What is the biggest challenge that courts face with the adoption of technology? It’s budgeting … and no other technology-related challenge is even close.
If you’re a court executive chances are you already know that budgeting for courtroom technology is particularly difficult. That’s because, among court executives, 64 percent classify budgeting as a “major challenge” in courtroom technology adoption. Another 23 percent classify it as a “significant challenge.” And a mere 2 percent say that budgeting is “no challenge.”
These statistics are part of what we have learned from RevoText’s first-ever Court Technology Survey, which we sent to 2,000 court executives in November and December of 2018.
You might wonder, after budgeting, what’s next on the list of challenges in courtroom technology adoption. It’s vendor accountability, which nosed out adherence to installation deadlines, determining whose perspectives to take into account, and the actual selection of a vendor.
Think about the challenge of courtroom technology budgeting: It’s three times more difficult to create a budget for technology installation than it is to keep a vendor in line and on a timeline.
Budgeting would seem like a simple process. Your courtroom has a need. A supplier has a product that fills that need. That product has a price tag. You drop that number into your budget along with a cost for installation and support, right?
Not so fast. Somewhere budgeting gets horribly complicated. Where does that happen?
One answer is that there is not a cookie-cutter approach to courtroom technology adoption. Installations differ significantly based on the configurations of courtrooms and the idiosyncratic needs of court systems. One court executive pointed to “eleven courtrooms in five locations with varying degrees of technology.” Another mentioned the difficulty of “meeting the changing needs after installation (and) support after installation.” Still another talked about installation complexity because “the interface was custom built to work with custom-built case management and external vendor systems.”
When assessing the purely technicalchallenges of adoption and installation of courtroom technology, court executives put customizing and retrofitting older courtrooms at the top of the list, with 78 percent citing it as a least “somewhat of a challenge.” That is followed by courtroom wiring and infrastructure, cyber security, and local Internet speed.
Given those particular challenges, it underscores the significance that RevoText’s technology solution, which connects remote real-time reporters to courtrooms, operating with complete independence from a court’s IT system. RevoText doesn’t require one ounce of IT support from court IT personnel.
And if budgeting is the over-arching challenge with technology adoption and installation – and we’ve just clearly established that it is – we likewise feel compelled to emphasize that RevoText connects remote real-time court reporters directly to your courtroom at an overall cost that is likely less than what your court currently is paying to create the official record.
Want to get a full copy of the 2018 RevoText Court Technology Survey? Send a request to email@example.com.