Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common
Information Sharing Environment
Harri Ruoslahti
1,2 a
and
Ilkka Tikanmäki
1,3
1
Security and Risk Management, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vanha Maantie 8, Espoo, Finland
2
Organizational Communication & Public Relations, University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu 15, Jyväskylä, Finland
3
Department of Warfare, National Defence University, Kadettikouluntie 7, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: Complexity, Multi-stakeholder Collaboration, Information Sharing, Situational Picture.
Abstract: European authorities collaborate as a community toward a coherent approach of situational understanding and
open trust base information sharing. Innovation in multi-stakeholder collaboration networks involve complex
collaboration between user community members, providing cross-sector, cross-border and cross-authority
interaction and information sharing for collaborative situation awareness, and cooperation to increase safety
and security. This study analyses data consisting of elements of use cases, collected from EU funded
innovation projects. These were placed in a table based on similarity, difference and relevance to produce a
classification. The results of this study indicate that use cases and scenarios engage end-users to co-create
very practical descriptions providing input communication for innovation projects; also multi-actor projects
are complex networks thus, this study contributes to the network approach of innovation. The implications of
this study are that reaching faster innovation can be facilitated by leading and organising projects well,
providing appropriate feedback to ensure project plans and results stay connected with project goals, fostering
project continuums, and having e.g. higher education institutions bring problems as project ideas. The results,
innovations, and feedback from research and innovation projects can benefit the European society.
1 INTRODUCTION
European maritime authorities, as a community, have
collaborated aiming at a coherent approach of
situational awareness based on open trust base
information sharing. Project MARISA (Maritime
Integrated Surveillance Awareness, 2017-2019),
which develops clean data based solutions, data
refining tools and expanded data fusion
functionalities is one example of such collaboration
(MARISA, 2019). MARISA is based on prior
collective maritime development projects from 2009
to 2019 (e.g. BLUEMASSMED, Perseus, CoopP, and
EUCISE 2020). The MARISA user community acts
as a forum that steers the project. Similar examples of
end user engagement have been used in earlier FP7
funded projects (e.g. AIRBEAM) to built user
communities and provide information sharing, and
involve them in cross sector, cross border and cross
authority exchange and co-creation. In MARISA,
these exchanges have proven to be valuable in
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9726-7956
defining user requirements and identifying possible
legal and ethical barriers.
MARISA has selected five use cases that serve as
the basis for the project work (MARISA, 2018) to
define cooperation mechanisms, trust-based data sets,
and trust building mechanisms between the users of
the Common Information Sharing Environment
(MARISA, 2019). Earlier studies point towards
complexity of collaboration having an effect on
innovation in multi-stakeholder collaboration
networks (Ruoslahti, 2018; Ruoslahti and Hyttinen;
Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki, 2017). To further
understand this issue, the research questions for this
paper are:
RQ 1: How are use case narratives used to engage
end-users in complex innovation projects?
RQ 2: Is the time needed to achieve innovation
affected by the level of complexity of collaboration
networks in the case project?
Ruoslahti, H. and Tikanmäki, I.
Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common Information Sharing Environment.
DOI: 10.5220/0007946501590166
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 159-166
ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
159
2 LITERATURE
2.1 European-wide Collaborative
Situational Picture
Interaction and information sharing between
authorities is important in building collaborative
situational awareness and promoting cooperation to
increase maritime safety and security. European
maritime cooperation aims at increasing situational
awareness, sharing best practices, improving
interoperability, removing overlapping activities, and
promoting cross-border and cross-sector cooperation
(Tikanmäki and Ruoslahti, 2017).
Project MARISA, divides its users under seven
user community sectors. The EU also, in some other
instances, uses a classification of ten EU Coast Guard
Functions (ECGFF, 2014; Ruoslahti and Hyttinen,
2017). These mostly correspond to each other, and
Table 1 below makes a comparison of the two
classifications. One main difference is that the Coast
Guard Functions do not include defence, and they
make a finer division of Maritime safety into
Maritime safety and vessel traffic management,
Accident and disaster response, and Search and
rescue at sea. The Coast Guard Function Maritime
surveillance has not been included under any
MARISA sector, as it is elementary to each sector and
how Maritime surveillance relates to the MARISA
use cases and end-user sectors is discussed below in
the Methods and Results sections.
Table 1: MARISA user community sectors in relation to the
Coast Guard Functions of the European Union.
Project MARISA has an expansive approach, as
data from various authority sensors and sources, and
open access big data are used to build a situational
picture for maritime surveillance and response.
(MARISA, 2018).
The innovation action process of MARISA is co-
creative. Maritime integration and development
activities are structured as a relatively novel cross-
border socially constructed user community
(MARISA, 2018). The different sectors (Coast Guard
Functions) have different user needs and, therefore,
require different operational approaches and
respective technical solutions. The European
authorities are beginning to understand that sharing
information cross-border and cross-sector is
important and a benefit to all stakeholders concerned
(Tikanmäki and Ruoslahti, 2017).
2.2 End User Community
Maritime awareness and safety can be improved
through collaboration between partners. Inter-agency
collaboration can broaden the knowledge of the
multiple stakeholders on each other’s concepts,
measures, resources and plans (Tikanmäki, 2017).
Eicken et al. (2016) note that it is a challenge to
ensure that information is shared with all relevant
entities and agencies from the regional or local to
international level. According to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Finland (2018) individuals,
organizations, businesses, and communities will most
likely take larger roles in negotiating future
international norms.
The Common Information Sharing Environment
(CISE) is based on trust between the authorities on
the maritime domain. This includes sharing
operational information and procedures, and
developing a culture and technology that enables also
sharing confidential information. MARISA’s user
community involvements, together with other
MARISA meetings aim to co-create value, such as a
revised methodology, key performance indicators,
readiness level metrics, a maturity matrix to assess
resilience, and privacy impact assessments, all
validated by the user community (Pirinen, 2017;
Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki, 2017).
EU-wide projects such as PERSEUS, CoopP,
EUCISE2020, and MARISA have shown that there is
a need share information cross-sector and cross-
border. Collaboration is needed between different
national authorities; nationally, between the different
EU member states, as well as with cooperative (non-
EU) third countries (Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki, 2017).
Engeström,Kerosuo and Kajamaa (2007) argue
that inter-organizational learning highlights networks
that have trust, exchange information and resources,
and solve problems collaboratively and across
organizational boundaries. Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki
(2017) highlight that the objects and phenomena,
relevant to CISE, need to be continuously evaluated
and redefined together with end-users; against
changing risk and treat scenarios, evolving end-user
needs, national and EU-wide strategies, and “taking
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
160
into account the assets, which cooperative third
country nations may bring.” (Ruoslahti and
Tikanmäki, 2017, p. 273). Collaborative information
sharing, situational awareness and open innovation
opportunities support the building of organizational
resilience (Rajamäki and Ruoslahti, 2018).
Communication helps engage stakeholders and
innovation projects benefit from collaboration with
relevant end-users. Setting and validating user
requirements can be considered input
communication, ensuring smooth information
exchange throughput communication, and efficient
dissemination output communication (Vos and
Schoemaker, 2004).
Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki (2017) propose that
cooperation between different authorities may have
the potential to evolve into deeper modes of co-
creation, and that added complexity may reduce the
time to value creation and innovation. In the context
of their study, they see innovation as the ability to
create common knowledge, learning, and innovation
value (Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki, 2017). Knuuttila
(2017) points out difficulties in collaboratively
improving practical resilience, because it may be seen
as a risk to one’s autonomy or a possible loss of power
and, thus, the starting point to reach targets is the
division of power between the different actors.
2.3 Complexity of Systems
Sociotechnical systems (Amir and Kant, 2018) are
hybrids of people and technologies involving
complex interactions between people, organisations,
and technologies. Cyber-physical systems
(Murakami, 2012) include cyber, physical, and social
inputs and outputs that are designed by society
organisations, and humans for their benefit. Domains
that create shared situational awareness and a basis
for decentralised decision-making are 1) physical; 2)
informational; 3) cognitive; and 4) social (Alberts,
2002).
Mitleton-Kelly (2003) sees that complex systems,
such as innovation and information sharing networks
(such as CISE), have connectivity and
interdependence. They co-evolve together and form
dissipative structures to explore the space-of-
possibilities, and generate variety. These systems
self-organise to create new order, as groups within
and between systems come together spontaneously to
perform tasks, to share knowledge, and to generate
new learning and knowledge. As their environments
and social ecosystems are changing fast, these
systems also face turbulence, chaos and complexity.
This makes ensuring the survival of systems
challenging, which calls for the ability to collect and
react to feedback (positive, reinforcing feedback
drives change, while negative feedback balances and
maintains system stability).
2.4 Complexity of Collaboration
Collaboration within the MARISA user community is
complex in nature. The use cases in the project
MARISA include multiple actors from several sectors
and often from many countries, and complexity is
further increased with some EU Member States
having multiple authorities under the same sector
(e.g. police and gendarmerie perform general law
enforcement) (MARISA, 2018).
Knowledge becomes developed by collaboration
(Pirinen, 2017; Ruoslahti, 2018), even
interdependence and resource integration (Ruoslahti
and Tikanmäki, 2017). These result in the need to
access resources from others and drive value-in-
exchange: “knowledge itself is an increasingly
important source to competitive advantage and a key
to the success of modern organizations and creative
higher education, strengthening the collective
expertise, industry-service clusters, employees and
competitiveness in the global economy” (Pirinen,
2015, p. 315).
Multi-stakeholder communication in
organisations (also publicly funded innovation
project consortia or CISE network) needs to stress
dynamic interaction among multiple actors with
diverse interests (Vos, Schoemaker and Luoma-aho,
2014). Issues central to people are the ones that matter
to them most (Luoma-aho and Vos, 2010). Authority
communities function as issue arenas for exchange of
practical, legal and ethical issues and where actors co-
creatively define and refine relevant use cases. Thus,
these arenas also are competitive spaces for problem
solving and influencing based on actors aligning
behind common agendas, but also having their own
(Vos 2018).
When innovation projects are understood as
complex systems, collaboration across boundaries,
and creating desired futures are their core
organizational learning capabilities (Senge, et al.,
2008). “EU Funded R&I projects represent a unique
form of a knowledge community” (Norvanto, 2017,
p. 78). The ways in which authorities work together
(Frey et al., 2006) and elements of complexity
(Mitleton-Kelly,2003) can be looked at in relation to
each other. Elements of complexity are least visible
in the simplest form of working together,
Networking, and increase through Cooperation and
Collaboration, to be the highest in Co-creation (Frey
Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common Information Sharing Environment
161
et al., 2006). This seems to be supported by the notion
that collaboration between authorities can evolve into
deeper modes of co-creation. Thus, authority
collaboration and interoperability become
increasingly important (Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki,
2017).
2.5 Co-creation
Co-creation requires communication and interaction
between multiple actors. Ruoslahti (2017) identifies
that co-creation networks have cyclical connections
in value. Networks require active facilitation and
cooperation tools or platforms to actively and
efficiently share co-creative innovation and
knowledge. Active stakeholder participation can be
motivated and guided through having common aims
that promise benefits for all individual collaborators,
and can result in an active drive to co-create of
knowledge and change.
Sankowska (2013) notes that there are
simultaneous relationships between trust, knowledge
creation and transfer, and innovativeness. These
strong links between them explains differences in
competitiveness and innovativeness of organizations.
Trust fosters knowledge creation. Climates of trust
can create what the author calls virtuous circles of
knowledge transfer, creation and innovativeness.
Organizational trust must be built first, so it can foster
innovativeness through knowledge practices.
Co-creation of knowledge can offer significant
opportunities for innovation (Ruoslahti, 2017).
Multiple-stakeholder co-creation projects benefiting
innovation network stakeholders are highest in
complexity, as roles between stakeholders are
constantly changing. Common aims and issues to
solve motivates stakeholders to collaborate, and open
innovation environments may facilitate
communication and interaction, and co-creation of
knowledge requires intensive collaboration. Active
stakeholder participation stems from common aims,
and they should promise benefits for each
stakeholder. All resulting in an active drive for co-
creation of knowledge, innovation, and change.
(Ruoslahti, 2018)
Learning, knowing, and becoming are the basis of
evolution and change, a dynamic and iterative process
of “continuous experiencing, learning and sense
making” (Jakubik, 2011, p. 392). “The logic of
complexity suggests that learning and the generation
and sharing of knowledge need to be facilitated by
providing the appropriate socio-cultural and technical
conditions to support connectivity and
interdependence and to facilitate emergence and self-
organisation” (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003, p. 59).
3 METHOD
The main case project of this study, MARISA, is
based on five selected use cases on authority
information sharing on the maritime domain. Data for
this study was collected from detailed descriptions
and narratives of its five use cases. Six scenario
descriptions of authority collaboration in recovery
from disaster from project AIRBEAM were used as
comparative background information for this study.
These eleven use case and scenario descriptions were
produced to identify requirements for systems
demonstrations, which were the concrete and usable
deliverables of these two projects the innovations
that they produced.
Project MARISA focuses on five of use cases
(Table 2 below) and the results of this paper are
structured accordingly. The use case descriptions that
the data of study was collected from, are based on a
total 94 use cases that were produced in the
Cooperation Project, CoopP and narrowed to five in
EUropean test bed for the maritime Common
Information Sharing Environment in the 2020
perspective, project EUCISE2020 (MARISA, 2018).
The European Commission (2012) has set criteria
for business value in the context of innovation
projects, and these have been used in the case of
project MARISA developing a European-wide CISE
to address: 1) the number of user communities that
benefit by the use case; 2) the number of user
communities needed to fulfil purpose; 3) evidence
that CISE helps reduce time or cost to meet the
purpose;4) criteria for technical complexity
(sensitiveness of data used, standardization of data
models); and 5) the complexity of information
exchanges between information systems (MARISA,
2019). The use cases selected for project MARISA
involve seven end-user communities (Table 2).
Table 2: MARISA Use Cases in Relation to the User
Community Sectors.
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
162
Use Case 13b is the inquiry on a specific
suspicious cargo vessel. The use case may include
authorities from the five different sectors border
control, customs, defence, law enforcement, and
marine environment.
Use Case 37 covers the monitoring of all events at
sea in order to create conditions for decision making
on interventions, including authorities from all seven
sectors border control, customs, defence, law
enforcement, marine environment, fisheries control,
and maritime safety.
Use Case 44 is about requesting any information
to confirm the identification, position and activity of
a vessel of interest, and it may include authorities
from all seven sectors border control, customs,
defence, law enforcement, marine environment,
fisheries control, and maritime safety.
Use Case 70 looks at a suspect fishing vessel or
small boat, which is cooperating with other vessels
(such as a container vessel). This may include
authorities from five sectors, which are customs,
defence, law enforcement, fisheries control, and
maritime safety.
Use Case 93 on detection and behaviour
monitoring of vessels listed as IUU (Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated fishing). This use case
may involve authorities from two sectors marine
environment and fisheries control.
As MARISA is part of a project continuum,
projects such as BLUEMASSMED (Cross-Border
and Cross-Sectoral Maritime Information Sharing for
a better knowledge and control of activities at sea),
PERSEUS (Protection of European seas and borders
through the intelligent use of surveillance), CoopP,
and EUCISE2020 during a time span of 10 years have
combined European efforts to build a Common
Information Sharing Environment for integrated
maritime surveillance. Thus, co-created end user
narratives, both written, spoken, and collaborated,
were collected to first produce 94 use cases, and then
select the five, which serve as the basis to identify
data fusion requirements for the collaborative
information exchange in the Common Information
Sharing Environment by project MARISA, and as the
data for this study. The next project in this continuum
is already in the funding pipeline and will commence
2019.
This study further analysed the five MARISA use
cases, by comparing their respective elements,
detailed in use case descriptions produced by project
CoopP. The use case elements extracted from the use
case descriptions and data was placed in a data
extraction table (DET) based on their similarity,
difference and relevance. The DET-table was then
subjected to a series of three rounds of iteration
among the researchers to restructure the data. Use
case element were reordered according to similarity,
difference and relevance in regard to the two research
questions. As a result the final classification, which is
presented in the Results section and the use case
hierarchy that is visualized in Figure 1 below, were
produced to answer RQ1 and RQ2.
4 RESULTS
The results of this study serve to motivate the use of
use case narratives and scenarios as a practical way to
engage end users in co-creation. These very concrete
descriptions are shown to be a way to gain and share
information on situations, circumstances, and efforts,
which end users encounter or perform in fulfilling
their tasks. The method of first co-creating end user
narratives was used in the case projects to develop use
cases or scenarios. These in turn served to define
system requirements, which are needed to design and
implement systems, both technical and social. Most
modern systems are cyber-physical in nature and
include technical, information, and human elements.
The case system, the European-wide CISE system is
an excellent example of a cyber-physical system
involving physical technologies, shared information
and human issue arena operations. Based on the
results, the use of CISE use case narratives can also
be regarded as one form issue arena, where relevant
authorities exchange information, innovations and
best practices regarding their respective operations
and can identify more and better ways to collaborate
with one another. This study finds that multi-actor
networks are complex in nature and is thus within the
multi-actor approach of research arenas, and also
contributing to the network approach of innovation.
One further result of this study is the way in which
MARISA use cases became hierarchically structured
to show their occurrence in respect to each other (see
Figure 1). Use case 37, Monitoring all events at sea,
is common to all sectors, and it precedes all these
other use cases. It is equivalent to the Coast Guard
Function Maritime surveillance, which is a base
function, where the seas are monitored, without
anything out of the ordinary or dangerous having
detected to have happened yet. All maritime authority
sectors structure their daily operations to ensure
adequate monitoring and detection of events at sea.
The ways in which this is done differs from sector to
sector. However, this function is addressed in one
way or other by all maritime authorities. Thus, use
case 37 can be classified as being a base function that
Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common Information Sharing Environment
163
all other use cases and authority interaction are based
upon, including adequate resources and information.
Once some possible anomaly is detected use case
44 Request information to confirm identification,
position and activity of a vessel of interest becomes
activated. The information that is relevant to each
sector differs depending on their mission and tasks.
This information may also be, as can other possible
information may be gained relevant to other sectors
that is relevant to some other sector. The case project
use case narratives show what information can and
should be shared, even though it might not have been
directly relevant to the responding authority in
question.
Use case 44 may then revert back to use case 37,
or alternatively, it may escalate to one of the three
remaining use cases: use case 13b Inquiry on a
specific suspicious cargo vessel, use case 70 Suspect
fishing vessel or small boat cooperating with other
vessel, or use case 93 Detection and behaviour
monitoring of vessels listed as IUU (Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated fishing).
Figure 1: The five MARISA use cases in relation one
another.
The results indicate that the MARISA user
community provides a shared forum to enhance cross
sector, cross border and cross authority exchange,
while also taking into account legal and ethical issues.
It has co-creatively defined these above five use
cases, on which the user requirements for the
MARISA data fusion services have been based on.
Maritime authorities and stakeholders work together
on different levels, ranging from networking to co-
creation. On an authority level, some ethical issues to
consider are authorized usage of data, distribution of
interoperability resources, and basis of register
listings. Some privacy issues may include usage and
fusion of open source data, identity of vessel crew or
passengers, authorized usage of registers, and basis of
register listings.
All these use cases may include authorities from
various nations, and contain privacy and related
ethical issues, such as identity information of crew or
passengers. Thus, the more authority sectors, member
states, and other stakeholders involved, the greater is
the complexity of their interactions, but also the
opportunity to share information, and experiences to
induce learning and faster reach innovation.
In summary, using use case narratives provides a
process and arena to engage end-users in discussing
complex issues in a practical ways, and serves as
concrete input communication for innovation
projects. The hierarchy between use cases further
facilitates this, and serves to shorten the time needed
to achieve innovation, as levels of complexity
become added within the collaboration network.
5 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
One implication of this study is that practical use case
narratives are a useful way to engage end-users in
complex project innovation. Use cases provide them
with concrete situations, where end users can see
commonalities and identify new needs. Results show
that knowledge becomes developed collaboratively
and as seen in literature this requires close, even co-
creative interaction between actors (Pirinen, 2015;
Ruoslahti, 2018). Collaboration may even deepen and
provide resource integration and usage of common
capacities to reach common goals (Ruoslahti and
Tikanmäki, 2017). However, accessing the resources
of other actors presents an ethical consideration of the
ownership of data and information, and the
distribution of resources, which most likely are
scarce, and this is also one issue that is recommended
to be co-creatively addressed by all project
stakeholders.
A second implication is that care should be placed
on how projects are led and organized. They form
complex social networks, where each partner has its
own interests and agenda. These many, sometimes
even conflicting, interests need to be aligned in a way,
which produces benefit for all stakeholders involved.
The collaborative efforts of these networks require
active coordination and facilitation that motivates the
consortium members and other stakeholders to
actively participate, both, in co-creating the
consortium goals and the activities through which
these goals become realized. One recommendation is,
thus, that the use of use cases is led and organized in
ways that stimulate the creation of new knowledge.
A third implication is that there is a tie between
projects and education. Higher education institutions
have a responsibility to bring problems and ideas that
evolve from their classrooms as well as practical
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
164
contacts with their environments forth as project ideas
and proposals. In addition, they have a responsibility
to include the innovations and knowledge gained in
projects in their study curricula. This is a way to
further develop innovations, and to bring them to
wider use in society. Moreover, industry and end user
organizations will also benefit when they build ties
between innovation projects and their in-house
training programs. This speeds up the implementation
of innovations, and builds a readiness in the
organization to reach further innovations, faster and
in more depth. Thus, results from the case project
indicate, that the time needed to achieve innovation
can indeed be affected by the level of complexity in
respective collaboration networks. Stakeholders can
share use cases and learn from one another, and it was
pointed out in literature (e.g. Engeström and Kerosuo,
2007; Sankowska, 2013) that this is a useful way to
create knowledge and innovation.
A fourth implication is that society may gain from
promoting project continuums, where later projects
build on the success and innovation of earlier projects
to develop a path toward faster and deeper further
innovation. The PERSEUS CoopP EUCISE 2020
MARISA continuum serves as a good practical
example of this. This type of continuum thinking
permits use cases to evolve, trust to build and
collaboration to deepen, as these both take time to
evolve. In addition, the connected projects may
permit eco-systems to evolve and spread, as project
efforts over time engage more and more stakeholders
from all wakes of society.
Fifth, the results of this study also imply that
creating and selecting appropriate measures provide
the feedback needed to ensure that project plans and
preliminary results stay connected with the goals of
the project, and possibly changing or evolving end
user needs. It is recommended that use case narratives
become evaluated and re-written every so often to
keep them up-to-date, and to identify changes and
new opportunities, with the emergence of further
innovation.
One further implication is that a European-wide
policy can greatly benefit from the results,
innovations, and feedback from research and
innovation projects. Research takes time from idea to
capability and this speaks in favour of linking projects
in continuums, to deepen innovation and to take
advantage of possible spin-off effects and innovations
provided by these projects. This type of policy will
enable EU-funded projects to create new knowledge
and, by doing so, change society.
There seems to be positive a relationship between
complexity within the innovation network and the
time in which it could create new knowledge and
innovation. When containing more elements of
complexity, networks can work together in deeper
forms of co-creation and provide faster innovation.
Networks aiming at innovation must dare to become
more complex in nature. Adding complexity can
result in reaching networks innovation goals faster
than in less complex networks. The results of this
study indicate that more complexity of collaboration
within a cyber-physical system, such as a Common
Information Sharing System, can shorten the time to
innovation leading to faster recognition, assessment,
planning, and capability reaction. All these help
realize a safer, more integrated European maritime
surveillance.
All of the above results inductively point toward
a relationship between complexity and the time
needed to co-create knowledge and innovation. More
study is recommended on this issue, as understanding
collaboration for innovation and its challenges can
help future co-creation collaboration networks to
function better and gain added resilience to face the
unexpected. This added knowledge may benefit
future innovation networks.
REFERENCES
Ahrweiler, P., Keane, M. T., 2013. Innovation networks.
Mind & Society, 12(1), 73-90.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.nelli.laurea.fi/10.1007/s11299-
013-0123-7
Alberts, D., 2002, Information age transformation: Getting
to a 21st century military, Command and Control
Research Program (CCRP) publication series,
Department of Defense, Washington, DC, US.
Amir, S., Kant V., 2018, ‘Sociotechnical resilience: A
preliminary concept’, Risk Analysis, vol. 38, no. 1, 8-
16.
Bueger, C., 2015. What is maritime security? Marine Policy
Volume 53, March 2015, 159-164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.005
Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Towards
the integration of maritime surveillance: A common
information sharing environment for the EU maritime
domain, Communication from the Commission to the
Council the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions. COM (2009)538 final, Brussels. (2009)
Eicken, H. Mahoney, A. Jones, J. Heinrichs, T. Broderson,
D. Statscewich, H. Weingartner, T. Stuefer, T. Ravens,
T. Ivey, M. Merten, A., Zhang, J., 2017. Sustained
Observations of Changing Arctic Coastal and Marine
Environments and Their Potential Contribution to
Arctic Maritime Domain Awareness: A Case Study in
Northern Alaska. Arctic Vol. 71, Suppl. 1 (2018). 1
15.
Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common Information Sharing Environment
165
Engeström,Y., Kerosuo, H., Kajamaa, A., 2007. Beyond
Discontinuity: Expansive Organizational Learning
Remembered, Management Learning, 2007, 38, 3, 319-
336, Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, United
Kingdom.
European Coast Guard Functions Forum, 2014. Non Paper
- July 8 2014. Unpublished (authors have copy).
European Union, 2014. European Union maritime security
strategy. Council of the European Union Doc. 11205/14
European Union, Brussels (2014).
Frey, B.B., Lohmeier, J.H., Lee, S.W., Tollefson, N., 2006.
Measuring collaboration among grant partners.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383-392.
Jakubik , M., 2011. Becoming to know. Shifting the
knowledge creation paradigm. Journal of Knowledge
Management, VOL. 15 NO. 3 2011, 374-402.
Knuuttila, J. S., 2017. Orchestrating Without Partiture. In
Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, January, 2017.
Luoma-aho, V., Vos, M., 2010. Towards a more dynamic
stakeholder model: acknowledging multiple issue
arenas. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, 2010, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited , 315-33.
MARISA, 2018. Project MARISA Deliverable 2.1 User
Community Report (In progress).
MARISA, 2019. Project MARISA Web-page,
https://www.marisaproject.eu/, Accessed 18 Feb 2019.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2018. Finland acts in a
changing world. Futures Review of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Finnish government publication series
26/2018, Helsinki.
Mitleton-Kelly, 2003. Complex systems and Evolutionary
Perspectives on Organisations, The application of
complexity Theory to organisations. Elsevier Science
ltd, Oxford.
Murakami, K. J., 2012. CPSS (Cyber-Physical-Social
Systems) initiative - Beyond CPS (Cyber-Physical
Systems) for a better future, 13 March.
Norvanto E., 2017. Knowledge Creation in Cross-Border
and Cross-Sectoral Collaborations - Exploring EU
Externally Funded Security Research and Innovation
Projects as Communities of Practice. In Proceedings of
the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge
Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge
Management - Volume 3: KMIS, ISBN 978-989-758-
273-8, 70-82.
Piperca, S., Floricel, S., 2012. A typology of unexpected
events in complex projects. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 5(2), 248-265.
Pirinen, R., 2015. Studies of Externally Funded Research
and Development Projects in Higher Education:
Knowledge Sources and Transfers. Creative Education,
2015, 6, 315-330.
Rajamäki, J., Ruoslahti, H., 2018. Educational competences
with regard to critical infrastructure protection. In A.
Jųsang (Ed.), ECCWS 2018: Proceedings of the 17
th
European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security,
415-423. Academic Conferences International.
Ruoslahti, H., 2018. Co-creation of Knowledge for
Innovation Requires Multi-Stakeholder Public
Relations, in Bowman, S., Crookes, A., Romenti, S.,
Ihlen, Ø. (ed.) Public Relations and the Power of
Creativity, Advances in Public Relations and
Communication Management, Volume 3, Emerald
Publishing Limited, 115-133.
Ruoslahti, H., Hyttinen, K., 2019. Comprehensive
approaches to collaboration networks for organisational
resilience in the Arctic, presented June 27
th
at EURAM
2019.
Ruoslahti, H., Tikanmäki, I., 2017, ‘End-Users Co-create
Shared Information for a More Complete Real-time
Maritime Picture’. Proceedings of the 9th International
Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge
Engineering and Knowledge Management, Vol 3, 267
274.
Tikanmäki I., 2017. Common Information Sharing on
Maritime Domain - A Qualitative Study on European
Maritime Authorities’ Cooperation. In Proceedings of
the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge
Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge
Management - Volume 3: ISE, ISBN 978-989-758-273-
8, 283-290.
Tikanmäki I., Ruoslahti, H., (2017) Increasing Cooperation
between the European Maritime Domain Authorities.
International Journal of Environmental Science, 2,
ISSN: 2367-8941.392-399. IARAS, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Sankowska, A., 2013. Relationships between
organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge
creation, and firm’s innovativeness. The Learning
Organization, Vol. 20 No. 1, 2013, 85-100.
Senge, P. Smith B. Kruschewitz N. Laur J. Schley S., 2008.
The Necessary Revolution How Individuals and
Organizations Are Working Together to Create a
Sustainable World. Doubleday, New York, USA.
Steins, N. A., Edwards, V. M., 1999. Synthesis: Platforms
for collective action in multiple-use common-pool
resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 309-
315.
Vos, M., 2018. Issue Arenas. In Heath, R. and Johansen, W.
(Eds), The International Encyclopedia of Strategic
Communication (IESC). Whiley Blackwell, Malden
MA.
Vos, M., Schoemaker, H., 2004. Accountability of
Communication Management, A Balanced Scorecard
for Communication Quality, Lemma Publishers,
Utrecht, 2004.
Vos, M., Shoemaker, H., Luoma-aho, V., L., 2014. Setting
the agenda for research on issue arenas. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No.
2, 2014. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 200-215.
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
166