Growing a business and operating sustainably in an ever-competitive landscape is a challenge well known to micro business owners and entrepreneurs in any business sector. Within the spectrum of alternative local food systems (LFS) challenges and opportunities are unique. The Baltic Sea Food project was initiated to investigate these LFS, build and pilot business models for them, and simultaneously promote awareness of local food in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). The following article presents the research project and takes a look at the feasibility of implementing the recommendations.

Authors: Lydia Rusanen & Brett Fifield

Baltic Sea Food Project

The EU and Interreg funded Baltic Sea Food Project was initiated with the aim to optimize the B2B performance of local producers within the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). The action points included, undertaking in-depth research across ten countries, formulating workable business models from the findings, piloting the business models, and promoting awareness of local food through workshops and promotion of business opportunities to networks and other local food representatives. (Interreg Baltic Sea Region 2017.) The thesis upon which this article is based, deals with work package two of four, undertaking the research stage of the project (Rusanen 2019).

Local Food Systems: Development opportunities

Local food systems (LFS) are alternatives to the mainstream, high yield focused, food systems, that in recent years have come under criticism for their unsustainable methods, negative environment and social impacts, and lack of support for local economies. LFS can be defined in a number of ways. According to most consumers, LFS are understood to be providers of food grown using sustainable and often organic methods, within a close geographical proximity to where it is sold. Additionally, they should support the local community, building close relationship between producers and consumers. (Roy 2006, 9-12.)

Producers within LFS face unique challenges exacerbated by their lack of business knowledge and financial resources. These challenges include connecting with B2B buyers and building mutually beneficial relationships with them, finding economical distribution channels that can meet the needs of B2B customers, and complying with the stringent and continually evolving regulations. Regulatory control extends to all areas of the business, in particular, labelling of products, food hygiene safety, and transportation requirements. These challenges represent significant opportunities for growth.

A fundamental part of value chain in LFS is the origin of the food, the story behind it is the intrinsic value. This justifies the comparably higher price of local foods. Blockchain is an emerging technology that optimizes this. It is a decentralized, chronologically recorded chain of transactions, a secure system that promises to replace the middlemen in multiple business situations. Blockchain is already being used in food systems for optimizing delivery routes, whilst sending real time location updates to buyers and sellers. It also replacing the costly and time-consuming certification processes for proof of origin, organic labels and food hygiene. Additionally, instant tracking of source in cases of outbreaks is realised. (Crawford 2018.)

Research methods

The research was implemented using a multiple case study strategy with data collection taking the form of surveys for quantitative data and focus groups and interviews for qualitative data. Stakeholders across all ten countries were included in the research.

The first phase of data collection comprised of two versions of an electronic survey, one for completion by the distributors and the other by the networks. The surveys themselves were translated into the ten local languages and made available on the webropol service. In the second phase of data collection, stakeholders took part in semi structured interviews or focus groups, covering five key themes; pricing, distribution, communication, ordering, and future challenges.

The Business Model Canvas by Osterwalder & Pigneur (Osterwalder 2004) ) was used to bring the results together and develop a scalable business model that would be piloted in the ten countries.

Research Findings

The research unearthed a vast amount of information, from which business models could be drawn up, implemented, and finally tested. The outcome of the research thesis itself was a hybrid BMC aimed towards producers within the BSF (Rusanen 2019, 77). As producers become more integrated and grow within the local food networks, they can turn to the BMC to gain a better understanding of the factors that should be considered as they grow. An interesting and important recommendation that effects all parts of the business model is that of building an e-platform upon blockchain technology. The question that arises at this point is, how feasible is the integration of this technology system into existing e-platforms.

The research indicated that many forms of e-platforms are being used throughout the BSR. These platforms vary in the way they have been implemented and used, some are government run platforms, others are privately run, for profit businesses. Not all platforms are used for ordering and payments. The key element is that the platforms are region wide, in other words they allow access to all LFS stakeholders within the local region.

Moving forward to implementation

Ultimately, the study answered the research questions and additionally presented a recommended best-case scenario situation for LFS. In theory, implementing the recommendations promises great gains for all members of the value chain. However, in practice, making such changes to existing systems is less than straightforward. The producers who are at the core of this change, typically face barriers such as time constraints, lack of business knowledge, and lack of financial resources. Some LFS whose capacity is too small to warrant expansion might also resist implementation of the recommendations. It is clear that support is needed from government sources in order to ensure producers are receiving sound business advice along with tools for pricing and marketing their products.

Figure 1. Best-case scenario (Figure by Lydia Rusanen)

The best-case scenario shown in image 1 was based on an e-platform run using blockchain technology, however, EU funding is needed to initiate its use and help producers and distributors make the changes to their existing practices so that they can fit in to the blockchain system.

There is a real risk that the recommendations made will not be implemented if this ground work is not laid. If sustainability and security is sought after by EU policy, it might be necessary to consider incentives for local stakeholders to follow this route. Especially if the initial investment is a trade-off with profit.

Undeniably sustainability and blockchain are two trends that promise to take the business world by storm in the coming decade. LFS are part of a growing environmental movement and rather than focus on well known, age-old systems, the way needs to be paved for smarter technology.

References

Crawford, E. 2018. From 7 Days to 2 Seconds: Blockchain Can Help Speed Trace-back, Improve Food Safety and Reduce Waste. [Cited 13 Nov 2018] . Available at: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2018/11/06/From-7-days-to-2-seconds-Blockchain-can-help-speed-trace-back-improve-food-safety-reduce-waste

Interreg Baltic Sea Region. 2017. Baltic Sea Food Application Form.

Osterwalder, A. 2004. The Business Model Ontology: A Proposition In A Design Science Approach. PHD Thesis. Universite de Lausanne. [Cited 13 Nov 2018]. Available at: http://ip1.sg/pub/BMcanvas/2004-Osterwalder_PhD_BM_Ontology.pdf

Roy, H. 2016. The Role of Local Food in Restaurants: A Comparison Between Restaurants and Chefs in Vancouver, Canada and Christchurch, New Zealand. PHD Thesis. University of Canterbury. Christchurch. [Cited 23 Oct 2018]. Available at: https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/12694

Rusanen, L. 2019. Sustainable B2B Business Models for Local Food in The Baltic Sea Region. Bachelor’s Thesis. Lahti University of Applied Sciences. Lahti. [Cited 16 May 2019]. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-201905027326

Authors

Lydia Rusanen has studied Business and Administration at The Faculty of Business and Hospitality Management at Lahti University of Applied Sciences and has graduated and received a BBA degree in May 2019.

Brett Fifield has been actively involved in developing Business Schools for the Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences since 1994. Most recently he has been responsible for courses in Futures and Strategies, Innovation and Creativity, Digital Services and Leadership and Management of Projects in Distributed Organizations in Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Illustration: https://pxhere.com/fi/photo/810606 (CC0)

Published 9.9.2019

Reference to this publication

Rusanen, L. & Fifield, B. 2019. A comprehensive investigation of local food systems in the Baltic Sea Region. LAMK Pro. [Cited and date of citation]. Available at: http://www.lamkpub.fi/2019/09/09/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-local-food-systems-in-the-baltic-sea-region/

How to digitalize spare part business As the world is moving more and more towards digitalization around us, the common question which raises in Business as well is: how can we also turn our processes to digitalized ones? One interesting area is digitalization of spare parts business. This article is concentrating on spare part business in the perspective of Small and Medium size Enterprise (SME) and to be even more precise, complex parts made from metal.  

Authors: Janne Kousa and Brett Fifield  

Problem space explained

Imagine that your company is in process industry manufacturing with regularly spare parts sales to end customers. These parts have low volume, and relatively low turnover but long lead time.  

Because of this, one must decide on keeping several items in stock or produce the parts in made to order basis. For a small company large inventory is not cost-effective solution and on the other hand, delivery time for single made to order part may be several weeks.  

The interesting aspect is part is criticality, it may even stop the production and create huge costs when the process is not running. In this case, the price for single spare part may become neglectable instead of delivery time that can be promised to the customer.  

So the key questions are:  

– How to offer good spare part delivery times for several products while maintaining cost-effectivity?  

– How to provide spare parts in an emergency situation?  

– How to handle inventories in long term  

Solution proposal by 3D printing  

Let’s assume the following happens:  

1. Customer sends request for emergency spare part and states that their production has stopped causing 10 000€ /day direct loss until they get the needed spare part  

2. Your company finds the correct spare part item and sends an emergency order to selected 3D printing supplier near the customer  

3. 3D printing provider receives 3D file of the part with necessary instructions and is able to start the manufacturing process within 2 hours time  

4. Spare part is 3D printed overnight, packed and shipped with expedited method to end customer who receives it in 24 hours and loses only one day’s production instead of having to wait for one-week express manufacturing and delivery by traditional methods  

Naturally this emergency process generates more costs than traditional manufacturing, but if the part is critical due to the end customer’s process, doubling or tripling the part cost may be neglectable compared to costs when processes are stopped. (Kousa 2019)  

According to Kousa (2019), the digitalization of spare parts business can reduce money tied up to spare part inventory drastically. If the manufacturing is done either near OEM or near the customer by on- demand basis, the delivery times can be reached to good level without keeping any parts in stock.  

Figure 1. Delivery time reduction explained by distributed 3D printing process (Kousa 2019)  

Main findings  

Digital spare parts process requires that all the necessary data is in 3D- file format, as first requirement. The next requirement is to create the manufacturing process for 3D printing. Easiest way to get started is to find a suitable partner who has enough knowledge about printing possibilities and cost structure to see which are parts are suitable for printing in general. (Kousa 2019)  

Part screening process (finding printable parts) is usually the first step which the company faces when thinking about 3D printing. Not all parts are directly suitable for 3D printing and there may very well be some obstacles ahead when finding spare parts that are both mechanically and businesswise suitable. (Kousa 2019)  

At first it may seem that there is very limited amount of printable parts, but it is clear that 3D printing technology is evolving all the time, costs are coming down and new methods are introduced so what might not work today, does not mean that could not work in the future. (Kousa 2019)  

The important message is that without trying 3D printing as new alternative manufacturing process, it is impossible see the possibilities that this technology may provide now and in the future.  

Possibilities for new business concepts  

Previously mentioned partnering option for digital manufacturing chain offers a possibility for companies to enter 3D printing business as operators. This kind of operation can be at first local small-scale business but is scalable to global operating model as well. The distributed model can be seen as combined local and global concept.  

Solution could be that a partner starts to offer first local service to printing only, then begin handling also the file processing, and in the end moving to fully digital manufacturing chain so that the OEM only forwards the order to an operator who delivers the part to the end user. This model could be even expanded into franchising model where service owner offers client base and local entrepreneurs handle the business branches by their own private companies.  

Most extreme step is the OEM only selling user rights to data, practically allowing access to online spare part repository that the end user (or partner) utilizes to print their spare parts. By this, the whole transaction can happen in seconds creating revenue in a fraction of time compared to traditional order-delivery process.  

If OEM would one day move to offering production capacity as service, on time spare parts would be in key role to keep uptimes high. In this case 3D printing could be used as a tool for critical part manufacturing.  

Future research  

Upon the findings of this article the most interesting research question businesswise would be:  

– Data integrity when moving to completely digital spare parts process, including possibilities of Blockchain for example to protect IPR  

– Outsourcing whole spare parts concept to 3rd party – digitalizing the whole sales to order- workflow so that the OEM only sells rights to use the digital spare parts data  

– Spare part repository concept in general, OEM’s centralized database for spare part data or distributed accessible data which is then protected by user rights (such as Spotify or Netflix) and charged by royalty fees  

– Spare part concepts and their feasibility businesswise, comparing partnering in part manufacturing, complete equipment leasing with service functions and turn-key offering of production capacity including labor  

For small companies the above questions may be still quite far ahead, but for larger companies they may offer new possibilities to enhance the spare parts business towards completely digital one and by that to streamline processes, reduce single transaction costs and offer new kind of customer experience for ordering spare parts.  

References  

Kousa J. 2019. How to digitalize spare parts business. Master’s Thesis. Lahti University of Applied Sciences, Masters Degree Program in International Business Management. Lahti. [Cited 15 May 2019]. Available at: http://www.urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019051510050  

Authors

Janne Kousa has completed a master’s in International Business Management Degree program in 2019.

Mr. Fifield has been actively involved in developing Business Schools for the Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences since 1994. Most recently he has been responsible courses in Futures and Strategies, Innovation and Creativity, Digital Services and Leadership and Management of Projects in Distributed Organizations. 

Illustration: https://pxhere.com/fi/photo/1323787 (CC0)

Published 2.9.2019

Reference to this publication

Kousa, J. & Fifield, B. 2019. How to digitalize spare part business. LAMK Pro.
LAMK Pro. [Cited and date of citation]. Available at: http://www.lamkpub.fi/2019/09/02/how-to-digitalize-spare-part-business/

In a world full of electronic systems, there is a need to prevent the unauthorized users from accessing protected data. Various ways of authentication are used, passwords being the most ubiquitous.

Authors: Abdelwakil Bouljoub and Aki Vainio

What is the problem with traditional passwords?

Traditional passwords are sequences of characters. Various organizations have their own guidelines and rules, often based on earlier recommendations from NIST, which have since been completely redone (Grassi, et al. 2017). However, passwords are problematic. Often the passwords that follow the official guidelines are hard to remember or the users avoid these memory issues by not following the guidelines or by finding the most trivial way to follow them, leaving their passwords weak (Munroe 2011). They are hard for the user, but easy to break with the ever-advancing technology we have access to (Munroe 2011).

As passwords continue to present problems, many organizations are trying to move away from them. For instance, W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) in collaboration with FIDO Alliance finalized a web standard for what they called Passwordless Logins that recommend a standard for browsers to let users log into their account using other options (W3C 2019). FIDO Alliance is an industry association that aims to develop authentication standards, which boasts many of the leading technology companies in the world as its members. FIDO recommends the use of alternative authentication methods, such as biometrics.

The trend to abolish the use of passwords has commercial implications. Integrating biometrics or other authentication methods into systems requires new software and often hardware components. (Bouljoub 2019.)

What are biometrics and how are they used for authentication?

Biometrics refer to the information about someone’s body. There are many domains of biometrics usage, such as forensics science and crime investigations, but with the advance of technology, biometrics can be used to extract repeatable biometric features for biometric-based authentication.

In fact, we have many features in our bodies that differentiate us from each other. The Biometrics Institute, an independent non-profit organization, has categorized biometrics as illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. Biometrics types (compiled from Biometrics Institute 2019)

Apple, for example, introduced the Face ID feature in iPhone X (Schiller 2017). It is a feature that gives to the user the option to unlock the phone by using the face recognition method. At the same time, Samsung used a similar feature on Galaxy Not 8, but in addition, Samsung added the iris recognition feature as well (Samsung 2019). Many other companies are using different types of biometric to provide a solution to plenty of domains such as security surveillance.

Not all biometrics have been proven to be unique from one person to another. The idea of the uniqueness of biometrics is based in most cases on the low probability of the existence of similar biometric information on two different individuals. Joanna Stern a columnist in Wall Street Journal tried the face recognition feature in iPhone X with identical twins and the system fail to distinguish between them (Stern 2017).

Biometrics are problematic

Most of the reviews that have been conducted on the topic of biometrics are looking for which solution is most secure against hacking attempts, but simply being secure is not enough. Instead, using biometrics presents its own set of problems.

The data used in biometrics can be used for other purposes as well. In China, for example, biometric data is being used by law enforcement which raises a serious concern about user privacy. Many people are not sure if the biometric data collected by companies is stored safely and it won’t be used for other purposes.

The second reason is related to the fact that biometrics are unchangeable. Although this could be considered an advantage because a user doesn’t need to remember any specific information when using a biometric-based authentication, it is also a big disadvantage in case something happens to the integrity of the stored data which could render a certain biometric useless.

The exposed nature of biometrics is another issue, especially the most used one. For instance, face, eye and fingerprints are almost public for others and it could be a burden to protect them from copying or forging. Is true that Apple claims that its Face ID feature is strong enough against attempt of using a person’s image or even a person’s 3D-printed face, but the feature can’t tell if the user scan intentionally his face in purpose to unlock the phone or someone else is doing that under certain circumstances. (Fysi Tech 2017.)

There is also the question of practicality. No-one wants to conduct a DNA or gait analysis each time they login onto their phones.

Signatures as authentication method

The methods for using signatures as a method of authentication are still being developed, but signatures are one possible solution for the various challenges. What makes a signature-based method strong is not only the visible result, but the actual metrizable habit of writing that signature, including the rhythm and pressure impacted while writing, which are impossible to replicate (Huber & Headrick 1999).

The signature doesn’t invade user privacy. A signature doesn’t reveal if the person is a male, female, young, old or from a specific ethnicity. That minimizes the chance of using the signature as a tool to track individuals using biometric information provided by themselves (for example, Xie 2019).

A signature used for the authentication is stored in the same manner as the data for other biometrics methods. However, a person could change the appearance of the signature whenever the stored one becomes compromised.

In contrast to other biometric types, a signature is an act that requires an intention and a conscious effort from the person. It is not possible to get a person’s signature without that person being informed. The reason why signatures are not used widely as a method of authentication could be related to usability. For example, biometrics such as fingerprints are more relevant to smartphone’s usage. To unlock a phone by signature might take longer than the time needed to unlock it with a face recognition feature. In many cases, using signatures also requires dedicated hardware.

Conclusion

No one can steal a signature, your signature is with you everywhere and, in contrast to other biometrics methods, signature doesn’t require you to take a selfie each time you want to check your notifications. Furthermore, the biometrics and recognition methods are an active research field that it is evolving rapidly, and it has many advantages that encourage their use in several aspects of our daily life to improve security and reduce the traits of data security that are becoming a serious issue.

References

Biometrics Institute. 2019. Types of Biometrics. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.biometricsinstitute.org/what-is-biometrics/types-of-biometrics/

Bouljoub, A. 2019. Electronic signature for authentication. Bachelor’s thesis. Lahti University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Business and Hospitality. Lahti. [cited 14 Jun 2019]. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019060515037

Fysi Tech. 2017. iPhone x FACE ID Experimental Video While Sleeping. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms7wLX2h9ec

Grassi, P., Fenton, J., Newton, E., Perlner, R, Regenscheid, A., Burr, W., Richer, J., Lefkovitz, N., Danker, J., Choong, Y.-Y., Greene, K. & Theoganos, M. 2017. NIST Special Publication 800-63B – Digital Identity Guidelines. NIST. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html

Huber, R. & Headrick, A. 1999. Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton. USA.

Munroe, R. 2011. Password Strength. XKCD. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://xkcd.com/936/

Samsung. 2019. Security. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-s8/security/

Schiller, P. 2017. Face ID on iPhone X. Video. [cited 5 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-t1h0Y8vuM

Stern, J. 2017. iPhone X Review: Testing (and Tricking) FaceID. Wall Street Journal. Video. [cited 5 June 2019]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhbMLmsCax0

W3C. 2019. W3C and FIDO Alliance Finalize Web Standard for Secure, Passwordless Logins. [cited 11 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.w3.org/2019/03/pressrelease-webauthn-rec.html

Xie, E. 2019. China working on data privacy law but enforcement is a stumbling block. South China Morning Post. [cited 14 Jun 2019]. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3008844/china-working-data-privacy-law-enforcement-stumbling-block

Authors

Abdelwakil Bouljoub is close to the end of his bachelor’s studies in Business Information Technology at Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Aki Vainio is a senior lecturer of Information Technology at Lahti University of Applied Sciences.

Illustration: https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1440395 (CC0)

Published 17.6.2019

Reference to this publication

Bouljoub, A. & Vainio, A. 2019. Using a signature instead of a password. LAMK Pro.
LAMK Pro. [Cited and date of citation]. Available at: http://www.lamkpub.fi/2019/06/17/using-a-signature-instead-of-a-password/