New way of systematic management of delay reduction projects in courts – combining external expertise and internal participation

Finnish Ministry of Justice andLappeenranta University of Technology, FinlandDepartment of Industrial EngineeringSupply Chain and Operations ManagementPetra Pekkanen, M.Sc. (Tech.) researcherPauliina Seppälä, M.Sc. (Tech.) researcherTimo Pirttilä, D.Sc. (Tech.) Professor

Logistics projects in Finnish courts

2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20132007

Helsinki Court of Appeal 3/2006 – 12/2009

Insurance Court 8/2008 – 6/2010

Helsinki District Court 1/2010 – 12/2013

Helsinki Administrative Court 1/2011 – 12/2013

Supreme Administrative Court 1/2011 – 12/2013

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Logistics projects - aims

- Analyze the judicial processes and improvement potentials from operations management perspective

- Create collectively designed tools and procedures to reduce delays, improve process performance and enhance time management in courts

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

INITIATIVE ANALYSIS

•Getting familiar with the organization and identifying targets for development through interviews and data analysis

MONITORING

•Evaluating and monitoring the success of implementation and determining corrective actions through interviews and data analysis

TARGETS OF DEVELOPMENT

•Identifying main targets of development and determining developing areas in workshop meetings

PLANNING

•Planning operational practices and improvement initiatives in workshop meetings

IMPLEMENTATION

•Implementing operational practices and improvement initiatives to daily practices in the organization

9-12 months 12-18 months

Research group from LUT: supply chain and

operations management perspective

Work group from courts: expertise concerning

court operations

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

The basic idea of the approach to judicial process improvement and delay reduction

Process improvement needs

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Very urgent

Very large ”Mass”

Case differentiation – different requirements

GOAL SETTING AND PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT – Differentiated time- targets

and dead-lines

PROCESS AND INVENTORY CONTROL SYSTEMS –

Online pending inventory control systems and

control of the progression of cases

PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY PLANNING – Project and resource planning for complex

cases

Example of project planning for complex cases (Helsinki Court of Appeal)

PROJECT PLAN FOR A CASE

1. Käsittelytavan

valinta1. Käsittelytavan

valinta

2. Karkea

aikataulutus2. Karkea

aikataulutus

3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu

Osaston

työsuunnitteluOsaston

työsuunnittelu

Henkilökohtainen

aikataulutusHenkilökohtainen

aikataulutus

JakoJako

Muut

työtehtävät

1. Käsittelytavan

valinta1. Käsittelytavan

valinta

2. Karkea

aikataulutus2. Karkea

aikataulutus

3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu

Osaston

työsuunnitteluOsaston

työsuunnittelu

Henkilökohtainen

aikataulutusHenkilökohtainen

aikataulutus

JakoJako

Muut

työtehtävät

1. Käsittelytavan

valinta1. Käsittelytavan

valinta

2. Karkea

aikataulutus2. Karkea

aikataulutus

3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu

Osaston

työsuunnitteluOsaston

työsuunnittelu

Henkilökohtainen

aikataulutusHenkilökohtainen

aikataulutus

JakoJako

Muut

työtehtävät

1. Käsittelytavan

valinta1. Choosing thehandling procedure

2. Karkea

aikataulutus2. Setting thetime-frames according to the targets set

3. Henkilökohtainen

työsuunnittelu3. Preparing personal working plan

Osaston

työsuunnitteluDepartment

working plan

Henkilökohtainen

aikataulutusPersonal schedule

JakoCase distribution

Muut

työtehtävätOthertasks

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Differentiated time-targets

Example of online pending inventory control system and time-frame alarm-system (Insurance Court)

− process control points, time-frames and alarm-levels set for normal and priority cases

− case needing priority handling marked with green label

− complex case needing active handling and co-operation marked with black label

− case exceeds the lower alarm-level one exclamation mark

− case exceeds the upper alarm-level three exclamation marks

•<130 days

•130-179 days

Process phase •>180 days

Preliminary preparation

•Distribution •<180 days

•Preparation •180-239 days

•Physician •>240 days

•Expert members

•Judge division •<270 days

•Summary •270-359 days

•>360 days

•Normal cases

•Control point 2

Control point 1

Control point 3

•12 months

•<60 days

•60-80 days

•Process phase •>80 days

•Preliminary preparation

•Distribution •<80 days

Preparation •80-110 days

Physician •>110 days

Expert members

Judge division •<120 days

•Summary•120-150 days

•>150 days

Control point 3

Control point 1

Priority cases

•Control point 2

•5 months

•Control point 1

•Control point 2

•Control point 3

•Control point 1

•Control point 2

•Control point 3

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Example of the basic scenein the Insurance Court data system

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

case age in days

judge

referendary

preparation (Court Clerk)

chairman

handling stage

responsible person

(identification information

hided)

complex case

lower alarm-level exceeded

priority case

upper alarm-level exceeded

Summary of process improvement solutions

- Case differentiated time-frames and targets

- Process phased time-frames and targets- Practical tools to control time-frames

online and alarm of delaying cases -Procedures to control pending inventory

situations regularly-Procedures for intervening in problem

situations

Changes to management system Changes to production system

- Procedures for taking the case immediately under guidance and control

- Procedures for project and life cycle planning for the cases

- Practices for personal working plan and scheduling

- Differentiated handling procedures for different cases

- Tools to help use online inventory data as a basis for work planning

Time is regarded and taken into account betterTools and new procedures to time management

Differentiated procedures for different requirements

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Age and size of pending cases in Helsinki Court of Appeal

2010 2006

Pending 2048 2793

Over 12 months 151 (7 %) 958 (34 %)

Over 24 months 7 (0,3 %) 140 ( 5 %)

Months

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Age of pending cases in Insurance Court

2010 2008

Pending 6155 6625

Over 12 months 527 ( 9 %) 1077 (16 %)

Over 24 months 41 (0,7 %) 96 (1,5 %)

Months

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Challenges of improvement – adoption and implementation

Challenge of finding novel improvement solutions

Challenge in carrying out the improvement work

systematically and target oriented

Challenge of prejudice towards improvement solutions

Challenge of maintaining the ownership of the solutions

Research group from

LUT

Research group from

LUT

Work group from courtsWork group from courts

Systematic progressive

project

Systematic progressive

project

External expertise

Participation and

commitment

Systematic project

management

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen

Lessons learned from delay reduction projects

• Commitment and willingness to change – current and important issue• clear emphasis that delay reduction is important• continuous process improvement culture

• Visible involvement and commitment of top management and wide internal participation

• affirmative attitude towards changes made, nature of work and suitable working methods

• External expertise and new improvement methods

• Easily acceptable and adoptable solutions• “simple” planning solutions

• Enough time to adopt and internalize changes• gradual changes and improvement projects• systematic improvement efforts

28.6.2011 LUT - Petra Pekkanen