Strategic policy planning bearing upon court caseflow, such as legislative impact statements, is inevitably influenced by political considerations. Consequently, attempts by the courts to influence legislative deliberations must be limited to selected targets such as court budgets, judgeships, or jurisdictional changes rather than the comprehensive review of policy activity so heavily influenced by external interest groups. Although there are a number of management science techniques that could be applied to trial courts to expedite caseflow, their implementation requires the sacrifice of some discretion and habits of key court personnel, which is often difficult to achieve. Further, case studies of localities that have instituted case reduction programs indicate that successful programs are those that take into account existing operations and adapt new techniques for expediting cases to the prevailing values of key decisionmakers. Programs to expedite cases in trial courts require leadership and coordination; experience indicates that collegial approaches work best. Working groups of key actors are needed so that all pertinent factors affecting the program are identified by those who know them best. This type of committee should continue to operate during the implementation and administration phases to oversee program operations and provide a mechanism for ongoing coordination of activities of various types of judicial and nonjudicial personnel who work with the program daily. Fifteen footnotes are provided.