Previous Document

                                                                        [PP64]
Conclusions concerning transcript retrieval software


There is no Australia-wide consistency in the programs used to retrieve
transcript. On the contrary, many different programs are used. The one
startling consistency is that Australian-developed software (TITAN, ISYS, The
Corporate Retriever, Evidence, Retrieve) or applications (the LIS application
of Oracle) are completely dominant among courts and prosecutors.

We have also found some degree of consistency within particular cities (and
therefore, to some extent, jurisdictions), as is explained below. We suspect
that this partial consistency is a by-product of a number of factors which
differ from jurisdication to jurisdication, including (i) support by a key
government agency's information technology section for the use of a particular
program; (ii) the lack of any comparable information technology expertise in
the agency which was to use the program; and (ii) the varying marketing and
support presence of the vendors of different programs between jurisdictions.

We conclude from this rather unsystematic investigation that the market for
transcript retrieval software, insofar as the participants in criminal trials
are concerned, does not indicate that any particular program is clearly
regarded as superior to others. Nor do we find any reason to assume that those
programs which are in use are the only programs which are suitable for the
task. We have found little evidence of exhaustive surveys of available
retrieval programs being carried out by agencies before a particular program
was chosen, or of agencies being aware of the full range of programs
available. While some agencies have called for and evaluated expressions of
interest before choosing litigation support software, this might not be
sufficient if available information about alternative software or desirable
features is inadequate, or if some desirable products do not have active local
representatives.

Australian users are probably very well served by the extremely successful
development of Australian text retrieval software. Even so, users would still
benefit from being assisted to take a more systematic approach to the
evaluation of transcript retrieval software. We therefore recommend that:

   A checklist for the evaluation of litigation support software suitable
   for Australian trials should be developed and publicised, possibly
   based on the ABA's Draft Guidelines for Litigation Support Software.
   
Possible participants in the development of such criteria would be the
Association of Litigation Support Managers, and the court reporting
organisations. Any such criteria would merely take the form of a check-list of
desirable features and suggested performance tests, on the lines of the ABA
Guidelines, with no attempt to designate some features as more important than
others.



                                                            Next Document