Business Process Support as a Basis for Computerized Knowledge Management

  • Birger Andersson
  • Ilia Bider
  • Erik Perjons
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3782)


One of the major factors behind the less successful implementations of computerized knowledge management systems (KMS) is lack of motivation to use such a system on behalf of the end-users. To create such a motivation, i.e., achieve usability, a computerized KMS should be integrated with a business process support (BPS) system and provide three main functionalities: (1) provide a process context, (2) gather automatically experience-based knowledge, and (3) provide an active generalized knowledge base. Such an integrated KMS/BPS can be built using a state-oriented view on business processes. The paper describes a version of a system built according to this view. The system fully implements the first two functionalities, the third one being under development. The system is currently installed at a pilot site. Research work in progress includes creating a formal language for representing an active generalized knowledge base, and investigating the impact of the introduction of an integrated KMS/BPS on the pilot organization.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Henninger, S.: Case-based knowledge management tools for software development. Journal of Automated Software Engineering, 4 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davenport, T., Prusak, L.: Working knowledge. Harvard Business School Press (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papavassiliou, G., Ntioudis, S., Abecker, A., Mentzas, G.A.: Supporting knowledge-intensive work in public administration processes. Knowledge and Process Management 10, 164–174 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dixon, N.: Common knowledge. Harvard Business School Press (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharp, D.: Knowledge management today: Challenges and opportunities. Information System Management (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koenig, M.E.D., Srikantaiah, T.K.: Knowledge management lessons learned: What works and what doesn’t. American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph Series (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    KPMG: Knowledge management research report. Technical report, KPMG Consulting (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henninger, S.: Using software process to support learning software organizations. In: Workshop on Learning Software Organizations, Kaiserslauten, Germany (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malhotra, Y.: Why do knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph Series, 87–112 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abecker, A., Mentzas, G.: Active knowledge delivery in semi-structured administrative processes. In: Wimmer, M. (ed.) Knowledge Management in Electronic Government, KMGov-2001, Siena, Italy, Schriftenreihe Informatik, pp. 47–57 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reimer, U., Margelisch, A., Staudt, M.: EULE: A knowledge-based system to support business processes. Knowledge-based Systems Journal 13, 251–260 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Kaathoven, R., Staudt, M., Reimer, U.: Organisational memory supported workflow management. In: Sheer, A.W. (ed.) Electronic Business Engineering, pp. 543–563. Physica Verlag (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davenport, T., Jarvenpaa, S., Beers, M.: Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review 37, 53–65 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. HarperBusiness (1993) ISBN 0-88730-640-3Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khomyakov, M., Bider, I.: Achieving workflow flexibility through taming the chaos. In: OOIS 2000 - 6th international conference on object oriented information systems, pp. 85–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bider, I.: State-Oriented Business Process Modelling: Principles, Theory and Practice. PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalman, R.E., Falb, P.L., Arbib, M.A.: Topics in Mathematical System Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bider, I.: Developing tool support for process oriented management. Data Base Management, Auerbach (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon, H.: The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 181–201 (1973)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernstein, A.: How can cooperative work tools support dynamic group processes? bridging the specificity frontier. In: CSCW 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jørgensen, H.D., Carlsen, S.: Emergent workflow, integrated planning and performance of process instances. In: Workflow Management 1999, Münster, Germany (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birger Andersson
    • 1
  • Ilia Bider
    • 2
  • Erik Perjons
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.IbisSoft ABStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations