Microsoft word - loyola.ts.doc

Comparison of Approaches toward Formalising Context:
Implementation Characteristics and Capacities
William Loyola
Escuela de Postgrado en Administración de Empresas, Escuela Superior Politécnica del
Litoral, Guayaquil, Ecuador
[email protected]
Abstract: Existing relevant literature regarding approaches to context formalisation is analysed in search of a
characterisation that explains the links - suggested by knowledge theory of the firm - between knowledge integration
capability and common knowledge types. The ontological and the syntactic-semantic-pragmatic continuum approaches
reveal an extensive description of context, which contributes to the understanding of the knowledge integration process,
and to an eventual operationalisation of common knowledge types. This theoretical development opens possibilities for
the elaboration of prescriptive models that support the integration of knowledge during routine operations of the
organisation.
Keywords: knowledge integration, common knowledge, context formalisation
1. Common knowledge in
and enables the sharing and integration of the management
aspects of their knowledge that are not common to all of them. Common knowledge, here, One relevant proposition of the knowledge-based accepting these Deweyan pragmatic approaches, theory of the firm is that the ability of an is the kind of knowledge that makes members of organisation to integrate existing knowledge the organisation communicate well, avoid builds up its competitive advantage. The capacity misunderstandings, and be able to solve business to integrate existing knowledge, not the problems together. knowledge itself, is emphasised here (Grant, 1996). Another theorist, Schendel (1996), Grant (1996) goes further, he identifies different proposes that developing new organisational types of common knowledge and argues for a knowledge creates competitive advantage. With a positive relationship between the level and different vocabulary, but referring to same sophistication of common knowledge types - concepts of organisational knowledge, March common language, shared meaning, and (1991) and Spender (1992) refer to "knowledge recognition of individual knowledge domains - and exploitation" as the application of existing the efficiency of the knowledge integration knowledge to deliver goods and services and to process, In spite of Grant's convincing arguments "knowledge exploration" as the generation of new it is problematic to understand and corroborate knowledge. According to all of these theorists, such relationships given the broad scope of the there is a consensus that knowledge is a key independent variables: common language, shared component of organisational capability, whether in meaning and recognition of individual knowledge the exploration or exploitation approach. This domains. To my best of knowledge, considering work will elaborate on the knowledge exploitation this pragmatic view, a set of operational measures approach. The postulate that integration of have not been proposed nor tested to support or existing knowledge to deliver goods and services not the theory. This paper looks into existing in organisations relies upon common knowledge approaches to context for the understanding of for their undertakings is voiced by Grant (1996). In these common knowledge types with the purpose this same line, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) refer of giving them a tractable and consistent scope. to common knowledge as "redundancy" that allows a loose coupling among members of a group. In the communications literature Cramton 2. Common knowledge and context
(2001) refers to "mutual knowledge" as the While organisational common knowledge is knowledge that the communicating parties share described as the common collective knowledge of in common and know they share (Krauss and the members of an organisation, the reference Fussell 1990), that is the "common ground" domain to which this knowledge is common has integral to the coordination of actions (Clark, been admitted as a tacit issue but without 1996). Grant adds that common knowledge is adequate explanation. Common knowledge is constituted by those elements of knowledge that common in regards to what is widely shared are common to the members of an organisation; among members of a group, community or namely, the intersection of their knowledge sets organisation: their context, their environment. Academic Conferences Ltd Reference this paper as: Loyola W. (2007) "Comparison of Approaches toward Formalising Context: Implementation Characteristics and Capacities" The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2, pp 203 - 214, available online at www.ejkm.com Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) Here, the idea of "context" is chosen over Modelling Survey" provided the elements to "environment" given that it denotes a stronger link assemble a schema for the understanding and to language and meaning than the idea of evaluation of approaches. Representative "environment". So, in advocating for an approach proposals for each model are described and for understanding the knowledge integration critically evaluated from the common knowledge process in organisations it is necessary to type perspective (see Table 1). understand the domain to which common knowledge types - common language, shared Key-Value Model, (Schilit et al, 1994) allows a meaning, and recognition of individual knowledge basic representation of context. The most it can domains - belong to; that is, the understanding of be expected from it, a structure that offers an "context" in organisations. Conceptualisations of identifier and its value for each element knowledge in organisations (Davenport and constituting context, is the capacity to share a list Prusak, 1998; Bell, 1999; Tsoukas and of terms related to a situation or event (a basic Vladimirou, 2001) (see section 4) include context form of common language). Markup Schema as key part of their explanations and even they Model (Held et al, 2002) allows publishing of an denote a role to it. However they do not elaborate inventory of elements related to a context by on the definition of the concept, neither in its means of tags and associated attributes following specification. In such situation, considerations to a schema that describes context structure (a the general definitions of "context" are in order. proxy to common language and a basic form of sharing meanings). This approach separates The Webster's English Dictionary tell us that context schema from its content; however new context is a) "the parts of a discourse that contextual relationships are complex to surround a word or passage and can throw light incorporate (it asks for markup language on its meaning", and b) "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs". It is acceptable to conclude that these acceptations of Object Oriented Model (Schmidt et al, 1999) context relate to narratives, situations, and events, exposes the properties – names and values – of a their relations to its surroundings and the context and relationships among properties – thru possibility of inferring meanings from them. This events and methods - following a class model that starting point achieved to identify essential describes context structure (a proxy to common properties belonging to the concept of context, language and a basic form of sharing meanings). however they do not bring yet sufficient light to the This approach separates context structure from its problem of providing a tractable and consistent content and allows reusability of existing context scope to common knowledge types. structures, however extensibility of a context structure is complex to achieve (it asks for object 3. Analysis of approaches toward
oriented programming knowledge). The main formalising context
motivation for studying contexts in artificial intelligence is to approach the problem of It is necessary at this point to look into existing generality brought by McCarthy (1987). This approaches to context in order to reveal how problem is exemplified by McCarthy through a context - the domain to which common knowledge system that advise physicians on treating bacterial is common - characterises common language, infections of the blood and meningitis; system shared meanings and recognition of individual which has embedded rules for recommending two knowledge domains. Context is a concept that has weeks of tetracycline treatment and nothing else called the attention of many disciplines - to a patient case that has cholera vibrio in his philosophy, history, psychology, cognitive science, intestines. These rules resulted in a case where linguistics, information science, organisational patient would die long before the bacteria are sciences, artificial intelligence - and there is even gone due to the diarrhoea. The traditional an interdisciplinary conference dedicated to the approach to correct this flaw would be to add a modelling of context. However, the disciplines of rule to specific cases so it considers the diarrhoea information science and artificial intelligence are symptom. As an alternative, a general approach is the ones that have made the most significant to incorporate patient contextual information – contributions to its formalisation. This literature including symptoms - so that the system can use review will look into approaches to context that try it for all cases. In this case, considering contexts to formalise its externalisation, that is, its structure explicitly ease the knowledge integration process. and content. Three publications, Akman and Surav (1996) with "Steps toward Formalising Context", Brézillon (2002) with "Modelling and Using Context - Past, Present and Future" and finally Strang et al (2004) with "A Context Academic Conferences Ltd William Loyola
tation ch
pplications of a Contex (1991) Varieties of contex isting ap
Table 1. C
urak (1996
tative Rese
ation of C
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) Logic Model (McCarthy 1993; Barwise 1986; ƒ The age of the patient is greater than 17 Guha 1991; Giunchiglia 1993; Attardi and Simi 1993; Shoham 1991; Buvac and Mason 1993) ƒ The patient is an alcoholic, approaches from artificial intelligences allow sharing of well formed propositions - first-order Then: There is evidence that the organisms, logic or modal logic - about context (a proxy to which might be causing the infection, are common language), consistent evaluation of diplococcus-pneumoniae (.3) or Escherichia contextual propositions (a proxy to share coli (.2). In this case Brézillon (1999) points out meanings) and identification of expertise that clause 4 acts as a screening clause which (recognition of individual knowledge domains). sets the rule as valid in the context of an adult, it However, with the exception of situated theory is a constraining clause that does not arbitrate in framework (Barwise 1986; Akman and Surav the problem solving, it just define the applicable 1996), logic model asks that members of the context. It should be obvious at this point that the organisation have to decide by themselves what Rule-based approach uses natural language constitute a contextual proposition in order to syntax in contrast with the mathematical syntax of formalise a particular context. In the other hand, the Logic Model approach. Context structure in logic model using situated theory framework has this approach is blended in, and described in the advantage of offering a contextual schema terms of the problems it helps to confine. (time, location and participants) besides the Contextual Graph Model (Pasquier, 2000; capacity to add contextual propositions to the Brézillon 2002) is proposed as a unifying specific context. Logic Model approach merges in framework that associates explanation, learning the positions the structure and content of context, and knowledge acquisition. The subjacent logic of a model that makes new contextual relationships contextual graphs resides in the classification of complex to incorporate, especially if predicate the knowledge needed for a decision to be made: calculus is not part of the common knowledge of a) Proceduralised context: "knowledge that is the organisation. Rule-based model (Brézillon, shared by those involved in the problem and is 1999) approach to context representation is directly but tacitly used for the problem solving", b) described by its well-known example of a Contextual knowledge: "knowledge that is not screening clause (Clancey, 1983), which explicitly used but influences the problem solving" succinctly exemplifies its implementation strategy. and c) External knowledge: "knowledge that has nothing to do with the current decision making ƒ The infection which requires therapy is step but is known by many of those involved" and d) Context: the sum of all the knowledge possessed by the decision makers on the whole ƒ Only circumstantial evidence is available for task (Figure 1). ƒ The type of meningitis is bacterial, Based on this framework, Pasquier (2000) (circles) become contextual nodes describing the proposes a contextual graph to represent the possible contextual issues of a specific event. actions to carry out according to the context of an Contextual graph represents the part of the incident. This is an acyclic graph, in which the context that has been proceduralised. action nodes (rectangles) represent actions to Proceduralised context is compiled knowledge carry out to achieve a goal while the event nodes that can be decompiled to explain its reasoning. Academic Conferences Ltd William Loyola
Cognitively speaking, the scarcity principle leads systematically approached which is more likely to to try to reuse well-known procedures as soon as be part of common knowledge in organisations. possible thru macro-action (MA rectangles) or sub-graphs (bigger rectangles). In summary, the critical evaluation of the approaches from the common knowledge type At first glance, contextual graph could be thought perspective, reveals that: a) Key-Value Model as a notation to draw incident workflows, but its capacity is limited to share an inventory of terms proposed framework, based on focal and about situations or events without meanings subsidiary knowledge (Polanyi, 1962) does associated to them; b) Markup Schema Model describe a knowledge externalisation model that separates context structure form its content and looks for customary incident handling thru the allows sharing of a friendlier common lexicon thru characterisation of context and embedded self a pre-established context model; c) Object explanation. A contextual graph is a prescriptive Oriented Model has similar characteristics of approach that helps the understanding of the level previous model but differs in that context structure and sophistication of all common knowledge extensions requires object oriented programming types; however it requires incident by incident knowledge; d) Logic Model offers proxies to the context structuring. Finally, Ontology model three common knowledge types but dealing with (Otzturk and Aamodt, 1997; Strang et al, 2003) is the context structure and content ask for a not an information systems approach to context very common knowledge language for formalisation. Ontology, as described by Smith management: predicate calculus; e) Rule-based (2003), is the inventory of relevant entities of a Model has similar characteristics of the previous domain externalised as a vocabulary of the terms model but with a natural language interface, yet that denote these entities with their commonly still blends context structure and content which accepted, concise and unambiguous definitions. prevents the sharing of context; f) Contextual The formalisation of the vocabulary varies from Graph model is a knowledge theory based loosely expressed in natural language to prescriptive model which provides a notation to meticulously defined terms with formal semantics draw incident workflows that incorporates recurring to first-order logic or modal logic contextual information and helps in the (Uschold and Gruninger 1996). In this sense, the understanding of the common knowledge types, Ontology Model to organisational context argues however it requires incident by incident context for a syntactic and semantic standardisation of structuring; and finally the g) Ontology Model, shared and consensual knowledge structures (a which is a general purpose model characterised proxy to common language and shared meanings) by a meta-structure that describes syntactic and related to corporate competencies (Vasconcelos semantic sides of context, separation of context et al, 2000) to describe everyday information structure and content, and a systematic and not (Strang et al, 2003). necessarily technological implementation approach. The reviewed approaches to context These knowledge structures, proposed as formalisation offer different levels of taxonomies, have differences within in their characterisation to common knowledge types; composition, however general consensus in some however the ontological approach provides the characteristics of the taxonomy of real objects most descriptive capacity and consistent scope exists (Chandrasekaran et al, 1999): 1) there are given its structure (guidelines for context objects in the world, 2) objects have properties taxonomies) and context content (procedures of that can take values, 3) objects can exist in various relations with each other, 4) properties and relations can change over time, 5) there are 4. Knowledge and context
events that occur at different time instants, 6) there are processes in which objects participate and that occur over time, 7) the world and its This section will work on conceptualisations that objects can be in different states, 8) events can argue in favour of characterising context as a cause other events or states as effects, 9) objects boundary object (Star, 1989). These can have parts. Existing ontological models to conceptualisations will help on the understanding context (Otzturk and Aamodt, 1997; Strang et al, of the links between common knowledge types 2003) show similar implementation characteristics and knowledge integration capability. A boundary than the Logical Model approach; however the object, basically, is an artefact (physical or ontology approach, in general, proposes an mental) that allows members of different practices abstraction layer by means of context taxonomy, to share common grounds (Arias and Fischer, and a context content mechanism which needs 2000). Boundary object supports the not to be technologically approached but distinguishing of differences but also provides Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) common points of reference (Harvey and message destination as the effectiveness or Chrisman, 1998). pragmatic level. Even though Shannon and Weaver avoid much elaboration on the semantic Knowledge management research makes use of and pragmatic level of communication, these the boundary object abstraction to explore the three boundaries – syntactic, semantic and interactions between knowledge and people. pragmatic – have been referenced by several Carlile's (2004) "integrative framework for authors as a boundary framework for the analysis managing knowledge across boundaries when of data, information and knowledge, innovation is desired" is one relevant research correspondingly (Carlile, 2004; Boisot and Canals, example that presents a case of an "automobile 2004). Carlile argues that in order to achieve clay model", considered as boundary object, to novelty different capabilities are needed at explain the dynamics of the knowledge different boundaries of communication. The exploration approach. Carlile (2004) recalls transferring capability asks for the development of Shannon and Weaver (1949) seminal work on common lexicon, it deals with the syntactic issues; information theory, which describes the three the translation capability takes care of semantic levels of communication complexity. Shannon and issues and asks for the development of common Weaver relate the available repertoire of distinct meanings and the transformation capability ask symbols and their syntax - rules between symbols for common interest, that is the pragmatic level - to the syntactic or technical level of (see Figure 2). Here, I am ready to accept communication. Then, they identify the process by Carlile's knowledge exploration framework and at which symbols actually get meaning as the the same time I argue for a search of a knowledge semantic level; and finally, they consider the exploitation (integration) framework linked to an desired effect of a particular message on a understanding of context as the boundary object.
Choosing to follow this theorising approach – the relations to information, and states that knowledge data-information-knowledge continuum – is not is instrumental; but his definition of data does not fortuitous; it involves the need to describe tell us much. Davenport and Prusak (1998: 2) domains and boundaries of common knowledge in posit that "data is a set of discrete, objective facts doing so it is necessary to consider the existing about events" and that "Unlike data information explanations regarding this continuum. Ackoff has meaning" (1988: 4), and describe knowledge (1989) defines data as "raw … it simply exists and as "a fluid mix of framed experience, values, has no significance beyond its existence … it can contextual information, and expert insight that exist in any form, usable or not … it does not have provides a framework for evaluating and meaning of itself" and posits that information is incorporating new experiences and information. It "data that has been given meaning by way of originates and is applied in the minds of knowers" relational connection . meaning can be useful, (1988: 5). Davenport and Prusak suggest human but does not have to be", and that knowledge is involvement and relationships among data to the application of data and information. Ackoff define information – contextualised, categorised, emphasises the assignment of semantics and calculated, corrected, condensed - and at a Academic Conferences Ltd William Loyola
personal level they describe knowledge as an the cyclic aspect of the continuum and show that individual capability to capture more information. the outcomes of information and knowledge In a way, they describe knowledge as a extraction depend on the effectiveness of human complicated, and not very clear, mixture of involvement. Analysing the assessments of this processes that incorporates contextual continuum, it can be argued that its description information; but still data is not yet well described. accomplishes the identification some basic Davenport and Prusak also posit that knowledge categories of data: items and events, which can "In organisations, often becomes embedded not be related to the interrogative primitives only in documents or repositories but also in "what/who" and "when/where" and that perception organisational routines, processes, practices and is the type of human involvement linked to data. norms" (1988: 5). The position here is that Boisot and Canals (2004) are explicit about knowledge is personal and that Davenport and perception when they posit that perceptual filters Prusak are confusing knowledge with guide the senses to certain types of stimuli and representations of data and information. only stimuli passing through this filter get registered as data. Bell (1999) has a more integrated description of this continuum. He states that data is an ordered The issue of perception involves a neural sequence of given items and events, that processing that takes place between the reception information is a context-based arrangement of of a stimulus and its sensing as data by an items and their relations, and that knowledge is individual (Kuhn, 1974). Appealing to Shannon the judgment of the significance of events and and Weaver (1949), it can be added that data is items which comes from a particular context registered using an agreed established symbolic and/or theory. In the case of Bell's knowledge repertoire and syntactic rules – alphabet, definition it is revealing that a judgement of the vocabulary and the language syntax rules (Boisot significance of information can be based on and Canals, 2004). So data is conditioned by context and not only on theory. I will come back to each individual's perceptual filters and at the this issue later on. However, it is the work of same time it is referenced by means of an agreed Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) that stresses the shared language – an inter-subjective objectivity ideas behind this continuum. In their research (Popper, 1959). But, where does this agreed case at a customer care department at Greece's shared repertory come from? Polanyi (1966) leading telephone provider, the personnel at the argues that our knowledge of the things denoted customer care department were exposed in their by words will have been largely acquired by work to a lot of discrete items (names, addresses experience – mental or physical; so these words and phone numbers) and business rules (if incorporated in discourses, or associated to <problem> then <check this or that>) where their situations or events were previous experiences in use required a certain level of judgment; departing the chain of perceptual filters and it's sensing. The from here and by means of experience, operators extension of the use of language when discovered from verbal hints that they were referencing data is mnemonic and syntactic, that dealing with an unhappy or perplexed customer is, we attach a name to each datum and use it and acted according to the circumstances, following syntax rules, but in order to name data a adapting the business rules to the context of their certain level of human involvement has to be conversations. This case reveals that the level of applied (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001), we need human involvement (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, to discriminate between "this" and "that" (Dewey, 2001) – identifying phone numbers, selecting 1934). Then, the reference to data through applicable business rules and adapting action to language implies that data is part of a recurring the particular context – explains the data- process, as posited by Boisot and Canals (2004), information-knowledge continuum and the who propose that our perceptual filters are relevance of context in this continuum. affected by our existing knowledge. In a different, but consistent, line of research, Considering the achieved understanding of data Boisot and Canals' (2004) proposal, after their and the given acceptations of context, it could be revision of information theory and social studies, is consistent with the level of human involvement Perceived context is data about the entities identified by Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001). that have been sensed and filtered from a Boisot and Canals (2004: 62) state that "Effective discourse, situation or event – mental or cognitive strategies extract information from data physical experiences – by the individual, and then convert it into knowledge. Effective and referenced by a mnemonic and cognitive and behavioural strategies vary from syntactic common language via a process agent to agent as a function of their situation, of of discrimination; then, perceived context is their prior individual knowledge …" making explicit Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) characterised as a sequence of the what, earlier, for Ackoff (1989) knowledge is who, when and where of experiences. instrumental; Davenport and Prusak (1998) Ackoff (1989) relates information to meaning; describe knowledge as a capability for using Davenport and Prusak (1998) suggest relations experience, values, contextual information, and between data to define information; Bell (1999) expert insight, to evaluate new experiences and links information to context-based interrelated information. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001: 976) data; and Boisot and Canals (2004) assert that is a more enlightening reference work to depart extracting information from data constitutes an from, they dissect Bell's (1999) description of interpretation of data according to some pre- knowledge - the judgement of the significance of established mental models. These descriptions events and items and that this judgement can be imply the individual capacity to discover relations based on context and not only on theory – and between data and assign meaning to them, argue for incorporating the idea of "domain of whether in reference to context or mental models action" to propose a definition that states or both. This latter assessment requires some knowledge as the: elaboration. Mental models theory (Byrne 1991) "Individual capability to draw distinctions, focuses on semantic procedures and explicit within a domain of action, based on the formal rules of inference and it has been tested appreciation of context or theory, or both" that context helps the finding of counterexamples (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001). of presumed conclusions (Byrne, Espino and This definition merits some consideration. Santamaria, 1998); from here it can posited that Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) supported in one role of context is to assist formal mental Polanyi (1962) and in a Wittgensteinian view, models. In the other hand, there are theorists of posit that to know how to act within a domain of natural logic like Politzer and Braine (1991) who actions is to make competent use of the argue that the mind is provided with tacit rules of distinctions constituting that domain. Domain of inference. They tested that changes in context actions is a generalisation that refers in terms of facilitate performance on conditional reasoning organisations to the community of a specific tasks; from here it can be posited that another role scientific or professional practice. Within this of context is to assist the tacit rules of inference. specific domain – practice – is where the standard of knowledge is measured through theory and/or Thus, the capacity to discover – infer – meaning context. Social construction of reality (Schutz, from data – in general - is principally guided by 1970; Berger and Luckmann, 1967) is brought to formal explicit rules of inference and subsidised our attention to argue in favour of context by perceived context, and that in this discovery equipped as theory - "we routinely bring to meaning carries information. Complementarily, as situations of interaction a tacit awareness of the a subset, the capability to discover meanings from normative expectations relevant to them and an perceived context is principally guided by tacit intuitive appreciation of the consequences that rules of inference, and this discovery of meanings might follow from breaking them" (McCarthy, carries contextual information of a specific 1994: 65). Normative expectations and experience – discourse, situation or event. "How" consequences imply shared tacit propositions. It is and "why" are posited as propositions that help to in this ethnomethodological sense that context describe the meanings discovered, establishing supports the capacity to exercise judgement relationships between the what, who when, and (Tsoukas and Vladimirou, 2001). Anchoring on the where of the data in general and perceived knowledge propositions of Tsoukas and context in particular. Vladimirou (2001) and Boisot and Canals (2004), Summing up, contextual information which capture the most relevant arguments and involves the inference of meanings from criticisms regarding the data-information- data of a specific experience; these knowledge continuum, a subset definition of meanings are discovered guided mainly by knowledge is posited: tacit rules of inference, base on the Contextual knowledge is the individual interpretation of examples and capability to exercise judgment and act counterexamples. Namely, contextual based on generalisations discovered mainly information is characterised by the by tacit rules of inference regarding a interrelated what, who, when, where, how domain of experiences – appreciation of and why of a specific experience. context; that is, based on the appreciation Once that an understanding of context have been of contextual information regarding a established at the synthetic (perceived context) domain of experiences; that is, and semantic (contextual information) levels, the characterised by the interrelated what, who exploration of knowledge theories may shed light when, where, how and why about a domain on the pragmatic level of context. Recalling from of experiences. Academic Conferences Ltd William Loyola
Contextual knowledge operates, using Polanyi´s An ontological context
terms, as subsidiary knowledge, that is, subliminal continuum approach to
and marginal cues that provide the context knowledge integration
against which focal knowledge gets its shape (Polanyi, 1962). Summing up, while data and Now, understanding context as continuum and perceived context are related to discrimination approaching its formalisation from an ontological capacity and information and contextual perspective allows retaking the understanding of information are related to inference, knowledge the knowledge integration process. and contextual knowledge are related to judgment ƒ Increasing the level and sophistication of and action. Additionally and in particular, it can be organisational common language is a posit that while perceived context and contextual syntactic issue that in terms of the context information can be articulated given their syntactic continuum ask for the articulation and sharing and relational characteristics, contextual of the what, who, when, where of knowledge is tacit – given the tacit rules of organisational repertories. This articulation is inference – and corresponds to the domain of the equivalent of a back-of-the-book index what it cannot be easily articulated (Polanyi, (Pepper, 2002) of what the organisation is 1962). Building upon recognising organisations as about. Like in books, different type of three things - historical social communities, real taxonomies can be conceived, each settings where individuals take action and sets of comprising different organisational themes - abstract rules - Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001: business lexicon, stakeholders, products 983) proposed a definition of organisational concept, services concept, business knowledge, which it is, assisted by the arguments processes, and technology platforms. In each regarding the context continuum, extended to of these taxonomies there is a list of relevant make explicit the role of context in organisations. organisational terms and their synonyms. For each organisational term in the taxonomy Organisational knowledge is the capability there are references to the occurrences of that members of an organisation have specific practice experiences – the "what, developed to exercise judgment and act in who, where and when" of specific particular concrete contexts, by enacting experiences. The described organisational sets of generalisations (propositional taxonomies closely represent the perceived statements) based on the appreciation of organisational context. theory or historical evolved collective ƒ Improving the level and sophistication of understandings regarding experiences in organisational shared meanings is a semantic their practice - which is based on the issue that in terms of the context continuum appreciation of context - or both. asks for the discovery of propositions that From the above definition it is feasible to describe establish interrelationships among the organisational contextual knowledge, a subset of organisational terms of discourses, the above description: circumstances and events. It involves the Organisational contextual knowledge is the identification of practice experiences revealed subsidiary capability that members of an as examples or counterexamples of such a organisation have developed to exercise relationship. Briefly, it includes a) propositions judgment and act, in particular concrete that interconnect - associate - topics of contexts, by enacting sets of organisational repertories – those taxonomies generalisations discovered mainly by tacit defined to increase the level of common rules of inference, base on the appreciation language, and b) the identification of the of experiences in their practice; that is, occurrences of practice experiences linked to based on contextual information about their the terms that participate in such association. practice. ƒ Facilitating the recognition of individual This conceptual approach reveals an extensive knowledge domains is a syntactic and description of context, which is posited as a semantic issue; it is related to who knows subset related to the data -information - what. In terms of perceived context, it calls for knowledge continuum: perceived context – a) the identification of organisational contextual information – contextual knowledge. stakeholders' roles and b) a categorised knowledge domain inventory. In terms of contextual information, it calls for propositions that associate the categories of the knowledge domain inventory with organisational stakeholders' roles. Briefly, this implies a mapping characterised by: a) knowledge domain taxonomies associated Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) with stakeholder taxonomies, and b) the characterisation of a boundary object that explains identification of occurrences of practice the links between knowledge integration capability experiences - what, who when, where – that and the identified common knowledge types. reveal examples and counterexamples of such association. Among the reviewed models, the ontological ƒ Integration of knowledge in products and model, given its capacity to handle all common services is a pragmatic issue mainly assisted knowledge types and its general purpose context by contextual knowledge, that is, it implies the formalisation mechanism, was the selected use of generalisations and execution of work approach to elaborate on. The boundary objects related activities base on the appreciation of approach and the data-information-knowledge contextual information. continuum approach reveal: a) an extensive These organisational taxonomies, their description of context - a subset related to the associations and the reference to occurrences of syntactic-semantic-pragmatic continuum; b) a practice experiences can be understand as the continuum human involvement dependence: data constituting characteristics of an ontological and perceived context are related to approach to the formalisation of context and discrimination capacity and information and provide a framework for the understanding of the contextual information are related to inference, link between common knowledge types and the and knowledge and contextual knowledge are efficiency of the knowledge integration capability related to judgment and action. This ontological and contribute to its eventual operationalisation. contextual approach contributes to the understanding and eventual operationalisation of the knowledge integration process, as follows: 1) 6. Discussion and conclusion
organisational common language is a syntactic Knowledge-base theory of the firm argues for a issue that in terms of the context continuum positive relationship between the level and requires the articulation and sharing of the what, sophistication of common knowledge types - who, when, where of organisational repertories, 2) common language, shared meaning and organisational shared meanings is a semantic recognition of individual knowledge domains,- and issue that in terms of the context continuum the efficiency of the knowledge integration demands a) propositions that relate the topics of process which have been proposed to have a link organisational taxonomies and b) the identification with the strategic advantage view. Considering of the occurrences of practice experiences linked that in this view, to the best of my knowledge, to the terms that participate in such association; 3) common knowledge types have not been tested recognition of individual knowledge domains is a or operationalised and that given the broad scope syntactic and semantic issue; it is related to who of these independent variables, this paper takes knows what. In terms of perceived context, it the challenge to elaborate on conceptual requires a) the identification of organisational specificity that allows the understanding and stakeholders' roles and b) the identification of a formalisation of an approach to common categorised knowledge domain; 4) integration of knowledge types that contributes to its eventual knowledge in products and services is a operationalisation. In this endeavour, it is pragmatic issue mainly assisted by contextual necessary to understand common knowledge and knowledge. The ontological context continuum their types, but in particular, it is essential to approach to common knowledge does not only achieve a characterisation of the domain in configures a proxy to Grant's (1996) knowledge regards to which "common knowledge" is integration process – the case of the knowledge common. This domain was identified as the exploitation approach; but also it complements organisational context and found that context Carlile's (2004) integrative framework for definition has been admitted as an obvious issue managing knowledge across boundaries when but without adequate explanation. Existing innovation is desired - the case of the knowledge relevant literature reviews regarding approaches exploration approach. Finally, it opens possibilities to context formalisation were considered in order for the elaboration of prescriptive models that to compare, analyse and reclassify the context support the integration of knowledge during approaches. This effort was a search for the routine operations of the organisation. References
Ackoff, R. L. (1989) From Data to Wisdom, Journal of Applies Systems Analysis, Volume 16, pp. 3-9.
Akman, V. and Surav, M. (1996) Steps toward Formalising Context. AI Magazine, 17(3), pp. 55-72.
Akman, V. and Surav, M. (1997) The use of situation theory in context modelling. Computational Intelligence, 13, 3 (1997), 427–
Arias, E. and Fisher, G. (2000) Boundary Objects: Their Role in Articulating the Task at Hand and Making Information Relevant to It. International ICSC Symposium on Interactive and Collaborative Computing (ICC'2000), December. Academic Conferences Ltd William Loyola
Attardi, G. and Simi, M. (1993) A formalisation of viewpoints, TR-93-062, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley. Barwise, J. (1986) Conditionals and Conditional Information. In On Conditionals, eds. E. C. Traugott, C. A. Ferguson, and J. S. Reilly, 21–54. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Bell, D. (1999) The axial age of technology foreword: 1999´. In The Coming of the Post Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books, Special Anniversary Edition, ix-lxxxv. Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, New York. Boisot, M. and Canals, A. (2004) Data, information and knowledge: have we got it right? - Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Volume 14, pp. 43-67. Brézillon, P. (1999) Context in human-machine problem solving: A survey. Knowledge Engineering Review, 14, pp. 1-34. Brézillon, P. (2002) Modelling and Using Context: Past, Present and Future. Research Report LIP6, Université Paris 6, France. Buvac, S., and Mason, I. A. (1993) Propositional Logic of Context. Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Byrne, R. M. J. (1991) Can valid inferences be suppressed? Cognition, 39, pp. 71-78. Byrne, R. M. J., Espino, O., and Santamaria, C. (1998) Context can suppress inferences. In A. C. Quelhas and F. Pereira (Eds.), Cognition and context (pp. 201–214). Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada. Carlile, P (2004) Transferring, Transferring and Transforming: An Integrating Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Organisation Science, Sep/Oct 15, 5, pp. 555. Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. and Benjamins V. (1999) What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 20-26. Clancey, W. J. (1983) "The epistemology of a rule-based expert system: A framework for explanation" Artificial Intelligence Journal 20(3) pp. 197-204. Clark, H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cramton, C. (2001) The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration, Organisation Science, 12 (3), pp. 346-371. Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know. Boston. Harvard Business Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books. Grant, R. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue, Volume 17, pp. 109- Giunchiglia, F. (1993) Contextual Reasoning. Epistemologia (Special Issue on Languages and Machines.) 16, pp. 345–364. Guha, R. V. (1991) Contexts: A Formalisation and Some Applications. Ph.D. diss., Computer Science Department, Stanford Harvey, F. and Chrisman N. (1998) Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology. Environment and Planning, A, 30, pp. 1683-1694. Held, A., Buchholz, S., and Schill, A. (2002) Modelling of context information for pervasive computing applications. In Proceedings of SCI 2002/ISAS. Henricksen, K., Indulska, J., And Rakotonirainy, A. (2003) Generating Context Management Infrastructure from High-Level Context Models. In Industrial Track Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM2003), (Melbourne/Australia, January), pp. 1–6. Krauss, R. and Fussell, S. (1990) Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990. Kuhn, T. (1974) "Second Thoughts on Paradigms", in The Structure of Scientific Theories edited by F. Suppe, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 459-82. March, J. G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organisation Science 2 (1), 71–87. McCarthy, J. (1987) Generality in Artificial Intelligence. Communications of ACM, 30(12), pp.1030-1035. McCarthy, J. (1993) Notes on Formalising Context. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France. pp. 555-560. McCarthy, T. (1994) "Philosophy and critical theory". In McCarthy, T. and Hoy, D.C., Critical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 5- Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Otzturk, P. and Aamodt, A. (1997) Towards a model of context for case-based diagnostic problem solving. In Context-97; Proceedings of the interdisciplinary conference on modelling and using context (Rio de Janeiro, February), pp. 198–208. Pasquier, L, (2000) Raisonnements basés sur le contexte: Contextes procéduralisés, graphes contextuels et schèmes d'action Research Report LIP6 N.2000-010, University Paris 6, France. Pepper, S. (2002) The TAO of Topic Maps [Online], Available: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html [31 Jan 2007]. Polanyi, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Politzer, G. and Braine, M. D. (1991) Responses to inconsistent premises cannot count as suppression of valid inferences. Cognition, 38, pp. 103-108. Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Shannon, C. and Weaver W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communications. University of Illinois Press, Urbana , IL. Schendel, D. 1996. Editor's Introduction to the 1996 Winter Special Issue - Knowledge and the firm. Strategic Management Journal Schilit, B. Adams, N. and Want, R. (1994) Context-aware computing applications. In IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications. Santa Cruz, CA, US. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 2 2007 (203 - 214) Schmidt, A., Beigl, M., and Gellersen, H.-W. (1999) There is more to context than location. Computers and Graphics,23, 6, pp. 893– Schutz, A. (1970) In Wagner (Ed.), On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Shoham, Y. (1991) Varieties of Context. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, ed. V. Lifschitz, 393–408. San Diego, Calif.: Academic. Smith, B. (2003) Preprint version of chapter "Ontology", in Luciano Floridi (ed.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 155-166. Spender, J. (1992) 'Limits to learning from the west'. The International Executive, 34, September/October, pp. 389–410. Star, S. (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. M. Huhns, L. Gasser, eds. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, Menlo Park, CA. Strang, T., Linnhoff-Popien, C. and Frank. K. (2003) Applications of a Context Ontology Language. In Proc. of the International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM 2003). Strang, T. and Linnhoff-Popien C. (2004) A Context Modelling Survey. Paper presented at the UbiComp 2004 Workshop - First International Workshop on Advanced Context Modelling, Reasoning and Management. Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. (2001) What is organisational Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38:7 November. Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M. (1996) "ONTOLOGIES: Principles, Methods and Applications, Knowledge Engineering Review", Vol. 11, Nº 2, pp.93-115. Vasconcelos, J., Kimble, C., Gouveia, F. and Kudenko D. (2000) A Group Memory System for Corporate Knowledge Management: an Ontological Approach. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM'2000). Bled School of Management, Slovenia, October, ISBN: 0 9510066 4 9, pp. 91-99. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Academic Conferences Ltd

Source: http://www.espae.espol.edu.ec/images/documentos/publicaciones/articulos/Comparison_of_Approaches_toward_Formalising_Context.pdf