Justice in time: A theory of constraints approach
Shany Azaria, Boaz Ronen, Noam Shamir. outlines how the Theory of Constraints (TOC) was used to reduce court congestion and trial duration at the Jerusalem District Court. The core problem identified was that judges were "multitasking" across too many cases, leading to long delays between hearings.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joom.1234
Below is a summary of the practical steps used in the intervention, organized by the TOC "Five Focusing Steps."
The 5-Step Practical Framework
1. Identify the Constraint
Action: Identify the resource that limits the system's throughput.
Result: The judges were identified as the primary bottleneck (resource constraint) because their capacity is less than the demand for trials.
2. Exploit the Constraint
Action: Ensure the bottleneck resource (the judge) spends 100% of its time on high-value work and 0% on "waste" (e.g., canceled hearings, missing documents).
Implementation: * Introduced a Final Pre-Trial Planning Session.
Used this session to verify all evidence and information are ready before the trial phase begins.
This prevents the judge from wasting time on hearings that must be postponed due to lack of preparation.
3. Subordinate Everything to the Constraint
Action: Align the rest of the system's schedule to the pace of the bottleneck to prevent a pile-up of "Work-in-Process" (WIP).
Implementation:
Shift to Case-Level FIFO: Instead of scheduling one hearing at a time (which led to 6-month gaps), all hearings for a single case are scheduled one week apart.
Limit Active Cases: A judge only focuses on a few active trials (approx. 5) at a time. Other cases wait in a queue until one is finished, rather than everyone "starting" and then waiting months for their next date.
4. Elevate the Constraint
Action: Increase the capacity of the bottleneck by changing the process or adding resources.
Implementation: * Oral Closing Arguments: The court moved away from written closing arguments (which created massive "offline" reading work and bloated documents) back to oral arguments.
This reduced the total "lead time" of the case by finishing the trial phase immediately rather than waiting months for document exchanges.
5. Prevent Inertia (Repeat)
Action: Once the constraint is broken, find the next one.
Note: In the judicial system, the authors noted that judges will likely remain the bottleneck for the foreseeable future, so the focus remains on maintaining these efficiencies.
Summary of Results
The intervention achieved significant improvements without hiring more staff or changing legislation:
| Metric | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | Improvement |
| Trial Phase Time | 22.19 months | 10.57 months | ~52% Reduction |
| Total Lead Time | 55.21 months | 41.01 months | ~26% Reduction |
Key Takeaway for Practitioners
The "secret" was reducing Work-in-Process (WIP). By forcing a judge to finish one case before starting the trial phase of the next, the "waiting time" between hearings was eliminated, allowing justice to be "seen to be done" much faster.
發表文章
