Competence is a standardized way to define the profile of an enterprise. Understanding and auditing competences acquired, required, and desired by a company and further representing them in a structured manner is a beneficial step for enhancing the company’s performance. Ontology is emerging as an effective tool to structure competences for comprehensive and transportable machine understanding. In the present paper, ECOS (Enterprise Competence Organization Schema) is presented as a mechanism to capture enterprise competence in a manner understandable by computers. The objective behind this concept is to create a web of machine-readable pages describing basic information and competences of enterprises with sets of interconnected data and semantic models. The ECOS ontology captures enterprise competences using a consistent and comprehensive list of concepts and vocabulary and converts them into a semantic web resource using the Web Ontology Language (OWL). The novel concept of an ECOS-card and ECOS-form is proposed and used for developing and publishing enterprise competences. Examples from real-life enterprise applications of ECOS are also shown in the paper.
CrossR.ThomasR.DutraA.NewberryC.–Using network analysis to build a new business. Organ. Dyn., 2007, 36. 345–362.
2.
Nabuco, O., Rosário, J. M., Silva, J. R., and Drira, K. Scientific collaboration and knowledge sharing in the virtual manufacturing network. In Proceedings of the International Federation of Automatic Control Conference, April 2004, Salvador-Bahia, Brazil.
Luczak, H. Knowledge management in virtual organizations. In Services Systems and Services Management 2005 (Proceedings of ICSSSM '05), Chongquing, China, 13–15 June, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 898–902.
5.
PrahaladC. K.HamelG.–The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Bus. Rev., 1990, 68. 79–93.
6.
ZhanjunL.VictorR.KarthikR.Developing engineering ontology for information retrieval. J. Comput. Inform. Sci. Engng, 2008, 8.
7.
SanchezR.–Understanding competence-based management: identifying and managing five modes of competence. J. Bus. Res., 2004, 57(5), 518–532.
8.
SchoemakerP.–How to link strategic vision to core capabilities. Sloan Mgmt Rev., 1992, 534. 67–82.
9.
Li, Y., Huang, B., Liu, W., Gon, H., and Wu, C. Enterprise competence modeling and management. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, October 2000, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 3, 2121–2126.
10.
BoucherX.BonjourE.GrabotB.–Formalisation and use of competencies for industrial performance optimisation: a survey. Comput. Ind., 2007, 58(2), 98–117.
11.
ChiesaV.ManziniR.–Competence levels within firms: a static and dynamic analysis. Competence-based strategic management, HeeneA.SanchezR.1997 (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 195–214.
Patel-SchneiderP. F.HorrocksI.OWLWeb ontology language semantics and abstract syntax, 2005, , available from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/, The World Wide Web Consortium.
14.
CorchoO.Fernandez-LopezM.Gomez-PerezA.–Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies.. Where is their meeting point?. Data Knowl. Engng, 2003, 46. 41–64.
15.
Jussupova-MariethozY.ProbstA.–Business concepts ontology for an enterprise performance and competences monitoring. Comput. Ind., 2007, 58(2), 118–129.
16.
VernadatF. B.–Enterprise modelling and integration (EMI): current status and research perspectives. Annu. Rev. Contr., 2002, 26. 15–25.
17.
BrandtS. C.MorbachJ.MiatidisM.TheißenM.JarkeM.MarquardtW.–An ontology-based approach to knowledge management in design processes. Comput. Chem. Engng, 2008, 32(1), 320–342.
18.
PatilL.–Ontology-based exchange of product data semantics. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Engng, 2005, 2. 213–225.
19.
MadniA. M.LinW.MadniC. C.–IDEON™: an extensible ontology for designing, integrating, and managing collaborative distributed enterprises. Syst. Engng, 2001, 4. 35–48.
20.
Uschold, M. and Jasper, R. A framework for understanding and classifying ontology applications. In Proceedings of the IJCAI99 Workshop on Ontologies, 31 July 1999, in conjunction with the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden.
21.
SchlenoffC.DennoP.IvesterR.LibesD.SzykmanS.–An analysis and approach to using existing ontological systems for applications in manufacturing. AI EDAM, 2000, 14. 257–270.
Fadel, F., Fox, M. S., and Gruninger, M. A generic enterprise resource ontology. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Enabling Technologies – Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises, West Virginia University, 17–19 April 1994, pp. 86–92. (IEEE Computer Society Press, Piscataway, New Jersey).
24.
GoossenaertsJ. B. M.PelletierC.–Ontology and enterprise modelling. Participative simulation environment for integral manufacturing enterprise renewal, van EijnattenF. M.2002 (TNO Arbeid, Amsterdam, 41–52.
25.
Meta Data Coalition. Open information model, version 1.1, 1999, available from http://xml.coverpages.org/mdc-oim.html (Meta Data Coalition.
26.
GransierT.SchönewolfW.–Validation of CIMOSA. Comput. Ind., 1995, 27(10), 95–100.
27.
KosankeK.–CIMOSA – overview and status. Comput. Ind., 1995, 27(10), 101–109.
PlissonJ.LjubicP.MozeticI.LavracN.–An ontology for virtual organization breeding environment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C Applic. Rev., 2007, 37(6), 1327–1341.
30.
KhilwaniN.HardingJ. A.ChoudharyA. K.–Semantic web in manufacturing. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture, 2009, 223(7), . DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1399, 905–924.
PenroseE.The theory of the growth of the firm, 1959 (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY).
33.
RumeltR. P.–Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. The competitive challenge, TeeceD.1987 (Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 137–157.
34.
BarneyJ. B.–Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck and business strategy. Mgmt Sci., 1986, 32. 1231–1241.
35.
BarneyJ. B.–Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Mgmt, 1991, 17(1), 99–120.
36.
Pareto, L. and Snis, U. L. An interactive visualization model for competence management: an integrative approach. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Knowledge management and knowledge technologies periodical (I-KNOW), Graz, Austria, 3–5 September 2007.
37.
HarzallahM.BerioG.VernadatF.–Analysis and modeling of individual competencies: toward better management of human resources. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. Hum., 2006, 36. 187–207.
38.
Schmidt, A. and Kunzmann, C. Towards a human resource development ontology for combining competence management and technology-enhanced workplace learning. In On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops, 29 October–3 November 2006, Montpellier, France vol. 4278, pp. 1078–1087.
39.
Draganidis, F., Chamopoulou, P., and Mentzas, G. An ontology based tool for competency management and learning paths. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz, Austria, 6–8 September 2006, available from http://imu.ntua.gr/Papers/C80-Ontology-based-Competency-Management.pdf.
40.
Tarassov, V., Sandkuhl, K., and Henoch, B. Using ontologies for representation of individual and enterprise competence models. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Research, Innovation and Vision for the Future, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, 12–16 February 2006, pp. 206–213 (IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey).
CaseyM.PahlC.–Web components and the semantic web. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 2003, 82(4), 156–163.
43.
Camarinha-MatosL.AfsarmaneshH.OsorioA. L.Flexibility and safety in a web-based infrastructure for virtual enterprises. Int. J. Comput. Integrated Mfg, 2001, 14.
44.
Hui, X. Applying semantic web services to automate network management. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA 2007), Harbin, 23–25 May 2007, pp. 461–466. (IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey).
45.
LastraJ. L. M.–Semantic web services in factory automation: fundamental insights and research roadmap. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., 2006, 2. 1–11.
46.
VernadatF.–UEML: towards a unified enterprise modelling language. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2002, 40. 4309–4321.
47.
Brickley, D. and Miller, L. FOAF vocabulary specification 0.9, 2007, available from http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/.
Connolly, D. and Miller, L. RDF calendar – an application of the resource description framework to iCalendar data, 2005, available from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfcal/.
52.
GuarinoN.–Formal ontology in information systems. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal ontology in information systems, Trento, Italy, 6–8 June, 1998 (IOS Press, Sawbridgeworth, UK, 3–15.
53.
GuarinoN.GiarettaP.–Ontologies and knowledge bases: towards a terminological clarification. Towards very large knowledge bases: Knowledge building and knowledge sharing, MarsN.1995 (IOS Press, Sawbridgeworth, UK, 25–32.
54.
Noy, N. F. and McGuniness, D. L. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2001.
55.
KumarM.VratP.ShankarR.–A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a supply chain. Comput. Ind. Engng, 2004, 46. 69–85.
56.
FuqingZ.YiH. L.DongmeiY.–A multi-objective optimization model of the partner selection problem in a virtual enterprise and its solution with genetic algorithms. Int. J. Adv. Mfg Technol., 2008, 37. 1246–1253.
57.
SariB.SenT.–AHP model for the selection of partner companies in virtual enterprises. Int. J. Adv. Mfg Technol., 2008, 38. 367–376.
58.
BizerC.HeathT.Berners-LeeT.–Linked data – the story so far. Int. J. Semantic Web Inform. Syst., 2009, 5(3), 1–22.
59.
Harding, J. A., Yu, B., and Popplewell, K. Organisational and functional views of a small manufacturing enterprise. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Mgmt, 1993, 1, 338–352.
