PwC · consulting-deck
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
105 pages · 0 arc beats · 0 loops
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
PwC arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 0 LOOPS
15101520253035404550556065707580859095100105
Deck intelligence map
1 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 105 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Whole deck 105 slides 100% 105/105 slides 100% 105/105 slides · 597 hits — 0/105 slides
46.7% 49/105 slides · 60 hits 14.3% 15/105 slides — 0/105 slides
— 0/105 slides
Slide inventory
105 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
03
The slide uses a waterfall chart to compare caseload volumes between two courts (FCC and FCoA) across different application types.summarize
05
The slide contrasts FCoA and FCC operational models, noting that FCoA cases are handled by registrars first, while FCC cases go directly to judges.summarize
06
The slide uses a flow-based diagram to map the judicial process and compare performance metrics between two court systems.summarize
07
The slide outlines the methodology for assessing efficiency opportunities and summarizes key findings regarding implementation and impact.summarize
08
The slide uses a donut chart visual to represent qualitative impact levels (low to high) for various criteria.summarize
12
The slide provides context for a consulting engagement regarding court system efficiency.establish_context
16
The slide uses a process/hierarchy diagram to explain legal jurisdiction and appeal paths.establish_context
17
The diagram uses color coding (pink vs grey) to distinguish between the two court systems and highlights 'Judicial responsibility' as a vertical swimlane/annotapresent_framework
18
The slide uses a table to map projects to their timing and expected impact, with some rows redacted.summarize
20
The slide outlines the metrics used for court performance analysis and acknowledges data limitations.establish_context
22
Includes a breakdown of court expenditures by category (Employee, Property, Operations, Security, Travel, Other).analyze_data
24
Includes both a summary table of roles and a stacked bar chart for FTE distribution.analyze_data
25
The slide highlights the concentration of court staff in major states like NSW, QLD, and VIC.analyze_data
27
The chart uses a waterfall structure to decompose the total caseload into specific court and case types.analyze_data
28
The chart uses a waterfall structure to compare application volumes across two court systems.analyze_data
29
The slide uses two line charts to compare trends across two different court systems.analyze_data
30
Includes a stacked bar chart for order types and a grouped bar chart for interim-to-final order ratios.analyze_data
32
The slide uses a bar chart to illustrate the disparity in court attendance between two legal bodies, attributing the difference to case management practices.analyze_data
33
The chart uses a grouped bar structure to compare trial vs non-trial vs overall attendance.analyze_data
34
Includes context about case resolution rates to provide nuance to the trial time data.analyze_data
35
Includes two charts: a bar chart showing trial length percentiles and a stacked bar chart showing judgment delivery timeframes.analyze_data
36
The slide uses a combination of a stacked bar chart and a line chart to illustrate caseload volume and case age.analyze_data
37
Includes a data table and a line chart showing transfer times over a 5-year period.diagnose
38
The slide uses two distinct charts to diagnose the backlog issue: a bar chart for application volumes and a grouped bar chart for clearance rates.diagnose
40
The slide uses a key icon to highlight specific takeaways. Data sources are cited at the bottom.diagnose
41
Includes a bar chart showing a 67% cost reduction and a table comparing staffing roles.analyze_data
42
Includes two stacked bar charts and descriptive text explaining the caseload composition and duration.analyze_data
43
Includes a callout highlighting the average number of judgments written per judge.analyze_data
44
Includes a callout box highlighting a specific statistic about FCoA appeals.diagnose
45
The chart is a waterfall diagram showing the breakdown of total expenditure.analyze_data
47
The slide contains a large blacked-out area, likely where a chart was originally located.diagnose
48
The slide contains a large blacked-out area, likely obscuring a chart or table that was originally present.diagnose
50
The slide uses a flow-based diagram to map the journey of legal matters through different court divisions.diagnose
51
The slide compares two court entities (FCoA and FCC) across various performance and financial indicators.summarize
53
The slide details the scope of the review, the data sources (2016-17 courts data), and the limitations of the analysis (averages vs. individual case nuances).present_framework
54
The slide uses a legend-style table to define symbols for assessment criteria.diagnose
55
The slide uses a circular gauge/donut chart visual to represent qualitative impact levels (low to high) for four criteria across nine initiatives.compare_options
57
The slide uses a table to demonstrate that while some projects address specific opportunities, there is still a gap in holistic coverage.summarize
58
The slide uses a table structure to contrast existing reporting metrics (RoGS, FCoA, FCC) with a proposed set of metrics for future use.diagnose
62
The slide outlines a 6-7 month process flow with specific milestones and time-bound stages.plan_implementation
64
The slide serves as a section divider or introductory page for a chapter on litigant experience.frame_problem
65
The slide uses a complex flow diagram to contrast two legal pathways, highlighting specific legal and court fees at various stages.illustrate_case
66
The slide uses a table to contrast current performance metrics (time, backlog, attendance) and qualitative impacts (distress, conflict) with future potential imquantify_impact
71
The slide summarizes key findings from various government and independent reports (2008-2017) that have informed the current review process.establish_context
72
Includes a list of 8 criteria for case allocation and transfer rules between courts.establish_context
73
The slide highlights discrepancies in court rules that lead to variations in process and practice for similar family law matters.compare_options
74
The slide uses a two-column layout of text paragraphs to compare two sets of legal rules.compare_options
75
The slide uses a process flow to map out specific legal costs associated with different stages of litigation.analyze_data
76
The slide uses a process flow diagram to map specific cost components to legal stages.quantify_impact
77
The slide maps out the procedural stages of a legal case and assigns specific cost estimates to each step.quantify_impact
79
The slide serves as a disclaimer/methodology note for quantitative estimates presented elsewhere in the deck.quantify_impact
80
The slide uses a structured comparison between current state pain points and potential future state opportunities.diagnose
81
The slide uses a table format to compare qualitative and quantitative impacts of two strategic opportunities.analyze_data
82
The slide uses a table-like structure to present qualitative assessments of 'Other impacts' and 'Key risks' related to court jurisdiction changes.diagnose
83
Includes specific assumptions regarding case transfer times, judge productivity, and FTE counts.quantify_impact
85
The slide uses a table format to evaluate specific opportunities for court case management.quantify_impact
86
The slide uses icons to categorize impacts and risks. Some text is redacted with black bars.diagnose
87
The slide uses a table structure to map specific case management initiatives to their quantitative impact logic.quantify_impact
89
The slide uses a table format to evaluate specific opportunities for judicial practice improvement.quantify_impact
90
The slide uses icons to categorize risks and impacts, specifically highlighting potential challenges in setting performance targets for judicial judgments.diagnose
91
The slide uses a table format to explain the logic behind the impact sizing for FCC and FCoA courts.quantify_impact
92
The slide uses a structured list format to contrast current state pain points with specific strategic opportunities.diagnose
93
The slide uses a table format to present qualitative and quantitative impacts of specific opportunities.quantify_impact
94
The slide uses a table-like structure to present qualitative assessments of judicial management opportunities.diagnose
95
The slide uses a table structure to map 'Indicative value' categories to detailed methodological descriptions.quantify_impact
96
The slide details the logic behind the 'Managed appeal listing' opportunity, using 2016-17 data to estimate capacity increases.quantify_impact
98
Includes a waterfall chart showing the composition of general federal law cases.analyze_data
100
The slide compares application trends vs finalisation trends across FCoA and FCC courts.analyze_data
101
Contains four grouped bar charts showing longitudinal data from 2012-13 to 2016-17.analyze_data
102
The slide uses four grouped bar charts to compare case age and transfer times across different court locations.analyze_data
103
The slide uses grouped bar charts to show longitudinal trends across multiple geographic locations.analyze_data
104
PwC branding, page 104. Contains four bar charts comparing two metrics across two court types over five years.diagnose