Search results

The purpose of this paper is to address three main problems resulting from uncertainty in information security management: dynamically changing security requirements of an organization; externalities caused by a security system; and obsolete evaluation of security concerns.

In order to address these critical concerns, a framework based on options reasoning borrowed from corporate finance is proposed and adapted to evaluation of security architecture and decision making for handling these issues at organizational level. The adaptation as a methodology is demonstrated by a large case study validating its efficacy.

The paper shows through three examples that it is possible to have a coherent methodology, building on options theory to deal with uncertainty issues in information security at an organizational level.

To validate the efficacy of the methodology proposed in this paper, it was applied to the Spridnings‐och Hämtningssystem (SHS: dissemination and retrieval system) system. The paper introduces the methodology, presents its application to the SHS system in detail and compares it to the current practice.

This research is relevant to information security management in organizations, particularly issues on changing requirements and evaluation in uncertain circumstances created by progress in technology.

Metaphors are a powerful and human way of understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. In quality management (QM), several metaphors are used to describe and bring to life the often-abstract QM concepts and systems. These metaphors are of great importance for how QM is understood, communicated and practiced. However, the metaphors of QM have seldom been systematically screened or put in focus, neither the topic of a critical discussion. The purpose of this paper is hence to contribute with a screening of the metaphors currently used, within QM literature and in practice among QM leaders, and then elaborate on their potential for improvement and development.

The paper is based on a literature review combined with interviews of QM leaders.

The paper highlights that the current QM metaphors provide intuitive associations to properties such as stability, shelter, and structure, but not to the important dynamic properties of QM, such as learning, or to the critical role of people in QM. What can be seen as core properties of QM are communicated by texts or labels added on to metaphors with properties that often are in sharp contrast to them. The paper also provides suggestions for further improvements and development.

The paper highlights the area of metaphors within QM as an important area for future research. It also provides insights concerning the successful use and selection of metaphors in future QM practice.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership profiles and differences in managers’ own levels of work stress symptoms and perceptions of work stressors causing stress.

Cross-sectional data were used. Healthcare managers (n = 188) rated three dimensions of their leadership behavior and levels of work stressors and stress. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify leadership profiles based on leadership behaviors. Differences in stress-related outcomes between profiles were assessed using one-way analysis of variance.

Four distinct clusters of leadership profiles were found. They discriminated in perception of work stressors and stress: the profile distinguished by the lowest mean in all behavior dimensions, exhibited a pattern with significantly more negative ratings compared to the other profiles.

This paper proposes that leadership profile is an individual factor involved in the stress process, including work stressors and stress, which may inform targeted health promoting interventions for healthcare managers.

This is the first study to investigate the relationship between leadership profiles and work stressors and stress in healthcare managers.

Many practitioners strive to increase the efficiency of their product development. In addition, smaller companies must satisfy customers’ expectations of their product development. These expectations can be e.g. use of specific methodologies such as Lean Product Development (LPD) and/or Design for Six Sigma (DFSS). This study attempts to identify differences and similarities between these methodologies and the connection between them. This comparison is of interest to practitioners that must choose a strategy for their product development as well as to researchers. The aim of both methodologies is to reduce waste and time of development and to raise the quality of a product at the very roots of the product: its development. LPD and DFSS help development managers to structure projects and focus as much as possible on customer expectations and satisfaction.