Automated Identification and Prioritization of Business Risks in e-service Networks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 247)

Abstract

Modern e-service providers rely on service innovation to stay relevant. Once a new service package is designed, implementation-specific aspects such as value (co-)creation and cost/benefit analysis are investigated. However, due to time-to-market or competitive advantage constraints, innovative services are rarely assessed for potential risks of fraud before they are put out on the market. But these risks may result in loss of economic value for actors involved in the e-service’s provision.

Our \(e^{3}fraud\) approach automatically generates and prioritizes undesired-able scenarios from a business value model of the e-service, thereby drastically reducing the time needed to conduct an assessment. We provide examples from telecom service provision to motivate and illustrate the utility of the tool.

Keywords

e-services Value models Risk assessment Fraud 

References

  1. 1.
    Reaves, B., Shernan, E., Bates, A., Carter, H., Traynor, P.: Boxed out: Blocking cellular interconnect bypass fraud at the network edge. In: 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pp. 833–848. Washington, D.C., USENIX Association, August 2015Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohan, K., Ramesh, B.: Ontology-based support for variability management in product and families. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 9–18, January 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carbo, J., Garcia, J., Molina, J.: Trust and reputation in e-services: concepts, models and applications. In: Lu, J., Zhang, G., Ruan, D. (eds.) E-Service Intelligence. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 37, pp. 327–345. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan, Y.H., Hofman, W., Gordijn, J., Hulstijn, J.: A framework for the design of service systems. In: Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J.C., Krishna, V. (eds.) Service Systems Implementation. Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy, pp. 51–74. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soomro, I., Ahmed, N.: Towards security risk-oriented misuse cases. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM Workshops 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 689–700. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu, E.S.K.: Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. In: Proceedings of Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, COCS 1995, pp. 226–236. ACM, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cahill, M., Lambert, D., Pinheiro, J., Sun, D.: Detecting fraud in the real world. In: Abello, J., Pardalos, P.M., Resende, M.G.C. (eds.) Handbook of Massive Data Sets. Massive Computing, vol. 4, pp. 911–929. Springer, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ionita, D., Wieringa, R.J., Wolos, L., Gordijn, J., Pieters, W.: Using value models for business risk analysis in e-service networks. In: Ralyté, J., et al. (eds.) PoEM 2015. LNBIP, vol. 235, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25897-3_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruch, M., Sackmann, S.: Customer-specific transaction risk management in e-commerce. In: Nelson, M.L., Shaw, M.J., Strader, T.J. (eds.) AMCIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 36, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dritsoula, L., Musacchio, J.: A game of clicks: Economic incentives to fight click fraud in ad networks. Perform. Eval. Rev. 41, 12–15 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pieters, W., Banescu, S., Posea, S.: System abuse by service composition: Analysis and prevention. In: CESUN 2012: 3rd International Engineering Systems Symposium Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, pp. 18–20, June 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bolton, R.J.: Statistical fraud detection: A review. Stat. Sci. 17(3), 235–249 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.: Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(4), 11–17 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerpott, T.J.: Biased choice of a mobile telephony tariff type: Exploring usage boundary perceptions as a cognitive cause in choosing between a use-based or a flat rate plan. Telematics Inform. 26(2), 167–179 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scourias, J.: Overview of the global system for mobile communications. Technical report (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H., van Vliet, H.: Business modelling is not process modelling. In: Mayr, H.C., Liddle, S.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER Workshops 2000. LNCS, vol. 1921, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ionita, D., Koenen, S.K., Wieringa, R.J.: Modelling telecom fraud with e3value. Technical report TR-CTIT-14-11, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, October 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross, S.: How does revenue sharing work in practice? Investopedia (2015). http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/how-does-revenue-sharing-work-practice.asp. Accessed 12 December 2015

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cybersecurity and Safety GroupUniversity of Twente - ServicesEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations