BEOM - практический способ создания конкретных онтологий для конкретного предприятия
Boris Shvedina
a Dun Rose Ltd.
bshvedin@dunrose.ru
bshvedin@dunrose.ru
Introduction
When Lord of God wants to punish a person, He deprives him of reason. Can we continue this thought and transpose it to the organization, social beings? When Lord of God wants to punish the organization or enterprise, He deprives them of the mind?
All social structures are the person-maded beings, and appear as products of the process of social evolution. Therefore of decisive importance is the quality of the design of the social structure in general and the their "brain" in particular.
One of the decisive conditions for survival of the social organism is its ability to organize, store and transmit own experiences and thus provide proactive behavior in the environment of the organization. Design of experience inheritance systems named QuaSy - is an attempt to create a virtual "brain" of the organization. And if a person has a material carrier of experience, this is his brain, social organizm of such a tangible carrier of his own experience does not have up to now.
All social structures are the person-maded beings, and appear as products of the process of social evolution. Therefore of decisive importance is the quality of the design of the social structure in general and the their "brain" in particular.
One of the decisive conditions for survival of the social organism is its ability to organize, store and transmit own experiences and thus provide proactive behavior in the environment of the organization. Design of experience inheritance systems named QuaSy - is an attempt to create a virtual "brain" of the organization. And if a person has a material carrier of experience, this is his brain, social organizm of such a tangible carrier of his own experience does not have up to now.
Corporate information systems QuaSy, built on the basis of the ontological model BEOM, acquire a totally new mission for management information systems (MIS), they become a tool that allows you to organize, to store and to structure the experience of a singular specific company or organization.
1. Business Entity Ontological Model
(BEOM)
1.1.
Enterprise
Ontology
In contrast to the ontology of the material world, or, in other words, in contrast to the inanimate world ontology, the ontology of social systems is more complex, as is directly related to human activity. In particular, this applies to the enterprise ontology. Under the well-known study "Enterprise Project" enterprise ontology is defined as a set of terms and definitions relevant to business. Conceptually, Enterprise Ontology is divided into several main sections. The fact that the concept of activity is central. Mike Uschold, Martin King, Stuart Moralee and Janis Zorgios (1998 [1].
It turns out in the form of terms and
definitions collection. If ontology is
theory of being we cannot initially represent ontology only as a mosaic
of elements and sections. It is necessary to offer a concept (theory) that can
collect all of them together.
In 2006 has
appeared the book by Jan Dietz «Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology» [2].
The author offers non-standard understanding of the enterprise ontology.
Enterprise is considered as heterogeneous system in the category of social
systems. In turn, social system means that its elements are social individuals,
subjects (doers) of activity.
At the heart of the
offered approach to understanding of enterprise ontology so-called y - theory lies. The name y - theory is deciphered on the basis of the
Greek letter y pronunciation
in the English transcription PSI (Performance in Social Interaction). Base
theoretical paradigm of y -
theory consists of four axioms and one theorem. Uniting role in enterprise
formation belongs to people.
In practice it is
one of the first most successful attempts to construct independent complete
conceptual meta-model for description of the enterprise activity, based on the
interdiscipline approach. Though it does not have comprehensive methodological integrity and it is
theoretically fragmentary, it is, undoubtedly, a step forward in comparison
with understanding of enterprise ontology as a collections of terms,
definitions and notions.
As it seems, we
should co-ordinate consideration of practical application of enterprise
ontology with activity analysis of
numerous developers of applied information systems for enterprises. Each
developer, from such leaders as SAP, IBM, ORACLE to less large and less known
companies, try to create unique applied ontology by their own means or by using
of experts from outside, it doesn't matter if they use the name «enterprise
ontology» for their work or not. Therefore in the majority of cases we have to
deal with latent ontologies.
Quite often
developers call these concepts subject domain model, problem statement, etc.
Sometimes such ontologies are explicited, but more often not. In most cases
only a superficial description of concept is offered, at the best a post
factum, as developers believe that existence of the information system created
by them is already the unconditional proof of implicit existence of concept
itself, or at least applied ontology that is the same. However exhaustive
verbal or graphic articulation of applied ontology is critically necessary.
As one of possible directions of enterprise
ontology development we are offered “QuaSy ontology” which is theory and
practice of BEOM creation and is based
on experientology and the Systemic- Situational Analysis of Activity (SSAA). [3]
[4]BEOM is a special type of ontological model like a certain object language,
like some kind of a conceptual matrix that allows us to seize and structure
activity of various organizational structures.
1.2. Types of ontological models of enterprise
The ontological model of business object or
enterprise - BEOM (Business Entity Ontological Model) is a model of the
organization of activity of the concrete enterprise.
The ontological model
of information system - ISOM (Information System Ontological Model) is the
holistic model of information system of a concrete singular enterprise. On the
one hand, ISOM is built and developed on the basis of BEOM, and on the basis of
available modern software technologies on other hand. ISOM includes both
substantiation of information system architecture as a whole and its separate
modules (components), ways and principles of their integration, and also
substantiation of data structure model and data exchange concept.
Components
of ISOM are: Firstly, Data Model and Data structure. Often in computer sciences are used similar terms:
metadata, or master-data. Secondly, Model and structure of interfaces for
access to data and reports. Thirdly, Model and structure of basic and auxiliary
(infrastructural, or service) algorithms used for construction of reports,
carrying out of conditions analysis, and also providing support of
decision-making processes.
The
ontological model of technological infrastructure - TIOM (Technological
Infrastructure Ontological Model) is the holistic model of technological
environment (infrastructure) of a particular developing enterprise that is
based on ISOM requirements. It includes ground of technical equipment choice,
from configuration of computers themselves to connection systems, information
networks, communication and safety systems. A particular technological
infrastructure of a particular enterprise built on the basis of TIOM must provide
reliable and uninterrupted work of enterprise information system itself.
1.3.
Definition of BEOM
The ontological model of enterprise BEOM
(Business Entity Ontological Model) is the holistic dynamically evolving model
of an alive particular individual enterprise, allowing to organize, structure,
accumulate and transfer experience of its life activity in particular
situations and to provide self-management,
survival and adaptive behavior in the environment during all life cycle.
BEOM is oppositional to fragmentary model of conglomerate of detached business
processes by which we usually are trying to describe enterprise behavior. [5]
As the synonymic notions, word combinations and
abbreviations further there will be used: BEOM, ontological model of
enterprise.
Architecture of BEOM is consist from two
compound parts organically connected with each other. Firstly, it is finite set of its principal elements. Actually BEOM is built
out of these elements. It is some kind of "genom" of ontological
model. Each particular enterprise can has different content for these
elements, moreover every singular
enterprise can has a unique combination
of these elements, but their finite set and typological structure will be the
same. Main structure-forming elements of BEOM are: subjects (doers) of business
activity, objects of business activity, tasks of business activity and
relations of business activity.
Secondly, it is an ontological coordinates of BEOM where ontological
model exists and develops. In other words it is possible to name them auxiliary,
or meta-structural elements, they are: space, time, ontological classifier
PECAD, and also technologies of substantial and infrastructural naming.
1.4.
Kinds
of BEOM
Typology
of ontological models can be constructed by means of analysis of level and degree
of generalization (stereotypization) of
experience reflected by them, and also dependently from
kinds of activity that are described by them. We distinguish the
following kinds of ontological models: Meta-BEOM; Domain BEOM or sectorial
BEOM; Specific or unique singular BEOM.
· Meta-BEOM is understood as
top-level ontology for all possible existing enterprises and wider for
organizations as such. It is ontological model of an abstract enterprise, or
meta-enterprise. Meta-BEOM is an typological model of a generalized enterprise
or organization. Meta-BEOM carry highly generalized, and deeply preserved
experience received from all set of the researched enterprises.
· Domain BEOM or sectoral BEOM is
the ontological model of the average level.
Sectoral models reflect generalized, preserved experience in set of the
surveyed enterprises or organizations in a particular sphere or industry. They
can belong to various industries, agriculture etc. As separate sectors we can
consider activity of official bodies, state organizations, authorities and also
military domain.
· Specific or unique singular BEOM
is the ontological model of a particular individual enterprise or organization. It reflects and articulates
structured, preserved experience of a particular individual enterprise or
organization.
· Significant to note that
structurally and typologically all the three kinds of ontological models
coincide. Their semantic matrixes are isomorphic. These three kinds of
ontological models differ only with a content.
· Structuring and generalization of
experience open new possibilities for its transferring not only at sectoral,
but also at intersectorial level.
1.5.
Basic
Elements of BEOM
1.5.1. BEOM: Subjects of Activity
Subject
(doer) of activity is an individual or a group, who (or that) cognize, thinks
and operates. Doer of activity. Subject of activity is a source and carrier of
action and experience. Subjects of activity are people (employees) and/or
organizational structures (set of enterprises, separate enterprises, structural
departments of an enterprise or an organization, etc.). Subjects of activity are active elements
(components) of ontological model possessing an ability for purposeful
organized activity. They possess intentionality. Only subjects of activity are
able to set and fulfill tasks. Subject of activity can have rather complex
structure, and in turn include other subjects. For example, to manage a project
as extremely complex hierarchic meta-task consisting of other sub-tasks,
temporary cross-functional command can be created acting as a subject of
activity. In BEOM have represented various typologies and classifications of
subjects of activity.
1.5.2. BEOM: Objects of Activity
Objects of activity are passive elements of ontological model. Objects
of activity can be: main assets, buildings, constructions, machines, computers,
etc., various materials used in production of goods, for example, metal, wood,
grain, etc., also finished products as result of manufacturing. Besides, non-material assets can be objects
of activity.
1.5.3. BEOM: Tasks of Activity
Structuring
of business , construction of unified
complete model of enterprise assumes splitting of business into tasks.
Constructing consistent, complete, and interconnected tree of tasks for an
enterprise is not a trivial problem at all. We name such tree the
Mereotopological Tree of Tasks (MTT).
The term
mereotopology was introduced into formal ontology by Barry Smith in 1996. [6] Mereotopology
is considered by him as formal theory uniting mereology (the doctrine about
parts and whole) and topology (relations between parts and whole).
Mereotopological
Tasks Tree - (MTT) is the unified, organically complete three-dimensional
heterogeneous architecture of tasks, reflecting their vertically and
horizontally oriented articulation and also all possible ontologically
significant relations between tasks.
1.5.4. BEOM: Relations of Activity
Relations
of activity are those links that form between subjects (doers) of activity in
process of concrete tasks fulfilling in certain conditions. Relations of
activity "curdle", concentrate, and preserve in different extent in
norms, regulations, contracts and organization structures. Relations of
activity are divided into relations of external and internal activity.
Relations
of internal activity. As norms and rules here can be a system of exactly
formulated and articulated positions and concepts and/or finished models of
logistics as a part of organization technologies providing interaction between
various participants of internal activity during fulfilling of various tasks.
Both norms and rules are always connected with a certain task (tasks) and serve
it.
Relations
of external activity. They are those relations that form between subjects
(doers) of activity outside ontological borders of an enterprise itself. They
are norms and rules that are set by various institutional structures, both at
the international level and at the level of particular state (country)
requirements. For example, they are ISO standards regulating activity of
enterprises and organizations, INCOTERMS, GAFTA etc. Relations of external
activity first of all settle and are preserved in different contracts signed
between sides, agreements with various external organizations and structures.
Besides, relations of external activity also find their reflexion in
organizational design of various
structures like consortia etc.
1.6.
BEOM: Ontological Coordinates
1.6.1. Infrastructural Space –Инфраструктурное
пространство
Infrastructural
space is a space where activity of practice subjects is performed for
fulfilling of tasks facing them. In sphere of troops direction theory semantic
analogue of infrastructural space is a battlefield. For example, each party of
the Second World War had its own special European battlefield though all fighted
on the same geographical territory of Europe. There is external and internal
infrastructural space.
The
external infrastructural space appears as the result of business structure superposition
and existing structure of administrative, territorial and geographical division
of Environment - market space. The internal infrastructural space is the typologically
organized structure of internal business environment, limited with ontological
borders of an enterprise.
1.6.2. Infrastructural Time
Infrastructural
time this is time typologically structured according to specificity of
organization's activity or enterprise's activity and, in particular, of events
distinctive for description of its experience. Infrastructural time can be
presented both in absolute and in relative notation. For example, in
merchandising calendar a year can be divided into separate consistently
executed router cycles, 10 working days in each. In this case the year will
consist of 26 router cycles. At such approach all planning is conducted on
router cycles, each of them has identification number. «H-hour», «D-day» widely used in military
science are also examples of
infrastructural time in the sphere of military operations planning.
1.6.3. Ontological Classifier PECAD
PECAD
it is the abbreviation that is derivative of the name of its basic elements:
Plan-Execution-Control-Analysis-Decision. PECAD is the ontological classifier
intended for decomposition and synthesizing, "pasting" of various
vertical and horizontal tasks. It plays the important part in providing
ontological integrity of virtual life activity of a real singular enterprise. Classifier PECAD is
constructed on a anthropomorphic approach. Let's consider the model of person's
proactive behavior. «Plan». Before doing
something at first each of us builds a plan or mental picture, more
precisely a model according to that he will be do concrete operations. In
essence it is way of actions articulation. «Execution». Action or execution of the task. We consider "Execution" as
registration of action by means of the structured record. «Control». After the task is fulfilled, it is
necessary to answer the question «What's going on?» in order to understand the
state of execution of the certain task. «Analysis». In process of analysis it
is important to answer the question «Why?» we are on lifting, in recession, or
in condition of steady positive balance? The multidimensional analysis and forecasting
can be applied with use of complex statistical models, and also methods of
mathematical planning of experiment, construction of various models of
disjunctive synthesis hypotheses. «Decision». Decision has to help to receive
the answer to the sacramental question «What to do?». Decision-making can be
performed with use of discursive and intuitive models.
2.
Experientology
2.1.
Experientology
Definition
One of theoretical bases of BEOM is experientology. Experientology (experientology from the English
“experience”) is a current of thought and practical activity oriented to deciding
of questions of organization, accumulation, transferring of social experience or, to tell more
precisely, experience saved up in social systems and by social systems
themselves.
Experientology can be considered as an integral part of ontology, oriented on
analysis and understanding of personified being of a particular substance.
Experientology as essentially interdisciplinal branch integrally encapsulates and then synthesises approaches and knowledge
(cautious use of this notion) ontology, epistemology, phenomenology,
hermeneutics, psychology, tektology, cultural anthropology, postmodernist
philosophy (first of all redefinition of philosophy and theory of knowledge in
terms of concepts construction), sociology, and also some approaches of
mathematics and computer science. In this context it is difficult to disagree
with Mario Bunge «… there are no independent sciences or technologies. If a field
of knowledge is disjoint from all the sciences, then it is nonscientific». [7]
2.2. Task-Subject-Situation-Experience
(Задача-Субъект-Ситуация-Опыт)
Experience
is Being (Existence), collected for a
certain interval of life time of individual, a particular, "single"
individual, during fulfilling by him of specific tasks, in particular
conditions occurring in motivational
significant field of his destiny.
Experience is organized, structured, fixed and preserved in memory
systems in the form of ontological
patterns. Personified, organized,
structured, quantized, fixed being. «What we survive as experience is always a
contact, interaction of what is real in us with what is real out of us». Konrad
Lorenz.
A person
as an active subject of life activity constantly fulfills tasks that he sets
for himself or that some other person or environment are set to him. Socialization,
adaptation to environment practically starts with birth. Accumulation and
organization of experience is performed in a stream of activity that is
quantized by situations.
Experience always arise in a concrete
situation. Without of situation it's very difficult to speak about experience,
if it's possible at all. The most difficult is to find adequate units of activity description for
various kinds of human activity in other words we are talking about situations
that are specific for these kinds of activity.
Situation is the least indivisible part of
being, life activity of a certain unique singular individual possessing intentionality. Situation
is limited by the borders of
fulfilled task and certain period of
time necessary for it.
Figure
1. Task-Subject-Situation-Experience
Also important relative invariance of
conditions - circumstances (they only change in limits that do not change
relations between a task and expected result of activity).
Situation is determines by decision that is
invariable until conditions are unchanged.
Each new subject of activity – new situation. New task – new situation.
New conditions - new situation.
"Good"
or "bad" experience does not exist. Experience always such what it
is. Respecting himself, each subject of
life activity, person or organization, first of all should trust own
experience; because experience of each person is unique, irrespective of what
successes and vital tops were reached or avoided.
It
is thought that offers of largest vendors offering to join an advanced
experience of the most successful western companies by
means of buying of various corporate information management systems ERP, CRM, etc.
demand rather circumspect approach.
3. QuaSy – systems of experience inheritance
3.1. Experientological approach to
creating of information systems
To our opinion here are main initial points
of experientological approach to construct of information systems. Each
organization and enterprise are understood as a certain business entity having
its individual destiny.The anthropomorphous approach. Unique individual
experience is basis of enterprise existence this experience must be collected,
structured and preserved by means of
information systems. Certainly,
enterprise activity is the fundamental notion, however the term «activity» is
extremely theoretical abstraction. Particular activity of a singular enterprise
for a certain period of time is its individual and unique experience.
Today's
experience of enterprises is not collected intentionally and exists in itself,
being mainly distributed in heads of management. Staff turnover leads to
decomposition and annihilation of experience that is irreversible process. We
observe a certain ontological amnesia as a kind of permanent, chronic, and
progressing disease of enterprises.
Information system of enterprise must be its
brain, a management tool helping to survive in constantly changing external and
internal conditions. To execute it
properly enterprise's brain should participate in process of
accumulation and structurization of organization's individual experience.
Today almost all systems ERP, CRM etc. are
"direct-flow" systems without a feedback. At best such systems can
only provide reactive behaviour of enterprise in environment and exclude
possibility of proactive behaviour strategy at all that is based on continuous
scanning and advancing forecasting of environment.
Intercommunication
between enterprises in Web environment in behalf of e-trade organisation certainly demand some
uniform language, so called OL-Ontolingua. But as any other written communications language he has to base on oral
(vulgar) language of popular speech. It can arise at a certain moment of
development, for example, necessity of the Bible translation. Also in our case
OL must grow integrally from live experience of an enterprise including live
experience of enterprises communication.
A person has memory as
experience receptacle. An enterprise has an information system and this system
must accumulate experience, not just data. Unlike a person an enterprise does
not possess subconsciousness as a social organism. «Enterprise brain» is doomed
to use only discursive decision-making models.
Finally information
system is only a tool, but if we do not want to use an epithet «only the
miserable tool» it is important to teach information systems to organize,
accumulate, and structure personified individual experience of an enterprise.
This question is not lay in area of analytical linguistics, but in area of
experientology.
Using experientological approach we build
ontological model of organization. Ontological model BEOM is the "live"
model of a particular individual developing business substance, the model that
allows organising, structure, accumulating, and transmitting its experience.
BEOM develops together and in parallel with
an enterprise itself during its all life cycle. At that it is important to
notice that there is no "good" and "bad" experience for us.
Experience always such what it is. Much more important another one question,
has this
enterprise an internal potential
and stock to positive development.
3.2. QuaSy: new mission of information systems
In
essence QuaSy is the unique material carrier of individual enterprise's
experience. QuaSy acts as the unique tool providing adaptive behavior of an
individual enterprise in environment.
3.2.1. Does organization have brain?
This question is a consequence of
the anthropomorphous approach to organisation. But for many people such
statement of the question can seem absurd. A brain of a person, as well as the
person himself, is from God, but
organization is from person. Can a person compete with God in his
human's arrogance?
A
collective can strengthen creative possibilities of one separate person, but
the reverse effect is also possible. Then arise the question: what for people
create organizations at all? Or,
perhaps, the organizations are created by people only for overcoming socially
accumulated up genetic fear before uncertainty of vital circumstances?
Comparing processes of decision-making by
person and organization Simon supposed that organization cannot be quite
rational as its members possess limited possibilities in information
processing. But it is not clear, why do restrictions appear? Is it because
people with ordinary cognitive potential uniting into organizations expect a
progress gain in decision-making, and it does not occur? Or it is because in
organization it is difficult to reach synergy and to unite even uncommon
intellectual abilities of its separate members. [8]
Basing on fundamental position of Simon about
limited rationality of an organization, we have decided to go further and
intentionally dramatically radicalized this position to the formulation: «Any
organization is the essentially brainless entity». Another words organization
doesn't have genetically preestablished brain, like a person. It means that we
must make a certain artificial intellect for an organization.
3.2.2. QuaSy is an
equivalent of centralized brain of organization
As an equivalent of the centralized brain of organization we can
consider information system, which allowing to organize, structure, accumulate,
and transfer experience of a particular organization during fulfilling of concrete tasks in various situations. We believe that this brain can be represented by the system of inheritance of experience which we call QuaSy.
Figure 2. QuaSy Ontological Mission
Figure 2. QuaSy Ontological Mission
To cope
with more and more increasing volumes of information there are two essential ways:
the extensive way (increasing number of employees, number of computers, their
speed and memory size, etc.), and the intensive way. Intensive way is the other decision, an
attempt to transfer not data, information and signals, but thoughts. We have to
learn how to compress and structure information qualitatively, converting big
data flows into intelligent episodes, activity situations and well grounded
decisions. We name it conceptual convolution, or conceptual compression of
data.
As the
tool for conceptual compression of data we offer scheme-thinking language of
conceptual patterns. Actually it is language of articulation and structured
description of situations and decision-making processes. Certainly, BEOM like
object language is still basic.
References
[1]
Mike
Uschold, Martin King, Stuart Moralee and Yannis Zorgios (1998) The Enterprise
Ontology The Knowledge Engineering Review , Vol. 13, Special Issue on Putting
Ontologies to Use (eds. Mike Uschold and Austin Tate).
[2] Jan Dietz. Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. ©
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.
[3]
Shvedin B., Is experience
disappearing? Morskoy Sbornik. (Naval Forces Journal) Vol.8, pp. 26-29, 1989.
[4]
Shvedin B., Experience in
Planning Military. Activities. Morskoy
Sbornik. (Naval Forces Journal) Vol.12, pp. 23-27, 1989.
[5] Shvedin B., Ontological Model for HR
Management, and Organizational Development of the Large-Scale Organization.
High technologies-Moscow. , Vol. 7, No.6, pp. 13-35, 2006.
[6]
Barry
Smith. Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data &
Knowledge Engineering archive. Volume 20, Issue 3 (November 1996) pp.: 287 - 303
[7]
Bunge
Mario. Systemism: the alternative to individualism and holism. The Journal of
Socio-Economics. 29 (2000), 147-157.
[8]
Herbert A. Simon.
Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative
Organizations. The Free Press. New York. 1947.
