Ontology-based Evaluation of Organizational Memory

Organizational Memory (OM) is regarded as an imperative implementation for organizations striving for innovation and competitive advantage. Yet, to date, there is no accepted and comprehensive methodology for developing OM. This study attempts to take a first step in this direction by concentrating on the evaluation of OM. We approach this challenge with ontology for the Organizational Memory (OM) domain, i.e., a schema (map) to guide SM design, construction, evolution and evaluation. The top level of the ontology is specified using the new generalized concept of Structural Memory (SM), which is a framework of type (e.g., Organizational Memory and Individual Memory) and component (content and mean) that enable management of knowledge and organizational learning. We present findings from empirical research to establish the claim for the ontology usability in facing the challenge of OM evaluation and design. This ontology is available for organizations maintaining OM as well as those who consider developing one. The potential benefits of this endeavor are with its theoretical grounds and with its empirical proof. The feasibility of our approach is demonstrated in a series of case studies conducted in various organizations in Israel and in Europe. Introduction Organizational Memory (OM) is critical for learning and communication in organizations (Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Te’eni, 2001). However, as evident from several recent reviews of OM and knowledge management, more generally, there is no theoretical foundation to adequately guide the development of OM (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). For one, implementations of OM vary considerably, see for example the different practices found in different industries and subject areas. Additionally, researchers have taken a piece-meal approach in studying and recommending OM development methodologies (Te’eni & Weinberger, 2000). For example, there have been extensive efforts at design (Abecker et al., 1998; Ackerman, 1998; Conklin, 1996; Dieng et al., 1999) but scarce attempts at developing methods for the analysis and evaluation of OM. Motivated by the need for a comprehensive view, we present a framework for the development and evaluation of OM based on domain ontology for OM. Using ontology one can conceptualize entities in some domain, and the relationships between them, to provide domain practitioners with a model of the domain (Chandrasekaran et al., 1999; Frank, 1999; Gruber, 1995). As the interest in implementing OM increased, design and evaluation remained challenges yet to be addressed. Particularly, the process of Organizational Memory evaluation is in need for objects, methods and means – as could be extracted from a grounded theory, represented by semi-formal domain ontology such as the one presented here. We claim that the ontology can be used generically, regardless of industry sector. Our use of the term “Organizational Memory” requires some explanation. The term OM is used for the subject domain. That is to be differentiated from the term Structural Memory that will be introduced hereafter. The ontology discussed here was developed in the frame of reference of a three-staged evaluation model, these stages are: 1. Development and evaluation of a normative Domain Ontology (DO). 2. Development and evaluation of OM ontologies developed in practice, denoted as Actual Ontologies. 3. Comparative evaluation of the DO with actual ontologies. Weinberger, Te’eni, Frank 2 A brief review of these stages will unfold by their order of appearance. As the ontology takes after the literature, knowledge acquisition was based on an exhaustive literature review. Evaluation was motivated at content and at design aspects. Verification of design was facilitated drawing on the OO paradigm, using Information System methods and ontology evaluation criteria. Two criteria were used for validation conceptual coverage and usability, the latter is expanded below. The creation of a DO is necessarily subjective (Fridman Noy & McGuiness, 2001); for this reason the importance of domain ontology evaluation is with its usability, hence the three-staged evaluation driven model. The claim for usability is established using two criteria: competence – established through the development of the ontologies for OM in existing organizations (as described in stage 2), and utility – established by the performance of quantitative and qualitative comparative evaluation (as described in stage 3). Comparative evaluation is required to support the contextualization and validation of conceptualization processes, bridging between two epistemological stances: the first is generic, theoretic, and interdisciplinary – gained through the study of the literature, and the second is social; an organizational epistemology – gained through the exploration of OM in organizations. Going through the description of the ontology development process is maintained using a set of criteria for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in IS suggested by Klein & Myers (1999). The comparative evaluation complements the process demonstrated by the evaluation model. The organization of this paper responds to the challenges noted above. The next section provides a description of the DO. We then describe the practice of ontology development and the comparative evaluation. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations for further research. Domain ontology Theoretically – “The subject of ontology is the study of the categories of things that exist in some domain” (Sowa, 2000); practically, ontology is an explicit specification of conceptualization intended for communication, sharing and reuse (Gruber, 2004). Ontology “necessarily entails or embodies some sort of world view with respect to a Weinberger, Te’eni, Frank 3 given domain” (Uschold & Gruninger, 1996) – especially as ontology development has moved from the artificial intelligence labs to domain experts’ practices (Fridman Noy & McGuinnes, 2001). However, ontology development is yet more a craft than a method (Dieng et al., 1998; Fernandez, 1999; O’Leary, 1998) and, moreover, the problem of ontology evaluation “is one of the most under-developed areas in ontology design” (Fridman Noy, 1997). The ontology described here acknowledges these observations. Following a comprehensive development process and an integrated approach taken at evaluation, it includes a certain worldview to establish its intended use as an OM evaluation tool, designed for human understanding. Development of the OM ontology Motivated by behaviorist perspective, Walsh & Ungson (1991) observed that: “Organizational memory is both an individual and organizational-level construct. Organizational memory refers to stored information from an organization history that can be brought to bear on present decisions” (p. 61). Several years later, Stein & Zwass (1995) brought up the IS dimension stating that OM is: “The means by which knowledge from the past is brought to bear on present activities, thus resulting in higher or lower levels of organizational effectiveness” (p. 18). Other theories have put forward knowledge and Meta knowledge (Te’eni & Schwartz, 1999) and knowledge creation processes (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) – to name a few. The construction of a single ontological tree could therefore be infeasible. Considerations should be explored theoretically as demonstrated by the methods hereby described, and for practicality – as was approached using the examples described. All in all, conceptualization efforts at modeling existing theories were met by epistemological and methodological considerations. These approaches will be described and exemplified through the description of determining the hierarchy of upper-level concepts, to be described hereafter. Epistemological approach. The epistemological approach was established through contextual understanding of the domain. Considering that focus has been shifted from storage to active memory could result in mapping knowledge as leading concept. That would pave way to yet another dilemma – what do tacit and explicit count Weinberger, Te’eni, Frank 4 for: are these entities or attributes? Rather yet, realizing the balance existing between people – individuals and groups alike, to products – content materials and agents, conjoined the tendency to avoid multiple inheritances. For example, such as would result from mapping individual, knowledge or knowledge system to lead the ontology. The pitfalls of this attitude could result in a network of interwoven concepts, which would have dissolved the intention of getting a coherent structure. Methodological approach. The methodological approach entails four stages: (1) specification and Knowledge acquisition, (2) analysis and knowledge structuring, (3) documentation, and (4) evaluation. Each of these stages of developing the ontology involves several methods and techniques. The different methods helped us converge gradually and iteratively towards a more complete ontology. Below are several demonstrations of the methods we used. (1) The whole-part relationship (and the classified or non-classified concepts distinction) (Guarino et al., 1994; Sowa, 1995) has led us to distinguish between Individual Memory (IM) and Organizational Memory (OM) by including IM as part of the OM (these classes are expanded below). (2) Observing related terms (Fernandez et al., 1999) had led to identifying several common types of memory such as OM, corporate memory and enterprise memory. (3) context-specific analysis of concepts (Guarino, 1997), pointed at the difference between multiple (OM) and singular (IM), thus leading to the decision to distinguish between (4) abstract and concrete concepts and between objects and processes (Gruninger & Fox, 1995), These techniques resulted in the upper level of our proposed ontology, as shown in figure 1. Once the upper level was determined, we turned to (5) management of classifiers’ hierarchy (Fridman N