RAY Pelaamo Porvoo Lundin 3-vuotissyntymäpäivätapahtuman suunnittelu ja toteutus

RAY Pelaamo Porvoo Lundin syntymäpäivätapahtuman tavoitteena oli palkita pelisalin asiakkaita ja saada uusia asiakkaita. Tapahtuman suunnittelu aloitettiin kesällä 2016 ja tapahtuma järjestettiin marraskuussa 2016. Tässä opinnäytetyössä esitellään Porvoon Pelaamon 3-vuotissyntymäpäivätapahtuman suunnittelu ja toteutus kokonaisuudessaan. Teemaksi valittiin paikallisuus, koska kyseessä oli Porvoon oman pelisalin syntymäpäivät. Opinnäytetyön tärkeimpänä tavoitteena oli uusasiakashankinta. Asiakasmäärien kehitystä seurattiin helmikuussa 2017 helmikuuhun 2016. Opinnäytetyössä esitellään erilaisia asiakkuuksienhallintamenetelmiä, joilla asiakasmäärää voidaan kasvattaa. Syntymäpäivätapahtuman eri osa-alueita ja niiden onnistumisia arvioidaan erikseen. Lopuksi pohditaan mikä tapahtumassa onnistui ja mikä epäonnistui. Tapahtumasta saatua palautetta analysoidaan myös tarkemmin. Pohdinnassa otetaan myös huomioon Veikkauksen, Fintoton ja Raha-automaattiyhdistyksen yhdistyminen yhdeksi yritykseksi ja tämän yhdistymisen luomia mahdollisuuksia tulevissa tapahtumissa

Making Banks on a Global Scale: Management-Based Regulation as Agencement

This article seeks to provide a theoretical account of how management-based regulation (MBR), a new regulatory style used by many global regulators, affects its targets. The article centers on a case study. It introduces agencement theory as the theoretical heuristic to inform the analysis of a global, large-scale MBR scheme, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision\u27s Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Program (ICAAP). In agencement theory, agency is understood in a neomaterialist frame. The core idea is that an actor\u27s actions are determined by the material assemblage that constitutes her. The agencement heuristic allows ICAAP to be conceptualized as a regulatory agencement scheme. The scheme seeks to affect its targets-banks-by choreographing and shaping the sociotechnical agencement processes under which the banks emerge as actors capable of cognizing and acting on risks. Consequently, the impact of MBR is mediated through actor construction. Regulation fosters actors whose socio-techniical makeup leads them to have particular behavioral proclivities. The article also discusses the philosophical implications of moving to regulatory agencement and the schemes relationship to neoliberal regulation

Making Banks on a Global Scale: Management-Based Regulation as Agencement

This article seeks to provide a theoretical account of how management-based regulation (MBR), a new regulatory style used by many global regulators, affects its targets. The article centers on a case study. It introduces agencement theory as the theoretical heuristic to inform the analysis of a global, large-scale MBR scheme, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision\u27s Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Program (ICAAP). In agencement theory, agency is understood in a neomaterialist frame. The core idea is that an actor\u27s actions are determined by the material assemblage that constitutes her. The agencement heuristic allows ICAAP to be conceptualized as a regulatory agencement scheme. The scheme seeks to affect its targets-banks-by choreographing and shaping the sociotechnical agencement processes under which the banks emerge as actors capable of cognizing and acting on risks. Consequently, the impact of MBR is mediated through actor construction. Regulation fosters actors whose socio-techniical makeup leads them to have particular behavioral proclivities. The article also discusses the philosophical implications of moving to regulatory agencement and the schemes relationship to neoliberal regulation

Introduction: Imagining Post-Neoliberal Regulatory Subjectivities

To explore these tentative diagnoses and conceptualizations we called for papers engaging different aspects of law\u27s subjectivity turn. A selection of papers that map the possible genealogies for the emergence of post-neoliberal law, address the implications of anthropomorphic corporate regulation, or analyze transformations in sovereign subjectivities is now published in this symposium issue. The papers take up and make salient an array of the big questions of our day. While overlapping, the papers can be broadly divided into two categories. The first category consists of papers that explore the internal make-up of legal and regulatory subjectivities. Drawing on history, queer theory and regulation studies, among others, the papers explore the most pertinent questions about the interaction of law with those it regulates.The second category of papers probes into the composition of the post-neoliberal order. Grounding the analysis in investment law, human rights, and contractual regimes, the papers expose a number of techniques through which the contours of post-neoliberal world[s] are shaped and contested

Introduction: Imagining Post-Neoliberal Regulatory Subjectivities

To explore these tentative diagnoses and conceptualizations we called for papers engaging different aspects of law\u27s subjectivity turn. A selection of papers that map the possible genealogies for the emergence of post-neoliberal law, address the implications of anthropomorphic corporate regulation, or analyze transformations in sovereign subjectivities is now published in this symposium issue. The papers take up and make salient an array of the big questions of our day. While overlapping, the papers can be broadly divided into two categories. The first category consists of papers that explore the internal make-up of legal and regulatory subjectivities. Drawing on history, queer theory and regulation studies, among others, the papers explore the most pertinent questions about the interaction of law with those it regulates.The second category of papers probes into the composition of the post-neoliberal order. Grounding the analysis in investment law, human rights, and contractual regimes, the papers expose a number of techniques through which the contours of post-neoliberal world[s] are shaped and contested

AI Applications and Regulation: Mapping the Regulatory Strata

Many accounts suggest that artificial intelligence (AI) law is still in its infancy with few statutes and other regulatory instruments regulating AI development and use. In this paper, we argue that such accounts are misguided. AI applications exist in a rich regulatory landscape, subject to multiple rules. To demonstrate our claim, we conduct two semi-fictional case studies under Finnish law. In the first case study, we chart the rules that currently would govern and impact AI tool use in recruitment. In the second case study, we map the legal framework for the Finnish COVID-19 contact tracing app. The article makes three contributions to the literature. First, the case studies provide ample evidence that the prevailing orthodoxy misstates the state of AI law. There is AI law on the books and existing laws have a profound impact on AI application design. Second, the mappings provide building material for developing a grounded theory framework for categorizing AI law and its types and modalities, allowing us to formulate a heuristic for understanding AI regulation. We argue that developers and AI application stakeholders should construe AI law as a complex stratigraphy consisting of five layers: data rules that regulate data use, application-specific AI rules that target specific AI applications or application domains, general AI rules that apply to a wide range of AI applications, application-specific non-AI rules that apply to specific activities but not to AI specifically and general non-AI rules that apply generically and across domains. Third, we provide guidance for practitioners for structuring AI compliance processes. We argue that practitioners should keep in mind that the rules and standards differ in their scopes, targets, certainty, and regulatory modalities. Consequently, understanding the AI regulatory landscape requires developing an understanding of multiple rule complexes, their dynamics, and regulatory modalities

Dynamics of Social Harms in an Algorithmic Context

Growing evidence suggests that the affordances of algorithms can reproduce socially embedded bias and discrimination, increase the information asymmetry and power imbalances in socio‑economic relations. We conceptualise these affordances in the context of socially mediated mass harms. We argue that algorithmic technologies may not alter what harms arise but, instead, affect harms qualitatively—that is, how and to what extent they emerge and on whom they fall. Using the example of three well-documented cases of algorithmic failures, we integrate the concerns identified in critical algorithm studies with the literature on social harm and zemiology. Reorienting the focus from socio‑economic to socio-econo-technological structures, we illustrate how algorithmic technologies transform the dynamics of social harm production on macro and meso levels by: (1) systematising bias and inequality; (2) accelerating harm propagation on an unprecedented scale; and (3) blurring the perception of harms.

Designing an AI governance framework: From research-based premises to meta-requirements

The development and increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in high-risk application areas, calls for attention to the governance of AI systems. Organizations and researchers have proposed AI ethics principles, but translating principles into practice-oriented frameworks has proven difficult. This paper develops meta-requirements for organizational AI governance frameworks to help translate ethical AI principles into practice and align operations with the forthcoming European AI Act. We adopt a design science research approach. We put forward research-based premises, then we report the design method employed in an industry-academia research project. Based on these, we present seven meta-requirements for AI governance frameworks. The paper contributes to the IS research on AI governance by collating knowledge into meta-requirements and advancing a design approach to AI governance. The study underscores that governance frameworks need to incorporate the characteristics of AI, its contexts, and the different sources of requirements