@book{Scheer2019,
  author    = {Scheer, August-Wilhelm},
  title     = {Was macht das Hasso-Plattner-Institut f{\"u}r Digital Engineering zu einer Besonderheit?},
  number    = {131},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-481-4},
  issn      = {1613-5652},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43923},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-439232},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{Santuber2023,
  author    = {Santuber, Joaquin},
  title     = {Designing for digital justice},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-60417},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-604178},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xviii, 183},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {At the beginning of 2020, with COVID-19, courts of justice worldwide had to move online to continue providing judicial service. Digital technologies materialized the court practices in ways unthinkable shortly before the pandemic creating resonances with judicial and legal regulation, as well as frictions. A better understanding of the dynamics at play in the digitalization of courts is paramount for designing justice systems that serve their users better, ensure fair and timely dispute resolutions, and foster access to justice. Building on three major bodies of literature —e-justice, digitalization and organization studies, and design research— Designing for Digital Justice takes a nuanced approach to account for human and more-than-human agencies. Using a qualitative approach, I have studied in depth the digitalization of Chilean courts during the pandemic, specifically between April 2020 and September 2022. Leveraging a comprehensive source of primary and secondary data, I traced back the genealogy of the novel materializations of courts' practices structured by the possibilities offered by digital technologies. In five (5) cases studies, I show in detail how the courts got to 1) work remotely, 2) host hearings via videoconference, 3) engage with users via social media (i.e., Facebook and Chat Messenger), 4) broadcast a show with judges answering questions from users via Facebook Live, and 5) record, stream, and upload judicial hearings to YouTube to fulfil the publicity requirement of criminal hearings. The digitalization of courts during the pandemic is characterized by a suspended normativity, which makes innovation possible yet presents risks. While digital technologies enabled the judiciary to provide services continuously, they also created the risk of displacing traditional judicial and legal regulation. Contributing to liminal innovation and digitalization research, Designing for Digital Justice theorizes four phases: 1) the pre-digitalization phase resulting in the development of regulation, 2) the hotspot of digitalization resulting in the extension of regulation, 3) the digital innovation redeveloping regulation (moving to a new, preliminary phase), and 4) the permanence of temporal practices displacing regulation. Contributing to design research Designing for Digital Justice provides new possibilities for innovation in the courts, focusing at different levels to better address tensions generated by digitalization. Fellow researchers will find in these pages a sound theoretical advancement at the intersection of digitalization and justice with novel methodological references. Practitioners will benefit from the actionable governance framework Designing for Digital Justice Model, which provides three fields of possibilities for action to design better justice systems. Only by taking into account digital, legal, and social factors can we design better systems that promote access to justice, the rule of law, and, ultimately social peace.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{GerkenUebernickeldePaula2022,
  author    = {Gerken, Stefanie and Uebernickel, Falk and de Paula, Danielly},
  title     = {Design Thinking: a Global Study on Implementation Practices in Organizations},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-525-5},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-53466},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-534668},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {230},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {These days design thinking is no longer a "new approach". Among practitioners, as well as academics, interest in the topic has gathered pace over the last two decades. However, opinions are divided over the longevity of the phenomenon: whether design thinking is merely "old wine in new bottles," a passing trend, or still evolving as it is being spread to an increasing number of organizations and industries. Despite its growing relevance and the diffusion of design thinking, knowledge on the actual status quo in organizations remains scarce. With a new study, the research team of Prof. Uebernickel and Stefanie Gerken investigates temporal developments and changes in design thinking practices in organizations over the past six years comparing the results of the 2015 "Parts without a whole" study with current practices and future developments. Companies of all sizes and from different parts of the world participated in the survey. The findings from qualitative interviews with experts, i.e., people who have years of knowledge with design thinking, were cross-checked with the results from an exploratory analysis of the survey data. This analysis uncovers significant variances and similarities in how design thinking is interpreted and applied in businesses.},
  language  = {en}
}