数字时代的数据、弹性和身份

IF 3.6 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Phil Davies, Albrecht Fritzsche, Glenn Parry, Zena Wood
{"title":"数字时代的数据、弹性和身份","authors":"Phil Davies, Albrecht Fritzsche, Glenn Parry, Zena Wood","doi":"10.1002/jsc.2560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, the world has become increasingly digitized, with COVID-19 accelerating this trend. According to a McKinsey report, it is estimated that the Internet of Things will add up to $12.4 billion to the world economy by 2030 (Chui et al., 2021). Whilst academic research initially focused on ‘digitization’, whereby analogue processes become digital and connected, current research has shifted to a focus on “digitalization,” whereby digital technologies fundamentally change organizational business models, delivery systems, and infrastructure to change the way products and services are created, delivered, and consumed (Caputo et al., 2021; Holmström et al., 2019; Kharlamov & Parry, 2021; Loonam et al., 2018). Numerous studies focusing on digitalization have been published in various disciplines within business, such as strategic management, operations and supply chain management, international business, marketing, innovation, and broader fields such as cyber security, design and politics, and international relations. Whilst broad topics have been studied, deeper implications for the actors involved, their identity, privacy, and sustained ability to act in the view of radical change, have so far been neglected. In the course of digitalization, basic societal structures have gone askew (Fritzsche, 2021), requiring deeper strategic reflection. For example, COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine have exposed weaknesses in organizational and supply chain resilience (Billiet et al., 2021; Jagtap et al., 2022; Ntasis et al., 2021; Shen & Sun, 2021; Sheth & Uslay, 2023). Research on digital sovereignty has also drawn attention to the challenges for territorial control caused by worldwide data networks and platforms (Glasze et al., 2023; Pohle & Thiel, 2020), which do not only concern political and legal authority on a national level, but also organizational and indivitual decision-making. In domains such as the creative sector, healthcare, or energy supply, the use of data at the individual level could have significant implications for key functions including content ownership, IP rights assignment, provenance and origin of content, and identity of workers, which put extant organizational structure, culture, trust, and professional traditions in question (Egwuonwu et al., 2022; Gauthier et al., 2018; Goudarzi et al., 2022; Tabaghdehi & Kalatian, 2022; Żukowicka-Surma & Fritzsche, 2023). It can be argued that industry, outside the narrow confines of early adopters, remains confused about the potential uses of digital technologies, the data they generate and their implications for resilience and identity on the organizational and individual level. In the manufacturing industry, the implementation of digital technologies has created vulnerabilities in manufacturing systems in areas not previously considered by organizations. For example, digital technology has opened the door for increased cyber-attacks with nearly 50% of all UK manufacturing firms affected by cyber-attacks in 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Confronted with these threats, organizations hesitate to implement new technical designs, carefully weighing advantages against disadvantages. Project activities to explore data-driven operations, smart services, etc. are legion, but mostly remain constrained to specific, controllable applications (Fritzsche & Gölzer, 2021). Radical change that affects organizational strategy, culture, routines, and core competencies, this redefining organizational identity, proceeds very slowly. With respect to individual identity, identity is used to provide participation in everyday life, giving, as example, access to public and financial services and provides voter and legal rights to individuals. With the advent of digital identity, organizations are seeking to create enhanced customer experiences and monetize data associated with individuals. Legal instruments, such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have been put in place to protect individuals' data and identity, but it remains a challenging and contested area. For instance, tensions have been identified in literature and practice with respect to identity, as this frequently has recourse to centralized points of authority or third-party identity providers (Wachter, 2018). Centralization of authority and governance runs counter to individual autonomy, which has led to the development of decentralized self-sovereign solutions, such as those run on distributed ledgers or individual data stores such as the Hub of All Things (Ng et al., 2015). Such data stores still leave enough space for profiling and deep phenoytyping on social media and elsewhere, but increase the users' influence on how it proceeds, affecting participation in everyday life on another level with increasing importance in the digital age. Whilst there remain significant challenges with respect to digital identity, particularly with respect to governance, privacy versus personalization, and self-sovereignty, use of personal data without diminishing the rights of individuals remains a priority as it has the potential to unlock significant economic and social benefit (World Economic Forum, 2012), enabling sustainable development based on resilient social and individual structures. Digitalization, and with it the generation of data, should not be considered panacea for resilience and identity, but it should be considered a revolutionary change that has the potential to make a real impact to society. However, it is evident from the examples provided that challenges remain in its use and deployment for supporting both incremental change in the short term and for more radical change to address the grand challenges in the medium to long term. Against the backdrop of this new era, this Special Issue (SI) of Strategic Change on Data, Resilience and Identity in the Digital Age casts a wide net. The intention for this special issue is to bring together the latest thinking to provide a platform from which future research and industry engagement can begin. In bringing together contributions from different disciplines, perspectives, and countries, this special issue shares understanding of resilience and identity in the digital age, and by doing so, contributes to this journal's mission to “provide a platform for the publication of cutting-edge, original, innovative, and high-quality research at the intersection of strategy, entrepreneurship, and decision-making.” The special issue does this by including research at the intersection of disciplines and by focusing on topics central to the future of organizations, society, and the planet we live on. The guest editorial team and reviewers of selected papers contribute insightful research into resilience and identity in the digital age, which will stimulate the necessary discourse around these exciting and important areas. The original call for papers on the theme “data, resilience and identity in the digital age” was ambitious, as the editors wanted to highlight the state of the art and the multidisciplinary nature of these topics. Further, the aim of this issue is to provide a critical conversation about data, resilience and identify and the entanglement of them in a world moving at a rate of change not seen since the industrial revolution. There are five research articles in this special issue. The articles cover diverse topics, from the value of personal data to security and resilience in manufacturing systems with each having strategic implications for business strategy, operations, and societies as a whole. Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) address a key issue of the ongoing digital transformation in their paper on “Layered Structures of Robustness and Resilience: Evidence from Cybersecurity Projects for Critical Infrastructures in Central Europe.” For business and society to function properly in the digital age, information systems must be protected against cybercrime, warfare, and other disruptive forces. Mauer and Fritzsche argue that protective measures can have contradictory consequences on different systemic layers. If all efforts are focused on increasing the robustness and resilience of one specific subsystem, higher systemic structures may suffer, as they may become limited in their ability to respond dynamically to external disturbances. Maurer and Fritzsche present findings from a multiple case study of publicly funded Central European cybersecurity projects to protect critical infrastructure in society. Using a framework introduced by Maurer and Lechner (2015), they distinguish seven different facets of organizational robustness and resilience. They find that most cybersecurity projects are focused on facets at a low systemic level, while general questions regarding the robustness and resilience of critical infrastructures of societies are not addressed. Maurer and Fritzsche's work has direct implications for public policy-making and project management. It calls for a change in strategy towards a better account of different systemic layers in infrastructure protection. Efforts to increase the resilience of an IT system must be considered in reference to the system dynamics of organizations and society in general, which may require changes of sub-system structures. In a similar vein to Maurer and Fritzsche (2023), Fowler et al. (2023) focus on the topic of resilience in the context of smart manufacturing systems. Resilience in smart manufacturing systems is becoming increasingly important, with nearly half of all UK manufacturers facing a cyber-attack during 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Resilience operates at the intersection of cyber systems engineering and operations management. Through a review of the literature, they identified different factors for resilience, such as adaptability, robustness, and flexibility, that can be used as an organizing framework through which future studies on resilience for smart manufacturing can be conducted. They also identified incentives to resilience by design and present a range of digital technologies that can be used to deliver novel cyber-physical production systems. Their conceptual review identified that the greatest impact for manufacturing resilience from digital technologies is likely to be at the micro level (i.e., production within the firm). They demonstrate the need for a better sociotechnical understanding of resilience and call on the research community to address the challenges around (1) skilling and reskilling the workforce for smart manufacturing, (2) addressing cyber security within smart manufacturing systems, and (3) from a sociotechnical perspective, the deployment and use of digital twins from a security, operations, and decision-making perspective. They conclude their paper by demonstrating the need for greater interdisciplinary research and teaching, whereby engineers of the future will require disciplinary knowledge from business and management about resilience in smart manufacturing systems. In their paper, “The data sharing decision: perception and intention in healthcare” Kharlamov, and Parry (2023) examine how individuals decide to share, or otherwise, their healthcare data. Healthcare data are a context of interest, as health data are perceived to be very sensitive. An economic view of exchange places data and privacy as economic goods in markets. Maintaining information asymmetry allows organizations to maintain access to client data and commercially benefit from that data. The research was motivated by practice, with a healthcare organization seeking to act ethically by understanding their patient's decision process and intentions in order to gain informed consent from patients who are open to share their healthcare data. A number of different metrics were identified from literature and employed to capture insight into individual's perception and intention to share their data. Their findings showing that despite the proliferation of metrics employed in literature just two measures may be all that is required to understand an individual's intentions, based on risk and benefit. When organizations clearly and honestly state the risks and benefits, individuals can reach an informed decision on whether to consent to share their data, or not. However, despite the espoused primacy of healthcare data, the paper suggests individuals most often willingly share. Reasons for this are discussed, identifying benevolence, naivety, or ignorance as factors. Despite potentially being more expert in this area, the authors noted their own naivety during the study. They realized their own healthcare data was shared more than they had understood, which suggests that organizations are not sufficiently clear in their data-sharing practices. Söldner's (2023) contribution to this special issue, “In-Between Self-Marketing and Collaboration: Researcher Identity Formation in the Usage of Academic Social Network Sites” examines how academic social networking sites (ASNS) enable scholars to share documents, discuss, and engage in common activities. ASNS allow scholars to present themselves to a larger audience and highlight their skills and their successes, potentially playing an important role in the development of academic careers. Combining Social Influence with Uses and Gratifications Theory, Söldner investigates ASNS usage using the example of a management research community. Expanding earlier work by Meishar-Tal and Pieterse (2017), he finds that ASNS differ significantly from other social networking sites regarding the motivations and objectives of the users. ASNS users are concerned with self-promotion and look to enhance their confidence and self-esteem, as well as community building with other scholars. Söldner's work has implications for the study of changing labor markets in the digital age, showing increased options for skilled workers to shape their own professional identities. Furthermore, platform designers and operators can learn from this study how the future design of ASNS can proceed as an enablement of conventional social networking (Park et al., 2009) and collaborative interactions, as they are known from open innovation (Moeslein and Fritzsche, 2018). “Data are in the Eye of the Beholder: Co-creating the Value of Personal Data” by Stelmaszak and Parry (2023) find that the value of data differs between firm, intermediary, and customer. The differences in perception are deep seated, relating to fundamental ontological interpretations of what data are. A challenge is in the interpretation of value of data, with financial worth the predominant interpretation of value in analysis. In this work, further insights were found though discussion of the value of data in its use. Firms were found to view data as a means to an ends, namely achieving their business outcome. It was not specific individual data, but aggregated data that were valued, as that was perceived to lead to market insight. In the case example provided the intermediary was a firm that provided data storage, transfer, and processing services. The intermediary required data to flow as value is achieved when data was used, so the value of data was therefore as a medium of exchange. Finally, the customer was interested in how their data create value for them, but their perception of data was not that of its financial worth. As with the work of Kharlamov et al., value resulted from a calculus, with customers sharing data where net benefit was perceived. The paper notes that this “dissonance in the perceptions of value” of data between different parties is not recognized and there is potential for both further research by academics, and novel value proposition design by organizations to exploit this opportunity. The papers show the need for strategic reflection and interdisciplinary work on the implementation of digital technology for resilience and identity in a world characterized by grand challenges. Workplaces focus on user operations and perceptions of value, risk, and benefits, but also the reference systems in which information systems are addressed in the implementation efforts. Mere technical approaches to solution design are insufficient when it comes to more complex problems in society, such as critical infrastructure protection, healthcare, personal data, and resilient industrial operations, but also professional identity development and artistic content production. A managerial perspective is necessary to understand the wider implications of systems design, assess opportunities and threats, and plan their use of digital technologies and how they will implement them appropriately. As such, there are several areas for future research. As organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to improve their operational efficiency, product and service quality, supply chain coordination, responsiveness, and visibility (Cui et al., 2022), the potential for cyber-attacks increases exponentially. The cost of these attacks is not mere inconveniences, but according to an IBM report in 2022 climbed to an average of $4.47 million, lead to loss of intellectual property, and can lead to the failure of critical systems (Kumar & Mallipeddi, 2022). As the sophistication of attackers improves, manufacturers should expect to see the costs of these attacks rise if efforts to create resilient manufacturing systems continue to fall short of the growth in cyberattacks. The challenge offers fruitful areas for research at the intersection of cyber systems engineering, operations, and strategic management. Research in this area may address questions such as: how do organizations integrate cyber resilience into their operations strategy? How can organizations incorporate resilience-by-design as a principle in the development of their operations and supply chains? How do manufacturers assess the cyber resilience of their own production facilities and that of their supply chain? And finally, what can management scholars learn from other disciplines with respect to the design and development of resilient, robust, and regenerative systems? Identity empowers individuals and allows them to participate in everyday life. To do so, individuals must provide information about themselves to form and present their identity to others and to organizations. Through their identity, individuals can participate in everyday democracy and society through voting rights, legal rights, school, healthcare, financial services, and so on. As the digital economy grows and information about individuals exponentially increases through the proliferation in volume and variety of data (Cappa et al., 2020), organizations are becoming increasingly customer orientated and many recognize that digital identity can provide novel insights into individual preference and enhance the customer experience (Sheik et al., 2021). Organizations are becoming more customer-centric through the use of individuals personal data. The privacy paradox finds that whilst individuals express a desire for greater privacy, their actual behaviors do little to protect their privacy as they pursue greater personalization of products/services. This is of particular concern as identity is employed to enable only appropriate actors' access to a system. If people are giving away data that includes identity it becomes difficult to secure a system. The development of self-sovereign systems provides individuals greater control over their data with an ability to share personal data that is privacy preserving (Mühle et al., 2018). However, in giving individuals control, it also potentially allows them to give away all their data, as is observed in the paradox. Identity and the security of data are a significant sociotechnical challenge to address, giving rise to a number of potential research questions, including: How do we understand user wants, needs, and capabilities to enable the design of safe digital systems? How do digital systems capture and integrate multidisciplinary issues such as ethics and morals, business model, and value of data, user technical abilities, and cyber threats? And how do organizations design their offerings to provide an appropriate balance between centralized control and self-sovereignty? We began this editorial by noting the pace at which the world is digitalizing and the interest this is generating in both industry and academia. At the time of writing, the world has embraced digitalization and recognizes that the change it brings may be as significant as the industrial revolution. Academia has not kept pace with industry, and as a result, research in the context of data, resilience and identity is often practice led. This special issue sought to address this and contribute to the vision of Strategic Change by balancing theory driven work with with issues faced in practice today through a multi- and interdisciplinary lens (Caputo, 2023). The articles that make up this special issue principally relate to what and how questions, with some context in the form of healthcare, critical infrastructure, and manufacturing systems, resulting in descriptive accounts of the phenomena studied. This outcome reflects a field in the nascent stages of theory building. Whilst this special issue achieved, for the most part, its aim of publishing work from multiple disciplines, one consequence of this for a field it is the early stages of theoretical development is that too many descriptions, factors, and definitions can be introduced, leading the conceptual competition, alternative micronarratives, and redundancy. Whilst there is evidence of different disciplinary definitions and vocabularies converging, as demonstrated by Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) and Fowler et al.'s (2023) definitions of resilience, there is still a need to harmonize vocabularies and share definitions of theoretical constructs. This is even more important in the context of data, resilience, and identity in the digital age, as they are inherently multidisciplinary topics. Should definitions, vocabularies, and theoretical constructs not harmonize across disciplines, academic research will, at best, continue to suggest theoretical avenues for the future (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), and will struggle to keep pace with industry in a fast changing environment. Whilst achieving this in the short term is difficult, the editors are encouraged by the work published in this special issue and ongoing work elsewhere at the intersection of academia and practice, leaving us hopeful academia can provide insights that have impact on data, resilience and identity in the digital age. Our last task as guest editors of this special issue is to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the editorial team at Strategic Change, in particular Andrea Caputo, and of the anonymous reviewers of the submissions to the special issue, without their work and their constructive input to the review process this special issue would not have been possible. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr Phil Davies is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at the University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol. His research covers topics such as servitization, supply chain resilience and delivery system design. For supply chain resilience, he has a particular interest in additive manufacturing an responsive systems and for delivery system design, he has a particular interest in modular service design and delivery. Prof. Dr. Albrecht Fritzsche is full professor at Rabat Business School, Morocco, where he co-ordinates the interdisciplinary research group on innovation and complexity management for sustainable transitions and serves as senior scholar in the strategy and management department. Prof. Fritzsche holds doctoral degrees in industrial economics and philosophy. He has worked for many years as a systems expert and project leader in the automotive industry and as a strategy consultant with various assignments in Germany, China and other countries. Prof. Fritzsche has received the FAU Habilitation Award 2020 for his research on innovation management and the Shin Research Excellence Award in 2018 for his work on digital agendas in the insurance industry. He regularly teaches PhD courses in different countries worldwide. Professor Glenn Parry is a Professor of Digital Transformation and Head of the Department of Digital Economy, Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Surrey Business School, University of Surrey. He is CoDirector of the Next Stage Digital Economy Centre in the Decentralized Digital Economy (DECaDE). Professor Parry's work is characterized by an approach of partnering with organizations to develop creative solutions to challenges. He is interested in the effect of digital technology on business models, value, servitization and supply chain visibility. He has managed research consortia with in the automotive, aerospace, music and construction industries and has published and edited numerous international journals. Dr Zena Wood is an Associate Professor in Digital Economy and Director of the Defence Data Research centre (DDRC). She has been a fellow of the Alan Turing Institute (ATI) since October 2021. Zena joined the Initiative for the Digital Economy (INDEX) in April 2019 and is based in their offices in South London. Prior to this she was employed by the University of Greenwich as a Senior Lecturer in Spatial Informatics. Zena's background is in Computer Science with her research focusing on how techniques from applied ontology and spatiotemporal reasoning can be used to derive value from datasets that would help us understand the impact of digital transformation within the Digital Economy. She is particularly interested in the overlap between methods that can be applied to datasets related to physical and non-physical environments. Most of her research is interdisciplinary involving collaborations with experts from geography, psychology and business. The research in the physical world focuses on the development of representation, and data analytic, methods to identify and understand collective phenomena (i.e., groups of individuals that we wish to consider as one entity) within spatiotemporal datasets. Zena's most recent research has focused on digital transformation within the financial services sector, particularly those companies moving towards a servitization business model (e.g., a move from a product-based offering to a service-based offering). NA.","PeriodicalId":46986,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Change-Briefings in Entrepreneurial Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data, resilience, and identity in the digital age\",\"authors\":\"Phil Davies, Albrecht Fritzsche, Glenn Parry, Zena Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jsc.2560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the last decade, the world has become increasingly digitized, with COVID-19 accelerating this trend. According to a McKinsey report, it is estimated that the Internet of Things will add up to $12.4 billion to the world economy by 2030 (Chui et al., 2021). Whilst academic research initially focused on ‘digitization’, whereby analogue processes become digital and connected, current research has shifted to a focus on “digitalization,” whereby digital technologies fundamentally change organizational business models, delivery systems, and infrastructure to change the way products and services are created, delivered, and consumed (Caputo et al., 2021; Holmström et al., 2019; Kharlamov & Parry, 2021; Loonam et al., 2018). Numerous studies focusing on digitalization have been published in various disciplines within business, such as strategic management, operations and supply chain management, international business, marketing, innovation, and broader fields such as cyber security, design and politics, and international relations. Whilst broad topics have been studied, deeper implications for the actors involved, their identity, privacy, and sustained ability to act in the view of radical change, have so far been neglected. In the course of digitalization, basic societal structures have gone askew (Fritzsche, 2021), requiring deeper strategic reflection. For example, COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine have exposed weaknesses in organizational and supply chain resilience (Billiet et al., 2021; Jagtap et al., 2022; Ntasis et al., 2021; Shen & Sun, 2021; Sheth & Uslay, 2023). Research on digital sovereignty has also drawn attention to the challenges for territorial control caused by worldwide data networks and platforms (Glasze et al., 2023; Pohle & Thiel, 2020), which do not only concern political and legal authority on a national level, but also organizational and indivitual decision-making. In domains such as the creative sector, healthcare, or energy supply, the use of data at the individual level could have significant implications for key functions including content ownership, IP rights assignment, provenance and origin of content, and identity of workers, which put extant organizational structure, culture, trust, and professional traditions in question (Egwuonwu et al., 2022; Gauthier et al., 2018; Goudarzi et al., 2022; Tabaghdehi & Kalatian, 2022; Żukowicka-Surma & Fritzsche, 2023). It can be argued that industry, outside the narrow confines of early adopters, remains confused about the potential uses of digital technologies, the data they generate and their implications for resilience and identity on the organizational and individual level. In the manufacturing industry, the implementation of digital technologies has created vulnerabilities in manufacturing systems in areas not previously considered by organizations. For example, digital technology has opened the door for increased cyber-attacks with nearly 50% of all UK manufacturing firms affected by cyber-attacks in 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Confronted with these threats, organizations hesitate to implement new technical designs, carefully weighing advantages against disadvantages. Project activities to explore data-driven operations, smart services, etc. are legion, but mostly remain constrained to specific, controllable applications (Fritzsche & Gölzer, 2021). Radical change that affects organizational strategy, culture, routines, and core competencies, this redefining organizational identity, proceeds very slowly. With respect to individual identity, identity is used to provide participation in everyday life, giving, as example, access to public and financial services and provides voter and legal rights to individuals. With the advent of digital identity, organizations are seeking to create enhanced customer experiences and monetize data associated with individuals. Legal instruments, such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have been put in place to protect individuals' data and identity, but it remains a challenging and contested area. For instance, tensions have been identified in literature and practice with respect to identity, as this frequently has recourse to centralized points of authority or third-party identity providers (Wachter, 2018). Centralization of authority and governance runs counter to individual autonomy, which has led to the development of decentralized self-sovereign solutions, such as those run on distributed ledgers or individual data stores such as the Hub of All Things (Ng et al., 2015). Such data stores still leave enough space for profiling and deep phenoytyping on social media and elsewhere, but increase the users' influence on how it proceeds, affecting participation in everyday life on another level with increasing importance in the digital age. Whilst there remain significant challenges with respect to digital identity, particularly with respect to governance, privacy versus personalization, and self-sovereignty, use of personal data without diminishing the rights of individuals remains a priority as it has the potential to unlock significant economic and social benefit (World Economic Forum, 2012), enabling sustainable development based on resilient social and individual structures. Digitalization, and with it the generation of data, should not be considered panacea for resilience and identity, but it should be considered a revolutionary change that has the potential to make a real impact to society. However, it is evident from the examples provided that challenges remain in its use and deployment for supporting both incremental change in the short term and for more radical change to address the grand challenges in the medium to long term. Against the backdrop of this new era, this Special Issue (SI) of Strategic Change on Data, Resilience and Identity in the Digital Age casts a wide net. The intention for this special issue is to bring together the latest thinking to provide a platform from which future research and industry engagement can begin. In bringing together contributions from different disciplines, perspectives, and countries, this special issue shares understanding of resilience and identity in the digital age, and by doing so, contributes to this journal's mission to “provide a platform for the publication of cutting-edge, original, innovative, and high-quality research at the intersection of strategy, entrepreneurship, and decision-making.” The special issue does this by including research at the intersection of disciplines and by focusing on topics central to the future of organizations, society, and the planet we live on. The guest editorial team and reviewers of selected papers contribute insightful research into resilience and identity in the digital age, which will stimulate the necessary discourse around these exciting and important areas. The original call for papers on the theme “data, resilience and identity in the digital age” was ambitious, as the editors wanted to highlight the state of the art and the multidisciplinary nature of these topics. Further, the aim of this issue is to provide a critical conversation about data, resilience and identify and the entanglement of them in a world moving at a rate of change not seen since the industrial revolution. There are five research articles in this special issue. The articles cover diverse topics, from the value of personal data to security and resilience in manufacturing systems with each having strategic implications for business strategy, operations, and societies as a whole. Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) address a key issue of the ongoing digital transformation in their paper on “Layered Structures of Robustness and Resilience: Evidence from Cybersecurity Projects for Critical Infrastructures in Central Europe.” For business and society to function properly in the digital age, information systems must be protected against cybercrime, warfare, and other disruptive forces. Mauer and Fritzsche argue that protective measures can have contradictory consequences on different systemic layers. If all efforts are focused on increasing the robustness and resilience of one specific subsystem, higher systemic structures may suffer, as they may become limited in their ability to respond dynamically to external disturbances. Maurer and Fritzsche present findings from a multiple case study of publicly funded Central European cybersecurity projects to protect critical infrastructure in society. Using a framework introduced by Maurer and Lechner (2015), they distinguish seven different facets of organizational robustness and resilience. They find that most cybersecurity projects are focused on facets at a low systemic level, while general questions regarding the robustness and resilience of critical infrastructures of societies are not addressed. Maurer and Fritzsche's work has direct implications for public policy-making and project management. It calls for a change in strategy towards a better account of different systemic layers in infrastructure protection. Efforts to increase the resilience of an IT system must be considered in reference to the system dynamics of organizations and society in general, which may require changes of sub-system structures. In a similar vein to Maurer and Fritzsche (2023), Fowler et al. (2023) focus on the topic of resilience in the context of smart manufacturing systems. Resilience in smart manufacturing systems is becoming increasingly important, with nearly half of all UK manufacturers facing a cyber-attack during 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Resilience operates at the intersection of cyber systems engineering and operations management. Through a review of the literature, they identified different factors for resilience, such as adaptability, robustness, and flexibility, that can be used as an organizing framework through which future studies on resilience for smart manufacturing can be conducted. They also identified incentives to resilience by design and present a range of digital technologies that can be used to deliver novel cyber-physical production systems. Their conceptual review identified that the greatest impact for manufacturing resilience from digital technologies is likely to be at the micro level (i.e., production within the firm). They demonstrate the need for a better sociotechnical understanding of resilience and call on the research community to address the challenges around (1) skilling and reskilling the workforce for smart manufacturing, (2) addressing cyber security within smart manufacturing systems, and (3) from a sociotechnical perspective, the deployment and use of digital twins from a security, operations, and decision-making perspective. They conclude their paper by demonstrating the need for greater interdisciplinary research and teaching, whereby engineers of the future will require disciplinary knowledge from business and management about resilience in smart manufacturing systems. In their paper, “The data sharing decision: perception and intention in healthcare” Kharlamov, and Parry (2023) examine how individuals decide to share, or otherwise, their healthcare data. Healthcare data are a context of interest, as health data are perceived to be very sensitive. An economic view of exchange places data and privacy as economic goods in markets. Maintaining information asymmetry allows organizations to maintain access to client data and commercially benefit from that data. The research was motivated by practice, with a healthcare organization seeking to act ethically by understanding their patient's decision process and intentions in order to gain informed consent from patients who are open to share their healthcare data. A number of different metrics were identified from literature and employed to capture insight into individual's perception and intention to share their data. Their findings showing that despite the proliferation of metrics employed in literature just two measures may be all that is required to understand an individual's intentions, based on risk and benefit. When organizations clearly and honestly state the risks and benefits, individuals can reach an informed decision on whether to consent to share their data, or not. However, despite the espoused primacy of healthcare data, the paper suggests individuals most often willingly share. Reasons for this are discussed, identifying benevolence, naivety, or ignorance as factors. Despite potentially being more expert in this area, the authors noted their own naivety during the study. They realized their own healthcare data was shared more than they had understood, which suggests that organizations are not sufficiently clear in their data-sharing practices. Söldner's (2023) contribution to this special issue, “In-Between Self-Marketing and Collaboration: Researcher Identity Formation in the Usage of Academic Social Network Sites” examines how academic social networking sites (ASNS) enable scholars to share documents, discuss, and engage in common activities. ASNS allow scholars to present themselves to a larger audience and highlight their skills and their successes, potentially playing an important role in the development of academic careers. Combining Social Influence with Uses and Gratifications Theory, Söldner investigates ASNS usage using the example of a management research community. Expanding earlier work by Meishar-Tal and Pieterse (2017), he finds that ASNS differ significantly from other social networking sites regarding the motivations and objectives of the users. ASNS users are concerned with self-promotion and look to enhance their confidence and self-esteem, as well as community building with other scholars. Söldner's work has implications for the study of changing labor markets in the digital age, showing increased options for skilled workers to shape their own professional identities. Furthermore, platform designers and operators can learn from this study how the future design of ASNS can proceed as an enablement of conventional social networking (Park et al., 2009) and collaborative interactions, as they are known from open innovation (Moeslein and Fritzsche, 2018). “Data are in the Eye of the Beholder: Co-creating the Value of Personal Data” by Stelmaszak and Parry (2023) find that the value of data differs between firm, intermediary, and customer. The differences in perception are deep seated, relating to fundamental ontological interpretations of what data are. A challenge is in the interpretation of value of data, with financial worth the predominant interpretation of value in analysis. In this work, further insights were found though discussion of the value of data in its use. Firms were found to view data as a means to an ends, namely achieving their business outcome. It was not specific individual data, but aggregated data that were valued, as that was perceived to lead to market insight. In the case example provided the intermediary was a firm that provided data storage, transfer, and processing services. The intermediary required data to flow as value is achieved when data was used, so the value of data was therefore as a medium of exchange. Finally, the customer was interested in how their data create value for them, but their perception of data was not that of its financial worth. As with the work of Kharlamov et al., value resulted from a calculus, with customers sharing data where net benefit was perceived. The paper notes that this “dissonance in the perceptions of value” of data between different parties is not recognized and there is potential for both further research by academics, and novel value proposition design by organizations to exploit this opportunity. The papers show the need for strategic reflection and interdisciplinary work on the implementation of digital technology for resilience and identity in a world characterized by grand challenges. Workplaces focus on user operations and perceptions of value, risk, and benefits, but also the reference systems in which information systems are addressed in the implementation efforts. Mere technical approaches to solution design are insufficient when it comes to more complex problems in society, such as critical infrastructure protection, healthcare, personal data, and resilient industrial operations, but also professional identity development and artistic content production. A managerial perspective is necessary to understand the wider implications of systems design, assess opportunities and threats, and plan their use of digital technologies and how they will implement them appropriately. As such, there are several areas for future research. As organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to improve their operational efficiency, product and service quality, supply chain coordination, responsiveness, and visibility (Cui et al., 2022), the potential for cyber-attacks increases exponentially. The cost of these attacks is not mere inconveniences, but according to an IBM report in 2022 climbed to an average of $4.47 million, lead to loss of intellectual property, and can lead to the failure of critical systems (Kumar & Mallipeddi, 2022). As the sophistication of attackers improves, manufacturers should expect to see the costs of these attacks rise if efforts to create resilient manufacturing systems continue to fall short of the growth in cyberattacks. The challenge offers fruitful areas for research at the intersection of cyber systems engineering, operations, and strategic management. Research in this area may address questions such as: how do organizations integrate cyber resilience into their operations strategy? How can organizations incorporate resilience-by-design as a principle in the development of their operations and supply chains? How do manufacturers assess the cyber resilience of their own production facilities and that of their supply chain? And finally, what can management scholars learn from other disciplines with respect to the design and development of resilient, robust, and regenerative systems? Identity empowers individuals and allows them to participate in everyday life. To do so, individuals must provide information about themselves to form and present their identity to others and to organizations. Through their identity, individuals can participate in everyday democracy and society through voting rights, legal rights, school, healthcare, financial services, and so on. As the digital economy grows and information about individuals exponentially increases through the proliferation in volume and variety of data (Cappa et al., 2020), organizations are becoming increasingly customer orientated and many recognize that digital identity can provide novel insights into individual preference and enhance the customer experience (Sheik et al., 2021). Organizations are becoming more customer-centric through the use of individuals personal data. The privacy paradox finds that whilst individuals express a desire for greater privacy, their actual behaviors do little to protect their privacy as they pursue greater personalization of products/services. This is of particular concern as identity is employed to enable only appropriate actors' access to a system. If people are giving away data that includes identity it becomes difficult to secure a system. The development of self-sovereign systems provides individuals greater control over their data with an ability to share personal data that is privacy preserving (Mühle et al., 2018). However, in giving individuals control, it also potentially allows them to give away all their data, as is observed in the paradox. Identity and the security of data are a significant sociotechnical challenge to address, giving rise to a number of potential research questions, including: How do we understand user wants, needs, and capabilities to enable the design of safe digital systems? How do digital systems capture and integrate multidisciplinary issues such as ethics and morals, business model, and value of data, user technical abilities, and cyber threats? And how do organizations design their offerings to provide an appropriate balance between centralized control and self-sovereignty? We began this editorial by noting the pace at which the world is digitalizing and the interest this is generating in both industry and academia. At the time of writing, the world has embraced digitalization and recognizes that the change it brings may be as significant as the industrial revolution. Academia has not kept pace with industry, and as a result, research in the context of data, resilience and identity is often practice led. This special issue sought to address this and contribute to the vision of Strategic Change by balancing theory driven work with with issues faced in practice today through a multi- and interdisciplinary lens (Caputo, 2023). The articles that make up this special issue principally relate to what and how questions, with some context in the form of healthcare, critical infrastructure, and manufacturing systems, resulting in descriptive accounts of the phenomena studied. This outcome reflects a field in the nascent stages of theory building. Whilst this special issue achieved, for the most part, its aim of publishing work from multiple disciplines, one consequence of this for a field it is the early stages of theoretical development is that too many descriptions, factors, and definitions can be introduced, leading the conceptual competition, alternative micronarratives, and redundancy. Whilst there is evidence of different disciplinary definitions and vocabularies converging, as demonstrated by Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) and Fowler et al.'s (2023) definitions of resilience, there is still a need to harmonize vocabularies and share definitions of theoretical constructs. This is even more important in the context of data, resilience, and identity in the digital age, as they are inherently multidisciplinary topics. Should definitions, vocabularies, and theoretical constructs not harmonize across disciplines, academic research will, at best, continue to suggest theoretical avenues for the future (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), and will struggle to keep pace with industry in a fast changing environment. Whilst achieving this in the short term is difficult, the editors are encouraged by the work published in this special issue and ongoing work elsewhere at the intersection of academia and practice, leaving us hopeful academia can provide insights that have impact on data, resilience and identity in the digital age. Our last task as guest editors of this special issue is to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the editorial team at Strategic Change, in particular Andrea Caputo, and of the anonymous reviewers of the submissions to the special issue, without their work and their constructive input to the review process this special issue would not have been possible. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr Phil Davies is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at the University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol. His research covers topics such as servitization, supply chain resilience and delivery system design. For supply chain resilience, he has a particular interest in additive manufacturing an responsive systems and for delivery system design, he has a particular interest in modular service design and delivery. Prof. Dr. Albrecht Fritzsche is full professor at Rabat Business School, Morocco, where he co-ordinates the interdisciplinary research group on innovation and complexity management for sustainable transitions and serves as senior scholar in the strategy and management department. Prof. Fritzsche holds doctoral degrees in industrial economics and philosophy. He has worked for many years as a systems expert and project leader in the automotive industry and as a strategy consultant with various assignments in Germany, China and other countries. Prof. Fritzsche has received the FAU Habilitation Award 2020 for his research on innovation management and the Shin Research Excellence Award in 2018 for his work on digital agendas in the insurance industry. He regularly teaches PhD courses in different countries worldwide. Professor Glenn Parry is a Professor of Digital Transformation and Head of the Department of Digital Economy, Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Surrey Business School, University of Surrey. He is CoDirector of the Next Stage Digital Economy Centre in the Decentralized Digital Economy (DECaDE). Professor Parry's work is characterized by an approach of partnering with organizations to develop creative solutions to challenges. He is interested in the effect of digital technology on business models, value, servitization and supply chain visibility. He has managed research consortia with in the automotive, aerospace, music and construction industries and has published and edited numerous international journals. Dr Zena Wood is an Associate Professor in Digital Economy and Director of the Defence Data Research centre (DDRC). She has been a fellow of the Alan Turing Institute (ATI) since October 2021. Zena joined the Initiative for the Digital Economy (INDEX) in April 2019 and is based in their offices in South London. Prior to this she was employed by the University of Greenwich as a Senior Lecturer in Spatial Informatics. Zena's background is in Computer Science with her research focusing on how techniques from applied ontology and spatiotemporal reasoning can be used to derive value from datasets that would help us understand the impact of digital transformation within the Digital Economy. She is particularly interested in the overlap between methods that can be applied to datasets related to physical and non-physical environments. Most of her research is interdisciplinary involving collaborations with experts from geography, psychology and business. The research in the physical world focuses on the development of representation, and data analytic, methods to identify and understand collective phenomena (i.e., groups of individuals that we wish to consider as one entity) within spatiotemporal datasets. Zena's most recent research has focused on digital transformation within the financial services sector, particularly those companies moving towards a servitization business model (e.g., a move from a product-based offering to a service-based offering). NA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strategic Change-Briefings in Entrepreneurial Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strategic Change-Briefings in Entrepreneurial Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Change-Briefings in Entrepreneurial Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然在数字身份方面仍然存在重大挑战,特别是在治理、隐私与个性化以及自我主权方面,但在不削弱个人权利的情况下使用个人数据仍然是一个优先事项,因为它有可能释放巨大的经济和社会效益(世界经济论坛,2012年),实现基于弹性社会和个人结构的可持续发展。数字化及其产生的数据不应被视为恢复力和身份认同的灵丹妙药,而应被视为一种革命性的变革,有可能对社会产生真正的影响。然而,从所提供的例子中可以明显看出,在使用和部署它以支持短期的渐进式变革和更彻底的变革以应对中长期的重大挑战方面仍然存在挑战。在这个新时代的背景下,本期《数字时代数据、弹性和身份的战略变革》特刊(SI)广泛撒网。本期特刊的目的是汇集最新的思想,为未来的研究和行业参与提供一个平台。通过汇集来自不同学科、观点和国家的贡献,本期特刊分享了对数字时代韧性和身份的理解,并通过这样做,有助于本刊“在战略、创业和决策的交叉点提供一个发表前沿、原创、创新和高质量研究的平台”的使命。这期特刊通过包括学科交叉的研究以及关注组织、社会和我们所居住的星球的未来的核心主题来做到这一点。特邀编辑团队和选定论文的审稿人对数字时代的弹性和身份做出了深刻的研究,这将激发围绕这些令人兴奋和重要领域的必要讨论。最初关于“数字时代的数据、弹性和身份”主题的论文征集是雄心勃勃的,因为编辑们想要突出这些主题的艺术状态和多学科性质。此外,本期的目的是提供一场关于数据、弹性和识别的关键对话,以及它们在一个自工业革命以来从未见过的变化速度的世界中的纠缠。这期特刊有五篇研究文章。这些文章涵盖了各种主题,从个人数据的价值到制造系统中的安全性和弹性,每一篇文章都对业务战略、运营和整个社会具有战略意义。Maurer和Fritzsche(2023)在他们关于“鲁棒性和弹性的分层结构:中欧关键基础设施网络安全项目的证据”的论文中解决了正在进行的数字化转型的一个关键问题。为了让商业和社会在数字时代正常运转,信息系统必须受到保护,免受网络犯罪、战争和其他破坏性力量的侵害。Mauer和Fritzsche认为,保护性措施可能对不同的系统层面产生相互矛盾的后果。如果所有的努力都集中在增加一个特定子系统的健壮性和弹性上,那么更高的系统结构可能会受到影响,因为它们对外部干扰的动态响应能力可能会受到限制。Maurer和Fritzsche从公共资助的中欧网络安全项目的多个案例研究中得出结论,以保护社会中的关键基础设施。使用Maurer和Lechner(2015)引入的框架,他们区分了组织稳健性和弹性的七个不同方面。他们发现,大多数网络安全项目关注的是低系统层面的方面,而有关社会关键基础设施的稳健性和弹性的一般问题没有得到解决。Maurer和Fritzsche的工作对公共政策制定和项目管理有直接的影响。它呼吁改变战略,以便更好地考虑基础设施保护的不同系统层面。增加IT系统弹性的努力必须考虑到组织和社会的系统动态,这可能需要改变子系统结构。与Maurer和Fritzsche(2023)类似,Fowler等人(2023)专注于智能制造系统背景下的弹性主题。智能制造系统的弹性变得越来越重要,近一半的英国制造商在2022年面临网络攻击(Make UK, 2022)。弹性在网络系统工程和运营管理的交叉点上运作。 通过对文献的回顾,他们确定了弹性的不同因素,如适应性、稳健性和灵活性,这些因素可以作为一个组织框架,通过这个框架,未来的智能制造弹性研究可以进行。他们还通过设计确定了对弹性的激励,并提出了一系列可用于交付新型网络物理生产系统的数字技术。他们的概念审查确定,数字技术对制造业弹性的最大影响可能是在微观层面(即公司内部的生产)。他们展示了对弹性有更好的社会技术理解的必要性,并呼吁研究界解决以下挑战:(1)智能制造劳动力的技能和再培训,(2)解决智能制造系统内的网络安全问题,以及(3)从社会技术的角度,从安全、运营和决策的角度部署和使用数字孪生。他们在论文的最后论证了加强跨学科研究和教学的必要性,未来的工程师将需要来自商业和管理的关于智能制造系统弹性的学科知识。在他们的论文“数据共享决策:医疗保健中的感知和意图”中,Kharlamov和Parry(2023)研究了个人如何决定共享或以其他方式共享他们的医疗保健数据。医疗保健数据是一个令人感兴趣的上下文,因为人们认为健康数据非常敏感。交换的经济观点将数据和隐私视为市场上的经济商品。维护信息不对称允许组织保持对客户数据的访问,并从该数据中获得商业利益。该研究的动机是实践,一家医疗保健组织试图通过了解患者的决策过程和意图来采取合乎道德的行为,以获得愿意分享其医疗保健数据的患者的知情同意。从文献中确定了许多不同的指标,并用于了解个人的感知和分享数据的意图。他们的研究结果表明,尽管文献中使用的衡量标准激增,但基于风险和收益的两种衡量标准可能是了解个人意图所需要的全部。当组织清楚而诚实地陈述风险和收益时,个人可以在知情的情况下决定是否同意分享他们的数据。然而,尽管支持医疗保健数据的首要地位,该论文表明,个人往往愿意分享。原因进行了讨论,确定仁,天真,或无知的因素。尽管在这方面可能更专业,但作者在研究中也指出了自己的幼稚。他们意识到自己的医疗保健数据被共享的程度超出了他们的理解,这表明组织在数据共享实践中不够清楚。Söldner(2023)对本期特刊的贡献,“在自我营销和协作之间:学术社交网站使用中的研究人员身份形成”研究了学术社交网站(ASNS)如何使学者能够共享文档,讨论和参与共同活动。ASNS允许学者向更多的受众展示自己,突出他们的技能和成功,可能在学术生涯的发展中发挥重要作用。结合社会影响与使用和满足理论,Söldner以管理研究社区为例调查了ASNS的使用情况。扩展meisha - tal和Pieterse(2017)的早期工作,他发现ASNS与其他社交网站在用户动机和目标方面存在显着差异。ASNS用户关心自我提升,希望增强他们的信心和自尊,以及与其他学者建立社区。Söldner的工作对数字时代不断变化的劳动力市场的研究具有启示意义,表明技术工人有更多的选择来塑造自己的职业身份。此外,平台设计师和运营商可以从这项研究中了解到,未来的ASNS设计如何作为传统社交网络(Park等人,2009)和协作交互的支持进行,因为它们来自开放式创新(Moeslein和Fritzsche, 2018)。Stelmaszak和Parry(2023)的“数据在旁观者的眼中:共同创造个人数据的价值”发现,数据的价值在公司、中介和客户之间是不同的。感知上的差异是根深蒂固的,与对数据的基本本体论解释有关。一个挑战是对数据价值的解释,在分析中,财务价值是对价值的主要解释。 在这项工作中,通过讨论数据在其使用中的价值,发现了进一步的见解。研究发现,企业将数据视为达到目的的手段,即实现其业务成果。它不是具体的个人数据,而是有价值的汇总数据,因为它被认为是导致市场洞察力的因素。在案例示例中,中介是提供数据存储、传输和处理服务的公司。中介机构要求数据流动,因为当数据被使用时,价值就实现了,因此数据的价值是作为交换的媒介。最后,客户感兴趣的是他们的数据如何为他们创造价值,但他们对数据的看法不是它的经济价值。与Kharlamov等人的工作一样,价值来自于一种计算,客户在感知到净收益的情况下共享数据。本文指出,各方之间对数据的“价值认知的不协调”尚未得到承认,学术界的进一步研究和组织利用这一机会的新价值主张设计都有潜力。这些论文表明,在一个充满巨大挑战的世界中,需要对数字技术的实施进行战略反思和跨学科工作。工作场所关注用户操作和对价值、风险和利益的看法,但也关注在实施工作中处理信息系统的参考系统。当涉及到社会中更复杂的问题时,例如关键基础设施保护、医疗保健、个人数据和弹性工业运营,以及专业身份开发和艺术内容制作,仅使用技术方法来设计解决方案是不够的。要理解系统设计的更广泛含义,评估机会和威胁,规划数字技术的使用以及如何适当地实施这些技术,管理视角是必要的。因此,未来有几个领域需要研究。随着组织越来越依赖数字技术来提高运营效率、产品和服务质量、供应链协调、响应能力和可见性(Cui et al., 2022),网络攻击的可能性呈指数级增长。这些攻击的成本不仅仅是带来不便,而是根据IBM的一份报告,在2022年攀升到平均447万美元,导致知识产权的损失,并可能导致关键系统的故障(Kumar & Mallipeddi, 2022)。随着攻击者技术水平的提高,如果创建弹性制造系统的努力继续跟不上网络攻击的增长,制造商应该会看到这些攻击的成本上升。该挑战为网络系统工程、运营和战略管理交叉领域的研究提供了富有成果的领域。该领域的研究可以解决以下问题:组织如何将网络弹性整合到其运营战略中?组织如何将设计弹性作为其运营和供应链发展的原则?制造商如何评估其自身生产设施及其供应链的网络弹性?最后,在设计和开发具有弹性、健壮性和可再生的系统方面,管理学者可以从其他学科中学到什么?身份赋予个人权力,并允许他们参与日常生活。要做到这一点,个人必须提供关于自己的信息,以形成并向他人和组织展示他们的身份。通过他们的身份,个人可以通过投票权、法律权利、学校、医疗保健、金融服务等参与日常的民主和社会。随着数字经济的增长和个人信息通过数据量和种类的激增呈指数级增长(Cappa等人,2020),组织越来越以客户为导向,许多人认识到数字身份可以提供对个人偏好的新见解,并增强客户体验(Sheik等人,2021)。通过使用个人数据,组织正变得更加以客户为中心。隐私悖论发现,虽然个人表达了对更大隐私的渴望,但他们的实际行为几乎没有保护他们的隐私,因为他们追求更个性化的产品/服务。当使用身份来只允许适当的参与者访问系统时,这是一个特别值得关注的问题。如果人们泄露了包括身份在内的数据,就很难保证系统的安全。自我主权系统的发展为个人提供了对其数据的更大控制,并具有共享个人数据的能力,这是保护隐私的(m<e:1>等人,2018)。 他是去中心化数字经济(十年)下一阶段数字经济中心的联合主任。Parry教授的工作特点是与组织合作,开发应对挑战的创造性解决方案。他对数字技术对商业模式、价值、服务化和供应链可见性的影响感兴趣。他曾管理汽车、航空航天、音乐和建筑行业的研究联盟,并出版和编辑了许多国际期刊。泽娜·伍德博士是数字经济副教授和国防数据研究中心(DDRC)主任。自2021年10月起,她一直是艾伦·图灵研究所(ATI)的研究员。Zena于2019年4月加入了数字经济倡议(INDEX),并在伦敦南部的办公室工作。在此之前,她受雇于格林威治大学,担任空间信息学高级讲师。泽娜的背景是计算机科学,她的研究重点是如何从应用本体和时空推理的技术可以用来从数据集中获得价值,这将有助于我们理解数字经济中数字化转型的影响。她对可以应用于与物理和非物理环境相关的数据集的方法之间的重叠特别感兴趣。她的大部分研究都是跨学科的,包括与地理、心理学和商业专家的合作。物理世界的研究侧重于表征和数据分析的发展,以及识别和理解时空数据集中的集体现象(即,我们希望将个体群体视为一个实体)的方法。Zena最近的研究主要集中在金融服务行业的数字化转型,特别是那些向服务化商业模式(例如,从基于产品的提供转向基于服务的提供)转变的公司。NA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Data, resilience, and identity in the digital age
In the last decade, the world has become increasingly digitized, with COVID-19 accelerating this trend. According to a McKinsey report, it is estimated that the Internet of Things will add up to $12.4 billion to the world economy by 2030 (Chui et al., 2021). Whilst academic research initially focused on ‘digitization’, whereby analogue processes become digital and connected, current research has shifted to a focus on “digitalization,” whereby digital technologies fundamentally change organizational business models, delivery systems, and infrastructure to change the way products and services are created, delivered, and consumed (Caputo et al., 2021; Holmström et al., 2019; Kharlamov & Parry, 2021; Loonam et al., 2018). Numerous studies focusing on digitalization have been published in various disciplines within business, such as strategic management, operations and supply chain management, international business, marketing, innovation, and broader fields such as cyber security, design and politics, and international relations. Whilst broad topics have been studied, deeper implications for the actors involved, their identity, privacy, and sustained ability to act in the view of radical change, have so far been neglected. In the course of digitalization, basic societal structures have gone askew (Fritzsche, 2021), requiring deeper strategic reflection. For example, COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine have exposed weaknesses in organizational and supply chain resilience (Billiet et al., 2021; Jagtap et al., 2022; Ntasis et al., 2021; Shen & Sun, 2021; Sheth & Uslay, 2023). Research on digital sovereignty has also drawn attention to the challenges for territorial control caused by worldwide data networks and platforms (Glasze et al., 2023; Pohle & Thiel, 2020), which do not only concern political and legal authority on a national level, but also organizational and indivitual decision-making. In domains such as the creative sector, healthcare, or energy supply, the use of data at the individual level could have significant implications for key functions including content ownership, IP rights assignment, provenance and origin of content, and identity of workers, which put extant organizational structure, culture, trust, and professional traditions in question (Egwuonwu et al., 2022; Gauthier et al., 2018; Goudarzi et al., 2022; Tabaghdehi & Kalatian, 2022; Żukowicka-Surma & Fritzsche, 2023). It can be argued that industry, outside the narrow confines of early adopters, remains confused about the potential uses of digital technologies, the data they generate and their implications for resilience and identity on the organizational and individual level. In the manufacturing industry, the implementation of digital technologies has created vulnerabilities in manufacturing systems in areas not previously considered by organizations. For example, digital technology has opened the door for increased cyber-attacks with nearly 50% of all UK manufacturing firms affected by cyber-attacks in 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Confronted with these threats, organizations hesitate to implement new technical designs, carefully weighing advantages against disadvantages. Project activities to explore data-driven operations, smart services, etc. are legion, but mostly remain constrained to specific, controllable applications (Fritzsche & Gölzer, 2021). Radical change that affects organizational strategy, culture, routines, and core competencies, this redefining organizational identity, proceeds very slowly. With respect to individual identity, identity is used to provide participation in everyday life, giving, as example, access to public and financial services and provides voter and legal rights to individuals. With the advent of digital identity, organizations are seeking to create enhanced customer experiences and monetize data associated with individuals. Legal instruments, such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have been put in place to protect individuals' data and identity, but it remains a challenging and contested area. For instance, tensions have been identified in literature and practice with respect to identity, as this frequently has recourse to centralized points of authority or third-party identity providers (Wachter, 2018). Centralization of authority and governance runs counter to individual autonomy, which has led to the development of decentralized self-sovereign solutions, such as those run on distributed ledgers or individual data stores such as the Hub of All Things (Ng et al., 2015). Such data stores still leave enough space for profiling and deep phenoytyping on social media and elsewhere, but increase the users' influence on how it proceeds, affecting participation in everyday life on another level with increasing importance in the digital age. Whilst there remain significant challenges with respect to digital identity, particularly with respect to governance, privacy versus personalization, and self-sovereignty, use of personal data without diminishing the rights of individuals remains a priority as it has the potential to unlock significant economic and social benefit (World Economic Forum, 2012), enabling sustainable development based on resilient social and individual structures. Digitalization, and with it the generation of data, should not be considered panacea for resilience and identity, but it should be considered a revolutionary change that has the potential to make a real impact to society. However, it is evident from the examples provided that challenges remain in its use and deployment for supporting both incremental change in the short term and for more radical change to address the grand challenges in the medium to long term. Against the backdrop of this new era, this Special Issue (SI) of Strategic Change on Data, Resilience and Identity in the Digital Age casts a wide net. The intention for this special issue is to bring together the latest thinking to provide a platform from which future research and industry engagement can begin. In bringing together contributions from different disciplines, perspectives, and countries, this special issue shares understanding of resilience and identity in the digital age, and by doing so, contributes to this journal's mission to “provide a platform for the publication of cutting-edge, original, innovative, and high-quality research at the intersection of strategy, entrepreneurship, and decision-making.” The special issue does this by including research at the intersection of disciplines and by focusing on topics central to the future of organizations, society, and the planet we live on. The guest editorial team and reviewers of selected papers contribute insightful research into resilience and identity in the digital age, which will stimulate the necessary discourse around these exciting and important areas. The original call for papers on the theme “data, resilience and identity in the digital age” was ambitious, as the editors wanted to highlight the state of the art and the multidisciplinary nature of these topics. Further, the aim of this issue is to provide a critical conversation about data, resilience and identify and the entanglement of them in a world moving at a rate of change not seen since the industrial revolution. There are five research articles in this special issue. The articles cover diverse topics, from the value of personal data to security and resilience in manufacturing systems with each having strategic implications for business strategy, operations, and societies as a whole. Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) address a key issue of the ongoing digital transformation in their paper on “Layered Structures of Robustness and Resilience: Evidence from Cybersecurity Projects for Critical Infrastructures in Central Europe.” For business and society to function properly in the digital age, information systems must be protected against cybercrime, warfare, and other disruptive forces. Mauer and Fritzsche argue that protective measures can have contradictory consequences on different systemic layers. If all efforts are focused on increasing the robustness and resilience of one specific subsystem, higher systemic structures may suffer, as they may become limited in their ability to respond dynamically to external disturbances. Maurer and Fritzsche present findings from a multiple case study of publicly funded Central European cybersecurity projects to protect critical infrastructure in society. Using a framework introduced by Maurer and Lechner (2015), they distinguish seven different facets of organizational robustness and resilience. They find that most cybersecurity projects are focused on facets at a low systemic level, while general questions regarding the robustness and resilience of critical infrastructures of societies are not addressed. Maurer and Fritzsche's work has direct implications for public policy-making and project management. It calls for a change in strategy towards a better account of different systemic layers in infrastructure protection. Efforts to increase the resilience of an IT system must be considered in reference to the system dynamics of organizations and society in general, which may require changes of sub-system structures. In a similar vein to Maurer and Fritzsche (2023), Fowler et al. (2023) focus on the topic of resilience in the context of smart manufacturing systems. Resilience in smart manufacturing systems is becoming increasingly important, with nearly half of all UK manufacturers facing a cyber-attack during 2022 (Make UK, 2022). Resilience operates at the intersection of cyber systems engineering and operations management. Through a review of the literature, they identified different factors for resilience, such as adaptability, robustness, and flexibility, that can be used as an organizing framework through which future studies on resilience for smart manufacturing can be conducted. They also identified incentives to resilience by design and present a range of digital technologies that can be used to deliver novel cyber-physical production systems. Their conceptual review identified that the greatest impact for manufacturing resilience from digital technologies is likely to be at the micro level (i.e., production within the firm). They demonstrate the need for a better sociotechnical understanding of resilience and call on the research community to address the challenges around (1) skilling and reskilling the workforce for smart manufacturing, (2) addressing cyber security within smart manufacturing systems, and (3) from a sociotechnical perspective, the deployment and use of digital twins from a security, operations, and decision-making perspective. They conclude their paper by demonstrating the need for greater interdisciplinary research and teaching, whereby engineers of the future will require disciplinary knowledge from business and management about resilience in smart manufacturing systems. In their paper, “The data sharing decision: perception and intention in healthcare” Kharlamov, and Parry (2023) examine how individuals decide to share, or otherwise, their healthcare data. Healthcare data are a context of interest, as health data are perceived to be very sensitive. An economic view of exchange places data and privacy as economic goods in markets. Maintaining information asymmetry allows organizations to maintain access to client data and commercially benefit from that data. The research was motivated by practice, with a healthcare organization seeking to act ethically by understanding their patient's decision process and intentions in order to gain informed consent from patients who are open to share their healthcare data. A number of different metrics were identified from literature and employed to capture insight into individual's perception and intention to share their data. Their findings showing that despite the proliferation of metrics employed in literature just two measures may be all that is required to understand an individual's intentions, based on risk and benefit. When organizations clearly and honestly state the risks and benefits, individuals can reach an informed decision on whether to consent to share their data, or not. However, despite the espoused primacy of healthcare data, the paper suggests individuals most often willingly share. Reasons for this are discussed, identifying benevolence, naivety, or ignorance as factors. Despite potentially being more expert in this area, the authors noted their own naivety during the study. They realized their own healthcare data was shared more than they had understood, which suggests that organizations are not sufficiently clear in their data-sharing practices. Söldner's (2023) contribution to this special issue, “In-Between Self-Marketing and Collaboration: Researcher Identity Formation in the Usage of Academic Social Network Sites” examines how academic social networking sites (ASNS) enable scholars to share documents, discuss, and engage in common activities. ASNS allow scholars to present themselves to a larger audience and highlight their skills and their successes, potentially playing an important role in the development of academic careers. Combining Social Influence with Uses and Gratifications Theory, Söldner investigates ASNS usage using the example of a management research community. Expanding earlier work by Meishar-Tal and Pieterse (2017), he finds that ASNS differ significantly from other social networking sites regarding the motivations and objectives of the users. ASNS users are concerned with self-promotion and look to enhance their confidence and self-esteem, as well as community building with other scholars. Söldner's work has implications for the study of changing labor markets in the digital age, showing increased options for skilled workers to shape their own professional identities. Furthermore, platform designers and operators can learn from this study how the future design of ASNS can proceed as an enablement of conventional social networking (Park et al., 2009) and collaborative interactions, as they are known from open innovation (Moeslein and Fritzsche, 2018). “Data are in the Eye of the Beholder: Co-creating the Value of Personal Data” by Stelmaszak and Parry (2023) find that the value of data differs between firm, intermediary, and customer. The differences in perception are deep seated, relating to fundamental ontological interpretations of what data are. A challenge is in the interpretation of value of data, with financial worth the predominant interpretation of value in analysis. In this work, further insights were found though discussion of the value of data in its use. Firms were found to view data as a means to an ends, namely achieving their business outcome. It was not specific individual data, but aggregated data that were valued, as that was perceived to lead to market insight. In the case example provided the intermediary was a firm that provided data storage, transfer, and processing services. The intermediary required data to flow as value is achieved when data was used, so the value of data was therefore as a medium of exchange. Finally, the customer was interested in how their data create value for them, but their perception of data was not that of its financial worth. As with the work of Kharlamov et al., value resulted from a calculus, with customers sharing data where net benefit was perceived. The paper notes that this “dissonance in the perceptions of value” of data between different parties is not recognized and there is potential for both further research by academics, and novel value proposition design by organizations to exploit this opportunity. The papers show the need for strategic reflection and interdisciplinary work on the implementation of digital technology for resilience and identity in a world characterized by grand challenges. Workplaces focus on user operations and perceptions of value, risk, and benefits, but also the reference systems in which information systems are addressed in the implementation efforts. Mere technical approaches to solution design are insufficient when it comes to more complex problems in society, such as critical infrastructure protection, healthcare, personal data, and resilient industrial operations, but also professional identity development and artistic content production. A managerial perspective is necessary to understand the wider implications of systems design, assess opportunities and threats, and plan their use of digital technologies and how they will implement them appropriately. As such, there are several areas for future research. As organizations increasingly rely on digital technologies to improve their operational efficiency, product and service quality, supply chain coordination, responsiveness, and visibility (Cui et al., 2022), the potential for cyber-attacks increases exponentially. The cost of these attacks is not mere inconveniences, but according to an IBM report in 2022 climbed to an average of $4.47 million, lead to loss of intellectual property, and can lead to the failure of critical systems (Kumar & Mallipeddi, 2022). As the sophistication of attackers improves, manufacturers should expect to see the costs of these attacks rise if efforts to create resilient manufacturing systems continue to fall short of the growth in cyberattacks. The challenge offers fruitful areas for research at the intersection of cyber systems engineering, operations, and strategic management. Research in this area may address questions such as: how do organizations integrate cyber resilience into their operations strategy? How can organizations incorporate resilience-by-design as a principle in the development of their operations and supply chains? How do manufacturers assess the cyber resilience of their own production facilities and that of their supply chain? And finally, what can management scholars learn from other disciplines with respect to the design and development of resilient, robust, and regenerative systems? Identity empowers individuals and allows them to participate in everyday life. To do so, individuals must provide information about themselves to form and present their identity to others and to organizations. Through their identity, individuals can participate in everyday democracy and society through voting rights, legal rights, school, healthcare, financial services, and so on. As the digital economy grows and information about individuals exponentially increases through the proliferation in volume and variety of data (Cappa et al., 2020), organizations are becoming increasingly customer orientated and many recognize that digital identity can provide novel insights into individual preference and enhance the customer experience (Sheik et al., 2021). Organizations are becoming more customer-centric through the use of individuals personal data. The privacy paradox finds that whilst individuals express a desire for greater privacy, their actual behaviors do little to protect their privacy as they pursue greater personalization of products/services. This is of particular concern as identity is employed to enable only appropriate actors' access to a system. If people are giving away data that includes identity it becomes difficult to secure a system. The development of self-sovereign systems provides individuals greater control over their data with an ability to share personal data that is privacy preserving (Mühle et al., 2018). However, in giving individuals control, it also potentially allows them to give away all their data, as is observed in the paradox. Identity and the security of data are a significant sociotechnical challenge to address, giving rise to a number of potential research questions, including: How do we understand user wants, needs, and capabilities to enable the design of safe digital systems? How do digital systems capture and integrate multidisciplinary issues such as ethics and morals, business model, and value of data, user technical abilities, and cyber threats? And how do organizations design their offerings to provide an appropriate balance between centralized control and self-sovereignty? We began this editorial by noting the pace at which the world is digitalizing and the interest this is generating in both industry and academia. At the time of writing, the world has embraced digitalization and recognizes that the change it brings may be as significant as the industrial revolution. Academia has not kept pace with industry, and as a result, research in the context of data, resilience and identity is often practice led. This special issue sought to address this and contribute to the vision of Strategic Change by balancing theory driven work with with issues faced in practice today through a multi- and interdisciplinary lens (Caputo, 2023). The articles that make up this special issue principally relate to what and how questions, with some context in the form of healthcare, critical infrastructure, and manufacturing systems, resulting in descriptive accounts of the phenomena studied. This outcome reflects a field in the nascent stages of theory building. Whilst this special issue achieved, for the most part, its aim of publishing work from multiple disciplines, one consequence of this for a field it is the early stages of theoretical development is that too many descriptions, factors, and definitions can be introduced, leading the conceptual competition, alternative micronarratives, and redundancy. Whilst there is evidence of different disciplinary definitions and vocabularies converging, as demonstrated by Maurer and Fritzsche (2023) and Fowler et al.'s (2023) definitions of resilience, there is still a need to harmonize vocabularies and share definitions of theoretical constructs. This is even more important in the context of data, resilience, and identity in the digital age, as they are inherently multidisciplinary topics. Should definitions, vocabularies, and theoretical constructs not harmonize across disciplines, academic research will, at best, continue to suggest theoretical avenues for the future (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), and will struggle to keep pace with industry in a fast changing environment. Whilst achieving this in the short term is difficult, the editors are encouraged by the work published in this special issue and ongoing work elsewhere at the intersection of academia and practice, leaving us hopeful academia can provide insights that have impact on data, resilience and identity in the digital age. Our last task as guest editors of this special issue is to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the editorial team at Strategic Change, in particular Andrea Caputo, and of the anonymous reviewers of the submissions to the special issue, without their work and their constructive input to the review process this special issue would not have been possible. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr Phil Davies is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at the University of Bristol Business School, University of Bristol. His research covers topics such as servitization, supply chain resilience and delivery system design. For supply chain resilience, he has a particular interest in additive manufacturing an responsive systems and for delivery system design, he has a particular interest in modular service design and delivery. Prof. Dr. Albrecht Fritzsche is full professor at Rabat Business School, Morocco, where he co-ordinates the interdisciplinary research group on innovation and complexity management for sustainable transitions and serves as senior scholar in the strategy and management department. Prof. Fritzsche holds doctoral degrees in industrial economics and philosophy. He has worked for many years as a systems expert and project leader in the automotive industry and as a strategy consultant with various assignments in Germany, China and other countries. Prof. Fritzsche has received the FAU Habilitation Award 2020 for his research on innovation management and the Shin Research Excellence Award in 2018 for his work on digital agendas in the insurance industry. He regularly teaches PhD courses in different countries worldwide. Professor Glenn Parry is a Professor of Digital Transformation and Head of the Department of Digital Economy, Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Surrey Business School, University of Surrey. He is CoDirector of the Next Stage Digital Economy Centre in the Decentralized Digital Economy (DECaDE). Professor Parry's work is characterized by an approach of partnering with organizations to develop creative solutions to challenges. He is interested in the effect of digital technology on business models, value, servitization and supply chain visibility. He has managed research consortia with in the automotive, aerospace, music and construction industries and has published and edited numerous international journals. Dr Zena Wood is an Associate Professor in Digital Economy and Director of the Defence Data Research centre (DDRC). She has been a fellow of the Alan Turing Institute (ATI) since October 2021. Zena joined the Initiative for the Digital Economy (INDEX) in April 2019 and is based in their offices in South London. Prior to this she was employed by the University of Greenwich as a Senior Lecturer in Spatial Informatics. Zena's background is in Computer Science with her research focusing on how techniques from applied ontology and spatiotemporal reasoning can be used to derive value from datasets that would help us understand the impact of digital transformation within the Digital Economy. She is particularly interested in the overlap between methods that can be applied to datasets related to physical and non-physical environments. Most of her research is interdisciplinary involving collaborations with experts from geography, psychology and business. The research in the physical world focuses on the development of representation, and data analytic, methods to identify and understand collective phenomena (i.e., groups of individuals that we wish to consider as one entity) within spatiotemporal datasets. Zena's most recent research has focused on digital transformation within the financial services sector, particularly those companies moving towards a servitization business model (e.g., a move from a product-based offering to a service-based offering). NA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.70%
发文量
70
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信