End-users Co-create Shared Information for a More Complete

Real-time Maritime Picture

Harri Ruoslahti

and Ilkka Tikanmäki

Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vanha maantie 9, 02650 Espoo, Finland & University of Jyväskylä,

Seminaarinkatu 15, 40014 Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland

Department of Warfare, National Defence University, Kadettikouluntie 7, FI-00861 Helsinki, Finland

Keywords: Co-creation, Cooperation, Maritime Domain, Information Sharing.

Abstract: European Union Member States are working towards an integrated maritime surveillance and deeper

information sharing and implementation of Common Information Sharing Environment. Value networks

aiming at co-creation, need active facilitation, and relevant platforms for open cooperation. This study

analysed scenario analytics, and narrative documents from projects CoopP, CISE, and MARISA by using a

Data Extraction Table to classify both objects and phenomenon relevant to European maritime information

sharing systems. The object and phenomenon rows are grouped under a European Coast Guard Functions,

CGFs framework, to better understand their occurrence and interdependencies. This paper finds that objects

and phenomena need to be continuously evaluated against evolving risk and treat scenarios and end-user

needs. Shared maritime information systems need to include tools for continuous self-revaluation. Added

complexity may greatly reduce the time to value creation and innovation, which in this context is the ability

to create greater common knowledge, learning, and value. Thus, faster and more widely shared information

on objects and phenomena result in an accurate Recognized Maritime Picture, which supports threat

assessment, asset and operations planning, and sharing of resources for added safety and security on the

European maritime domain.

1 INTRODUCTION

“The overall objective of the Cooperation Project is

to support further cross-border and cross-sectoral

operational cooperation between public authorities

(including EU Agencies) in the execution of the

defined maritime functionalities, with a focus on

information sharing across sea-basins. The project is

one step towards the Common Information Sharing

Environment, or CISE” (HELCOM, 2017).

The European Union with its Member States work

towards an integrated non-military maritime

surveillance and deeper coordination in information

sharing. This development is demonstrated in putting

wide European resources in the development and

implementation of wider cooperation processes and

platforms and a Common Information Sharing

Environment – CISE (PERSEUS, 2017;

EUCISE2020, 2017; European Commission, 2015).

EUCISE2020 aims to achieve pre-operational

information sharing between maritime authorities in

different European States (EUCISE2020, 2017); the

Cooperation Project, CoopP, is an integral part of this

development; as is project MARISA, which seeks to

strengthen the information exchange needed to

optimize the surveillance of the EU maritime area and

borders (Laurea, 2017). Together these EU-wide

projects show that European authorities on the

maritime domain can and need to cooperate.

The main contribution of this paper is that it raises

the issue that technical systems, such as CISE, require

shared, frameworks of content, on which human

processes of operation can be based on. This practical

case study aims to serve its part in filling some of this

research gap. This study contributes, as a relevant part

of project MARISA, by, in a rigorous way,

identifying what objects and phenomena information

systems and platforms used to share data between

authorities on the maritime domain should contain.

Theoretically this paper draws from co-creation

theory and the collaboration framework by Ruoslahti,

(2017). Active stakeholder participation can be

achieved through defining common aims, and the

foundation of cooperation is openly shared

Ruoslahti H. and TikanmÃd’ki I.

End-users Co-create Shared Information for a More Complete Real-time Maritime Picture.

DOI: 10.5220/0006559702670274

In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (KMIS 2017), pages 267-274

ISBN: 978-989-758-273-8

information. This will require both open cooperative

and co-creative processes, and tools, such as

information systems to share the needed data. Any

value network that aims at co-creation, needs not only

active facilitation, but also relevant platforms and

tools for open cooperation (Figure 1) (Ruoslahti,

2017, p. 15). This paper sees that CISE is a

cooperation platform for open cooperation between

and active participation by authorities as in figure 1.

Figure 1: Cyclical connections in co-creation projects

(Ruoslahti, 2017, p. 15).

This cycle of co-creation is completed when

knowledge and innovation becomes co-created.

Depending on the outcome and evolution of the co-

creative cooperation, the network may continue on

the level of a similar co-creation cycle, regress, or

evolve to a more complex level of cooperation.

Based on defined use cases the EUCISE2020

based CoopP project identified and classified, in its

WP3 (Scaroni, 2014), seven main groups of risk: (1)

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; (2) Illegal

oil discharges or Environmental destruction and

degradation; (3) Counterfeit goods; (4) Irregular

immigration; (5) Trafficking in human beings; (6)

Trafficking of drugs; and (7) Piracy. This paper

combines this classification with that of a framework

of European Coast Guard Functions, CGFs, as its

basis of analysis to answer the research question of

this study:

RQ: What objects and phenomenon should

modern common use maritime information systems

produce for its users to gain a more complete real-

time maritime picture?

The structure of this paper is (2) Authorities on the

Maritime Domain, (3) Method, (4) Results, (5)

Discussion and Conclusions.

2 AUTHORITIES ON THE

MARITIME DOMAIN

“Situational awareness is one of the starting points

for feeling safe and secure. Maritime surveillance is

the cornerstone of situational awareness at sea. It is

also written in integrated Maritime Policy in EU

which aims among other objectives to ensure the safe

and secure use of European maritime area and

protection of European Sea Borders” (de Arruda

Camara, et. al., 2012, p. 5).

European Maritime Policy has adopted an

integrated and cross sectorial approach to respond to

the various challenges that the authorities serving the

European maritime domain face. These authorities,

which are responsible for safety and security at sea

are many, and member states are organized very

differently in their ways of organizing the responsible

authorities covering the various tasks needed on the

maritime domain.

Frontex, which recently became the European

Border and Coast Guard Agency, facilitates

cooperation between national law enforcement,

customs and other authorities operating in the

maritime domain. (Frontex, 2017). Joint multi-

purpose operations, may include personnel, vessels

and aircraft from different authorities from various

Member States.

To ensure continuous improvement in safety and

security on the maritime domain, the European Union

has classified the activities promoting safety and

security on European waters as European Coast

Guard Functions, CGFs, which aid coordinate the

work of the different authorities. The European Coast

Guard Functions Forum, ECGFF (2014) categorized

ten CGFs (Ruoslahti & Hyttinen, 2017), and the

results of this study are structured be these CGFs.

On the European level there are four more major

Coast Guard Cooperation Networks as frameworks

for sharing best practices and relevant information

between coast guard authorities. They all have a

similar regional maritime focus in maritime safety

and security, environmental protection, combat of

cross-border crime, and enhancement of information

exchange (de Arruda Camara, et. al., 2012; Ruoslahti,

2013).

The Baltic Sea Region Border Control

Cooperation, BSRBCC, for example, is “a flexible

regional tool for daily inter-agency interaction in the

field of environmental protection and to combat

cross-border crime in the Baltic Sea region, with a

maritime focus. Cooperation Partners are Police,

Border Guards, Coast Guards and Customs

Authorities.” (BSRBCC, 2013).

There are also other frameworks that bring

together the dispersed authorities on other European

maritime fields, and they all exchange information

directly within each other. Multinational military

maritime surveillance cooperation began between

Sweden and Finland as the Sea Surveillance Co-

Operation Finland Sweden cooperation, and has

broadened to include eight Baltic Sea countries as Sea

Surveillance Cooperation Baltic Sea. “Today

Maritime Situational Awareness is continuously

shared between the participating parties benefitting at

the same time maritime safety, maritime rescue,

maritime assistance, VTS, maritime environmental

protection, maritime security and law enforcement in

the Baltic Sea region” (SUCBAS, 2013). Other

cooperation networks on the Baltic maritime domain

include the European Maritime Safety Agency,

EMSA (EMSA, 2013); the Baltic Sea Task Force on

Organised Crime (CBSS, 2017), and the Helsinki

Commission – HELCOM (HELCOM, 2017). These

examples of various frameworks show the

complexity of cooperation regarding safety and

security on the maritime domain – across Europe.

2.1 Authorities and Co-creation

Ruoslahti and Knuuttila (2011) note that listening to

different types of end user representatives is

important to successfully communicate the total

range of end user opinions and needs. Networks of

co-creation “can demonstrate new knowledge on how

a cooperation should work in the future (e.g. in SAR)

– not only technically, but also as a process to change

the current mind-sets to cooperate more and share

information to benefit the security and safety…“

(Ruoslahti & Hyttinen, 2017, p. 104).

Safety and security on the maritime domain

begins from the vessel level. Empowering a ship’s

crew is important in creating a self-regulating culture,

as managing safety on board is “leadership and

management of the people living and working in the

ship. The execution of safety measures lies within the

seafarers and their masters working at sea”

(Salokannel, et. al., 2015, p. 12). Managing crisis on

board prevents harm and damage, and the goals in

managing communication in crisis are: (1)

empowerment, (2) understanding, and (3)

cooperation.

Ruoslahti and Knuuttila (2016) apply the concept

of issue arenas (Luoma-aho and Vos, 2010) to the

interaction between stakeholders in cooperation

networks. Through the life-cycle of a project, the

number of stakeholders – end users, industry, NGOs,

authorities, and academia – that participate in the

communication should grow, as the project

progresses. (Henriksson, Ruoslahti, & Hyttinen,

2017, p. 11).

Ruoslahti (2017) notes that as networks become

structured based on different aims. Complexity is

greatest in multiple-stakeholder co-creation projects

that benefit innovation network stakeholders, where

roles between stakeholders are in fluid and constant

change, and open innovation environments – such as

a CISE –facilitates communication and interaction.

2.2 Applying a Business Point of View

on Co-creation on Authority

Networks

From a business point of view, mapping end-user

processes and practices can identify opportunities for

encounters to support the co-creation of value (Payne,

Storbacka & Frow, 2008). Co-creation allows

companies, communities, and customers to create

value through interaction (Dawe & Sankar 2016).

Multi-stakeholder networks, as an organizational

structure, allow collective actions over national

boundaries, participation is voluntary and both

objectives and actions can be negotiated among

participants (Roloff, 2008). Value networks that aim

at co-creation require active stakeholder

participation, and this is best achieved through

common aims. Innovation networks need these to

promise benefits for every concerned stakeholder

(Ruoslahti, 2017).

Saarinen (2012) points out that developing

services cannot be totally user-based, but that a design

process includes several actors’ problems, goals, and

actions, which may differ in preference. Co-

production with customers supports organizational

innovativeness (Luoma-aho, et.al., 2012), knowledge

is value, and stakeholder services and systems depend

on the resources of others to survive, and to co-create

this value (Pirinen, 2015; Ruoslahti, et. al, 2011).

True co-creation is an interactive and complex

learning process, where information as a key resource

and trust a key component (Ruoslahti, 2017).

2.3 Co-creation of Knowledge through

a Common Information Sharing

Environment

Change and development require new thinking from

organizations, and end-user participation is an

activity, strategically structured by the organization

coordinating the innovation project. Networks and

learning within them only become constructed by

interaction. Tools that promote information sharing,

cooperation, and open innovation can bring

advantages (Ruoslahti, 2017), and networking is very

important in developing services (Tikanmäki,

Tuohimaa, & Ruoslahti, 2012), as well as for smooth

cooperation in technical development projects, where

it is important that developers and potential end users

work closely together (Ruoslahti, et. al., 2010).

Project MARISA is working towards the common

use of existing and future on-line platforms to serve

as a cooperation tool for European-wide maritime

authorities. The project “seeks to address the need to

strengthen the information exchange to optimize the

surveillance of the EU maritime area and its maritime

borders” (Laurea, 2017).

Active co-creation processes require tools and

environments for cooperation to foster knowledge

sharing and long-term relationships (Ruoslahti, 2017),

as truly co-creative cooperation is cyclical and on-

going. To achieve innovative outcomes, co-creation

requires a strategy, and relationships require time and

active management to develop, supported by the

internal structures of all stakeholder organizations

(Figure 1). Identifying key success factors helps

facilitate and monitor these cooperation processes. In

creating common aims, it is important “to understand

the multiple points of view, different values and

individual aims that the multiple stakeholders in the

innovation network may have” (Ruoslahti, 2017, p. 7).

3 METHOD

The aim of this study is to identify the objects and

phenomenon that modern common use maritime

information systems should produce for a more

complete real-time maritime picture. Users of the

system can make better informed decisions when they

have a comprehensive picture of what objects and

phenomenon are out there, how they might evolve in

time, and what effects these developments may have.

This paper identifies relevant objects and phenomena

needed in common information sharing. A European

wide CISE, will support this desired development,

which this paper is in part promoting.

This study draws from use case and scenario

narratives, and scenario analytics gathered and

developed in projects CoopP, CISE, and MARISA.

The data collected, was submitted to a structured

desktop analysis, where objects and phenomena were

first identified, then placed as rows on a Data

Extraction Table, DET, which was developed in

Excel as an analysis tool for this study. The objects

and phenomena were further classified under one of

the ten CGFs that this paper uses as part of its analysis

framework (ECGFF, 2014; Ruoslahti & Hyttinen,

2017): (1) Maritime safety and vessel traffic

management; (2) Fisheries control; (3) Maritime

border control; (4) Maritime surveillance; (5)

Maritime security; (6) Maritime customs activities;

(7) Prevention of trafficking and smuggling; (8)

Maritime environmental response; (9) Accident and

disaster response; and (10) Search and rescue at sea.

The DET is structured so that each individual

object or phenomenon is classified under a CGF

(rows), and as an object or phenomenon (columns).

Also the main category of risk (Scaroni, 2014) were

listed under each CGF on the title row in red.

Columns in the DET are Category of Coast Guard

Function, Object, and Phenomenon. Also the DET

makes a difference between Observations and

Actions. Under Observations are listed all objects and

phenomena that are produced by outside agents, and

under Actions all objects and phenomena that pertain

to the assets and resources that the authorities have to

respond to the objects and phenomena produced by

these outside agents.

Issues that were clearly common to all categories

of CGFs appeared, and to avoid repeating them under

each category, one additional class General common

to all was added. The issues that are shared by all

CGF classifications were listed here. Besides serving

this study the DET is intended to serve as an

individual tool in project MARISA to better

understand what objects and phenomena level

information end-users need shared for a more

complete real-time maritime picture.

In the results section of this paper is structured by

grouping the ten CGFs under five subtitles: 4.1

Maritime Safety and Vessel Traffic Management; and

Maritime Surveillance; 4.2 Accident and Disaster

Response; and Search and Rescue at Sea; 4.3

Maritime Border Control; Maritime Customs

Activities and Prevention of Trafficking and

Smuggling; 4.4 Maritime Security; and 4.5 Maritime

Environmental Response; and Fisheries Control.

4 RESULTS

There are six issues identified that are common to all

categories and functions of EU-CGF. (1) Anomaly

detection, classification and threat assessment;

(2) Prediction of the operational maritime picture;

(3) Threat assessment; (4) Intervention plans;

(5) Address underlying problem that stimulated the

threat; and (6) Mission Planning and Decision

Support. All these six topics generate needs to

identify objects and phenomenon on the maritime

domain.

Anomaly detection, classification, threat

assessment, and alert operators is key. To gain a

Common Operational Picture from different

contributors will aid to classify the threats, evaluate

their seriousness, and predict possible impacts. All

this information are needed to protect potential

victims of any potential incident. Accurate real-time

information will help support rapid decision making,

planning operations, and operations asset planning for

the most accurate and rapid response possible.

4.1 Maritime Safety and

Vessel Traffic Management; and

Maritime Surveillance

Maritime accidents are the main risks in maritime

safety and vessel traffic management (Scaroni, 2014).

Objects that are needed to know are vessel, its type,

characteristics, identification, and preferably its port

history, travel plan, crew and when applicable

passenger list, and cargo manifest. Thus accuracy and

validation of the automated vessel identification

system AIS-signals is also very important.

Maritime safety and vessel traffic management

are concerned with a wide variety of issues ranging

from commercial shipping to leisure boats, and from

vessel safety inspections, through personnel

qualification issues, to active traffic control and

VTS-monitoring. Thus the objects and phenomenon

that it is interested in are concerned with information

related vessels, their seaworthiness, manning, and

movements. Predicting maritime traffic evolution is

important. It calls for predictions of vessel

trajectories, understanding of the evolution of events

and circumstances over a potential areas of interest,

potential threats, aided by density and risk maps that

picture maritime activities over areas of interest,

heavily used traffic routes and points of cross traffic,

potentially risky routes, and deeper understanding of

seasonal trends.

Anomaly detection, classification and threat

assessment should include observing change of

speed, direction, or vessel interactions, and possible

vessels approaching the coast suspiciously far from

ports or unauthorized access to areas of interest,

prohibited anchoring.

Also metrological information, such as clouds,

winds, waves, and storms, and oceanographic

information such as currents and topography are of

interest. Sea metrological conditions information and

evolution predictions aid in the assessment of

abnormal weather conditions and support route and

asset planning and when needed in Search and

Rescue, SAR operations.

4.2 Accident and Disaster Response;

and Search and Rescue at Sea

When maritime accidents occur, the main alerts are

SOS / Mayday calls, or vessels or aircraft

disappearing from maritime surveillance and traffic

control radar screens. The operational IT-systems

should be capable of aiding to identify which vessels

are concerned, and where. Also, where are potential

places of refuge and what accident response

capabilities are at disposal, and how quickly. The

main focus is in the prevention of accidents and their

impacts. Knowing what operational assets and search

and rescue teams are available guide rational decision

making.

If vessels and people are lost at sea, must the

SAR operations begin swiftly after receiving an SOS

or Mayday call, and with enough resources. The last

known location, intended port or travel route, persons

on board (at least number of), and if possible their

nationalities and names are needed information. Also

if persons are in vessel, lifeboat, or in water

(overboard)? In case of accident response, to make

the right decisions on the spot, an on-scene

coordinator (OSC) will need information that is as

accurate and real-time as possible.

4.3 Maritime Border Control;

Maritime Customs Activities and

Prevention of Trafficking and

Smuggling

The main risks for maritime border control are

irregular immigration and trafficking in human

beings (Scaroni, 2014). Objects that need to be

recognized are vessels and persons of interest, both

EU residents and non-residents, their travel

documents, and biometric information. Suspect travel

patterns, detections of illegal border-crossing

between BCPs, illegal or clandestine entries between

BCPs, as well as persons using false identities or

fraudulent documents are of high interest. Abnormal

behaviour recognition, facilitator information,

applications for asylum, refusals of entry, illegal stay,

and return decisions issued should be included in the

system for easy information sharing.

Victims and suspected traffickers of forced sexual

exploitation, forced labour exploitation are important

information in preventing trafficking. Knowing the

common countries of origin and countries of

destination of detected victims are also needed.

The main focus for maritime customs activities

and prevention of trafficking and smuggling is in

detecting and preventing the smuggling of goods and

the export and import of counterfeit goods, narcotics,

alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, and stolen

property (e.g. vehicles), as well as people. Following

estimated worldwide production sites and main

logistics sea routes to Europe, worldwide hot-spots of

users, consumption patterns per drug category, and

the modus operandi of traffickers aid in planning

effective measures against trafficking. Some of the

main tasks, to fight against the main risks counterfeit

goods and trafficking of drugs, are sharing of

intelligence information, ship inspections, and

detected contraband modus operandi. Drugs, alcohol,

cigarettes, and other goods, where customs or tax are

unpaid are of interest.

Knowledge of available assets for interception and

capacities of prevention are needed for effective

response. The main risks, trafficking of firearms and

explosives, and smuggling and counterfeit goods is

closely tied to maritime customs activities, and

trafficking of human beings to maritime border control.

4.4 Maritime Security

The main identified risks for maritime security are

piracy and terrorist threats (Scaroni, 2014). The focus

is in understanding phenomena, such as vessels

transiting the area concerned and goods transported

through these hot-spots of piracy (such as the Gulf of

Aden), suspicious activity, pirate attacks, fishing

vessels seized, possible seafarers and fishermen

abducted, taken hostage, or killed by pirates.

Understanding one’s assets is key in preventing

and countering risks for maritime security.

Knowledge of which military and other authority

vessels are operating in the area concerned, which are

protected, and which are not, also what re-routing

possibilities are there and what could be achieved

with increased speed.

Also information on ransoms and recovery,

protection and counter (military) operations, counter-

piracy organizations, and both security equipment and

guards are needed to coordinate counter-piracy

measures. All in all, detection of anomalies, firearms,

possible bomb building, or vessel highjack, be it piracy

or terrorism, may alert operators to successfully

enforce criminal law on the maritime domain.

4.5 Maritime Environmental Response;

and Fisheries Control

Some main risks are illegal oil discharges, formerly

known as environmental destruction and degradation

(Scaroni, 2014). The main task for authorities is to

detect and prevent waste at sea. The main object to

identify is pollution (of any kind). Oil unfortunately

is still deliberately dumped into the sea in quantities.

Detecting oil and chemical spills, illegal or accidental

bilge, grey, and black water discharges and seepages

are in the focus. Also ships' emissions are monitored.

Polluters should be identified.

Oil transport routes by sea, the volumes

transported, and potential risk areas help prioritize

how to place assets. Aircraft observation, capacities

of prevention, drift calculations, estimated volume of

possible oil discharges (m

), and assets of pollution

response guide the planning of resources and possible

operations.

For fisheries control the main risks (Scaroni,

2014) are illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

The large problem are the commercial fishing groups

that overfish and do not comply with EU fishing

regulations and quota. The main problem is with third

country vessels, so checking fishing vessels is an

important deterrent against wrongdoings. Risk and

blacklisted vessels are important to identify.

Important objects to identify are vessel identification

and position, amount and type of catch, as well as the

fishing equipment used.

The phenomenon that fisheries control authorities

need are knowledge of fishery resources and fish

populations, applicable quotas, allowed fishing areas

and detection of illegal fishing activity. Information

on equipment allowed or disallowed, and licenses and

permits needed by vessel or captain can also guide

fisheries control authorities in their work – to control

fishing, be it commercial or leisure fishing.

5 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

The work that EU-wide projects such as PERSEUS,

CoopP, EUCISE2020, and MARISA, or FINCISE on

a national level, have begun, should be continued and

elaborated. These projects have shown that it is

important to share information cross-sector (a)

nationally between different authorities; and cross-

border (b) between responsible authorities from

different EU member states; (c) and with cooperative

third countries.

The objects and phenomena, relevant to CISE,

need to be continuously evaluated and redefined. This

should be done together with end-users and against

changing risk and treat scenarios and evolving end-

user needs, and national and EU-wide strategies, and

also taking into account the assets, which cooperative

third country nations may bring. Shared maritime

information systems should inherently include both

tools and processes for continuous re-evaluation of

both the objects and phenomena, which it should be

able to provide its users.

The cooperation between these different

authorities has the potential to evolve into a deeper

and more encompassing mode of co-creation, where

the added complexity may greatly reduce the time to

value creation and innovation. In this context the

ability to create greater common knowledge,

learning, and value can be seen as innovation. The

value in this innovation to EU and national authorities

are the in faster recognition, assessment, planning,

and reaction capabilities, which lead to a safer, more

secure European maritime domain.

Seemingly adding complexity to the common

information sharing systems and processes is the way

to substantially faster innovation: detection,

assessment, planning, and response. In becoming more

complex, mere cooperation has the potential of

reaching deeper forms of co-creation. This enables the

network to yield more value and innovation. In this

case the innovation potential is in the faster and widely

shared information. It demonstrates as confirmed

objects and phenomena resulting in an accurate

Recognized Maritime Picture.This in turn supports

threat assessment, asset and operations planning, and

sharing of resources. This is innovation and value.

The work in project MARISA, as also this paper,

is just the beginning. Identifying these practical user

needs can serve as a basis for further technical

development of CISE, and these results directly serve

further work in projects MARISA and FINCISE.

The framework of objects and phenomena identi-

fied in the DET analysis of this study is seemingly

complex, but only by this adding of complexity can we

shorten the time to innovation and value. Further

research should amend and validate the results of this

study, and continue to identify new objects and

phenomena, while evaluating and redefining the

existing ones. This research facilitates the study aiming

to create the technical elements of CISE and bridge

between the technical and human aspects of

information sharing, and co-creative collaboration.

REFERENCES

BSRBCC, 2013. Baltic Sea Region Border Control

Cooperation, BSRBCC Webpage: http://bsrbcc.org/

home/, Accessed 16th February 2013.

CBSS, 2017. Council of the Baltic Sea States, CBSS

Webpage: http://www.cbss.org/safe-secure-region/

baltic-sea-task-force-organized-crime/, Accessed 26

July 2017.

Dawe, S. & Sankar, C.S., 2016. Research note for

developing a smart city by operationalizing the co-

creation of value model, Journal of Information

Technology Case and Application Research, vol. 18,

no. 1, pp. 50-52.

de Arruda Camara, A., Helanto, P., Kuusela, A., Tyni, J.,

2012. Deliverable 2012-03-09, Project PERSEUS,

Protection of European Seas and Borders through the

Intelligent Use of Surveillance.

EMSA, 2013. European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA

Website: www.emsa.europa.eu/, Accessed 16

February 2013.

EUCISE2020, 2017. FP-7 project European test bed for the

maritime Common Information Sharing Environment

in the 2020 perspective, EUCISE2020 Website:

http://www.eucise2020.eu/, Accessed 28

July 2017.

European Coast Guard Functions Forum, 2014. Non Paper

- July 8th 2014, Unpublished.

European Commission, 2015. European Commission DG-

MARE Webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritime

affairs_fisheries/consultations/cise/index_en.htm,

Accessed 16

April 2016.

FRONTEX, 2017. European Cooperation on Coast Guard

Functions, European Border and Coast Guard Agency,

FRONTEX Website: http://frontex.europa.eu/press

room/hot-topics/european-cooperation-on-coast-guard-

functions-8phwLF, Accessed 26

July 2017.

Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K., 2015.

Managing Co-creation Design: A Strategic Approach

to Innovation, British Journal of Management,

Accessed 22

January 2015.

HELCOM, 2017. Helsinki Commission, HELCOM Web-

page: http://www.helcom.fi/, Accessed 26

July 2017

Henriksson, K., Ruoslahti, H., & Hyttinen, K., 2017. A Co-

Creative Model for Modern Communication and

Dissemination in Multi-Stakeholder Research Projects,

unpublished paper, submitted to EUPRERA 2017, 12

– 14

October 2017.

Laurea, 2017. Engaging user community to build European

Maritime Security solutions, Horizon2020 project

Maritime Integrated Surveillance Awareness, Laurea

University of Applied Sciences, MARISA,

https://www.laurea.fi/en/news/Pages/Engaging-user-

community-to-build-European-Maritime-Security-

solutions.aspx, Accessed 28

July 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, pp. 315-33, Emerald

Group Publishing Limited.

Luoma-aho, V., Vos, M., Lappalainen, R., Lämsä, A-M.,

Uusitalo, O., Maaranen, P., & Koski, A., 2012. Added

Value of Intangibles for Organizational Innovation,

Human Technology, Volume 8 (1), 7 – 23.

Payne, A., F., Storbacka, K. & Frow, P., 2008. Managing

the co-creation of value, Academy of Marketing

Science. Journal, March 2008, Vol. 36(1), pp.83-96.

PERSEUS, 2017. FP-7 Project Policy-oriented Marine

Environmental Research in the Southern European

Seas, PERSEUS, http://www.perseus-net.eu/site/

content.php?locale=1&locale_j=en&sel=1, Accessed

July 2017.

Pirinen,R., 2015. Studies of Externally Funded Research

and Development Projects in Higher Education:

Knowledge Sources and Transfers, Creative Education,

2015, 6, 3, 315-330, Scientific Research Publishing,

Irvine, United States.

Roloff, J., 2007. Learning from Multi-Stakeholder

Networks: Issue-Focused Stakeholder Management,

Journal of Business Ethics, 2008, 82, pp. 233–250.

Ruoslahti, H., 2013. Baltic Sea Region Maritime Border

Surveillance cooperation, unpublished Laurea

University of Applied Sciences contribution draft-5 for

FP-7 Project Policy-oriented Marine Environmental

Research in the Southern European Seas, PERSEUS, 4

April 2013.

Ruoslahti, H., 2017. Co-creation of Knowledge for

Innovation and Multi-Stakeholder Participation of End

Users: A Structured Literature Review, unpublished

paper, submitted to EUPRERA 2017, 12

– 14

October 2017.

Ruoslahti, H., Guinness, R., Viitanen, J., & Knuuttila, J.,

2010. Airborne Security Information Acquisition Using

Micro Air Vehicles: Helping Public Safety

Professionals Build Real-Time Situational Awareness,

Credibility Assessment and Screening Technologies at

the 44

Hawaii International Conference of Systems

Sciences 2010.

Ruoslahti, H., & Hyttinen, K., 2017. A Co-created Network

Community for Knowledge and Innovations –

Promoting Safety and Security in the Arctic,

Proceedings of BledCom 2016, Engaging people in a

disengaged world, BledCom 2016 23

International

Public Relations Research Symposium, 1

– 2

July

2016, Bled, Slovenia, www.bledcom.com/knowledge.

Ruoslahti, H., & Knuuttila, J., 2011. Listen to Three Types

of Border Guard – Adopting Technology into the

Process of Border Checks, Credibility Assessment and

Screening Technologies at the 45

Hawaii International

Conference of Systems Sciences 2011.

Ruoslahti, H., & Knuuttila, J., 2016. Remotely Piloted

Aircraft Systems (RPAS) for Extreme Missions in the

Arctic and the monitoring of the Ukraine crisis by the

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

(OSCE), Track: Collaboration Systems and

Technologies, Emerging Issues in Distributed Group

Decision-Making: Opportunities and Challenges, 49

Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences

2016.

Ruoslahti, H., Tiainen, S., Kortelainen, M., & Vesterinen,

O., 2011. How Networking and Projects can Promote

Learning in Higher Education?, Campus Encounters –

Bridging Learners Conference, Developing

Competences for Next Generation Service Sectors, 13

– 14

April 2011, Porvoo, Finland.

Saarinen, L., 2012. Enhancing ICT Supported Distributed

Learning through Action Design Research, Aalto

University publication series, Doctoral Dissertations 92

7 2012, Helsinki.

Salokannel, J., Knuuttila, J., & Ruoslahti, H., 2015. Arctic

Maritime Safety and Security – the Human Element

seen from the Captain´s Table, International

Conference on Safe and Sustainable Shipping in a

Changing Arctic Environment, ShipArc 2015, 25

–

August 2015, Malmö Sweden.

Scaroni, E., 2014. EU CISE Project Annex 6 WP3 Annex III

Final Statistical Report, 22

January 2014.

SUCBAS, 2013. Sea Surveillance Cooperation Baltic Sea,

SUCBAS Webpage: http://www.sucbas.org/objectives.

php, Accessed 8

February 2013.

Tikanmäki, I., Tuohimaa, T., & Ruoslahti, H., 2012.

Developing a Service Innovation Utilizing Remotely

Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS), International Journal

of Systems Applications, Engineering & Development,

Issue 4, Volume 6, 2012.