Generally court-reform efforts have attempted to move State court systems from the extreme of fragmented nonunification to a unified system that is characterized by consolidation and simplification of court structure, centralized management, centralized rulemaking, centralized budgeting, and State financing. The unification model, however, is only one of a number of models that can transform a collectivity of local court units into a single organization. One such model is the franchise model, which involves the centralized establishment of precise standards for the core activity of local units, while funding comes entirely from local revenue, and local units are encouraged to adapt to local circumstances so long as the core standards for function and quality are maintained. Another alternative to the unification model is the corporate model, which makes financing a central responsibility while discretionary judgment is preserved within the local task environment. The federal model differs from the franchise, corporate, and unified models by rejecting the establishment of a single focus of final authority. The federal model advocates a high degree of local court consolidation and collegial control, a low degree of central management, and an expanded participation of central headquarters personnel through technical assistance and support services for local courts. The appropriateness of these different models is contingent upon views of the nature of the court's technology and the sources of critical environmental pressures. Twelve references are listed.