Complex Authority Network Interactions in the Common

Information Sharing Environment

Harri Ruoslahti

1,2 a

and

Ilkka Tikanmäki

1,3

Security and Risk Management, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vanha Maantie 8, Espoo, Finland

Organizational Communication & Public Relations, University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu 15, Jyväskylä, Finland

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

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

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

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

’

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

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