Transcript Obertitel Haupttitel Ort und Datum Diese

Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
CoE Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Court Statistics, Judge Workload
Analysis, Quality and
Performance Management
Dr Axel G Koetz
Ankara 25 March 2011
This Document is complete only together with the oral presentation;
use of isolated pages might lead to misunderstandings.
Questions: Dr Axel G. Koetz, Managing Partner, KPI Management and Policy Consultants
Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne, axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com, Tel/Fax +49 (0)221-9411801 / 05
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
1
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
This presentation refers in part to results of work generated by the author during the Projects
ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF UKRAINIAN JUDICIARY
FUNCIONING: Civil Service Component EuropeAid/125611/C/SER/UA
STRUKTURANALYSE DER RECHTSPFLEGE
Organisation der Amtsgerichte
Organisation der Kollegial- und Instanzgerichte
Organisation der Staatsanwaltschaften
Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz, Bonn
(published in German by Bundesanzeiger Printing House)
and other related studies on behalf of German State Governments
KPI
Dr Axel G Koetz, KPI International Management and Policy Consultants,
Unicenter 2920, D-50539 Cologne Germany, [email protected]
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Use of Statistics
in Court Management
Conference Material
Part 1 of 4
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Today Problems
• Data are collected for many use(r)s – including academic
exercises – but not for management
• Nobody cares for data quality as those who create do
not profit from results
• Case data, HR data and financial data are collected by
different departments and for different users and never
integrated for management use
• An immense quantity of data is collected, stored and
forgotten
• Collection of date itself creates an inappropriate resource
consumption
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
4
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Necessary Integration of Statistics
HR and
Resources
Statistics
Case
Statistics
Court
Management
Data Base
External
Quality
Statistics
Financial
Statistics
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
5
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Instruments
Top Down View:
Optimization of the overall Judicial System from the
viewpoint of Effectiveness and Efficiency
Effectiveness, Quality and Efficiency of the Judiciary
Bottom-Up View:
Ensure a proper functioning of the court according to
central goals and making best use of court resources
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
Legal possibilities to „manage“
What means Court Management ?
6
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Orient Statistics to Management Needs 1:
What the Head of Court Might Like to Know
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number of cases (incoming / completed / unfinished)
Case workload (per relevant case type and overall)
Time needed for case types
Backlogs
Percentage of cases sent back from higher court due to successful appeals
Satisfaction of Court users with speed, friendlyness, accessibility
Differences in performance between judges – in quantity, speed and
correctness of output
• De facto available staff off all types
• Position of the courts performance compared with others
• Changes of numbers compared with the last year/s
May be more ?
May be other ?
May be none at all ?
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
7
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Orient Statistics to Management Needs 2:
What the Central Level Might Like to Know
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
KPI
Number of cases nationwide, regional, per court
Case workload: Overall indicator for key case types
Time needed for case types overall / per court
Backlogs per case type / per court
Percentage of cases sent back from higher court due to successful
appeals – overall and per court
Satisfaction of Court users with speed, friendlyness, accessibility,
overall and per court
Differences in performance between courts and judges – in
quantity, speed and correctness of output
De facto available staff off all types versus plan (overall / per court)
Comparative data describing court performance
Changes of numbers compared with the last year/s
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
8
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Are Big Courts More Productive
Than Small Courts ?
450
666 District Courts, Unweighthed Cases, Planned Judges
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
5
10
15
20
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
25
30
35
9
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Do Judges in Small Courts Need
More Support Staff Than in Big Courts ?
20
FTPE Support per FTPEJudge
18
KH
16
OD
LV
14
KO
CY
12
DZ
10
Potenziell (DZ)
8
6
4
2
FTPE
Judge
0
0,00
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
25,00
30,00
10
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
How much time does a Judge need
for for an average Case ?
30
25
Judge FTPE per Court
OD
20
KH
LV
KO
CY
15
DZ
10
Hours
judge
Time
per
case
5
9
0
0
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
4
4,5
5
11
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Why Does One Court Solve 50% of the Cases in
3,5 Months Whilst Another Takes 6 Months ?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
1-CUM
50%
2-CUM
40%
30%
20%
10%
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
more
120
60
24
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
12
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Why Differ Backlogs by the Factor 10
Between Courts of Different Regions ?
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
13
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
... And External Quality Evaluation ?
• Problem: External data need extra processing, this
means work
• Chance: See the unbiased view of the „users“ instead of
what the system produces internally
• Customer cards might provide multiple choice answers
on
–
–
–
–
Accessibility of the court
Evaluation of court staff behaviour
Evaluation of felt work quality
Evaluation of processes, timing etc.
• Interesting is the time series analysis and the internal /
external comparison
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
14
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Questions Lead to Other Questions...
• Should we change the court network and eliminate
courts with less than xx Judges ?
• In how far can we exchange court support staff to
technology (and uphold small courts)
• How can we deal with non performing Judges who solve
less cases / are systematically slower than the average
• Do we have under-resourced courts and are lacks in
resources or regional „styles“ responsible for backlogs ?
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
15
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
... Other Questions Lead to Decisions
• Change the „court network“
• Increase training for nonperforming judges and judges
with a high proportion of successful appeals
• Introduce better workflow software and optimize
regulations to save support staff capacity
• Redistribute resources according to real workloads
• Have discussions with Court managers who fail to bring
their numbers in order.
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
16
Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D-50939 Cologne Germany, e-mail axel.koetz @ koetz-ag.com
Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011
Start from Existing Systems
(Aspect 5 of 5)
• State of the Art Management Information Systems (MIS)
are challenging, costly and the development might take
years
• Instead of waiting for funds for optimal solutions, in
many cases small changes in existing Software might
bridge the time.
• Sometimes the work with pilot systems on court and
region level can give important insight before the big
project is started
KPI
Management and
Policy Consultants
Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary
Ankara, 25 March 2011
17