4.7 Article

Process-centered knowledge model and enterprise ontology for the development of knowledge management system

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 7441-7447

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.031

关键词

Knowledge management system (KMS); Enterprise ontology; Knowledge retrieval; Business process; Business performance

资金

  1. Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy
  2. CIES Ltd

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among many enterprise assets, knowledge is treated as a critical driving force for attaining enterprise performance goals. This is because knowledge facilitates the better business decision makings in a timely fashion. However, since knowledge is created and utilized during the execution of business processes, if knowledge is separated from the business process context, it does not lead to the ability to take the right action for target performance. This paper proposes the framework for process-centered knowledge model and enterprise ontology for the context-rich and networked knowledge storage and retrieval required during task execution. The enterprise knowledge object for a process-centered knowledge model is classified into two types: process knowledge and task Support knowledge. In the proposed enterprise ontology, which represents major enterprise concepts, and the relationships between them, all domain concepts are related to the process concept, both directly and indirectly. As a result, networked and sophisticated knowledge, rather than single-level knowledge. is provided to the participant of unit activity. In order to show the applicability of the proposed framework, a process-centered KMS (knowledge management system) was also developed, which is classified into 3 parts: (1) project management sub-system based on process knowledge. (2) Knowledge management sub-system for maintaining task support knowledge. (3) Infrastructure sub-system which supports the above two sub-systems. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据