Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes an architecture suitable for use in a competence management system for knowledge intensive organizations (KIOs). The underlying motivation for this work is to explore the practical problems of the use of codified knowledge in knowledge management systems (KMS) in KIOs. We explore some of the key issues associated with the use of tacit and codified knowledge in KMS, and describe an architecture based on an ontology-driven framework derived from collective and consensual knowledge that acts as a structure for a formal knowledge base. We describe, in outline, a prototype competence management system based on this architecture designed to support the management of competencies in a structured way. We conclude with some observations about our approach to the representation of knowledge in a KMS and its potential value to KIOs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, M.-H. (2008). Competencies management and learning organizational memory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(6), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berio, G., & Harzallah, M. (2007). Towards an integrating architecture for competence management. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, X., Bonjour, E., & Matta, N. (2007). Competence management in industrial processes. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 95–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buytendijk, F. (2008). The Myth of One Version of the Truth. A Thought Leadership White Paper. Redwood Shores, CA: Oracle

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohendet, P., & Steinmueller, E. W. (2000). The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 195–209. doi:10.1093/icc/9.2.195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar Serna, M. (2012). Maturity model of knowledge management in the interpretativist perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 32(4), 365–371. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgington, T., Choi, B., Henson, K., Raghu, T., & Vinze, A. (2004). Adopting ontology to facilitate knowledge sharing. Communications of the ACM, 47(11), 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Barriocanal, E., Sicilia, M.-A., & Sánchez-Alonso, S. (2012). Computing with competencies: modelling organizational capacities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(16), 12310–12318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. R. (1993). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Reports. Stanford, California: Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Computer Science Department, Stanford University

  • Guarino, N., Bottazzi, E., Ferrario, R., & Sartor, G. (2012). Open ontology-driven sociotechnical systems: transparency as a key for business resiliency. In M. De Marco, D. Te’eni, V. Albano, & S. Za (Eds.), Information systems: crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering (pp. 535–542). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

  • Heijst, G., Spek, R., & Kruizinga, E. (1997). Corporate memories as a tool for knowledge management. Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). A collaborative approach to ontology design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janicot, C., & Mignon, S. (2012). Knowledge codification in audit and consulting firms: a conceptual and empirical approach. Knowl Manage Res Prac, 10(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimble, C. (2013a). Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge. Information Research, 18(2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-2/paper577.html.

  • Kimble, C. (2013b). What cost knowledge management? The example of infosys. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(3), 6–14. doi:10.1002/joe.21480.

  • Kimble, C., & Milolidakis, G. (2015). Big data and business intelligence: debunking the myths. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 35(1), 23–34. doi:10.1002/joe.21642.

  • Klemke, R. (2000). Context Framework-an Open Approach to Enhance Organisational Memory Systems with Context Modelling Techniques. In U. Reimer (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM2000), Basel, Switzerland, October 30-31 2000: CEUR-WS.org

  • Klendauer, R., Berkovich, M., Gelvin, R., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2012). Towards a competency model for requirements analysts. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 475–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P., Franssen, M., Poel, I. V. D., & Ottens, M. (2006). Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(6), 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., & Wallström, C. (2000). Features missing in action: knowledge Management Systems in Practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2000), Wienna, Austria, July 3–5

  • McElroy, M. W. (2002). The New knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann/KMCI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michellone, G., & Zollo, G. (2000). Competencies management in knowledge-based firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(1), 134–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, B., Hüner, K. M., & Österle, H. (2012). Toward a functional reference model for master data quality management. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(3), 395–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicilia, M.-A., & Lytras, M. D. (2005). The semantic learning organization. The Learning Organization, 12(5), 402–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stader, J., & Macintosh, A. (2000). Capability modelling and knowledge management. Paper presented at the Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems VII - Proceedings of ES99, the Nineteenth SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, UK, December 1999

  • Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swartout, W., & Tate, A. (1999). Ontologies. Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE, 14(1), 18–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method. Human Relations, 4(3), 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., & Zorgios, Y. (1998). The enterprise ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(01), 31–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, J., & Kimble, C. (2006). An ontology based competence management model to support collaborative working and organisational learning. In S. Miguel-Angel (Ed.), Competencies in Organizational ELearning: Concepts and Tools (pp. 253–269). Hershey (USA)/London (UK): Idea Group Publishing.

  • Vasconcelos, J., Gouveia, F. R., Kimble, C., & Kudenko, D. (2007). Reasoning in corporate memory systems: A case study of group competencies. In J. F. Schreinemakers, & T. M. v. Engers (Eds.), 15 Years of Knowledge Management (Vol. 3, Advances in Knowledge Management). Würzburg, Germany: Ergon.

  • Vasconcelos, J., Kimble, C., Miranda, H., & Henriques, V. (2009). A knowledge-engine architecture for a competence management information system. Paper presented at the UK academy for information systems (UKAIS) 14th Annual Conference, Oxford, 31 March-1 April, 2009.

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zülch, G., & Becker, M. (2007). Computer-supported competence management: evolution of industrial processes as life cycles of organizations. Computers in Industry, 58(2), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kedge Business School, Marseille, France

    Chris Kimble

  2. MRM, Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Chris Kimble

  3. University Atlântica, Barcarena, Portugal

    José Braga de Vasconcelos

  4. University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Álvaro Rocha

Authors
  1. Chris Kimble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Braga de Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Álvaro Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Kimble.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kimble, C., de Vasconcelos, J.B. & Rocha, Á. Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies. Inf Syst Front 18, 1119–1130 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9627-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9627-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation