Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1119–1130 | Cite as

Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies

  • Chris KimbleEmail author
  • José Braga de Vasconcelos
  • Álvaro Rocha


This article describes an architecture suitable for use in a competence management system for knowledge intensive organizations (KIOs). The underlying motivation for this work is to explore the practical problems of the use of codified knowledge in knowledge management systems (KMS) in KIOs. We explore some of the key issues associated with the use of tacit and codified knowledge in KMS, and describe an architecture based on an ontology-driven framework derived from collective and consensual knowledge that acts as a structure for a formal knowledge base. We describe, in outline, a prototype competence management system based on this architecture designed to support the management of competencies in a structured way. We conclude with some observations about our approach to the representation of knowledge in a KMS and its potential value to KIOs.


Codified knowledge Competence management Consensual knowledge Knowledge intensive organizations Knowledge management Ontologies Tacit knowledge 


  1. Abel, M.-H. (2008). Competencies management and learning organizational memory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(6), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berio, G., & Harzallah, M. (2007). Towards an integrating architecture for competence management. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boucher, X., Bonjour, E., & Matta, N. (2007). Competence management in industrial processes. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buytendijk, F. (2008). The Myth of One Version of the Truth. A Thought Leadership White Paper. Redwood Shores, CA: OracleGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohendet, P., & Steinmueller, E. W. (2000). The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 195–209. doi: 10.1093/icc/9.2.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edgar Serna, M. (2012). Maturity model of knowledge management in the interpretativist perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 32(4), 365–371. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edgington, T., Choi, B., Henson, K., Raghu, T., & Vinze, A. (2004). Adopting ontology to facilitate knowledge sharing. Communications of the ACM, 47(11), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Barriocanal, E., Sicilia, M.-A., & Sánchez-Alonso, S. (2012). Computing with competencies: modelling organizational capacities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(16), 12310–12318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  15. Gruber, T. R. (1993). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Reports. Stanford, California: Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Computer Science Department, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Guarino, N., Bottazzi, E., Ferrario, R., & Sartor, G. (2012). Open ontology-driven sociotechnical systems: transparency as a key for business resiliency. In M. De Marco, D. Te’eni, V. Albano, & S. Za (Eds.), Information systems: crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering (pp. 535–542). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Heijst, G., Spek, R., & Kruizinga, E. (1997). Corporate memories as a tool for knowledge management. Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). A collaborative approach to ontology design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janicot, C., & Mignon, S. (2012). Knowledge codification in audit and consulting firms: a conceptual and empirical approach. Knowl Manage Res Prac, 10(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimble, C. (2013a). Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge. Information Research, 18(2).
  21. Kimble, C. (2013b). What cost knowledge management? The example of infosys. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(3), 6–14. doi: 10.1002/joe.21480.
  22. Kimble, C., & Milolidakis, G. (2015). Big data and business intelligence: debunking the myths. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 35(1), 23–34. doi: 10.1002/joe.21642.
  23. Klemke, R. (2000). Context Framework-an Open Approach to Enhance Organisational Memory Systems with Context Modelling Techniques. In U. Reimer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM2000), Basel, Switzerland, October 30-31 2000: CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  24. Klendauer, R., Berkovich, M., Gelvin, R., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2012). Towards a competency model for requirements analysts. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kroes, P., Franssen, M., Poel, I. V. D., & Ottens, M. (2006). Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(6), 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindgren, R., & Wallström, C. (2000). Features missing in action: knowledge Management Systems in Practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2000), Wienna, Austria, July 3–5Google Scholar
  28. McElroy, M. W. (2002). The New knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann/KMCI.Google Scholar
  29. Michellone, G., & Zollo, G. (2000). Competencies management in knowledge-based firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(1), 134–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otto, B., Hüner, K. M., & Österle, H. (2012). Toward a functional reference model for master data quality management. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(3), 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  33. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sicilia, M.-A., & Lytras, M. D. (2005). The semantic learning organization. The Learning Organization, 12(5), 402–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stader, J., & Macintosh, A. (2000). Capability modelling and knowledge management. Paper presented at the Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems VII - Proceedings of ES99, the Nineteenth SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, UK, December 1999Google Scholar
  36. Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Swartout, W., & Tate, A. (1999). Ontologies. Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE, 14(1), 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method. Human Relations, 4(3), 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., & Zorgios, Y. (1998). The enterprise ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(01), 31–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vasconcelos, J., & Kimble, C. (2006). An ontology based competence management model to support collaborative working and organisational learning. In S. Miguel-Angel (Ed.), Competencies in Organizational ELearning: Concepts and Tools (pp. 253–269). Hershey (USA)/London (UK): Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Vasconcelos, J., Gouveia, F. R., Kimble, C., & Kudenko, D. (2007). Reasoning in corporate memory systems: A case study of group competencies. In J. F. Schreinemakers, & T. M. v. Engers (Eds.), 15 Years of Knowledge Management (Vol. 3, Advances in Knowledge Management). Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.Google Scholar
  42. Vasconcelos, J., Kimble, C., Miranda, H., & Henriques, V. (2009). A knowledge-engine architecture for a competence management information system. Paper presented at the UK academy for information systems (UKAIS) 14th Annual Conference, Oxford, 31 March-1 April, 2009.Google Scholar
  43. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  44. Zülch, G., & Becker, M. (2007). Computer-supported competence management: evolution of industrial processes as life cycles of organizations. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kedge Business SchoolMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.MRM, Université MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.University AtlânticaBarcarenaPortugal
  4. 4.University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations