• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2013

Open Source Software Development (OSSD) differentiates itself from traditional closed software development in that it reveals its source codes online and allows anyone to participate in projects. Even though its success was in doubt, many of the open collaborative working models produced successful results. Academia started to get interested in how developers are willing to participate even when there are no extrinsic rewards for their efforts. Many studies tried to explain developers' motivations, and the pursuit of ideology, reputation, and altruism are found to be the answers. Those studies, however, focused mostly on how the first contribution is made out of a certain motivation. Nowadays, OSSD reaches at its maturity and 70% of professional developers have used or utilized open source software or code in their works. As the proportion of people experiencing OSS, the accounts from previous studies are expected to be weakened. Also, extant literature fails to explain how the motivation of participating in OSS evolves over time and experiences. Given that changing over time or over experiences is the natural in the perception of motivation, studies in an attempt to understand how the motivation changes or evolves are in need. In this study, we aimed to explain how the perception about OSS from past usage or related experiences leads to the intention to sustain OSS participations. By doing so, we try to bridge the gap between previous studies and the actual phenomenon. We argued that perceived instrumentality about OSS learned from past experiences will first affect the formation of organizational identity towards general OSS community. And once the organizational identity is formed, it will affect the one's following behaviors related to OSS development, most likely to sustain the favoring stance toward OSS community. Our research distinguishes itself from previous one in that it divides the paths from organizational identity formed to the intention to sustain the voluntary helping behaviors, by altruistic and conforming intentions. Drawing on this structural model, we could explain how organizational identity engages in forming the sustaining intention from past experiences, and that the intention to help at individual level and organizational level works at different level in OSS community. We grounded our arguments on Social identity theory and Organizational Citizenship theory. We examined our assumption by constructing a structural equation model (SEM) and had 88 developers to answer our online surveys. The result is analyzed by PLS (partial least square) method. Consequently, all paths but one in our model are supported, the one which assumed the association between perceived instrumentality and altruistic intention. Our results provide directions in designing online collaborative platforms where open access collaboration is meant to occur. Theoretically, our study suggests that organizational citizenship behavior can occur from organizational identity, even in bottom-up organizational settings. More specifically, we also argue to consider both organizational level and individual level of motivation in inducing sustained participations within the platforms. Our result can be interpreted to indicate the importance of forming organizational identity in sustaining the participatory behaviors. It is because there was no direct association between perceived instrumentality from past experiences and altruistic behavior, but the perception of organizational identity bridges the two constructs. This means that people with no organizational identity can sustain their participations through conforming intention from only the perception of instrumentality, but it needs little more than that for the people to feel the intention to directly help someone in the community-first to form the self-identity as a member of the given community.

• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.145-162
• /
• 2008

One of the big concerns in e-society is privacy issue. In special, in developing robust ubiquitous smart space and corresponding services, user profile and preference are collected by the service providers. Privacy issue would be more critical in context-aware services simply because most of the context data themselves are private information: user's current location, current schedule, friends nearby and even her/his health data. To realize the potential of ubiquitous smart space, the systems embedded in the space should corporate personal privacy preferences. When the users invoke a set of services, they are asked to allow the service providers or smart space to make use of personal information which is related to privacy concerns. For this reason, the users unhappily provide the personal information or even deny to get served. On the other side, service provider needs personal information as rich as possible with minimal personal information to discern royal and trustworthy customers and those who are not. It would be desirable to enlarge the allowable personal information complying with the service provider's request, whereas minimizing service provider's requiring personal information which is not allowed to be submitted and user's submitting information which is of no value to the service provider. In special, if any personal information required by the service provider is not allowed, service will not be provided to the user. P3P (Platform for Privacy Preferences) has been regarded as one of the promising alternatives to preserve the personal information in the course of electronic transactions. However, P3P mainly focuses on preserving the buyers' personal information. From time to time, the service provider's business data should be protected from the unintended usage from the buyers. Moreover, even though the user's privacy preference could depend on the context happened to the user, legacy P3P does not handle the contextual change of privacy preferences. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to propose a mutual P3P-based negotiation mechanism. To do so, service provider's privacy concern is considered as well as the users'. User's privacy policy on the service provider's information also should be informed to the service providers before the service begins. Second, privacy policy is contextually designed according to the user's current context because the nomadic user's privacy concern structure may be altered contextually. Hence, the methodology includes mutual privacy policy and personalization. Overall framework of the mechanism and new code of ethics is described in section 2. Pervasive platform for mutual P3P considers user type and context field, which involves current activity, location, social context, objects nearby and physical environments. Our mutual P3P includes the privacy preference not only for the buyers but also the sellers, that is, service providers. Negotiation methodology for mutual P3P is proposed in section 3. Based on the fact that privacy concern occurs when there are needs for information access and at the same time those for information hiding. Our mechanism was implemented based on an actual shopping mall to increase the feasibility of the idea proposed in this paper. A shopping service is assumed as a context-aware service, and data groups for the service are enumerated. The privacy policy for each data group is represented as APPEL format. To examine the performance of the example service, in section 4, simulation approach is adopted in this paper. For the simulation, five data elements are considered: $\cdot$ UserID $\cdot$ User preference $\cdot$ Phone number $\cdot$ Home address $\cdot$ Product information $\cdot$ Service profile. For the negotiation, reputation is selected as a strategic value. Then the following cases are compared: $\cdot$ Legacy P3P is considered $\cdot$ Mutual P3P is considered without strategic value $\cdot$ Mutual P3P is considered with strategic value. The simulation results show that mutual P3P outperforms legacy P3P. Moreover, we could conclude that when mutual P3P is considered with strategic value, performance was better than that of mutual P3P is considered without strategic value in terms of service safety.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.3-43
• /
• 2018

The emergence of a multi-door courthouse is related with a couple of reasons as follows: First, a multi-door courthouse was originally initiated by the United States government that increasingly became impatient with the pace and cost of protracted litigation clogging the courts. Second, dockets of courts are overcrowded with legal suits, making it difficult for judges to handle those legal suits in time and causing delays in responding to citizens' complaints. Third, litigation is not suitable for the disputant that has an ongoing relationship with the other party. In this case, even if winning is achieved in the short run, it may not be all that was hoped for in the long run. Fourth, international organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and Asia Development Bank urge to provide an increased access to women, residents, and the poor in local communities. The generic model of a multi-door courthouse consists of three stages: The first stage includes a center offering intake services, along with an array of dispute resolution services under one roof. At the second stage, the screening unit at the center would diagnose citizen disputes, then refer the disputants to the appropriate door for handling the case. At the third stage, the multi-door courthouse provides diverse kinds of dispute resolution programs such as mediation, arbitration, mediation-arbitration (med-arb), litigation, and early neutral evaluation. This study suggests the extended model of multi-door courthouse comprised of five layers: intake process, diagnosis and door-selection process, neutral-selection process, implementation process of dispute resolution, and process of training and education. One of the major characteristics of extended multi-door courthouse model is the detailed specification of individual department corresponding to each process within a multi-door courthouse. The intake department takes care of the intake process. The screening department plays the role of screening disputes, diagnosing the nature of disputes, and determining a suitable door to handle disputes. The human resources department manages experts through the construction and management of the data base of mediators, arbitrators, and judges. The administration bureau manages the implementation of each process of dispute resolution. The education and training department builds long-term planning to procure neutrals and experts dealing with various kinds of disputes within a multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish networks among courts, law schools, and associations of scholars in order to facilitate the supply of manpower in ADR neutrals, as well as judges in the long run. This study also provides six case studies of multi-door courthouses across continents in order to grasp the worldwide picture and wide spread phenomena of multi-door courthouse. For this purpose, the United States and Latin American countries including Argentina and Brazil, Middle Eastern countries, and Southeast Asian countries (such as Malaysia and Myanmar), Australia, and Nigeria were chosen. It was found that three kinds of patterns are discernible during the evolution of a multi-door courthouse model. First, the federal courts of the United States, land and environment court in Australia, and Lagos multi-door courthouse in Nigeria may maintain the prototype of a multi-door courthouse model. Second, the judicial systems in Latin American countries tend to show heterogenous patterns in terms of the adaptation of a multi-door courthouse model to their own environments. Some court systems of Latin American countries including those of Argentina and Brazil resemble the generic model of a multi-door courthouse, while other countries show their distinctive pattern of judicial system and ADR systems. Third, it was found that legal pluralism is prevalent in Middle Eastern countries and Southeast Asian countries. For example, Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia have developed various kinds of dispute resolution methods, such as sulh (mediation), tahkim (arbitration), and med-arb for many centuries, since they have been situated at the state of tribe or clan instead of nation. Accordingly, they have no unified code within the territory. In case of Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar and Malaysia, they have preserved a strong tradition of customary laws such as Dhammthat in Burma, and Shriah and the Islamic law in Malaysia for a long time. On the other hand, they incorporated a common law system into a secular judicial system in Myanmar and Malaysia during the colonial period. Finally, this article proposes a couple of factors to strengthen or weaken a multi-door courthouse model. The first factor to strengthen a multi-door courthouse model is the maintenance of flexibility and core value of alternative dispute resolution. We also find that fund raising is important to build and maintain the multi-door courthouse model, reflecting the fact that there has been a competition surrounding the allocation of funds within the judicial system.