Upload
tala
View
41
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
New way of systematic management of delay reduction projects in courts – combining external expertise and internal participation. Finnish Ministry of Justice and Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland Department of Industrial Engineering - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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