Table 1
Cantons/States and Courts of the research.
| COUNTRY | CANTON/STATE | COURT |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | Zurich | Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich** |
| Bern | Government of Justice of the Canton of Bern | |
| Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern** | ||
| Lucerne | Cantonal Court of the Canton of Luzern** | |
| Regional Civil Court of the Canton of Luzern* | ||
| Thurgau | Supreme Court of the Canton of Thurgau** | |
| Neuchâtel | Cantonal Court of the Canton of Neuchâtel** | |
| Basel-Landschaft | Cantonal Court of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft** | |
| Vaud | Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud** | |
| District Court of Lausanne* | ||
| Federal level | Swiss Federal Supreme Court | |
| Brazil | Goiás | State Court of Goiás |
| Pernanbuco | State Court of Pernanbuco | |
| Minas Gerais | State Court of Minas Gerais | |
| Roraima | State Court of Roraima | |
| Paraíba | State Court of Paraíba | |
| Paraná | State Court of Paraná | |
| Federal District | State Court of the Federal District and Territories | |
| Federal level | Regional Federal Court of the First Region |
[i] Source: Research data. * Courts of first instance; ** Cantonal high courts.
Table 2
Antecedents of the Swiss research.82
| LEVEL | DRIVERS/HINDERS | JUDGES (N = 9) | IT MANAGERS (N = 5) | JUDICIAL MANAGERS (N = 8) | SUM (N = 22) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | Access to justice/information | +++ | ++ | ++++ | ++++ |
| Legislation | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | |
| Federalism | + | +++ | ++++ | +++ | |
| Independency | + | / | ++ | + | |
| Different languages | / | + | / | + | |
| Integration with other e-gov systems | + | / | + | + | |
| Organizational | Long adoption | ++ | + | ++++ | +++ |
| Update and adaptation of previous systems | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | |
| Communication/Training | + | + | ++++ | ++ | |
| Concrete results | ++ | / | +++ | ++ | |
| Clear focus and targets | / | +++ | +++ | ++ | |
| Participation/collaboration | + | + | ++ | + | |
| Support | ++ | + | / | + | |
| Interdisciplinary team | + | + | + | + | |
| Amount of people involved | / | +++ | / | + | |
| Use of hybrid systems | + | / | + | + | |
| Leadership | / | / | ++ | + | |
| Overlapping the projects | / | + | / | + | |
| Dedicated staff | / | + | / | + | |
| Innovation features | Usability | ++ | + | ++++ | +++ |
| Sandboxes | + | + | / | + | |
| Security/Privacy | / | ++ | +++ | ++ | |
| Individual | Resistance | ++++ | + | +++ | +++ |
| Age | +++ | ++++ | / | ++ | |
| Previous familiarity in using e-gov and other electronic tools | / | +++ | + | + |
[i] Source: Research data.
Notes: ++++ Stands for antecedent mentioned by at least two thirds of the interviewees; +++ Mentioned by at least half of the interviewees; ++ Mentioned by at least a quarter of the interviewees; + Mentioned by at least once; / Antecedent not mentioned. The antecedent perceived only in Switzerland has been put in bold.
Table 3
Antecedents of Brazilian research.
| LEVEL | DRIVERS/HINDERS | JUDGES (N = 7) | IT MANAGERS (N = 10) | JUDICIAL MANAGERS (N = 8) | SUM (N = 25) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | Centralization | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| Infrastructure | ++++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | |
| Access to justice/information | ++++ | + | +++ | ++ | |
| Integration with other e-gov systems | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Standardisation | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Legislation | + | / | / | / | |
| Organizational | Communication/Training | ++ | ++ | ++++ | +++ |
| Update and adaptation of previous systems | ++++ | ++ | + | ++ | |
| Participation/collaboration | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Support | / | ++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Use of hybrid systems | ++ | / | ++ | + | |
| Innovation features | Level of maturity | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Security/Privacy | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | |
| Usability | / | / | + | + | |
| Individual | Age | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| Resistance | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | |
| Previous familiarity in using e-gov and other electronic tools | + | / | / | / |
[i] Source: Research data.
Notes: ++++ Stands for antecedent mentioned by at least two thirds of the interviewees; +++ Mentioned by at least half of the interviewees; ++ Mentioned by at least a quarter of the interviewees; + Mentioned by at least once; / Antecedent not mentioned. The antecedent perceived only in Brazil has been put in bold.
Table 4
Expected outcomes and impacts of the Swiss research.110
| OUTCOMES/IMPACTS | JUDGES (N = 9) | IT MANAGERS (N = 5) | JUDICIAL MANAGERS (N = 8) | SUM (N = 22) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed | ++++ | ++ | +++ | +++ |
| Review-redesign process (routines) | ++ | ++++ | +++ | +++ |
| Simultaneously | +++ | / | +++ | ++ |
| Saving costs | / | ++++ | ++ | ++ |
| Repetitive work and double entry | / | +++ | ++ | + |
| Transferring cases | + | +++ | + | + |
| Access to justice/information | + | + | ++ | + |
| Mobility | / | ++ | ++ | + |
| Safer | / | / | ++ | + |
| Possibility to use AI | / | ++ | / | + |
| Work on the screen | / | / | + | + |
| Dependency on IT | / | / | + | + |
[i] Source: Research data.
Notes: ++++ Stands for outcomes/impacts mentioned by at least two-thirds of the interviewees; +++ Mentioned by at least half of the interviewees; ++ Mentioned by at least a quarter of the interviewees; + Mentioned by at least once; / Antecedent not mentioned. The outcomes and impacts perceived only in Switzerland have been put in bold.
Table 5
Expected outcomes and impacts of Brazilian research.
| OUTCOMES/IMPACTS | JUDGES (N = 7) | IT MANAGERS (N = 10) | JUDICIAL MANAGERS (N = 8) | SUM (N = 25) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ |
| Review-redesign process (routines) | ++++ | ++ | +++ | +++ |
| Telework | ++++ | + | +++ | +++ |
| Mobility | ++ | +++ | +++ | ++ |
| Possibility to use AI | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ |
| Saving costs | + | +++ | ++ | ++ |
| Simultaneously | ++ | + | ++ | ++ |
| Access to justice/information | ++ | / | ++ | + |
| Safer | ++ | / | ++ | + |
| Quality | ++ | / | + | + |
| Repetitive work and double entry | + | / | / | / |
[i] Source: Research data.
Notes: ++++ Stands for outcomes/impacts mentioned by at least two-thirds of the interviewees; +++ Mentioned by at least half of the interviewees; ++ Mentioned by at least a quarter of the interviewees; + Mentioned by at least once; / Antecedent not mentioned. The outcomes and impacts perceived only in Brazil have been put in bold.