Increasing Search Quality with the Semantic Desktop in Proposal Development

  • Mark Siebert
  • Pierre Smits
  • Leo Sauermann
  • Andreas Dengel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4333)


Quicker response times and less production costs of proposal development require further automation of sales assistant functionality in CRM environments. Automation still struggles with the handling of abstraction and the subjective character of knowledge. Based on the knowledge creation framework the paper outlines and tests the increase of search quality with Semantic Desktop technology. The discussion of peer-to-peer settings and semantic concepts illustrates the influence of individual perspectives on search quality. It reveals first potentials and benefits for process-integration, like semantic CRM and illustrates approaches to increase knowledge worker’s productivity.


Local Search Knowledge Management Customer Requirement Knowledge Object Sales Manager 
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.
    Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Maus, H., Sintek, M., Wenzel, C.: Information Supply for Business Processes - Coupling Workflow with Document Analysis and Information Retrieval. In: Knowledge-Based Systems, Special Issue on AI in Knowledge Management, vol. 13, pp. 271–284. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bähr, J.T., Dannenmann, P., van Elst, L., Hust, A., Lauer, A., Maus, H., Schwarz, S.: EPOS - Milestone 1. Document D-04-01, DFKI (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T.: WWW Past&Future (2006),
  4. 4.
    Brünken, R.: Automatische Rekonstruktion von Inhaltsbeziehungen zwischen Dokumenten. In: Benutzeradaptives Informations-Retrieval in Wissensbasen. Shaker (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davenport, T.: Thinking for a Living. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrig, M., Tempich, C., et al.: Swap: Ontology-based knowledge management with peer-to-peer. In: Izquierdo, E. (ed.) 4th European Workshop on Image Analysis for Multimedia Interactive Services (WIAMIS 2003), pp. 557–562. World Scientific, Singapore (2003), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elst, L., Abecker, A., Maus, H.: Exploiting user and process context for knowledge management systems. In: Workshop on User Modelling for Context-Aware Applications at User Modeling, Sonthofen, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hees, H.: Nextbot knowledge framework. brainbot Technologies AG (2004),
  9. 9.
    Holz, H., Maus, H., Bernardi, A., Rostanin, O.: From lightweight, proactive information delivery to business process-oriented knowledge management. Journal of Universal Knowledge Management (2), 101–127 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental models:Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAP, Video-Presentation CRM on demand system (March 2005),
  12. 12.
    Sauermann, L.: The gnowsis – using semantic web technologies to build a semantic desktop. Diploma thesis, Technical University of Vienna (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sauermann, L., Bernardi, A., Dengel, A.: Overview and outlook on the semantic desktop. In: Decker, S., Jack Park, D.Q., Sauermann, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on The Semantic Desktop, ISWC 2005 Conference (2005),
  14. 14.
    Siebert, M.: Knowledge creation framework - enabling just-in-time information delivery. In: Althoff, K.D., Dengel, A., Bergmann, R., Nick, M., Roth-Berghofer, T. (eds.) Wissensmanagement, DFKI, Kaiserslautern, pp. 642–647 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson, G.: Proposal automation tools. Proposal Management Journal, 67–73 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Siebert
    • 1
  • Pierre Smits
    • 2
  • Leo Sauermann
    • 3
  • Andreas Dengel
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Siemens Business Services GmbH und Co OHGMunichGermany
  2. 2.BTU CottbusGermany
  3. 3.KM DeptDFKIKaiserslauternGermany
  4. 4.CS DeptDFKIKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations