# Dynamical Aspects of Knowledge Evolution

Mieczyslaw Owoc, Pawel Weichbroth

► To cite this version:

Mieczyslaw Owoc, Pawel Weichbroth. Dynamical Aspects of Knowledge Evolution. 5th IFIP International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management (AI4KM), Aug 2017, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. pp.52-65, 10.1007/978-3-030-29904-0_5. hal-02517695

HAL Id: hal-02517695

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02517695

Submitted on 24 Mar 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Dynamical Aspects of Knowledge Evolution

## Tracking Changes in Knowledge Bases

Mieczysław Owoc<fnref n="1" />, Pawel Weichbroth<fnref n="2" />

**Abstract.** Undeniably, in this rapidly changing world some knowledge granules change over time. Tracking these changes seems to be one of the most crucial processes in knowledge management. Every potential change is a result of knowledge adoption and application to solve a given problem or task in particular domains. However, there is a lack of a model that provides an event-driven framework, along with the core adoption process explicitly expressed with related factors, which together serve as an efficient tool to adopt and reuse knowledge on one hand, while on the other, to measure and evaluate the various aspects of knowledge quality and usefulness. This paper aims to fill this gap by introducing a knowledge adoption process and an ontology-aided encapsulation knowledge (OAKE) model. While the former breaks down the tacit adoption process into two explicit sub-processes and measurable factors, the latter exposes knowledge evolution over time by a sequence of recorded events.

**Keywords:** knowledge, dynamics, evolution, adoption, management.

## 1 Introduction

“Tacit, complex knowledge, developed and internalized by the knower over a long period of time, is almost impossible to reproduce in a document or database. Such knowledge incorporates so much accrued and embedded learning that its rules may be impossible to separate from how an individual acts” [1].

Moreover, considering the issue of knowledge reproduction, one could ask: how does knowledge change over time, and what are the origins and reasons of the occurring changes? Similarly, advanced-in-age knowledge has accumulated so

<footnote n="1">¹Wroclaw University of Economics, ul. Komandorska 118/120 Wrocław Poland, mieczyslaw.owoc@ue.wroc.pl.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²WSB University in Gdansk, ul. Grunwaldzka 238A, 80-266 Gdańsk, Poland pweichbroth@wsb.gda.pl.</footnote>
many changes as a result of the cognition of its nature and has been so enriched by
learning that its evolution may be impossible to reconstruct.

Knowledge is a wide and abstract term, which has been the subject of an epis-
temological discussion of western philosophers since times of ancient Greece.
Since the second half of XX century, knowledge has been widely studied in nu-
merous research papers, uncovering many definitions, contexts and phenomena
and in the end leading to a legitimate new scientific discipline, defined as
knowledge management [2,3,4]. For an organization, knowledge has become the
most powerful leverage to achieve a competitive advantage, therefore it is crucial
to effectively manage own resources [5,6,7].

These days, people and machines produce countless volumes of data and in-
formation, consciously and intentionally transformed into knowledge. All of the
aforementioned are important assets in knowledge-driven environments and the
last is by far the most labour- and time-consuming [8,9,10]. In consequence, some
employees spend the majority of their working hours doing manual, high-
demanding intellectual work, supported by computers processing and manipulat-
ing large amounts of data as an input, and producing information or even
knowledge as an output [11,12,13]. As a result, a new concept of an employee was
coined: "a knowledge worker", whose job primarily involves the creation, distri-
bution and application of knowledge [14]. By many, Peter Drucker is credited to
be the first to use this term in his 1959 book, "Landmarks of Tomorrow" [15,16].

Data sets encoded in a computer memory differ in format, size and type. In
general use, there are two primary data formats: binary and text, and four primary
data types: text, drawing, movie and voice. Ordered sequences of characters, im-
ages and spoken words are perceived as explicit and unique information objects.
Here, we can point out objects that are in everyday use, such as documents,
presentations and spreadsheets, email-, voice- and video- messages, and web-
blogs, forums and pages. Each object processed and interpreted by an individual
human mind, applicable and legitimate in a specified environment, where the con-
sequences of the application are known or can be predicted, is considered to be a
knowledge object. All of these objects, gathered and redacted, cleaned and re-
processed, organized and integrated in one consistent repository, along with a user
interface that facilitates SCRUD operations (an acronym for search, create, read
and delete), constitute a unified platform for knowledge workers.

However, knowledge workers are still looking for a comprehensive solution to
manage knowledge in such a manner that it will not only serve as pure technology
but also provide interaction with other humans and available resources [17,18,19].
At present, in the development of knowledge management (KM), to the best of
our knowledge, there is a lack of a consensual framework, or generic process
model, for tracking knowledge evolution; instead, to some extent, each organiza-
tion follows its own set of principles, design criteria and practices in this area.
Most existing frameworks and tools broadly touch the area of KM, and only a few
are targeted specifically at tracking knowledge evolution. This paper aims to fill
this gap by proposing an ontology-aided knowledge encapsulation (OAKE) mod-
el, along with a knowledge cognition model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The literature review is given in Section 2. In Section 3, at first, the knowledge cognition model is introduced followed by the OAKE model. Final conclusions are included in Section 4.

## 2 Literature review

The recent interest in knowledge management (KM), observed both in business and science, is nothing new. Therefore, it is no secret that nowadays, information and communication technologies (ICT) are the basic means to efficiently support every phase of the KM process. However, diverse technologies, such as knowledge management systems, knowledge discovery systems and knowledge-based systems are currently working with different types of knowledge [20,21,22]. In our paper knowledge management is a term for any operations focused on knowledge granulas embracing all typical phases: discovering, registering, transformation and utilization. Another words, KM is a discipline that covers ideas and concepts from a variety of other disciplines, including artificial intelligence, data mining, distributed databases, information systems, intellectual capital and innovation [23,24,25].

Knowledge management is the process of continually managing knowledge of all kinds to meet existing and emerging needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities [26]. From a practical business perspective, it is a deliberate, systematic business optimization strategy that selects, distills, stores, organizes, packages, and communicates information essential to the business of a company in a manner that improves employee performance and corporate competitiveness [27]. In a narrow sense, it can be defined as a set of principles, processes, and techniques leading to the creation, organization, distribution, use and exploitation of knowledge [28,29]. Crucial for the defined paper topic seems to be consideration of the phases directly connected with knowledge dynamics. In the next sections these selected KM operations will be discussed.

### 2.1 Knowledge transformation

There are two basic forms of knowledge: tacit and explicit [30,31]. The former refers to that which is unarticulated, undocumented and held in peoples' heads, while the latter is expressed, structured, codified and accessible for those other than the individuals originating it [32]. Thus, knowledge exists on the spectrum of these extremes and its transformation means moving from one extreme to another [33,34,35].

There are many reasons to engage means to perform knowledge transformation. The same or very similar problems do not need to be solved again – the particular
pieces of knowledge can be reused. Effective reuse is apparently related to the ef-
fectiveness of the organization [36], and is an even more frequent concern when
compared to knowledge creation, being viewed as somehow more important and
difficult to manage [37]. In the theory of knowledge reusability, Markus [38] em-
phasizes the role of knowledge management systems and knowledge repositories,
often called organizational memory systems, in the efficient preservation of “intel-
lectual capital” [39,40,41]. Basically, knowledge transformation process can be
identified with changing of existing knowledge or even with its creation applying
for example process-driven approaches [42,43,44].

## 2.2 Knowledge codification

The codification of knowledge is the process of converting knowledge into a
form in which it can be handled by particular technology to store, transfer and
share it [45]. In addition, it makes knowledge visible, accessible and usable in a
form and a structure meaningful to the user [46]. Note, the knowledge code used
during implementation (moving to a computer memory) is crucial to evaluate its
usefulness and appropriateness. Coded knowledge should have a unique identity
and an adequate form of representation, such as a rule, a decision table or tree, a
model for problem solving and case-based reasoning or a knowledge map. To
store and disseminate knowledge across an organization, various IT technologies,
such as databases [47], intranets [48,49] and business intelligence tools, are usual-
ly put into action [50,51,52]. In such a context the codification phase can be con-
sidered as the supporting operation of knowledge transformation but stressing its
more technological nature [53,54,55].

## 2.3 Knowledge adoption and reuse

Knowledge adoption concerns an internalization phase of organizational
knowledge transfer [56], in which explicit information is transformed into inter-
nalized knowledge and meaning [57]. In general, adoption usually begins with the
recognition of the need for information, then moves to searching in possessed re-
positories, next to the initial decision to accept the received information, followed
by validation in practice, and ending with absorption. On the other hand,
knowledge provides the means to analyze and understand data and information
[58,59,60], delivering the circumstances for an internal agreement between what
we know and what we want to know.

The process of knowledge reuse consists of the following phases: capturing,
packaging, distributing and reusing [38,61]. In the human mind, the latter involves
both recall and recognition, while the former concerns information attributes, such
as: the author, the date of creation, the representation form, and eventually the
storage location. Moreover, the latter tries to determine the relevance degree of the incoming information, and possibly append it to pending knowledge to be applied again [62].

Retained and reused knowledge can improve project management capabilities [63], support managers in the decision-making process [64,65,66] and guide the product design [67]. To be innovative and develop novel products and services, organizations need to gain knowledge of both external and internal worlds [68,69]. To achieve these ends, the principal goal should be to focus on tracking changes occurring in internal bodies of knowledge.

# 3. Ontology-Aided Knowledge Encapsulation Model

All the mentioned knowledge phases are crucial in the created models supporting its dynamicity. In order to define a concept useful in modelling dynamical aspects of knowledge important assumptions should be declared. The name of the elaborated model comes from a conscious merger of the major concepts involved. Though the first term – ontology-aided may be unquestionable, while the term – encapsulation needs to tell a brief story. By definition, data and any appropriate operations should be grouped together i.e. encapsulated, and the implementation details of both should be hidden from the users [70]. A similar assumption was made in the elaborated model, where an operation is featured by an event. To implement the TBox part of the ontology, i.e. terminological knowledge declared as axioms and defined by a set of concepts and roles (the global axioms and core taxonomy), the Cognitum Ontorion system was used with the built-in capability of English semi-natural language support [55,71].

This section begins with a description of the prior model, which provides the operational foundation for the later model.

## 3.1 *The knowledge adoption model*

Knowledge adoption has been defined in many different ways. Beesley and Cooper [72] defined it as “identification of new products, services, markets, or processes”, while Brown [73] as “the means through which policy-makers digest, accept then ‘take on board’ research finding”. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of them does not reflect the general idea laying behind the nature of the process. Thus, for us, knowledge adoption means the acceptance of the state about the way things are and how they work, followed by the confirmation and judgment of its significance and value in the frame of present context and individual beliefs [31,74].

These two actions we have previously defined as verification and evaluation – both included to more universal term: validation, respectively [12,75]. For others,
the former refers to reaching an agreement over the meaning of a term [76], involving concept matching and relation comparison [77,78], while the latter refers to the evaluation of quality and usefulness [79,80].

In terms of knowledge verification, three factors have been distinguished: adequacy, completeness and consistency [81]. The first factor corresponds to the degree of applicability or relevance to a given problem or task, the second refers to the degree to which the knowledge for completing a task or making a decision is passable and available, and the third refers to the degree of a logical match between the object and the content. In terms of knowledge evaluation, two factors have been identified: reliability and effectiveness. Both factors concern some kind of knowledge assessment, while the former reflects a degree of agreement to self-beliefs and experience, the latter refers to the outcomes of the applied knowledge.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. The model of the knowledge adoption process (KAP)</figcaption></figure>

These general factors can be expanded and elucidated in the form of interpretable numeric, logic or fuzzy metrics, to an extent appropriate to the context and the size of the knowledge object. If some errors, obstacles and constraints are observed, a need for change in a body of knowledge occurs.

## 3.2. The OAKE model

The objective is neither to introduce a model which outlines all possible phases, tasks or relationships underlying the knowledge evolution process, nor to set up a strict list of guidelines to follow which positively affect organizational performance. Instead, the model highlights a few major factors that can expose the origins of and reasons for the occurred changes in particular bodies of knowledge over time (Fig. 2).

The aim of building the model is to capture changes in such a way that allows us to query and infer from the gathered knowledge. It is based on the observations
collected from a requirements elicitation project for virtual on-line agents, where different groups of stakeholders, during the development of the knowledge base, reported heterogeneous requests to include itemized changes, often comparable or self-conflicting.

Each change is represented by a unique event, performed by a knowledge worker on the knowledge object. The notion of a single event is structured and formalized in the form of an ontology that provides a common understanding of performed operations and perceived observations.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. The OAKE Model</figcaption></figure>

Each single event object has a unique identifier and occurrence date, both automatically generated by the system. A knowledge worker inputs the subject that should generally reflect the idea laying beyond the event. Next, a type of performed operation on the knowledge object is selected, where a set of five options are available in multiple choice (apply, modify, read, run, print). The degree of priority, applicability and relevance are assigned, where each can be defined as low, medium or high. Next, a knowledge worker points to what degree (void, partially, complete) he found a solution to a problem or a task in the particular knowledge object and, if necessary, can also add a comment and attach a file. The event object is connected through two separate relations with the knowledge object and the knowledge worker.

The knowledge object has a name that, specified by a user, should reflect its content in general terms, as well as an accurate type in which the information is encoded for storage in a computer file. The creation date is a predefined property that corresponds to the date of the first version, while the last modified property shows the date where the last changes were made. A built-in mechanism provides unique version numbers for unique states of knowledge objects, assigned in increasing order to new developments.
The knowledge worker is identified by their first and second name and may play two different roles: an author (a creator) of the knowledge object, responsible for the quality of its content by admission and including incoming changes, or a user who simply utilizes available knowledge objects in the decision-making processes.

The history of changes is not visible in the knowledge object; however, they are stored in the ABox part of the ontology. This mirror of knowledge evolution over time facilities various evaluations which contribute to the refinement of existing knowledge and to the production of new knowledge. A concept of implementation of changes is demonstrated in the next section.

## 4. Knowledge dynamics

The capture of ontology changes is triggered by either [82]:

* changes in the domain,

* changes in the shared conceptualization,

* changes in the ontology specification.

The first type is known from the area of the database schema versioning. Domain evolution, reflected and described by the changes, concern seven different facets [83]:

* heterogeneous instances: over time different occurrences of the same value have different meanings in a domain extension; for instance, if the organization merge or split departments, then the preserved naming represent a different set of resources (e.g. employees, faculties);

* cardinality changes: in particular, cardinality relationships between domains might also change over time; in other words, the number of occurrences in one entity which are associated to the number of occurrences in another are not always constant; for example, a 1-to-n relationship between departments and facilities may be changed to m-to-n as a result of new legal regulations;

* granularity transition: from existing population values, having different granularity, might be added to a domain extension; for instance, the numeration of rooms or buildings might be changed due to the merge or acquisition [84,85];

* encoding changes: particular values might have also encoded meaning, which neither is known, nor provided elsewhere; for example, the naming of projects successfully delivered are eventually different from the others (failed, cancelled, etc.; see [86]);

* time zone and unit differences: organization sites use local time zone and units which globally differ; thus directly comparing such values may be irrelevant;

* identifier changes: the organization needs changes over time; as a consequence the indexing strategies may also change over time, leading in parallel or overlapping naming schemas; for instance, the codes of the products, previously 4-
digits numbers, now having additional 6 zeros, are different for both the users
and IT systems;

* field recycling: in some systems it is difficult or even infeasible to alter certain database properties; in this case there might be a need to shrink the database or even implement a new instance with a different naming schema, replacing the existing ones; for example, a company might shift from hierarchical to a matrix structures, remodeling data structures [87,88,89].

The second type of the source of the ontology changes concern the assumption
of the static nature of the shared conceptualization. Nowadays, it is at least naive
to define specification in terms of the fixed settings, undeniably constant over
time. On the contrary, many studies describe ontologies as dynamic networks of
meaning [90,91,92].

Eventually, the third type is associated with ontology encoding, which may
vary in types and formats. Along with ontology evolution, engineers are currently
facing also the issue of merging ontologies [93,94,95].

In order to tracking of changes ontology presented in the OAKE model we re-
duce list of objects (Fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig.3. Initial stage of the partially incorporated OAKE model</figcaption></figure>

The most important objects are placed in the Figure; previously defined rela-
tionships are actual: Knowledge, Domains and Solutions. Assuming changes in
the Domains the discussed ontology is presented in Fig.4.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig.4. Final stage of the partially incorporated OAKE model</figcaption></figure>

List of the defined categories has been extended as a result of knowledge dy-
namics; next specimens appeared in case of Domains and Solutions and particular
relationships mapped these new items. Comparing gradually appearing versions of
ontology we are able to monitor knowledge dynamics supporting new solutions
and taking into account new domains.

**5. Conclusions**

This paper introduces two models which bring a contribution to the discipline of knowledge management. Both are the effect of broadly self-conducted research and participation in other research projects, supported by a critical analysis of literature, narrowed down to major concepts and those highly related with the discussed subject.

The OAKE model, presented here, incorporates events with knowledge objects and workers, and exposes knowledge evolution over time on one hand, while on the other hand, is a baseline to measure and evaluate the various aspects of knowledge quality and usefulness.

The knowledge cognition model breaks down the tacit cognition process into
two explicit sub-processes and measurable factors. It is, ipso facto, an attempt to
unambiguously generalize the spectrum of cognitive processes inherently pro-
cessed in an individual human mind.

A retrospective view of the elaborated models gives the impression that each of
them can be independently adopted to any extent and in any application domain.
However, both only embody general concepts with a high degree of abstraction,
but not biased at any level, and can be further extended and attributed, eventually
providing a framework to adopt and reuse knowledge with support for event-based
tracking of changes.
References

[1] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

[2] Jakubczyc, J., Mercier-Laurent, E., & Owoc, M. L. (1999). What is Knowledge Management. Baborski A.(Ed.). Research Papers of Wrocław Economic Academy, (815).

[3] Michalik, K. (2014). Systemy ekspertowe we wspomaganiu procesów zarządzania wiedzą w organizacji. Prace Naukowe/Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach.

[4] Durst, S., & Zieba, M. (2018). Mapping knowledge risks: towards a better understanding of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1–13.

[5] Kuah, C. T., Wong, K. Y., & Tiwari, M. K. (2013). Knowledge sharing assessment: An ant colony system based data envelopment analysis approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(8), 3137–3144.

[6] Mercier-Laurent, E., Rousseaux, F., & Haddad, R. (2018). Preventing and facing new crisis and risks in complex environments. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 17(2), 148–170.

[7] Przysucha, Ł. (2015). Content Management Systems Based on GNU GPL License as a Support of Knowledge Management in Organizations and Business. In IFIP International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management, 51–65. Springer.

[8] Pondel, M., & Korczak, J. (2018). Collective Clustering of Marketing Data-Recommendation System Upsaily. In: 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 801–810. IEEE.

[9] Przysucha, Ł. Knowledge management in corporations–synergy between people and technology. Barriers and benefits of implementation. In International Co-located Conferences.

[10] Owoc, M., & Hołowińska, K. (2018). Differentiation of supporting methods of business informatics teaching offered by selected educational portals. Informatyka Ekonomiczna, 48(2), 54–66. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.

[11] Gołuchowski, J. (1997). Inteligentne systemy diagnoz ekonomicznych. Prace Naukowe/Akademia Ekonomiczna w Katowicach.

[12] Owoc, M. L. (2004). Wartościowanie wiedzy w inteligentnych systemach wspomagających zarządzanie. Prace Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu. Seria: Monografie i Opracowania 100 (1047).

[13] Hernes, M. (2016). Using Cognitive Agents for Unstructured Knowledge Management in a Business Organizations Integrated Information System. In: Asian Conference on Intelligent Information and Database Systems, 344–353.

[14] Kayakutlu, G., & Mercier-Laurent, E. (2012). From Knowledge worker to Knowledge Cultivator-effective dynamics. In Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1149–1153.

[15] Davenport, T. H. (2008). Improving knowledge worker performance. In From Strategy to Execution, 215–235. Springer.

[16] Weichbroth, P., & Brodnicki, K. (2017). The lemniscate knowledge flow model. In: Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1217–1220. IEEE. http://doi.org/10.15439/2017F357

[17] Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2015). Public space design of knowledge and innovation spaces: learnings from Kelvin Grove Urban Village, Brisbane. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 13.

[18] Kuciapski, M. (2017). A model of mobile technologies acceptance for knowledge transfer by employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1053–1076.

[19] Przysucha, L. (2019). Information management in the Smart City-electronic tools facilitating the management of the metropolitan area. In 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Mechanical and Intelligent Manufacturing Technologies (ICMIMT), 189–193. IEEE.
[20] Sanin, C., & Szczerbicki, E. (2007). Towards the construction of decisional DNA: A set of experience knowledge structure java class within an ontology system. Cybernetics and Systems, 38(8), 859–878.

[21] Czarnecki, A., & Sitek, T. (2013). Ontologies vs. Rules—Comparison of Methods of Knowledge Representation Based on the Example of IT Services Management. Information Systems Architecture and Technology: Intelligent Information Systems, Knowledge Discovery, Big Data and High Performance Computing, 99–109.

[22] Jarzębowicz, A., & Markiewicz, S. (2019). Representing Process Characteristics to Increase Confidence in Assurance Case Arguments. In International Conference on Dependability and Complex Systems, 245–255. Springer.

[23] Hauke, K., Owoc, M. L., & Pondel, M. (2002). Drążenie danych w środowisku Oracle 9i. Prace Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu, (955 Nowoczesne technologie informacyjne w zarządzaniu), 315–330.

[24] Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47–58.

[25] Ouriques, R. A. B., Wnuk, K., Gorschek, T., & Svensson, R. B. (2019). Knowledge management strategies and processes in agile software development: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 29(03), 345–380.

[26] Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385–391.

[27] Bergeron, B. (2003). Essentials of knowledge management, vol. 28. John Wiley & Sons.

[28] Barbaroux, P., Attour, A., & Schenk, E. (2016). Knowledge Management and Innovation: Interaction, Collaboration, Openness. John Wiley & Sons.

[29] Marcinkowski, B., & Gawin, B. (2016). Project Management in International IT Ventures—Does the Practice Go Hand in Hand with Theory?. In EuroSymposium on Systems Analysis and Design, 144–152. Springer.

[30] Polanyi M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

[31] Owoc, M., Weichbroth, P., & Żuralski, K. (2017). Towards better understanding of context-aware knowledge transformation. In: Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1123–1126. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.15439/2017F383

[32] Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.

[33] Kapłanski, P., & Weichbroth, P. (2015). Cognitum Ontorion: Knowledge representation and reasoning system. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 27–43. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47208-9_3

[34] Kapłański, P., Seganti, A., Cieśliński, K., Chrabrowa, A., & Ługowska, I. (2017). Automated reasoning based user interface. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 125-137.

[35] Olszak, C., & Mach-Król, M. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing an Organization's Readiness to Adopt Big Data. Sustainability, 10(10), 3734.

[36] Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard Business School Press.

[37] Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 179–212.

[38] Markus, L. M. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 57–93.

[39] Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of intellectual capital, 1(2), 155–176.

[40] Rozkwitalska, M. (2017). Employee learning in intercultural interactions-grounded theory. In: 10th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business.
[41] Leja, K., & Karwowska, E. (2017). Tworzenie sieci współpracy uczelni z otoczeniem przy wykorzystaniu zamówień przedkomercyjnych na przykładzie projektu e-Pionier. e-mentor, 2 (69), 4–13.

[42] Paralič J., Babič F., Paralič M (2013). Process-driven Approaches to Knowledge Transformation. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica Vol. 10(5).

[43] Marcinkowski, B., & Gawin, B. (2019). A study on the adaptive approach to technology-driven enhancement of multi-scenario business processes. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 118–146.

[44] Barafort, B., Shrestha, A., Cortina, S., & Renault, A. (2018). A software artefact to support standard-based process assessment: Evolution of the TIPA framework in a design science research project. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 60, 37–47.

[45] Jawadekar, W. (2010). Knowledge Management: Text & Cases. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

[46] Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2004). Knowledge management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

[47] Goluchowski, J. (2007). Technologie informatyczne w zarządzaniu wiedzą w organizacji. Prace Naukowe. Akademia Ekonomiczna w Katowicach.

[48] Fazlagić, J., Sikorski, M., & Sala, A. (2014). Portale intranetowe. Zarządzanie wiedzą, kapitał intelektualny, korzyści dla pracowników i dla organizacji. Politechnika Gdańska, Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii.

[49] Sikorski, M., Ludwiszewski, B., Fazlagic, J., & Sala, A. (2015). The Impact of Intranet Portals on Knowledge Management in Contemporary Organizations. Problemy Zarzadzania, 13(52), 101–112.

[50] Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2006). Business intelligence systems in the holistic infrastructure development supporting decision-making in organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 1, 47–59.

[51] Matouk, K., & Owoc, M. L. (2012). A survey of data warehouse architectures—Preliminary results. In Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1121–1126). IEEE.

[52] Olszak, C. M. (2016). Toward Better Understanding and Use of Business Intelligence in Organizations. Information Systems Management, 33(2), 105–123.

[53] Kapłański, P. (2011). Controlled English interface for knowledge bases. Studia Informatica, 32(2A), 485–494.

[54] Kapłański, P. (2012). Ontology-aided software engineering. PhD thesis. Gdańsk University of Technology.

[55] Wróblewska, A., Kapłański, P., Zarzycki, P., & Ługowska, I. (2013). Semantic rules representation in controlled natural language in FluentEditor. In 2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI), 90–96. IEEE.

[56] Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65.

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

[58] Paliszkiewicz, J. (2007). Knowledge Management: an Integrative View and Empirical Examination. Cybernetics and Systems, 38(8), 825–836.

[59] Weichbroth, P., Owoc, M., & Pleszkun, M. (2012) Web user navigation patterns discovery from WWW server log files. In 2012 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1171–1176. IEEE.

[60] Aviad, A., & Węcel, K. (2019). Cyber Treat Intelligence Modeling. In International Conference on Business Information Systems, 361–370. Springer.

[61] Efthymiou, K., Sipsas, K., Mourtzis, D., & Chryssolouris, G. (2015). On knowledge reuse for manufacturing systems design and planning: A semantic technology approach. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 8, 1–11.

[62] Qin, H. (2016). Design Knowledge Capture and Reuse in an Integrated and Collaborative Working Environment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth.
[63] Owen, J., Burstein, F., & Mitchell, S. (2004). Knowledge Reuse and Transfer in a Project Management Environment. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4), 21–35.

[64] Sanin, C., & Szczerbicki, E. (2007). Dissimilar sets of experience knowledge structure: A negotiation process for decisional DNA. Cybernetics and Systems, 38(5-6), 455–473.

[65] Shafiq, S. I., Sanin, C., Szczerbicki, E., & Toro, C. (2016). Virtual engineering factory: Creating experience base for industry 4.0. Cybernetics and Systems, 47(1-2), 32–47.

[66] Waris, M. M., Sanin, C., & Szczerbicki, E. (2016). Toward smart innovation engineering: decisional DNA-based conceptual approach. Cybernetics and Systems, 47(1-2), 149–159.

[67] Baxter, D., Gao, J., & Rajkumar, R. (2008). Design process knowledge reuse challenges and issues. Computer Aided Design And Applications, 5(6), 942–952.
http://doi.org/10.3722/cadaps.2008.942-952

[68] Gawin, B., & Marcinkowski, B. (2018). IT solutions integration: technical and organizational challenges. In: International conference on ICT management for global competitiveness and economic growth in emerging economies, 111–123. University of Wrocław.

[69] Kowal, J., Keplinger, A., & Mäkiö, J. (2019). Organizational citizenship behavior of IT professionals: lessons from Poland and Germany. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 227–249.

[70] Teufel, B. (1991). Data Encapsulation. In Organization of Programming Languages, 109–135. Vienna: Springer Vienna. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-9186-6.

[71] Weichbroth, P. (2019). Fluent Editor and Controlled Natural Language in Ontology Development. (In Print).

[72] Beesley, L. G., & Cooper, C. (2008). Defining knowledge management (KM) activities: towards consensus. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 48–62.

[73] Brown, C. (2013). Critique and complexity: presenting a more effective way to conceptualise the knowledge adoption process. London Review of Education, 11(1), 32–45.

[74] Pelc, M. (2014). Context-aware fuzzy control systems. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 24(05), 825-856.

[75] Owoc, M., & Weichbroth, P. (2012). Validation model for discovered web user navigation patterns. In: IFIP International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54897-0_3

[76] Anjum, N., Harding, J., Young, R., Case, K., Usman, Z., & Changoora, T. (2013). Verification of knowledge shared across design and manufacture using a foundation ontology. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6534–6552.

[77] Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Ontology-based empirical knowledge verification for professional virtual community. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(5), 555–586.

[78] Korczak, J., Dudycz, H., Nita, B., & Oleksyk, P. (2017). Towards process-oriented ontology for financial analysis. In 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 981–987. IEEE.

[79] Durcikova, A., & Gray, P. (2009). How knowledge validation processes affect knowledge contribution. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 81–108.

[80] Dudycz, H. (2013). Mapa pojęć jako wizualna reprezentacja wiedzy ekonomicznej. Monografie i Opracowania Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, (229).

[81] Nguyen, T. A., Perkins, W. A., Laffey, T. J., & Pecora, D. (1987). Knowledge-base verification. AI magazine, 8(2), 69–75.

[82] Klein, M. C., & Fensel, D. (2001). Ontology versioning on the Semantic Web. In SWWS, 75–91.

[83] Ventrone, V. (1991). Semantic heterogeneity as a result of domain evolution. ACM SIGMOD Record, 20(4), 16–20.

[84] Mach, M. A., & Owoc, M. L. (2010). Knowledge granularity and representation of knowledge: Towards knowledge grid. In International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing, 251–258. Springer.

[85] Jakubczyc, J. A., & Owoc, M. L. (2011). Contextual knowledge granularity. In: Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE), 259–268.
[86] Redlarski, K. (2018). Hard Lessons Learned: A Model that Facilitates the Selection of Methods of IT Project Management. In Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 979–983. IEEE.

[87] Berztiss, A. T. (1995). Reverse engineering, reengineering, and concurrent engineering of software. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 5(02), 299–324.

[88] Prackwieser, C., Buchmann, R., Grossmann, W., & Karagiannis, D. (2014). Overcoming heterogeneity in business process modeling with rule-based semantic mappings. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 24(08), 1131–1158.

[89] Owoc, M., Hauke, K., & Weichbroth, P. (2015). Knowledge-Grid Modelling for Academic Purposes. In: IFIP International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management, 1–14. Springer.

[90] Fensel, D. (2001). Ontologies: Dynamic networks of formally represented meaning. Vrije University: Amsterdam.

[91] Lemoisson, P., & Cerri, S. (2005). Interactive knowledge construction in the collaborative building of an encyclopedia. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(9-10), 933–966.

[92] Klein, O., & Tamásy, C. (2016). The ambivalence of geographic origin effects: evidence from the globalizing pork industry. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 60(3), 134–148.

[93] Kothari, C. R., & Russomanno, D. J. (2008). Enhancing OWL ontologies with relation semantics. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 18(03), 327–356.

[94] Flahive, A., Taniar, D., Rahayu, W., & Apduhan, B. O. (2009). Ontology tailoring in the Semantic Grid. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 31(5), 870–885.

[95] Maree, M., & Belkhatir, M. (2015). Addressing semantic heterogeneity through multiple knowledge base assisted merging of domain-specific ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems, 73, 199–211.