Suchergebnisse

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9271-z ; The attack on September 11, 2001 set off numerous efforts to counter terrorism and insurgencies. Central to these efforts has been the drive to improve data collection and analysis. Section 1 summarizes some of the more notable improvements among U.S. government agencies as they strive to develop their capabilities. Although progress has been made, daunting challenges remain. Section 2 reviews the basic challenges to data collection and analysis focusing in some depth on the difficulties of data integration. Three general approaches to data integration are identified—discipline-centric, placed- centric and virtual. A summary of the major challenges in data integration confronting field operators in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates the work that lies ahead. Section 3 shifts gears to focus on the future and introduces the discipline of Visual Analytics—an emerging field dedicated to improving data collection and analysis through the use of computer-mediated visualization techniques and tools. The purpose of Visual Analytics is to maximize human capability to perceive, understand, reason, make judgments and work collaboratively with multidimensional, conflicting, and dynamic data. The paper concludes with two excellent examples of analytic software platforms that have been developed for the intelligence community—Palantir and ORA. They signal the progress made in the field of Visual Analytics to date and illustrate the opportunities that await other IS researchers interested in applying their knowledge and skills to the tracking and disrupting of dark networks.

What accounts for coordination problems? Many mechanisms of coordination exist in both organizations and networks, yet despite their widespread use, coordination challenges persist. Some believe the challenges are growing even more serious. One answer lies in understanding that coordination is not a free good; it is expensive in terms of time, effort, and attention, or what economists call transaction and administrative costs. An alternative to improving coordination is to reduce its costs, yet there is little guidance in the literature to help managers and researchers calculate coordination costs or make design decisions based on cost reductions. This article explores two cases—the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Peer‐to‐Patent pilot program and the online relief effort in Haiti following the devastating earthquake there in 2010—to illustrate the advantages and constraints of using Web 2.0 technology as a mechanism of coordination and a tool for cost reduction. The lessons learned from these cases may offer practitioners and researchers a way out of our "silos" and "smokestacks."

How do nongovernmental (NGO), international (IO), and military organizations cope with their dependencies and address their perceptual and real differences in order to coordinate their field operations? This question is addressed through the creation of a matrix grouping civilian (NGOs and IOs) and military operations into four general types: peacekeeping; disaster relief; complex humanitarian emergencies/warfare; and stabilization and reconstruction. Second, using Galbraith's information processing approach to organizational design, a range of formal coordination mechanisms that organizations use at the strategic and operational levels to help them cope with their dependencies in different field operations is identified. Third, the author underscores how communities of practice are emerging as informal mechanisms of coordination among civilian and military organizations. And finally, a framework of organizational forms that views communities of practice as an alternative to hierarchy and markets is offered. Believing communities of practice hold the most promise for coordination in the human security domain when hierarchies are politically untenable and markets lack accountability, the author concludes with implications for interorganization coordination research and practice.

How do nongovernmental (NGO), international (IO), and military organizations cope with their dependencies and address their perceptual and real diff erences in order to coordinate their fi eld operations? Th is question is addressed through the creation of a matrix grouping civilian (NGOs and IOs) and military operations into four general types: peacekeeping; disaster relief; complex humanitarian emergencies/warfare; and stabilization and reconstruction. Second, using Galbraith's information processing approach to organizational design, a range of formal coordination mechanisms that organizations use at the strategic and operational levels to help them cope with their dependencies in diff erent fi eld operations is identifi ed. Th ird, the author underscores how communities of practice are emerging as informal mechanisms of coordination among civilian and military organizations. And fi nally, a framework of organizational forms that views communities of practice as an alternative to hierarchy and markets is off ered. Believing communities of practice hold the most promise for coordination in the human security domain when hierarchies are politically untenable and markets lack accountability, the author concludes with implications for interorganization coordination research and practice.

The article of record may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288 ; Citizen participation in the decisions that affect their lives is an imperative of contemporary society. For the first half of the 20th century, citizens relied on public officials and administrators to make decisions about public policy and its implementation. The latter part of the 20th century saw a shift toward greater direct citizen involvement. This trend is expected to grow as democratic societies become more decentralized, interdependent, networked, linked by new information technologies, and challenged by "wicked problems." The purpose of this article is to summarize the past experiments in direct citizen participation—the forms they take, the challenges they raise (including the need for redefined roles for public officials and citizens), and the consequences they produce. By laying out what has been done in the past, we are better positioned to identify the critical issues a nd challenges that remain for researchers and practitioners to address in the future.

How can public officials be held accountable, and yet avoid the paradoxes and pathologies of the current mechanisms of accountability? The answer, claims Harmon (1995), is dialogue. But what exactly is dialogue, and how is it created? More importantly, how can dialogue ensure acountability. To address these questions, I begin with a brief description of dialogue and its basic features, distinguishing it from other forms of communication. An example illustrates how dialogue occurs in actual practice. Not only does dialogue demonstrate the intelligent management of contradictory motives and forces, it also supports Harmon's claim that it can resolve the accountability paradox and avoid the atrophy of personal responsibility and political authority. I suggest the dialogue's advantage outweighs its cost as a mechanism of accountability under a particular set of conditions: when public officials confront "wicked problems" that defy defnition and solution, and when traditional problem solving methods have failed, thus preventing any one group from imposing it definition of the problem or its solutions on others.