An ecosystem is a complex system of interdependent subsystems. The disjointed open justice ecosystem and the e-justice ecosystem, if they fail to coevolve and adapt to changing environments, contribute to the conundrum of understanding enablers and inhibitors for public value creation. Drawing on the formal system theory and the literature review, we developed a collaborative network governance framework for aligning ecosystems and creating public value. This framework is applied to guide case study research to identify enablers and inhibitors of strategic alignment and public value creation in the Federal Court of Australia context. We found evidence for collaborative network governance in facilitating court judges and practitioners to assimilate e-justice subsystems in open justice practice, with impacts on enhanced operational efficiency and service level. These realized economic and social values in turn provided the federal court with political return on investments in digital transformation of the court services and the legitimacy of open justice practice.
AlmazánR. S.Valle-CruzD. (2016, March1–3). Open justice in Latin America: Judiciary websites under scrutiny. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 287–290), Montevideo, Uruguay.
2.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
3.
Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. (2012, September). Judicial appointments ensuring a strong, independent and diverse judiciary through a transparent process. Federal Courts Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Commonwealth of Australia.
4.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2016). Traditional freedoms and rights–encroachments by commonwealth laws(ALRC Report No. 129). Retrieved March 2, 2016, fromhttps://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/freedoms-alrc129
5.
BaileyJ.BurkellJ. (2015). Implementing technology in the justice sector: A canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 11, 253–281.
6.
Barral-VinalsI. (2016). Consumer “access to justice” in EU in low-value cross-border disputes and the role of online dispute resolution. Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (Chap. 10, pp.191–209). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch010
7.
BarrettJ. (2011). Open justice or open season? Developments in judicial engagement with new media. QUT Law and Justice Journal, 1, 8.
8.
BoslandJ.GillJ. (2014). The principle of open justice and the judicial duty to give public reasons. Melbourne University Law Review, 38, 482–524.
9.
BrayR. S.MartinG. (2012). Closing down open justice in the United Kingdom?Alternative Law Journal, 37, 126–127.
10.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74, 445–456.
11.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75, 647–663.
CanoJ.Jiménez-GómezC. E.HernándezR.RosS. (2015). New tools for e-Justice: Legal research available to any citizen. Proceedings of 2015 2nd International Conference on eDemocracy and eGovernment, ICEDEG 2015, Art. No. 7114455, 108–111.
14.
CanoJ.PomedL.Jiménez-GómezC. E.HernándezR. (2017). Open judiciary in high courts: Securing a networked constitution, challenges of e-Justice, transparency, and citizen participation. Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (Chap. 3, pp.36–54). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch003
15.
ChatfieldA. T.ReddickC.G. (2018). All hands on deck to tweet #sandy: Networked governance of citizen coproduction in turbulent times. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 259–272.
ConleyA.DattaA. (2012). Sustaining privacy and open justice in the transition to online court records: A multidisciplinary inquiry. Maryland Law Review, 71, 772–847.
18.
CordellaA. (2015). The circulation of agency in e-Justice: Interoperability and infrastructure for European transborder judicial proceedings. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 361–361.
19.
CrosbyB. C.‘t HartPTorfingJ. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19, 655–669.
20.
CunliffeE. (2012). Open justice: Concepts and judicial approaches (2012). Federal Law Review, 40, 405.
21.
DouglasM. (2016). The media’s standing to challenge departures from open justice. Adelaide Law Review, 37, 69–99.
22.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 467–494.
23.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
24.
ElenaS.Van SchalkwykF. (2016). Open data for open justice in seven Latin American countries. Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (Chap. 11, pp.210–232). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch011
25.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 1–29.
FersiniE.MessinaE.ToscaniD.ArchettiF.CislaghiM. (2010). Semantics and machine learning for building the next generation of judicial court management systems. KMIS 2010 Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (pp. 51–60), Valencia, Spain, October 25–28, 2010.
34.
FindlayL. (2015). Courting social media in Australia’s criminal courtrooms: The continuing tension between promoting open justice and protecting procedural integrity. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27, 237–245.
35.
FortuneJ.PetersG. (1990). The formal system paradigm for studying failures. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2, 382–390.
36.
FortuneJ.WhiteD. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 53–65.
Gil-GarciaJ. R.SchneiderC. A.PardoT. A.CresswellA. M. (2005). Interorganizational information integration in the criminal justice enterprise: Preliminary lessons from state and county initiatives. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Big Island, HI, January 3–6, 2005.
39.
HenningF.NgG.Y. (2009). The challenge of collaboration – ICT implementation networks in courts in the Netherlands. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 28E, 27–44.
40.
JaconelliJ. (2002). Open justice: A critique of the public trial. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
JanssenM.van der VoortH. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 1–5.
42.
Jimenez-GomezC. E. (2016). Open judiciary worldwide: Best practices and lessons learned. Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (Chap. 1, pp.1–15). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch001
43.
Jimenez-GomezC. E.Gasco-HernandezM. (2016). Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency. New York: IGI Global.
44.
JohnstonE. W.HicksD.NanN.AuerJ. C. (2010). Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 699–721.
KelloggW. A.SamantaA. (2017). Network structure and adaptive capacity in watershed governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1, 1–24.
47.
LepofskyD. M. (1985). Open justice: The constitutional right to attend and speak about criminal proceedings. Toronto, Canada: Butterworths.
48.
LowH. (2014, 21November). Court shake-up promises big efficiency gains. Australian Financial Review.
49.
LupoG.BaileyJ. (2014). Designing and implementing e-Justice systems: Some lessons learned from EU and Canadian examples. Laws, 3, 353–387.
50.
LupoG.VelicognaM. (2018). Making EU justice smart? Looking into the implementation of new technologies to improve the efficiency of cross border justice services delivery. Smart Technologies for Smart Governments (pp. 95–121). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
51.
LyonF.GyatengT.PritchardD.VazeP.VickersI.WebbN. (2015). Opening access to administrative data for evaluating public services: The case of the justice data lab. Evaluation, 21, 232–247.
52.
McGuireM. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.
53.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
MoranL. J. (2014). Mass-mediated ‘open justice’: Court and judicial reports in the Press in England and Wales, Legal Studies, 34, 143–166.
NettheimG. (1985). Open justice versus justice. The Adelaide Law Review, 9, 487–518.
57.
OjoA.MellouliS. (2016). Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Government Information Quarterly(Available online 2016, 23 April).
58.
OktalO.AlpuO.YaziciB. (2016). Measurement of internal user satisfaction and acceptance of the e-Justice system in Turkey. ASLIB Journal of Information Management, 68, 716–735.
59.
ParkinM.WedekingJ. (2017). Connecting with the courts: Online access to state judicial systems. Justice System Journal, 38, 22–36.
60.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.
61.
RodrickS. (2007a). Open justice and suppressing evidence of police methods: The position in Canada and Australia (Part One). Melbourne University Law Review, 31, 7–17.
62.
RodrickS. (2007b). Open justice and suppressing evidence of police methods: The position in Canada and Australia (Part Two). Melbourne University Law Review, 31, 18–38.
63.
RodrickS. (2017). Opportunities and challenges for open justice in light of the changing nature of judicial proceedings. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26, 76–97.
64.
RosaJ.TeixeiraC.PintoJ. S. (2013). Risk factors in e-Justice information systems. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 241–256.
65.
Sandoval-AlmazanR. (2016). Open justice in Latin America? An assessment framework for judiciary portals in 2015. Achieving open justice through citizen participation and transparency (Chap. 12, pp.232–252). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch012
66.
Sandoval-AlmazanR.Valle-CruzD. (2016). Open justice in latin America: Judiciary websites under scrutiny. 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2016), 287–290.
67.
SilveiraL.WazlawickR. S.RoverA. J. (2015). Assessing the brazilian e-Justice interoperability model. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 13, 1504–1510.
68.
SimpsonM. (2008). Open justice and the English criminal process. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham.
van DijkJ.KalidienS.ChoenniS. (2016). Smart monitoring of the criminal justice system. Government Information Quarterly. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.005
76.
WangB.ChristensenT. (2015). The open public value account and comprehensive social development: An assessment of china and the United States. Administration & Society, 49, 852–881.
77.
WebsterJ.WatsonR.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii.
78.
WeillP. (2004). Don’t just lead, govern: How top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Quarterly Executive, 8, 1–21.
