Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент, 2020, том 11, № 1
научный рецензируемый журнал
Бесплатно
Основная коллекция
Тематика:
Стратегический менеджмент
Издательство:
Издательский дом «Реальная экономика»
Наименование: Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент
Год издания: 2020
Кол-во страниц: 107
Дополнительно
Тематика:
ББК:
УДК:
ГРНТИ:
Скопировать запись
Фрагмент текстового слоя документа размещен для индексирующих роботов.
Для полноценной работы с документом, пожалуйста, перейдите в
ридер.
Strategic Decisions and Risk Management Издается с 2010 года & решения рискcтратегические менеджмент Т. 11, № 1/2020 ISSN 2618-947X (Print) ISSN 2618-9984 (Online) НАУЧНЫЙ РЕЦЕНЗИРУЕМЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ 16+
Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент ISSN 2618-947X (Print) ISSN 2618-9984 (Online) НАУЧНЫЙ РЕЦЕНЗИРУЕМЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ Издается с 2010 года DOI: 10.17747/2618-947X-2020-1 Издание перерегистрировано в Федеральной службе по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор). Свидетельство ПИ № ФС-72389 от 28.02.2018 Предыдущее название «Эффективное Антикризисное Управление» Периодичность издания – 4 номера в год & решения рискcтратегические менеджмент Редакция Главный редактор – Аркадий Трачук Заместитель главного редактора – Наталия Линдер Литературный редактор – Алена Владыкина Дизайн и верстка – Николай Квартников Корректор – Сима Пошивалова Генеральный директор – Валерий Пресняков Партнерские проекты по конференциям и семинарам – Александр Привалов (pr@jsdrm.ru) Подписка и распространение – Ирина Кужим (podpiska@jsdrm.ru) Адрес редакции: 190020, Санкт-Петербург, Старо-Петергофский пр., 43–45, лит. Б, оф. 4н Тел.: (812) 346-5015, 346-5016 Факс: (812) 325-2099 e-mail: info@jsdrm.ru Online-версия журнала www.jsdrm.ru, ООО «Типография Литас+»: 190020, Санкт-Петербург, Лифляндская ул., 3 При использовании материалов ссылка на «Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент» обязательна Тираж 1900 экз. Подписка через редакцию или ● агентство «Роспечать», каталог «Газеты. Журналы» – подписной индекс 33222 ● агентство «АРЗИ», каталог «Пресса России» – подписной индекс 88671 Оnline-версия журнала www.jsdrm.ru Учредитель – Федеральное государственное образовательное бюджетное учреждение высшего образования «Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации» (Финансовый университет), общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Издательский дом «Реальная экономика» Издатель – ООО «Издательский дом «Реальная экономика» «Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент» – международный, междисциплинарный рецензируемый журнал открытого доступа, публикующий оригинальные научные статьи c результатами передовых теоретических и прикладных исследований в ключевых областях стратегического управления, управления научно-технической и инновационной деятельностью, а также взаимосвязанными рисками в условиях четвертой промышленной революции, информирующий читателей о возможных альтернативных сценариях будущего развития компаний для своевременного принятия правильных управленческих решений. Особое внимание журнал уделяет оригинальным теоретическим и эмпирическим исследованиям таких важнейших про блем и направлений развития менеджмента в условиях четвертой промышленной революции: ● стратегическое управление в бизнесе и общественном секторе, а также стратегические изменения в деятельности, связанные с четвертой промышленной революцией; ● стратегические управленческие решения: методы разработки, обоснования, принятия, реализации и контроля; ● инновации, предпринимательство и формирование новых бизнес-моделей в условиях четвертой промышленной революции; ● управление технологическим развитием в контексте Индустрии 4.0; ● формирование устойчивых конкурентных преимуществ и управление переходом к устойчивому развитию в условиях Индустрии 4.0; ● стратегии управления различными видами рисков, в том числе связанными с внедрением технологий Индустрии 4.0; ● особенности риск-менеджмента и принятия управленческих решений в контексте четвертой промышленной революции. «Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент» принимает статьи от авторов из разных стран. Поступающие в редакцию материалы должны отвечать высоким стандартам научности, отличаться оригинальностью. Качество статей оценивается посредством тщательного, двустороннего слепого рецензирования. Редакционная коллегия и пул рецензентов журнала объединяют ведущих экспертов мирового и национального уровней в области стратегического управления и инновационного развития, управления внедрением технологий Индустрии 4.0, экономики знания и инноваций, представителей органов власти и институтов развития. Журнал входит в Перечень периодических научных изданий, рекомендуемых ВАК для публикации основных результатов диссертаций на соискание ученой степени кандидата и доктора наук. Индексируется в базах данных – Российский индекс научного цитирования (РИНЦ), Академия Google, Base, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), EBSCO, Copac|Jisk, MIAR (Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals), NSD (Norwegian Centre for Research Data), Open Archives Initiative, Research Bible, Соционет, WorldCat, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, RePEc: Research Papers in Economics и других.
Strategic Decisions and Risk Management Published since 2010 DOI: 10.17747/2618-947X-2020-1 ISSN 2618-947X (Print) ISSN 2618-9984 (Online) ScIeNtIfIc aNd PractIcal revIewed jOurNal Decisions and management risks-management «Decisions and management risks-management» Journal Is registered by Federal Service for Supervision in the sphere of communication, information technologies and mass communications (Roscomnadzor). Certificate ПИ № ФС 77–72389 dated 28.02.2018 Periodicity – 4 times per year & decisions risk strategic management Online www.jsdrm.ru Editorial tEam Chief Editor – Arkady Trachuk Deputy Editor-in-Chief – Natalia Linder Literary editor – Alena Vladykina Design, composition – Nikolai Kvartnikov Proof-reader – Sima Poshyvalova General director – Valery Presnyakov Partner projects concerning conferences and seminars – Alexandr Privalov (pr@jsdrm.ru) Subscription and distribution – Irina Kuzhym (podpiska@jsdrm.ru) Editor’s office address: 190020, St. Petersburg, 43–45 Staropetrgofsky avenue, B, of.4H Tel.: (812) 346–5015, 346–5016 Fax: (812) 325–2099 www.jsdrm.ru, e-mail: info@jsdrm.ru “Tipografiia Litas+” LLC, 3 Lifliandskaia street, 190020, St. Using the materials it is obligatory to include the reference to “Decisions and management risks-management” Circulation of 1900 copies. Subscription through the editors or the Agency “Rospechat”, the directory of Newspapers. ● Journals – subscription index 33222 ● Agency “ARZI”, the catalog “Press of Russia” – subscription index 88671 Founder – The Finance University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Finance University), Real Economy Publishing House Publisher – Real Economy Publishing House Aims and Scope – “Strategic Decisions and Risk Management” – an international, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed open access journal refereed open-access journal, publishes original scientific articles with the results of advanced theoretical and applied research in key areas of strategic management, management of scientific, technical and innovation activities, as well as interrelated risks in the fourth industrial revolution, informing readers about possible alternative scenarios for the future development of companies for timely making the right management decisions. The journal pays special attention to the original theoretical and empirical research of such major problems and directions of development of management in the conditions of the fourth industrial revolution as: • Strategic management in business and the public sector, as well as strategic changes in activities related to the fourth industrial revolution; • Strategic management decisions: methods of development, justification, adoption, implementation and control; • Innovation, entrepreneurship and the formation of new business models in the conditions of the fourth industrial revolution; • Management of technological development in the context of Industry 4.0; • Formation of sustainable competitive advantages and management of the transition to sustainable development in the conditions of Industry 4.0; • Strategies for managing various types of risks, including risks related with adaptation of technology of Industry 4.0; • Features of risk management and management decisions in the context of the fourth industrial revolution. “Strategic Decisions and Risk Management” accepts articles from authors from different countries. The materials submitted to the editorial board must have high standards of scientific knowledge and be distinguished by originality. The quality of articles is estimated by careful, two-sided blind review. The editorial board and reviewers of the journal combines together leading experts at the global and national levels in the strategic management sphere and innovation development, management of the implementation technologies of Industry 4.0, knowledge of innovation and economics, representatives of government bodies and development institutions. The journal is included in the scroll of scientific publications, recommended by Higher Attestation Commission at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation for publication of the main results of the degree candidate and doctor of sciences. Indexation – Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI), Academy Google, Base, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), EBSCO, Copac|Jisk, MIAR (Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals), NSD (Norwegian Centre for Research Data), Open Archives Initiative, Research Bible, “Socionet”, WorldCat, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory,RePEc: Research Papers in Economics and others.
Быков Андрей Александрович Доктор физикоматематических наук, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки РФ, вицепрезидент Российского научного общества анализа риска, Москва Гительман Лазарь Давидович Доктор экономических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой систем управления энергетикой и промышленными предприятиями Высшей школы экономики и менеджмента, Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б. Н. Ельцина, Екатеринбург Карлик Александр Евсеевич Доктор экономических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой экономики и управления предприятиями и производственными комплексами, Санкт- Петербургский государственный экономический университет, Санкт-Петербург Крчо Сдан Ph.D, доцент Университета экономики, финансов и управления FEFA (Республика Сербия), соучредитель и генеральный директор компании DunavNET Клейнер Георгий Борисович Доктор экономических наук, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, заместитель директора Центрального экономикоматематического института Российской академии наук, научный руководитель стратегических инициатив и проектов научноинтеграционного объединения «АБАДА», Москва Линдер Наталия Вячеславовна Кандидат экономических наук, профессор, заместитель главного редактора, заместитель декана по науке и развитию ППС факультета «Высшая школа управления», Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, Москва Логинов Евгений Леонидович Доктор экономических наук, профессор РАН, дважды лауреат премии Правительства РФ в области науки и техники, заместитель директора по научной работе, ФГБУН Институт проблем рынка Российской академии наук (ИПР РАН), Москва Мартин-де-Кастро Григорио Профессор по стратегии и инновациям, Департамент менеджмента, Мадридский Университет Комплютенсе, Мадрид, Испания Маринова Светла Ph.D., доцент, Университет Ольборга, Дания Панова Галина Сергеевна Доктор экономических наук, профессор, заведующая кафедрой «Банки, денежное обращение и кредит», Московский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской Федерации, Москва Петровский Алексей Борисович Доктор технических наук, профессор, главный научный сотрудник, заведующий отделом методов и систем поддержки принятия решений, Федеральный исследовательский центр «Информатика и управление» Российской академии наук, Москва Прокофьев Станислав Евгеньевич Доктор экономических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой «Государственное и муниципальное управление», Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, Москва Растова Юлия Ивановна Доктор экономических наук, профессор, Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет, Санкт-Петербург Солесвик Марина Ph.D., профессор, бизнесшкола Университета НОРД, Норвегия Томинц Полона Ph.D., профессор, Департамент количественных методов анализа Факультета экономики и бизнеса, Университет Марибора, Словения Умберто Паниелло Доцент кафедры бизнес- аналитики и цифровых бизнес-моделей, Политехнический университет Бари (Италия) Федотова Марина Алексеевна Доктор экономических наук, профессор, руководитель Департамента корпоративных финансов и корпоративного управления, Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, Москва Цветков Валерий Анатольевич Доктор экономических наук, профессор, членкорреспондент РАН, директор, Институт проблем рынка Российской академии наук, Москва Юданов Андрей Юрьевич Доктор экономических наук, профессор, Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, Москва редакциОнная кОллегия ПредседаТелЬ редакциОннОЙ кОллегии Порфирьев Борис Николаевич Доктор экономических наук, профессор, академик РАН, директор Института народнохозяйственного прогнозирования, заведующий лабораторией анализа и прогнозирования природных и техногенных рисков экономики, РАН, Москва ЗаМесТиТелЬ ПредседаТеля Эскиндаров Михаил Абдрахманович Доктор экономических наук, профессор, ректор, Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, Москва главнЫЙ редакТОр Трачук Аркадий Владимирович Доктор экономических наук, профессор, руководитель Департамента менеджмента, декан факультета «Высшая школа управления», Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, генеральный директор АО «Гознак», Москва ЧленЫ редакциОнная кОллегия
Andrey Bykov Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor, Honored Scientist of Russia, VicePresident of the Russian Scientific Society for Risk Analysis, Moscow Lazar Gitelman Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of Academic Department of Economics of Industrial and Energy Systems, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg Alexander Karlik Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of Economics and Management of Enterprises and Industrial Complexes, St. Petersburg State University of Economics, St. Petersburg Georgy Kleiner Doctor of Economics, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Deputy Director of the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Research Advisor of Strategic Initiatives and Projects of the Scientific and Integration Association “ABADA”, Moscow Srđan Krčo Associate Professor position at FEFA (Faculty for Economics, Finance and Administration), a co-founder and CEO of DunavNET Natalia Linder Ph.D. in Economics, Professor, deputy chief editor, associate dean in science and development of the higher-education teaching personnel of the faculty “Higher school of management”, Financial university at Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow city Evgeny Loginov Doctor of Economics, Professor, Deputy Director for Science, Market Economy Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Gregorio Martín-de-Castro Ph.D. Professor of Strategy and Innovation, Department of Management, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Svetla Marinova PhD, Associate Professor, Aalborg University, Denmark Galina Panova Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of Academic Department “Banks, Money Circulation and Credit”, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow Alexey Petrovsky Doctor of Sciences in Engineering, Professor, Chief Scientist, Head of the Methods and decision support systems Department, Federal Research Center “Computer science and management”, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Stanislav Prokofiev Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of State and Municipal Administration Department, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow Julia Rastova Doctor of Economics, Professor, St. Petersburg State University of Economics, St. Petersburg Marina Solesvik PhD, Professor, Business School of NORD University, Norway Polona Tominc Ph.D., is a full-time Professor at the Department of Quantitative Economic Analysis at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Slovenia Valeriy Tsvetkov Doctor of Economics, Professor, Corresponding Member of RAS, Director, Market Economy Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Umberto Panniello Assistant Professor of Business Intelligence and E-Business Models Politecnico di Bari (Italy) Marina Fedotova Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of Corporate Finance and Governance Department, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow Andrey Yudanov Doctor of Economics, Professor, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow editOrial team President OF tHe editOrial BOard Boris Porfiriev Doctor of Economics, Professor, RAS Academician, Director of the Institute for National Economic Forecasts, Head of Analysis and Forecasting of Natural and Technogenic Risks of Economics Laboratory, RAS, Moscow dePutY CHairman Mikhail Eskindarov Doctor of Economics, Professor, Chancellor, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow editOr-in-CHieF Arkady Trachuk Doctor of Economics, Professor, Head of Management department, dean of the faculty “Higher school of management”, Financial university at Government of the Russian Federation, Director general “Goznak” JSC, Moscow city memBers OF tHe editOrial BOard
сОдержание стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент Т. 11, № 1/2020 70 Поиск бизнес-модели образовательным стартапом в сегменте взрослого обучения на российском рынке З.В. Чавкин 56 Влияние инноваций на экспортную деятельность: эмпирический анализ российских компаний С.И. Фаязова 48 Развитие конкурентного преимущества логистической платформы на основе цифровизации хабов Е.Р. Счисляева, С.Е. Барыкин, Е.А. Коваленко, А.Ю. Бурова 98 Система риск-менеджмента – инструмент успешной реализации международных мегапроектов Д.В. Шамин 14 Сертификаты возобновляемой энергии: возможности и эффективность применения М.М. Балашов 28 Механизмы возврата инвестиций в строительство мусоросжигательных заводов путем продажи электроэнергии и мощности Е.А. Мельникова 8 децентрализация в цифровом обществе: парадокс дизайна Е. Поунарес
COntents strategic decisions and risk management Vol. 11, № 1/2020 70 Searching for business model by Edtech startups in adult education segment on the russian market Z.V. Chavkin 56 innovation influence on export activities: еmpirical analysis of russian companies S.I. Faiazova 48 digitalization of logistics hubs as a competitive advantage E.R. Schislyaeva, S.E. Barykin, E.A. Kovalenko, A.Yu. Burova 98 the risk management system is a tool for the successful implementation of international megaprojects D.V. Shamin 14 renewable energy certificates: application potential and effiency М.М. Balashov 28 return on investment mechanisms of the incinerators development by selling electricity and power E.А. Melnikova 8 decentralization in digital societies. a design paradox E. Pournaras
& решения рискcтратегические менеджмент Т. 11, № 1/2020 DOI: 10.17747/2618-947X-2020-1-8-13 Decentralization in digital societies. A design paradox E. Pournaras1 1 School of Computing, University of Leeds AbstrAct D igital societies come with a design paradox: On the one hand, technologies, such as Internet of Things, pervasive and ubiquitous systems, allow a distributed local intelligence in interconnected devices of our everyday life such as smart phones, smart thermostats, self-driving cars, etc. On the other hand, Big Data collection and storage is managed in a highly centralized fashion, resulting in privacyintrusion, surveillance actions, discriminatory and segregation social phenomena. What is the difference between a distributed and a decentralized system design? How “decentralized” is the processing of our data nowadays? Does centralized design undermine autonomy? Can the level of decentralization in the implemented technologies influence ethical and social dimensions, such as social justice? Can decentralization convey sustainability? Are there parallelisms between the decentralization of digital technology and the decentralization of urban development? KeywOrDs: decentralization, big data, privacy, autonomy, democracy. FOr cItAtIOn: Pournaras E. (2020). Decentralization in digital societies a design paradox. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, 11(1), 8-13. DOI: 10.17747/2618-947X-2020-1-8-13. 4.0 This essay is based on material presented at the 2016 Salon Festival, Maloja Palace, Switzerland: In Pursuit of the Beautiful Soul, The Public Sphere Salons. URL: https://www.publicspheresalons.com.
Vol. 11, № 1/2020 & decisions risk strategic management Децентрализация в цифровом обществе: парадокс дизайна Е. Поунарес1 1 Школа вычислений, университет Лидса, Лидс, Великобритания АннотАция Ц ифровая трансформация основывается на автоматизированных процессах и инвестициях в новые технологии: искусственный интеллект, блокчейн, анализ данных и интернет вещей. Но в центре успешной стратегии цифровой трансформации все равно находится человек. Цифровая трансформация порождает парадоксы новых моделей: с одной стороны, распространяются повсеместно технологии, такие, как интернет вещей, большие данные позволяют улучшить продукты и услуги для потребителей, предложить им новую ценность и т. д. Но, с другой стороны, аналитика данных и их хранение управляются высокоцентрализованным способом, приводящим к вторжению в частную жизнь людей, контролю за их действиями, к дискриминационным и сегрегационным социальным явлениям. В статье рассматриваются вопросы: каково различие между распределенным и децентрализованным системным проектированием? Как возможна организация «децентрализованной» обработки персональных данных в наше время? Подрывают ли централизованный сбор и обработка данных автономию? Может ли децентрализация во внедренных технологиях влиять на этические и социальные параметры, такие, как социальная справедливость? Ведет ли децентрализация к устойчивости функционирования систем? Есть ли взаимосвязь между децентрализацией цифровых технологий и децентрализацией городского развития? В статье делается вывод о том, что децентрализаванные системы имеют гораздо большую эффективность в современных условиях и являются альтернативой или естественной адаптацией к сложившимся условиям. Например, децентрализованное производство электроэнергии делает людей одновременно производителями и потребителями, что приводит к повышению энергоэффективности. Точно так же аналитика данных не является монополией систем больших данных. Анализ может также быть выполнен полностью децентрализованным способом как общественное благо с использованием коллективного разума. Ключевые словА: децентрализация, большие данные, неприкосновенность частной жизни, автономность, демократия. Для цитировАния: Поунарес Е. (2020). Децентрализация в цифровом обществе: парадокс дизайна // Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент. Т. 11. № 1. С. 8–13. DOI: 10.17747/2618-947X-2020-1-8-13.
& решения рискcтратегические менеджмент Т. 11, № 1/2020 1. rHIZOMe OF tHe bIG, sUPPressIOn OF tHe sMALL Are data actually “Big” in digital societies? Scratching the surface of Big Data is used as a philosophical narrative for an in-depth comprehension of the buzzword, the actual design it conveys and the techno-socio-economic implications of this design. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) such as Internet of Things, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable devices and other have brought paramount opportunities for sustainable digital societies in application domains such as Smart Cities, Smart Grids and ambient-assisted living. Digital societies provide functionality and services that reason based on empirical data. The vast majority of these data can be generated locally by each citizen who uses the aforementioned ICT technologies. Given that nowadays most citizens in developed and developing countries have access to some of these technologies, the data generation is highly participatory and decentralized by design. The data corresponding to each citizen are only a small fraction of the total data generated at a global scale. Therefore, the proportion of data corresponding to each citizen is nowadays magnitudes lower compared to the past when the participatory actions based on ICT were minimal and only large corporations could have access to these costly technologies. We ultimately live in an era of “Small Data”. So what makes the “Small Data” “Big”? Does Big Data convey a misconception or a paradox? Big Data is actually a rhizome of massive data collection practices governed by large corporations or governments whose systems design is highly detached from the decentralized nature of data generation. This practice suppresses and eventually undermines the inherent decentralized design of digital societies. Although Big Data technologies claim decentralized/distributed processing of data using programming models such as MapReduce, these technologies are actually deployed and used in highly centralized settings. Data are collected, stored and processed in large energy-intensive data centers, over which citizens have no control and authority. Distributed data processing within this highly centralized setting exclusively serves corporate performance and competitiveness. However, given the current economic arena, only a few powerful business players can invest on such expensive computational resources. This results in a cascade of centralization and power concentration as a tactical utility1 mingled in technical, social, business, economic and political realities. The sustainability and cohesion of digital societies comes in question. 2. tHe OnGOInG bAttLe beHInD tHe new MAnIFestAtIOn The debate on centralized vs. decentralized design dates back to non-digital societies and its existence has philosophical relevance and significance. Cummings [Cummings, 1995] relies on semantic decomposition to argue that the two terms are a binary undecidable opposition. They cannot be conceptualized apart from each other due to the intrinsically divided logic of writing. This creates inherently cyclic dynamics in the perceptions between centralization and decentralization. This philosophical view has reflections in empirical observations on fiscal, administrative, regulatory, market and financial centralization/decentralization of public services [Ahmad et al., 2005; De Vries, 2000]. It is even pointed out that the same arguments are used to support either centralization or decentralization and that opposing arguments appear to support the same view among different countries. These contradicting views also have ideological origins, for instance, references to decentralization swing over anarchism, libertarian socialism and even neo-liberalism. Gershenson and Heylighen [Gershenson, Heylighen, 2005] illustrate the perspective of complexity science that moves beyond distinction conservation of classical sciences [Heylighen, 1989] and introduces the indeterminacy in which observations or distinctions made by observers in different contexts can vary. Beyond the prevalent conceptual applicability of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics, the indeterminancy between centralization and decentralization becomes more apparent when studying topological and spectral properties of complex networks representing techno-socio-economic systems [Albert, Barabási, 2002; Boccaletti et al., 2006; Provan, Kenis, 2008; Strogatz, 2001]. 3. cAscADe eFFects OF DesIGn Significant challenges that digital societies face nowadays stem from their design. For example, practices of privacy violation are a major concern in the Big Data era. Privacy can be violated (1) as a result of low citizens’ awereness about the implications of giving away their personal data or (2) by advanced inference techniques applied to partial/incomplete citizens’ data. In both cases, centralization plays a key role. These privacy violations are a structural effect originated from the centralized design in information management. In the former case, complex privacy settings and policies in data collection are a mainstream that keep citizens underinformed about which of their personal data are collected and how they are used. Even when some privacy control is given back to citizens, this is counter-intuitively institutionalized and determined by the centralized authority that collects the data, the same potential violator of privacy. The notion of conflict of interest does not apply in this case. This centrally determined privacy control can ironically turn out be deceiving or opportunistic as choices about privacy are personal data collected as well. For example, the control of which friends can see a picture uploaded in a centralized social network reveals a level of trust, a ranking of human relationships camouflaged under a notion of privacy determination. At the end, most social networks may allow each individual to choose what is shared with everyone else except themselves. In conclusion, unless citizens self-institute and self-determine information sharing, centralized data collection cannot by design contribute to citizens’ awareness in privacy and can even further violate their privacy. 1 [Cummings, 1995] recalls former organization theorists with this view for the future digital societies.
Vol. 11, № 1/2020 & decisions risk strategic management In the latter case of privacy intrusion via inference, it is again the centralized design that opens up ways to violate privacy. Inference is usually performed by deducing some missing or new type of information by using analysis of data sources. For example, identifying the TV channel and audiovisual content does not require the explicit reveal of this information by household residents. Surprisingly, it can be also inferred with high accuracy using household energy consumption data captured by smart meters [Greveler et al., 2012]. Privacy threats by inference are even more challenging for citizens to perceive, and therefore, to be aware of. Usually, privacy policies do not explicitly reflect on such threats. It is when different collected data streams are centralized and processed by powerful computational resources that unlimited inference opportunities arise. When data remain distributed and under citizens’ control, inference is either literally or computationally infeasible. Decentralization entails a significant level of privacy-by-design, and can be adopted as a tactical utility for privacy-preservation. Privacy intrusion has a cascade of implications on autonomy of decision making, individuals’ freedom and therefore, democracy [Helbing, Pournaras, 2015]. In a digital society of centralized information systems, new powerful ways of surveillance, discrimination, manipulation of public opinion and totalitarian e-governance emerge. Highly commercialized recommender systems or over/under-regulated computational markets often lack of a legitimate transparent access to citizens’ data. As a result, the semiotics of information in opinion formation and decision-making are fundamentally altered [Eco, 2014]. 4. tHe OXyMOrOn OF sUstAInAbILIty Centralization also has an environmental impact. For example, the carbom emmisions of datacenters account for 14% of the ICT footprint [Webb et al., 2008], 2% of all electricity usage in the USA and 1.3% globally [Brown et al., 2008]. There is an active ongoing research on energy efficiency and savings of centralized computing infrastructures [Beloglazov et al., 2011], however, the energy consumption of data centers continues to grow [Brown et al., 2008]. Energy efficiency in data centers cannot justify sustainability as the underlying environmental manifestation of the centralized design smolders unnoticed. If privacy could be preserved, data centers might not be needed at first place, or at least to the scale they are required nowadays. Beyond the ethical dimension, privacy violations such as the ones illustrated earlier have a measurable environmental impact as they require storage and processing capacity. Even if these computational resources are environmental-friendly, sustainability remains an oxymoron. Moreover, the need for a large-scale use of centralized data centers can be further limited if the underutilized disk space and processing capacity of personal computers and other distributed computational resources are explored [Benet, 2014; Swan, 2015]. Decentralizing the energy efficiency by focusing on environmental-friendly end-user technology can be a more effective and sustainable approach [Nurminen, Noyranen, 2008; Pantazis et al., 2013; Pournaras, 2013; Pournaras et al., 2014a; Wang et al., 2009]. The design bond between physical and digital finds another manifestation in the development of rural and urban environments. The centralization of information systems results in large ICT corporations physically close to administrative centers of cities, where they can sustain their business activities. This results in a further alienation of rural areas and losses of their competitive advantages. Undoubtedly and regardless of the design of information systems, citizens can benefit from higher quality of public services supported by digital means [Kostakis et al., 2015]. However, rather than Smart Towns or Smart Villages, it is no wonder that Smart Cities are the mainstream nowadays. Although the status quo suggests the city as the incubator of innovation, a more physiocratic view would mandate the repatriation of the innovation outcome in rural areas for reflecting the benefits to real economy and growth [Heinonen, 2013]. Such considerations are highly applicable in countries of the European South affected by the economic crisis and especially Greece that has a high level of urbanization, nevertheless an economy relying on primary sector of the economy. 5. cLAIMInG tHe ‘seLF’ Eco [Eco, 2014] argues that true control in communication comes from the actual control of information meaning and its interpretation. This turns information from an instrument for producing economic merchandise into a chief merchandise. The tactical centralization in the Big Data era creates unlimited opportunities for control over meaning and its interpretation. The suppression of the inherent decentralized design of digital societies, along with the magma of power concentration by the centralization of information systems undermines the ‘self’ of self-instituting societies. Consequently, the foundations of democracy are undermined, as Castoriadis sees to the self-instituting societies the dawn of democracy back to ancient Greece [Castoriadis, 1983; Castoriadis, Curtis, 1991]. This discussion does not imply that decentralization is a panacea and centralized design the cause of an upcoming dystopian future. Decentralized systems such as peer-to-peer networks have been criticized for the security holes, free-riding or illegal content sharing [Wallach, 2003]. Several of these issues are addressed by new novel decentralized technologies such as blockchain [Swan, 2015], while others are a result of the existing well-established economic and political interests opposing a transition towards decentralization. Distinguishing between a weak outcome because of the transition to decentralization and a weak outcome because of a fundamental aw in the actual decentralized design is a challenge to be addressed [Ahmad et al., 2005]. There is a plethora of applications in which decentralized information systems are an alternative or a natural fit within the domain applied. For example, decentralized micro-generation of energy empowers citizens to be both consumers and producers. Centralized computations for matching energy supply and demand in this dynamic decentralized environment can undermine privacy and autonomy as discussed earlier. In contrast, the reliability of Smart Grids can improve via self-organizing multi
& решения рискcтратегические менеджмент Т. 11, № 1/2020 agent systems running decentralized optimization mechanisms. Decentralization does not only contribute to cost-effectiveness but also to a welfare by minimizing human discomfort and maximizing social fairness [Pournaras et al., 2014a; 2014b]. Similarly, data analytics are not a monopoly of Big Data systems. Measurements can also be performed in a fully decentralized fashion as a public good using collective intelligence distributed over computational resources of participatory citizens [Jesus et al., 2015; Pournaras et al., 2018; 2015]. Although the battle of decentralization in the Big Data era may resemble a digital guerrilla warfare, this battle is actually the claim of the missing ‘self’ from self-instituting digital societies, the claim of a digital democracy worth pursuing. reFerences 1. Ahmad J. K., Devarajan S., Khemani S., Shah S. (2005). Decentralization and service delivery. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3603. 2. Albert R., Barabási A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47. 3. Beloglazov A., Buyya R., Lee Y.C., Zomaya A. et al. (2011). A taxonomy and survey of energy-efficient data centers and cloud computing systems. Advances in Сomputers, 82(2), 47-111. 4. Benet J. (2014). Ipfs-content addressed, versioned, p2p file system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561. 5. Boccaletti S., Latora V., Moreno Y., Chavez M., Hwang D.-U. (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 424(4), 175-308. 6. Brown R., Masanet E., Nordman B., Tschudi B., Shehabi A., Stanley J., Koomey J., Sartor D., Chan P. (2008). Report to congress on server and data center energy efficiency: Public law 109-431. Technical report, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 7. Castoriadis С. (1983). The Greek polis and the creation of democracy. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 9(2), 79-115. 8. Castoriadis C., Curtis D.A. (1991). Philosophy, politics, autonomy. Oxford University Press Oxford. 9. Cummings S. (1995). Centralization and decentralization: The neverending story of separation and betrayal. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(2), 103-117. 10. De Vries M.S. (2000). The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries. European Journal оf Political Research, 38(2), 193-224. 11. Eco U. (2014). Faith in fakes. Random House. 12. Gershenson C., Heylighen F. (2005). How can we think the complex. Managing Organizational Complexity: Philosophy, Theory аnd Application, 3, 47-62. 13. Greveler U., Glösekötterz P., Justusy B., Loehr D. (2012). Multimedia content identification through smart meter power usage profiles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering (IKE), 1. The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (World-Comp). 14. Heinonen S. (2013). Neo-growth in future post-carbon cities. Journal of Futures Studies, 18(1), 13-40. 15. Helbing D., Pournaras E. (2015). Society: Build digital democracy. Nature, 527(7576), 33-34. 16. Heylighen F. (1989). Causality as distinction conservation. a theory of predictability, reversibility, and time order. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 20(5), 361-384. 17. Jesus P., Baquero C., Almeida P.S. (2015). Flow updating: Fault-tolerant aggregation for dynamic networks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 78, 53-64. 18. Kostakis V., Bauwens M., Niaros V. (2015). Urban reconfiguration after the emergence of peer-to-peer infrastructure: Four