Business impact of online institutional recommendation - DigiBiz'09


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • we wish to motivate IR as a most needed and complementary recommendation form Does company A manufacturing process comply with personal ethic?
  • we wish to motivate IR as a most needed and complementary recommendation form At least semi-formalized criteria through a series of guidelines, requirements
  • we wish to motivate IR as a most needed and complementary recommendation form
  • we wish to motivate IR as a most needed and complementary recommendation form
  • The IEC is the world leading organization that prepares and publishes International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies – collectively known as “electrotechnology”. The IEC also administers three global conformity assessment systems, IECEE, IECEx and IECQ, for testing, certification and approval of equipment, systems and components to its International Standards. Wherever you find electricity – from generation, transmission and distribution, through industrial automation, healthcare, transport, multimedia in the home, to the battery in your phone – you will find the World of IEC supporting the environment, safety, performance and efficiency.
  • RAs cooperate with each other to rate entities
  • Business impact of online institutional recommendation - DigiBiz'09

    1. 1. Business Impact of Online Institutional Ratings Mihaela Ion & Regis Saint-Paul 17/06/2009 International Conference on Digital Business (DIGIBIZ) London, UK
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Social vs. Institutional Ratings </li></ul><ul><li>An example of IR: IEC standards </li></ul><ul><li>Problems with IR on the Internet </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Mapping the IR domain to PKI/PMI </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on business models </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability of ratings </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic rating translation </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
    3. 3. Social vs. Institutional Ratings 1/4 Issued by specialized institutions A separate process from product consumption Repeated testing Any kind of assessment Access to the production facility Issued by peer consumers Through usage of service/product or company relations Only one product tested Only qualities publicly available Many information is not available to the user No complex assessments: Does Company A abide to EU environmental recommendation? Scope of rating IR SR
    4. 4. Social vs. Institutional Ratings 2/4 At least semi-formalized criteria through a series of guidelines, requirements Formal criteria: e.g. aerospace certification Less formal: e.g. diploma Poorly formal: e.g. restaurant ranking Errors or malevolent behavior, conflict of interest still possible Implicit (e.g. PageRank) or explicit (e.g. eBay) collection of ratings Implicit: a measure of popularity rather than quality Explicit: subjective, mixing of criteria, improper rating due to knowing only one product, malevolent behavior Method and quality of measures IR SR
    5. 5. Social vs. Institutional Ratings 3/4 Several business models possible Pay a fee to be ranked: e.g. professional certification, product homologation Renewal mechanism: validity limits (e.g. driver license) or periodic reevaluation (e.g. restaurant guide) Long time needed to collect feedback Cold start problem Feedback aggregated over the whole history or some period of time How to match the dynamics of the quality of service/company (e.g. sudden drop of quality)? Dynamics of the rating IR SR
    6. 6. Social vs. Institutional Ratings 4/4 Rating can be carried outside the institution: e.g. diploma, hotel stars The rating institution might allow public access to its assessments (e.g. hotel guides) or impose restrictions (e.g. grades, diplomas) Feedback is provided only to the web site that supports the community: e.g. eBay Feedback from different web sites cannot be aggregated or exchanged Provisioning to users IR SR
    7. 7. An example of IR: IEC standards <ul><li>The International Electro technical Commission (IEC) prepares International Standards </li></ul><ul><li>IEC Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components (IECQ) verifies compliance with standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facility and Product </li></ul></ul><ul><li>E.g., IECQ 08000 standard for safe and environmentally friendly products </li></ul><ul><li>The rated company displays the IEC logo on its web site </li></ul>
    8. 8. Problems with IR on the Internet <ul><li>Users cannot properly verify rating authenticity </li></ul><ul><li>Ratings cannot be exchanged and processed by applications </li></ul><ul><li>No standardized access to rating metadata </li></ul><ul><li>No proper means to identify the agency </li></ul><ul><li>No means to verify the agency’s authorization </li></ul><ul><li>Security vulnerabilities: web redirect and phishing attacks </li></ul>
    9. 9. Requirements <ul><li>Standard representation of ratings </li></ul><ul><li>Standard access to rating metadata (rating criteria) </li></ul><ul><li>Security mechanisms for authenticating: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ratings, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>agencies and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>agencies authorization </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Mapping the IR domain to PKI/PMI CA 1 Rating authority (AA) e.g., IECQ Identity cert. Subject: AA PK of AA CA 2 Rating agency (RA) e.g., SGC Attribute cert. Holder: RA Attrib. of RA Rating metadata CA 2 Rated Entity (E) e.g., Fook Tin Technologies Rating cert. Holder: E Attrib. of E QC 080000 Defines standard Authorization Fook Tin Technologies Issues compliance certificate CA 1 Identity cert. PK of AA CA 2 CA 2 Compliance online Identity cert. Subject: RA PK of RA Identity cert. Subject: E PK of E Identity cert. Subject: RA PK of RA
    11. 11. Impact on business models <ul><li>Enable online marketplace in which: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizations define specific rating schema </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RAs rate entities based on standardized rating schema </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rating schemas tailored for specific domains or categories of users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consumers can choose more suitable products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase trust in the market from both consumers and providers </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Interoperability of ratings <ul><li>How to use ratings across geographical and organizational boundaries? </li></ul><ul><li>How to compare rating criteria and aggregate ratings? </li></ul><ul><li>RAs form a web-of-trust </li></ul><ul><li>RAs issue certificates based on ratings issued by trusted RAs </li></ul><ul><li>Allows users to consume ratings from unknown RAs </li></ul><ul><li>Allows an RA to rate entities that are not in its geographical area (through translation agreements) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Automatic rating translation Bio-I Rating metadata certificate Bio-T Bio-T issues rating certificate Automatic rating translation 1 Producer Institutional relations certificate …………….……….... Bio-I …………….…………. 2 3 4 Bio-T certificate submitted Bio-I issues new certificate Rating interoperability mapping Italy-Turkey
    14. 14. Conclusions <ul><li>IR are objective, repeatable and verifiable </li></ul><ul><li>IR can be supported on the Internet by leveraging existing certification technologies </li></ul><ul><li>IR could enable new business scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>IR enable trust in B2B and B2C relations </li></ul><ul><li>IR enable business relations between entities in different countries or markets </li></ul>
    15. 15. Thank you! Questions? [email_address]