What happens when workload must be distributed fairly, but the methodology behind that distribution may no longer reflect reality? Estonian courts launched a time-tracking project with PlanPro to better understand how much time judges and legal advisers actually spend on different types of proceedings.
In this case study, Külli Luha and Elo Kirsipuu explain why the project was launched, how it was rolled out, and what other organizations can learn from it.
An important principle in the organization of court work is that judges should receive an equal workload. To support this, incoming cases are distributed among judges according to an existing workload methodology, in which different case types are assigned different time values. The total of these values forms each judge’s workload.
Over time, however, the question arose whether the methodology still reflected the actual workload. Proceedings, working methods and expectations evolve, but the methodology may not keep pace. The working group set up to review the methodology therefore concluded that, in order to get a reliable and current picture, it was necessary to measure how much time is actually spent handling a case.
Some activities can be measured digitally, but the system cannot capture everything. For example, it is not possible to automatically estimate the time spent thinking through the reasoning behind a decision or considering complex legal questions. This type of work is often among the most valuable, yet also the hardest to measure.
The courts therefore needed a solution that would allow users to log activities related to proceedings simply, quickly and according to a consistent logic. This meant that the technical solution had to be flexible enough to meet the specific needs of the courts, while also being simple enough that time tracking itself would not become an additional burden.
The goal was not simply to count time. The goal was to create a stronger basis for reviewing and, if necessary, updating the workload methodology.
To find suitable software, several providers were approached and invited to present their solutions. Several providers were invited to present their solutions. Since PlanPro was already used in courts for performance management and engagement surveys, it was naturally included in the selection process.
Two factors proved decisive.
First, it was important that the existing solution could be configured relatively quickly and with a reasonable amount of effort to match the specific needs of the courts. This was not a custom-built system from scratch, but a practical solution that had to deliver value quickly.
Second, ease of use was critical. Time tracking had to be simple, clear and impose as little additional burden on users as possible. If recording five minutes of work takes another five minutes, both user motivation and data quality suffer.
PlanPro’s role was not limited to providing the technical platform. Equally important was the willingness to make the necessary adjustments during the project, help define the operating model, and support end users throughout implementation.
It took less than three months from software selection to the start of the actual working time tracking period. During that time, the needs of the courts were mapped, the first tests were carried out, and, with the help of a PlanPro product consultant, a short illustrated guide for end users was prepared.
Before the tracking phase began, the cases pending before judges were entered into PlanPro. During the first week, webinars helped users learn how to log time and review summaries in PlanPro.
This was important to the success of the project. Time tracking does not succeed with software alone. It also requires a well-thought-out process, clear guidance and shared agreements.
Time spent on proceedings is being tracked in all district courts and administrative courts, that is, in the courts of first instance in Estonia’s three-level court system.
Time is logged not only by judges, but also by legal advisers, consultants and court session secretaries working in their teams. The tracking covers all types of proceedings, but for the sake of usability and comparability, the activities were grouped into eight main categories. These include, for example, written proceedings, hearing-related activities and drafting decisions.
In a project like this, it is natural that some people participate enthusiastically while others are more cautious. This also affects the duration of the tracking period: the fewer participants who consistently log their time, the longer it takes to build a reliable dataset.
This is an important lesson for other organizations as well. A time-tracking project is not just about implementing a software. It also means changing work habits. Success depends on how well a simple tool, a clear purpose and consistent communication are combined.
Over the course of the project, it has become clear that the value of the results depends not only on the amount of data collected, but also on its quality. Throughout the project, the methodology working group has met every month, and the analysis team has regularly provided updates on how far the project has progressed and which issues still need to be resolved.
Interim summaries and practical instructions on avoiding recurring errors have also been shared with users through webinars. This has been essential, because even small inaccuracies can later make it difficult, or sometimes impossible, to link the data correctly.
A good example is the case number. Even if the time itself has been logged correctly, some valuable information may still be lost simply because the case number is incomplete or includes extra text. According to the courts, 10–15% of otherwise correctly logged time may be lost due to such errors, because the data can no longer be reliably linked with court database records.
The success of time tracking depends not only on the technical solution, but also on how well the process is designed, communicated and managed.
In retrospect, the time-mapping steering group also identified areas where it would act differently next time. For example, not all cases pending before judges would be added to the system automatically at the beginning, because the later need to add new cases manually created confusion and tension among users. More attention would also be paid from the very beginning to how case numbers should be entered correctly.
The experience of the courts offers several clear recommendations for organizations considering a similar project.
1. Define the goal very clearly
Define from the start who will log time, why the project matters, and how the results will be used. If the goal is not clear to participants from the start, resistance or doubt about the purpose of the project will quickly arise. That is why it is important to explain consistently throughout the project why the time tracking is needed and how the results will be used.
2. Make time logging as easy as possible
If recording five minutes takes almost as long as the activity itself, both the user experience and the quality of the data will suffer. It is therefore worth avoiding excessive mandatory free-text fields and instead relying on clear, standardized options.
3. Remember that time tracking is also a change management project
This is not only about implementing a technical solution. It also means building new habits and continuously supporting users. Where people understand the purpose of the project and feel that the system genuinely helps them, data quality is also better.
4. Learn from real use, not only from a test group
The courts did not follow the usual route of first setting up a small test group. Instead, all target users were involved immediately, and changes were made on an ongoing basis based on their feedback when necessary. This made it possible to gather real user experience faster and adapt the solution to actual needs
The courts have now been tracking time for about a year. This is a large and long-term project, and its full value will become clear over time. Even so, it is already evident that well-executed time tracking helps make visible work that was previously assessed more by perception than by data.
The experience of the courts shows that the success of time tracking does not depend only on the decision to track working time. It also depends on how easy it is to log data, how well employees are involved, and how quickly the software solution can be adapted to real needs.
This is where PlanPro’s role in the project has been important: helping to put time tracking into practice in a way that is understandable for users, flexible for the organization and reliable enough for future analysis.
Read more about PlanPro time planning and tracking features: Working time planning and tracking.
If your organization also needs to understand where working time is actually spent, PlanPro can help create a simple and user-friendly time-tracking process tailored to your goals.
Follow us:
Please fill in the contact form and we will contact you.
Please fill in the contact form and we will contact you.
Tarkvara võimalusi tutvustab Sulle
Reelika Ristolainen, kliendihaldur-tootekonsultant
