strukt—A Pattern System for Integrating Individual and Organizational Knowledge Work

  • Ansgar Scherp
  • Daniel Eißing
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)

Abstract

Expert-driven business process management is an established means for improving efficiency of organizational knowledge work. Implicit procedural knowledge in the organization is made explicit by defining processes. This approach is not applicable to individual knowledge work due to its high complexity and variability. However, without explicitly described processes there is no analysis and efficient communication of best practices of individual knowledge work within the organization. In addition, the activities of the individual knowledge work cannot be synchronized with the activities in the organizational knowledge work.

Solution to this problem is the semantic integration of individual knowledge work and organizational knowledge work by means of the pattern-based core ontology strukt. The ontology allows for defining and managing the dynamic tasks of individual knowledge work in a formal way and to synchronize them with organizational business processes. Using the strukt ontology, we have implemented a prototype application for knowledge workers and have evaluated it at the use case of an architectural office conducting construction projects.

References

  1. 1.
    Becker, J., Weiss, B., Winkelman, A.: Developing a Business Process Modeling Language for the Banking Sector - A Design Science Approach. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolinger, J., Horvath, G., Ramanathan, J., Ramnath, R.: Collaborative workflow assistant for organizational effectiveness. In: Applied Computing. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in DOLCE. In: Handbook on Ontologies, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns, vol. 1. Wiley (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlsen, S.: Action port model: A mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 300–309. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drucker, P.: Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review 41(2), 79–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley (July 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Borgo, S., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J.: Task Taxonomies for Knowledge Content. In: METOKIS Deliverable, vol. D7, pp. 20–42 (2004), http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/D07_v21a.pdf
  9. 9.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology Design Patterns. In: Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groth, P.T., Gil, Y.: A scientific workflow construction command line. In: Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Paperbacks (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart-Davidson, W., Spinuzzi, C., Zachry, M.: Capturing & Visualizing Knowledge Work: Results & Implications of a Pilot Study of Proposal Writing Activity. In: Design of Communication, pp. 113–119. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hepp, M., Belecheanu, R., Domingue, J., FilipowskaG, A., Kaczmarek, M., Kaczmarek, T., Nitzsche, J., Norton, B., Pedrinaci, C., Roman, D., et al: Business Process Modelling Ontology and Mapping to WSMO. Technical report, SUPER Project IST-026850 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kidd, A.: The marks are on the knowledge worker. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 186–191. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nonaka, I.: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review 69(6), 96–104 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oberle, D.: Semantic Management of Middleware. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG. Business process model and notation (BPMN), version 2.0 beta 2 (2010), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/10-06-04.pdf
  18. 18.
    Scheer, A.: Aris-Business Process Frameworks. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwarz, S.: Task-Konzepte: Struktur und Semantik für Workflows. In: Professionelles Wissesmanagement, Luzern, Switzerland. GI e.V. (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwarz, S., Abecker, A., Maus, H., Sintek, M.: Anforderungen an die Workflow Unterstützung für Wissensintensive Geschäftsprozesse. In: Professionelles Wissensmanagement, Baden-Baden, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Varzi, A.: Parts, Wholes, and Part-Whole Relations: The Prospects of Mereotopology. Data & Knowledge Engineering 20(3), 259–286 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    WFMC. Terminology & Glossary. Technical Report WFMC-TC-1011, Version 3.0 (1999), http://www.wfmc.org/standards/docs/TC-1011_term_glossary_v3.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Scherp
    • 1
  • Daniel Eißing
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations