MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3019679280 · doi:10.1108/rmj-09-2019-0048

Caught in the middle?

2020· article· en· W3019679280 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRecords Management Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDecentralizationCorporate governanceImplementationInformation governanceKnowledge managementComputer scienceInformation sharingBusinessInformation systemProcess managementManagement information systemsPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose Distributed trust technologies, such as blockchain, propose to permit peer-to-peer transactions without trusted third parties. Yet not all implementations of such technologies fully decentralize. Information professionals make strategic choices about the level of decentralization when implementing such solutions, and many organizations are taking a hybrid (i.e. partially decentralized) approach to the implementation of distributed trust technologies. This paper conjectures that while hybrid approaches may resolve some challenges of decentralizing information governance, they also introduce others. To better understand these challenges, this paper aims first to elaborate a framework that conceptualizes a centralized–decentralized information governance continuum along three distinct dimensions: custody, ownership and right to access data. This paper then applies this framework to two illustrative blockchain case studies – a pilot Brazilian land transfer recording solution and a Canadian health data consent sharing project – to exemplify how the current transition state of blockchain pilots straddles both the old (centralized) and new (decentralized) worlds. Finally, this paper outlines the novel challenges that hybrid approaches introduce for information governance and what information professionals should do to navigate this thorny transition period. Counterintuitively, it may be much better for information professionals to embrace decentralization when implementing distributed trust technologies, as hybrid models could offer the worst of both the centralized and future decentralized worlds when consideration is given to the balance between information governance risks and new strategic business opportunities. Design/methodology/approach This paper illustrates how blockchain is transforming organizations and societies by highlighting new strategic information governance challenges using our original analytic framework in two detailed blockchain case studies – a pilot solution in Brazil to record land transfers (Flores et al. , 2018) and another in Canada to handle health data sharing consent (Hofman et al. , 2018). The two case studies represent research output of the first phase of an ongoing multidisciplinary research project focused on gaining an understanding of how blockchain technology generates organizational, societal and data transformations and challenges. The analytic framework was developed inductively from a thematic synthesis of the findings of the case studies conducted under the auspices of this research project. Each case discussed in detail in this paper was chosen from among the project's case studies, as it represents a desire to move away from the old centralized world of information governance to a new decentralized one. However, each case study also represents and embodies a transition state between the old and new worlds and highlights many of the associated strategic information governance challenges. Findings Decentralization continues to disrupt organizations and societies. New emerging distributed trust technologies such as blockchain break the old rules with respect to the trust and authority structures of organizations and how records and data are created, managed and used. While governments and businesses around the world clearly see value in this technology to drive business efficiency, open up new market opportunities and create new forms of value, these advantages will not come without challenges. For information executives then, the question is not if they will be disrupted, but how. Understanding the how as will be discussed in this paper provides the business know how to leverage the incredible innovation and transformation that decentralized trust technology enables before being leapfrogged by another organization. It requires a change of mindset to consider an organization as one part of a broader ecosystem, and for those who successfully do so, this paper views this as a strategic opportunity for those responsible for strategic information governance to design the future instead of being disrupted by it. Research limitations/implications This paper presents a novel analytic framework for strategic information governance challenges as we transition from a traditional world of centralized records and information management to a new decentralized world. This paper analyzes these transitions and their implications for strategic information governance along three trajectories: custody, ownership and right to access records and data, illustrating with reference to our case studies. Practical implications This paper predicts a large number of organizations will miss the opportunities of the new decentralized trust world, resulting in a rather major churning of organizations, as those who successfully participate in building the new model will outcompete those stuck in the old world or the extremely problematic hybrid transition state. Counterintuitively, this paper argues that it may be much less complex for information executives to embrace decentralization as fast as they can, as in some ways the hybrid model seems to offer the worst of both the centralized and future decentralized worlds with respect to information governance risks. Social implications This paper anticipates broader societal consequences of the predicted organization churn, in particular with respect to uncertainty about the evidence that records provide for public accountability and contractual rights and entitlements. Originality/value Decentralized trust technologies, such as blockchain, permit peer-to-peer transactions without trusted third parties. Of course, such radical shifts do not happen overnight. The current transition state of blockchain pilots straddles both the old and new worlds. This paper presents a theoretical framework categorizing strategic information governance challenges on a spectrum of centralized to decentralized in three primary areas: custody, ownership and right to access records and data. To illustrate how decentralized trust is transforming organizations and societies, this paper presents these strategic information governance challenges in two blockchain case studies – a pilot Brazilian land transfer recording solution and a Canadian health data consent sharing project. Drawing on the theoretical framework and case studies, this paper outlines what information executives should do to navigate this thorny transition period.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,939
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,273

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,234
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle