English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Using different methodological approaches of weighted caseload studies results in case weights that indicate the current performance of a court. However, as the case weights are often used in allocating resources or cases, the results of a weighted caseload study may be contested with the argument that it is not clear whether they are based on an average good performance or whether higher or lower values could be assumed if operational management were optimized and/or qualitative aspects taken into account. Suitable methods therefore usually include quality adjustments of the case weights. Also, the case weights can be validated using benchmarking. In Switzerland there is a general lack of workload measurement in courts. Therefore, in an analysis of the courts and in the cantonal public prosecutor’s service (PPS) of the Canton of Basel-Stadt another method of validating case weights has been applied: the combination of a weighted caseload study with an organizational analysis. This paper introduces the new methodological approach in Switzerland and outlines preliminary methodological findings.

Combining a weighted caseload study with an organisational analysis in courts: first experiences with a new methodological approach in Switzerland