pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 74 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public Meredith, Jack (1998) "Building operations management theory through case and field research", Journal of Operations Management, 16(4): 441-454. Missikoff M., R. Navigli, and P. Velardi (2002); The Usable Ontology: An Environment for Building and Assessing a Domain Ontology. Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference 2002, Springer, 2002, pp. 39-53. Nielsen J. and Molich P. (1992). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Empowering people - CHI'90 conference proceeding. ACM Press, New York Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. OntoWeb (2002); Deliverable 2.1: Successful scenarios for ontology-based applications; OntoWeb Consortium, 2002. Oppermanna Reinhard and Harald Reitererb (1997). Software Evaluation using the 9241 Evaluator, Paper published in: Behaviour Information Technology. 16 (1997), 4/5, 232 Pisanelli D.M., Gangemi A., Steve G. (2002); Ontologies and Information Systems: the Marriage of the Century?; Proceedings of Lyee Workshop, Paris, 2002. Polson P., Lewis C., Rieman J. and Wharton C. (1992) Cognitive walkthroughs: A methods for theory-based evaluation of use interfaces. International Journal of Man - machine Studies, 36, 741-73 Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H., Benyon D., Holland S. and Carey T. (1994). Human- Computer Interaction. Wokingham: Addison Wesley. Raghavan V. V., Jung G. S., and Bollmann P. (1989); A Critical Investigation of Recall and Precision as Measures of Retrieval System Performance; ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems , pages 205--229, July 1989. Smith Heather A. and McKeen James D. (2003); Network: Knowledge Management’s ‘Killer App’?; working paper 03-06, Queens University Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, 2003. http://business.queensu.ca/kbe/papers/abstract_03_06.htm Stephanidis, C. (2001); Adaptive Techniques for Universal Access, User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction, 2001, 11: 159-179, Kluwer Academic Publishers Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R. Samson, D. 2002. Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20: 419-433 Thomas J. C., W. A. Kellogg, and T. Erickson (2001); The knowledge management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management; IBM Systems Journal, Volume 40, Number 4, 2001 Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M. (1996); “Ontologies: principles, methods, and applications”, KnowledgeEngineering Review, volume 11, number 2, pages 93–155, 1996. Weinberger H., Teeni D. and Frank A. (2003); Ontologies of Organizational Memory as a Basis for Evaluation; 11th ECIS'03 European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy, June 2003. Yin, Robert K. (1994): “Case Study Research: Design and Methods”; Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; first published in 1984.
8 Annex Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b 8.1 Annex 1: Ontologging Goals & focus. The consortium perspective. Page : 75 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public The different partners of the consortium were asked to identify what they considered to be the goals of the project, as well as their individual goals in the projects. More concretely, each partner was asked to provide some answers to the following questions: • Application goals : what we expect the Ontologging application will perform. • End user goals: what our end-users (INDRA) expect to gain by using the Ontologging application. • Intangible goals : some of our goals are more intangible (hence more difficult/subjective to measure). • Individual partners goals: each partner may have different individual objectives. The answers were sent via email to the coordinator, who aggregated these answers. The result was furthermore consolidated at a consortium meeting. The next paragraphs present the result of this process: Application goals: • User-friendly browsing capabilities. • Improved search by means of ontology capabilities. • Combination of ontology search with document keyword search. • Integration/embedding with MS Office. • Personalized interest notifications. • Integration with KM (or other) solutions. • Reusability + future exploitability. • Sca lability. End-user goals: • Helping internal processes: reusing, classifying, searching documents, people. • Improving knowledge sharing, common understanding, use of a common language, lead to better communication. • Enrich document definition. • Introduce semantic-based knowledge organisation and retrieval (there are no semantic tools currently at INDRA). • Help the tendering process. • Ease of use and deployment. • No interference with the current system and practices. • Customisation + flexibility.
Page 1 and 2:
The ONTO-LOGGING Consortium consist
Page 3 and 4:
Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary Evaluation report
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 53 and 54: • List of connected users to the
Page 67 and 68: 5.5.1 Description of the evaluation
Page 69 and 70: 6 Discussion and Conclusions Evalua
Page 73: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 93 and 94: esolver consultas. C42 Existen axio
Page 103 and 104: 1 The functionalities provided by D
show all

pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?