bcg政府咨询报告

RECOMMENDATIONSFORCONSOLIDATINGTHEADMINISTRATIVEFUNCTIONSOFTHEATLANTAMUNICIPALCOURTANDTHECITYCOURTOFATLANTAFinalReportoftheBostonConsultingGroupSeptember12,2003-1-78899-02-FinalReport-12Sep03-CS-rbw-ATL.pptTHEBOSTONCONSULTINGGROUPAGENDAIntroductionandcontextExecutivesummarySection1:ReviewofcurrentoperationsSection2:BenchmarkingresultsSection3:ProposedstructureandcourtmanagementSection4:HeadcountandbudgetimplicationsSection5:FacilitiesrecommendationsSection6:TransitionplanAppendix-2-78899-02-FinalReport-12Sep03-CS-rbw-ATL.pptTHEBOSTONCONSULTINGGROUPCONTEXTFORTHISREPORTInNovemberof2002,theMayorofAtlantaformedtheMunicipalandCityCourtReviewPanel(the“Panel”)toadvisetheCityonhowtoachievethegoalsofefficiency,avoidanceofduplication,focusofessentialservicesandcostsavingstothetaxpayersthroughthepotentialrestructuringofAtlanta’scourtsystem.ThePanelembarkeduponafour-monthstudyofthegeneraloperationsoftheAtlantaMunicipalCourtandtheCityCourtofAtlanta(morecommonlycalledthe“TrafficCourt”)ThePanelpresentedthefollowingrecommendationsinApril2003(1):•MergeroftheoperationsoftheMunicipalCourtintotheTrafficCourt•Discontinuetheuseofpart-timeJudges•UnderutilizedMunicipalCourtJudgesshouldbeofferedtoTrafficorStateCourtasneeded•ReviewtheCourts’staffinviewofreducingthenumberofnon-essentialpersonnel•ReviewtherecordkeepingandcomputersystemstoimprovetheaccountabilityoftheCourts•AccommodatethecombinedCourtinthenewTrafficCourtbuilding•ContinuetheworkoftheCommunityCourtwithinMunicipalCourt•ReviewthecaseloadandpersonneloftheSolicitorandPublicDefenderofbothCourts•CityshouldcontinuetoexaminebringingMunicipalandTrafficCourtsintothestatecourtsystemInJuneof2003,theCityofAtlantaaskedTheBostonConsultingGroup(BCG),onaprobonobasis,tousethePanel’srecommendationsasastartingpointandassistindefiningamergerstructure,developingcoreprocessdesignsandcraftinganimplementationplanfortheCitycourtsystem,basedonanassessmentofcostandserviceimplications.SeveralmembersofthePanelagreedtocontinuetoserveandtoprovideongoingguidancetotheBCGteamasitconducteditsworkThisdocumentisBCG’sfinalreportandincludesallofBCG’srecommendationsregardingchangestotheAtlantacourtsystem.BCGwaspleasedtobeabletoprovidethisanalysisatnocosttotheCityandtosupporttheMayorinherongoingeffortstoincreasetheeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheCitygovernment(1)Summarizedfrom:ExecutiveSummary:ReportoftheIndependentReviewPanelConcerningtheAtlantaMunicipalCourtandtheCityCourtofAtlanta,April30,2003-3-78899-02-FinalReport-12Sep03-CS-rbw-ATL.pptTHEBOSTONCONSULTINGGROUPANOVERVIEWOFOURPROCESSOurworkwasdividedintothreemainstreams,thefirsttwoofwhichwereundertakensimultaneously.ThefirstworkstreaminvolvedcollectingbenchmarkinformationonothercourtsinGeorgiaandaroundthecountry,aswellasinterviewingexternalexperts,suchastheNationalCenterforStateCourts(NCSC),tounderstandcommonpracticesacrosstheU.S.ThemainpurposeofthisresearchwastoidentifyareasinwhichtheperformanceoftheAtlantacourtsvariedfromthecitiesstudiedsothatwecouldidentifylikelyareasofopportunityaswellasareasofexcellence.ThesecondstreamofworkconsistedofbuildingadetailedbaselineofthecurrentorganizationsofthecourtsinAtlanta,reviewingbothstaffingandcosts.Thethirdstreamofworkwasabottomupreviewofalladministrativeprocessesatbothcourtsaswellasanevaluationoftheworkloadindifferentfunctionalareas.Thisinvolvedconductinginterviewswith16Judgesandover100courtstaffmembers(aslistedintheAppendix).Inaddition,weconductedmultiplesitevisitstoobservecourtoperationsinbothAtlantacourtsaswellasinMiami-Dade,Florida(wherethecourthasalreadymovedtoapaperlesscourtroomfortrafficoffenses).TheteamalsoassessedthestatusquoandfuturerequirementsforbothfacilitiesandIT.Finally,weworkedwithrepresentativesfromMunicipalCourt,TrafficCourt,PoliceDepartment,DepartmentofInformationTechnology,DepartmentofCorrectionsandbothSolicitors’andPublicDefenders’officestogathertheirinput.AlthoughthePanelhasmadearecommendationonajudicialstructureforthemergertotheMayor,theMayorhasnotyetannouncedherdecision.Assuch,wehavecraftedasetofrecommendationswhichwillbeapplicableregardlessoftheultimatedecisiononthejudicialstructureandwhichalsorespondstoarequestfromtheJudgesofbothCourtsduringaworkingsessiononAugust14th,2003forBCGtomakerecommendationsastotheappropriatestaffingoftheCourts’administrativefunctions.-4-78899-02-FinalReport-12Sep03-CS-rbw-ATL.pptTHEBOSTONCONSULTINGGROUPDETAILEDREVIEWOFTHECURRENTPROCESSESLEDTOIDENTIFICATIONOFOPPORTUNITIESFORIMPROVEMENTProcessesatbothCourtswerereviewedindetailAnalysisrevealedthreekeyareasofopportunity1.Optimizeexistingadministrativefunctionsineachcourt•Inefficientprocessesrequiringstandardization2.Combineandstreamlineoperations•Duplicativeorredundantfunctionsbetweencourts3.ImproveefficiencythroughinvestmentsinIT•ProcessessuitableforautomationSampleprocessmapSub-processesPretrialactivitiesCourtroomproceduresandsupportSentencecomplianceandFTApursuanceCourtroomproceedingsCasepreparationandcalendaringBookingofnewcasesPublicinformationandpayableoffensereceivingandclosedcase/FTA/customerserviceBondissuanceand