Conceptualizing a bottom-up approach to service bundling

Offering service bundles to the market is a promising option for service providers to strengthen their competitive advantages, cope with dynamic market conditions and deal with heterogeneous consumer demand. Although the expected positive effects of bundling strategies and pricing considerations for bundles are covered well by the available literature, limited guidance can be found regarding the identification of potential bundle candidates and the actual process of bundling. The contribution of this paper is the positioning of bundling based on insights from both business and computer science and the proposition of a structured bundling method, which guides organizations with the composition of bundles in practice.

Identification and specification of relationships as the foundation for service bundling

Service bundling can be regarded as an option for service providers to strengthen their competitive advantages, cope with dynamic market conditions and heterogeneous consumer demand. Despite these positive effects, actual guidance for the identification of service bundles and the act of bundling itself can be regarded as a gap. Previous research has resulted in a conceptualization of a service bundling method relying on a structured service description in order to fill this gap. This method addresses the reasoning about the suitability of services to be part of a bundle based on analyzing existing relationships between services captured by a description language. This paper extends the aforementioned research by presenting an initial set of empirically derived relationships between services in existing bundles that can subsequently be utilized to identify potential new bundles. Additionally, a gap analysis points out to what extent prominent ontologies and service description languages accommodate for the identified relationships.

An analysis of the RC4 family of stream ciphers against algebraic attacks

To date, most applications of algebraic analysis and attacks on stream ciphers are on those based on lin- ear feedback shift registers (LFSRs). In this paper, we extend algebraic analysis to non-LFSR based stream ciphers. Specifically, we perform an algebraic analysis on the RC4 family of stream ciphers, an example of stream ciphers based on dynamic tables, and inves- tigate its implications to potential algebraic attacks on the cipher. This is, to our knowledge, the first pa- per that evaluates the security of RC4 against alge- braic attacks through providing a full set of equations that describe the complex word manipulations in the system. For an arbitrary word size, we derive alge- braic representations for the three main operations used in RC4, namely state extraction, word addition and state permutation. Equations relating the inter- nal states and keystream of RC4 are then obtained from each component of the cipher based on these al- gebraic representations, and analysed in terms of their contributions to the security of RC4 against algebraic attacks. Interestingly, it is shown that each of the three main operations contained in the components has its own unique algebraic properties, and when their respective equations are combined, the resulting system becomes infeasible to solve. This results in a high level of security being achieved by RC4 against algebraic attacks. On the other hand, the removal of an operation from the cipher could compromise this security. Experiments on reduced versions of RC4 have been performed, which confirms the validity of our algebraic analysis and the conclusion that the full RC4 stream cipher seems to be immune to algebraic attacks at present.

The impact of holding costs in the housing affordability puzzle

Research is now emerging which exposes the significance and extent to which even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period, and other factors, affect housing affordability. It suggests that the extent of its significance has not been hitherto completely demonstrated.

Ramifications of development projects deemed “state significant”

Purpose, Design/methodology / approach The acknowledgement of state significance in relation to development projects can result in special treatment by regulatory authorities, particularly in terms of environmental compliance and certain economic and other government support measures. However, defining just what constitutes a “significant project”, or a project of “state significance”, varies considerably between Australian states. In terms of establishing threshold levels, in Queensland there is even less clarity. Despite this lack of definition, the implications of “state significance” can nevertheless be considerable. For example, in Queensland if the Coordinator-General declares a project to be a “significant project” under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the environmental impact assessment process may become more streamlined – potentially circumventing certain provisions under The Integrated Planning Act 1997. If the project is not large enough to be so deemed, an extractive resource under the State Planning Policy 2/07 - Protection of Extractive Resources 2007 may be considered to be of State or regional significance and subsequently designated as a “Key Resource Area”. As a consequence, such a project is afforded some measure of resource protection but remains subject to the normal assessment process under the Integrated Development Assessment System, as well as the usual requirements of the vegetation management codes, and other regulations. Findings (Originality/value) & Research limitations / implications This paper explores the various meanings of “state significance” in Queensland and the ramifications for development projects in that state. It argues for a streamlining of the assessment process in order to avoid or minimise constraints acting on the state’s development. In so doing, it questions the existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over-stretched infrastructure program.

Don't sell social science short

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted ("Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences," 12 May, p. 829). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems.

Analyzing requirements and approaches for sourcing software based services

Increasingly, software is no longer developed as a single system, but rather as a smart combination of so-called software services. Each of these provides an independent, specific and relatively small piece of functionality, which is typically accessible through the Internet from internal or external service providers. There are no standards or models that describe the sourcing process of these software based services (SBS). The authors identify the sourcing requirements for SBS and associate the key characteristics of SBS (with the sourcing requirements introduced). Furthermore, this paper investigates the sourcing of SBS with the related works in the field of classical procurement, business process outsourcing, and information systems sourcing. Based on the analysis, the authors conclude that the direct adoption of these approaches for SBS is not feasible and new approaches are required for sourcing SBS.

Preliminary modelling outcomes : calculation of holding costs in greenfield residential development

Many of the costs associated with greenfield residential development are apparent and tangible. For example, regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others are all relatively easily identified since they represent actual costs incurred at a given point in time. However, identification of holding costs are not always immediately evident since by contrast they characteristically lack visibility. One reason for this is that, for the most part, they are typically assessed over time in an ever-changing environment. In addition, wide variations exist in development pipeline components: they are typically represented from anywhere between a two and over sixteen years time period - even if located within the same geographical region. Determination of the starting and end points, with regards holding cost computation, can also prove problematic. Furthermore, the choice between application of prevailing inflation, or interest rates, or a combination of both over time, adds further complexity. Although research is emerging in these areas, a review of the literature reveals attempts to identify holding cost components are limited. Their quantification (in terms of relative weight or proportionate cost to a development project) is even less apparent; in fact, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, it may be demonstrated that ambiguities exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs and assessment of their relative contribution. Yet their impact on housing affordability is widely acknowledged to be profound, with their quantification potentially maximising the opportunities for delivering affordable housing. This paper seeks to build on earlier investigations into those elements related to holding costs, providing theoretical modelling of the size of their impact - specifically on the end user. At this point the research is reliant upon quantitative data sets, however additional qualitative analysis (not included here) will be relevant to account for certain variations between expectations and actual outcomes achieved by developers. Although this research stops short of cross-referencing with a regional or international comparison study, an improved understanding of the relationship between holding costs, regulatory charges, and housing affordability results.