Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 3

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can mess up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal



In case you missed our last few blogs... please feel free to have another look…

The Role of Senior Leaders (Part 1)
Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 2
Ambidexterity - How to Get Started
Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 1

Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 2

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

In my last blog, I described my daughters experience, and mine with Ontario's court system, which is similar to that used in the US, UK and many other countries.

I experienced many of the Eight Wastes including delay, defects, over-processing, and inventory in my fellow prospective jurors!

I spent much of the time is a thick fog and felt anxiety and frustration. Chats with friends & colleagues suggest my experience was not unusual.

Yet, our trial by jury process is precious & we need to support it.

So, how might we improve?

We might start by doing a SIPOC analysis: Supplier - Inputs - Process - Outputs - Customer.

Here's how our SIPOC might unfold. Let's start, as ever, with the customer.

Who is the customer? Why, the public.

What does the customer expect? Here are a few thoughts:

• Justice for both the victim and the accused,
• Reasonable speed -- we might set a lead time or throughput target
• No bad guys should get off because of court delays,
• No unreasonable hardship for jury members

What's the process? At the highest level, process seems to be:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can muck up the process? Based on my experience, here are some possibilities:

• Poor information flow at step 1 -- (as a result you show up when you're not needed, sit for days with nothing to do & no info etc.)
• How many jury panel members and jurors do we need?
• When, and for how long, do we need them?
• How many do we currently have? Is this above or below our standard?
• What do we need to do get back to standard?

Without this info, we're likely to call too many jury panel members, for too many days, thereby generating delay, over-processing, defects & other forms of waste.

So, information flow seems an important direct cause.

What are the root causes? I don't know enough about the process to say. But the countermeasure seems obvious:

• Use information technology better so al to provide jury panel members with answers to questions posed above.
◦ For example, can we not communicate with jury panel members by cell phone and e-mail?

• "We won't need you tomorrow..."

Again, I don't want to be misunderstood. The problem, is in the jury selection process, not the people, who I found to be courteous, competent and cheerful.

(I'd welcome their comments & insights.)

More to come.

Best,

Pascal



In case you missed our last few blogs... please feel free to have another look…

Ambidexterity - How to Get Started
Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 1
Key Differences Between Protecting the Core & Igniting New Growth
Why is Business Transformation so Hard? Lessons from the ‘Back Pain Industry’

Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 3

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can mess up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal

Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 2

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

In my last blog, I described my daughters experience, and mine with Ontario's court system, which is similar to that used in the US, UK and many other countries.

I experienced many of the Eight Wastes including delay, defects, over-processing, and inventory in my fellow prospective jurors!

I spent much of the time is a thick fog and felt anxiety and frustration. Chats with friends & colleagues suggest my experience was not unusual.

Yet, our trial by jury process is precious & we need to support it.

So, how might we improve?

We might start by doing a SIPOC analysis: Supplier - Inputs - Process - Outputs - Customer.

Here's how our SIPOC might unfold. Let's start, as ever, with the customer.

Who is the customer? Why, the public.

What does the customer expect? Here are a few thoughts:

• Justice for both the victim and the accused,
• Reasonable speed -- we might set a lead time or throughput target
• No bad guys should get off because of court delays,
• No unreasonable hardship for jury members

What's the process? At the highest level, process seems to be:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can muck up the process? Based on my experience, here are some possibilities:

• Poor information flow at step 1 -- (as a result you show up when you're not needed, sit for days with nothing to do & no info etc.)
• How many jury panel members and jurors do we need?
• When, and for how long, do we need them?
• How many do we currently have? Is this above or below our standard?
• What do we need to do get back to standard?

Without this info, we're likely to call too many jury panel members, for too many days, thereby generating delay, over-processing, defects & other forms of waste.

So, information flow seems an important direct cause.

What are the root causes? I don't know enough about the process to say. But the countermeasure seems obvious:

• Use information technology better so al to provide jury panel members with answers to questions posed above.
◦ For example, can we not communicate with jury panel members by cell phone and e-mail?

• "We won't need you tomorrow..."

Again, I don't want to be misunderstood. The problem, is in the jury selection process, not the people, who I found to be courteous, competent and cheerful.

(I'd welcome their comments & insights.)

More to come.

Best,

Pascal

July Duty, Part 3

By Pascal Dennis

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can muck up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal

Pascal Dennis Bio

July Duty, Part 3

Jury Duty, Part 2

By Pascal Dennis

In my last blog, I described my experience with Ontario's jury selection process -- (which is similar to that used in the US, UK etc.)

I experienced many of the Eight Wastes including delay, defects, over-processing, and inventory in my fellow prospective jurors!

I spent much of the time is a thick fog and felt anxiety and frustration. Chats with friends & colleagues suggest my experience was not unusual.

Yet, our trial by jury process is precious & we need to support it.

So, how might we improve?

We might start by doing a SIPOC analysis: Supplier - Inputs - Process - Outputs - Customer.

Here's how our SIPOC might unfold. Let's start, as ever, with the customer.

Who is the customer? Why, the public.

What does the customer expect? Here are a few thoughts:

• Justice for both the victim and the accused,
• Reasonable speed -- we might set a lead time or throughput target
• No bad guys should get off because of court delays,
◦ No unreasonable hardship for jury members

What's the process? At the highest level, process seems to be:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

What can muck up the process? Based on my experience, here are some possibilities:

• Poor information flow at step 1 -- (as a result you show up when you're not needed, sit for days with nothing to do & no info etc.)
◦ How many jury panel members and jurors do we need?
◦ When, and for how long, do we need them?
◦ How many do we currently have? Is this above or below our standard?
◦ What do we need to do get back to standard?

Without this info, we're likely to call too many jury panel members, for too many days, thereby generating delay, over-processing, defects & other forms of waste.

So, information flow seems an important direct cause.

What are the root causes? I don't know enough about the process to say. But the countermeasure seems obvious:

• Use information technology better so al to provide jury panel members with answers to questions posed above.
◦ For example, can we not communicate with jury panel members by cell phone and e-mail?

• "We won't need you tomorrow..."

Again, I don't want to be misunderstood. The problem, is in the jury selection process, not the people, who I found to be courteous, competent and cheerful.

(I'd welcome their comments & insights.)

More to come.

Best,

Pascal

Pascal Dennis Bio