Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:08:13.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONCEPT MAPS COLLABORATIVE CREATION IN PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Daniela Oliveira ,
Mickael Gardoni  and
Kimiz Dalkir
Daniela Oliveira*
Affiliation:
École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Quebec;
Mickael Gardoni
Affiliation:
École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Quebec;
Kimiz Dalkir
Affiliation:
School of Information Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec
*
Oliveira, Daniela, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Quebec, Génie de la production automatisée, Canada, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the greatest challenges of effectively managing knowledge in an organization is promoting seamless connections of operations between departments, the Product Lifecycle Management paradigm. It is also a paradigm that fosters organizational adaptability and quick change in production. Historically, information systems supporting operations have been developed with a specific department's culture in background. Due to this legacy, connecting data, information systems and people across the product lifecycle is an ongoing puzzle for organizations. Theorists and practicians agree on the need to include employees' expertise and vision in this process. However, this involves multiple perspectives and needs that are different but equally valid make. This study explores a tacit knowledge capture tool to be used as a means to voice the interaction and negotiation among employees. Through its influence on ontologies, concept maps collaborative creation can provide a usability tool focused on meaning throughout the product lifecycle. A literature review of the challenges involved and of the proposed tool is presented, followed by a use case and concluded with recommendations drawn from theory and practice.

Keywords

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)Conceptual designOntologiesKnowledge managementGroup consensus
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 721 - 730
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, G., Ward, P. T., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2010). Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma projects: An empirical examination of differential project success. Journal of Operations Management, 28(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arduin, P.-E., Duigou, J. L., Abel, M.-H., & Eynard, B. (2018). Sharing Knowledge When it Cannot be Made Explicit: The Case of Product Lifecycle Management Systems. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations (IJKBO), 8(4), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJKBO.2018100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babish, N. (2019, October 21). How to Learn More About Your Users with a Contextual Inquiry. Shopify. https://www.shopify.ca/partners/blog/contextual-inquiryGoogle Scholar
Banks, Marcus. (2001). Visual methods in social research. SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batenburg, R., Helms, R. W., & Versendaal, J. (2006). PLM roadmap: Stepwise PLM implementation based on the concepts of maturity and alignment. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 1(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLM.2006.011053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (Eds.). (2009). DRM: A Design Reseach Methodology. In DRM, a Design Research Methodology (pp. 13–42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brilhante, V., Macedo, G., & Macedo, S. (2006). Heuristic transformation of well-constructed conceptual maps into owl preliminary domain ontologies. Workshop on Ontologies and Their Applications, WONTO.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 73. Expanded Academic ASAP.Google Scholar
Castro, A. G., Rocca-Serra, P., Stevens, R., Taylor, C., Nashar, K., Ragan, M. A., & Sansone, S.-A. (2006). The use of concept maps during knowledge elicitation in ontology development processes – the nutrigenomics use case. BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1997). The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(3), 595–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/6.3.595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (Third edition). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, N. M. (1999). A theoretical framework of individual learning. In Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively (pp. 13–42). Gower Publishing Limited. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10050478Google Scholar
Eco, U. (1984). Metaphor, Dictionary, and Encyclopedia. New Literary History, 15(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/468855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garshol, L. M. (2004). Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic maps! Making sense of it all. Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551504045856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. V. (1994). Understanding the powerful grouping sense through a unifying classification theory. Knowledge Organization, 21(3), 126–131.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. R., & Lintern, G. (2006). Eliciting and representing the knowledge of experts. Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, D. L., & DuMont, K. (2002). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. In Ecological research to promote social change (pp. 257–289). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, M. F., & Lourdusamy, R. (2018). Ontology mediation method for building multilingual ontologies. International Journal of Information Technology, 10(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-017-0068-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadiri, S. E., & Kiritsis, D. (2015). Ontologies in the context of product lifecycle management: State of the art literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5657–5668. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1052155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kale, V. (2016). Enhancing enterprise intelligence: Leveraging ERP, CRM, SCM, PLM, BPM, and BI. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, H., Pels, H. J., & Silventoinen, A. (2012). Defining the Customer Dimension of PLM Maturity. In Rivest, L., Bouras, A., & Louhichi, B. (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management. Towards Knowledge-Rich Enterprises (pp. 623–634). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermanshahani, S. (2009). IXIA (IndeX-based Integration Approach) A Hybrid Approach to Data Integration [Phd thesis]. Université Joseph-Fourier - Grenoble I.Google Scholar
Kesby, M. (2000). Participatory diagramming as a means to improve communication about sex in rural Zimbabwe: A pilot study. Social Science and Medicine, 50(12), 1723–1741. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00413-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of Focus Groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–121. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanzenberger, M., Sampson, J., Kargl, H., Wimmer, M., Conroy, C., O'Sullivan, D., Lewis, D., Brennan, R., Ramos-Gargantilla, J. Á., & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2008). Making ontologies talk: Knowledge interoperability in the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(6), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, E. H. Y., Liu, J. N. K., & Lee, R. S. T. (2011). Collaborative Content and User-Based Web Ontology Learning System. In Lim, E. H. Y., Liu, J. N. K., & Lee, R. S. T. (Eds.), Knowledge Seeker—Ontology Modelling for Information Search and Management: A Compendium (pp. 181–194). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17916-7_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152. JSTOR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R., Victor, D. G., & Steil, R. R. (2002). Technological Innovation and Economic Performance. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. (2019). Personas—User focused design (Second edition., Vol. 1-1 online resource (ix, 170 pages) : illustrations (some color)). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2009). What is a Concept Map? Cmap. https://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/conceptmap.phpGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, D., Gardoni, M., & Dalkir, K. (2018). Environmental Factors on Concept Maps Design. In Chiabert, P., Bouras, A., Noël, F., & Ríos, J. (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management to Support Industry 4.0 (pp. 25–34). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellini, A., & Jones, H. (2011). Knowledge taxonomies: A literature review.Google Scholar
Pincher, M. (2010). A guide to developing taxonomies for effective data management. Computer Weekly, 8.Google Scholar
Rambo, J., Schendel, C., & Richter, M. (2007). The Use of Concept Mapping to Support Collaborative Advanced Design Projects. DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07.2007, 391-392 (exec. Summ.), full paper no. DS42_P_415.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-M3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheth, A. (1999). Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: From system, syntax, structure to semantics. In Interoperating geographic information systems (pp. 5–29). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheth, A., & Kashyap, V. (1993). So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically). In Hsiao, D. K., Neuhold, E. J., & Sacks-davis, R. (Eds.), Interoperable Database Systems (Ds-5) (pp. 283–312). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-89879-1.50022-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirnov, A., & Shilov, N. (2018). Multi-aspect Ontology for Semantic Interoperability in PLM: Analysis of Possible Notations. In Chiabert, P., Bouras, A., Noël, F., & Ríos, J. (Eds.), Product Lifecycle Management to Support Industry 4.0 (pp. 314–323). Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J. F. (1992). Conceptual graphs as a universal knowledge representation. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-1221(92)90137-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, R. R., & Oliveira, J. M. P. de. (2013). Concept maps as the first step in an ontology construction method. Information Systems, 38(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2012.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1), 111.Google Scholar
Umoquit, M., Tso, P., Burchett, H. E., & Dobrow, M. J. (2011). A multidisciplinary systematic review of the use of diagrams as a means of collecting data from research subjects: Application, benefits and recommendations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umoquit, M., Tso, P., Varga-Atkins, T., O'Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: Defining the use of diagrams in data collection. Qualitative Report, 18(30).Google Scholar
Wognum, P. M., & Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C. (2000). Process and impact of product data management implementation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 33(20), 549–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)38108-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wognum, P. M., & Kerssens-Van Drongelen, I. C. (2005). Process and impact of product data management implementation. International Journal of Product Development, 2(1-2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2005.006666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, J., & Gu, M. (2013). Conceptology: Using Concept Map for Knowledge Representation and Ontology Construction. Journal of Networks, 8(8), 1708–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar