Advertisement

Use of Digital-Physical Security System in a Developing Country’s Port: A Case Study of Ghana

  • Fred Amankwah-SarfoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 558)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand how the use of digital-physical security (DPS) improves port security by enabling or constraining stakeholders’ goals in a developing country. Information Systems (IS) research on digital-physical security has focused more on power networks, automotive, manufacturing, and healthcare sectors. Digital-physical security (DPS) research on ports in developing countries remains limited. Therefore, port security systems as a significant IS research is yet to receive the necessary attention. To address this gap, this study employed affordance theory as the analytical lens and qualitative interpretive case study as the methodology to investigate use of digital-physical security for a port in Ghana. The research findings show that developing countries can use digital-physical security systems to improve port security. The findings have implication for research, practice, and policy. The originality of the paper lies in its focus on how a developing country can use digital-physical systems to improve port security as a significant IS research phenomenon.

Keywords

Digital-physical security system Affordance theory Interpretive case study Developing country Ghana 

References

  1. 1.
    Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L.: AIS and reporting in the port community systems: an Italian case study in the landlord port model. In: Reshaping Accounting and Management Control Systems, pp 153–165 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., Sørensen, C.: Digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 748–759 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards, P.N., Jackson, S.J., Bowker, G.C., Knobel, C.P.: Understanding infrastructure: dynamics, tensions, and design (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bygstad, B., Hanseth, O., Siebenherz, A., Ovrelid, E.: Process innovation meets digital infrastructure in a high-tech hospital. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Information Systems 2017, pp. 1–14 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanseth, O., Lyytinen, K.: Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. J. Inf. Technol. 25, 1–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Star, S.L., Ruhleder, K.: Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf. Syst. Res. 7(1), 111–134 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu, T., Zhao, J., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Zhang, X.: Towards a framework for assuring cyber physical system security. Int. J. Secur. its Appl. 9, 25–40 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Syed, D., Chang, T.-H., Svetinovic, D., Rahwan, T., Aung, Z.: Security for complex cyber-physical and industrial control systems: current trends, limitations, and challenges. In: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burrell, M.: Burrell and Morgan’s. Sociol. J. Br. Sociol. Assoc. 3, 380–381 (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walsham, G.: Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 320–330 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeadally, S., Jabeur, N.: Cyber-Physical System Design with Sensor Networking Technologies. Institution of Engineering and Technology (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teslya, N., Smirnov, A., Levashova, T., Shilov, N.: Ontology for resource self-organisation in cyber-physical-social systems. In: Klinov, P., Mouromtsev, D. (eds.) KESW 2014. CCIS, vol. 468, pp. 184–195. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11716-4_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, K.-D., Kumar, P.R.: An overview and some challenges in cyber-physical systems. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 93, 341–352 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandkuhl, K.: Feature models as support for business model implementation of cyber-physical systems. Int. Conf. Inf. Syst, Dev (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahmoud, M.S., Hamdan, M.M., Baroudi, U.A.: Modeling and control of cyber-physical systems subject to cyber attacks: a survey of recent advances and challenges. Neurocomputing 338, 101–115 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alguliyev, R., Imamverdiyev, Y., Sukhostat, L.: Cyber-physical systems and their security issues. Comput. Ind. 100, 212–223 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    El, Z., Kaabouch, N., El, H., El, H.: Cyber-security in smart grid: Survey and challenges. Comput. Electr. Eng. 67, 469–482 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatasubramanian, K.K., Vasserman, E.Y., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Security and interoperable-medical-device systems, part 1. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10, 61–63 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell, R., Chen, R.: Behavior rule specification-based intrusion detection for safety critical medical cyber physical systems. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 12, 16–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wells, L.J., Camelio, J.A., Williams, C.B., White, J.: Cyber-physical security challenges in manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 2, 74–77 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wasicek, A., Derler, P., Lee, E.A.: Aspect-oriented modeling of attacks in automotive cyber-physical systems. In: 2014 51st ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp 1–6. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fayard, A.-L., Weeks, J.: Affordances for practice. Inf. Organ. 24, 236–249 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burlamaqui, L., Dong, A.: The use and misuse of the concept of affordance. Des. Comput. Cogn. DCC 7–12 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_17Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salomon, G.: Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Treem, J.W., Leonardi, P.M.: Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association, p. 8985 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vaast, E.: Social media affordances and governance in the workplace: an examination of organizational. J. Comput. Commun. 19, 78–101 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Faraj, S., Azad, B.: The materiality of technology: an affordance perspective. Mater. Organ. Soc. Interact. Technol. World 237, 258 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans, S.K., Pearce, K.E., Vitak, J., Treem, J.W.: Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. J. Comput. Commun. 22, 35–52 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Volkoff, O., Strong, D.M.: Critical realism and affordances: theorizing it-associated organizational change processes. MIS Q. 37, 819–834 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iivari, J., Hirscheim, R., Klein, K.H.: Beyond methodologies: keeping up with information systems development approaches through dynamic classification. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 4, 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myers, M., Klein, H.K.: A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Q. 35, 17–36 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.2307/249410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J.: Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Myers, M.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Baroudi, J.J.: Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Inf. Syst. Res. 2, 1–28 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Myers, M., Newman, M.: The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Inf. Organ. 17, 2–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glowalla, P., Rosenkranz, C., Sunyaev, A.: Evolution of IT use: a case of business intelligence system transition. In: ICIS, pp. 1–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leonardi, P.M.: When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Q. 37, 749–775 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dini, A.A., Wahid, F., Sæbo, Ø.: Affordances and constraints of social media use in eParticipation: perspectives from Indonesian politicians (2016)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Choudrie, J., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Investigating the research approaches for examining technology adoption issues. J. Res. Pract. 1(1), 1 (2005). http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/viewFile/4/7

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations and Management Information SystemsUniversity of Ghana Business SchoolAccraGhana

Personalised recommendations