OPEN ACCESS
Understanding organizations and their needs for new technology has never been more challenging than in today’s high-tech business world. Enterprise managers are required to coordinate with other departmental managers, direct their personnel and solve problems along the way. Communicating new designs to IT for needed applications may not be in the manager’s skillset. When the enterprise grows rapidly or tries to compete in new areas, a set of basic diagrams illustrating common workflows may no longer accurately reflect the complex environment. What is needed is a simple method for illustrating the enterprise as a whole, interoperable structure so managers and workers alike can describe their requirements in the unique vocabulary of their industry. REBAR offers a novel approach for using key strategic and operational business documents, written in natural language, as the basis for the formal enterprise ontology. Popular semantic web standards, including RDF, FOAF and DC, provide generic terms already designed to convey the subject–predicate–object structure of natural language in a social structure. The REBAR enterprise ontology extends these existing standards, thus evolving a socio-technical model of the functional organization distilled directly from existing enterprise documents. REBAR captures the essence of the unique enterprise in a graphical application that can be queried and dynamically recombined to illustrate details of complex workplace collaborations. An enterprise ontology should unite all defined departmental functions authorized by executive enterprise managers. Additionally, findings indicate the REBAR ontology has the potential to provide a reusable structure for linking core social business functions of the enterprise to other explicit enterprise knowledge, including policies, procedures, tech manuals, training documents and project metrics. The REBAR methodology offers evidence that the enterprise is more than the sum of its parts, it is the bridge unifying explicit and tacit knowledge during work projects across the entire enterprise.
business plans, enterprise, knowledge management, ontology, semantic web, strategic goals, systems engineering
[1] Obama, B., Reducing improper payments. In Federal Register, Washington, D.C., 2009.
[2] GAO, Effective Pracctices and Federal Challenges in Applying Agile Methods (GAO-12-681), Washington, D.C., 2012.
[3] NASA. (2015, 04-02-2015). FY 2014 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan, available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY14_APRFY16_APP_Complete.pdf
[4] Gruber, T., Ontology. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems, eds L. Liu & M.T. Özsu, 2008.
[5] DoDI, Interoperability of information technology (IT), Including National Security Systems (NSS). In DoDI 8330.01, Washington, DC, 2014.
[6] Uschold, M. & Gruninger, M., Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity. ACIM SIGMod Record, 33, pp. 58–64, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1145/1041410.1041420
[7] Gruninger, M., Enterprise modelling. In Handbook on Enterprise Architecture, eds P.B. Bernus, L. Nemes & G.J. Schmidt, Springer: New York, pp. 515–541, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9_14
[8] Graves, M., Constabaris, A., Brickley, D. & Miller, L., FOAF: Connecting people on the semantic web. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43, pp. 191–202, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v43n03_10
[9] Morosoff, P., Rudnicki, R., Bryant, J., Farrell, R. & Smith, B., Joint doctrine ontology: a benchmark for military information systems interoperability. In Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security (STIDS), 1325, pp. 2–9, 2015.
[10] Ross, D.T., Applications and extensions of SADT. Computer, 18, pp. 25–34, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1985.1662862
[11] Wisnosky, D.E., Engineering enterprise architecture: call to action. Common Defense Quarterly, pp. 9–14, 2011.
[12] Zachman, J.A., A framework for information systems architecture. Ibm Systems Journal, 26, pp. 276–292, 1987.
https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.263.0276
[13] Smith, B., How to do things with documents. Rivista di Estetica, 50, pp. 179–198, 2012.
[14] Ferraris, M., Documentality or why nothing social exists beyond the text. In Proceedings of the 29th International Ludwig Wittgenstein-Symposium, Kirchberg, Austria, pp. 385–401, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110328936.385
[15] Searle, J., The Construction of Social Reality, vol. 2, Free Press, 1995.
[16] Ferraris, M. & Torrengo, G., Documentality: a theory of social reality. Rivista di Estetica, 57, pp. 11–27, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.629
[17] Ferraris, M., Collective intentionality or documentality? Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41, pp. 423–433, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715577741
[18] CJCS, Interagency Coordination During Joint Operations vol. 1, ed. J. Staff, Washington, DC, p. 96, 1996.
[19] Hoyland, C.A., The RQ-Tech Methodology: A New Paradigm for Conceptualizing Strategic Enterprise Architectures. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Engineering Management, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 2013.
[20] Taylor, J.C. & Felten, D.F., Performance by Design: Sociotechnical Systems in North America, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993.
[21] W3C, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, ed, 1999.
[22] W3C, XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition, 2004.
[23] Brickley, D. & Miller, L., Introducing FOAF. In FOAF Project, 2000.