THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN THE COURTS Institute for Court Management ICM Fellows Program 2015 – 2016 Court Project Phase May 2016 Peter C. Kiefer Civil Court Administrator Superior Court for the State of Arizona For the County of Maricopa Phoenix, Arizona Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would not have been able to complete this long journey without the continual support of Janet Marie, my bride of 40 years. She deserves high praise for her suggestions, encouragement, and patience putting up with all my shenanigans. Thanks to Dean Dan Straub who has been a mentor throughout my career. He guided me through those long night classes in the Tyler Building at U.S.C. back in 1976, and he is once again guiding my work in 2016. It has been a long road, but I would not have changed a single moment. (Well, maybe the end of the Rose Bowl game with Texas – I’d change that.) Thanks to my advisor, Dale Kasparek for his insights and continual prodding to make this paper a better work product. In Phoenix, thanks to Phil Knox who has supported me throughout this endeavor and to Raymond Billotte who allowed me to pursue my goal of becoming a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management. Thanks to Bob James, Nicole Garcia, Alma Alvarez–Smith, Faith Sawyer, Shawn Friend, and Amy McDowell for all their editing suggestions, recommendations, and research assistance. Their help went well beyond commenting on commas and semicolons. Lastly I want to thank every single court professional who I interviewed during this project. Everyone was incredibly gracious with their time. Many provided frank and honest insights about their jobs and their courts. Brenda Wagenknecht–Ivey particularly stands out as I asked her for 40 minutes of her time to conduct the interview; two and half hours later we finally ended our conversation only because Brenda had to prepare to facilitate a program the next day. The wisdom and experience that I tapped into was amazing and a huge resource for the future. My thanks to all of you. –1– Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 6 Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................... 7 List of Appendices .............................................................................................................. 8 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 13 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 28 Findings......................................................................................................................................... 33 Finding Number 1: Courts Have a Variety of Reasons Why They Do and Do Not Develop a Strategic Plan. .................................................................................................. 33 Finding Number 2: There Are Preliminary Indications that the Administrative Judge’s Background Plays a Significant Role in Accepting the Concept of Planning. ................. 35 Finding Number 3: Courts Are Reluctant to Include the “How the Court Plans to Get There” Component in Their Published Plans. ............................................................ 38 Finding Number 4: Few Courts Discuss Other Justice System Players in Their Strategic Plans. .................................................................................................................. 41 Finding Number 5: External Trends Analyses Appear to Be Only Occasionally Present in Court Strategic Plans. ....................................................................................... 47 Finding Number 6: There Are Preliminary Indications of Confusion over Who Is the Intended Audience for a Court’s Mission and Vision Statements. ................................... 49 Finding Number 7: Implementation Does Not Always Appear to Be the Point of a Court’s Strategic Plan. ...................................................................................................... 52 Finding Number 8: Just Because a Court Does Not Have a Strategic Plan Does Not Mean that It Is Not Engaged in Strategic Thinking and Strategic Management. ............. 53 –2– Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 55 Conclusion 1: Though It Is an Effective Tool, Courts Do Not Have to Embrace Strategic Planning to Succeed. .......................................................................................... 55 Recommendation 1–A: Develop a More Realistic Assessment of What Strategic Planning Can Do for Courts and What Are the Limitations. ............................................ 55 Recommendation 1–B: Identify and Promulgate More Options for Courts to Engage in Strategic Planning. ........................................................................................................ 56 Conclusion 2: Court Leadership Is Still Personality Driven. ............................................ 56 Recommendation 2–A: We Need to Move from Normative Principles to Descriptive Analysis............................................................................................................................. 57 Recommendation 2–B: Develop Some Practical Approaches Administrators Can Use to Convince Skeptical Administrative Judges. .......................................................... 59 Conclusion 3: There Are Substantial Differences Between Private Sector Strategic Planning and Court Strategic Planning. ............................................................................ 60 Recommendation 3: Stop Referencing Private Business – Create a Strategic Planning Model Aimed Just for Courts. ........................................................................................... 61 Conclusion 4: The Bench, the State Administrative Office, Court Staff, and Elected Clerks of Court Could Be Viewed as Justice System Players. ......................................... 62 Recommendation 4: Study These Groups as Distinct Justice System Players. ................ 62 Conclusion 5: Courts Appear Reluctant to Devote Significant Analysis to External Trends and the Turbulent Environment. ........................................................................... 63 Recommendation 5: Develop Different Approaches to Analyzing External Trends and the Turbulent Environment. ....................................................................................... 63 Conclusion 6: There Are Multiple Measures of Strategic Management Success. ............ 64 Recommendation 6: Acknowledge and Study the Different Ways to Measure the Success of Planning. ......................................................................................................... 64 Conclusion 7: Courts Engage in Strategic Management Even if They Do Not Engage in Formal Strategic Planning. ........................................................................................... 65 Recommendation 7–A: Acknowledge and Study Informal Planning Efforts. .................. 65 –3– Recommendation 7–B: We Can Learn As Much from Failures as from Successes. ........ 65 References ..................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 70 Appendix One: List of Interviews..................................................................................... 70 Appendix Two: List of Strategic Plans Reviewed ............................................................ 73 Appendix Three: Telephone Survey Questionnaire .......................................................... 75 –4– List of Figures Figure 1. Excerpt: Annual Report from the Newfoundland and Labrador Law Courts . 13 Figure 2. Game Theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma . 15 Figure 3. Southwest Airlines and the Blue Ocean Strategy . 16 Figure 4. Use of the Balanced Scorecard in Mecklenburg, North Carolina . 17 Figure 5. The Milieu in Which the Court and Strategic Plan Lives . 19 Figure 6. Court Culture Classifications . 20 Figure 7. New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton’s Use of Strategy . 23 Figure 8. Other Strategic Options Used By Courts Over the Years . 24 Figure 9. Court Comments on the Benefits of Having a Strategic Plan . 34 Figure 10. Comments on Why Courts Do Not Have a Strategic Plan . 35 Figure 11. The Administrative Judge’s Background and Strategic Planning . 36 Figure 12. Samples of Strategic