1,092,578 research outputs found

    Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures

    Get PDF
    In this updated edition of the well-established practitioner text, Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng have brought together a team of experts in the field to provide an exhaustive treatment of electronic evidence and electronic signatures. This fifth edition continues to follow the tradition in English evidence text books by basing the text on the law of England and Wales, with appropriate citations of relevant case law and legislation from other jurisdictions. Stephen Mason (of the Middle Temple, Barrister) is a leading authority on electronic evidence and electronic signatures, having advised global corporations and governments on these topics. He is also the editor of International Electronic Evidence (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2008), and he founded the innovative international open access journal Digital Evidence and Electronic Signatures Law Review in 2004. Daniel Seng (Associate Professor, National University of Singapore) is the Director of the Centre for Technology, Robotics, AI and the Law (TRAIL). He teaches and researches information technology law and evidence law. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. He is also an active consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organization, where he has researched, delivered papers and published monographs on copyright exceptions for academic institutions, music copyright in the Asia Pacific and the liability of Internet intermediaries

    Introduction

    Get PDF
    Intellectual property law is one of the fastest growing fields of law worldwide. This unprecedented, rapid evolution and the accompanying massive upsurge in the use of the intellectual property system had four main triggers-- the advent of the Internet (to many, the heart of the digital revolution); unprecedented advances in science and technology; the emergence of intangible assets, such as knowledge, information and innovation, as the main drivers of economic development; and the growing interdependence of nations resulting from the internationalization of commerce. Of these, the digital revolution alone has had a profound effect on all aspects of the creation, protection, and use of intellectual property. Trillions of dollars are forecast to change hands in electronic commerce transactions, most of which have an intellectual property component, spotlighting the key contribution of intellectual property law in securing the commercial viability of innumerable industries, employing millions of people and generating revenues essential to the economic well-being of Nations. The increasing prominence of intellectual property considerations in this, and many other areas, has given additional weight to the recognition by economists that the way in which a Nation uses intellectual property to capture the value of the creativity and innovation of its people and convert it into concrete economic assets, is part of the answer to the riddle of why some countries prosper while others do not. In a world marked by huge material disparities, intellectual property is a means by which individuals, companies of all sizes, universities and other research institutions, and economies at the local, national, and regional levels can empower themselves to compete more effectively in the international marketplace. Wielded in the correct way, intellectual property can be used as an effective power tool to help build sustainable economic growth. These factors have not only propelled intellectual property to the forefront of policy-making circles generally, but they have forced the intellectual property law community to re-think established paradigms. The debate and discussion that flow from publications such as the Fordham International Law Journal and its series of issues-related books are the seedbed for new ideas and approaches that are indispensable in ensuring that the intellectual property system continues to grow and adapt in a way that fosters the creativity and innovation that is the springboard of economic growth and social well-being, while serving the public good within a rapidly changing technological environment

    Effects of AL-MIAP-based Learning Management to Promote Digital Intelligence for Undergraduate Students

    Full text link
    [EN] This paper has two main aims: the first is to study pre- and post- leaning achievement utilizing AL MIAP to promote copyright digital intelligence for Suan Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University undergraduate students; and the three is to investigate the appropriateness of leaning management adopting an AL MIAP leaning model to promote the students’ digital intelligence. An AL MIAP learning model was utilized in the processes to promote five digital intelligence skills, i.e. respecting copyright, prevention, checking before sharing, threat awareness and using safely. Fifty-eight Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University  undergraduate students in the three year enrolled in the introduction to digital economy course and were selected in a sample group. The tools were: Kahoot!, Google Forms, content network chart, pre- and post-test, digital media copyright test and the AL MIAP learning model. Percentage, mean, S.D, and T-test were applied in the research. The study revealed that the post-learning achievement was better that the pre-learning achievement with statistical significance at 0.01; the students gained total scores of 17.06, which was 7.16 points higher than the pre-learning scores, signifying that their digital intelligence skills were better. As for AL MIAP leaning model, it revealed that this model was appropriate at the highest level.  We would like to express our gratitude to the Office of General Education and Innovative Electronic Learning, Information Science program, Humanities and Social Science, SSRU and Vocational and Technical Education, Science and Technology Research Institute, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok to extent their support for this study.Phunaploy, S.; Nilsook, P.; Nookhong, J. (2021). Effects of AL-MIAP-based Learning Management to Promote Digital Intelligence for Undergraduate Students. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences. 8(1):13-29. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2021.14048OJS132981Alanazi, H. M. N. (2020). The Effects of Active Recreational Math Games on Math Anxiety and Performance in Primary School Children: An Experimental Study. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 7(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12622Aparicio, F., Morales-Botello, M. L., Rubio, M., Hernando, A., Muñoz, R., López-Fernández, H., … Buenaga, M. de. (2018). Perceptions of the use of intelligent information access systems in university level active learning activities among teachers of biomedical subjects. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 112(May 2017), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.12.016Berlinski, S., & Busso, M. (2017). Challenges in educational reform: An experiment on active learning in mathematics. Economics Letters, 156, 172-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.05.007Brian Chen, C. C., Kathy Huang, C. C., Gribbins, M., & Swan, K. (2018). Gamify online courses with tools built into your learning management system (Lms) to enhance self-determined and active learning. Online Learning Journal, 22(3), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1466Budoya, C. M., Kissake, M., & Mtebe, J. (2019). Instructional Design Enabled Agile Method Using ADDIE Model and Feature Driven Development Method. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), 35.Chuangprakhon, S., Santaveesuk, P., & Nilsook, P. (2018). A Model of Distance Learning for Music Art of Higher Education in Thailand. Technical Education Journal King Mongkut's Universily of Technology North Bangkok., 19(3), 39-46.Costa, C. J., Aparicio, M., & Raposo, J. (2020). Determinants of the management learning performance in ERP context. Heliyon, 6(4), e03689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03689Dostál, J., Wang, X., Steingartner, W., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2017). Digital Intelligence - New Concept in Context of Future of School Education. ICERI2017 Proceedings, 1(November), 3706-3712. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2017.0997Duin, A. H., & Tham, J. (2020). The Current State of Analytics: Implications for Learning Management System (LMS) Use in Writing Pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 55, 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102544Elfeky, A. I. M., Masadeh, T. S. Y., & Elbyaly, M. Y. H. (2020). Advance organizers in flipped classroom via e-learning management system and the promotion of integrated science process skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35(November 2019), 100622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100622Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150(September 2019), 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791Feldman, R., Ewing, T., & Jeruss, S. (2013). UCLA Journal of Law & Technology. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 21(1), 1-82.Frost, R. D., Matta, V., & MacIvor, E. (2015). Assessing the efficacy of incorporating game dynamics in a learning management system. Journal of Information Systems Education, 26(1), 59-70.Ge, S. S., Guerra, T. M., Lewis, F. L., Principe, J. C., & Colnarič, M. (2014). Computational Intelligence in Control António E Ruano 1. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 47(3), 8867-8878. https://doi.org/10.3182/20140824-6-za-1003.01164Gómez-Ejerique, C., & López-Cantos, F. (2019). Application of innovative teaching-learning methodologies in the classroom. Coaching, flipped-classroom and gamification. A case study of success. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 6(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2019.9959Kaeophanuek, S., Na-songkhla, J., & Nilsook, P. (2019). A Learning Process Model to Enhance Digital Literacy using Critical Inquiry through Digital Storytelling. IJET International Journal Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.8326Khotmanee, W., Kaeotasaeng, W., & Akatimagool, S. (n.d.). Asia - Pacific Journal of Science and Technology model ; a case study of basic antenna design. 1-8.Leela, S, Chookkaew, S. & Nilsuk, P. (2019). Development of a model for managing micro-learning with live books that promote computational thinkin. National Academic Conference. Academic Information Science, 8.Lerdrungporn, P., Wattananarong, K., & Wiriyanon, T. (2017). The Development of Learning Management System for Tablets. Technical Education Journal King Mongkut's Universily of Technology North Bangkok., 3(1), 78-86.Llantos, O. E., & Estuar, M. R. J. E. (2019). Characterizing instructional leader interactions in a social learning management system using social network analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 160(2018), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.455Media., O. of H. P. F. A. the C. and Y. M. P. F. I. of J. (2018). Digital intelligence. Retrieved from http://cclickthailand.com/contents/general/dq3.pdfMoreira, F., Ferreira, M. J., & Seruca, I. (2018). Enterprise 4.0 - The emerging digital transformed enterprise? Procedia Computer Science, 138, 525-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.072National Council for Higher Education, Science, R. and I. P. C. A. the O. of the S. P. B. R. and innovation. (2019). Policy and strategy for higher education, science, research and innovation 2020 - 2027 and science plans Research and Innovation. Retrieved from A Learning Process Model to Enhance Digital Literacy using Critical Inquiry through Digital StorytellingPerry, M. (2016). Global governance of intellectual property in the 21st century: Reflecting policy through change. In Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century: Reflecting Policy Through Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7Phutthikun, S. (2015). Quality of Students Derived From Active Learning Process. Journal of Educational Services. Burapha University, 6(2), 1-13.Samuelson, P. (2017). Strategies for discerning the boundaries of copyright & patent protections. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(4), 1493-1538.Stiakakis, E., Liapis, Y., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2019). Developing an Understanding of Digital Intelligence As a Prerequisite of Digital Competence. The 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), 1-14.Thanachawengsakul, N., & Jeerungsuwan, N. (2019). INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL OF MIAP ON CLOUD COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE 21st CENTURY LEARNING SKILLS. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 20(4), 58-69.Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H. D., & Isotani, S. 1007_97.-3-319-97934-2_9. bibij. (2018). Higher Education for All. From Challenges to Novel Technology-Enhanced Solutions. HEFA 2017: Higher Education for All. From Challenges to Novel Technology-Enhanced Solutions, Communicat(August), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97934-

    Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures

    Get PDF
    In this updated edition of the well-established practitioner text, Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng have brought together a team of experts in the field to provide an exhaustive treatment of electronic evidence and electronic signatures. This fifth edition continues to follow the tradition in English evidence text books by basing the text on the law of England and Wales, with appropriate citations of relevant case law and legislation from other jurisdictions. Stephen Mason (of the Middle Temple, Barrister) is a leading authority on electronic evidence and electronic signatures, having advised global corporations and governments on these topics. He is also the editor of International Electronic Evidence, and he founded the innovative international open access journal Digital Evidence and Electronic Signatures Law Review in 2004. Daniel Seng (Associate Professor, National University of Singapore) is the Director of the Centre for Technology, Robotics, AI and the Law (TRAIL). He teaches and researches information technology law and evidence law. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. He is also an active consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organization, where he has researched, delivered papers and published monographs on copyright exceptions for academic institutions, music copyright in the Asia Pacific and the liability of Internet intermediaries

    Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: a new scenario for destination management?

    Get PDF
    [EN] The impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on tourism and their foreseeable future evolution seem to be shaping a new scenario for destination management. This new context has given rise to the need for new management models. One of these models is the emerging smart tourism destination (STD), although it requires greater conceptual precision in order to become a new paradigm for destination management. This paper proposes a systemic model for STDs which facilitates the interpretation of the role of ICTs in the management of tourism destinations. Accordingly, the Delphi technique has been applied so as to determine the opinion of experts regarding the feasibility of the STD approach, its advantages and limitations and also the size of the impact of ICTs on the management and marketing of tourism destinations. This prospective exercise highlights the intensification of the impact of ICTs over the coming years which will shape a new scenario for management characterised by technology and data management. However, the efficiency of the STD approach will not depend exclusively only on technology but also on an appropriate governance of the destination that systematically incorporates the three levels of the STD, namely the strategic¿relational, instrumental and applied levels.This research has been carried out within the framework of the project "New approaches for tourism destinations planning and management: conceptualization, case studies and problems. Definition of smart tourist destinations models" (CSO2014-59193-R) under the Spanish National R&D&I Plan financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.Ivars-Baidal, JA.; Celdrán-Bernabeu, MA.; Mazón, JN.; Perles Ivars, A. (2019). Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: a new scenario for destination management?. Current Issues in Tourism (Online). 22(13):1581-1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1388771S158116002213Benckendorff, P. J., Sheldon, P. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (Eds.). (2014). Tourism information technology. doi:10.1079/9781780641850.0000BERGER, S., LEHMANN, H., & LEHNER, F. (2003). LOCATION-BASED SERVICES IN THE TOURIST INDUSTRY. Information Technology & Tourism, 5(4), 243-256. doi:10.3727/109830503108751171Boes, K., Buhalis, D., & Inversini, A. (2014). Conceptualising Smart Tourism Destination Dimensions. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, 391-403. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_29Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart Tourism Destinations Enhancing Tourism Experience Through Personalisation of Services. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015, 377-389. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_28Buhalis, D., & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co-creation of value. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 151-161. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.001Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609-623. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005Buhalis, D., & Matloka, J. (2013). 24. Technology-enabled Tourism Destination Management and Marketing. Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation, 339-350. doi:10.21832/9781845414122-028Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. (2012). Smartness and European urban performance: assessing the local impacts of smart urban attributes. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 97-113. doi:10.1080/13511610.2012.660323Cetin, G., Aydogan Cifci, M., Istanbullu Dincer, F., & Fuchs, M. (2016). Coping with reintermediation: the case of SMHEs. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(4), 375-392. doi:10.1007/s40558-016-0063-2Chung, N., & Koo, C. (2015). The use of social media in travel information search. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 215-229. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.08.005Cole, Z. D., Donohoe, H. M., & Stellefson, M. L. (2013). Internet-Based Delphi Research: Case Based Discussion. Environmental Management, 51(3), 511-523. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-0005-5Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 145-150. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R. D. (2009). Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(5), 415-437. doi:10.1002/jtr.709Fuchs, M., Höpken, W., & Lexhagen, M. (2014). Big data analytics for knowledge generation in tourism destinations – A case from Sweden. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(4), 198-209. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2014.08.002Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 682-708. doi:10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00094-8Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: foundations and developments. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 179-188. doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0196-8Gretzel, U. (2011). Intelligent systems in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 757-779. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.04.014Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for understanding smart tourism ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 558-563. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.043Gretzel, U., Yuan, Y.-L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). Preparing for the New Economy: Advertising Strategies and Change in Destination Marketing Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 146-156. doi:10.1177/004728750003900204Hall, M. C. (2008). Tourism and Innovation. doi:10.4324/9780203938430Hjalager, A.-M. (2013). 100 Innovations That Transformed Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 3-21. doi:10.1177/0047287513516390Ivars Baidal, J. A., Solsona Monzonís, F. J., & Giner Sánchez, D. (2016). Gestión turística y tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC): El nuevo enfoque de los destinos inteligentes. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 62(2), 327. doi:10.5565/rev/dag.285Jolly, D., & Dimanche, F. (2009). Investing in technology for tourism activities: Perspectives and challenges. Technovation, 29(9), 576-579. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.004Jovicic, D. Z. (2016). Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism destinations. Tourism Geographies, 18(4), 445-457. doi:10.1080/14616688.2016.1183144Kanama, D., Kondo, A., & Yokoo, Y. (2008). Development of technology foresight: integration of technology roadmapping and the Delphi method. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 4(2), 184. doi:10.1504/ijtip.2008.018316Kitchin, R. (2014). Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 131-136. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu027Law, R., Buhalis, D., & Cobanoglu, C. (2014). Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(5), 727-750. doi:10.1108/ijchm-08-2013-0367Li, Y., Hu, C., Huang, C., & Duan, L. (2017). The concept of smart tourism in the context of tourism information services. Tourism Management, 58, 293-300. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.014March, H., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2016). Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a Self-sufficient city. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 816-830. doi:10.1177/0969776414554488Munar, A. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2014). Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social media. Tourism Management, 43, 46-54. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.012Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 36-46. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.08.001NIININEN, O. (2006). Consumer Centric Tourism Marketing. Tourism Management Dynamics, 175-186. doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-6378-6.50029-9Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002Saraniemi, S., & Kylänen, M. (2010). Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An Analysis of Different Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 133-143. doi:10.1177/0047287510362775Wang, X., Li, X. (Robert), Zhen, F., & Zhang, J. (2016). How smart is your tourist attraction?: Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tourism Management, 54, 309-320. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.00

    Editorial

    Get PDF
    Social sciences and technology have an essential role in formation of society. Through social sciences one can understand what society needs and how these needs can be provided. Also, social sciences provide knowledge that address social demands, and possible solutions for problems of the society. The use of technology is obvious in all spheres of society and driving changes in daily life. Research in Social Sciences and Technology (RESSAT) journal emerges within this context and provides a scholarly platform to bring together articles related to social sciences and technology. As an international peer-reviewed journal, RESSAT will seek to publish articles that draws on the anthropology, archaeology, criminology, education, economics, geography, history, information and communications technology (ICT), law, linguistics, religion, political science, psychology, and sociology. With great pleasure we welcome all authors involved in improving research in social sciences and technology. RESSAT can be distinguished from other journals available in social sciences by its inter-disciplinary focus and its priority on the use of technology in social sciences. RESSAT provides an academic platform for authors to publish empirical studies together with discussion of conceptual and methodological issues of relevance to social sciences and technology

    Editorial

    Get PDF
    Social sciences and technology have an essential role in formation of society. Through social sciences one can understand what society needs and how these needs can be provided. Also, social sciences provide knowledge that address social demands, and possible solutions for problems of the society. The use of technology is obvious in all spheres of society and driving changes in daily life. Research in Social Sciences and Technology (RESSAT) journal emerges within this context and provides a scholarly platform to bring together articles related to social sciences and technology. As an international peer-reviewed journal, RESSAT will seek to publish articles that draws on the anthropology, archaeology, criminology, education, economics, geography, history, information and communications technology (ICT), law, linguistics, religion, political science, psychology, and sociology. With great pleasure we welcome all authors involved in improving research in social sciences and technology. RESSAT can be distinguished from other journals available in social sciences by its inter-disciplinary focus and its priority on the use of technology in social sciences. RESSAT provides an academic platform for authors to publish empirical studies together with discussion of conceptual and methodological issues of relevance to social sciences and technology

    Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers

    Full text link
    [EN] Nowadays, collaborative knowledge management (CKM) is well accepted as a decisive asset in the field of networked enterprises and supply chains. However, few knowledge management initiatives have been performed successfully because, in most cases, the barriers that hinder the CKM process are unknown and misunderstood. Currently, the research reveals different uni- and bi-dimensional barriers' classifications, however multi-dimensional approaches provide a better view of the complexity in the area of CKM. Therefore, this paper proposes the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers taking into account: (i) perspectives; (ii) levels and (iii) barriers blocks to provide a reference way to audit the CKM barriers, and thus, in further research, focus on the corrections and adjustments to guarantee the success while implementing a CKM project.Sanchis, R.; Sanchis Gisbert, MR.; Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers. Sustainability. 12(3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031279S125123Rajabion, L., Sataei Mokhtari, A., Khordehbinan, M. W., Zare, M., & Hassani, A. (2019). The role of knowledge sharing in supply chain success. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1222-1249. doi:10.1108/jedt-03-2019-0052Sanguankaew, P., & Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2019). Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018. Sustainability, 11(16), 4388. doi:10.3390/su11164388Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e‐government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548-567. doi:10.1108/17410390510624007Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746Yih‐Tong Sun, P., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. doi:10.1108/13673270510590236Solli-Sæther, H., Karlsen, J. T., & van Oorschot, K. (2015). Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 49-60. doi:10.1002/pmj.21501Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2019). Knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organisations: Understanding its benefits, processes, infrastructure and barriers. SA Journal of Information Management, 21(1). doi:10.4102/sajim.v21i1.990Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253-263. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. (2001). Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045672Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2006). Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts, frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500103Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93-109. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131Brandt, D., & Hartmann, E. (1999). Editorial: Research topics and strategies in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9(3), 241-243. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6564(199922)9:33.0.co;2-bKim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.xArgote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.2.140Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292. doi:10.1002/job.2104Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209-227. doi:10.1177/0021886391272004Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response. California Management Review, 39(1), 28-52. doi:10.2307/41165875Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. doi:10.1086/210179Maitlo, A., Ameen, N., Peikari, H. R., & Shah, M. (2019). Preventing identity theft. Information Technology & People, 32(5), 1184-1214. doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0255Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M., & Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00142-7Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160. doi:10.1108/13673270910971897Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61. doi:10.1108/13673270410541033Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing for Requirement Engineeringhttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/28916Practical Tools and Methods for Corporate Knowledge Management—Sharing and Capitalising Engineering Know-How in the Concurrent Enterprisehttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-1999-12685Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.002Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154. doi:10.1108/14601061111124867Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2010). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1-2), 128-142. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.006McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. (2000). An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: the case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(99)00031-0Ilvonen, I., & Vuori, V. (2013). Risks and benefits of knowledge sharing in co-opetitive knowledge networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(3), 209. doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2013.063049Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2012). R&D Outsourcing and the Effectiveness of Intangible Investments: Is Proprietary Core Knowledge Walking out of the Door? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 67-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01086.xROSEN, B., FURST, S., & BLACKBURN, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.007Hislop, D. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244-252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500073Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2005). A culturally aware model of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 146-155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500064Balle, A. R., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2019). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in a science and technology park: the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016-2038. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2018-0328Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286-295. doi:10.1108/02635570410530702Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138-148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095Solitander, M., & Tidström, A. (2010). Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating networks. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/14691931011013316Khamseh, H. M., & Jolly, D. (2014). Knowledge transfer in alliances: the moderating role of the alliance type. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 409-420. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.63Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.25Salvetat, D., Géraudel, M., & d’ Armagnac, S. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge management in a coopetitive context in the aeronautic and space industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 265-277. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.6Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547-587. doi:10.1002/job.259Korbi, F. B., & Chouki, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: the key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1272-1291. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0501Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2001). Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372-388. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. doi:10.1177/002224298805200303Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The «real» success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9Santos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1), 27-38. doi:10.1002/kpm.1379Tiwari, S. R. (2015). Knowledge Integration in Government-Industry Project Network. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 11-21. doi:10.1002/kpm.1460Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81-94. doi:10.1002/kpm.275Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541-554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123-144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00290.xKatz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.xGupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:43.0.co;2-iBarkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845-864. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490122Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2010). The Impact of Organizational and National Cultural Differences on Social Conflict and Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00975.xRichards, D., Busch, P., & Venkitachalam, K. (2007). Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 173-185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500145Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (s. f.). Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, 44-67. doi:10.4135/9781446217573.n3Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2010). Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(3), 229-239. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.14Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2015). Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, 42(4), 539-550. doi:10.1177/0165551515598883Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Bing Wu, & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103-111. doi:10.1109/52.795108Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework. The Information Society, 18(1), 47-64. doi:10.1080/01972240252818225Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.016Sieber, J. E. (1988). Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 199-206. doi:10.1007/bf01073128Pauleen, D. J., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2017). Does big data mean big knowledge? KM perspectives on big data and analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 1-6. doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2016-033
    corecore