fattore, 2009).
The growing number of non-profit organizations which have implemented similar
systems is due to the limits of the traditional PMSs, for instance the inability to provide
precise information about the long-term aims, the inadequate ability to incorporate and
show the value produced by intangible assets, the inability to communicate organizations’ strategies and priorities, and the purely economic and financial nature of the performance indicators used.
In order to overcome these limitations, BSC uses indicators to monitor targets
achievement from four points of view: financial, customer, internal process, and innova-
tion and learning. More specifically, BSC is a management tool that provides a periodic
and concise assessment of how well the organization is progressing towards achieving
its strategic goals. The model was created by Kaplan and Norton in the early 1990’s and
has grown in popularity ever since. To each strategic objective of the organization are
associated some measurements on the four perspectives of the BSC. Furthermore, this
tool has been used to evaluate IT investments and IS performance in different kinds of
organizations, both profit and non-profit oriented (Martinsons, 1992; Martinsons et al.,
1999; Wright et al., 1999; Rosemann, Wiese, 1999).
Implementing more balanced systems for measuring performance of public institutions, while being useful or perhaps necessary, leads to a clash with the complexity arising from the multidimensionality of the result achieved by public organizations. The use
of these systems, in fact, must address various constraints, both theoretical and practical, relating to the assessment of efficiency and, in particular, effectiveness of the public
non-profit organizations.
The goals pursued by public organization are normally composite and often intangible, and so the overall output is difficult to measure. Due to its social function, the activity of public organization is characterized by the simultaneous attempt to satisfy a wideranging number of stakeholders.
This leads to the multidimensional nature of the overall performance. Assessment, in
all cases, regardless of any difficulty, represents an indispensable element in safeguarding the interests of the different stakeholders. In fact, the absence of mechanisms able to
adequately measure the results, as well as the inadequacy of instruments for communication of results to public services users, would impede the operation of accountability
mechanisms that protect the stakeholders.
Over the last two decades, fast technological development has optimized the way information is managed, making it possible to overcome some of the limitations alluded
to above. The ability to gather and manage a great amount of data, typical of the new
ICT, makes it possible to improve the efficacy of two principle functions of information
in public organizations, external accountability on the levels of performance and support
the internal decision-making processes. In other words, IS make it possible to satisfy
different knowledge requirements about performances of organizations and. On the other hand, facilitate decision-making processes at all levels of organization.
3. Information systems and performance of the Italian courts
During the last two decades, there was a considerable growth of e-justice projects
aimed at using ICT to improve efficiency and effectiveness of JS.
Several computer applications are being introduced in judicial organizations to support administrative activities, evaluation of court performances and case-flows management. ICTs are considered to be important tools to implement the managerial philosophy in the JSs (Fabri, Langbroek, 2000), planning and control instruments, new budgeting methods, accounting systems, performance indicators, measurement of workload,
etc.
With the rise of e-justice, scholars and practitioners have begun to research this topic.
The traditional research in this area concerned mainly descriptive analysis of the phenomenon, investigating the evolution of software applications for JS, the amounts of
money invested by public sector, experience of use of ICT, and different e-justice strategies by European Union members (e.g., Fabri, 2008, 2009; Oskamp et al., 2004;
Carnevali et al., 2006; Casanovas et al., 2008; Cerrillo, Fabra, 2009; Velicogna, 2008;
Velicogna et al., 2011). Fabri (2009) considers the Italian case in a comparative prospective with some other European countries. His study have shown e-justice strategies
adopted in some European states to implement software applications for JS, and the
main ICT projects and tools adopted in Italian courts. Cerrillo and Fabra’s (2009) book
presents experiences and best practices concerning the use and impact of ICTs in the JS.
Based on the contributions of many authors, this research to provide the most comprehensive overview of present developments in e-justice.
These recent studies have shown that have been done considerable investments to
project, develop and implement new ICTs in the JS, with a whole body of practical experience in the courts. However, functionality and performance of technologies to support judicial administrations vary significantly from different countries (Carnevali et al.,
2006; Fabri 2007; Velicogna 2008; CEPEJ, 2010). In many experiences, these investments in e-justice solutions have not given the expected results. In particular, in Italy,
the results achieved have been very few, despite the considerable investments in ICT
(Carnevali et al., 2006; Falletti, 2008). This situation has attracted the attention of numerous researchers (Fabri, 2004, 2006; Masciandaro, 2000; Marchesi, 2003; Zan, 2004;
Bruti Liberati et al., 2005; Contini, Cordella, 2007) who, as well as highlighting the
state of crisis in the Italian JS, have tried to propose solutions mainly in terms of management innovations. For example, the study carried out by Contini and Cordella (2007)
has emphasized the role of the new technology in the Italian JS and has provided a first
assessment of its impact on performance, showing the discrepancies between expectations and the results obtained.
In this context, the evaluation of the success or effectiveness of the ICT investments
could be useful for court administrators and presiding judges, in order to monitor the
achievement of goals and, thus, to improve court efficiency and effectiveness.
“IS success or effectiveness is critical to our understanding of the value and efficacy
of IS management actions and IS investments” (DeLone, McLean, 2003: 10). Many
scholars recognize the need to evaluate IS success (or effectiveness) and a large number
of systems success measures exist (e.g., Bailey, Pearson, 1983; DeLone, McLean,
1992).
The most widespread and recognized indicator is user satisfaction (Bailey, Pearson,
1983). An information system is a successful information system if it is capable of satisfying the information requirements of its users. Bailey and Pearson (1983) defined user
satisfaction as the sum of an individual’s reactions to a set of factors affecting IS success. They identified thirty-nine factors that influence IS user satisfaction and developed
an instrument to measure them. Bailey and Pearson’s instrument has been adopted in
numerous researches as basis to measure IS satisfaction and success (e.g., Ives et al.,
1983; Saariner, 1996).
According to DeLone and McLean (1992), however, a single indicator is not sufficient to measure such a complex construct as the success of an IS. The authors therefore
developed a model, known as the “IS success model”, based on six dimensions, i.e., the
quality of the system, the quality of the information, the use of the system, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. DeLone and McLean’s model is
based on three levels: technical, the accuracy and efficiency of the communication system that produces information; semantic, the success of the information in conveying
the intended meaning; effectiveness, the effect of the information on the receiver.
Therefore, the systems quality dimension measures technical success; information
quality dimension measures semantic success; and effectiveness success is measured
from several dimensions such as use, user satisfaction, individual and organizational
impacts. Moreover, DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) argued that this model is based
on both process and causal considerations and, therefore, these dimensions of success
are interrelated rather than independent. According to the authors, the aim of their model was to investigate a process understanding of IS and their impacts. Therefore, the
process model analyzed three components: creation, use, and consequences of system
use. They argued that “each of these steps is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for the resultant outcome(s)” (DeLone, McLean, 2003:16).
Seddon (1997) proposed two dimensions for classifying IS effectiveness measures:
type of system and stakeholder. Compared with DeLone and McLean’s Model, Seddon
(1997) argued that different IS success measurements are needed to assess not only the
individual and organizational impact, but also the effectiveness of a system for different
groups of stakeholders. Seddon (1997) proposes an alternative model for IS success,
substituting DeLone and McLean’s (1992) IS use with perceived usefulness because he
believed that system use dimension represents a behavior, not a success measure, appropriate for inclusion in a process model, but not in a casual model. DeLone and
McLean (1992, 2003), on the other hand, argued that system usage is an appropriate
measure of success in most cases. In this way, Saariner (1996) also highlighted that IS
use represents a necessary condition for success. Rai and colleagues (2002) empirically
and theoretically compared DeLone and McLean’s (1992) and Seddon’s (1997) models
of IS success and they found that both models exhibit a reasonable fit with the collected
data. Since 1992, DeLone and McLean’s IS success model has served as a basis for numerous studies and empirical investigations (for a review Petter and McLean, 2009).
Other scholars (Martinsons, 1992; Martinsons et al., 1999; Wright et al., 1999;
Rosemann, Wiese, 1999) have tried to evaluate IS success using the BSC model. Particularly, Wright and colleagues (1999) argued that it could be reasonable to apply BSC
also for the evaluation of software performance. In fact, in their BSC, software evaluation is included in the innovation and learning perspective. Rosemann and Wiese (1999:
774), however, used the BSC for the evaluation of IS tasks such as the process of implementation and operational use. As for the four dimensions of the BSC, they add a
new project perspective, increasing the completeness and the quality of IS reports including measures such as processing time along the critical path or remaining time to
the next milestone. Finally, Martinsons and colleagues (1999) developed a BSC for IS.
They used Kaplan and Norton’s BSC framework, adapting it to IT application projects
and/or an IS department or functional area. Particularly, they suggested four perspectives to measure and evaluate IS: user orientation, business value, internal processes,
and future readiness.
Despite the increased research interest on software applications for JS, the field currently is poor of theoretical frameworks that can be useful for addressing important issues concerning the implementation success of IS, such as the factors influencing the
usage behavior of these applications. It would seem very important to understand what
factors influence the usage behavior of e-justice solutions, so that policy makers may
improve the likelihood of success when introducing or refining the use of these tools in
JS.
4. The model proposed for measuring the performance of Italian courts
Courts are complex non-profit organizations that provide users with various types of
services. According to Ostrom and colleagues (2008) their mission is to provide a jus-
tice service in order to protect guaranteed rights and individual freedom. Therefore, the
courts must accessibly, fairly, efficiently and efficaciously solve disputes arising from
the application of the law, and apply the law constantly, impartially and independently,
thus guaranteeing the certainty of law, protection under the law, safety and public order.
Figure 1 illustrates the above in summarized form.
Fig. 1 – Output and outcome of Judicial System
Source: Kettinger (2005).
As happens for different categories of public services, provision of judicial services
consists of a combination of various production processes that lead to the provision of
two different types of service: core and accessory. The core services are directly connected to the satisfaction of the need for justice and consist mainly in the exercise of
judges’ adjudicatory and investigative functions. The accessory services are administrative services that support provision of primary services. Examples are planning and control activities and, generally speaking, activities that have organizational nature (Lepore,
2009; Alvino, Lepore, 2009, 2010; Lepore et al., 2009, 2010; Lepore, 2011).
As for the accessory services, it should be underlined that courts do not have a dedicated structure for planning and control. Planning activity should be carried out by the
cooperation between presiding judge and court administrator, who are legally bound to
work out a yearly program of the activities. The internal control activity instead is generally absent. Italian courts in fact have never had a system to assess efficiency in the
use of resources, effectiveness of their services, and in general their performances. In
other words, they ever had any internal or external accountability systems. The main
type of control is by inspection and is carried out by the Ministry of Justice and Superior council of magistracy.
As happens in all public administrations, assessment of courts performances comes
into conflict with the problem of quantifying the utility or the value created, comparing
it with the utility sacrificed. Therefore, the need to create a specific PMS emerges. This
tool should be able to evaluate and express the degree to which the different aims of the
court have been reached, using quali-quantitative indicators. The importance of these
kinds of tool is shown for example by the efforts made over the last decades by scholars
of Court Management and Judicial Administration to produce systems for measuring the
results of the US courts.
Following the previous studies (Ostrom et al., 2008), we have chosen the BSC to
measure court performance because it, more than any other PMS, provides a range of
information that goes beyond mere economic and financial performance. The BSC, in
fact, makes extensive use of qualitative and non-financial indicators to demonstrate the
overall ability of the organization to adequately satisfy the stakeholders. The BSC, thus,
appears to be particularly suited to measuring the results in complex institutions such as
courts, whose mission includes the achievement of several goals, not just financial ones.
Some authors (Martinsons, 1992; Rosemann, Wiese, 1999) have argued that although
the innovation and learning dimension of BSC could also provide the measurement and
evaluation of IS performance, in some cases it is not suitable for this purpose. We believe, in other words, that business performance should also include an IS perspective.
Particularly, we assume that the profit and non-profit oriented organizations’ business performance could be measured and evaluated using a decision support model
based on both the classic four dimensions of the BSC and another that measures IS performance: IS success. Therefore, we developed a decision support tool that evaluates
court performance based on different kinds of measures included in the following five
perspectives: customer, internal operating, financial, innovation and learning (based on
the BSC framework), and IS success.
The indicators included in the four classic perspectives provide the courts’ management with basic information on the ability of the organization to be:
effective, adequately satisfying the requirements of the stakeholders (customer
perspective);
efficient, saving resources (financial perspective);
expeditious in disputes resolutions (internal operating perspective);
capable of improving overall performance, promoting organizational processes
able to facilitate creation and sharing of knowledge (innovation and learning perspective).
The indicators included in the customer, internal operating, and financial dimensions
have been developed and validated using some indicators included in the “CourTools”
and some indicators developed by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) that according to us are adapt to Italian courts. “CourTools” is a PMS used
in the USA to evaluate first instance court performance. Based on the literature, we
have selected and adopted other indicators. Figure 2 shows our decision support tool.
Fig. 2 - Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS)
The five dimensions comprising our decision support tool are the following:
1)
customer perspective: the customer of a court is a person or an organization that
receives the services provided by the court. Indicators that we include in this dimension
are measures of a court’s accessibility and treatment of customers in terms of fairness,
equality, and respect. To define these measures, customers are asked to answer different
questions about how they are treated in court and whether the court’s decision making
process seems fair. These questions have been defined on the basis of the questions used
by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC);
2)
internal operating perspective: the indicators used in this perspective measure
the court’s ability to be efficient, controlling its internal procedures and environments.
The efficiency measurements used inform presiding judges and court administrators
about how well resources are used to achieve intended goals. For this perspective we
use the “clearance rate” indicator, which is the number of cases resolved as a percentage
of the number of incoming cases. Another indicator is the “case turnover ratio” measured as the resolved cases/unresolved cases ratio. Finally, we use the “disposition time”
calculated as the 365/case turnover ratio. These measurements are a fundamental management tool that evaluate the length of time it takes a court to process cases;
3)
financial perspective: the indicator used is a cost indicator such as “cost per
case”. It is a measurement of the average cost of processing a single case by case type
(e.g., civil and/or penal cases). Cost per case will be measured using an indicator developed by the National Center for State Courts. This measurement aids managers in decision-making in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of court;
4)
innovation and learning perspective: in this dimension we include some indicators that measure the contribution of human resources, the information capital, and court
culture to support innovation and learning. Particularly, for human resources, we use the
following indicators: the number of administrative staff, the number of professional
judges, and the number of IS end-users. Information capital, on the other hand, will be
measured using the following indicators: ICT software and hardware investments. Finally, court culture will be measured using a specific scale (Ostrom et al., 2007), the
Court Culture Assessment Instrument (CCAI), which has been adapted by researcher of
NCSC from the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) scale (Cameron,
Quinn, 2006). “Culture is an important element enabling court performance because it
encompasses and makes coherent […] values, expectations, and assumptions about how
work gets done in a particular court” (Ostrom, 2010: 22). The inclusion of indicators to
measure the cultural model in the perspective of innovation and learning is important,
because obtaining measure of its culture, a court obtains relevant information about itself, and about the opportunity to change the ways to do business. In other words, this is
necessary to find new and better ways to organize and conduct business. According to
Ostrom (2010: 26), “gauging a court’s culture is a very useful step in moving toward
high performance, because it focuses on how judges and administrators do their jobs”.
The CCAI is based on two specific dimensions such as solidarity and sociability. The
first dimension refers to how unified is the court and shows the degree to which judges
and court personnel working by shared goals, mutual interests, and common tasks in order to get common ends. On the contrary, sociability refers to how closely knit are
members of the court, highlighting the degree to which judges and court personnel to
work cooperatively with one in a cordial fashion. Combining solidarity and sociability
dimensions, the CCAI provides a classification scheme that systematically produces
four distinguishable types of cultures: communal, networked, autonomous, and hierarchical. Communal culture (High Sociability - Low Solidarity) emphasizes the importance of getting along and acting collectively. Judges and court personnel recognize
the importance of group involvement and mutually agreed upon norms rather than established rules and authority. Networked culture (High Sociability - High Solidarity)
emphasizes collaborative work environment and effective court-wide communication.
Judges try to build court policies and practices basing on the deliberate involvement and
consensus extend to involving other court system partners. Autonomous culture (Low
Sociability - Low Solidarity) is characterized from judge wide discretion to conduct
court business. Despite there is an agreement on court performance and aims, presiding
judge leadership is inhibited as individual judges exercise latitude on key procedures
and policies. Finally, hierarchical culture (Low Sociability - High Solidarity) defines
rules and procedures to meet clearly stated court-wide objectives. Judges leader seek to
achieve the efficiency advantages resulting as good managers and coordinators. In order
to understand prevailing court cultural models, four types of cultures are measured by
five content dimensions such as case management style, judge-staff relations, change
management, courthouse leadership, and internal organization.
5)
IS success perspective: Based on original DeLone and McLean’s IS success
model, we consider six dimensions: 1) system quality, the measurements of IS itself; 2)
information quality, the measures of the IS output; 3) user satisfaction, recipient response to the use of IS output; 4) information use, recipient consumption of IS output;
5) individual impact, the effect of information on the behavior of the recipient; and 6)
organizational impact, the effect of information on organizational performance. Particularly, system quality concerns the consistency of the user interface, the quality of documentation, and whether there are bugs in the system. Information quality concerns the
relevance, timeliness and accuracy of information generated through the system. User
satisfaction is the sum of an individual’s reactions to a set of factors affecting information system success (Bailey, Pearson, 1983). IS use, instead, concerns the use of the
system by the user. Finally, individual and organizational impacts are the outcomes attributed to user satisfaction (DeLone, McLean, 1992) and IS use (Seddon, 1997).
5. Research methodology
Our CPMS was tested into Naples and Bari courts, in order to verify its usefulness in
planning and control activities. Data were collected by using a qualitative and quantitative methodology.
Based on case-study method, we conducted a qualitative analysis in order to collect
data on organization and performance of courts using ethnographic interviews and document analysis techniques. In particular, firstly we conducted two preliminary interviews with the court administrators in order to obtain general information about the two
courts. Later, eight semi-structured interviews for each court were carried out with court
administrators, IS managers, chancellery officers and other administrative officers. These interviews have allowed us to obtain information about organization as well as the
management of the courts investigated. Furthermore, through the analysis of court documents (Judiciary Administration Report; Directorate General for Automated Information Systems; Cepej reports) and data collecting we obtained some important information about the performance of the courts and calculated the PMS indicators included
into the following dimensions: internal processes and innovation and learning perspectives.
Subsequently, a quantitative analysis was carried out administering a questionnaire to
administrative staff of Bari and Naples courts, during the period from the 20th of October 2009 to the 15th of January 2010. The questionnaire was aimed to measure some
CPMS variables, such as IS success and organizational culture.
Data were gathered from court users of various applications such as “sistema informativo della cognizione penale” (SICP), “sistema informativo della cognizione civile”
(SICC), and “sistema informativo dell’area amministrativa” (SIAMM). These applications, known as Case Management Systems (CMS) and Case-tracking System (CtS), are
technologies for automation of administrative tasks. In particular, one of the first applications developed for the courts activities is CtS that automate court dockets and other
court registers. To better support the activities of the administrative personnel, different
CMSs were developed in European Countries in the last decades. These applications are
principally devoted to support and automate the back-office and court staff’s administrative work, the case tracking, the case planning, document management, scheduling of
hearings and in this way they also support judicial activities. With the objective to improve these applications, more recently different European JSs are trying to open the
CMS database to external users, such as lawyers and parties.
All questionnaires were administered in Italian language, existing scales were translated from English and then back-translated to check the reliability of the translation using the procedure suggested by Brislin (1970).
We conducted a pre and pilot testing to verify and validate the measures used and obtained feedback by some representatives of the court administrative staff in the first instance. Findings of the pre-test highlighted the reliability and consistency of the scales
used.
Of 620 court administrative staff, of which 212 from court of Bari and 408 from
court of Naples, we received a total of 321 complete questionnaires: 59 from court of
Bari (response rate 27.83%) and 262 from court of Naples (response rate 64.21%). To
minimize data entry errors, all the collected data were checked for consistency. As a result, 314 valid responses were collected.
Concerning IS success perspective, information quality was measured using Rai and
colleagues’ (2002) seven-item scale. Two items were used to measure system quality by
adapting Rai and colleagues’ (2002) scale. IS use was measured with a single item
based on Rai and colleagues’ (2002) scale. Twelve items were used to measure user satisfaction based on Doll and Torkzadeh’s (1988) end-user computing satisfaction scale.
Finally, individual impact was measured using Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand’s
(1996) user performance four-item scale. We have not measured the organizational impact because ICT impact on court organizational performance may be inferred from indicators related to the other CPMS perspectives. All the IS success dimensions were
measured by five-point scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree”
(5), except for IS use and individual impact were measured by seven-point scale ranging
from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7).
Concerning innovation and learning perspective, court culture was measured using a
specific scale developed by Ostrom and colleagues (2007) called CCAI, previously
adapted from the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by
Cameron and Quinn (2006). This scale allows to measure both current and preferred
cultural models by assessing five key dimensions of court culture such as case management style, judge and court-staff relations, change management, courthouse leadership
and internal organization. Each court dimension is composed by four sets of statements;
responders should divide 100 points among these four statements giving a higher number of points to alternative that is most often emphasized.
6. Results
With reference to the customers’ perspective, the indicator access and fairness was
not measured because the results of our survey about how customers are treated in court
and whether the court’s decision making process seems fair are not yet available.
With reference to the internal operating perspective, clearance rate for Bari court for
the year 2010 is equal to 114.6 %, while clearance rate for Naples court is 107.1 %.
These values highlight that both Bari and Naples courts have been able not only to satisfy demand of justice occurred in the year, but also to reduce the backlog of cases. The
longitudinal analysis has highlighted a general increase in productivity of the two
courts, there is only a slight decrease in production capacity on Naples court from 2008
to 2009 (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 – Clearance Rate
The case turnover ratio for Bari court in 2010 is equal to 0.43, while for Naples court
it is equal to 0.47. A case turnover ratio compare the number of resolved cases during
the observed period and the number of unresolved cases at the end of observed period.
So, these ratios measure how quickly courts analyzed turns over received cases, that is,
how long it takes for a type of cases to be resolved. The longitudinal analysis has shown
that the value of case turnover ratio for Bari court increases from 2007 to 2008 and then
decreases (Fig. 4). Instead, for Naples court, it is almost constant during the observed
period.
Fig. 4 – Case Turnover Ratio
Information provided by previous indicators are integrated and confirmed by the value of the disposition time. This indicator provides further insight into how a court manages its flow of cases. Figure 5 highlights that timeliness of resolving cases for Bari
court at first decreases and then increases. The number of days required to resolve civil
cases decreases from 1077 days in 2007 to 796 days in 2008, subsequently it increases
in 2009, it is equal to 844 days, and remains constant in 2010. For Naples court, timeliness of case resolution at firs increases from 781 day in 2007 to 805 days in 2008 and
824 in 2009, and then it decreases to 783 days in 2010.
Fig. 5 – Disposition Time
Figure 6 provides a summary of civil cases management in the two courts, showing
the number of incoming, resolved, and pending cases.
Fig. 6 – Civil Cases of Naples and Bari Courts
Civil cases Naples
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
2007
2008
incoming
2009
resolved
2010
pending
Civil cases Bari
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2007
2008
incoming
2009
resolved
2010
pending
With reference to the financial perspective, for now it was not possible to define the
value of cost per case due to different difficulties we found to obtain necessary information. In fact, the determination of cost per case for Italian courts suffers several criticality as, for example, the difficulty to obtain different cost data (cost for salaries, justice cost, etc.), which are available from different administrations (Municipalities, Ministry of Justice, Appellate courts) that contribute in various way to finance the activities
of a court. A second limitation relates to the fact that some data costs, sometimes available for example in the Ministry database, are not disaggregated by type of cases.
These limits, more in general, reflect a limit broader represented by the lack of a
mechanism to monitor costs and revenues in Italian court, there is, in other words, no
accounting systems.
With reference to innovation and learning perspective, the results have shown that
the Bari court is composed of 106 judges and 252 administrative staff. Investment in
ICT hardware amounted to € 40,000, of which € 35,000 for the purchase of 50 compu ters and € 5,000 for other computer equipment. Investment in ICT software, by contrast,
are not quantifiable because these investments are often provided by the central government without any indication of costs. The court of Naples is composed of 438 judges
and 674 administrative staff. Data relating to ICT hardware and software investments
are not available.
Finally, we also assessed the organizational culture for both courts by using CCAI.
Firstly, we compared for each court the current and preferred court cultural types such
as communal, networked, autonomous, and hierarchical, in order to understanding the
gaps among current and preferred organizational models. After, we compared the court
culture models of Bari and Naples courts in order to understanding the gaps among two
courts about current and preferred organizational cultures. The comparative analysis between two courts was conducted by using the “t-test” statistical test. It assesses whether
the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.
Table 1 shows the results of comparative analysis among current and preferred court
culture for each court, while Table 2 shows the results of comparative analysis among
court culture types from two courts.
Tab. 1 – Current and preferred culture comparative analysis for each court
Content dimension
Case Management Style
Judge-Staff Relations
Change Management
Courthouse Leadership
Internal Organization
Culture type
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
Current
Mean Std. Dev.
19.11
16.84
13.06
10.79
30.39
24.67
23.31
21.91
27.12
23.11
16.76
16.69
24.29
23.60
14.33
14.12
21.35
14.70
16.59
18.08
22.45
18.72
22.94
16.83
12.18
11.26
14.72
15.16
26.88
23.62
32.59
27.61
14.82
13.50
15.39
12.32
29.00
22.09
24.12
20.22
Bari
Preferred
t-test
Mean Std. Dev. "t" value
Sig.
25.78
18.39
3.038
0.004
24.80
19.36
4.789
0.000
15.29
15.88
4.467
0.000
18.43
18.45
1.599
0.116
26.17
20.72
0.355
0.724
22.92
20.95
1.667
0.102
13.21
16.67
2.784
0.008
25.49
23.77
2.773
0.008
21.86
18.55
0.189
0.851
22.43
18.47
1.552
0.127
14.12
19.02
2.436
0.018
29.90
24.85
1.712
0.093
29.76
20.82
5.282
0.000
26.84
21.20
3.224
0.002
13.98
16.47
3.079
0.003
18.14
17.55
3.003
0.004
27.63
20.13
3.759
0.000
25.55
18.30
3.670
0.001
17.12
20.15
2.737
0.009
17.35
18.17
1.755
0.085
Current
Mean Std. Dev.
29.76
20.10
16.59
13.13
27.95
21.81
22.90
20.35
33.03
21.05
21.28
14.25
24.29
22.93
14.61
13.95
20.63
18.33
13.24
12.42
30.19
24.23
28.43
21.36
10.85
10.62
17.14
16.39
32.84
21.60
34.31
26.53
12.89
11.22
18.10
14.50
37.87
22.68
24.73
19.98
Naples
Preferred
t-test
Mean Std. Dev. "t" value
Sig.
33.83
21.18
3.019
0.003
28.28
19.4
7.247
0.000
12.43
11.49
10.054
0.000
17.03
17.89
4.175
0.000
33.18
21.61
0.080
0.936
24.42
18.78
1.925
0.056
13.09
11.54
6.013
0.000
19.28
18.55
2.854
0.005
20.58
16.41
0.039
0.969
25.28
18.59
9.239
0.000
11.36
12.14
10.504
0.000
33.29
22.16
2.774
0.006
28.71
18.73
12.336
0.000
25.58
18.24
4.780
0.000
13.50
12.04
11.844
0.000
23.71
20.00
4.937
0.000
17.80
16.13
3.747
0.000
29.14
23.68
6.110
0.000
14.33
13.91
12.164
0.000
28.05
22.90
1.443
0.151
Tab. 2 – Bari and Naples Courts comparative analysis for current and preferred court culture
Content dimension
Culture type
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
Judge-Staff Relations
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
Change Management
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
Courthouse Leadership
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
COMMUNAL
NETWORKED
Internal Organization
AUTONOMOUS
HIERARCHICAL
Case Management Style
Current Court Culture
Bari
Naples
t-test
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. "t" value
Sig.
19.11
16.84
29.76
20.10
3.869
0.001
13.06
10.79
16.59
13.13
1.996
0.049
30.39
24.67
27.95
21.81
0.646
0.521
23.31
21.91
22.90
20.35
0.122
0.903
27.12
23.11
33.03
21.05
1.651
0.103
16.76
16.69
21.28
14.25
1.778
0.080
24.29
23.60
24.29
22.93
0.000
1.000
14.33
14.12
14.61
13.95
0.128
0.898
21.35
14.70
20.63
18.33
0.299
0.766
16.59
18.08
13.24
12.42
1.250
0.216
22.45
18.72
30.19
24.23
2.473
0.015
22.94
16.83
28.43
21.36
1.963
0.053
12.18
11.26
10.85
10.62
0.757
0.452
14.72
15.16
17.14
16.39
1.001
0.320
26.88
23.62
32.84
21.60
1.638
0.106
32.59
27.61
34.31
26.53
0.403
0.688
14.82
13.50
12.89
11.22
0.940
0.350
15.39
12.32
18.10
14.50
1.350
0.181
29.00
22.09
37.87
22.68
2.547
0.013
24.12
20.22
24.73
19.98
0.193
0.848
Preferred Court Culture
Bari
Naples
t-test
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. "t" value
Sig.
25.78
18.39
33.83
21.18
2.702
0.008
24.80
19.36
28.28
19.40
1.146
0.255
15.29
15.88
12.43
11.49
1.458
0.146
18.43
18.45
17.03
17.89
0.493
0.622
26.17
20.72
33.18
21.61
2.138
0.036
22.92
20.95
24.42
18.78
0.468
0.641
13.21
16.67
13.09
11.54
0.047
0.963
25.49
23.77
19.28
18.55
1.734
0.088
21.86
18.55
20.58
16.41
0.452
0.653
22.43
18.47
25.28
18.59
0.982
0.329
14.12
19.02
11.36
12.14
0.986
0.328
29.90
24.85
33.29
22.16
0.888
0.378
29.76
20.82
28.71
18.73
0.329
0.743
26.84
21.20
25.58
18.24
0.391
0.697
13.98
16.47
13.50
12.04
0.196
0.845
18.14
17.55
23.71
20.00
1.965
0.053
27.63
20.13
17.80
16.13
3.233
0.002
25.55
18.30
29.14
23.68
1.175
0.024
17.12
20.15
14.33
13.91
0.934
0.354
17.35
18.17
28.05
22.90
3.550
0.001
The results of comparative analysis within two courts have shown that current and
preferred court culture types are often statistically different from each other
(Sig.≤0.010). On the contrary, the results of comparative analysis between two courts
have shown that cultural types, both current and preferred, are not statistically different
form each other (Sig.≤0.010), apart some exceptions. In this regard, the current and preferred culture models differ from each other for both courts, pointing out that court personnel prefers other cultural models rather than those currents. Furthermore, the CCAI
results have also shown that two courts are characterized from similar current and preferred cultural models, highlighting a similar current state and different needs to
achieve. In particular, prevailing current cultural models are hierarchical and autonomous for each of five dimensions collected in the Bari court, apart for judge-staff relations in which prevails the communal culture. On the contrary, apart some exceptions,
cultural models preferred by the Bari court personnel are communal and networked.
Moreover, prevailing current cultural model is autonomous for each content dimensions
of the Naples court, followed often by the hierarchical model. On the contrary, the Naples court personnel mainly prefers communal and networked cultural models as well as
with some exceptions the hierarchical model too. Towards a better understanding of
CCAI results, we build the following graphs work out again from two previous tables in
order to better show shows the gaps among current and preferred court culture types for
each of five dimensions and for each court. Figure 8 shows the results of CCAI for the
Case Management Style dimension.
Fig.
8 – Case Management
Style
Case
Management
Style
COMMUNAL
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bari (current)
5.00
HIERARCHICAL
0.00
NETWORKED
Bari (preferred)
Naples (current)
Naples (preferred)
AUTONOMOUS
With reference to Case Management Style, the court of Bari is current characterized
from autonomous and hierarchical cultural models, while communal and networked are
preferred. Moreover, autonomous and communal current cultural models prevail in the
court of Naples, while communal and networked are preferred. In both courts, despite
there is a general agreement on court’s goals, judges are relatively free make their own
determinations on case flow management. Moreover, the court of Bari is also characterized from more rules and procedures to meet clearly stated court-wide objectives, while
the other court emphasizes the importance of group involvement and mutually agreed
upon norms rather than established rules and procedures. Finally, both court personnel
prefer a collaborative work environment and effective court-wide communication aimed
to involve people and to decide on policy guidelines built.
Figure 9 shows the results of CCAI for the judge-staff relations.
Fig. 9 –Relations
Judge-Staff Relations
Judge-Staff
COMMUNAL
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bari (current)
5.00
HIERARCHICAL
0.00
NETWORKED
Bari (preferred)
Naples (current)
Naples (preferred)
AUTONOMOUS
With redard to judge-staff relations, the CCAI results have shown that the court of
Bari is currently characterized from communal and autonomous cultural models, while
it prefers communal and hierarchical types. On the contrary, the court of Naples is characterized from communal and autonomous cultural types, but it prefers communal and
networked cultural archetypes. In this regard, in both courts, judges seek to involve and
to collaborate between them and administrative staff using flexible ways, such as
norms, rather than established rules and firm lines of authority. On the contrary, the
court of Bari prefers the current model, but its court personnel would like also use evaluation systems and performance appraisals in order to get rewards, promotions, and
merit recruitment. The court of Naples’s personnel, instead, also prefers more coordina-
tion and collaborative work environment to manage the court activities respect than
wide discretion of judges.
Figure 10 shows the results of CCAI for the change management.
Management
Fig.Change
10 – Change
Management
COMMUNAL
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bari (current)
5.00
HIERARCHICAL
0.00
NETWORKED
Bari (preferred)
Naples (current)
Naples (preferred)
AUTONOMOUS
With reference to change management, the CCAI results have shown that both courts
are mainly characterized from autonomous and hierarchical cultural models, while the
hierarchical type is even more preferred by administrative staff of courts. Thus, judges
seek individual ways to change management resisting a rule and process bound organizational setting rather than centralized change initiatives. On the other hand, judges are
inclined to use technology and new ways of working and interacting inspired by principles of management in order to improve the timeliness of case processing and accuracy
of record keeping. In both courts, judges perceived as good coordinators and organizers
and who seek to achieve the advantages of order and efficiency are even more preferred
by administrative staff. Using new technologies and principles of management court
personnel could improve their individual performance promoting widespread benefits
for all organization.
Figure 11 shows the results of CCAI for the courthouse leadership.
Fig.Courthouse
11 – Courthouse
leadership
Leadership
COMMUNAL
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bari (current)
5.00
HIERARCHICAL
0.00
NETWORKED
Bari (preferred)
Naples (current)
Naples (preferred)
AUTONOMOUS
With regard to courthouse leadership style, the CCAI results have highlighted that
both courts are characterized from hierarchical and autonomous cultural models, while
they would like to go to other opposite cultural models such as communal and networked. In both courts, presiding judge leadership is inhibited because each judge prefers to work with few corresponding staff members of own choice. Furthermore, each
judge establishes rules and directives to guide court operations and uses own channels
to get things done. On the contrary, the personnel of two courts would like to emphasize
human relationships in order to mutually agree upon the court performance goals, to obtain more satisfaction from work, and to build an integrated court system community.
Finally, figure 12 shows the results of CCAI for the internal organization.
Fig.Internal
12 – Internal
Organization
Organization
COMMUNAL
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
Bari (current)
5.00
HIERARCHICAL
0.00
NETWORKED
Bari (preferred)
Naples (current)
Naples (preferred)
AUTONOMOUS
With refer to internal organization, both courts are currently characterized from the
prevalence of autonomous cultural model. However, the court of Bari prefers communal
and networked cultural types, while the court of Naples would like to go to networked
and hierarchical models. Thus, in both courts the internal organization is autonomous so
that each judge decides how to organize own work and has wide discretion to get things
done. Two courts emphasize stability and slow change of practices, while the confrontation is minimized. On the contrary, the court of Bari prefers the collegiality and teamwork pointing out the role of personal relations in workplace. Court personnel prefers
informal channels to communicate and to share information among judges and administrative staff, and to work collaboratively to perform case processing. The court of Naples, like the court of Bari, prefers internal organization based on collaborative work,
but also would like to have a clear division of labor and formalized roles.
Regarding IS success perspective, findings are presented in Table 3.
IS Success
System quality
Information quality
User satisfaction
IS use
Tab. 3 – The IS Success’s results
Court
Bari
Naples
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
3.57
1.08
3.32
1.24
3.35
0.98
3.32
1.03
3.47
0.98
3.34
1.06
5.71
1.74
5.54
1.69
t-test
"t" value
Sig.
1.416
0.161
0.265
0.792
0.882
0.381
0.632
0.529
Individual impact
4.91
1.64
4.48
1.81
1.673
0.098
The results have highlighted that both system quality and information quality are
positively perceived by court personnel because their responses’ mean is higher than 2.5
(Bari court: means 3.57 and 3.35; Naples court: means 3.32 and 3.32). The literature
agrees that systems perceived as reliable, precise, and timely positively affect the user’s
usage behavior (e.g., Bailey, Pearson,1983; DeLone, McLean, 1992; Rai et al., 2002).
Within JS, ISs have encouraged the digitalization of documents and the streamlining of
the organizational processes. These technologies have allowed to integrate existing databases and to explore the possible uses of ICT to improve the data exchange in JS
(Contini, Cordella, 2007). In particular, the CtS automate court docket and other court
register activities, while CMS applications have granted and integrated many courts’ activities, procedures and practices, improving the work effectiveness of court administrative officers and judges (Contini, Cordella, 2007; Velicogna, 2008).
Regarding to user satisfaction and IS use dimensions, findings have shown that
courts personnel is satisfied with the system (Bari court: mean 3.47; Naples court: mean
3.34) because there is a fit between job requirements and IS functionality. Consequently, courts personnel uses it to perform the court activities (Bari court: mean 5.71; Naples
court: mean 5.54). Using these applications, both administrative staff and judges could
explore legal information timely and without time and spatial limits, improving the
main institutional functions of JS such as disputes resolution and law enforcement.
Moreover, the adoption of these systems has favored a detailed description of organization workflows, reading the codes of procedures and other relevant regulations, reinforcing the standardized application of rules by each judicial office (Contini, Cordella,
2007).
Regarding to individual impact, results have highlighted that within two courts, administrative staff perceives positively the benefits occurring at level of individual performance because their responses’ mean is higher than 3.5 (Bari court: mean 4.91; Naples court: mean 4.48). Whether a system is not used at all, it will not have any impact
on individual performance, while a system that is used more will have higher impact on
users’ performance. Using IS, judges and court administrative officers can timely get
information, decreasing the resolution time of legal cases and improving the individual
and court performances.
Overall, comparing the dimensions of the IS success model between two courts, our
findings have shown that Bari and Naples courts are similar regarding to IS success dimensions, except for individual impact dimension (Sig.≤0.010). In this regard, Bari
court personnel perceives more benefits deriving from IS compared to Naples court personnel. The literature agrees that user satisfaction and IS use are two determinants of
individual impact dimension. In Bari court, these dimensions are average higher than
Napoli court; consequently, for Bari court personnel, IS contributes most to the improvement of their performance.
7. Conclusions
The aim of our research was to develop and evaluate the usefulness of CPMS in supporting managers/court administrators and presiding judges in decision-making, in order
to improve the resources allocation, the timeliness of cases resolution, the quality of judicial services, and the accountability of Italian JS. Our CPMS was tested into Naples
and Bari courts. Overall, three main conclusions come out from our analysis.
The first is that CPMS could be a useful tool in planning and control activities within
courts. The BSC perspectives provide information about the court’s ability to adequately satisfy all stakeholders, emphasizing peculiarities and weaknesses of the court management. However, the use of this tool would be necessary but not sufficient to recover
efficient and effective judicial services. The autonomy and empowerment of the court
manager is limited compared to other countries. This limited autonomy prevents court
manager to make the necessary adjustments if results are different from expectations.
Italian Legislator has acted on three basic principles in order to improve the performance of public administrations. These principles are autonomy, responsibility and
evaluation. With reference to the JS, perhaps the action on these three levers is still
small and thus unable to generate the desired improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. PMSs like CPMS could be useful to increase the effort on the lever of the evaluation, also inducing more responsibilities in court personnel and so improving the internal and external accountability of courts. However, they requires more autonomy and
specific managerial skills for the presiding judges and in particular for the court administrators.
More in general, the extreme complexity of court administration today demands a set
of skills not part of traditional judicial selection and training. So, selection methods for
judicial leadership should explicitly identify and acknowledge those skills, and judicial
education should include their development. Certainly this is no easy task, but probably
a more attentive conversation should begin and legislators should seek ways to identify
standards and practices that are better than many of those now in place (Duraham,
Becker, 2011). However, as the project “Menu for Justice” highlighted, today European
law faculties and in general legal and judicial education programme seem to give few
importance to this issue.
The second conclusion, is that Italian JS is characterized by bureaucratized governance model and thus by strong resistance to change that hinder the modernization process. In fact, about the possibility of using an assessment tool for improving performance, our findings have shown the opposition of court personnel, that highlight the
scarcity of human resources and adequate skills. The countries where the modernization
process and the use of assessment tools of performance were started a long time ago
have experienced the need for new professionals, with specialized skills (e.g., U.S.
Court Manager). The resistance to change is one of the peculiar characteristics of the
bureaucratic governance model of Italian Public institutions and, as literature suggested,
it is very strong in the JS. This seems principally due to the autonomy that the law recognize to the judicial branch. In fact, it is not a case that Italian JS is the last sector of
Italian Public Administration that has experimented the implementation of the New
Public Management principles. In particular, our results have shown that the prevailing
current cultural models for Naples and Bari courts are hierarchical and autonomous,
which characteristics are similar to that of bureaucratic governance model.
However, our analysis also shown that the preferred cultural models for the two
courts, apart some exceptions, are communal and networked, showing the willingness
of court personnel to change ways of working and interacting through the adoption of
new cultural models and governance models that imply more sociability between court
personnel, more interaction with other judicial system partners, more accountability for
their performance and for outcome they achieve. These seem the characteristics of the
new public governance models that emerge in other sectors of the Public Administration
and that have been inspired by New Public Management principles.
The third conclusion is that findings have shown that courts personnel is satisfied
with IS and uses it to perform the court activities. Moreover, within two courts, administrative staff positively perceives the benefits occurring from ISs on individual performance. However, Bari and Napoli courts, and Italian JS in general, are still characterized by bad performances, such as the unacceptable length of proceedings and a very
large amount of both pending civil and penal proceedings. Consequently, it seems that
there is not a relationship between the perceived improvement of individual performance and organizational performance. This situation requires an “analysis of organizational models and managerial practices with the aim to promote a greater connection between organization and ICT investments” (Relazione sull’Amministrazione della
Giustizia della Corte di Appello del Tribunale di Bari, 2010).
Several research has shown that an appropriate fit between technology and organization leads to greater organizational performance. IS design and implementation is a
complex exercise in technology innovation and organizational change management. The
adoption of technologies in Italian courts requires a redesign of the processes, changes
in the organizational structure, and a transformation of the way in which individuals
perform and interact in workplace. Technologies are simultaneously social and physical
artifact and similar technologies can be embedded into several social systems in different ways, occasioning different outcomes (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000). According
to socio-technical systems framework (Bostrom, Heinen, 1977; Mumford, 1981; Davis,
Taylor, 1986; Zuboff, 1988) both technical and social dimensions should operating
jointly for generating of high organizational performance and growth (Herbst, 1974).
Therefore, any change in the technical system of an organization sets certain constraints
and requirements for the social system (Damanpour, Evan, 1984). For example, in Italian courts, a technical innovation such as the CtS and CMS applications would require
changes in the social system such as hiring new personnel and training the administrative staff, as well as devising new procedures. However, often these applications were
no official substitute for paper based documents, thus clerks and administrative personnel had to deal with parallel procedures and producing duplicate (Contini, 2006). Instead, if the paper dockets, and in general paper-based documents, will be completely
substituted by digital documents, and social system will be prepared for this upgrade, JS
could benefit of performance improvement directly derived from the ICT investments.
Consequently, technologies are not socially neutral (Zuboff, 1988), generating not only
existing practices changes, but also affecting distribution of power within the organization, representing an opportunity for employees to gain influence, higher participation,
challenging jobs, and greater satisfaction (Zuboff, 1988).
In order to achieve benefits of adopting technology, courts should be able to manage
organizational change, to redesign the processes and work practices. However, Italian
courts are mainly characterized by hierarchical and bureaucratic organizational models,
in which established rules and procedures, firm lines of authority and cultural inertia are
significant constraints on the effective IS use.
References
Alvino F., Lepore L. (2009), Court Management: inquadramento dottrinale e strumenti
operativi, Quaderno Monografico RIREA, Roma.
Alvino F., Lepore L. (Ed.), (2010), Efficienza, Efficacia ed Economicità del Sistema
Giudiziario italiano: la prospettiva economico-aziendale, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli.
Bailey J.E., Pearson, S.W. (1983), Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing
Computer User Satisfaction, Management Science, 29(5).
Barley S. (1986), Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observation of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
Bostrom R.P., Heinen J.S. (1977), MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective, MIS Quarterly, 1(4), 11-28.
Brislin R.W. (1970), Back-translation for cross-cultural research, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 1, 195-216.
Brown M.G. (1996), Keeping Score-Using the Right Metrics for World Class Performance, New York: Quality Resources.
Bruti Liberati E., Dalla Pellegrina L., Mammone G., Marini A.M., Masciandaro D.,
Sassani B. (2005), Economia della giustizia: domanda, offerta, organizzazione delle
cause civili, Roma: Donzelli editore.
Busco C., Riccaboni A., Saviotti A. (2008). Governance, strategia e misurazione delle
performance. Le nuove frontiere della Balanced Scorecard. Arezzo: Knowità.
Cameron K.S., Quinn R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Carnevali D., Contini F., Fabri M. (2006), Tecnologie per la giustizia, Giuffrè: Milano.
Casanovas P., Sartor G., Casellas N., Rubino R. (2008), Computable Models of the Law,
Springer: Berlin.
CEPEJ (Commissione per l’efficienza della giustizia del Consiglio d’Europa) (2010),
European judicial systems. Edition 2010 (data 2008) Efficiency and quality of justice, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Cerrillo M., Fabra P. (2008), E-Justice: ICT in the Court System, IGI Global, USA.
Contini F., Cordella A. (2007), Information System and Information Infrastructure Deployment: the Challenge of the Italian e-Justice Approach, The Electronic Journal of
e-Government, 5(1).
Corte di Appello di Bari (2010), Relazione sull’Amministrazione della Giustizia, La
Matrice, Bari.
Damanpour F., Evan W.M. (1984), Organizational Innovation and Performance: The
Problem of 'Organizational Lag', Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(September),
392-409.
Davis L.E., Taylor J.C. (1986), Technology, Organization and Job Structure, in R.
Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society, Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally, 379-419.
DeLone W.H., McLean E.R. (1992), Information Systems Success: The Quest for the
Dependent Variable, Information System Research, 3(1).
DeLone W.H., McLean E.R. (2003), The DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update, Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(4).
Durham C.M., Becker D.J. (2011), Perspectives on State Court Leadership series. A
Case for Court Governance Principles, Executive Session for State Court Leaders in
the 21st Century. Harvard Kennedy School.
Edvinsson L., Malone M.S. (1997), Intellectual capital: realizing your company’s true
value by finding its hidden brainpower, New York: Harper Collin.
Etezadi-Amoli, J., Farhoomand A. F. (1996), A Structural Model of End User Computing Satisfaction and User Performance, Information & Management, 30, 65-73.
Fabri M. (2009), E-justice in Finland and in Italy: enabling versus constraining models,
in Contini, F. and G.F. Lanzara (eds), ICT and innovation in the public sector, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 115-146.
Fabri M. (ed.) (2007), Information and Communication Technology for the Public
Prosecutor’s Office, Bologna, Clueb.
Fabri M., (2004), Cambiamenti strutturali e innovazione nell’amministrazione giudiziaria. Analisi di un caso, Polis, 9(2).
Fabri M. (2006), Amministrare la giustizia. Governance, organizzazione, sistemi informativi, Bologna: Lexis.
Fabri, M., Langbroek, P.M.: The challenge of change for judicial systems. Developing a
public administration perspective. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)
Fabri M. (2008), The Italian Style of E-Justice in a Comparative Perspective. In Cerrillo
M., Fabra P. (Eds.), E-Justice: ICT in the Court System. IGI Global, USA.
Faletti E. (2008), E-justice, Milano, Giuffrè.
Fattore G. (2009), Accountability and performance management, in E. Borgonovi, Fattore G., Longo F. (Eds.), Management delle istituzioni pubbliche, Milano: Egea.
Ives B., Olson M.H., Baroudi J.J. (1983), The measurement of user information satisfaction, Communications of the ACM, 26(10), 785-793.
Kaplan R.S. (1999), The Balanced Scorecard for Public Sector Organization, Balanced
Scorecard Report, Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (1996a), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into
Action, Boston: Harvard Business Scholl Press.
Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (1996b), Using the Balanced Scorecard as a management service, Harvard Business Review, 74, 1, 75-85.
Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (1992), The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1).
Kettinger D. (2005), Swiss Courts move toward an Outcome orientation, Paper presented at EGPA Annual Conference 2005, Bern, Switzerland.
Lepore L. (2009), Efficienza, efficacia ed equità nell’amministrazione della Giustizia, in
Azienda Pubblica, n. 3/09, Maggioli, Rimini.
Lepore L. (2011), Il sistema giudiziario italiano nella prospettiva economico-aziendale:
governance e controllo, Ed. Albano, Napoli.
Lepore L., Alvino F., Metallo C., Agrifoglio R. (2010), Un modello per la valutazione
delle performance dei tribunali: un’analisi empirica, Azienda Pubblica, 3(10).
Lepore L., Metallo C., Agrifoglio R. (2009), Measuring the Performance of Italian
Courts: the Role of IS Success, in De Marco M., D’Atri A., Cabiddu S. and Braccini
A.M. (Eds.), Management of the Interconnected World, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Lynch R., Cross K. (1991), Measure Up-Yardsticks for continues improvement, USA:
Blackwell.
Marchesi D. (2003), Litiganti, avvocati e magistrati: diritto ed economia del processo
civile, Bologna: Il Mulino.
Martinsons M., Davison R., Tse D. (1999), The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the
strategic management of information systems, Decision Support Systems, 25(1).
Martinsons M.G., (1992), Strategic thinking about information management, Keynote
Address to the 11th annual conference of the International Association of Management Consultants, Toronto.
Martinsons M., Davison R., Tse D. (1999), The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the
strategic management of information systems, Decision Support Systems, 25(1).
Martinsons M.G. (1992), Strategic thinking about information management, Keynote
Address to the 11th annual conference of the International Association of Management Consultants, Toronto.
Masciandaro D. (2000), La giustizia civile è efficiente? Primo rapporto sull’economia
delle regole, Laboratorio ABI-Bocconi. Roma: Bancaria Editrice.
Mumford E. (1981), Participative Systems Design: Structure and Method, Systems, Objectives, Solutions, 1, 5-19.
Nanni A.J., Dixon J.R., Vollmann T.E. (1992), Integrated performance measurement:
management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 4.
Neely A., Adams C. (2001), Perspectives on Performance: The Performance Prism,
Cranfield School of Management.
Niven, P.R. (2003), Balanced Scorecard step by step for government and nonprofit
agencies, John Wiley & Sons.
Orlikowski W.J. (2000), Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens
for Studying Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Oskamp A. Lodder A. Apistola M. (Eds) (2004), IT Support of the Judiciary, The
Hague, The Netherlands, Asser Press
Ostrom B.J., Hanson R.A. (2010), Achieving High Performance: A Framework for
Courts, NCSC: Williamsburg.
Ostrom B.J., Clarke T.M., Schauffler R.Y., Ostrom C., Hanson R.A. (2008), A unifying
Framework for Court Performance measurement, Final Report, NCSC: Williamsburg.
Ostrom B.J., Ostrom Jr. C.W., Hanson R.A., Kleiman M. (2007), Trial Courts as organizations, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rai A., Lang S.S., Welker R.B. (2002), Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models:
An Empirical Testand Theoretical Analysis, Information Systems Research, 13.
Rosemann M., Wiese J. (1999), Measuring the Performance of ERP Software: a Balanced Scorecard Approach, Proceeding 10th Australasian Conference on Information
Systems.
Saarinen T. (1996), An expanded instrument for evaluating information systems success, Information and Management, 31(2), 103-118.
Seddon P.B. (1997), A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model
of IS success, Information Systems Research, 8(3).
Sveiby K.E. (1997), The Intangible Assets Monitor, Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 2(1).
Velicogna M., Errera A., Derlange S. (2011), E-Justice in France: The e-Barreau Experience, Utrecht Law Review, 7(1), 163-187.
Velicogna M. (2008), Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
European Judicial Systems, Strasbourg, Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.
Wright W.F., Smith R., Jesser R., Stupeck M. (1999), Information Technology, Process
Reengineering and Performance Measurement: A Balanced Scorecard Analysis of
Compaq Computer Corporation, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 1.
Wright W.F., Smith R., Jesser R., Stupeck M. (1999), Information Technology, Process
Reengineering and Performance Measurement: A Balanced Scorecard Analysis of
Compaq Computer Corporation, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 1.
Zan S., (2004), Tecnologia, organizzazione e giustizia, Bologna: Il Mulino.
Zuboff S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power,
New York: Basic Books.