There is a maximum of five strengths and five weaknesses and your presentation of them should be prioritized. Exhibits are ef

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest January 27 2013 12:03 _______________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

1. Web Rivals Want What Google Got………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

27 January 2013 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1 Web Rivals Want What Google Got Author: Ramachandran, Shalini Publication info: Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 02 Oct 2012: n/a. ProQuest document link Abstract: To entice Google Inc. to build its ultra-high-speed fiber network there, Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., offered the Internet company sweeteners including several free or discounted city services. Google is building a fiber network in the Kansas City area that will offer pay-TV and Internet at extremely fast speeds of one gigabit per second–a speed that the company boasts would allow a person to download a season of "30 Rock" in 30 seconds. Links: Base URL to Journal Linker: Full Text: To entice Google Inc. to build its ultra-high-speed fiber network there, Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., offered the Internet company sweeteners including several free or discounted city services. Now, Time Warner Cable Inc. and AT&T Inc., the incumbent Internet and TV providers in town, are angling to get the same deal. Among the sweeteners granted Google by both cities are free office space and free power for Google's equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities' "assets and infrastructure"–including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees "dedicated to the project." For the past few months Time Warner Cable has been negotiating with Kansas City, Kan.,to get a "parity agreement" granting it the same concessions as Google got, the city and the company says. Time Warner Cable has already signed such a deal with Kansas City, Mo. AT&T also has approached Kansas City, Mo., for the same deal, according to a person familiar with the matter. "There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field," said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field." AT&T declined to comment on any negotiations but said, "It's time to modernize our industry's rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition." Google is building a fiber network in the Kansas City area that will offer pay-TV and Internet at extremely fast speeds of one gigabit per second–a speed that the company boasts would allow a person to download a season of "30 Rock" in 30 seconds. The Internet company chose Kansas City from more than 1,100 cities in the U.S. that had expressed interest in having the Google Fibert network built in their areas. Google plans to start providing service in the first neighborhood, Hanover Heights, later this month. The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct "fiberhuts," small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the matter. The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year–compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google. The cities are even helping Google market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings. Several cable executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets they entered, regardless of demand. The concessions made by the Kansas cities raise an unnerving question for existing pay-TV and Internet providers: whether other cities across the country could offer similarly sweet

27 January 2013 Page 1 of 4 ProQuest

deals that could encourage Google to expand its Fiber build-out. Jenna Wandres, a Google Fiber spokeswoman, affirmed Monday that "right now we're focused on Kansas City, but we hope to expand to other communities in the future." Google's rights "appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past," said Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong. "We're surprised Time Warner Cable hasn't been more vocal in its opposition." Already, the situation has given the cities new bargaining power. The Kansas cities are asking Time Warner Cable and AT&T to promise new, improved community services comparable to the ones Google has offered– which include hundreds of free connections to government-picked locations–before they'll give them a deal like Google's. As part of its new "parity" deal with Kansas City, Mo., Time Warner Cable said it will make certain improvements in its services still to be finalized. The city has brought up speed and performance improvements to the network, for instance, according to a person familiar with the matter. In exchange, the cable operator will be getting Google's discounts and a refund for the difference it paid the city in fees between March 2012 and August, the new agreement shows. Similar discussions are under way with Kansas City, Kan. "Our goal is to encourage innovation. Whether that is Google or an existing provider or someone else, we want to help this to happen over and over again," says Kansas City, Kan., Mayor Joe Reardon. Cable executives defend their current Internet offerings by pointing out that most Web applications don't yet require gigabit-speed Internet, and the residential market isn't demanding such offerings. As one top cable executive recently put it, Google Fiber is just "an expensive PR stunt." Google dismissed that criticism. Kansas City government officials also disagree. "Google has completely disrupted [Internet service] business models," says Rick Usher, assistant city manager of Kansas City, Mo. "Our citizens are more aware than ever before of what's available out there." Write to Shalini Ramachandran at Credit: By Shalini Ramachandran Subject: Cities; Agreements; Competitive advantage; Internet Company/organization: AT&T Inc; 517110, 517210; Time Warner Cable Inc; 517210, 517510 Publication title: Wall Street Journal (Online) Pages: n/a Publication year: 2012 Publication date: Oct 2, 2012 Year: 2012 Section: Tech Publisher: Dow Jones&Company Inc Place of publication: New York, N.Y. Country of publication: United States Journal subject: Business And Economics Source type: Newspapers Language of publication: English Document type: News ProQuest document ID: 1081703270 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081703270?accountid=8289 Copyright: (c) 2012 Dow Jones&Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

27 January 2013 Page 2 of 4 ProQuest

Last updated: 2012-10-03 Database: ABI/INFORM Global

27 January 2013 Page 3 of 4 ProQuest

Bibliography Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

Ramachandran, S. (2012, Oct 02). Web rivals want what google got. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1081703270?accountid=8289; http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Web+Rivals+Want+What+Goo gle+Got&title=Wall+Street+Journal+%28Online%29&issn=&date=2012-10- 02&volume=&issue=&spage=&author=Ramachandran%2C+Shalini

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright  2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions

27 January 2013 Page 4 of 4 ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest January 27 2013 12:13 _______________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

1. BUSINESS MODEL AND CORE COMPETENCE REFINEMENT: GOOGLE'S CASE STUDY……………… 1

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

27 January 2013 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1 BUSINESS MODEL AND CORE COMPETENCE REFINEMENT: GOOGLE'S CASE STUDY Author: Joel Yutaka Sugano; Eduardo Jardel Veiga Gonçalves; Figueira, Mariane Publication info: RAI 6. 3 (2009): 46. ProQuest document link Abstract: Negotiations on the Internet have reached a huge volume. In this sense, new strategies and competitive business models are crucial factors to consolidate a firm's leadership position. In essence, a company that offers its services to a broader number of users and complementary companies will have its strategic position strengthened. Google has focused in achieving a leadership position through two distinct services: the search engine and the advertisement service on the Web. Those services are the baseline to build that company's core competence, or in other words, they are its capacity to hold fresh data about the search intentions of online users and to offer those users results that satisfy them. This paper demonstrates that Google's competence is reinforced as those services are used. As a consequence, new users will be attracted to the company's services which will feed its database, creating the so-called network effects. This paper explains those relations. Links: Base URL to Journal Linker: Publication title: RAI Volume: 6 Issue: 3 First page: 46 Publication year: 2009 Publication date: 2009 Year: 2009 Publisher: Milton de Abreu Campanario Place of publication: São Paulo Country of publication: Brazil Journal subject: Business And Economics–Management Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Case_Study ProQuest document ID: 883071657 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/883071657?accountid=8289 Copyright: Copyright Milton de Abreu Campanario 2009 Last updated: 2011-10-17 Database: ABI/INFORM Global

27 January 2013 Page 1 of 2 ProQuest

Bibliography Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

Joel, Y. S., Eduardo Jardel, V. G., & Figueira, M. (2009). Business model and core competence refinement: Google's case study. RAI, 6(3), 46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/883071657?accountid=8289; http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=BUSINESS+MODEL+AND+CO RE+COMPETENCE+REFINEMENT%3A+GOOGLE%27S+CASE+STUDY&title=RAI&issn=&date=2009-09- 01&volume=6&issue=3&spage=46&author=Joel+Yutaka+Sugano%3BEduardo+Jardel+Veiga+Gon%C3%A7alv es%3BFigueira%2C+Mariane

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright  2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions

27 January 2013 Page 2 of 2 ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest January 27 2013 11:52 _______________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

1. Google Scholar revisited……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

27 January 2013 ii ProQuest

Document 1 of 1 Google Scholar revisited Author: Péter Jacsó Publication info: Online Information Review 32. 1 (2008): 102-114. ProQuest document link Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar. The Google Books project has given a massive and valuable boost to the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The dark side of the growth is that significant gaps remain for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Links: Base URL to Journal Linker: Full Text: Google Scholar had its debut in November 2004. Although it is still in beta version, it is worthwhile to revisit its pros and cons, as changes have taken place in the past three years both in the content and the software of Google Scholar – for better or worse. Its content has grown significantly [dash ]- courtesy of more academic publishers and database hosts opening their digital vaults to allow the crawlers of Google Scholar to collect data from and index the full-text of millions of articles from academic journal collections and scholarly repositories of preprints and reprints. The Google Books project also has given a massive and valuable boost to the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The dark side of the growth is that significant gaps remained for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. While the regular Google service does an impressive job with mostly unstructured web pages, the software of Google Scholar keeps doing a very poor job with the highly structured and tagged scholarly documents. It still has serious deficiencies with basic search operations, does not have any sort options (beyond the questionable relevance ranking). It recklessly offers filtering features by data elements, which are present only in a very small fraction of the records (such as broad subject categories) and/or are often absent and incorrect in Google Scholar even if they are present correctly in the source items. These include nonexistent author names, which turn out to be section names, subtitles, or any part of the text, including menu option text which has nothing to do with the document or its author. This makes "F. Password" not only the most productive, but also a very highly cited author. Page numbers, the first or second segment of an ISSN, or any other four-digit numbers are often interpreted by Google Scholar as publication years due to "artificial unintelligence". As a consequence, Google Scholar has a disappointing performance in matching citing and cited items; its hit counts and citation counts remain highly inflated, defying the most basic plausibility concepts when reporting about documents from the 1990s citing papers to be published in 2008, 2009 or even later in the twenty-first century. In spite of the appalling deficiencies and shoddiness of its software the free Google Scholar service is of great help in the resource discovery process and can often lead users to the primary documents in their library in print or digital format and/or to open access versions of papers which otherwise would cost more than $30-$40 each through document delivery services. Google Scholar can act at the minimum as a free, huge and diverse multidisciplinary I/A database or a federated search engine with limited software capabilities, but with the superb bonus of searching incredibly rapidly the full-text of several million source documents. However, using it for bibliometric and scientometric evaluation, comparison and ranking purposes can produce very unscholarly measures and indicators of scholarly productivity and impact. Background and literature On the third anniversary of Google Scholar I give a summary of the pros and cons of Google Scholar, focusing on the

27 January 2013 Page 1 of 10 ProQuest

increasingly valuable content and on the decreasingly satisfactory software features which must befuddle searchers and ought to be addressed by the developers. I discuss here Google Scholar from the perspective of some of the traditional database evaluation criteria that have been used for decades ([25] Jacsó, 1998). I complement this paper with an unusually long bibliography of some of the most relevant English-language articles by competent information professionals. For many of the citations I provide the URL of an open access preprint or reprint version, or of the original version published in an open access journal, to offer readers convenient access to the papers and understand the opinion of the authors. Re-reading these papers in preparation for this review was a great pleasure, even when my opinion did not agree with that of the reviewers. The balance of pro and con arguments and evidentiary materials presented by competent information professionals has been rewarding and has motivated my creation of this bibliography. It does not include references to papers which are dedicated to the citation counts of articles as presented by Google Scholar. These will be provided in follow-up papers which discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar to determine the Hirsch-index and derivative indexes for measuring and comparing research output quantitatively. After the launch of Google Scholar it received much attention, just as anything does that relates to Google, Inc. Within the first few months of its debut, there were a number of reviews in open access web columns ([44] Price, 2004; [26] Jacsó, 2004; [15] Goodman, 2004; [11] Gardner and Eng, 2005; [1] Abram, 2005; [52] Tenopir, 2005), and three web blogs were launched dedicated to Google Scholar ([50] Sondemann, 2005; [13] Giustini, 2005), or partially dedicated ([23] Iselid, 2006). These were followed by reviews in traditional publications ([27] Jacsó, 2005a; [35] Myhill, 2005; [40] Notess, 2005, [42] O'Leary, 2005, [12] Giustini and Barsky, 2005; [39] Noruzi, 2005; [2] Adlington and Benda, 2006; [6] Cathcart and Roberts, 2006) focussing on the content and software aspects of Google Scholar. These were well complemented by a number of essays, editorials and surveys pondering the acceptance, use, promotion and "domestication" of Google Scholar as one of the endorsed research tools for students and faculty in academic institutions ([30] Kesselman and Watsen, 2005; [45] Price, 2005; [3] Anderson, 2006; [16] Gorman, 2006; [34] Mullen and Hartman, 2006; [10] Friend, 2006; [18] Hamaker and Spry, 2006; [59] York, 2006; [21] Helms-Park et al. , 2007; [48] Schmidt, 2007; [51] Taylor, 2007). As Google Scholar became more intensively used, several research papers started to put it into context by comparing Google Scholar's performance with a single database ([49] Schultz, 2007), federated search engines ([9] Felter, 2005; [12] Giustini and Barsky, 2005; [7] Chen, 2006; [47] Sadeh, 2006; [8] Donlan and Cooke, 2006; [20] Haya et al. , 2007; [22] Herrera, 2007), citation-enhanced databases such as Web of Science and/or Scopus ([4] Bauer and Bakkalbasi, 2005; [28] Jacsó, 2005b; [29] Jacsó, 2005c; [58] Yang and Meho, 2006; [38] Norris and Oppenheim, 2007), or with a mix of these and traditional scholarly indexing/abstracting databases ([56] White, 2006). There is increasing specialisation in researching Google Scholar, applying the traditional database evaluation criteria such as size, timeliness, source type and especially breadth of journal coverage ([24] Jacsó, 1997) in a consistent manner in the context of a very non-traditional database which piggybacks on other sources rather than creating its own ([57] Wleklinksi, 2005; [53] Vine, 2005; [54] Vine, 2006; [36] Neuhaus et al. , 2006; [43] Pomerantz, 2006; [56] White, 2006; [33] Mayr and Walter, 2007; [55] Walters, 2007). The recent incorporation of books in Google Scholar from Google Book Search (which after a poor debut with deficient software features, turned around and introduced within a month far more sophisticated software than Google Scholar in three years), spawned useful research ([19] Hauer, 2006; [31] Lackie, 2006; [14] Goldeman and Connolly, 2007), as did the only good new software feature of Google Scholar which led users to the full-text digital source document in the users' library through Open-URL resolvers ([17] Grogg and Ferguson, 2005; [41] O'Hara, 2007; [32] Lagace and Chisman, 2007). There is one additional research area where Google Scholar will play an important role: its use for bibliometric and scientometric evaluation of the performance of researchers, which is such a complex issue that it deserves to be discussed in a separate paper, with its own rich set of references. The pros Most of the pros relate to the content part of Google Scholar, from different angles, including coverage, variety in source and

27 January 2013 Page 2 of 10 ProQuest

journal base, size and currency. Journal coverage The source base of Google Scholar has been considerably enhanced since its debut, as every scholarly publisher wants to be a part of the Google universe. The source base also increased in quality through full-text indexing of thousands of additional academic journals of importance from the sites of the publishers, rather than just indexing bibliographic data and abstract from I/A databases. The two most important journal publishers that started to co-operate with Google Scholar are Elsevier and the American Chemical Society. Although only a tiny proportion of these publishers' digital collections (Elsevier's 7 million items and the ACS's 0.75 million items) have been indexed so far by Google Scholar, their shares are expected to increase rapidly once the Google Scholar spiders are sent to their routes. Book coverage It was an excellent idea to add book records to Google Scholar, primarily from the Google Books Project. It is a huge advantage, as books are barely present even as an indexing/abstracting record, let alone as a completely indexed, full-text item (for searching, not viewing) in most of the other multidisciplinary mega-databases (except for the also free and outstanding Amazon.com site). In preparing for a tutorial session in Vietnam, it was impressive to find 27 books in Google Scholar, each of which had numerous passages about or references to the so-called "scholar gentry class". This is the type of casual digital book use that the late Frederick Kilgour, the founder of OCLC envisioned more than 20 years ago, when he was already in his early 70s. Geographic and language coverage The geographic and language coverage of Google Scholar is also impressive and genuine. It is a typical limitation of even the subscription-based scholarly databases that they often almost exclusively cover only anglophone sources, predominantly published in the USA, UK, Australia and Canada (in which case francophone documents are also covered). I do not blame the commercial database publishers for this, as they were not created on the same principles as the UN or UNESCO. They have to spend their money on processing documents which are of interest to and understandable by the majority of scholars, their primary customers. The Google Scholar service does not have the ever-increasing costs of subscription and human processing of the scholarly print publications. It has free access to practically any scholarly digital document collection it wants, and wisely has decided to index (by software) important Spanish, Portuguese, German, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Russian language collections of academic works. While the latter four are of no help to me, the former three are and are worth the extra mental effort to read in the native language, as there are several sources in my areas of specialisation where researchers in Germany, Austria, the Iberian peninsula, Central and South America (especially Brazil), that publish only in German, Spanish and Portuguese. I have avoided referring to the actual size of Google Scholar and its subsets, as it is impossible to determine a realistic number, or even estimate the number of records in the database, or in the Canadian subset or the language subsets. Digital repositories The coverage of digital repositories – even if far from complete – is already a great asset, especially for physics, astrophysics, medicine, economics and computer and information sciences and technology. But the use of such full-text repositories still could be significantly improved. For example, only about a quarter of the open access PubMed Central (PMC) items are directly available in Google Scholar. True, there are records in Google Scholar – from other sources, such as cababstractsplus.org – for many more of the 620,000 full text documents deposited in PMC. It would, however, be essential to index the source documents and give them priority in displaying the result list clearly, marking them as open access, instead of giving undeserved prominence to the British Library document delivery service (BL Direct), which is more than happy to charge for document delivery even when the open access paper is just a click away from the user. Just as quickly as Google Scholar can determine whether a journal is available for article delivery through the British Library, it could determine whether it is available free of charge from runs of open access issues of the journal. The same is true for the open access full-text subset of the National Transportation Library (which has, for example, more than 100 documents about transport-related terrorism). In sharp contrast Google Scholar has only a dozen source documents indexed and made available from that site. While praising the broad content coverage of Google Scholar, it must be noted that there are still huge gaps in the full-text indexing of the most important serial publications as mentioned in the original review ([27] Jacsó, 2005a). For example, less than 17

27 January 2013 Page 3 of 10 ProQuest

per cent of the 430,500 documents at the nature.com web site were indexed by Google Scholar directly from that site (which includes not only Nature magazine but also many other journals of the Nature Publishing Group). True, many more than 17 per cent of them have a record in Google Scholar, but many of these are just citation records with minimal information. Indexing/abstracting records It is good that there are millions of records from good indexing/abstracting databases for documents for which digital full text is not yet available. However, Google Scholar should have used the unique privilege granted by thousands of scholarly publishers of gaining permission to crawl and index the full text of the primary documents, rather than just the ersatz records, often redundantly through several indexing/abstracting databases. Size I usually start the content review by determining the size of the database, and its distinct subsets. It is essential for researchers to know how many records are in Google Scholar in total, and/or in, say, English or Spanish, which journals are covered from what publishers for what time span, but its developers "take the Fifth" when asked about it or about any factual features of the database (such as the number of journals, publishers, foreign language materials, art

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

Need help with this assignment?

Order it here claim 25% discount

Discount Code: SAVE25