Information Technology is a tool, not an end unto itself.  It is both difficult to implement and to manage.  With its use can come conflicts about budgets, organizational relations, administrative authority, processes, and procedures, and even the best way to process cases. Despite these potential conflicts, Information Technology clearly can improve justice system and court performance through instant, integrated, and linked information.

Correct judicial decisions require timely, complete, and accurate information.  When Information Technology delivers on its promise, the right people are more likely than not able to get the information they need, at the right time, and in the right format.  Because of its potential both to improve and to entangle the judiciary, court leaders must take responsibility for the use of technology in their courts.  Direction, policy decisions, and management oversight of Information Technology cannot be left solely to technical staff.  Court leaders must ensure that technology serves the courts purposes and that it is managed effectively.

As courts deploy technology to meet these challenges, other issues arise:

• Technology changes rapidly while technology design and implementation can take time.  Resulting applications can be dated almost as soon as they are implemented.


• Technology often is overlaid incrementally on complex and archaic procedures and processes.


• It is difficult and sometimes impractical to mirror the full complexity of justice system and court processes in information systems.


• Although the same rules and procedures may govern courts within a state, the size of the court, the nature of the facility and local legal culture, among other factors, drive differences in specialization and the division of labor among staff.  One-size-fits-all solutions do not work.


• Many key components of information management systems, people, processes, data, and facilities are already in place.  New hardware and software often are introduced without adequate attention to how they fit within this existing environment.  Almost always, re-engineering of justice system and court business processes and training are needed.


• Expectations about court software are commonly unrealistic.  Software developed by court staff usually has limitations.  World-class designers are not available at salaries courts can afford. Because courts are a small market for software designers, finding vendors whose court products are world-class and whose financial base is strong enough to maintain the software’s currency and functionality also is problematic.

Court leaders who effectively manage Information Technology know both the limitations and the challenges it presents.  They also know that if its promise is realized, Information Technology can improve justice and court efficiency and increase public trust and confidence.