Several features of the American court system impede change: reliance on precedent, decentralization, a great degree of discretion residing in each participant, and the lack of a single institutional perspective. The process of change begins with the recognition that a problem exists, system participants' assuming responsibility, and a commitment to do something about the problem. Once the commitment exists, the change process is accomplished through the distinct phases of planning and implementation. The first step in planning is to define the problem, collect data on court operations, and examine the process and interrelationships of procedures and practices. Second, a jurisdiction must set goals and define objectives for the operation of the court system. Third, potential ways to accomplish goals must be explored by looking at what other courts have done or are proposing. Once an approach is determined, general procedures must be adopted and tailored to the individual situation. Finally, the court's professional staff must obtain a commitment from all participants by involving them in the planning process. To implement new procedures effectively, a jurisdiction should develop a framework that designates how and when the change will be introduced. It must also provide adequate support structures, such as workshops and orientation sessions. Other elements in implementation include providing communications lines and mechanisms for monitoring, developing incremental goals, and evaluation. The article includes nine footnotes.