Configuration vs. Customization – the second ingredient of the Court Case Management Cookbook
Creating an innovation-seeking RFP was the first key ingredient to the Court Case Management Cookbook. Now that you’re taking a more discerning look the technology needs of your court, the second key ingredient is ensuring the system is configurable.
When in the midst of selecting a court case management system (CMS), the pull to select and build a custom solution can be extremely tempting. When meeting with vendors, reviewing product demonstrations, and understanding the various pros and cons of each system, be prepared that many vendors will bend over backwards to talk about their willingness to meet every need of the court.
Customization is a good thing in theory. But in practice, what customization can produce is a one-of-a-kind, unique system that the court becomes beholden to with custom updates, fixes and modifications that prove to be very expensive, time-consuming and eventually render the system obsolete.
So, how does the court get what it wants and needs in a system that allows the court to remain flexible for the future? Through configuration instead of customization.
The Customization Trap white paper discusses the challenges with customization and highlights advantages configuration provides.
To close out the Court Case Management Cookbook, the third and final ingredient – Change Management and Buy-In – is next.
For more on Thomson Reuters presence at CTC 2017, click here. And for more on C-Track Court Management, click here.
This post was written by Dori Buckethal, marketing manager with the Thomson Reuters Government team.