Measuring the Performance of Italian Courts: The Role of IS Success

  • Luigi Lepore
  • Rocco Agrifoglio
  • Concetta Metallo
Conference paper


The aim of this research was to develop a decision support tool to measure the performance of Italian courts. This tool consists of five perspectives for measuring court performance, four of which are based on BSC perspectives, and one on the IS success perspective. We believe that this decision support tool could respond to the needs of court managers and presiding judges to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of dispute resolution, and overall court performance.


User Satisfaction Dispute Resolution Decision Support Tool Judicial System Balance Scorecard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Masciandaro D (ed) (2000) La giustizia civile è efficiente? Primo rapporto sull’economia delle regole. Laboratorio ABI-Bocconi. Bancaria Editrice, RomaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fabri M (2001a) State of the art, critical issues and trends of ICT in European judicial system. In Fabri M, Contini F (eds) Justice and technology in Europe: how ICT is changing judicial business. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Contini F, Cordella A (2007) Information system and information infrastructure deployment: the challenge of the Italian e-justice approach. Elect J e-Gov 5(1):43–52Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ostrom B, Schauffler RY, Clarke TM, Ostrom C, Hanson R (2008) A unifying framework for court performance measurement. NCSC, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Scholl Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nanni AJ, Dixon JR, Vollmann TE (1992) Integrated performance measurement: management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. J Manage Account Res 4(fall):1–19Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sveiby KE (1997) The intangible assets monitor. J Hum Resour Cost Account 2(1):73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lynch R, Cross K (1991) Measure up-yardsticks for continues improvement. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown MG (1996) Keeping score-using the right metrics for world class performance. Quality Resources, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neely A, Adams C (2001) Perspectives on performance: the performance prism. Cranfield School of Management, CranfieldGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edvinsson L, Malone MS (1997) Intellectual capital: realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niven PR (2003) Balanced Scorecard step by step for government and nonprofit agencies. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Busco C, Riccaboni A, Saviotti A (2008) Governance, strategia e misurazione delle performance. Le nuove frontiere della balanced scorecard. Knowità, ArezzoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martinsons MG (1992) Strategic thinking about information management. Keynote Address to the 11th annual conference of the international association of management consultants, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martinsons M, Davison R, Tse D (1999) The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decis Support Syst 25(1):71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wright WF, Smith R, Jesser R, Stupeck M (1999) Information technology, process reengineering and performance measurement: a balanced scorecard analysis of compaq computer corporation. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 1(2):1–61Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosemann M, Wiese J (1999) Measuring the performance of ERP software-a balanced scorecard approach. In Proceedings of the 10th Australasian conference on information systems, HobartGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manage Inf Syst 19(4):9–30Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bailey JE, Pearson SW (1983) Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manage Sci 29(5):530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheney PH, Mann RI, Amoroso DL (1986) Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing. J Manage Inf Syst 3(1):65–80Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ives B, Olson MH, Baroudi JJ (1983) The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun ACM 26(10):785–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montazemi AR (1988) Factors affecting information satisfaction in the context of the small business environment. MIS Q 12(2):239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saariner T (1996) An expanded instrument for evaluating information system success. Inf Manage 31(2):103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seddon PB (1997) A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inf Syst Res 8(3):240–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q 19(2):213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rai A, Lang SS, Welker RB (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical testand theoretical analysis. Inf Syst Res 13(1):50–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ostrom B, Ostrom Jr. C, Hanson R, Kleiman M (2007) Trial courts as organizations. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cameron KS, Quinn RE (2006) Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Lepore
    • 1
  • Rocco Agrifoglio
    • 1
  • Concetta Metallo
    • 1
  1. 1.Management DepartmentParthenope UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations