Coordinated Court Computer System hits snag

A project designed to coordinate online docket access for the State’s court systems has hit a major snag. The Indy Star has an article entitled, State deal with software firm is dead. The report states:

The state of Indiana has ended its connection with [Computer Associates] hired to create a statewide system linking courts in all 92 counties. The end came after software designed by contractor Computer Associates International was found to be unworkable for Indiana’s disparate and often-antiquated court practices.

. . .

Computer Associates was hired in 2002 to link Indiana’s roughly 400 civil and criminal courts. The project was ambitious: Some of the state’s smallest counties still don’t have computers.

. . .

The planned system was to help judges find a suspect’s criminal history in other counties as they make bond and sentencing decisions; allow more residents to access court records online; and connect the courts with other agencies, such as the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Indiana Department of Correction.
But a breakdown surfaced in December as Marion County officials tested software designed for civil courts. They found it lacked the ability to track court fines and costs.

. . .

DePrez said the Supreme Court would announce new plans for coordinating Indiana courts within 30 days.

I sympathize with those involved. It’s a daunting task. Besides the technical challenges involved with coordinating 92 counties (most of which have more than one court which may or may not share the same system), there are political-bureaucratic challenges involved. It’s awfully difficult to persuade a judge to run his or her court differently if he or she is set on running the court in a particular way. Even in the absence of outright obstinancy there are other issues — for starters, rearranging the docketing system will necessarily be a lower priority than hearing cases and dispensing justice. I suspect it can be done if the technical issues are worked out in advance and with plenty of input from the trial courts. Once the technical issues are decided upon, the Supreme Court will have to put its muscle into implementing the system. But those are some big ifs and probably a lot more money down the road.