Bryan Borys knows how to research, but he's no data geek

Bryan Borys (BORE-iss) is next in our short list of the most important people you've never heard of in senior management of the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC). Bryan bears the title Director of Research and Data Management. The written job description says the Director is responsible for creating and implementing the court's data analytics strategy including data quality initiatives. Shortly we'll find out what the heck that means.

Bryan is among a handful of the more than 4,900 LASC employees who reports directly to the Court Executive Officer, David Slayton. So why is his job important? The answer lies in the eternal questions that have been asked since the time of the ancient Greeks: How do we know anything? How confident are we in what we think we know? What information is available to answer our questions? What is the quality of that information? But Bryan would tell us the critical element of his job is more basic: determining the right question even to ask.

Still too abstract you say? Then let's get specific with one of a thousand potential examples. What if you were running the LASC and wanted to know if the workload among the nearly 600 judicial officers in the five divisions and 36 courthouses is more or less equally distributed, and if not, what is the actual workload distribution? (This is not a hypothetical management concern.) So we need to compare, say, the felony trial court in Lancaster with the family law department in Long Beach, and the mental health department in Hollywood with the complex civil department in the Spring Street Courthouse, among a dozen other courtroom types. Before us is a cornucopia of contrasting, distinct, and divergent courtrooms and case types yet you need to know: bottom line and apples to apples, how do the workloads compare?

It's obvious that the answer must be data-informed - simply asking all 600 "how busy are you?" will result in a universal answer: "very, very busy". But what data should be acquired and studied? Number of minutes on the record per week? Number of cases in inventories? Number of words in statements of decision? Rates of dismissals and judgments per month? The time interval between the filing a motion and the date of the hearing? Jury trials per year? Numbers of hours per week judges' cars are in courthouse parking structures? And even if any of those data sets were revealing of the answer (and surely none is), are the underlying data reliable or untrustworthy - not actually capturing what they purport to measure? Data-informed decisions based on bad data are just badly informed decisions with bad consequences to be revealed later. But how can we know if the data before us today are solid? We can't tell just by looking at the spreadsheets.

This example illustrates why Bryan's work is critical and why he speaks directly to the CEO. In 2023 the world is firmly in the era of "big data" and the LASC is no exception. Our court is awash in vast oceans of data. Our big data can bewilder, obfuscate and confuse - or it can inform and enlighten. We need a really smart and experienced navigator on the bridge of our ship, speaking directly to the captain and helping chart the course forward.

That's Bryan. You could say he's qualified for the job. Having obtained his Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University (his dissertation focused on business process reengineering), Bryan has taught at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at USC and was the Faculty Advisor for (and a professor in) the Judicial Administration Fellowship Program sponsored by the California Judicial Council. He has served as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the National Center for State Courts. He has multiple publications in the academic press. One such article is entitled, "Doing Things Without Bureaucracy: Alternative Modes of Court Administration For a New Reality." (Note well: here is a senior court bureaucrat calling for less court bureaucracy. Go Bryan!) He teaches at national conferences. There is a lot more on his curriculum vitae but you get the idea. He knows what he's doing. Let's meet Bryan.

I've been calling you Bryan and not Dr. Borys. Are you OK with that?

(Laughs.) The honorific often adds a layer of needless formality. I'm quite happy with Bryan. But thanks for asking.

Give us a short rundown on your time on the LASC. When did you arrive and what jobs have you had leading to your current Director's position?

I had been teaching public administration at USC when I joined the Court just prior to unification, in October 1999. [Interviewer's note: "unification" refers to the unification of the Municipal and Superior Courts - a very big deal in the history of the LASC.] I led the newly unified LASC's strategic planning, community outreach and training efforts. I then moved to the Court Appointed Special Advocates unit in what we now call the Juvenile Justice Division after which I moved back downtown to become the Special Assistant to the CEO just prior to the budget crisis. During that time I provided a wide range of policy analysis on local and statewide operational, budget and legislative issues. As the LASC's analytics capabilities continue to grow, I have focused more and more on providing empirical research to judicial and staff leadership. Then I got my current job.

I suspect there are very few folks at the LASC who really understand what you do. What do you think is the most misunderstood element of your work?

Most people, if asked to associate my name with a word, would say "data." But I'm not the "data guy." I don't want to protest too much but I'm not a data geek and not particularly interested in data per se. Hopefully this doesn't come as too much of a shock to my colleagues who thought they knew me. (Laughs again.)

What word would you prefer folks to associate with your name?

"Research". I'm the "research guy." My interest lies in answering questions. One of my favorite quotes is from Mark Twain: "Supposing is good, but finding out is better." Here's the bottom line with me: it's questions first, data second.

This profile identified the example of comparing judicial workloads across various disciplines. Is that in fact a challenging task up your alley?

Very much so, and I know this is a topic of paramount interest to our Presiding and Assistant Presiding Judges and CEO. We all want to work faster, better, cheaper with equitably distributed workloads. But just measuring the status quo - where we are now - from which policy initiatives can then progress, is a big challenge. There may be judicial tasks arising from new laws - resentencing in criminal matters or expanded definitions of domestic violence in family law, for example - which are not yet fully captured by our conventional workload metrics. So we need, again, to ask the right questions first. Judge Riff, you know from our time working together on the Judicial Council's Workload Assessment Advisory Committee the complexity in assessing workloads across separate counties. Is the average felony filing in Los Angeles County the same "workload" as the average felony filing in, say, Lassen County? The answer is both yes and no, depending on how the question is framed and the data selected to inform the answer. So I'm a broken record on the point but getting the question right is the key to success.

Is "data-informed" decision-making the right concept to describe the LASC?

It is. Our PJ, APJ and CEO are very committed to that concept. Look, data are important but not the end of the analysis. Decisions here involve and impact human beings and culture and psychology have their roles. But data-informed decisions, based on solid data, are better decisions.

In what ways do you think your work contributes to the mission of the LASC?

Frankly, in every way. Here's why. The LASC's mission is serving our community by providing equal access to justice through the fair, timely and efficient resolution of all cases. Our jobs are to operationalize this mission. And then to make sure we are achieving our desired ends. To know we are doing so with a high degree of certainty, we need to be able to formulate the right questions, measure outcomes accurately and then form a judgment as to how well we're doing. And then see about improving the process. That's what I try to do every day.

And in your off-time?

I love cyberpunk and remain on the edge of my seat waiting for the next William Gibson novel. [Interviewer's note: cyberpunk is science fiction dealing with future urban societies dominated by computer technology - and not in a good way.]

Last thing, if a management trainee sought your advice concerning making a career at the LASC and aspired to reach the Executive team, what advice would you give?

Be open. There are lots of ways to be valuable to others; don't shut yourself off to new opportunities.

That is good advice for anyone anywhere. Thank you, Dr. Borys.

Hey, I told you, I'm just Bryan.