2. The Department chose to develop IT to support existing processes rather than re-engineering business processes with new IT, which would normally be best practice. It did so for two main reasons. First, it did not have the authority to impose business process change on the independent Magistrates' Courts Committees. Secondly, it did not want to attempt further major change whilst the Committees were going through a programme of amalgamations. But as a consequence of this decision the Department found it difficult to obtain a single view of IT requirements across the various Committees and this contributed to the difficulties in developing the new system.2
3. The Department recognised that ideally the development of best business processes should have come before seeking an IT solution. It said, however, that it was not confronted with an ideal situation in 1998. It was dealing with many separate bodies, which were in the process of being amalgamated. After 15 years of criticism from the Committee and others about the Department's inactivity, the Department was keen to press on. It therefore took the decision to go ahead without full standardisation of procedures, which in any case were not completely disparate. The Department felt that it would be able to modify processes as the new systems were put in. The involvement of representatives of the Magistrates' Courts on user groups had helped but there was a difficulty in getting 42 separate organisations to agree.3
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 C&AG's Report, paras 6-7, 1.4-1.5
3 Qq 6-7, 68-70, 204