927,983 research outputs found

    Certifications to Safeguard Data Protection Standards? How Superficial Internalization Thwarts the Plan

    Get PDF
    Motivation The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) proposes certifications issued by independent and accredited certification bodies to demonstrate compliance with data protection standards in Articles 42 and 43. Beyond demonstrating regulatory compliance, certifications are a valuable means to tackle current challenges in data governance. First, certifications can serve as a global mechanism for decentralized self-regulation [1]. Competitive pressure may motivate companies to adopt data governance and protection standards and undergo corresponding certifications, even if they are not explicitly mandated by governmental regulations [2–4]. Second, certifications can help reduce the asymmetric power distribution between individuals and companies by creating transparency about data processing practices and enabling individuals to make better-informed decisions [5]. Finally, certifications provide organizations with guidance on how to fulfill the requirements imposed by the GDPR and achieve efficient data governance by clarifying the specific requirements an organization needs to fulfill and recommending best practices on how to implement the requirements into the organization’s processes [5]. However, related literature on certifications indicates a severe issue that threatens the effectiveness of certifications as an enforcement mechanism for data governance. Some organizations tend to follow a minimalist approach in implementing the certification. They only meet the minimum requirements and take a short-cut approach to attain the certification [6, 7], which is referred to as superficial internalization. Internalization is defined as the process through which organizations incorporate certification information into their procedures and daily practices [8]. This includes not only the explicit certification information (e.g., proposed data governance best practices) but also tacit information (e.g., attestation results and feedback of the certification body). Despite policymakers demanding rigorous internalization of the certification requirements [9, 10], extant research found that organizations frequently internalize certifications only at a superficial level, undermining their intended effects [6, 11]. As a result, compliance is pretended but not achieved [12]. Such malicious use of the certification mechanism can have detrimental consequences for the societal view on certifications as it downgrades them to a "greenwashing" mechanism used by dubious organizations [12] and is thus particularly concerning for societal relevant areas such as data protection and privacy. Research Objective We strive to examine certifications\u27 potential to contribute to data governance and the safeguarding of data protection standards, as recommended by the EU GDPR. For this purpose, we study potential pitfalls for organizations adopting certifications, illustrate the risks associated with superficial internalization, and provide suggestions for mitigation. Hence, we are seeking to answer the following research question: What are potential pitfalls and which measures for mitigation can be taken in order to leverage data protection certifications to safeguard the requirements of the GDPR? Methods To answer the research question, we conducted a descriptive literature review [13] to synthesize the current state of research on the pitfalls related to superficial internalization. Our database search revealed  800 articles, of which we examined 60 relevant articles to reveal pitfalls hampering organizations\u27 effectiveness in internalizing certifications by using thematic analysis [14]. Results We identified three key pitfalls that pose critical risks for organizations\u27 success in internalizing certifications. First, organizations differ in their motivations to seek certification [15], which impacts their depth of internalization. Research has shown that external pressure exerted by customers or regulators is either not or negatively impacting internalization (e.g., [7, 16]). Hence, relying on external motivation as the sole motive for certification acquisition should be avoided. Instead, this pitfall can be mitigated by empathizing that acquiring a certification should be driven by internal aspirations: approaching the certification as a chance to improve organizational data governance practices is positively impacting internalization (e.g., [17, 18]). Policymakers and developers of certifications should include implementational guidance for organizations to fulfill the certification requirements, and internalizing organizations should perform specific activities to harness internal benefits besides conforming to external pressures. The second pitfall that organizations should avoid is a lack of stakeholder engagement, such as limited executive buy-in and employee involvement [19–22]. Different stakeholder groups inside the organization may have opposing views of the certification, thus hampering internalization [23]. As a mitigation strategy, we argue that organizations need to perform additional internalization activities, such as adequate internal communication, executive sponsorship, and employee participation to avoid this pitfall [22, 24, 25]. The way internalization activities are conveyed across the organizational structure was identified as the third pitfall. Adopting the certification in a purely top-down manner (i.e., using the certification as a blueprint to derive organizational practices and work instructions) neglects the organization\u27s as-is situation and may lead to superficial internalization or even open resistance [6, 21, 22]. At the same time, a bottom-up approach (i.e., drawing mainly from the organization\u27s as-is state and comparing the existing practices to the certification requirements) can lead to a sole mapping of the certification requirements to the as-is situation without achieving organizational change [19, 26]. As mitigation, a mixed (called "discursive") approach should be chosen so that the as-is state is considered and suggestions for improvement based on the certification can be incorporated [19–22]. Conclusion Certifications can only contribute to the safeguarding of data protection standards when risks of superficial internalization are mitigated and pitfalls avoided. We identified key pitfalls and corresponding mitigation strategies for avoidance. These pitfalls hold relevance not only for organizations adopting certifications but also for policymakers designing best practices. References [1] A. A. King, M. J. Lenox, and A. Terlaak, "The Strategic Use of Decentralized Institutions: Exploring Certification With the ISO 14001 Management Standard," AMJ, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1091–1106, 2005, doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573111. [2] P. Christmann and G. Taylor, "Globalization and the Environment: Determinants of Firm Self-Regulation in China," Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 439–458, 2001, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490976. [3] P. Christmann and G. Taylor, "Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation," Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 863–878, 2006, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400231. [4] I. Guler, M. F. Guillén, and J. M. Macpherson, "Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 207–232, 2002, doi: 10.2307/3094804. [5] N. Maier, S. Lins, H. Teigeler, A. Roßnagel, and A. Sunyaev, “Die Zertifizierung von Cloud-Diensten nach der DSGVO,” Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 225–229, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11623-019-1097-3. [6] O. Boiral, "ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage," Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 720–737, 2003, doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.720.24873. [7] D. I. Prajogo, "The roles of firms\u27 motives in affecting the outcomes of ISO 9000 adoption," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 78–100, 2011, doi: 10.1108/01443571111098753. [8] G. A. Knight and P. W. Liesch, "Information internalisation in internationalising the firm," Journal of Business Research, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 981–995, 2002, doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00375-2. [9] E. Naveh and A. A. Marcus, "When does the ISO 9000 quality assurance standard lead to performance improvement? Assimilation and going beyond," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 352–363, 2004, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2004.830864. [10] J. A. Briscoe, S. E. Fawcett, and R. H. Todd, "The Implementation and Impact of ISO 9000 among Small Manufacturing Enterprises," Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 309–330, 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00139.x. [11] P. Stephanow and C. Banse, "Evaluating the Performance of Continuous Test-Based Cloud Service Certification," in 2017 17th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID), 2017, pp. 1117–1126. [12] I. Heras‐Saizarbitoria, O. Boiral, and A. Díaz de Junguitu, "Environmental management certification and environmental performance: Greening or greenwashing?," Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2829–2841, 2020, doi: 10.1002/bse.2546. [13] G. Paré, M.-C. Trudel, M. Jaana, and S. Kitsiou, "Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews," Information & Management, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 183–199, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008. [14] V. Braun and V. Clarke, "Thematic analysis," in APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological, H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, and K. J. Sher, Eds., Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2012, pp. 57–71. [15] S. Lins, T. Kromat, J. Löbbers, A. Benlian, and A. Sunyaev, "Why Don\u27t You Join In? A Typology of Information System Certification Adopters," Decision Sciences, pp. 1–34, 2020, doi: 10.1111/deci.12488. [16] J. J. Tarí, J. Pereira-Moliner, J. F. Molina-Azorín, and M. D. López-Gamero, "Heterogeneous adoption of quality standards in the hotel industry: drivers and effects," International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1122–1140, 2019, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2017-0606. [17] A. Nair and D. Prajogo, "Internalisation of ISO 9000 standards: the antecedent role of functionalist and institutionalist drivers and performance implications," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 47, no. 16, pp. 4545–4568, 2009, doi: 10.1080/00207540701871069. [18] C. Valmohammadi and M. Kalantari, "Using structural equation modelling to test ISO 9000 motivation, depth of ISO implementation and performance of Iranian manufacturing organisations," International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 405–427, 2017, doi: 10.1504/IJPQM.2017.082675. [19] O. Boiral, "Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?," Organization Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 127–146, 2007, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0224. [20] H. Yin and P. J. Schmeidler, "Why do standardized ISO 14001 environmental management systems lead to heterogeneous environmental outcomes?," Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 469–486, 2009, doi: 10.1002/bse.629. [21] G. Guzman and L. F. Trivelato, "Transferring codified knowledge: socio-technical versus top-down approaches," Learning Organization, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 251–276, 2008, doi: 10.1108/09696470810868873. [22] K. W. Sandholtz, "Making Standards Stick: A Theory of Coupled vs. Decoupled Compliance," Organization Studies, vol. 33, 5/6, pp. 655–679, 2012, doi: 10.1177/0170840612443623. [23] C. W. Hsu, "Frame misalignment: interpreting the implementation of information systems security certification in an organization," European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 140–150, 2009, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2009.7. [24] O. Boiral, I. Heras‐Saizarbitoria, and M.-C. Brotherton, "Corporate Biodiversity Management through Certifiable Standards," Business Strategy & the Environment, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 389–402, 2018, doi: 10.1002/bse.2005. [25] I. Heras-Saizarbitoria and O. Boiral, "Symbolic adoption of ISO 9000 in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of internal contingencies," International Small Business Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 299–320, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0266242613495748. [26] V. S. Amundsen and T. C. Osmundsen, "Becoming certified, becoming sustainable? Improvements from aquaculture certification schemes as experienced by those certified," Marine Policy, vol. 119, pp. 1–8, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104097

    Utility-Based Mechanism for Structural Self-Organization in Service-Oriented MAS

    Full text link
    Structural relations established among agents influence the performance of decentralized service discovery process in multiagent systems. Moreover, distributed systems should be able to adapt their structural relations to changes in environmental conditions. In this article, we present a service-oriented multiagent systems, where agents initially self-organize their structural relations based on the similarity of their services. During the service discovery process, agents integrate a mechanism that facilitates the self-organization of their structural relations to adapt the structure of the system to the service demand. This mechanism facilitates the task of decentralized service discovery and improves its performance. Each agent has local knowledge about its direct neighbors and the queries received during discovery processes. With this information, an agent is able to analyze its structural relations and decide when it is more appropriate to modify its direct neighbors and select the most suitable acquaintances to replace them. The experimental evaluation shows how this self-organization mechanism improves the overall performance of the service discovery process in the system when the service demand changesThis work is partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through grants CSD2007-0022 (CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010), TIN2012-36586-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-02, PROMETEOII/2013/019, and FPU grant AP-2008-00601 awarded to E. Del Val.Del Val Noguera, E.; Rebollo Pedruelo, M.; Vasirani, M.; Fernández, A. (2014). Utility-Based Mechanism for Structural Self-Organization in Service-Oriented MAS. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems. 9(3):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2651423S12493Sherief Abdallah and Victor Lesser. 2007. Multiagent reinforcement learning and self-organization in a network of agents. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 172--179.Lada A. Adamic and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2002. Zipf’s law and the Internet. Glottometrics 3, 143--150.Muntasir Al-Asfoor, Brendan Neville, and Maria Fasli. 2012. Heuristic resource search in a self-organised distributed multi agent system. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Self-Organizing Systems. 84--89.Mathieu Aquin, Salman Elahi, and Enrico Motta. 2010. Personal monitoring of Web information exchange: Towards Web lifelogging. In Proceedings of the Web Science Conference.Ulrich Basters and Matthias Klusch. 2006. RS2D: Fast adaptive search for semantic Web services in unstructured p2p networks. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. 87--100.Umesh Bellur and Roshan Kulkarni. 2007. Improved matchmaking algorithm for semantic Web services based on bipartite graph matching. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. 86--93.Devis Bianchini, Valeria De Antonellis, and Michele Melchiori. 2009. Service-based semantic search in p2p systems. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Web Services. 7--16.Bartosz Biskupski, Jim Dowling, and Jan Sacha. 2007. Properties and mechanisms of self-organizing MANET and P2P systems. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 2, 1, 1--34.Alberto Blanc, Yi-Kai Liu, and Amin Vahdat. 2005. Designing incentives for peer-to-peer routing. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. 374--385.Michael Bowling and Manuela Veloso. 2002. Multiagent learning using a variable learning rate. Artificial Intelligence 136, 215--250.Frances M. T. Brazier, Jeffrey O. Kephart, H. Van Dyke Parunak, and Michael N. Huhns. 2009. Agents and service-oriented computing for autonomic computing: A research agenda. IEEE Internet Computing 13, 3, 82--87.Tyson Condie, Sepandar D. Kamvar, and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2004. Adaptive peer-to-peer topologies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing. 53--62.Arturo Crespo and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2002. Routing indices for peer-to-peer systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. 23--32.Elena Del Val, Natalia Criado, Carlos Carrascosa, Vicente Julian, Miguel Rebollo, Estefania Argente, and Vicente Botti. 2010. THOMAS: A service-oriented framework for virtual organizations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’10). 1631--1632.Elena Del Val, Miguel Rebollo, and Vicente Botti. 2011. Introducing homophily to improve semantic service search in a self-adaptive system. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 1241--1242.Elena Del Val, Miguel Rebollo, and Vicente Botti. 2012a. Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 28, 1, 1--30.Elena Del Val, Miguel Rebollo, and Vicente Botti. 2012b. Promoting cooperation in service-oriented MAS through social plasticity and incentives. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 2, 520--537.Gianni Di Caro, Frederick Ducatelle, and Luca Maria Gambardella. 2005. AntHocNet: An adaptive nature-inspired algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications 16, 443--455.Ding Ding, Lei Liu, and Hartmut Schmeck. 2010. Service discovery in self-organizing service-oriented environments. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference. 717--724.Sergey N. Dorogovtsev and Jose F. F. Mendes. 2003. Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW. Oxford University Press.Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo, Marie-Pierre Gleizes, and Anthony Karageorgos. 2011. Self-Organizing Software: From Natural to Artificial Adaptation. Natural Computing Series.Erik Einhorn and Andreas Mitschele-Thiel. 2008. RLTE: Reinforcement learning for traffic-engineering. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Infrastructure, Management, and Security. 120--133.Nelson Fernandez, Carlos Maldonado, and Carlos Gershenson. 2014. Information measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, homeostasis, and autopoiesis. In Guided Self-Organization: Inception. Emergence, Complexity and Computation, Vol. 9. Springer, 19--51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53734-9_2Jose Luis Fernandez-Marquez, Josep Lluis Arcos, and Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo. 2012. A decentralized approach for detecting dynamically changing diffuse event sources in noisy WSN environments. Applied Artificial Intelligence 26, 4, 376--397. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2012.653659Agostino Forestiero, Carlo Mastroianni, and Michela Meo. 2009. Self-Chord: A bio-inspired algorithm for structured P2P systems. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing. 44--51.Matthew E. Gaston and Marie des Jardins. 2005. Agent-organized networks for multi-agent production and exchange. In Proceedings of the 20th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 77--82.Nathan Griffiths and Michael Luck. 2010. Changing neighbours: Improving tag-based cooperation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 249--256.Peter Haase, Ronny Siebes, and Frank van Harmelen. 2008. Expertise-based peer selection in peer-to-peer networks. Knowledge and Information Systems 15, 1, 75--107.Philip N. Howard, Lee Rainee, and Steve Jones. 2001. Days and nights on the Internet. American Behavioural Scientist, 383--404.Bernardo A. Huberman and Lada A. Adamic. 2000. The nature of markets in the WWW. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce 1, 5--12.Michael N. Huhns et al. 2005. Research directions for service-oriented multiagent systems. IEEE Internet Computing 9, 6, 65--70.Tomoko Itao, Tatsuya Suda, Tetsuya Nakamura, Miyuki Imada, Masato Matsuo, and Tomonori Aoyama. 2001. Jack-in-the-Net: Adaptive networking architecture for service emergence. In Proceedings of the Asian-Pacific Conference on Communications. 9.Emily M. Jin, Michelle Girvan, and Mark E. J. Newman. 2001. Structure of growing social networks. Physical Review E 64, 4, 046132.Sachin Kamboj and Keith S. Decker. 2007. Organizational self-design in semi-dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 335--337.Rahamatullah Khondoker, S. M. Taslim Arif, Nathan Kerr, and Dennis Schwerdel. 2011. Self-organizing communication services in future network architectures. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Self-Organizing Systems.Matthias Klusch, Benedikt Fries, and Katia Sycara. 2009. OWLS-MX: A hybrid Semantic Web service matchmaker for OWL-S services. Web Semantics Science Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 7, 2, 121--133.Dionisis Kontominas, Paraskevi Raftopoulou, Christos Tryfonopoulos, and Euripides G. M. Petrakis. 2013. DS4: A distributed social and semantic search system. Advances in Information Retrieval 7814, 832--836.Ramachandra Kota, Nicholas Gibbins, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2012. Decentralized approaches for self-adaptation in agent organizations. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 7, 1, Article No. 1.Paul Lazarsfeld. 1954. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In Freedom and Control in Modern Society. Van Nostrand, New York, NY.Paulo Leito. 2013. Towards self-organized service-oriented multi-agent systems. In Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi Agent Manufacturing and Robotics. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 472. Springer, 41--56.W. Sabrina Lin, Hong Vikcy Zhao, and K. J. Ray Liu. 2009. Incentive cooperation strategies for peer-to-peer live multimedia streaming social networks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 11, 3, 396--412.Sheila A. McIlraith, Tran Cao Son, and Honglei Zeng. 2001. Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 2, 46--53.Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27, 415--444.Vivek Nallur and Rami Bahsoon. 2012. A decentralized self-adaptation mechanism for service-based applications in the cloud. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 99, 591--612.Aris Ouksel, Yair Babad, and Thomas Tesch. 2004. Matchmaking software agents in B2B markets. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1--9.Massimo Paolucci, Takahiro Kawamura, Terry R. Payne, and Katia P. Sycara. 2002. Semantic matching of Web services capabilities. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference. 333--347.Leonid Peshkin and Virginia Savova. 2002. Reinforcement learning for adaptive routing. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN’02). 1825--1830.Paraskevi Raftopoulou and Euripides G. M. Petrakis. 2008. iCluster: A self-organizing overlay network for P2P information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Advances in Information Retrieval (ECIR’08). 65--76.Sharmila Savarimuthu, Maryam Purvis, Martin Purvis, and Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu. 2011. Mechanisms for the self-organization of peer groups in agent societies. In Multi-Agent-Based Simulation XI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6532. Springer, 93--107.Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo, Marie-Pierre Gleizes, and Anthony Karageorgos. 2005. Self-organization in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 20, 2, 165--189.Abdul Khalique Shaikh, Saadat M. Alhashmi, and Rajendran Parthiban. 2012. A semantic impact in decentralized resource discovery mechanism for grid computing environments. In Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7440. Springer, 206--216.Qixiang Sun and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2004. SLIC: A selfish link-based incentive mechanism for unstructured peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’04). 506--515.Mirko Viroli and Franco Zambonelli. 2010. A biochemical approach to adaptive service ecosystems. Information Sciences 180, 10, 1876--1892. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.11.021Li Wang. 2011. SoFA: An expert-driven, self-organization peer-to-peer semantic communities for network resource management. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 1, 94--105.Kevin Werbach. 2000. Syndication—the emerging model for business in the Internet era. Harvard Business Review 78, 3, 84--93, 214.Tom Wolf and Tom Holvoet. 2005. Emergence versus self-organisation: Different concepts but promising when combined. In Engineering Self-Organising Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3464. Springer, 1--15.Haizheng Zhang, W. Bruce Croft, Brian Levine, and Victor Lesser. 2004. A multi-agent approach for peer-to-peer based information retrieval system. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 1. 456--463.Ming Zhong. 2006. Popularity-biased random walks for peer-to-peer search under the square-root principle. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems

    Entepreneurial and innovative competences, are they the same?

    Full text link
    This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Purpose - This paper aims to study competencies between two groups of professionals: employees in innovative companies and entrepreneurs. Therefore the following questions arise: Are these two types of competences the same? Do innovative companies demand an entrepreneurial profile? Are entrepreneurs' companies spontaneously innovative? Design/methodology/approach - This paper analyses personal competences in two different groups of professionals. On one hand the authors work the common characteristics among successful entrepreneurs; on the other, they study the competences that innovative companies demand of their employees. The authors study if there is an overlap between both types of competences, considering that the areas in common may represent a training opportunity for both the entrepreneurs and organizations seeking innovation. Findings - The authors find that innovative organizations value six characteristics in their employees, which are related to entrepreneurs' characteristics and describe individuals within the organization that are able to work in teams, are committed to their work, seek information and new opportunities, and are able to take risks in innovative ventures. However, there are characteristics that entrepreneurs have and that organizations that want to be innovative are not seeking. If employees had these characteristics, they would allow them to be persistent despite difficulties. Finally, the authors find that there is a competence that innovative organizations need but entrepreneurs may not have, which is having previous experience in the field. Originality/value - The paper shows that the individual competencies that characterize the entrepreneur are also found in innovative organizations.Santandreu Mascarell, C.; Garzón Benítez, MD.; Knorr, H. (2013). Entepreneurial and innovative competences, are they the same?. Management Decision. 51(5):1084-1095. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2012-0792S10841095515Becherer, R.C. and Maurer, J.G. (1999), “The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents”,Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 28‐36.Bergh, P., Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs learning together: The importance of building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 17-37. doi:10.1007/s11365-009-0120-9Bunk, G.P. (1994), “Teaching competence in initial and continuing vocational training in the Federal Republic of Germany”,Vocational Training European Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 8‐14.Canina, L., Palacios, D., & Devece, C. (2010). Management theories linking individual and organizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 271-284. doi:10.1007/s11365-010-0166-8CHIESA, V. (1996). Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2), 105-136. doi:10.1016/0737-6782(95)00109-3Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417. doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(02)00060-5Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), “Defining entrepreneurship”,Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45‐61.Garzón, M. D. (2009). A comparison of personal entrepreneurial competences between entrepreneurs and CEOs in service sector. Service Business, 4(3-4), 289-303. doi:10.1007/s11628-009-0090-6Glaser, B. (2002), “Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory”,International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 1 No. 2, available at: www.ualberta.ca/∼ijqm/.Evans, D., & Volery, T. (2001). Online business development services for entrepreneurs: an exploratory study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(4), 333-350. doi:10.1080/08985620110052274Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D. and Weaver, K.M. (2002), “Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: a multi‐country analysis”,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 71‐95.McClelland, D.C. (1962), “Business drive and national achievement”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 99‐112.McClelland, D. C. (1965). N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 389-392. doi:10.1037/h0021956Marin‐Garcia, J.A., García‐Sabater, J.P. and Canós‐Darós, L. (2010), “Industrial engineering and the design of new European degrees”,Dirección y Organización, Vol. 40, pp. 35‐43.Marin-Garcia, J. A., Garcia-Sabater, J. P., Perello-Marin, M. R., & Canos-Daros, L. (2009). Proposal of skills for the bachelor degree of Industrial Engineering in the context of the new curriculum. Intangible Capital, 5(4). doi:10.3926/ic.2009.v5n4.p387-406Murillo, D., & Lozano, J. M. (2006). SMEs and CSR: An Approach to CSR in their Own Words. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 227-240. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9181-7Nielsen, S. L., & Lassen, A. H. (2011). Identity in entrepreneurship effectuation theory: a supplementary framework. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 373-389. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0180-5Nissan, E., Galindo Martín, M.-Á., & Méndez Picazo, M.-T. (2011). Relationship between organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 311-324. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0191-2Nonaka, I. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1-20. doi:10.1093/icc/9.1.1Ortt, J. R., & Smits, R. (2006). Innovation management: different approaches to cope with the same trends. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3/4), 296. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2006.009461Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “La Gestión del Intelecto Profesional: Sacar el Máximo de los Mejores”,Harvard Deusto Business Review, Vol. 75, Noviembre‐Diciembre, pp. 4‐17.Rothwell, R. (1992). Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22(3), 221-240. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1992.tb00812.xSantandreu-Mascarell, C., Canós-Darós, L., & Pons-Morera, C. (2011). Competencies and skills for future Industrial Engineers defined in Spanish degrees. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(1). doi:10.3926/jiem.2011.v4n1.p13-30Souitaris, V. (2002). Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation. Research Policy, 31(6), 877-898. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00154-8ZHOU, Y., MINSHALL, T., & HAMPDEN-TURNER, C. (2010). BUILDING INNOVATION CAPABILITIES: AN INQUIRY INTO THE DYNAMIC GROWTH PROCESS OF UNIVERSITY SPIN-OUTS IN CHINA. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 07(03), 273-302. doi:10.1142/s0219877010002082Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. L. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship in Switzerland: evidence from a case study of Swiss watch manufacturers. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 355-372. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0179-yVan Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9074-xVerhees, F. J. H. M., & Meulenberg, M. T. G. (2004). Market Orientation, Innovativeness, Product Innovation, and Performance in Small Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 134-154. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627x.2004.00102.xZhou, Y., Minshall, T., & Turner, C. H. (2010). Entrepreneurial innovation problems associated with the dynamic growth of university spin-outs in China: a capabilities perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12(3/4), 330. doi:10.1504/ijeim.2010.035087Zortea-Johnston, E., Darroch, J., & Matear, S. (2011). Business orientations and innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(2), 145-164. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0170-7Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., & Perren, L. (1998). Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review. Technovation, 18(1), 39-55. doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(97)00102-8Laforet, S., & Tann, J. (2006). Innovative characteristics of small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(3), 363-380. doi:10.1108/14626000610680253Leiponen, A. (2005). Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5-6), 303-323. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.03.005Mohnen, P., & Röller, L.-H. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431-1450. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2003.12.00

    Keiretsu a spadek konkurencyjności gospodarki japońskiej

    Get PDF
    Zdigitalizowano i udostępniono w ramach projektu pn. Rozbudowa otwartych zasobów naukowych Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, dofinansowanego z programu „Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki” Ministra Edukacji i Nauki na podstawie umowy SONB/SP/512497/2021.Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Wydział EkonomicznyBeanson D., James J., The Political Economy of Japanese Financial Markets. Myths versus Reality, Macmillan Press, London 1999.Berger P.L., Rewolucja kapitalistyczna, Oficyna Naukowa, Warszawa 1995 .Bierglof E., Perotti E., The Governance Structure of the Japanese Financial Keiretsu,"Journal of Financial Economics" 1994, No 39.Bossak J., Społeczno-ekonomiczne uwarunkowania międzynarodowej zdolności konkurencyjnej gospodarki Japonii, Monografie i Opracowania nr 153, SGPiS ,Warszawa 1984.Bossak J., Japonia. Strategia rozwoju w punkcie zwrotnym, PWE, Warszawa 1990.Bremner B., Thornton E., Kunii I.M., Fall of a Keiretsu, "Business Week" March 15 1999.Castelss M., End of Millenium, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford 2000.Deresky H., International Management. Managing Across Borders and Cultures, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 2000.Development Bank of Japan, Resent Trends in the Japanese Economy: Globalization and the Japanese Economy, Tokyo 2002.Dewenter K., Novaes W., Pettway R.H., Visibility versus Complexity in Business Groups: Evidence from Japanese Keiretsu, "The Journal of Business" 2001, Vol. 72, No 1.Dore R., Taking Japan Seriously. A Confucian Perspective on Leading Econornic Issues, The Athlone Press, London 1987.Dore R., Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism. Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York 2000.Flath D., Japan's Business Groups, [w:] The Japanese Business and Economic System. History and Prospects for the 21st Century, Nakamura M. (ed.), Palgrave, London 2001.Francs P., Japanese Economic Development. Theory and Practice, Routledge, London 1999.Fukuyama F., Zaufanie. Kapitał społeczny a droga do dobrobytu, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1997 .Gerlach M.L., Alliance Capitalism. The Social Organization of Japanese Business, University of California Press, Berkely 1992.Gittelman M., Graham E., The Performance and Structure of Japanese Affilates in the European Community, [w:] Does Ownership Matter? Japanese Multinationals in Europe, Mason M., Encarnation D. (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 1994.Goto A., Odagiri H., Innovation in Japan, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997.Grabowiecki J., Japonia. Powojenna dynamika i równowaga gospodarcza, Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa 2000.Grabowiecki J., Keiretsu - organizacja. mechanizm funkcjonowania oraz kierunki zmian japońskich grup kapitałowo-przemysłowych, „Ekonomista", 1/2002.Hall J.W., Japonia, PIW, Warszawa 1979.Hampden-Turner Ch., Trompenaars A., Siedem kultur kapitalizmu. USA, Japonia, Niemcy, Francja, Wielka Brytania, Szwecja, Holandia, Dom Wydawniczy ABC, Warszawa 1998.Hemmert M., Oberlander Ch., Technology and Innovation in Japan, Routledge, London 1998.Hsu R.C., The MIT Encyclopedia of Japanese Economy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London 1994.Ikeda M., Charakterystyczne cechy i warunki rozwoju małych przedsiębiorstw, [w:] Sekret japońskiego sukcesu, Kostowska-Watanabe E. (red.), WP, Warszawa 1990.Ishi H., The Role of Government in the Postwar Growth Process of Japan, "Journal of Asian Economics" 1999, No 10.Jackowicz K., Procesy konsolidacji i restrukturyzacji działalności japońskich banków, Materiały i Studia, Zeszyt nr 123, NBP, Warszawa 2001.Japan 2001. An International Comparison. Keizai Koho Center, Tokyo 2001.Japan 2002. A n International Comparison. Keizai Koho Center, Tokyo 2002.Kamiyama K., Asian Operations of Representative Japanese Multinationals. Toyota Motor Corporation, [w:] The Japanese Production System. Hybrid Factories in East Asia, Itagi H. (ed.), Macmillan Press, London 1997.Keegan W.J., Green M.C., Global Marketing, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey 1999.Kensy R., Keiretsu Economy - New Economy? Japan's Multinational Enterprises from a Postmodern Perspective, Palgrave, New York 2001.Landes D.S., Bogactwo i nędza narodów, Warszawskie Wydawnictwo Literackie MUZA SA, Warszawa 2000.Maison M., Encarnation D., Japanese Multinationals in Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994.Majewski J., Konsolidacja japońskich banków IBoJ, DIKB i Fuji, „Rynek Kapitałowy" 1999, nr 11.Majewski J., Uwarunkowania rozwoju gospodarczego Japonii, Prace i Materiały nr 234, IGŚ SGH, Warszawa 2002.McMillan, Ch. J., The Japanese Industrial System, Walter de Gruyter, New York 1996.METI, White Paper of International Trade 2002 Japan, Tokyo 2002.Młodawska J., Japonia. Państwo a sektor prywatny, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1999.Morishima M., Why has Japan Succeeded? Western Technology and the Japanese Ethos, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996.Morishima M., Japan at a Deadlock, Macmillan Press, London 2000.Nakamura T., The Postwar Japanese Economy. Its Development and Structure, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo 1988.Nippon 2000. Business Facts & Figures, JETRO, Tokyo 2000.OECD A New Economy. The Changing Role of Innovation and Information Technology in Growth, Paris 2000.OECD Economic Surveys of Japan, Paris, (różne lata).OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris 2000.OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris 2001.OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris 2002.Ozawa T., The "Hidden" Side of the "Flying-Geese" Catch-up Model: Japan's dirigiste Institutional Setup and a Deepening Financial Morass, "Journal of Asian Economics" 2001, Vol. 12.Porter M.E., Takeuchi H., Sakaibabra M., Can Japan Compete?, Macmillan Press, London 2000.Romanowski G., Niesekwencyjny rozwój gospodarczy oparty na imporcie technologii. Analiza teoretyczna oraz empiryczna (na przykładzie Japonii w latach 1950-1970), Wydawnictwo UŁ, Łódź 1999.Sachs J.D., Larrin F., Macroeconomics in the Global Economy, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1993.Sako M., Sato H. (eds.), Japanese Labour and Management in Transition, Routledge, London and New York 1997.Sjoberg O., Soderberg M., The Sogo Shosha: Finding a New Role?, [w:] Japan's New Economy. Continuity and Change in the Twenty-First Century, Blomstrom M., Gangners B., La Croix S. (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York 2001.Southwick J.D., Addressing Market Access Barriers in Japan through the WTO: A survey of Typical Japan Market Access Issues and the Possibility to Address them through WTO Dispute Resolution Procedures; "Law and Policy in International Business" 2000, Vol. 31, No 3."The Economist" 27.01.2001."The Economist", 4.08.2001.Tsuru S., Japan's Capitalism. Creative Defeat and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993.Tsurumi K., Social Change and the Individual. Japan before and after Defeat in World War II, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1970.Tubielewicz J., Historia Japonii, Ossolineum, Wrocław 1984.White Papers of Japan 1992-1993, The Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo 1993.Why Did Japan Stumble? Causes and Cures, Freedman C. (ed.), Edward EIgar Publishing, Northampton 1999.Witkowski J., Logistyka firm japońskich, Wydawnictwo AE, Wrocław 1998.Yamamura K., The Founding of Mitsubishi: A Case Study in Japanese Business History, "Business History Review" 1967, Vol. XLI, No 2.Yonekura S., The Emergence of the Prototype of Enterprise Group Capitalism - The Case of Mitsui, "Hitotsubashi Journal of Commerce and Management" 1985, Vol. 20, No 1.Zhang W., Confucianism and Modernization. Industrialization and Democratization of the Confucian Regions, Macmillan Press, London 1999.18421

    A New Institutional Analysis of IFRS Adoption in Egypt: A Case Study of Loosely Coupled Rules and Routines

    Get PDF
    This paper examines the symbolic use of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in an Egyptian state-owned company (AQF Co.) that is partially privatised by drawing on new institutional sociology and its extensions. It explains how the ceremonial use of IFRS is shaped by the interplay between institutionalised accounting practices, conflicting institutions, power relations and the use of IT to institutionalizing accounting rules and routines. The research methodology is based on using an intensive case study. Data were collected from multiple sources, including unstructured and semi-structured interviews, direct and participative observations, discussions and documentary analysis. The findings revealed that the company faced conflicting institutional demands from outside. The Central Agency for Accountancy required the company to use the Uniform Accounting System (as a state-owned enterprise) and The Egyptian Capital Market Authority required the company to use IFRS (as a partially private sector company registered in the stock exchange). To meet these conflicting institutional demands, the company adopted loosely coupled accounting rules and routines and IT was used to institutionalizing existing Uniform Accounting System and preserving the status quo

    Knowledge Sharing and the Psychological Contract: Managing Knowledge Workers across Different Stages of Employment

    Get PDF
    Purpose – An employee’s willingness to share knowledge may be contingent on whether the organization equitably fulfills its reward obligations. This paper seeks to examine how managers and organizations can be vehicles for managing psychological contract perceptions favoring knowledge sharing among current employees, newcomers, and applicants. Design/methodology/approach – The authors propose an integrative model to discuss psychological contract issues within each stage of employment and HRM initiatives that can encourage knowledge-sharing behaviors. Findings – The implicit psychological contracts that often influence knowledge worker attitudes for sharing knowledge are easy to overlook and challenging to manage. Managers must properly assess the nature of psychological contracts maintained by such workers so that knowledge-sharing messages address employees’ key motivators. Different psychological contracts exist at various stages of employment. Several prescriptions for effectively managing each type of psychological contract and reducing perceptions of PC breach were offered. Research limitations/implications – Empirical studies should seek to investigate whether different psychological contracts actually exist within a field setting. In addition, how workers move between transitional, transactional, balanced and relational psychological contracts should be empirically examined. Originality/value – The authors sought to better understand the different psychological contract perceptions of knowledge workers at various stages of employment, which has not been done to date. Such workers are keenly aware of the impact of their knowledge and effective management for sharing rather than hoarding becomes a critical success factor for knowledge-intensive organizations
    corecore