This article was featured in the Journal Technologies Insider, a free quarterly publication from Journal Technologies. If you'd like to subscribe to the Insider, you can do so by clicking here.
Kaushik Mehta is the Chief Technology Officer at Journal Technologies.
Q: You recently gave a highly rated, vendor-agnostic presentation at the eCourts conference in Las Vegas exploring key factors to consider when contemplating a case management system upgrade. Can we explore aspects of that presentation which are pertinent to established Journal Technologies clients?
KM: Well, one of the points I really wanted to emphasize in my presentation was that the underlying architecture of a case management solution is what makes future growth possible. At Journal Technologies, we do our best to ensure that our platform serves as a solid base for any court or agency to build upon. That said, as with any software company, we’re aware there are aspects we could improve.
Our current customers kept coming to mind as I was developing my presentation, and I thought to myself: how can we ensure they are empowered to make the most of their case management system? How can we do even more to support them? And that’s why I felt this discussion was relevant, especially as we kick off the new year.
Q: Your first key consideration for a case management system is automation and workflow efficiency. What does that look like in practice?
KM: We had a list of sixty possible considerations, but as we worked to identify which were most important, we also wanted to connect with some customers to get their perspectives. One of the users we spoke with was Jeff West, Clerk of Court for the Gwinnett County Recorder’s Court, and I thought his comments about the importance of workflows to their day-to-day operations were particularly insightful.
In Gwinnett, they can set and meet deadlines, accept payments, and much more with the help of automation, saving countless hours and making them more efficient. That’s something all of our customers should have the luxury of doing, and we need to make sure we’re helping them get there. With the new JTI Support Center, a key resource to help users get their questions answered, I’m optimistic that we’ll continue to improve in this aspect.
Q: The second key consideration you mentioned was scalability and integration. Is there an aspect of the eSeries platform you believe is crucial to that piece?
KM: Yeah, definitely. It’s still relatively new, but I believe that Justice Partner Connect will help our customers integrate with partner agencies and scale more effectively, in whatever form that takes for their jurisdiction. For those who don’t know, Justice Partner Connect allows for the secure exchange of case data between different courts and agencies, solving the perennial challenges of interagency communication.
This is a powerful new capability, and one that we’re particularly proud of, but it hasn’t yet been adopted by many of our customers. It may be outside the scope of today, but we’re happy to have a conversation about this capability with you and with your justice partners.
Q: Your third consideration was about a unified, consistent, and secure user experience. What are we doing at JTI to ensure we’re providing that user experience?
KM: Our customers should know exactly what to expect from their case management system. As we continue to provide new features and functionality, they need to be integrated thoughtfully and in a unified way, not just as a superficial facelift. Consistency is key here: for users, it doesn’t matter where one system picks up or leaves off, or what the backend looks like. What matters is the way the eSeries platform works for them.
Our growing customer engagement team is key to improving the user experience: they’re hard at work connecting with customers and understanding how they engage with our platform. We know we won’t get it right every time, but with established lines of communication from our customers back to JTI, we can improve the user experience while maintaining consistency.
Q: Tell me a bit about your fourth and final consideration, which is that a CMS should be engineered for future growth and flexibility.
KM: Requirements and underlying technologies are constantly evolving, with new statutes and regulations that both courts and agencies must adapt to. This is why it’s key to have a configurable platform where users can implement legislative changes and remain compliant themselves, without needing to rely on their provider’s development team.
That said, it is also imperative for a CMS provider to have the resources and expertise to develop new features and modules for major legislative changes. A recent example is the race-blind charging mandate in California, which requires prosecutors to redact any indicators of race from police reports to reduce potential bias when making charging decisions.
With proper planning, requirements like these shouldn’t create undue burden for our customers, because our job is to deliver technology that allows for adaptation. I think we did a good job developing our race-blind charging module in eProsecutor to help California agencies adapt to the change, and the key will be making sure we do the same for all our customers in the years to come as part of standard processes.
Q: What else are we doing to ensure we’re following our own advice?
KM: Interesting. Okay, I think the word that has kept coming to mind for me is transparency. We want to continuously solicit feedback from our customers to help guide the development of our platform. Direct feedback genuinely helps us focus resources and shape our technology roadmap.