Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman

dCoroners

Office

Courts

Police

CrownCorrections

FireMarshall

TransformingPublic Safety

and Justice forthe good of all

Ontarians

Implement

Iterate

IntegrateOntario’s IJP Project Ontario’s IJP Project

October 21, 2002October 21, 2002

Derek R. FreemanDerek R. Freeman

World EventsWorld Events

Bali, 2002

911, 2001

Innocent civilians victimized for purposes of war

A Snapshot of A Snapshot of

“Why” we need IJP and “How” IJP works “Why” we need IJP and “How” IJP works

at a Provincial (State) criminal levelat a Provincial (State) criminal level

One reason “Why” we started the IJPOne 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 HOW” Integrated Justice worksworks

“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 Detail: Why, How and What Happened in Ontario’s Integrated Justice Projectin Ontario’s Integrated Justice Project

“The largest and most complex project of its kind “The largest and most complex project of its kind ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a ever initiated … this is not fine-tuning or changing a

process here; it is foundational and huge”process here; it is foundational and huge” Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.Deputy Solicitor General, Virginia West, February 27, 2002.

Ontario Justice at a glance: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?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 Silos1997: The Three Silos

POLICE

Solicitor General

OPP and overall

Guidance for Police forces

COURTS

Attorney General

Running the Courts and responsible for Crown Attornies, etc.

CORRECTIONS

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correc-tions

Why the IJP was initiatedWhy 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: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.

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

What was Integrated Justice to do?What was Integrated Justice to do?

Vision Statement for Courts Project (as of 1998)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 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

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

Effective 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 itThe “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 RealizationBenefits 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: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 sideWho” 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

5.BusinessProcess

Redesign

Phase V Implementation

3.Target &

Focus

M

ManagementCheckpoint

M

1.Strategic

Development

MManagementCheckpoint

andApproval to

Proceed


8.Technology

Redesign

7.Organization

Redesign10.

RFP Process

11.Vendor

Selection &Negotiation

6. Rapid Return Actions & Early Wins

4. Project Management, Integration & Architecture Planning

2. Communication and Change Management

Phase I Planning

Phase IIBPR & Integrated

Business Case

Phase III RFP Process &

Vendor Selection

13. Master Implementation

Plan

14.Implementation

and Roll-out

15.Continuous

Improvement

9.Integration &Gap Analysis

Phase IV Detailed Design

12.Detailed

Systems and Process

Design and On-site Testing

M


We are hereBusiness Process Review (BPR) [1999]

Planning, planning, planningPlanning, 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” ProcessesCourts “As Is” Processes

Document Intake& Filing

Document Processing

Receivingand Updating of Documents in Court andRecording ofProceedings

Production andDelivery of Documents for Release/Enforcement

Archiving

Production of Transcripts

Doc

umen

t M

anag

emen

tS

ched

ulin

gM

anag

emen

t In

form

atio

n S

yste

ms

Data CollectionCompile Data for Various Regions / Time Periods

Reports placed in Repository and Distribute Automatically / On Need Basis

Data Used for Planning / Budgeting /Statistics

Selecting a Jury Panel

Fin

anci

al

Man

agem

ent

Assemblingand

OrganizingDocumentsfor Court

Provincial Division Scheduling

Criminal Courts Financial Management

Civil & Small Claims Courts Financial Management

Admin Services Financial Management

General Division Scheduling

CT1 CT2

CT3

CT4 CT5

CT6 CT7

CT8

CT11

CT13

CT14CT15

CT16 CT17

CT9

CT10

CT12

MultipleCase

InitiationPoints

e.g. Info Center,Kiosk,

InternetElectronic Case Flow ManagementSystem with integrated scheduling

and financial management processes

ElectronicDocument orDisbursement

Electronic courtroom supportincluding document view and

production capabilities and digital recording of record

Potential Future “To Be”Potential Future “To Be”

Our ProgressOur Progress

ministries began planning

RFP for private-sector partner

contract signed documented current

and developed new business processes

released RFPs for electronic systems

1996/1998Plan Project and

Define requirements

1999 - 2002Development and Design

phased implementation process began in late 2000 and continues

2000 / Phased

Implementation select technology customize software policy issues test and develop

new systems organization design

We are here

Key initiativesKey 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 SystemIntegration – 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 architectureTechnical 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

ApplicationsApplications

Non-OPTICPolice

CISM*• Web Portal• E-filing• Message handling• Security• Document rendering

*CommonInfrastructureSystemsManagement

Non-OPTICPolice

ExternalAgencies

(RCMP, MTO, etc.)

Lawyers[Practice

ManagementSoftware]

OPTICPolice

Records Management

System (RMS)

CrownCase

Management

Courts Case

Management

CommonInquiry System

CorrectionsCase

Management(OTIS)

DigitalAudio

Recording

Custom Software Third-Party Software

OPTICPolice

Computer Aided Dispatching

(CAD)

XML DataExchanges

Direct DataTransfer

Software Applications, September, 2002Software 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, Software Applications, September, 2002, continuedcontinued

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 securityPrivacy 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-to-know 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 ProjectPolice 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 ProjectCorrections 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 - AimsCourts 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 - StatusCourts 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 ProjectCrown 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…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 NewsBreaking 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 wayWhat 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;What happened along the way: The Sustain Saga;the blow-up of Ontario’s CCMSthe 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 FiascoThe 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 What’s the trouble with the technology?technology?

It’s It’s not not about technology as such; about technology as such; it’s about people and managementit’s about people and management

ABILITY TO USE IT

TECHNOLOGY

Lessons learned?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 continuedLessons, 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 ObservationsPractical 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 continuedPractical 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


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


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 …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 … ...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 ThoughtOne 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 holdWhat 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, finis, Q.E.D.Q.E.D.

Questions and, possibly, some meaningful Questions and, possibly, some meaningful answers!answers!

Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman

Documents

Transcript of Ontario’s IJP Project October 21, 2002 Derek R. Freeman