The Use of Conceptual Maps for Competencies Mapping and Knowledge Formalization in a Virtual Lab

  • George Chryssolouris
  • Dimitris Mavrikios
  • Stathes Xeromerites
  • Konstantinos Georgoulias


In this work we address the need to formalize knowledge in a systematic way in order to productively explore it. We present a methodology on how to capture and archive information and then transform this plain information into valuable knowledge. In a specific case study, the competencies of each node/organization of a networked Virtual Laboratory have been identified. Conceptual maps aiming to host the identified competencies are structured based on specific rules; the population of the conceptual maps and the mapping of the competencies give a user-friendly overview of the Virtual Lab’s overall knowledge and expertise, considering both internal and cross-organizational aspects. The benefits of this work are described and guidelines for the implementation and introduction of the proposed work to multi-stakeholders environments are provided. The results of this work are expected to be of value to both industrial and academic audience with interests on topics such as knowledge mapping, knowledge formalization, competencies mapping, conceptual maps, tacit knowledge, and ontologies.


Tacit Knowledge Organizational Knowledge Virtual Prototype Knowledge Formalization Competence Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Novak JD, Cañas AJ (2008), The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novak JD, Musonda D (1991) A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    VRL-KCiP NoE (2005) Deliverable No.1 Strategic plan.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Georgoulias K, Mavrikios D, Xeromerites S, Chryssolouris G (2007) Knowledge mapping for supporting collaborative engineering activities, Working paper.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dori D, Shpitalni M (2005) Mapping Knowledge about Product Lifecycle Engineering for Ontology Construction via Object-Process Methodology, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 54/1, pp. 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    VRL-KCiP NoE (2005) Deliverable No24.2 Knowledge formalization and structuring.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    VRL-KCiP NoE (2006) Deliverable No.103.1 Specification of the knowledge map of the network and examples in selected technical areas.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davenport, T and Prusak, L (2000) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, United States of America, Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ausubel, DP (1963) The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ausubel, DP (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ausubel, DP, Novak, JD, & Hanesian, H (1978) Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Chryssolouris
    • 1
  • Dimitris Mavrikios
    • 1
  • Stathes Xeromerites
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Georgoulias
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation (LMS), Department of Mechanical Engineering and AeronauticsUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations