From Frege to direct reference: Value assigned logical forms as an explanation of contradictory de re beliefs

The primary concern of this work is the substitution of co-referring names in belief ascriptions. Before an explanation of belief ascriptions is given, the development of direct reference is considered with some advance on the character of proper names. Attention is paid to relevant philosophical developments leading to the espoused view. Frege claimed that there is a distinction between the sense and reference proper names. This is considered as well as what Frege put forward with regards to indirect speech. Then I discuss Kripke's response to Frege, and similar theories. With the descriptive theories of naming considered inadequate, a new account of how names refer is given through Kripke's picture of reference based on reference sharing. Reference sharing is further developed in line with Gareth Evans's name-using practices. Out of the Kripkean picture developed direct reference. Any theory of direct reference is a theory that claims that the semantic content of a directly referential term is simply its referent. David Kaplan gave an account of direct reference using indexicals and demonstratives as a paradigm. His account showed that there are two types of meaning, character and content, where character is the linguistic meaning and content is the semantic meaning of a term. It is shown that Kaplan's distinction is clear for indexicals, but his claim that character and content collapse into reference for proper names is unsatisfactory. A new and more radical account of character is then given for proper names. It is maintained that proper names are directly referential, so the content of a name is its referent, but its character is a function from name-using practice to referent. This account is developed in contrast to the view of Recanati. Direct reference gives a natural explanation of ordinary assertions, but is often considered problematic in belief attributions. Since the semantic content of a name is its referent, co-referring names should be substitutable salva veritate in all sentences. In belief attributions this is counter-intuitive. Kripke's discussion of this puzzle is considered to show that this is a problem for any theory of reference. After considering the problem for a theory of names, pragmatic solutions are considered, particularly the theories of Scott Soames and Nathan Salmon. Soames's view is shown unsatisfactory as it does not explain belief toward singular propositions, and can give the intuitively wrong truth-value for some veridical propositional attitudes. Salmon claims that belief is really a ternary relation between individuals, propositions, and modes of apprehension with propositions. He then claims that speakers cannot express this ternary relation, but "fake it" through pragmatics. This view is rejected in the hope of developing an account of belief that is consistent with direct reference and psychological accounts, but does not require speakers to fake it. In my account different ways of believing a proposition are given in value assigned logical forms. Value assigned logical forms give the metaphysics of belief as a binary relation. Substitution of co-referring terms is possible in belief attributions so long as it does not change the value assigned logical form of the belief attribution. An account is then given which explains behaviour when such contradictory beliefs are rationally held. It is also explained why there is hesitation to make substitutions in belief attributions and why it is more appropriate for speakers to use certain words over others in belief attributions

Business intelligence and contribution of entrepreneurial information architecture

We are witnessing the need for a quick and intelligent reaction from organizations to the level and speed of change in business processes. The arising problems can be: from wrong lasting information; systems not fully used or explored; slow reaction to change; etc. This requires two main confluent action methods: people to synchronize their visions, ideas and strategies in the whole organization; and, in that context, select the information that strictly answers to the performance factors at the right moment. The proposed methodology turns to the potential of approach to the entrepreneurial architecture as well as to the potential of the information system in order to integrate the data and resources needed for that performance. The modeling of an information architecture of the company and its business helps in the identification of critical information, the one which is according to the mission, prospects and business success factors

Business and Information Technology Alignment Measurement -- a recent Literature Review

Since technology has been involved in the business context, Business and Information Technology Alignment (BITA) has been one of the main concerns of IT and Business executives and directors due to its importance to overall company performance, especially today in the age of digital transformation. Several models and frameworks have been developed for BITA implementation and for measuring their level of success, each one with a different approach to this desired state. The BITA measurement is one of the main decision-making tools in the strategic domain of companies. In general, the classical-internal alignment is the most measured domain and the external environment evolution alignment is the least measured. This literature review aims to characterize and analyze current research on BITA measurement with a comprehensive view of the works published over the last 15 years to identify potential gaps and future areas of research in the field.Comment: 12 pages, Preprint version, BIS 2018 International Workshops, Berlin, Germany, July 18 to 20, 2018, Revised Paper

How small and medium enterprises are using social networks? Evidence from the Algarve region

The evolution of internet created new opportunities for small and medium enterprises (SME), among which are social networks. This work aims at analyzing the potential of these networks for the SME in Algarve, creating a questionnaire for the purpose. The empirical study revealed that some firms have already an integrated business strategy with social networks, as well as a group in the firm responsible for it. Most of their managers consider that social networks enhance performance, but few really measure these results. A categorical principal component analysis identified two dimensions of social networks’ use: social networks for product-client interaction and knowledge; and social networks with potential for marketing. A supplementary analysis (hierarchical clustering) identified three patterns of SME’s involvement in social networks: cluster Social Net Level 1, cluster Social Net Level 2 and cluster Social Net Level 3. These groups validated the results described above, indicating a sustainable methodological approach

A methodology for cost-benefit analysis of information security technologies

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Although information security technologies (such as digital rights management products) has been proven effective and successful in protecting the confidentiality of sensitive information by providing access control, these technologies have not been widely adopted and used to their potential. One reason for this could be that cost and benefit of these products have not been analysed in a systematic and quantitative manner to date. As a result, companies do not have an established procedure to evaluate the cost and benefit of implementing these products. In this document, the benefits of implementing a digital rights management product in enterprises are quantified using stochastic Petri nets models and are compared with the security needs of a corporation and potential costs incurred by the implementation process. An evaluating procedure for implementing these products is established. This procedure has the potential to be used to improve the ability of a corporation to make sensible security investment decisions

An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy

Information systems and information technology (IS/IT, hereafter just IT) strategies usually depend on a business strategy. The alignment of both strategies improves their strategic plans. From an external perspective, business and IT alignment is the extent to which the IT strategy enables and drives the business strategy. This article reviews strategic alignment between business and IT, and proposes the use of enterprise engineering (EE) to achieve this alignment. The EE approach facilitates the definition of a formal dialog in the alignment design. In relation to this, new building blocks and life-cycle phases have been defined for their use in an enterprise architecture context. This proposal has been adopted in a critical process of a ceramic tile company for the purpose of aligning a strategic business plan and IT strategy, which are essential to support this process. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.Cuenca, L.; Boza, A.; Ortiz, A. (2011). An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 24(11):974-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.579172S9749922411(1993). CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58064-2Ang, J., Shaw, N., & Pavri, F. (1995). Identifying strategic management information systems planning parameters using case studies. International Journal of Information Management, 15(6), 463-474. doi:10.1016/0268-4012(95)00049-dAvison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223-246. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002Avgerou, & McGrath. (2007). Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living through Socio-Technical Change. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 295. doi:10.2307/25148792Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management, 41(8), 1003-1020. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.10.004Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Schmidt, G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9Bleistein, S. J., Cox, K., Verner, J., & Phalp, K. T. (2006). B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process. Information and Software Technology, 48(9), 846-868. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.12.001Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (1998). The information audit: An integrated strategic approach. International Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 29-47. doi:10.1016/s0268-4012(97)00038-8Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope. International Journal of Information Management, 27(3), 159-172. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.01.002Chen, D., & Vernadat, F. (2004). Standards on enterprise integration and engineering—state of the art. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17(3), 235-253. doi:10.1080/09511920310001607087Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016Chen, H.-M., Kazman, R., & Garg, A. (2005). BITAM: An engineering-principled method for managing misalignments between business and IT architectures. Science of Computer Programming, 57(1), 5-26. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2004.10.002Cuenca, L., Ortiz, A., & Vernadat, F. (2006). From UML or DFD models to CIMOSA partial models and enterprise components. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 19(3), 248-263. doi:10.1080/03081070500065841Davis, G. B. (2000). Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 61-82. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_5Gindy, N., Morcos, M., Cerit, B., & Hodgson, A. (2008). Strategic technology alignment roadmapping STAR® aligning R&D investments with business needs. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(8), 957-970. doi:10.1080/09511920801927148Goethals, F. G., Lemahieu, W., Snoeck, M., & Vandenbulcke, J. A. (2007). The data building blocks of the enterprise architect. Future Generation Computer Systems, 23(2), 269-274. doi:10.1016/j.future.2006.05.004Greefhorst, D., Koning, H., & Vliet, H. van. (2006). The many faces of architectural descriptions. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), 103-113. doi:10.1007/s10796-006-7975-xGregor, S., Hart, D., & Martin, N. (2007). Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government. Information Technology & People, 20(2), 96-120. doi:10.1108/09593840710758031Hartono, E., Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., & Zhuang, Y. (2003). Key predictors of the implementation of strategic information systems plans. ACM SIGMIS Database, 34(3), 41-53. doi:10.1145/937742.937747Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472-484. doi:10.1147/sj.382.0472Hirschheim, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Detours in the Path toward Strategic Information Systems Alignment. California Management Review, 44(1), 87-108. doi:10.2307/41166112Hoogervorst, J. A. P. (2009). Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92671-9Johnson, A. M., & Lederer, A. L. (2010). CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the contribution of IS to the organization. Information & Management, 47(3), 138-149. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.01.002JONKERS, H., LANKHORST, M., VAN BUUREN, R., HOPPENBROUWERS, S., BONSANGUE, M., & VAN DER TORRE, L. (2004). CONCEPTS FOR MODELING ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURES. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(03), 257-287. doi:10.1142/s0218843004000985King, W. R. (1978). Strategic Planning for Management Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 2(1), 27. doi:10.2307/249104Leonard, J. (2007). Sharing a Vision: comparing business and IS managers’ perceptions of strategic alignment issues. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 15(1). doi:10.3127/ajis.v15i1.299Luftman, J. N., Lewis, P. R., & Oldach, S. H. (1993). Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 198-221. doi:10.1147/sj.321.0198Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T., Dwivedi, R., & Rigoni, E. H. (2010). IT Governance. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(2), 13-25. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010040102Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani. (2004). Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283. doi:10.2307/25148636Newkirk, H. E., & Lederer, A. L. (2006). Incremental and Comprehensive Strategic Information Systems Planning in an Uncertain Environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), 380-394. doi:10.1109/tem.2006.877446Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163-183. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2003.09.002Noran, O. (2005). A systematic evaluation of the C4ISR AF using ISO15704 Annex A (GERAM). Computers in Industry, 56(5), 407-427. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2004.12.005Ortiz, A., Lario, F., & Ros, L. (1999). Enterprise Integration—Business Processes Integrated Management: a proposal for a methodology to develop Enterprise Integration Programs. Computers in Industry, 40(2-3), 155-171. doi:10.1016/s0166-3615(99)00021-4Panetto, H., Baïna, S., & Morel, G. (2007). Mapping the IEC 62264 models onto the Zachman framework for analysing products information traceability: a case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(6), 679-698. doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0040-xPapp, R. (Ed.). (2001). Strategic Information Technology. doi:10.4018/978-1-87828-987-2Peñaranda, N., Mejía, R., Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2010). Implementation of product lifecycle management tools using enterprise integration engineering and action-research. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(10), 853-875. doi:10.1080/0951192x.2010.495136Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81. doi:10.2307/3250980Sledgianowski, D., & Luftman, J. (2005). IT-Business Strategic Alignment Maturity. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(2), 102-120. doi:10.4018/jcit.2005040107Sowa, J. F., & Zachman, J. A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 590-616. doi:10.1147/sj.313.0590Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2010). A Research Journey into Enterprise Governance of IT, Business/IT Alignment and Value Creation. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(1), 1-13. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010120401Xueying Wang, Xiongwei Zhou, & Longbin Jiang. (2008). A method of business and IT alignment based on Enterprise Architecture. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics. doi:10.1109/soli.2008.468649