Transcript IT Showcase IJ Project Update October 5, 1999

Corrections
Crown
Ontario’s IJP Project
Integrate
Coroners
Office
Implement
Transforming
Public Safety
and Justice for
the good of all
Ontarians
d
Police
October 21, 2002
Derek R. Freeman
Iterate
Courts
Fire
Marshall
World Events

Bali, 2002

911, 2001

Innocent civilians victimized for purposes of war
A Snapshot of
“Why” we need IJP and “How” IJP works
at a Provincial (State) criminal level
One reason “Why” we started the IJP

Bernardo May, 1987-December, 1992
– Grim details of sadists “at play”, raping and killing

“The different police forces might as well have been operating in
different countries”
– “[An] unique challenge to the systemic investigative capacity of local law
enforcement agencies…” - Justice Archie G. Campbell, 1996

Like Australia’s R v. X, X1 et al. as reported in August, 2002
and, of legend, like England’s Sutcliffe (the “Yorkshire Ripper”)
“HOW” Integrated Justice works


“2001: SUSPECT IN BEDROOM RAPE HEADS TO COURT IN
POLICE VAN” – “Bedroom Rapist” case
JUST IN: October, 2002 conviction of Christopher Watts
– Police Constable Belinda Rose of Guelph Ontario, being honoured in
Canberra Police Conference, October, 2002
– Integrated teamwork and new computer software
– “Computer gets credit for arrest/conviction” (PowerCase and Watson)
 Patterns and profiling of data from many sources
 Software was able to connect vague tips
 Production of major disclosure documents (57 bankers boxes) and Crown Brief
– DNA testing in 24 hours, not 3 months as in Bernardo
In Detail: Why, How and What Happened
in Ontario’s Integrated Justice Project
“The largest and most complex project of its kind
ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a
process here; it is foundational and huge”
Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.
Ontario Justice at a glance:






Canada is a confederation of 10 Provinces, Inuvit and one
territory
Federally and Provincially appointed Judges
Federal Justices in the Provinces have inherent jurisdiction
Canada pays High Court Justices
Ontario pays for its Judges, Magistrates, etc. and all the
infrastructure, including for the High Court Justices
A “Commonwealth” type system, with trial courts, Appellate
Courts and some final appeals (most with leave) to the Supreme
Court of Canada
What does a typical year look like?

1997/98 justice statistics:
– 400,000 criminal code charges received by Ontario courts
– 1.5 million provincial charges laid, many under Highway
Traffic Act
– 12,000 civil matters added to the trial list
– 190,000 civil and family proceedings commenced

all managed in separate, paper-based systems
1997: The Three Silos
POLICE
COURTS
Solicitor General
Attorney General
OPP and overall
Guidance for Police
forces
CORRECTIONS
Ministry of the Solicitor
General and CorrecRunning the Courts and tions
responsible for Crown
Attornies, etc.
Why the IJP was initiated

The justice system in Ontario was a labour intensive, paper
driven and fragmented into separate information silos. It is
characterized by:
-



duplication
delays in information transmittal
information that is difficult to access
scheduling and case management bottlenecks
A number of recent judicial inquests recommended that better
information sharing among justice sectors could save lives
“Civil Justice Review” reports of 1995/96 made 124
recommendations to streamline and improve the civil justice
system
Growing public pressure for improved services
IJP’s Planned Scope – integrating ALL services and systems:

all courts administered by MAG
 courtrooms and court offices
 the private bar
 the judiciary

OPTIC police services
 OPP
 municipal police services in OPTIC



integration with other municipal police services
all Crown Attorney offices and services (includes Victim/Witness
Assistance Program)
Correctional Services
 institutions
 probation and parole
 Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board

22,000 employees in the Ministries at 825 different locations
across Ontario, as well as municipal police forces, judges, private
lawyers, and the general public.
What was Integrated Justice to do?







convert manual systems to electronic systems to reduce multiple
entries, speed processes, improve information quality, and reduce
long-term costs
replace existing electronic systems with new technology
provide electronic information exchanges across justice data
systems
provide the public and the legal community with faster, easier and
secure access to electronic court processes
provide authorized justice personnel with “e-query” function to
improve information sharing across justice community
respond to public demand for safer communities
improve support to victims and witnesses
Vision Statement for Courts Project (as of 1998)
To enhance the administration of justice and service to the public by
providing more accessible, efficient and affordable, effective and secure
court administration and courtroom support services through:




the introduction of integrated
solutions for all aspects of the justice
system
the effective management of cases
through all stages of court
the introduction of creative business
solutions for all aspects of courts
the capability for anytime, anywhere,
access to authorized information




the provision of an environment that
fully supports electronic case files
and case flow management
the recording and production of, and
access to the court record in digital
form
the creation of a court environment
which supports the efficient filing,
distribution and use of information
the optimization of all stakeholders’
resources
Guiding Principles of the Courts Vision
Accessible




use and cost of technology cannot
be a barrier to access to justice
business solutions should have a
‘common look and feel’
multiple means and methods of
access must be available
chosen technology and applications
must be supportable to agreed upon
service levels
Effective



Efficient and affordable


a high degree of integration among
all justice agencies is a critical factor
information already in electronic form
will be re-used for court purposes
wherever possible

technology must be used to enhance
but not limit the independence of the
administration of justice
chosen solutions should anticipate
but not define the future, recognizing
that the law and the courts are
dynamic environments
development of business processes
and technology solutions must be
driven by the principles of justice
plans must include meeting the
needs of the public, people and
organizations affected by change
Secure

security and confidentiality, either
perceived or real, cannot be
compromised
The “How” of it








It was 1996 and 1997; “.COM” had begun
A newly elected “Privatization” minded Government, led by Premier Mike
Harris: The Common Sense Revolution
A new concept introduced: “CPP” – Common Purpose Procurement –
the Government partnered with private companies which would bring in
technology and project management skills the Government did not have
Government and private-sector partners jointly to provide necessary
human and financial resources and share in resulting risks and rewards
75-25% risk sharing, with the Private Partners taking the 75%
Benefit to Investment Ratio must exceed 1.1 to 1
March 1998, total project costs were estimated to be $180 million, which
were to be recovered through estimated benefits of $326 million.
The Agreement required that the new systems be completed by
September, 2002.
Benefits Realization

Two principal means:
– Savings
– New fees

Savings through “disintermediation” and new efficiencies

New Fees through increase (February, 1999) and usage (e-filing)
– E-Filing seen as a big ”cash tap”
Some details:





A Project Management Office was established in 1997 to co-ordinate the
work of the Project. It was to be responsible for preparing and updating
the business case and accounting for the investment and benefits pools.
Two directors—one chosen jointly by the Ministries and the second from
EDS—headed the Office.
A joint operations team, made up of a mix of staff from the consortium
and the Ministries, handled most of the work of the Project; about 130
initially, then 200 persons through 2000-2002.
IJP accountable to a deputy ministers committee, made up of the
Corporate Chief Information Officer, representing the Management
Board of Cabinet, and representatives from the Ministries.
In addition, an Executive Steering Committee, with representatives from
the Ontario justice system and key stakeholders, created to provide
advice on the Project.
“Who” on the consortium side
1996
Initially
1998
Contract
2002
Last on Board
IBM
SHL Systemhouse
DMR Consulting
Bell Canada
KPMG
Teranet Inc.
SHL Systemhouse
[acquired by EDS]
DMR
Bell Canada (fading
fast)
KPMG
Teranet
EDS
DMR [acquired by
Fujitsu]
Teranet
Business Process Review (BPR) [1999]
Phase I
Planning
Phase II
BPR & Integrated
Business Case
Phase III
RFP Process &
Vendor Selection
Management
Checkpoint
Management
Checkpoint
and
Approval to
Proceed
1.
Strategic
Development
3.
Target &
Focus
We are here
Phase IV
Detailed Design
Phase V
Implementation
Management
Checkpoint
Management
Checkpoint
M
M
M
M
7.
Organization
Redesign
5.
Business
Process
Redesign
9.
Integration &
Gap Analysis
8.
Technology
Redesign
10.
RFP
Process
11.
Vendor
Selection &
Negotiation
12.
Detailed
Systems and
Process
Design and
On-site Testing
6. Rapid Return Actions & Early Wins
4. Project Management, Integration & Architecture Planning
2. Communication and Change Management
13. Master
Implementation
Plan
14.
Implementation
and Roll-out
15.
Continuous
Improvement
Planning, planning, planning









Full justice sector reviews
Focus groups
Multi-sector business process re-engineering
“As Is” and “To Be” Methods
Planned common interfaces
Regular communication sessions and many multi-stakeholder
committees
ETC.
ETC.
There was no lack of commitment!
Courts “As Is” Processes
Document
Management
CT4
CT3
CT1
Document
Intake
& Filing
CT2
Document Processing
Assembling
and
Organizing
Documents
for Court
CT5
Receiving
and Updating
of Documents
in Court and
Recording of
Proceedings
Production of Transcripts
Production and
Delivery of Documents for Archiving
Release/Enforcement
CT7
Management
CT8
Criminal Courts Financial Management
CT9
Civil & Small Claims Courts Financial Management
Admin Services Financial Management
CT10
Provincial Division Scheduling
Scheduling
Financial
CT6
CT11
General Division Scheduling
CT12
Managemen
t
Information
Systems
CT13
Data Collection
CT14
CT15
Compile Data
for Various Regions
/ Time Periods
CT16
Reports placed in Repository
and Distribute Automatically
/ On Need Basis
Selecting a
Jury Panel
CT17
Data Used for
Planning / Budgeting /
Statistics
Potential Future “To Be”
Multiple
Case
Initiation
Points
e.g. Info
Center,
Kiosk,
Internet
Electronic courtroom support
including document view and
production capabilities
and digital recording of record
Electronic
Document or
Disbursement
Electronic Case Flow Management
System with integrated scheduling
and financial management
processes
Our Progress
1996/1998
Plan Project and
Define requirements





ministries began
planning
RFP for private-sector
partner
contract signed
documented current
and developed new
business processes
released RFPs for
electronic systems
2000 / 
Phased
Implementation
1999 - 2002
Development
and Design





select technology
customize software
policy issues
test and develop
new systems
organization design

phased implementation
process began in late
2000 and continues
We are here
Key initiatives

Courts
 electronic filing (e-file)
 digital audio court recording
 electronic case management and scheduling

Crown
 electronic Crown Brief exchange
 Crown case management

Police
 computer-aided dispatch
 electronic records management system

Corrections
 institutions case management
 probation and parole case management


Common Query System
Common information services management (CISM)
Integration – Common Query System





foundation for integration between police, Crowns, courts, and
corrections
improved facility to identify a person
ability to link a person to all involvements
access to involvement details from all integrated applications
supporting security
Technical architecture






use of industry standard and open system products; e.g., Java,
C++
portability across programs; e.g., Unix, NT
standards developed for both process exchanges and
information exchanges
extensive code developed in-house and provided to vendors
for their use in product development
standardized tools and test products provided to vendors to
support compatibility
integration layer allows integration sharing in a secure
environment
Applications
Custom Software
OPTIC
Police
Records
Management
System (RMS)
Non-OPTIC
Non-OPTIC
Police
Police
External
Agencies
(RCMP, MTO,
etc.)
Lawyers
[Practice
Management
Software]
Third-Party Software
CISM*
• Web Portal
• E-filing
• Message
handling
• Security
• Document
rendering
*Common
Infrastructure
Systems
Management
OPTIC
Police
Computer Aided
Dispatching
(CAD)
Crown
Case
Management
Courts
Case
Management
Digital
Audio
Recording
Corrections
Case
Management
(OTIS)
XML Data
Exchanges
Common
Inquiry System
Direct Data
Transfer
Software Applications, September, 2002
Operating systems
Windows NT 4.0; AIX 4.3.3; Windows/95/98/2000
Databases
Oracle; PervasiveSQL - Btrieve; Microsoft SQL Server
Development
tools/languages
C/C++; Visual Basic; Access; Power Builder; Java; PERL;
Shell Scripts; Microsoft Visual SourceSafe; Microsoft Visio;
Oracle Reports; Crystal Reports
Case tools
JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4; Rational Rose; Entrust Toolkit; Microsoft
Visual Studio; Forte for Java; Apache Ant, JMeter
Project management tools
Microsoft Project
Network operating systems
Windows NT 4.0; AIX 4.3.3; Windows 2000 Server,
Advanced Server
Network/Application
Security
CheckPoint Firewall-1, Symantec Websecurity
Software Applications, September, 2002, continued
Telecommunications
protocols
TCP/IP; VPN-IPSec; SSL; SNA; Entrust, HTTP & HTTPS
Mail database
Microsoft Exchange; Sendmail; Microsoft SMTP Server
Middleware
BEA WebLogic Server; IBM MQ Series; Candle ROMA;
Entrust; Adobe Acrobat; [Adobe Accelio] Jetform FormFlow
and JetForm Central; XML; Webgain Toplink
Management tools
SMS; Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM); BMC Patrol; HP
Openview; Remedy; PSSP; IBM StoreWatch
Internet/Intranet/Extranet
Microsoft Internet Information Server; Apache; ActiveX;
HTML; PKI+Entrust/Direct; XML; Internet Explorer
Other
WordPerfect; Microsoft Office 95/97/2000; ICL X.500/LDAP
Privacy and security

ensure systems allow connectivity but remain separate

access to information is restricted to those who are authorized,
sign-on screens providing access on a need-to-know / right-toknow basis

security and blocking features in place to deny access where
there is a legislative requirement to do so; e.g., if a record or file is
ordered sealed by a judge, the system will ensure it remains
sealed
[Separate slides on final CD]
Police Project
Aims




Records Management System (RMS) organizes the recording and
management of details regarding criminal occurrences.
Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) assists in the management of police
emergency calls, using digital maps to display the location of calls.
Better information is captured to aid investigations.
Systems provide improved, more efficient ways of sharing information
across police services and the justice system.
Current Status



Implementation of CAD and RMS began in September 2000 – full
integration October 18, 2002.
The new, integrated CAD and RMS have been deployed across the
Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).
CAD and RMS have been installed in eighteen Ontario Police
Technology and Information Co-operative (OPTIC) municipal police
services, with the remaining 21 scheduled for implementation.
Corrections Project
Aims



More effective management of cases and programs
Provide corrections staff with a single, comprehensive file following
offenders from their entry into an institution or start of probation or
parole until the conclusion of their sentence or period of supervision.
Electronic sharing of information with other justice partners, e.g. courts,
police
Current Status



On August 10, 2001, the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS)
went live across the province, and is being used on a 7x24 basis by staff
in 45 institutions, 40 area offices and 94 satellite offices
Over 2,600 end users trained
60 million records integrated in 2001
Courts Project - Aims



Focused on the court-related elements of the IJ initiative
Will include courtroom support, criminal, civil and family case
management
Will allow courts, courts administration and lawyers to get the greatest
use and value from electronic information
Three principal components:



Electronic filing of court documents (E-file)
Digital Audio Recording of court proceedings (DAR)
Electronic court case management, including full scheduling and
eventual remote access
Courts Project - Status
Digital Audio Recording (DAR):



Testing system extensively, making modifications as required
Field-testing of DAR is set to occur in a simulated court environment,
recording mock proceedings in an Ontario courthouse
Planning is underway to implementation DAR in the Ontario Court of Appeal
Electronic Filing of court documents (E-File)


Currently being field-tested by users in selected locations in both French
and English
Once the application has proven itself, we will gradually phase E-File in
across the province.
Court Case Management System (CCMS):

Currently engaged in an evaluation of alternatives to expedite the
development and implementation of this crucial system.
Crown Project
Aims

Will streamline Crown processes and create an electronic system for:
–
–
–
–
scheduling resources
recording information
exchanging information with the police and courts
reduces time and effort spent capturing information.
Current status

Rigorous testing of the application is being done in London and Toronto

Training and implementation strategies are being completed
Progress is being made with police representatives towards the
exchange of an electronic Crown brief between police and the Crown.

OOPS…




March 1998 cost estimate to complete the Project was $180
million, March 2001 estimate had risen to $359 million.
Over the same period, expected benefits were reduced from
$326 million to $238 million.
The benefit to investment ratio has dropped to about 0.76:1
In addition, not all systems are expected to be fully implemented
by the contractual deadline of September 8, 2002 [extended to
October 8, 2002].
Provincial Auditor’s Report, as at March 31, 2001, released
October, 2001: http://www.gov.on.ca/opa/english/r01t.htm
Breaking News

“Ontario plan to modernize justice system scrapped”
– Toronto Star, October 9, 2002


“It’s time to go our separate ways”, says the Attorney General at
the end of the partnership of private consortium members and
the three Ontario Justice sector Ministries (“IJP”)
So ends “the largest and most complex project of its kind ever
initiated”
What happened along the way

Examples:
– Communications
 Last Executive Steering Committee, May, 2000
– Software purchases
 The Sustain Saga
– Command and Control
 This works!
– Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers everywhere
 The e-filing fiasco
– Financial projections and the realities (as above)
– Courts = classic “frustration at law”, in Freeman’s opinion
What happened along the way: The Sustain Saga;
the blow-up of Ontario’s CCMS
e-Court
1999-2000
2000-2001
March, 1999
But the RFP said …
= Goodbye Unisys
August
Version 19.2.0
Version 21.0.0
December to March of
the next year
Unacceptable; then
quite good, really
Promises
May, the next year
Switch!
Termination of Interlink
The E-Filing Fiasco

Designed to be a huge cash tap

First iteration in late 2000 caused a revolt by the Bar

2001: Second try, better but limited

Not until August, 2002 was a good front end implemented BUT
the system runs today in three test sites, for free
What’s the trouble with the
technology?
It’s not about technology as such;
it’s about people and management
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
ABILITY TO
USE IT
Lessons learned?
From CTC-7 in Baltimore, August 2001:
1
Top management/Judicial Commitment
2
Adequate user involvement
3
Experienced project management
4
Clear business objectives
5
Minimized scope
Lessons, CTC-7 continued
6
Standardized software infrastructure
7
Firm basic requirements
8
Formal methodology
9
Reliable estimates
10
Other criteria (small milestones, proper planning,
competent staff, and project “ownership”)
Practical Observations

Unless full buy-in, and very large scale investment,
 (e.g. Singapore)
– Keep it simple and small: “dolphins not whales”
 Australia’s Federal Family Court
• One ccms for one court, that works!

Very
large project?
– Mostly, get a very large, “scalable” vendor
Practical Observations continued

At present there is no single ccms product that has universal
application

Each jurisdiction is wrestling with its own needs

No jurisdiction has yet made the full leap of faith to change the
process, doing away with paper concepts

Technology DOES drive the process; develop policies and rules
in tandem with it; maintain flexibility
Practical Observations continued

Beware the simplicity of “Thin client”
– Pipeline issues
– Intended Traffic (!)

Or did you really intend a mainframe all along?
– ICON in Ontario
– Existing ccms in Canada’s Federal IRB
Practical Observations continued

Define the scope with adequate input and with continual
monitoring
 LISTEN TO USERS, or proceed at your peril
 Lawyers are the single largest group of users of the Court system, for
example
 Wise to hire a lawyer consultant, or three!

Having defined the scope, stick to it, with proper staging
Practical Observations continued …

Be patient and focused
– Eurofighter ten years out
 Economist, September 14-20, 2002
– Ontario “E-Reg” Real Property system
 Many serious challenges
 Helped to be a monopoly!
Practical Observations continued … ...

Before you start, look to other disciplines
– Medicine, recording and transcription of notes
– Payroll call centres’ “Personalization”

Look to the winners
– NOW, we can look to Singapore
– FUTURE look to Tyler’s Odyssey in Minnesota
One Last Thought

COMMUNICATION!
– Look at Minnesota’s Monthly and Weekly communications on
their web-page!
 Involve your users early and continuously
– Look at Singapore’s Subordinate Court’s Judicial Scorecard!
 Enter the 21st century, striving to relate and be relevant
What the Future may hold

From a rather well known computer company

A brief look at E-Filing.Net
– [on the CD if time limits]
finis, Q.E.D.
Questions and, possibly, some meaningful
answers!