All Posts

A practitioner's guide to recurring patterns that shape success and failure in statewide and local court modernization and technology efforts. Section I — Shared Understanding Comes First The Justice Translator Role: Why Alignment Fails Before Technology Does - Why shared language is not shared understanding, and how courts protect themselves from misinterpretation. Visualizing How Your Courts Actually Operate - Why workflows must be mapped by court type and structure, not as

These field notes are written for court leaders, administrators, and peers who are responsible for large-scale justice technology decisions. They are not a checklist, a project plan, or vendor documentation. Instead, they are meant to help you recognize patterns early — before they turn into delays, cost overruns, or operational failures. You can use these notes to: Frame the right questions in governance and oversight discussions Validate whether reported progress reflects

In justice modernization, the definition and management of “done” is where projects pivot towards a good path - or run the risk of turning into theater. If “done” is vague, not only is it difficult to know what and how much work is left do, we are inadvertently giving teams license to ship mere activity  and focus on noise (without necessarily getting closer to the end of job ). At the same time, we encourage leaders to report progress  against a plan that is very likely in

System capability, legal constraints, and staff expectations need to be aligned early In justice technology initiatives, “change management” is often misunderstood. It is treated as training schedules, communications plans, or readiness checklists layered on top of an implementation that is already underway or is subject to a plan that did not consider the necessary alignments. When projects struggle, the diagnosis I routinely hear is that “change management started too late”

Why courts need technology that understands judicial intent - and how work actually flows after the order is issued In many software systems, orders are treated as static documents once they are entered on the record. Typically, they go through a life cycle of proposed, generated, signed, PDF'd, filed, and stored. In reality, orders are structured decisions  that initiate action across multiple actors, systems, and time horizons. They contain findings, directives, prohibition

Why real-time courtroom reality - not abstract workflows - determines whether justice technology holds up Justice systems are often implemented as if court operations were linear and sequential: file → schedule → hear → dispose. On paper, that looks reasonable. In practice, it rarely reflects how courts actually operate, especially inside a live courtroom. Court operations are simultaneous, role-dense, and time-bound . Clerks are entering minutes, managing documents, processi

Justice technology projects rarely fail because the software required cannot be built. They fail because people believe they are aligned when they are not . Judges, clerks, court administrators, IT staff, vendors, and consultants often use the same words to mean very different things. For example: “Disposition.” “Calendar.” “Close the case.” “Docketed.” "Proceeding." "Workflow." Each term carries legal, procedural, and operational meaning that varies not only by state, but by