Overview

The statutory appointment of Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) was instituted in January 2003, with the primary responsibility to report to the Chief of the Defence Force on the health and effectiveness of the military justice system.

This called for performance measurement of the military justice system of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), systemic measurement rather than the evaluation of specific cases or circumstances.

There being largely no precedent anywhere in the world for this type of performance measurement, the IGADF commissioned a project for development of a purpose-designed system in September 2003. This required the integration of information from more than a dozen disparate sources within the ADF, and the synthesis of that information into a tool that would aid the IGADF in making decisions and setting priorities for investigations, audits and other activities.

The initial version of the system was developed by a project team from ThinkEvans in cooperation with members of the Office of the IGADF, and delivered in December 2003.

Project Outcomes

The initial system was delivered in December 2003, with specific measurements for 27 aspects of the military justice system. This initial system would best be termed a prototype, as at least 12 months of consistent data is required to support reasonable conclusions from the measurements developed.

For 18 measurements, a status was set according to the initial logic offered by the project team. This logic requires validation and update with additional data. A further 9 measurements remain on hold, due to insufficient data being available during the project to inform the measurement.

Measuring the Military Justice System

For the purpose of the project, an effective military justice system was defined as one that is “fair and open, assists in maintaining good order and discipline, promotes military efficiency and effectiveness, protects individual rights, and thereby contributes to national security”.

The focus of measurement was on outcomes, rather than outputs (such as cases heard, or investigations concluded) of the military justice system, as outputs simply do not reflect the extent to which the objectives of the military justice system are being met. Substantial research and exploratory work was necessary to develop a set of risk factors, key performance areas and performance criteria on which to base the system.

Initial Results

The results provided by the system are the first in a series of results that will be distilled from data that is updated annually or semi-annually. Although these early results are encouraging, and the system has potential to develop into a very useful review tool, firm conclusions are reserved until more results are made available by the addition of updated data.