Skip to content
An official website of the OECD. Find out more
Created by the Public Governance Directorate

This website was created by the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI), part of the OECD Public Governance Directorate (GOV).

How to validate authenticity

Validation that this is an official OECD website can be found on the Innovative Government page of the corporate OECD website.

Court + (Tribunal+)

How shall XXI century court be like? Is it possible to know what brings a citizen to court just by arriving at the building and direct him to the exact place, without any human contact? Yes, it’s possible! Innovative technology, a modern attendance model and streamlined procedures are changing the Portuguese courts. It’s a revolution in the way courts engage with the citizens to better serve them.

Innovation Summary

Innovation Overview

The project Court + is surely one of the most impacting transformation projects we are developing within the justice system. It is focused on the administrative modernization of the court system and has three main goals:

• Develop a new attendance model to the public

• Promote the simplification of information flows in the back-office (Court offices).

• Introduce management tools to the court management and at a national level of the court system.

It has been running as a pilot since Sep 2016 first in Sintra, one of the major Portuguese courts and expanded to more 3 courts in Portugal. The roll-out in 2018 will take it to more 48 courts. The diagnosis pointed out that more than 60% of the persons who go to court will participate in a court session. The remaining 40% address the court to get information about cases or to deliver papers. For that 60 % of citizens, we analyzed their journey and tried to ease their contact, relation and stay while in the building, implementing the following new journey using some technology:

• The citizen arrives at a scheduled session with his identity card or with the notification that was mailed to him and that has a code bar. He approaches a digital touchscreen kiosk that scans the code bar or the Citizen Card chip. At this stage, the kiosk communicates with the business applications, which will return the relevant information on the case that will be shown on the screen (e.g. number, scheduled time). The citizen confirms by touching the screen, doing the check-in, and receives a small receipt with the location of the room where the session will be held or with some relevant information, for instance, that the sessions are delayed.

• In the lobby of the court, there are LCDs presenting real time the scheduled sessions as well as the respective status and location.

• At the same time, the magistrate and the clerks will know who already arrived for the session and may decide to get started.

• At the end or after being heard, the citizen may get a confirmation of its presence in the session, for instance, to present to his boss, once again by approaching the digital kiosk and doing the checkout.

These two simple tasks of knowing who is present for a session and confirming the presence after, take time (one may think it is not that much time each, however, if it is multiplied by the number of sessions and participants in each, the impact is relevant). Additionally, previous tasks that the clerk had to conduct may be eliminated, freeing some time for more added value tasks. For the 40% of citizens who still need to go to court for some kind of interaction with the clerks, we tested, with success, a single central attendance service (“one-stop shop”) - Balcão + - where he can deal with several judicial matters in a more efficient way. Principles of the new attendance model are:

• Screen the citizen in the first contact

• Minimize the need for citizens to walk inside the building

• Promote alternative channels (i.e. less need to go to the court if the citizen can solve his issues remotely and/or in another place/entity).

But changes could also be seen in:

• The signage, improved to a simpler and more intuitive so it is easier for the citizen to identify the services available and how to get there.

• The attendance desk designed to allow the required privacy, to be ergonomic and to follow a cockpit concept, i.e. everything the clerk needs must be at the distance of an arm.

Overall there were significant increases in the user experience. While improving the citizen experience, this new model allows the clerks in the back office to be quieter, more productive, not being so many times interrupted, since the citizen is well served in the first line front office and does not need to move around the building. Other dimensions of the project, although not so visible, will make the difference in the organization and simplification of the work of the clerks:

i) the streamlining of a set of processes with great impact in the clerks’ daily work, namely accounting acts, mail reception, archiving paperwork, dematerialization of a procedural section or team management methodologies.

ii) the management and productivity tools the court management needs to conduct proactive management of the different resources available.

We have been working with a company, whose origin is strongly linked with the manufacturing of automobiles, which analysed in detail what are the current procedures, flows and tools in order to identify improvement opportunities for eliminating or simplifying tasks or getting them done more quickly. To conclude, in the beginning, we faced a lot of resistance from several directions, since we kept questioning the status quo. The high reluctance at first progressively was overcome by acceptance and engagement. Now the pilot teams with whom we worked are truly ambassadors of the change and keep contributing with new ideas of improvement.

Innovation Description

What Makes Your Project Innovative?

The introduction of the above-mentioned innovations represented significant changes to the status quo, especially in the way courts deal with citizens. Some examples:

• Centralized attendance: concentrate the attendance at a single point, with no need for additional journeys within the court. From the court point of view, this solution optimizes the time clerks dedicate to attendance, allowing to free resources to perform other tasks of greater added value.

• The optimization of procedures allows determining the reasons for such procedures, ways to improve them and reduce/eliminate waste, freeing time for the clerks to perform tasks that may impact the justice speed.

• The reduction/elimination of waste of working time allows, among other things, to create conditions for a reduction of case pendency with the same number of clerks, i.e. allows efficiency gains.

• Physical dashboards continuously updated keep track on daily achievements of the teams, stimulating a healthy competition between them.

• The way the clerks' teams are managed can be considerably changed.

The main goal is to move towards a more flexible solution of pooled resources without the existence of fixed teams. In this way, it will be possible to better allocate resources among procedural units, allowing for improvements in the pace of pendency reduction.

• Directing the citizen to the court areas automatically, reducing the need for intervention by clerks, and freeing them to other tasks of greater value added. • The automatic registration of the presence of the interveners in the hearings allows eliminating a secular act of calling the participants in the court lobby, letting citizens know where to go to the hearing and magistrates and clerks be aware of the presence in the court of the parties involved, without the need for the call. In this way, the process is substantially optimized and the court environment quieter.

• More intuitive communication: done through signage, in multimedia kiosks, LCDs, simplifying the language and making it more accessible to any citizen.

• Tailoring solutions to different types of court users.

• The availability of online solutions, such as an app for attendance, helps to bring the justice system closer to the increasingly digital behaviors of the citizen.

What is the current status of your innovation?

Today we are at a point of progressively diffusing the project to other courts. Since this project is very large and involves a significant investment, we recently submitted some applications to European funds, waiting at this stage for the approval. However, since the results achieved on the pilot are very positive, and some courts had some equipment, although not the ideal, that could be reused, we exported with success some of the concepts of Court + to 3 other courts, namely the single attendance desk in the lobby. Simultaneously, in terms of administrative procedures, we identified some areas that could already be replicated to other courts. We are now starting to involve the management of 2 courts in order to roll out some best practices and lessons learned, for instance, related to office supply management and storage. Once we get the application approval our compromise is to roll out Court + to a total of 52 courts until the end of 2018.

Nevertheless, we came to this point following the major milestones of the innovation lifecycle. Below are presented some examples of the work carried out and the methods used:

• Identifying problems: The needs were assessed in close collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the courts. Several on-site visits were made, in which it was possible to see first-hand the reality of the courts, the bottlenecks, constraints, and needs allowing to gather the feedback of those who work and use a court.

• Generating ideas: Ideas emerged from various discussion and visioning sessions between elements of the different entities involved. It did not come up only from the staff of the Ministry of Justice, it was a collaborative work from different entities. In fact, we used several times the innovation room for workshops and brainstorm sessions with different agents. The innovation room was created in the historical headquarters of the Ministry of Justice and is a relaxed room where we encourage gentlemen to leave the tie outside.

• Prototyping and co-creation: with key users we built and tested the ideal attendance counter which will be a reality soon.

• Developing proposals: In addition to the public entities involved, the proposals were developed in close collaboration with the various technology partners and consulting partners in the various thematic scope areas. A number of working sessions and technical visits were made not only to the court but also to other relevant sites where some of the proposed changes had been implemented. An innovation laboratory was also created in the Ministry of Justice where the most technical aspects of the innovation were tested before replicated in the real life. In addition to the installation of various equipment and solutions being developed and tested, numerous working sessions took place with elements of the various entities involved, including partners and suppliers.

• Implementing projects: During the implementation phase of the project, especially in the initial phase, daily feedback meetings were held with the clerks and the court management to assess progress and identify improvement areas. Also, a particular focus on training was crucial to get all the clerks involved and able to work in the new environment and context.

• Evaluating projects: so far a global interim evaluation of the pilot has been conducted, and the various scope areas have been analyzed, with several stakeholders being heard. There were also different partial evaluations of some areas where, in addition to the quantitative measurement it was also taken into account the feedback from the clerks and the court management. Additionally, several satisfaction surveys were conducted before, during and after the pilot in order to improve what was pointed out and to recognize publically the constructive and positive feedback.

• Diffusing lessons: in the diffusion phase of lessons to other courts of the same Judicial District as the pilot court, the clerks and court management were heard, in order to adapt the model to the different realities. For the future rollout to other regions, all the judicial administrators were consulted to evaluate the adequacy of the proposals made with the needs within each context. This ensures greater alignment of solutions and needs. Also, we are working with the entities responsible for the administration of Justice so they assume the project as their own and integrate it in their operational plans so it is faced as a reality to be rolled-out nationwide and not only as an experiment with a delimited time period and geographic scope.

Innovation Development

Collaborations & Partnerships

The partnerships between public and private entities not only in the area of Justice were of great relevance, namely:

• It enabled a more comprehensive view of the possibilities for improvement by applying previously tested solutions in other contexts with proved results.

• Collaboration with the various Justice Administration entities was relevant in order to create commitment and ownership, as well as ensuring the alignment of solutions with needs at all levels.

• The integration of technology partners has allowed a more disruptive view of possible solutions to be developed, tested and finally adjusted to the justice system.

Users, Stakeholders & Beneficiaries

The involvement was since the 1st stage:

• Analyzing: Needs assessed with citizens and clerks. On-site visits to see reality and get feedback from those who work and use a court.

• Generating ideas: Ideas emerged from debate and visioning sessions with diverse entities and international benchmarks.

• Developing proposals: Developed with all stakeholders and various technological and consulting partners. An innovation lab was created in the Ministry of Justice replicating the technology applied.

• Deploying and evaluating projects: Daily feedback from clerks and court management to assess improvement areas, which were incorporated. The training was crucial to get all on board and be able to work in the new context.

• Satisfaction surveys: To keep up to the expectations, surveys in the paper are complemented with the kiosk where the citizen can leave feedback when checks out.

• Diffusing lessons: Clerks and other court management were heard, in order to adapt the model to their contexts.

Innovation Reflections

Results, Outcomes & Impacts

The interim evaluation of the work done so far in some areas allows us to identify some relevant impacts, such as:

• Significant increases on the pace of pendency recover: on average, prior the pilot, the pendency was being reduced at a pace of 9%; interim evaluation shows that this pace has increased too, on average, 22%. Some areas register significant improvements such as 32% (contrasting with 13 prior to the pilot). Even though the number of processes entered has increased 2% during the period, the tendency is being reduced at a greater pace.

• Search and paper junction: improvements of 70% in the time clerks consumed in this kind of tasks.

• Accounting acts: improvements between 74% and 85% in the time clerks spent to verify the physical and electronic process to identify costs and fines.

• Mail activities: improvement of 15% in the time used by the clerks in the mail reception and treatment.

A relevant impact expected to be reached: in 2018 it is estimated a reduction of pendency in the courts where this new model will be implemented. In fact, it is expected a reduction of pendency around 10%. This is a very significant number with real impact in the overall pendency. We estimate a gain of more than 417.000 working hours, in about 25 big and medium courts (being conservative) as a result of freeing clerks from deploying minor tasks such as looking for papers, mailing reception, and treatment. We also estimated to impact more than 10.900 citizens daily (2,4 million citizens annually) in the total of the courts to be intervened.

Challenges and Failures

The natural resistance to change was the most significant challenge that was overcome with:

• the strong alignment of key stakeholders ensured through various meetings and presentations, which sought to bring together consensus and ideas for improvement.

• the close collaboration of clerks, judges, prosecutors and representatives that were involved in the different stages of the project and part of the solution (e.g. in the pilot inception daily feedback meetings were key to discuss what could be improved and how).

• Specific training aimed at different key users covering procedures and new technologies.

Finally, the adoption of new technologies in a sector where there is still a lack of means at several levels makes acceptance harder when it may be thought that those investments could be channeled to other areas. However, the benefits achieved with the new procedures and the continuous measurement of results has been crucial to maximizing the willingness to move forward.

Conditions for Success

The success can be measured not only by the number of courts, but above all by a higher efficiency that allows to free time to perform activities of greater value, and ultimately lead to a lower pendency. It is then crucial that:

• Beside the political will, the entities responsible for the administration of justice are strongly committed to change.

• Ownership of innovation is ensured. The entities must be committed to change and take it as their own and not only because it is imposed from outside, integrating them into their operational plan and giving them the required priority. Otherwise, innovation is considered as something minor and not a priority compared to regular operational initiatives.

• The required financial and human resources are assured. Not only the investment costs but also the operating costs have to be secured. Human resources must be trained to deal with the change, both technological and procedural.

• Legislation compliance with the changes introduced.

Replication

With the appropriate adjustments given the contexts, the solutions are potentially replicable in several areas of public administration. Some examples:

• Process improvement: administrative simplification and process optimization are potentially replicable to any public institution. This may be the area with the greatest potential impacts in case of replication.

• The adoption of digital solutions and greater dematerialization is potentially replicated in any public institution, with appropriate adjustments. In addition to streamlined processes, it also allows for cost reductions.

• The new centralized attendance service can be replicated to other public institutions where there is currently decentralized attendance service to the citizen.

• The adoption of technologies such as automatic transcription, also the scope of the Court +, is potentially replicable in several services where audio recording and use is required, such in situations as police testimony.

Lessons Learned

• Diagnosis conducted, assessing the various needs and collecting feedback on possible solutions and ways of reaching them. • Several on-site visits and benchmarks analysis, that gave us the big picture of what has been done and how.

• Observation and continuously measuring. Only with data we are able to see how big/little the bottlenecks are, areas to improve and to what extent. Support decisions based on measurements.

• Top-down involvement and empowerment and feedback from different stakeholders.

• Convince through good example, successful experiences and peer to peer training and testimonies. By sharing the good results, it becomes easier to bring others on board.

• Continuously question the status quo and search for improvement.

• Adopt a citizen perspective, addressing the real needs of the different segments.

• Continuously share results. By showing the progress it is possible to achieve a greater commitment and energy for the next steps.

• Recognize publicly good practices.

Anything Else?

Cooperation is key to the innovation process. It was very important for the creation of a steering group representing the internal stakeholders that follow and give contributes for the next steps. They came from the Superior Councils, judicial clerks and senior officers of the Ministry of Justice. Automatizing procedures, reducing (almost to zero) the need for paper in courts, using innovative ways for automatic transcription or videoconference, giving transparency, ex. allowing the citizen to know the state of his enforcement proceeding and even pay it, turning Justice more predictable. Definitely, Court + represents a transformational change that is embraced by all and conducted with all.

Supporting Videos

Year: 2016
Level of Government: National/Federal government

Status:

  • Diffusing Lessons - using what was learnt to inform other projects and understanding how the innovation can be applied in other ways

Innovation provided by:

Date Published:

27 May 2017

Join our community:

It only takes a few minutes to complete the form and share your project.