KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 Cologne, koetz-ag.com, Tel/Fax +49 (0) / 05 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, 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 Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 This presentation refers in part to results of work generated by the author during the Projects Dr Axel G Koetz, KPI International Management and Policy Consultants, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, KPI  Management and Policy Consultants 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 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 Use of Statistics in Court Management Conference Material Part 1 of 4 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Necessary Integration of Statistics Case Statistics HR and Resources Statistics Financial Statistics External Quality Statistics Court Management Data Base Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March What means Court Management ? Top Down View: Optimization of the overall Judicial System from the viewpoint of Effectiveness and Efficiency Bottom-Up View: Ensure a proper functioning of the court according to central goals and making best use of court resources Effectiveness, Quality and Efficiency of the Judiciary Instruments Legal possibilities to „manage “ Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Orient Statistics to Management Needs 2: What the Central Level Might Like to Know 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 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Are Big Courts More Productive Than Small Courts ? 666 District Courts, Unweighthed Cases, Planned Judges Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Do Judges in Small Courts Need More Support Staff Than in Big Courts ? ,005,0010,0015,0020,0025,0030,00 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March How much time does a Judge need for for an average Case ? ,511,522,533,544,55 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Why Does One Court Solve 50% of the Cases in 3,5 Months Whilst Another Takes 6 Months ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Why Differ Backlogs by the Factor 10 Between Courts of Different Regions ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 Necessary Elements for a System of Collecting and Analyzing Data Conference Material Part 2 of 4 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March From Data Cemeteries to Useful MIS Relevant Automatic Motivating „Drilling Thru“ Start from Existing Systems Leads to the right decisions (e.g.: necessity of proper case weighting) Data generated during the normal work; no additional data collection Short and easy to understand by the decision makers and motivate them Trace nationwide information through all levels down do the individual Base as far as possible on existing data and data collection structures Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Relevance (Aspect 1 of 5) We do not need to count what we can not influence For all other things we need the data In any case, a value analysis of all data collection is necessary For example: Proper case weighting is extremely relevant for all management decisions and a „must have“ for the system. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Automatic Collection (Aspect 2 of 5) As far as possible, all data should be generated automatically within existing workflows –Case data –Human resources dData –Other resources procurement / register data –Financial data For all data we need integrated collection and storage systems For all data we need clear definitions and clearly defined interfaces Existing workflow software has to be modified or exchanged to software which is able to do it. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Integration of Workflow Software and Statistical Software becomes a Key Element Workflow System collects inter alia -Case Type -Case Generation Date -Judge Name -Numerous case properties (like n of hearings, n of witnesses, lawyers use, experts use etc.) -Last hearing date -Verdict -Appeal Automatic transfer to the statistical system at any time Automatic forwarding to a national Court Data Base Other Workflows in the Court -HR -Equipment / Maintenance -Finance Regular reports to central / regional / court level / public Reports on demand to all levels, according to needs DB availability for own research to the academic world and the public Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Motivation (Aspect 3 of 5) Data have to be understandable to decision makers Information has to be publicly available No overcomplicated indicators Decision makers have to have the power to act Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Drilling Thru (Aspect 4 of 5) All levels have to have the technical opportunity to compare and track the reasons of problems as well as origins of good practice Top-Down and cross-cutting analyses have to be possible on every level „Drilling thru“ capacities: Analyze individual performance on all levels... This means that ALL individual case data have to be available, retrievable, connectable and analyzable Never „aggregate“ data and give up potential information – nothing is as cheap as data storage Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Pyramid Model to Identify the Souces of Problems... National Regional level Court Level Judge level Which informations come from the national Average ? Where come Differences in regional performance from ? Which courts have problems, Which are fine ? Are there problems of Judges ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March „Drilling Thru“ and Extended Analytical Capacities Needed JUDGES COURTS REGIONS „Which judges are the most (un)productive nationwide ?“ „Is there a systematic performance difference between City and rural area courts ?“ „Are big courts more / less productive than small courts“ ? Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 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 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 Analysis of Judges Workload Conference Material Part 3 of 4 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Caseload versus Workload Caseload: Number of cases to be completed -By a Judge -By a Court -By the judges/courts in a region -Nationwide Workload: The work capacity needed to complete -a case -all cases on the judges table -all cases in the court -all cases in the courts of a region -all cases nationwide Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March The „Caseload“ concept leads to mismanagement Caseload computes the numbers of cases irrespective of complexity. Adding all cases and basing policies on this leads to severe problems as we are „adding pumpkins and cherries“ Many „order cases“ Many „administrative offenses“ Lead to High completion numbers „productive“ judges Many complex criminal cases Lead to Low completion numbers Unproductive judges Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Differences Unweighted/Weighted Cases Demonstrates Importance of Complexity Analysis Comparison of deviation from average (1) in caseload and workload per Judge in 33 Courts of a region, weighted (w) and not weighted (cases) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Determinants of Workload CASE WORKLOAD PER CASETYPE Court Work Structures Workflow and IT Case Complexity Quantitative Aspects Qualitative Aspects Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Case Complexity Determinators Quality: Case Type Procedural Law Existing Standards Size: N of involved parties / defendants N of witnesses N of needed hearings Quantity of Documents Simplified: Case Type plus Size Indicator Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Case Type Modeling Model Alternatives Minimalistic Model/s Concentrates on a small number of consolidated case types 100% Model/s Tries to identify (almost) all potential cases, Following the §§ of the law(s) Key Indicator Model/s Based on a substantial number of relevant case types Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Think in A-B-C Categories Instead of killing people with megabytes of Data, follow the ABC model A = Vital information B = Important information C = Unimportant information Make sure that „A“ level information is not buried under „C“ level information BCA 80% 90% 100% 20%40%100% Information Explanation Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Sample Key Indicator Model: PEBB§Y Identification of key case types, inter alia based on an ABC Analysis Identification of case complexity and related workload Detailed analysis of „A“ case types and selected others Correction factors and other instruments to cover the non-key case types (C, partly B) Please note: The following sheets show an extremely simplified picture of the methodology and the results ! PEBB§Y in reality is much more complicated when you come to the details. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March PEBB§Y Goals Key Goal: Identify the need for Judges / prosecutors posts on state level and define the budget accordingly Second Goal: Ensure a just distribution of posts across the courts Third Goal: Create transparency and acceptance amongst stakeholders No Goal: Establish a legal right of judges not to work more than given by the set indicators Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March „Courts have to be equipped adequately with personnel and other resources; details are specified by law“ (Constitution, Hamburg, Art 62 – similar in other constitutions) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Case type Selection (P1) 48 case types in local courts 20 case types in lower appellate courts 22 case types in higher appellate courts Other case types and administrative work taken into consideration via correction factors Also „Training“, „Administrative Functions“ and „other Tasks“ included, also numerous registers (German speciality) at local courts Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Sample Judge Workload per Case Types -for general civil cases150 minutes -for civil claims from car accidents170 minutes -for divorce cases200 minutes -for small criminal cases170 minutes -for major criminal cases510 minutes -for punishment orders (comparable to administrative offenses) 22 minutes - for economic and environmental crime 970 minutes - Appeals to Lower Appellate Court 430/910 minutes - Cassation Cases, higher Appellate Court 660 minutes Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Computing the Need for Judge Capacity (Simplified) Judges work capacity per year minutes Sample „car accident case“ 170 minutes Cases per Judge per year 601 cases N of cases x case weights Judge work capacity correction factors N of posts for Judges +/- = Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Development of the 1st PEBB§Y 1 Model About 40 courts and Prosecutors Offices 7 German States About Judges and Prosecutors About case cards analyzed External project executed by a consulting / accounting firm In addition, a PEBB§Y 2 model was developed to get data for the non-judicial staff. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March PEBB§Y Steps A Process of a Decade (by now) 2001:PEBB§Y 1 (General Courts –Judges, Prosecutors) 2001/2PEBB§Y 2 (General Courts - Secretaries + Support Staff) 2005PEBB§Y Fach (Judges in Specialized Courts for Labor, Tax, Social, Administrative Cases) 2008PEBB$Y Update Analyses: 1,2,Fach P 2 P 1 P Fach P Update Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Need for Participation and permanent updating States, Courts, Judges, Prosecutors intensively involved Numerous workshops, meetings and so on Intensive cooperation and involvement of the judges associations Consideration of specialities in the different states Check for realism and determination of the final results in workgroups Update of results according to chages in laws, jurisdiction, procedures, technology after some years Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Don‘t forget the civil service Structures PEBB§Y 1 was accompanied by PEBB§Y 2 PEBB§Y 2 covers the workforce needs in the field of civil service –Secretaries –Typists / Note takers (if still existing) –Court guards –Other professions in the court –Capacity needs for some professions still determined outside the PEBB§Y system Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March From Cases to Staff to Budget From Budget to Staff Workload from weighted cases defines Staff need –Per single court –Per region Accumulated staff needs determine overall number of judges Overall number of Judges determine Financial Budget for Judges New judges have to be hired accordingly (or posts have to be made free) Capacity has to be distributed justly amongst courts to ensure equal workload (Courts with overcapacity lose first the posts, secondly the staff when pensioned or replaced) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Use of PEBB§Y Date in Budgeting Weighted Case Data per Region Staff List High Courts Min of Justice Min of Finance Parliament Government Does it work this way... or not ? Most hopefully But not all the time Weighted Case Data Lower Courts Staff Lists Low Courts Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 Performance and Quality Management Conference Material Part 4 of 4 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March What do we want ? Performance Management Ensure best possible Service delivery by the couer Multi-Dimensional Approach (finance is one dimension) Performance Budgeting (Funding) Assignment of State Resources according to the performance of the courts Orientation to the financial dimension Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March What do we need 1.A working system to collect / retrieve the necessary information in the necessary disaggregated form 2.A system to present the data in an understandable form with complete „drilling thru“ and analysis capacities 3.An evaluation and reaction system (legal / organizational framework) 4.At the end a complete Management Information System (MIS) for the courts Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Dimensions of Performance DimensionKey Customer Quantitative Output (in Workload Categories) Ministry of Finance QualityCourt User SpeedCourt User Systems (HR, IT, Structures, Workflows) Internal use Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March The Basic Approach – Balanced Scorecard Multi-Dimensionality of „Performance“ in the Court system Interaction of performance dimensions Strategic long term controlling and optimization Based on customer / stakeholder goals Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March A BSC Approach takes Multi-Dimensionality and Interaction into consideration Take Multi-Dimensionality into consideration There is not one single goal, there are more than one, usually –Our financial situation today –Satisfaction of the customers to ensure our profit of tomorrow –Staff capacity to keep satisfaction and income –Investments in the future to ensure the profit of next year Take Interaction into consideration –Investment in Staff, Systems, Innovation today improves performance in the future Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March BSC – From Private Sector Needs to Court Needs Company Profit Customer Satisfaction Trained + Motivated Staff New Products / Markets Court Court productivity Speed / Minimized Backlogs Trained and motivated staff Minimized (successful) appeals Elaborate Goals for all Dimensions Supervise goals continuosly by Indicaters Dont allow the priority of one dimension Care for a „balanced“ score Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Productivity Indicator: Hours per weighted standard case in the District courts SAMPLE ,511,522,533,544,55 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Case Time Indicator: Cumulated Civil Cases Duration in Months 1-Cum 2-Cum Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Case Time Indicator (2): Cumulated Admin Cases Duration in Months Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Quality Indicator: Appeals and District Court Quality 988,824 (100%) 97,275 (9.8%) Local Court Decisions Appeals (Procedural Mistakes) Successful Appeals max min Wrong Decision ? Missing Knowledge of new Jurisdiction ? Bad Knowledge of Procedures ? Bad Communication ? Greedy Lawyers ? Wrong Case Investigation Wrong Law Application Failure in Procedures Different Legal Opinion 25,587 (26.3%) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Systems Indicators in Human Resources and IT Human Resources: Staff Turnover (Retention of qualified staff is a success indicator, so the value should be low. Training days (More training improves staff quality, leads to more output, higher speed, less failures ICT Systems Different development stages exist and can be measured by a IT quality indicator In general, the more staff has access to a server based intranet with common databases and functions and central internet access, the higher the staff productivity, the higher the work speed, the lower the share of failures Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March BSC (Standard Form) For a Sample Court Productivity 872 Weighted (standard) cases per judge/year Speed 144,85 DAYS to decisive meeting Staff Turnover 9,96 % (new + leaving/2) staff Of total staff p.a. Quality 3,17% Successful Appeals of Considered cases Goal ??? City average 847 Region average 977 Region best 25% Pilots Average 819 Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March BSC Diagram - Model Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March BSC Table - Model Introduce government goals for this Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March A View to Reality – Denmark (1) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March A View to Reality – Denmark (2) Інформація, яку можна отримати завдяки показникам. Вживання відповідних заходів. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Performance and Management Put instruments in place to identify the real reasons for performance problems in whatever BSC area Give HoC the Instruments to identify and solve problems in their own courts Try to create Incentives for good performance Re-arrage the staff distribution between courts in a region if needed Develop plans to improve the „System“ situation (HR and IT) Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Performance and Funding Assign Budget and Posts according to the weighted caseload of the courts (we need the case complexity based workload determination systems) Have an instrument in place to give relief to courts with problems (Judge Pool – retain a percentage of open posts for this) Consequently withdraw posts from „inefficient“ courts and put judges to courts with work overload. Put a bonus system in place for very efficient courts, giving extra funding for example for IT, materials and so on. Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March Feedback Loop and „Continuous Improvement“ Performance management should not end with isolated reactions on individual indicator problems. Follow up of results over the time and the analysis of the effects of changes is necessary Continous improvement has to be a key element: –You never reach an „Optimal“ result and it is in no case in one step –If you implemented one improvement, you see what can be done next –Actively promote re-thinking all achievements –Use BSC Indicators to measure the effect of each step Knowledge exchange Groups should be established to learn from each other and to improve the indicators continuously Dr Axel G Koetz, Managing Partner, Koetz Partner International, Unicenter 2920, D Cologne Germany, koetz-ag.com Court Statistics, Judge Workload Analysis, Quality and Performance Management – Ankara (CoE) 25 March 2011

KPI  Management and Policy Consultants Conference on Performance Evaluation of the Judiciary Ankara, 25 March 2011 End of the Presentation Thank you for your Attention Questions: Dr Axel G Koetz Managing Partner, KPI Cologne