Just another WordPress site

Category: Manager’s Briefcase

  • Court Leaders and Coaching

    By Nancy Fahey Smith, Owner, Sustainable Change Coaching

    According to Kevin Cashman in Forbes magazine, coaching and developing others are among the top three most important leadership competencies. Yet, despite such a high rating of importance, coaching scores as the lowest practiced competency around the world.i Leaders today have a real interest in learning skills that benefit their organizations, especially in the constantly changing world in which they operate. The courts are no exception.

    Time and again when interviewing court leaders around the country, the same pain points come up:

    • Low employee retention, especially of younger workers
    • Lack of engagement
    • Resistance to change
    • Poor teamwork

    While several factors contribute to these problems, like low pay and difficult clients, research also shows that employees who feel empowered, respected and like they’re making a difference are more likely to stay onboard. In addition, effective managers who are good communicators can boost a company’s retention — and its bottom line.ii

    One way to solve these problems is to develop a culture of coaching, that is, a coach approach to leadership. When leaders learn and practice coaching skills with their direct reports, their working relationships are improved, job satisfaction and productivity go up, conflicts are reduced, employees feel empowered and more loyal to the organization. In other words, the pain points mentioned above are reduced, and courts, as well as the public, benefit.

    In this article, coaching is defined, leadership trends explored, the relationship between coaching and productivity explained, and the application to court leaders, including judges, spelled out.

    What is coaching?

    The International Coaching Federation (ICF) defines coaching as partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.iii Coaching creates a dialogue between a coach and coachee that moves a conversation forward and towards goals the coachee is seeking to attain. Unlike mentoring, which draws upon the experience of the mentor, coaching encourages the coachee to find their own solutions to the problems they face. Unlike training, which follows a plan that leads the student to a set learning objective, in coaching, the coachee decides the direction they wish to take and the objectives they wish to achieve. Unlike therapy, which helps the client come to terms with their past, coaching is forward thinking.

    Many kinds of coaching and coaches exist, in fact the world of coaching has proliferated over the last two decades. Executive coaching, wellness coaching, personal coaching, performance coaching and many more categories exist. This article discusses how performance coaching impacts organizations like the courts. Performance Coaching is a process where one person (supervisor, manager, leader) facilitates the development and action planning of another (employee, direct report), in order that the individual can bring about changes in their lives and work.

    The research shows that coaching can have a very positive effect on employee performance. Individuals who partner with coaches have reported several benefits, including those in the chart below.iv

    All coaches, including leaders who coach their employees, are trained to have a particular mindset: they exhibit a coach approach to leadership. This mindset can be summarized as follows:

    • Coaches don’t talk, they listen.
    • Coaches don’t give information, they ask questions.
    • Coaches don’t offer ideas, they generate ideas from employees.
    • Coaches don’t share their story, they tap into the employee’s experience.
    • Coaches don’t present solutions, they expand the employee’s thinking.
    • Coaches don’t give recommendations, they empower employees to choose.v

    Most leaders say they know how to coach their employees, yet when asked to demonstrate coaching, they instead demonstrated a form of consulting, essentially giving advice or making suggestions such as “First you do this” or “Why don’t you…” or “This worked for me…”. For many, coaching skills are a new skill to learn, a new tool for their leadership toolbox. Leaders do not need to be certified coaches to successfully coach their employees to higher performance and engagement. They need to invest in learning coaching skills and then hone these skills over time. Even a short training targeted at essential skills, along with a safe environment to practice in, leads to a marked improvement in coaching skills.vi

    Leadership trends

    In addition to understanding what coaching is and that learning and practicing skills is important, leaders watch trends before they commit valuable resources to training.

    Here are what some of the experts are seeing as trends in leadership.

    • Need for agility. Leaders and their organizations are becoming / must become more agile to survive and thrive. As leaders, it’s important to adopt a nimble mindset and culture.
    • Evolving leadership norms. The age range in the workforce will continue to expand. With the decrease of age-based seniority, leadership will be taken by the best person for the role and will likely shift frequently in an agile environment.
    • Foster and sustain employee engagement. Leaders and organizations need to focus on soft skills such as emotional intelligence that have a strong impact on engagement and the effort employees put into communicating.
    • Taking a holistic approach to human capital development. Helping employees thrive in all areas of their lives (not just work), will create more engagement, productivity and overall happier employees.
    • Leadership empathy. Gen Y and Gen Z talent will continue to leave command-and-control cultures for collaborative workplaces. The ability to understand, relate to and be sensitive to employees, colleagues and communities will be paramount. We will see an even greater emphasis on listening, relating and coaching to drive effective leadership.
    • A focus on individual growth. Leaders need to identify and build talent quickly. Helping employees reach their peak potential will be required to help the organization stay competitive and thrive.vii

    These trends influence industry and business, as well as courts and other government agencies. Coaching is taking off because it is helping individuals and organizations not only adapt to change but thrive, and it fits well with the trends outlined above. Courts must change and adapt, or the problems cited in the first paragraph of this article will tear at their very fabric. As one court administrator in Arizona said about the bleeding of younger employees to other industries, “If we don’t change what we are doing, when we retire, no one will be left to run the courts.” As court leaders know, losing an employee costs up to one-and-one-half to two times that employee’s salary. The costs include recruitment, onboarding, training, ramp time to peak performance, loss of engagement of others due to high turnover, higher error rates, and general culture impacts. Several critical areas have a large effect on employee retention, and coaching is by its nature a means to remedy them: Employee engagement (or disengagement), adaptability to change, team building and burnout.

    Employee engagement

    A Gallup report called “The State of the American Workplace,” published in 2017 estimates that 67% of employees in U.S. companies are disengaged. Of that 67%, 16% are actively disengaged. Disengagement leads to employee turnover, conflict in the workplace, high rates of absenteeism, workers just hanging on until they can retire, and the like. Actively disengaged employees can even sabotage a workplace. On the other hand, highly engaged workplaces are:

    • 50% more likely to have lower turnover
    • 56% more likely to have higher-than-average customer loyalty (think public trust and confidence)
    • 38% more likely to have above average productivity
    • 27% more likely to report higher profitability (think more efficient case management)viii

    A coach approach to leadership fosters engagement of employees because it facilitates clear communication about expectations:

    • Coaching uncovers blocks to resources
    • Dialogues shift from what must be done to what can be done
    • Authentic acknowledgement takes place
    • The focus is on the person, not just the result
    • Shifts in awareness result in sustainable behavioral and developmental change
    • Coaching gives space for opinions and ideas
    • Coaching connects personal goals and organizational goals

    Change management

    Another area of serious need as cited by the educators and court administrators interviewed by the author is change management. Courts are places of continuous change, as well as places loyal to precedent and tradition. Change is constant, yet change can cause some of the highest areas of friction or conflict in an organization. People fear change, and coaching can help work through the fear and resistance commonly seen when change is forecast or implemented. Coaching

    • Provides a platform to discuss resistance, fear and confusion
    • Helps teams and individuals understand the connection between the coming change and their goals
    • Allows for discussion about possibilities
    • Addresses resource needs
    • Addresses obstacles

    A coach approach supports employees to move farther, faster, easier, quicker than they would have without a coach. Coaching becomes a “safe container” to discuss and address the INTERNAL fears and resistance individuals have that often affect EXTERNAL behaviors during times of change.

    Teamwork

    Another area of challenge often cited by court administrators was poor teamwork. Research shows that when coaching is embedded in the culture of an organization, average or even dysfunctional teams begin to turn around and become high performing teams. This happens because coaching

    • Models a new, more productive, way of communication
    • Promotes trust
    • Embeds accountability
    • Clears pathways to clarity and focus on common goals and results
    • Models acceptance of other’s ideas, opinions and ways of being, even when there isn’t agreement.

    Burnout

    Finally, when it comes to employee burnout, how can a coach approach to leadership help? In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, foremost expert on burnout, Christina Maslach, points out that burnout is a company problem, not an employee problem. In other words, a company’s culture and leadership create the environment that burns people out. She describes employee motivators as challenging work; recognition of one’s achievements; responsibility; the opportunity to do something meaningful; involvement in decision making; and a sense of importance to the organization. Leaders, Maslach states, could save themselves a huge amount of employee stress and subsequent burnout, if they were just better at asking people what they need.ix Coaching skills provide the means to ask.

    Judges and coaching skills

    How can judges use coaching skills? For presiding judges, who are court leaders, the answer is that they can use them in the same way as their court administrator. For other judges, coaching has wide applicability for judges working in family court, where self-represented litigants have become the rule. Since coaching questions are designed to help people arrive at what they need and want, rather than tell them what to do, they are perfect questions for judges to ask self-represented litigants. Coaching questions by design avoid putting people on the defensive. In specialty courts, where judges often interact directly with defendants, the same applies. Using a coach approach helps people in front of the court figure out what they need for themselves and from the courts, while avoiding telling people how to proceed.

    In conclusion, a coach approach to leadership involves learning and practicing a specific set of skills designed to bring out the best in people. In the administration of justice, employees of the courts are critical to the courts’ success. Court leaders, from the line supervisor to the presiding judge, can learn and use coaching skills to keep these critical people on board, as well as increasing their engagement, teamwork and adaptability to change. Court leaders don’t need to become certified coaches, rather, they can learn coaching skills and adopt a coach approach to leadership. They will benefit themselves, their employees and their courts in the process.

    NOTES

    i Cashman, Kevin. “Five Coaching Practices to accelerate the growth of others.” Forbes, January 29, 2018.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevincashman/2018/01/29/five-coaching-practices-to-accelerate-the-growth-of-others/#5fe5daa05388

    ii Cheng, Candace. “3 Factors Strongly Linked to Better Employee Retention, According to 32 Million LinkedIn Profiles.” November 20, 2019. https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/trends-and-research/2019/3-factors-linked-to-better-employee-retention

    iii International Coaching Federation. Accessed January 15, 2020. http://becomea.coach/?navItemNumber=4090

    iv 2017 ICF Global Consumer Awareness Study. https://coachfederation.org/research/consumer-awareness-study

    v Webb, Keith. “What it Really Means to be a Coach.” Accessed at https://keithwebb.com/what-really-means-to-be-coach/, January, 2020.

    vi Milner, Julia and Trenton Milner. “Most Managers Don’t Know How to Coach but They can Learn,” HBR, August 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/08/most-managers-dont-know-how-to-coach-people-but-they-can-learn

    vii “Leadership Trends To Watch For From Now To 2022,” accessed at  https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/08/21/leadership-trends-to-watch-for-from-now-to-2022/#70df3c936658 and “14 Leadership Trends That Will Shape Organizations In 2018,” accessed at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/01/30/14-leadership-trends-that-will-shape-organizations-in-2018/#50ce4fe15307 from https://www.coachingoutofthebox.com/coaching-resources/blog .

    viii Gallup, State of the American Workplace, 2017. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx

    ix Harvard Business Review, “Burnout Is About Your Workplace, Not Your People,” 2019. https://hbr.org/2019/12/burnout-is-about-your-workplace-not-your-people

    Nancy Fahey Smith is a coach, teacher, trainer and facilitator with over 10 years of experience working in court training and education, first at the Washington State AOC and then at Arizona Superior Court in Pima County (Tucson, AZ). She is co-owner of Sustainable Change Coaching and Consulting. Nancy branched out into this new business where she and her partner, Leslie Gross, teach court and non-profit leaders coaching skills to improve employee performance, satisfaction, retention, and adaptability to change. She is passionate about helping court leaders create a culture of coaching in their organizations through a coach approach to leadership. She came to the courts with 16 years of experience in education, both as a community college instructor and a high school teacher in Tucson, and as a curriculum coordinator at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Nancy taught many kinds of court related classes while at the courts, and has a special interest in adult learning theory and application. She speaks periodically at conferences on topics related to judicial education and publishes articles for the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE). Currently, she serves on the NASJE the Communication Committee. She earned her bachelor’s degree in French and History at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her Master’s in French from the Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Nancy grew up in a Navy family, married into an Army family and served four years as an Army Intelligence officer. She has traveled widely around the United States and Europe as well as to Peru, Mexico and China. She likes the outdoors, and swims, hikes, bikes and does yoga for fun and fitness. She can be reached at nancy@sustainablechangecoaching.com.

  • You Cannot Have A Future Without Change

    Cheryl Fowler
    Cheryl Fowler

    By Cheryl Fowler, Office of Policy & Education
    ESD – OSCA, Oregon Judicial Department

    Like it or not, life is a whirlwind of change. Our society moves at a pace that far exceeds any other time in history and change is a reality we face each day. Change can be a very positive thing when it is implemented effectively, efficiently, and with encouragement. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen as often as it could or should. But regardless of how change is implemented; regardless of how we feel about it – change is here to stay.

    How do you react? Do you embrace change or do you hate it? If you hate change, do you only dislike the aspects of change that you can’t control? Sometimes you are the initiator of change, but more often you are the one told to make it happen.

    This past spring my “work” world was turned upside down. Through a reorganization process everything I was doing in my job was disbursed, except judicial education, all staff were shifted to other areas, and I felt the dust swirling around me as I wondered how I was going to handle this change. Once it started to settle down to where I could see a few things more clearly, I realized that this change could open possibilities for me that I haven’t had available for several years. One of those was reestablishing my membership with the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE). I knew that this organization would provide me with opportunities, colleagues, and resources to be able to continue the work I have known for the past 18 years and I could provide others with insight and knowledge from my own experiences. I decided it was time for a change and I would embrace it.

    If you view change as a chore, you’ll be much less likely to willingly accept it and use it to your benefit. So how about changing how you react to the possibility of change. When we are faced with change we generally react with an excuse why it shouldn’t happen, can’t possibly happen, or absolutely will not happen. We find all the excuses why change just will not work. What if we think about change differently? Instead of being negative and finding excuses, counter the objection with a new way of thinking. When Thomas Edison was asked why he failed so many times in making the light bulb he said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” Without continuing to move forward he may never have discovered the best solution to make it work. So how do we think differently and change our excuses into reasons to keep moving forward?

    Top 10 Excuses for NOT Changing…and the counter objections!

    1. “We have always done it this way”” Just because it was successful in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best way now…or that it will be in the future.
    2. “We have not done that before.” At one time, everything we do now was something we had never done before.
    3. “We tried that before and failed.” Unless all conditions and circumstances are exactly the same, failure of the past should not dictate our successes of the future.
    4. “If it isn’t broke, let’s not fix it.” Change doesn’t mean it’s broken, it only means we need to improve it.
    5. “It’s too much trouble.” The greatest rewards in life usually take the most time and energy.
    6. “It’s too expensive, and we just can’t afford it.” We can’t afford not to, or we will not have progression.
    7. “It will just change again soon.” It may change tomorrow, or it might not change for some time. Regardless, our fears of the need to keep changing should never prevent us from doing so.
    8. “I like it the way it is.” It may be good the way it is, but it could be great the new way. Besides, if we never moved away from what we like, we may never know how much better something can be!
    9. “I may not be needed after the change.” With change comes a time to grow. This may be your chance to do new and exciting things.
    10. “It’s too risky.” The greatest rewards always come from the greatest risk.

    As I jumped back into membership with NASJE I wasn’t satisfied to just dip in a toe here and there but to jump back in head first. With the gracious support of leadership, I was able to attend the 2018 NASJE Conference where I established connections with new people and became reacquainted with individuals who I had come to know during my previous membership. I joined the communications committee, so I can keep up with the pulse of information and was re-inspired to develop strong education programs with positive learning experiences. The passion I saw and felt in others, those who led sessions and those who attended just like me, renewed my excitement for judicial education. I decided that as I returned home I was ready to face this change challenge and look to a new future with our judicial education programs.

    Remember, what you do today is what impacts the type of day you will have tomorrow. Start thinking today about how you want to impact tomorrow. You cannot do it without making the necessary changes and you cannot have a future without change.

    Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
    –John F. Kennedy

  • Building a Bridge to Good Customer Service

    by Jennifer Juhler, Director of Judicial Branch Education, Iowa

    Court employees must provide good customer service, especially in light of the link between funding and how citizens feel about their courts. Good customer service translates into better overall feelings about the courts, and better overall feelings can translate into adequate funding.

    The courts have tough customer groups who typically are in the midst of extremely stressful situations, making the job of excellent customer service even more challenging. Excellent customer service requires the ability to discern and meet the physical and emotional needs of a customer while maintaining an appropriate role in one’s job. It is a dance between understanding other people and understanding oneself; working within the rules while maintaining flexibility; seeing the good in other people when the “good” is hard to see.

    This is a tall order, to dance easily among these competing needs. How can we accomplish excellent customer service in the courts? Some in the private sector have abandoned training and now fill customer service positions based upon the results of personality assessments and interviews. The theory is that teaching customer service is not possible; a person either has it or he or she doesn’t. Like all absolute statements, this is partly true, but only partly.

    In this article, I make the case that education can play a role in creating exceptional customer service and focus, but only through a developmental lens combined with continued reflection, learning and action. For the sake of simplicity, I assume that the organization in question embraces a customer focus and that managers will readily play an integral role in both establishing customer focus within their work group and supporting the learning of employees.

    Intentional Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle
    Because exceptional customer focus is a journey, not an event, educators must consider the journey and design learning to address both the personal level and the work group level. The Kolb learning cycle provides an easy and effective model to teach learners.

    An example of Kolb applied to the individual level would be a quick in-class exercise such as the following:

    1. Think of a customer service situation. (concrete)
    2. What did you think, feel and experience during the situation? (reflection)
    3. What could explain the situation on the part of the customer and in terms of your reaction? (theory)
    4. How could you change what you did to improve the outcome for the customer? (action)

    Management plays a role to further support this learning for individuals. For example, a manager could post the questions above in strategic yet inconspicuous locations throughout the office so the questions are seen by employees every day. To reinforce the culture and to leverage learning, this exercise could be incorporated into an ongoing activity for employees who could take 5-10 minutes during the day to consider a recent customer service situation. Employees new to customer service would complete the assignment every day; those with more experience would complete it once per week.

    Learning could then be strengthened on the group level through periodic staff meetings to discuss some of the more challenging situations that have been encountered and to reconsider other options for improving the outcome. The learning could then branch from work group to work group by employing an online forum where groups could pose some of their more challenging situations for others to consider. Now the learning is spreading throughout the organization.

    The Developmental Side of Customer Service
    The Kolb model above provides the “technical” side of the training. However, the more challenging piece of mastering customer service is the adaptive or developmental side – the increasing ability to understand others; the ability identify one’s emotions and to manage those emotions effectively.

    Findings from brain research indicate that the brain does not finish developing until a person is a young adult, somewhere between 24 and 30. Key learning through early adulthood includes both the ability to identify personal emotional states as well as the ability to take on the perspective of another person. Clearly, understanding one’s own reactions and accurately assessing the needs of another person are essential skills in order to deliver exceptional customer service. Working with a customer service mindset will help to develop the brain of young adults to be predisposed to delivering exceptional customer service, because we know that brain development follows a “use it or lose it” trajectory. As a result, people who begin working in customer service during adolescence and young adulthood will more likely develop a brain pattern that supports exceptional customer service. Ironically, they may not be able to deliver exceptional customer service, at least initially. Developmentally, this age group does not yet possess the refined skills to see the complexity of life and think in novel ways that might benefit the customer. To address the developmental component of exceptional customer service, we turn to the work of Robert Keegan.

    When reviewing Keegan’s work, we find the people most likely to deliver exceptional customer service would fall at the level of the “self-authoring mind” or level 4. Yet, Keegan’s research indicates that the majority of individuals are at a developmental stage below level 4. In fact, 58% of college-educated professionals are not yet at the self-authoring mind. The logical conclusion is that most of our employees do not yet operate using a self-authoring mind.

    Keegan’s developmental levels describe abilities related to increasing mental complexity. At level 3, or the “socialized mind,” individuals are rule-bound based upon the rules of their chosen group, whether a family group or a group adopted during adolescence or young adulthood. If managers are successful in having level 3 employees identify with their work group, the established rules of the group would tend to prevail. Using the model laid out so far, we have rules about learning by using the Kolb cycle. Rules are a good start for our level 3 employees. However, exceptional customer service will be delivered by those employees who have reached level 4 or the self-authoring mind. How do we help people to move from level 3 to level 4?

    Keegan is clear that a level 4 person describing how to think about customer service to a level 3 person will have as much impact as speaking to the level 3 person in an unknown foreign language. Instead of explaining or describing the level 4 perspective, the Judicial Educator must start squarely in level 3 and build a bridge over to level 4.

    Starting with level 3, we create rules because rules work well for the level 3 mind; however, the rules will be directed at level 4 competencies. For a person firmly in the middle of level 3, understanding and following these rules will be a frustrating exercise to say the least. However, continued appreciation for a person following the rules independent of outcome is key. You will notice that one of our rules is to keep trying, or rather, keep learning.

    Consider these rules for delivering customer service:

    It starts with you . . .

    Rule #1: IMAGINE — Imagine how you would feel if you were the person at the counter? What would help?
    Rule #2: STAY PRESENT — You must try not to lose your temper or shut down. If you do, you must step back and get someone else to help. If no one else is around, you need to apologize, take a break, breathe, and then try again.
    Rule #3: KEEP TRYING — Your goal is to continue to learn so that it is harder for you to lose your temper or shut down.
    It moves to the other person . . .
    Rule #4: EVERY PERSON IS PARTLY RIGHT BUT ONLY PARTLY — If you can’t understand why the other person is reacting differently from what you expected, don’t assume that person is wrong. Take a deep breath and ask the customer, “What could I do that you think would help this situation?”
    Rule #5: TALK IT OUT WITH SOMEONE ELSE — Every time you do not understand another person and/or they “push your buttons” you should debrief with someone in the office who is successful with most people. Keep the situation in mind as a useful one for further learning.

    You can imagine these “rules” that form the bridge as part of the Kolb model, #3 above, “What could explain the situation on the part of the customer and in terms of your reaction?” Now we have a bridge embedded in an on-going learning situation. At this point, the Judicial Educator, with the assistance of mid-level managers, has created a bridge that promises rich learning. Even better, this developmental learning will increase mental complexity and the complexity will spill over into other areas of thinking, enriching the employee’s life and elevating the workplace.

    To effectively serve court users is a difficult task and one that could provide a lifetime of educational opportunities. For the journey, stress on-going learning and create rules that build the bridge. Finally, continue to challenge yourself to be part of the developmental journey.

  • Turnover within Judicial Education Organizations: Cost and Opportunity

    By David Gordon, Academic Coordinator, Judicial Education Unit, Nevada Supreme Court

    Employee turnover can produce both positive change and increased challenge. Among the positive changes are fresh vision, a renewal of enthusiasm, and a chance to leave behind past issues that live on for no other reason than the memories of those involved. Challenges may include a loss of human capital in the form of skills, training and knowledge, as well as a loss of trust and working relationships with colleagues and clients.

    The impact of turnover within a judicial education organization may be amplified by the small size of a judicial education staff, or the scarcity of qualified judicial educators. First, this article will consider the role played by the organization’s size.

    Judicial education organizations vary widely among the different state court systems. A judicial education unit with four staff members will be impacted to its core when two employees leave. An education services division with 25 staff members will be more easily able to spread the work among remaining staff. Jeff Schrade, Director of the Education Services Unit in Arizona relies on cross-training to exercise flexibility when dealing with staff turnover. Nevada’s four-person Judicial Education Unit is necessarily cross-trained in order to deal with things as routine as the occasional sick day. Other judicial educators have stated that in a large organization, the value of cross-training can be diluted by an emphasis on specialization.

    Experienced judicial educators are a rare commodity, and it is rare that a fully trained and experienced judicial educator joins a judicial education organization. Judges indicate that the characteristics they seem to value most in judicial educators are confidence and trust: confidence that the educator will pursue the best faculty for a topic, and trust that judicial education conferences provide an environment in which judges feel free to speak openly and honestly. One judge described turnover in a judicial education organization as a delicate proposition because the judges enjoy personal relationships with the judicial education staff, and yet expect the utmost in professionalism. Judges do value consistency and institutional knowledge in judicial educators.

    One judge stated that judges don’t like turnover in judicial education organizations because the confidence and trust must be earned; another stated that turnover can create opportunities for recruitment of more qualified candidates who can assist in furthering more modern judicial education approaches and objectives. Still another judge said that he is more likely to agree to serve as faculty when asked by a staffer whom he believes has an in-depth knowledge of the value of his contribution.

    All judicial educators must exhibit competence in adult learning theory, knowledge of the issues relevant to the judiciary of their state, and sensitivity to the political realities that permeate the life of a judge. Questions remain. Is there more value to having educators with experience as attorneys? Or is the best educator steeped in adult learning theory? There is no question that educators can only benefit from time spent observing court operations. As one judge told me, educators who observe court operations would be in a better position to tailor curricula to everyday practical situations, and court relationships could broaden the judicial faculty pool. Another judge said he believes the best instructors are often other judges. As judicial educators work with faculty judges, a shared vocabulary and a recognition of common problems faced in court can only enhance curriculum development.

    Turnover within a judicial education organization will always have far-reaching impact. It may be positive or challenging, but it remains that the new judicial educator will have to work hard to establish trust and confidence… the judicial educator’s stock in trade. No less important is providing guidance to the consumers of judicial education so curricula are developed with appropriate emphasis on learning styles and learning environments.

    —–

    David Gordon is the Academic Coordinator for the Judicial Education Unit at the Nevada Supreme Court, a position he has held since 2007. Prior to joining the Judicial Education Unit, he was the Supreme Court’s Certified Court Interpreter Program Coordinator. Mr. Gordon is a former Naval Officer and military linguist.

  • Team Life Cycles

    By Jeff Schrade, Education Services Division Director, Arizona

    Much like any relationship, teams experience phases of growth and development. Bruce Tuckman, currently professor emeritus of educational psychology at the Ohio State University, studied group and team dynamics for the US Navy in the 1960s to improve training for small crews of naval vessels and isolated stations.  Through research and observation, he discovered a developmental sequence of team formation.  The four “Tuckman’s stages” include (1) orientation/testing/dependence, (2) conflict, (3) group cohesion and (4) functional role-relatedness.  He soon coined the terms “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing” and with them established an influential framework for understanding the life cycle of teams.  Judicial branch educators can use this framework to better understand their own teams, as well as to educate judges and court managers about the essential practice of building teams.

    Stage 1 – Forming
    In the “forming” stage, members are usually positive and polite. Some members feel anxiety about risks; others are excited about potential. A leader is challenged during the forming stage to articulate the goals and objectives of the team, to assign roles and to facilitate introductions and relationships among team members.  This stage may pass as quickly as one initial meeting, so a team leader must make the most of it.

    Stage 2 – Storming
    Although a leader may do a great job of articulating roles among the team, the team must bring that vision to life through the “storming” phase.  This stage typically gives rise to conflict as team members jockey for position, define their roles through interaction, and establish dependency relationships with the leader and team members. It’s difficult for everyone to be on the same page, because the page is still being written. Although the team structure is in place, processes and relationships are not yet solidified.  In addition to friction among the team members, members may also question the authority of the leader or the worthiness of the team goal.  Trustworthiness, communication and conflict management are essential skills for leader and member alike at this stage.

    Stage 3 – Norming
    Stages are often fluid, and storming and norming behavior often overlap.  The team may lapse back to the storming stage as new tasks come up.  Gradually through relationship building and trust, the team establishes a hierarchy around both the formal and informal leaders of the group.  More firmly established relationships give rise to team members socializing together and providing each other a comfortable space to help and provide constructive feedback. The team often develops a stronger commitment to the goal and is able to more visibly demonstrate progress towards the goal.

    Stage 4 – Performing
    At the performing stage the team is able to leverage established structures and processes to operate towards the goal.  A firmly-established team culture supporting performance emerges despite individual members joining or dropping from the team.  At this stage a leader can, and should, delegate much of the work and concentrate on maintaining the relationships, culture and processes that are crucial to performance. Team members are strategically aware and are often able to resolve small disagreements without the intervention of the leader because they understand and are invested in the team’s culture, values and mission.

    A final “adjourning” stage has also been suggested, as the team reaches its goal and is able to celebrate shared success.  Although often an afterthought, this stage has relevance to judicial branch educators who often reach a defined “finish line” when conducting an educational program or conference.  While you may not disband your team after each program, it is nevertheless important to take a step back before moving on to the next program and celebrate both your operational success and the successful transformation of your team through the team lifecycle.

    For more on the topic:
    Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965) “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,”  Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. The article was reprinted in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal ‑ Number 3, Spring 2001

    Egolf, D.  Forming Storming Norming Performing: Successful Communication in Groups and Teams (Second Edition) ISBN: 9781462093946. iUniverse: 2007.

    The Ohio State University Walter E. Dennis Learning Center.

    —

    Jeff Schrade is the Education Services Division Director for the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. In this senior level position Jeff provides leadership on statewide judicial branch education initiatives and innovations that have made Arizona one of the leaders among states in judicial education. Jeff directs the work of 25 employees, oversees a $3 million budget and operates two free-standing training facilities. The education services division is responsible for the development and delivery of relevant, timely and quality educational programs for the Arizona Judicial Branch, reaching about 10,000 judges, probation officers and other judicial staff. Prior to joining the court in 2009, Jeff worked for more than a decade in the non-profit sector.  Most recently, he served in a variety of positions with the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education, the charitable arm of the State Bar of Arizona.  Jeff also served as Senior Director for Kids Voting Arizona, reaching more than 450,000 Arizona students with civic education during the 2008 election cycle. Prior to his years at the Foundation, Jeff worked with the Children’s Action Alliance and the United Way of Greater Tucson.

  • Creating Teams to Enhance JBE Programs

    By Jeff Schrade

    Like a mechanical timepiece, judicial branch education (JBE) programs have many moving parts.  For a JBE program to be effective, these moving parts must complement one another and move together: facilities must nurture a learning environment, content must meet participant professional needs, materials must be clear and engaging, faculty must be prepared, and participants must show up at the right place at the right time, ready to learn.  As the Globe Theater manager was fond of reminding young Shakespeare during moments of trepidation in the film Shakespeare in Love, “it always comes together in the end.”  Indeed it does, but never without the effort of a team.

    Regardless of whether you are a member of a team, a formal manager, or an informal leader, it is important to understand how teams can be formed and enhanced to produce the most effective JBE programs.

    First, a group is not necessarily a team.  Perhaps the most distinguishing difference between the two is mutual accountability.  Whereas members of a group can contribute to the outcome of the group through individual action, a team relies on mutual accountability and coordination among members to produce a collective outcome.

    One of the seminal works about teams, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (2003) by Katzenbach and Smith, defines teams as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”

    To help us better understand the difference between a team and a group, let’s examine a group of attendees at a training session.  These individuals are assembled for a common purpose and likely assessed on their ability to learn key pieces of content, but the group effectiveness is a function of individual performance.  Can this group become a team?  You bet!  Assign the group an activity requiring interaction and upon which their performance will be assessed as a whole, and the group can build mutual accountability around a common purpose to function as a team.  In this respect, interactive classroom activities not only enhance learning but can also build team skills directly transferrable to the court workplace.

    So is your judicial education department a team or a group?  Future Manager’s Briefcase articles will examine how teams form and which characteristics make teams effective.

    Additional Reading on the topic of teams:
    Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003. (link to Amazon – http://amzn.com/0060522003)

    Katzenbach, Jon R. & Smith, Douglas K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review: Best of HBR 1993. 2005. Reprint R0507P. (link to HBR – http://hbr.org/2005/07/the-discipline-of-teams/ar/1)

  • Opinions from the field: An overview of Kentucky’s Case and Docket Management System Survey

    Dr. Deborah Williamson, Adam K. Matz, Jim Columbia, Janet Bixler & NormaJean Conn

    Introduction
    The Kentucky Court of Justice (KCOJ) processes over a million cases per year. Though caseloads continue to rise throughout the state the KCOJ has reluctantly relinquished over 100 full-time positions as a result of economic woes incurred over the past two years (Hiatt, 2009; 2010). Now more than ever the courts must operate more efficiently to maximize resources, provide justice, resolve civil disputes, assist victims of crime, and protect the employees who depend on the KCOJ. One method that has consistently aided organizations in efficiency is the proper investment in technological solutions that reduce tedious tasks through automation, thereby freeing up valuable worker time and effort for more complex tasks. However, there appears to be some anecdotal accounts of the KCOJ’s primary case management system, KYCourts II, as being outdated, possessing an unintuitive interface that contributes to errors in data entry, lacking of documentation and training on how the system is organized and/or how to use it, and lacking standardization across circuits and districts (Matz, Adams, & Williamson, 2010; Matz, Adams, Williamson, Cloyd, & Schiflett, 2009). Further complicating matters is the reality that KYCourts II is but one of several case management systems in use by the Kentucky Court of Justice. These systems, though invaluable to the courts, have often been criticized for being uncoordinated and requiring monotonous duplication.

    An assessment conducted by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) reiterated many of these points and also made note of the need for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Technology Department to more actively engage feedback from the field when developing case management solutions for the courts (Clark & Embley, 2009). Following the recommendations of the NCSC and the new CIO Charles Byers, the AOC has since convened a working group of business analysts to actively seek out feedback from the field. They have been tasked with determining the needs of practitioners who work in the field everyday (e.g., judges, clerks, pretrial officers, court designated workers, etc.). In addition to numerous interviews, focus groups and telephone conversations, a web-based survey was developed to solicit additional input from all KCOJ employees. Best regarded as a pilot project, preliminary results of the survey are discussed herein with implications for system needs and recommendations for further research.

    Survey Instrument And Dissemination
    To gather more input from the field a web-based survey instrument was developed using available literature on technology solutions and the working expertise of the business analysts, research experts, and the director’s office. The team relied heavily on technology assessments and literature available from the Tennessee, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Maryland court systems (see Crawford, Koenig, Polansky, Smith, & Lyons, 1999; MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C., 2009; National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration, 2001). Time constraints prohibited a more thorough survey methodology (see Babbie, 2007; Fitzgerald & Cox, 1992; Leeuw, Hox, & Dillman, 2008). The business analysts convened for the first time to discuss the survey on October 22, 2010. After carefully reviewing available literature an initial draft instrument was developed on November 7th and shared with members of the business analyst working-group as well as Dr. Williamson and Kathy Schiflett for their research expertise. Numerous suggestions and revisions were incorporated into a near-final version before being remitted to the director’s office on November 15th. Dr. Williamson and the working group worked with the director’s office in making several additional revisions to make the survey suitable for all KCOJ personnel. The survey was constructed and facilitated using a web-based application known as SelectSurvey. A pre-notice e-mail was sent to all KCOJ staff on December 2nd, which detailed the purpose of the survey and why it was important for respondents to complete the questionnaire. It also provided the date as to when associates should expect to receive the survey. The survey was officially rolled-out on December 8th by e-mail. An accompanying e-mail message reiterated the survey’s importance and provided a link to the web-based questionnaire. The survey was set up as anonymous (did not require a logon/registration) but was limited to one response per computer/ IP address. A follow-up e-mail was sent out to all KCOJ staff on December 14th before the survey was closed on December 15th.

    Of the 4,111 e-mail inboxes reported to have received the survey notice, there were a total of 1,066 total respondents (though SelectSurvey indicated 1,120 had opened the survey, 54 did not actually complete any items of the survey). As of December 6th it was indicated there were 3,584 KCOJ employees and 403 elected officials (e.g., elected justices, judges, and circuit court clerks). This gives us a total of 3,987 KCOJ employees. It was indicated that the survey e-mail reached a total of 4,111 recipients. It is unclear the source of the discrepancy (e.g., one source could be e-mail accounts that have remained active after employees have resigned or left the KCOJ). Though mostly an approximation, we can say that of the 4,111 e-mail inboxes, which received a link to the survey, there was a response rate of 25.9%.

    Findings

    Respondent Characteristics
    Respondents vary across all levels of the KCOJ with most consisting of AOC employees (34.3%). However, there is a good variety of respondents from circuit court (14.7%), family court (8.8%), district court (16.5%), and the office of the circuit court clerk (19.0%). This suggests, to some extent, adequate representation across the various specialties of the KCOJ. The majority of respondents were female (54.6%) and white (64.2%). These results do coincide with the general demographics of the KCOJ. Not looking at the roughly 400 elected officials (of which demographic data were not readily available), of the approximately 3,575 KCOJ employees 2,780 (77.8%) were female and 795 (22.2%) were male as reported by the AOC’s Human Resources Department. In addition 3,318 (92.8%) were reported as being white and 257 non-white (7.2%). These comparisons lend support to the generalization of these findings to the KCOJ abroad.

    Of the 737 responses to the experience item, on average respondents had worked at the KCOJ for about 10 years. The standard deviation was 7.4 meaning on average respondents’ experience varied from the mean about 7 and a half years. The range was 0 to 41 years. Finally, the average (i.e., mean) age of the 690 respondents who answered the birth-year item was 44.1 with a standard deviation of 11.9. In other words, on average respondents were 44 years of age and, on average, respondents’ age varied from the mean about 12 years. Age ranged from a low of 18 to a high of 80 years old.

    Technology in the Courts
    Though we may be in the ‘digital age’ results indicate the courts are still in transition. Over 75% of respondents indicate still using paper documents or a combination of paper and electronic documents. Only 2% of respondents indicated they have liberated themselves from paper files completely.

    Though most respondents indicated they rely on KYCourts II (31.2%) as their primary case management system, there are well over a dozen individual data systems in use within the courts. Each system corresponds to a unique purpose and is maintained independently from the others.

    When asked of their confidence in data provided by their system, or the KCOJ overall, most respondents were confident or very confident (61.2% and 58.4% respectively) the data were accurate and reliable. This is encouraging and, in some ways, surprising given the many anecdotal comments from the field about the systems and the various errors that lurk within them. Only about 6% of respondents indicated a lack of confidence in the courts data. However, it’s possible those employees who are most disgruntled with the systems data may have declined participation in the survey. In addition, it’s likely that respondents answered these items in relation to their belief in their own data quality and not necessarily the system holistically.

    Instead of improving data quality, what appears to be the motivating force behind many KCOJ employees’ desire for a new case management system is the prospect of better coordination and integration between courts and departments. Over 60% of all respondents indicated the integration of electronic data from all four levels of the court system into one case management system was important (25.6%) or very important (40.7%). There’s a clear desire for more intra-agency information sharing and collaboration.

    The KCOJ has a somewhat mixed reputation for being on the cutting-edge of technology. Though roughly 35% of employees feel the KCOJ is technologically savvy, about 31% of employees were neutral and 14% felt the KCOJ has failed to keep up with modern technological advancements. Over 60% of respondents indicated they could do their job better if they had the right technological tools. Likewise, the KCOJ would benefit from improved efficiency.

    When asked about developing case management solutions employees indicated a strong desire to borrow or learn from tools used successfully by other state courts (62.0%). When asked about the use of vendors to supply case management solutions the field was generally indifferent showing no preference or disdain towards their procurement (30.8% agreed, 32.7% were neutral, and 16.9% disagreed with the use of vendors).

    Desirable Features
    There’s a strong interest in web-based applications and services through the case management system (58.3%). Such service allows for greater accessibility and flexibility. When asked about specific services to aid in data entry and case management the majority of respondents were in favor of all suggested solutions. Items concerned features including warning prompts (68.8%), default codes (58.4%), calendar integration (61.3%), instant messaging (57.1%), access to multimedia (e.g., audio, video) files (58.2%), pop-up reminders or ‘ticklers’ (62.3%), warrant generation (52.4%), keyword/individual searches of the system (61.9%), and access of court information from a variety of mobile devices including Kindles and smart phones (47.2%).

    Recommendations

    Practical Implications
    There is a keen desire for more integration of KCOJ systems across jurisdictions and court levels. Further, there is a clear indication the full potential of current personnel has not yet been realized due to case management system inadequacies.

    Support for a case management solution that integrates the various courts; provides improved accessibility and flexibility; and better meets the needs of judges, clerks, and the many other court professionals has steadily risen over the past couple of years. The case management system exists at the heart of the court system. Without a fully functional system the courts will struggle to manage rising caseloads, subjecting itself to potential delays in justice and a reduction in public safety abroad. In some respects the need for a more integrated case management system is a reflection of the growing pains of a unified judicial system that continues to manifest itself through various forms and associations (see Metzmeier, Whiteman, & Nemes, 2006).

    The question is not if the KCOJ needs a modern technology solution but rather what this system should do, how to develop it, and what costs are likely to be incurred. Unfortunately, such questions are beyond the scope of this article.

    Implications for Further Research
    This article contains a brief overview of quantitative data compiled from the KCOJ Case and Docket Management System Survey. That said further research is sorely needed. Each court, department, and position level possesses unique needs that require a distinct survey tailored for each. In addition, the courts and its data do not exist in a vacuum but rather in coordination with numerous external agencies. Changes in case management technology require the input of outside constituents and partners including the Department of Public Advocacy, Department of Corrections, and law enforcement.

    The courts are strongly urged to use a variety of research strategies. Prior to survey development business analyst should first develop an intimate body of knowledge of a given court or department through designated focus groups and interviews with relevant personnel. In addition, a more thorough literature search and review is needed. Combined, these materials provide the necessary backdrop for more thorough survey conceptualization and operationalization. This, however, is only the beginning of survey development. Each survey, tailored to a given court/department, must then be pre-tested with professionals in that court/department to ensure its applicability and clarity. Once an instrument is fully developed it should be disseminated by mail as a paper document (results of this survey showed many court professionals still prefer paper documents). The process should start with a pre-notice letter, dissemination of the survey a week later, a follow-up survey two weeks later, a second follow-up with an additional copy of the survey two more weeks later, and a final reminder letter in another two weeks (see Leeuw et al., 2008). Whereas the current survey was generic to accommodate the wide variety of respondents, future surveys should be more focused. Sampling frames need to be developed and, when necessary, random stratified sampling procedures utilized if surveying entire populations would otherwise prove too extraneous or costly (see Babbie, 2007). Such technological assessments are time-consuming, but necessary. Court leaders should expect to spend 1-2 years gathering additional input and mapping out current court processes.

    Note: The previous article was derived from a research brief for the KCOJ/AOC. The complete research brief contains all survey items and quantitative data tables. Please contact Jim Columbia at jimcolumbia@kycourts.net for a copy of the brief or for further correspondence.

    References

    Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Clark, T. M., & Embley, P. (2009). Kentucky courts technology assessment report. Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts.

    Crawford, C., Koenig, S., Polansky, L., Smith, P., & Lyons, D. (1999). Information technology systems integration and migration analysis. Eureka, CA: Justice Served.

    Fitzgerald, J. D., & Cox, S. M. (1992). Research methods in criminal justice: An introduction. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Hiatt, L. A. (2009, September 15). Administrative Office of the Courts announces operational cuts, abolishes 47 positions to prepare for judicial branch budget deficit. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from Kentucky Court of Justice: http://courts.ky.gov/pressreleases/095152009LAH1.htm

    Hiatt, L. A. (2010, April 30). Chief Justice Minton announces Judicial Branch Reduction Plan for FY11. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from Kentucky Court of Justice: http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/kycourts/PR04302010LAHA.htm

    Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Matz, A. K., Adams, J. H., & Williamson, D. (2010). Judicial perceptions of efficiency and culture: A research brief and needs assessment. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    Matz, A. K., Adams, J. H., Williamson, D., Cloyd, J., & Schiflett, K. (2009). Examining culture in the courtroom: A study of culture within the Kentucky Court of Justice. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    Metzmeier, K. X., Whiteman, M., & Nemes, J. (2006). United at last: The judicial article and the struggle to reform Kentucky’s courts. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court of Justice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

    MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C. (2009). Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts case management system replacement: Integrated statewide case management system project charter. Seattle, WA.

    National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration (2001). Court technology survey report. Sacramento, CA: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.

    Biographies

    Dr. Deborah Williamson is a veteran manager with the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts, Dr. Deborah Williamson currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Department of Court Services. Spanning over two decades, Williamson’s career with the state court system has involved diverse assignments such as management of the statewide juvenile intake program, grants office, and the nationally renowned judicial branch education program. A Doctor of Philosophy graduate from the University of Kentucky, Dr. Williamson is currently developing courses in the subfield of criminology for undergraduates majoring in sociology. Her publications have appeared in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Social Work in Education, and Juvenile and Family Court Journal.

    Adam K. Matz, M.S. is a Research Associate with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and former Statistician for the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts. His research has focused on topics of gang violence, cultural congruence in local circuit courts, social efficacy in local communities, as well as job satisfaction and organizational climate within juvenile justice institutions. Additionally, he now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Matz earned his bachelor’s degree in police studies and master’s degree in correctional and juvenile justice studies from Eastern Kentucky University. His publications have appeared in journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior and Criminal Justice Review.

    James R. Columbia retired from the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts in 2009 after a 22-year career that included positions as a Court Designated Worker, Regional Supervisor and Information Systems Supervisor for the Juvenile Services division, in which capacity he coordinated development of a statewide, electronic case management and data system. He subsequently was appointed Manager of the Records and Research & Statistics divisions of the AOC. He now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Columbia holds an associate degree in science from Maysville Community College and a bachelor’s degree in business, with a major in accounting, from the University of Kentucky.

    Janet Bixler has joined the Administrative Office of the Courts as a Business Analyst for researching the needs for a unified case management system. She has served as a business analyst, technical writer, and project manager in the technology industry. Ms Bixler has expertise in researching current information technology processes, developing new processes, and documenting and training those processes to applicable users. Ms. Bixler earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism with a minor in political science from the University of Kentucky. She has completed information technology classes at the Kentucky Community & Technical College System.

    Jean Conn serves as a Business Analyst for the Administrative Office of the Courts. She will work with a newly appointed project team to research and document the business needs for a new case management system. Mrs. Conn was a Project Manager and Business Analyst for Humana, Automatic Data Processing, Kindred Healthcare and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. She has extensive experience working as a liaison between Information Technology and the business users. Mrs. Conn has implemented a variety of systems such as HRIS, benefits enrollment, medical insurance, and clinical systems. She graduated from Sullivan Junior College majoring in computer programming. She also attended Sullivan University and Bellarmine University.

  • Business Analysts Play Key Roles in Planning for Kentucky’s New Court Data System

    by Jean Conn, Janet Bixler, Adam K. Matz, M.S., and James R. Columbia

    This is the first in a series of articles focusing on the application of business analysis principles to Kentucky’s court data system improvement project.

    The Kentucky Court of Justice (KCOJ) has begun the planning phase for an enterprise-level project that will update the entire court management systems environment, including technology, business processes, and management processes. The goal is to create a user-friendly case and docket management system that coordinates the flow of information between levels of court and administrative departments, and will allow users direct access to the statistical and other data they need to make informed business decisions.

    As it starts the planning phase, the KCOJ is using a model that has been successful in other states, where experienced business analysts play a key role in defining the requirement for case and docket management software. A Business Analyst Workgroup has been formed by Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Director Laurie Dudgeon, working under the direction of Dr. Deborah Williamson, Executive Officer for the Department of Court Services, and Charles Byers, Chief Information Officer. This workgroup will collaborate with the KCOJ Technology Governance Committee, the Executive Branch’s Commonwealth Office of Technology, and other entities as appropriate.

    The four members of the workgroup are Janet Bixler and Norma Jean Conn, who have extensive business analyst experience in the private sector, and James Columbia and Adam Matz, who have a great deal of experience in the public sector and with the AOC. Already the workgroup has been gathering information through interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Most recently, a survey was sent to the entire KCOJ staff to get input on what the most important technological needs are in the court community.

    Business Analysis Essential in Developing New Court Data Systems
    With fewer people and bigger caseloads, today’s court systems rely more and more on efficient business processes and sophisticated technology for up-to-the-minute information necessary to make better and quicker decisions. Increasingly, court systems around the country are developing improved technology and business processes in order to meet their end-users’ needs. In the case of the KCOJ, end-users would include judges, clerks, their support staff, and judicial educators. This is where the role of a skilled business analyst comes into play.

    Business Analysts can be found in both the private and public sectors, and in both for-profit and non-profit settings. Over time, the role and definition of a Business Analyst has evolved. In the past, this was someone who was part of the business operation and worked with Information Technology (IT) to improve the quality of products and services. Today’s Business Analyst is someone who, apart from gathering business requirements, also assists in integration and testing, supports staff training, and coordinates implementation of new technology and business processes. Business Analysts are also involved in developing project plans and providing project management skills. They provide the following business analysis:

    • Strategic Planning – performing an analysis of an organization’s strategic business needs
    • Process Definition and Design – defining the business processes needed and working with IT to design new technology and business processes
    • IT/Technical Business Analysis – providing User Acceptance Testing to ensure new technology meets the need business rules and requirements of the organization

    Strategic Planning
    Business Analysts gather the user (stakeholder) needs to help define how best to design new technology and business processes in order to make the organization successful. They also document business requirements, such as what kind of security is needed and how user-friendly the new technology is. Often the Business Analyst creates a formal project plan and timeline.

    Process Definition and Design
    Once needs are gathered, Analysts must work with IT staff to determine requirements for the new technology. Analysts gather and report the specifications of what the new technology system is capable of providing. And with new technologies come new business processes that must be mapped, documented, and eventually trained upon implementation.

    Prior to the go-live date, Analysts spend time communicating the project needs to the technical staff. Business Analysts act as the facilitators to help communicate what the users need and to understand what kinds of implications will come from a new system that will affect and/or impede its use. They work with end-users to develop alternative business practices dictated by the new technology. Business Analysts also identify any risks or user resistance that will need to be addressed during the implementation process.

    IT/Technical Business Analysis
    Business Analysts conduct User Acceptance Testing on the new technology in which all system bugs are discovered and corrected before the new system is implemented. Once implementation has occurred, Analysts must work to ensure that end-users are trained on the new systems and processes.

    Skill Set of a Business Analyst
    Essential functions of a Business Analyst should include, but are not limited to the following:

    • Ability to interact professionally with a diverse group of executives, managers and subject matter experts.
    • Excellent written and oral communication proficiency, in order to effectively communicate within the organization.
    • Business and technical knowledge of the organization, because they serve as the bridge between end-users and developers.
    • Proactive questioning and listening ability, in order to fully understand and communicate the process.
    • Strong analytical and product management skills, including a thorough understanding of how to interpret customer business needs and translate them into application and operational requirements.
    • Collaborative skills, working with users to define the workflows and processes.
    • Subject matter expertise, in order to provide accurate analysis of the needs and risks.

    Business Analysts Now Gathering Information for New Court Data System
    The priority for the AOC Business Analyst Workgroup is to use the information gathered to create a preliminary report by the end of 2010, so that the KCOJ can request funding needed in the 2012-2018 Capital Plan. The preliminary report must be completed by December 31 in order to provide adequate time to prepare the funding request by April 15, 2011, to the Capital Advisory Board.

    It is critical that this request is included in the Capital Plan. The current KCOJ case management systems are fast becoming obsolete and subject to failure. Today’s court system needs to support electronic document filing (warrants and citations), video arraignment and conferencing, and a fully automated payable process, which the current case management system has not been designed to do. The KCOJ is gathering momentum to make technology the cornerstone of a better Kentucky court system.

    Jean Conn serves as a Business Analyst for the Administrative Office of the Courts. She will work with a newly appointed project team to research and document the business needs for a new case management system. Mrs. Conn was a Project Manager and Business Analyst for Humana, Automatic Data Processing, Kindred Healthcare and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. She has extensive experience working as a liaison between Information Technology and the business users. Mrs. Conn has implemented a variety of systems such as HRIS, benefits enrollment, medical insurance, and clinical systems. She graduated from Sullivan Junior College majoring in computer programming. She also attended Sullivan University and Bellarmine University.

    Janet Bixler has joined the Administrative Office of the Courts as a Business Analyst for researching the needs for a unified case management system. She has served as a business analyst, technical writer, and project manager in the technology industry. Ms Bixler has expertise in researching current information technology processes, developing new processes, and documenting and training those processes to applicable users. Ms. Bixler earned her bachelor’s degree in journalism with a minor in political science from the University of Kentucky. She has completed information technology classes at the Kentucky Community & Technical College System.

    Adam K. Matz, M.S. is a Research Associate with the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and former Statistician for the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts. His research has focused on topics of gang violence, cultural congruence in local circuit courts, social efficacy in local communities, as well as job satisfaction and organizational climate within juvenile justice institutions. Additionally, he now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Matz earned his bachelor’s degree in police studies and master’s degree in correctional and juvenile justice studies from Eastern Kentucky University. His publications have appeared in journals such as Criminal Justice and Behavior and Criminal Justice Review.

    James R. Columbia retired from the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts in 2009 after a 22-year career that included positions as a Court Designated Worker, Regional Supervisor and Information Systems Supervisor for the Juvenile Services division, in which capacity he coordinated development of a statewide, electronic case management and data system. He subsequently was appointed Manager of the Records and Research & Statistics divisions of the AOC. He now serves as consultant and Business Analyst for the Kentucky Court of Justice data system improvement project. Mr. Columbia holds an associate degree in science from Maysville Community College and a bachelor’s degree in business, with a major in accounting, from the University of Kentucky.

  • New Technologies for Distance Learning: Realizing Efficiencies and Providing Continuity in Judicial Education during Budget Crises

    by Daniel Frazier

    There may be no form of communication that is more misrepresented than education.  For many individuals, education is symbolized by a one-way street: teacher to students.  The teacher holds the information, the students need it.  The teacher gives the students the information and the students absorb it.

    And as long as people have held that misconception, educators have been trying to break it.

    Education, in all its forms, is one of the most interactive processes that happen between individuals.  The key is the absorption of information by the student(s).  Teachers can offer as much information as they desire, but learning only occurs when the student understands and retains it.  For this to happen, a student needs interactivity with the teacher.  This interactivity does a couple of key things: it allows the student to complete mental connections he or she did not have through questions and it allows the individual student to process the information in the way that best retains it for him or her through discussion and activities.

    In 2006, I was brought on by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to begin development of a distance learning program for the Kentucky Court of Justice.  My initial research into the process of distance learning proved to be rather daunting.  As far as processes went, distance learning was limited not by technology or money, but by imagination.  For every company and system I studied and observed, they each had their own unique method of distance learning.  Each method had its own costs, set-ups, and means of communication.

    In my evaluation for the AOC, I realized that the most effective means of distance learning for our audience, namely the COJ employees and elected officials, was one that would utilize our current system of communication: the AOC server network.  Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be until recent times when technology developed faster and more advanced means of internet communication would work within our limited bandwidth.  But there was also another factor at work that would push our need for distance learning forward.

    Without question, the judicial branch of government for the state of Kentucky has been one of the most underfunded.  And as we all know, our nation has been under a budget crisis unlike any seen in many decades.  This crisis has dealt one of the hardest blows to the Kentucky court system with the cutting of programs and jobs.   But in the midst of this, the AOC pushed harder than ever to embrace developing technologies that would offset other costs and help save jobs.  One key area this was focused on was that of continuing judicial education.

    As recent as June, 2010, the Judicial Branch Education division of the AOC was responsible for organizing and executing live conferences at different locations throughout the state for the elected officials.  But due to recent cutbacks, these conferences were suspended by our administrators with a focus on bringing distance learning tools to the forefront.

    The cost to develop a basic distance learning system using new technologies on the state court’s existing network is as follows:

    • GoToWebinar: $500 annually
    • Camtasia Video Studio: $299
    • Lectora X eLearning Software: $1,790

    Grand Total: $2589.

    In the midst of staggering deficits and employee layoffs, this nominal price ensures continuity in education programming for elected officials and court staff. The technologies being employed by Judicial Branch Education are discussed in brief below.

    In choosing the software that would be the most effective for developing our distance learning network, we had to look at the limitations of our network (as it stands) and our audience.  The primary limitation of our current network is the inability to live stream video to several computers due to bandwidth limitations.  Because of this, we chose software that employed various other techniques of interactivity.

    The basis for our live webinars is the system GoToWebinar.  Due to a limited budget and the complex schedules of our elected officials, we currently subscribe to the 100-attendee-maximum account.  GoToWebinar has a vast array of communication tools that focus on the interactivity between speaker and audience.  A speaker (or moderator if a speaker chooses to have one) has full control over the presentation and audience responses.  When an audience member indicates he or she has a question, the person can activate the “raise hand” option or type their question directly to the speaker.  The speaker/moderator can then answer the question or un-mute the specific audience member’s audio so the individual can ask the question live and have a discussion with the speaker.  This manner of control is absolutely necessary when dealing with large audiences and virtually replicates the atmosphere of a face-to-face conference seminar.

    GoToWebinar proved its value beyond question when the Kentucky legislature passed sweeping reforms in domestic violence law during the 2010 assembly. Education presentations had to be made quickly and be available statewide before the bill went into effect in a matter of weeks.  Through GoToWebinar virtual live presentations were given in a timely manner that would have been impossible to accomplish with face-to-face meetings.  Judges who attended the webinars praised GoToWebinar as one of the most dynamic teaching tools they have had the pleasure of working with.

    But what about all the elected officials who couldn’t clear their schedules in time to attend this webinar that was necessary to the function of their courts and offices?  That is where another piece of software was employed by education staff: Camtasia.

    Camtasia is, simply put, software designed to record video of a computer screen with audio from a microphone.  This elegant, simple recording system allowed us to record the webinars as they were taught live.  These recordings—in a high quality, low file size Flash animation—were then placed on the AOC’s intranet via SharePoint.  By doing this, the elected officials who could not attend the webinar could view the recorded webinar and get the information they needed.

    Beyond the scope of recording webinars, Camtasia has also been a boon to our distance learning programs with its editing functions.  Original training videos have been produced by various managers of the AOC in order to train and educate their statewide staff members.  This saves the time and expense of trainers having to travel across the Commonwealth for live trainings that can stretch out over several months to complete.  Camtasia also contains interactive tools.  One example is the ability to create quizzes during the video.  A viewer watching the video will answer questions relating to what they have just watched before moving on with the rest of the training.  This interactivity promotes the retention of the material and is another reason Camtasia has found a home on the AOC distance learning program.

    The newest software addition to the distance learning network is also one of the most promising.  Lectora X is a completely interactive learning tool.  A teacher uses Lectora to design a lesson similar to a power point.  Unlike power point, Lectora can use a myriad of tools to make a lesson much more dynamic and interactive for the viewer.  The lesson can contain numerous advanced learning tools such as video, audio, quizzes, activities, animations, and charts.  Viewers proceed through the lesson at their own pace, which adds to the retention of the information.  While Lectora is currently in the testing stages, we foresee many lessons to be generated through this intriguing teaching software.

    As the AOC distance learning network continues to grow and develop, we look forward to bringing more and more webinars, training videos and interactive teaching lessons to the elected officials and Court of Justice employees.  Even in its infancy, we have already seen the effect distance learning has had on helping improve the quality of justice that is available for our fellow Kentuckians.

    Daniel Frazier

    Daniel Frazier has worked with the Administrative Office of the Courts in Kentucky since 2006 as Production Coordinator for the Division of Judicial Branch Education.  He has a background in film and video production and was owner of Foster Layne Video, LLC in Louisville, KY.  Mr. Frazier has produced many original videos for the AOC including “General and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” which was featured on Kentucky Educational Television.  Mr. Frazier is a graduate of Northern Kentucky University and is currently developing videos for web-based broadcast.