Towards Identifying Sensitive Processes for Knowledge Localization Mohamed Turki, Inès Saad, Faïez Gargouri and Gilles Kassel MIRACL Laboratory, ISIM of Sfax - BP 3030-3016 Sfax, Tunisia MIS Laboratory, UPJV - 33 rue Saint Leu, 80039 Amiens Cedex 1, France
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
ABSTRACT In this paper we propose a set of criteria in order to identify the sensitive processes of an organization. The analysis of these processes is necessary to locate knowledge that need to be capitalized. We follow both bottom-up and top-down approach. The former consists on collecting concrete indicators to guide decision makers and to argue on decisions. These indicators should allow building an initial list of criteria. The latter consists on declining one or several global points of view. This new approach elicits preference of decision makers to identify sensitive process. The applicative framework of this research work was done in collaboration with the association of protection of motors disabled of Sfax – Tunisia (ASHMS).
KEYWORDS: Healthcare knowledge management, sensitive processes identification, process identification, knowledge localization.
1. INTRODUCTION The necessity to formalize knowledge produced and used in firms has increased rapidly these last years. As said by [1] “Knowledge is valuable”. Firms become aware of the importance of the immaterial capital owned by their employees which corresponds to their experience and accumulated knowledge about the firm activities. This is particularly true in the medical context to improve the care quality and help healthcare professionals to make the right clinical decisions in complex circumstances. According to [2], Healthcare Knowledge Management (HKM) can be characterized as the “systematic creation, modeling, sharing, operationalization and translation of healthcare knowledge to improve the quality of patient care”.
Charlet [3] says that health professionals have to be able to share and apply the collective knowledge particularly best practice guidelines. They must also acquire knowledge and skills that allow them to use their clinical relationship with a particular patient. The definitions above show that the goal of HKM is to promote and provide optimal, timely, effective and pragmatic healthcare knowledge to professionals, where and when they need it to help them make high quality, wellinformed and cost-effective patient care decisions [2]. Many methods proposed by knowledge engineering and knowledge management for the construction of corporate memory. Works in ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) make medical ontology. The authors in [9] propose a semantic web corporate memory. In [10] a development of knowledge management system is made and in [11] a development of clinical practice guidelines is done. The authors in [12] computerize the patient record according to a documentary approach in the context of semantic web. In addition to these works the project described in Life Line [13] aims to support collaboration in a medical care network, prevention, diagnosis, therapy, patient monitoring and education. Techniques of knowledge engineering as well as mediation tools were used mainly to ensure continuity of care and collaborative care teams. It should be noted that all approaches and systems listed above focused on the construction of knowledge management system. Indeed, these methods have been defined by researchers on knowledge engineering and knowledge management to acquire, represent, and to enhance knowledge. However considering the large amount of medical knowledge to be preserved, the organization must first determine the specific knowledge that should be targeted by capitalization. Indeed we should focus on only the socalled “crucial knowledge”, i.e. the risk of their loss and the cost of their (re)creation is considered to be important. In other words their contribution to reach the firm
objectives is very important and their use duration is long. It is therefore the problem of knowledge identification that represents the first facet of knowledge capitalization process defined by [14]. Indeed the knowledge identification consists in locating, characterizing, mapping, estimating the economic value and prioritizing knowledge and skills that are needed in decision making and conducting the essential activities of the organization. Few studies exist on the identification of knowledge on which it is necessary to capitalize. We distinguish two kinds of approaches: A domain-oriented approach ([15], [16]) and a process-oriented approach ([17], [18], [19]). Our previous works have also shown a positive impact of methods of identification of crucial knowledge in the context of several projects with industry [20]. In this paper we aim at improving and validating our previous works in the medical context. In particular, a multicriteria method has been experimented in automotive company [21]. We have inspired from [21] to propose an approach and construct criteria for evaluating and identifying of sensitive processes of one step of this multicriteria method. Indeed, in this method, the identification of the sensitive processes is based on the consensus between decision makers who are involved in the process of identification of sensitive processes. This approach is very difficult to apply in our context. This is because of the large number of doctors and paramedics. In addition, most of them are volunteers and they come from different organizations. Few approaches exist on the identification of critical or strategic processes (business process) in organization. The aim of this paper is to propose a methodology to identify sensitive processes. These processes will be studied specifically to construct a set of reference knowledge. The applicative framework of this research work was done in collaboration with the association of protection of motors disabled of Sfax –Tunisia (ASHMS). The paper is organized as follows. Section two presents some preliminary. Section three presents the related works. Section four presents the approach of supporting sensitive processes identification. Section five presents the case study. Section six concludes the paper and underlines some future research projects.
2. PRELIMINARY The methodology proposed by [20] to evaluate knowledge capturing within a project is composed of three phases (see figure 1) (i) Determining “Reference Crucial Knowledge” (ii) Constructing Preference model and (iii) Classifying “Potential Crucial Knowledge”.
The first phase is relative to constructive learning devoted to infer the preference model of the decision makers. Practically, it consists in inferring a set of decision rules from some holistic information in terms of assignment examples provided by the decision makers. This is done through the DRSA (Dominance-based Rough Set Approach) [22]. The previous set of rules may be used in the same project or in other similar projects. However, for similar projects an adaptation of the set of decision rules to the project under consideration is often required. This phase includes also the identification, using GAMETH® [14], of a set of “Reference crucial knowledge”. Thus, we identify only one sensitive process and critical activities related to that process, and we clarify the need of knowledge to solve problems related to critical activities. The second phase includes the construction of preference model and the evaluation of knowledge pieces with the respect to a convenient set of criteria. Three sub-families of criteria were constructed: (i) knowledge vulnerability family that are devoted to measure the risk of knowledge loss and the cost of its (re)creation, (ii) knowledge role family that are used to measure the contribution of the piece of knowledge to the project objectives and (iii) use duration family that is devoted to measure the use duration of the knowledge basing on the company average and long term objectives. Phase 1 :Determining Reference Crucial Knowledge ‐Step 1: Identifying Sensitive Process ‐Step 2 : Modelling the Sensitive Process and Identifying the Critical Activities ‐ Step 3 : Characterizing “Reference crucial knowledge” Reference crucial knowledge
Phase 2 : Constructing Preference model
Potential crucial knowledge
Preference model (Decision rules )
Phase 3 : Classifying Potential Crucial Knowledge
Crucial knowledge
Figure 1. Multicriteria methodology to identify knowledge to be capitalized [20] In the third phase, the decision maker uses the preference models (decision rules) of the different decision makers defined in the second phase to assign the new knowledge which is called potential crucial knowledge, to the classes Cl1 “non crucial knowledge” or Cl2 “Crucial Knowledge”. In this paper, we apply only the first step of the first phase of the methodology [20] and we propose an approach to construct a set of criteria for identifying sensitive processes in order to construct “Reference crucial knowledge”.
3. RELATED WORKS In a half century the organizations approaches have been deeply changed by the process vision. The process approach focuses on the dynamic structure of organizations rather than the static structure. Several definitions were proposed in the literature for the notion of a process, among them we cite the two following: [23] “A process is simply a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce a specified output for a particular customer or market”. [24] “A business process is a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer”. The definitions above show a convergence around a few basic characteristics: an input, an output (value added for a client) and set of activities. Several processes typologies have been proposed ([23], [24], [25], [26]). Each typology has its own qualification with a particular perspective. According to the process characterization adopted by the organization, each process must belong to a particular class. The challenge is to identify the key or the priority processes over so-called secondary (non-priority) processes. Therefore it is essential to evaluate the organization processes based on a set of criteria. In this section we analyze the works dealing with the problem of process characterization in various research fields: management approach [25], information systems approach ([27], [23], [24]) and quality approach [26].
3.1. Process characterization in management approach In the management approach, the process characterization aims at improving the organizations performance. In this context we enumerate some works. M. Hammer and L. Champy [24] call to a fundamental challenge and a radical redefinition of business processes to achieve dramatic gains in performance that are now the cost, quality, service and speed. T.H., Davenport [23] proposed an approach for selecting processes for innovation which is an important prerequisite to process change. He argued that the objective of process identification is a key to making these definitions and determining their implications. The author say that most compaies choose to adress a small set of business processes in order to gain experience with innovation initiatives, and they focus their resources on the most critical processes. The principal activities in the selection processes are as follow: (i) Enumerate major processes, (ii) Determine process boundaries, (iii) assess strategic relevance of each process, (iv) Render high-level judgments of the health of each process and (v) Qualify
the culture and politics of each process. Four criteria have been identified that might guide process selection: (1) the process’s centrality to the execution of firm’s business strategy, (2) process health, (3) process qualification, and (4) manageable project scope. Ideally, all four factors should favor the selection of a particular process. But in practice results are often ambiguous, and differential weighting of factors must be applied. In the context of management control [29] the strategic processes are considered critical processes mobilizing scarce skills, not imitable, not substitutable and strongly influence the outcome of the process. The criteria of identification of critical processes are as follow. Firstly the process must have a significant impact on strategic performance. Secondly the process should be a source of competitiveness.
3.2. Process characterization in quality approach This approach is based on the focus on value-added, detection and correction of malfunctions, the prevention of errors and optimal use of resources. It provides significant gains in products performance, timelines and costs. A classification of processes types has been given by the quality approach with the norm ISO 9000 [26]. We distinguish three types of processes. The realization processes are those that have a direct impact on added value of organization. This process type constitutes the core business of the company and produces products or services that target customers. (Examples: sales, design, procurement and purchasing, production, aftermarket support, etc.). The support processes contributes to smooth implementation process by providing the necessary resources. They indirectly bring value to the organization and are necessary for the execution of the realization process (Examples: human resources, financial resources). The management processes contribute to the determination of policy and deployment the goals in the organization (Examples: listening to customers and other stakeholders, development strategy, internal communication and personnel mobilization). The norm ISO/IEC 15504 [30] proposes a tiered typology which illustrates the recommendations of ISO9000 in the context of software development. The basic processes include the core business of the supervisor (Examples: purchase of software from an external supplier). The support processes are processes that can be called by other processes, including processes in the same category (Examples: documentation process, audit process). The organizational processes intended for work quality around software development. (Examples: a process of organizational alignment, process of reuse). By comparing the processes types related to ISO 9000 with that relating to ISO/IEC 15504, we note that realization
processes correspond to basic processes, management processes correspond to organizational processes.
3.3. Process characterization in information system approach In general, in information systems approach the process shows how actors collaborate through the information management to accomplish the value-added for the organization. So the goal of processes characterization is to improve the organization performance. We distinguish several types of processes which are related to business process modeling, the workflow [27] and the urban information systems ([23], [24], [31]). In the context of the identification and modeling view we quote three processes types [27]. The main processes produce a result; they create a value in a company. Their results are intended to a client or an external partner. These processes provide a strategic advantage and lead to detailed modeling. The secondary processes produce results used by the main processes. They are sources of direct cost without creating value. The steering processes are intended to control the achievement of company objectives and the implementation of its strategy. The workflow identifies four types of applications that automate various process categories according to their importance in the company. The applications of administrative workflow correspond to repetitive processes with a low value added. The applications of ad hoc workflow correspond to unique process with a low value added. The applications of production workflow correspond to repetitive process with a high level of value added. The applications of collaborative workflow which correspond to unique process with a high level of value added. In the field of urban information systems ([31], [23], [24]) categorization process has a significant advantage to distribute mapping effort. The business processes have a direct impact on company performance. However, in the support processes the impact is indirect. So the business processes require more attention and usually decomposed into sub-processes and they are modeled more accurately. While the support processes are represented briefly. Since our goal is the identification of sensitive processes with a view of knowledge localization, so we will focus on the processes which contain more knowledge held by actors. For this reason, we will be interested in the main processes and business processes because these processes are the most priority. As it is mentioned in [24], in the projects of information systems development, the business process reengineering is preceded by the
evaluation of each process. Initially, the process is evaluated by its contribution to the management and development of the organization. For this reason the considered criteria are: objective (to estimate gap between the objective of the current process and the objective of estimated strategies of the company), significance ( to evaluate the importance of the process now and in the future), control (to examine the control degree that we have on the process including the ability to measure its performance), knowledge (to estimate the magnitude and sustainability of knowledge implemented in the process and know-how acquired by actors), success (to be able to judge the success of the process in the future). Secondly an analysis of processes will be discussed. This analysis should meet the following criteria: (i) Fragmentation (division of activities and coordination tasks), (ii) Inefficiency (assess the weight and the cost of activities), (iii) Informational resources (synthesis of information resources in order to define limits on the information completeness) and (iv) Visibility (requirement of opening the system to external stakeholders). The contribution of this paper is to propose an approach for constructing a set of criteria with a method based on multicriteria decision aid [32]. Our method takes into account the preferences of decision makers which can be different or even contradictory while exploiting and managing their multiple points of view to evaluate process.
4. APPROACH OF SUPPORT THE SENSITIVE PROCESSES IDENTIFYING The approach of support the sensitive processes identifying is inspired from a decision aid. This approach is composed of four phases (i) Identification of potentially sensitive processes, (ii) Identification of the problem of decision support, (iii) Identification of the stakeholders and the decision makers and (iv) Construction of the set of criteria. Step 1: Identification of potentially sensitive processes: In the first step we identify the set of potential actions. In our context potential actions are the potentially sensitive processes. This phase is crucial because it affects the final results. Step 2: Identification of the problem of decision support: In second step we choice the problem of decision support among four problems [28]: sorting, storage, selection and description. In our context we selected the problem of selection. This problem is to select a subset (sensitive processes among a set of potentially sensitive processes.
Step 3: Identification of the stakeholders and the decision makers: The third step consists in identifying the stakeholders and decision makers who are involved in the decision process (i.e. the process of identification and validation of sensitive processes) (see figure 2).We distinguished: Analyst: is an actor who is able to gather medical knowledge mastered by a health care professional, and then model it. (the analyst constructs criteria and evaluates the importance of process with respect to each criterion) Expert or health care professionals who are doctor and paramedical. Project manager: is a doctor who coordinates between the health professionals during the care process. Steering committee: is a group of high-level stakeholders who are responsible for providing guidance on overall strategic direction during the early care monitoring of a child with cerebral palsy. This committee is composed of expert members who are doctors and the project manager.
Actor
Analyst
Param edical
Expert
Project Manager
Steering com m ittee
Doctor
Figure 2. A graphical vision of the typology of the actors Step 4: Construction of the set of criteria In the fourth step we construct the family of criteria in collaboration with the decision makers in order to identify the sensitive processes. The analysis of these processes is necessary to locate knowledge that need to be capitalized. We follow both top-down and bottom-up approach. Our approach is the result of experiments conducted over several months. It should be noted that the final formulation of these criteria and the scales are under approved by the association president and some doctors. The top down approach consists in decreasing one or more general goals as a views or dimensions. The bottomup approach consists in building a criteria family from an indicators list that could influence the opinion makers about the importance of the processes. These indicators are designated by the term "consequence" in the multicriteria decision making approach [28]. The construction of the list of consequences is determined
partly from a literature review (see Related Work) and the other from the information collected with actors (doctors, paramedics) during the sensitive processes identification. The details of the criteria which we proposed are illustrated in Table 1. It should be noted that these criteria are applicable to any problem of identifying sensitive processes (with a view of localization of potentially crucial knowledge). In this case, it would suggest an updated definition of the criteria and scales if necessary, depending on the needs of stakeholders. In the below section, we will present a case study which illustrate the approach of criteria construction and sensitive processes identification.
5. CASE STUDY The approach for identifying sensitive process presented above has been performed in the ASHMS. We are interested in improving the monitoring and evaluation of the early support of young children with cerebral palsy (PMECP). The PMECP is very complex. On the one hand, the mass of medical knowledge mobilized in this process of care is very important (Figure 3). One part of this knowledge is embodied in the mind of health professionals. Another part, is preserved in the organizational memory as Reports, Medical Records, Data Bases, or Clinical Practice Guidelines. On the other hand, many health professionals find it difficult to locate and understand the knowledge when it comes to cross several specialties such as neonatology, neuro-pediatrics, physical therapy, orthopedics, psychiatry, physiotherapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy [33]. Capitalizing on all the ASHMS’s knowledge requires important human and financial investments. Furthermore, the resources that dispose the ASHMS are limited. That’s why; the ASHMS should focus on only the so called “crucial knowledge,” that is, the most valuable/important knowledge. This permits particularly to save time and money. As presented in [20], "Identifying crucial knowledge can reduce the costs of capitalization operation because it restricts the scope of knowledge to preserve. It is the same for their availability to users and for updating them". We began by convincing the association’s president by the importance of capitalizing on crucial knowledge in order to transfer them to other similar associations. For that, we made a scoping meeting during which we outlined our approach and discussed the work strategy as well as the actors with who we will collaborate. We subsequently developed an interview guideline that we used as support during interviews with actors. It should be noted that all doctors who are involved in PMECP are volunteers. The majority of them work in the hospitals of Sfax.
Table 1. List of Criteria Criterion g1 Efficacy g2 Cost g3 Complexity g4 Actors’
Affiliations g5 Visibility g6 Informational
resources g7 Knowledge sustainability g8 Knowledge Transferability g9 Knowledge Substitutability
Description
Scale
Measure the impact of the process on care quality in term of service and patient satisfaction. Measures the cost of the process in the care process. Measures the complexity of the process in term of fragmentation, granularity and dependence with other processes. The affiliation of actors involving in the process. This criterion reflects the rate of volunteer doctors. Measures the opening level of the process to the external stakeholders who work in different organizations. Measures the level of accessibility to information resources. Measures the magnitude and sustainability of knowledge extracted from the process. Measures the level of transferability of the knowledge from one person to another. Measures the level of substitutability of the knowledge.
1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very effective 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: not complex, 2: complex, 3: very complex 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: low, 2: average, 3: high, 4: very high 1: not substitutable, 2: weakly substitutable, 3: substitutable
Preferen ce
We propose a UML graphic vision for these types of interactions between the project and the outside elements (see figure 4). Such a graphical view allows the knowledge engineer to locate knowledge (internally or externally) and therefore to assess the ease (or difficulty) of access to that knowledge. Moreover, this view identifies the types of solutions that can be considered once the crucial knowledge is identified. For example, if the actors are located on different sites, then it is necessary to use the forums to transfer knowledge. University hospital of Sfax, Habib Bourguiba Medicine faculty of Sfax Health graduate school of Sfax
Figure 3. General synoptic flow of knowledge [33]
Scientific project manager Neuro‐pediatrician Orthopedist
Physical medicine
University hospital of Sfax, Hédi Chaker
A.S.H.M.S
5.1. Study scope The definition of the study scope aims at identifying the project stakeholders, the business unit, and the partners who interact with the project (Fig.3.). To achieve this goal, we had two meetings with the president of the association. The first meeting lasted two hours. The purpose of this meeting was: (i) Describing the flowchart of the ASHMS, (ii) Outlining the project of early support of young children with cerebral palsy. (iii) Defining the decision makers: steering committee (doctors, paramedics) and partners. (iv) Defining the number of health care professional as well as the localization and the role of each one. The second meeting lasted one hour in which the president specified the PMECP and detailed the roles of professionals.
Project to improve the early care of disabled Neonatologist
Child psychiatrist Psychologist Physiotherapist Occupational therapist Speech therapist ASHMS President
Figure 4. A graphical view of the different interactions between the study area and outside
5.2. Identification of sensitive processes Before performing the phase of identification of sensitive process it is necessary to determine with the stakeholders (the association president and the project manager) the
strategic objectives that should be achieved (see figure 5). For this reason we adopt a top-down approach. So we began with enumerate the strategic objectives. Among the strategic objectives presented in figure 5 the priority of analysis is given to the care process which is composed of several sub-processes. The care process is made by a succession of several actions in the form of medical and paramedics monitoring and early assessment of children with cerebral palsy. It should be noted that the health professionals involving in this process are located in different organizations like the university hospital of Sfax, the medicine faculty of Sfax, the health graduate school of Sfax and private doctors. In addition in the care process follow-up and periodic evaluations are made individually or collectively (through a review meeting every three months). After each new diagnosis made, a new protocol is proposed. This is a new medical knowledge produced and a new skills developed. This knowledge is derived from the interaction of a number of health professionals from several specialties.
Figure 5. Strategic objectives A deep analysis has been made with three decision makers: the president of ASHMS, the neuro-pediatrics and the physiotherapy. The objectives of this analysis are: (i) Construction of a mapping process (potentially sensitive processes) to study the level of granularity of the care process, (ii) Building a list of criteria for identifying sensitive processes and (iii) Identifying the sensitive processes. To achieve these goals we conducted two meetings with each of actors. The first meeting lasted two hours during which we used an interview guide. The first part of this interview guide focuses on the classification of different processes of PMECP. The second part focuses on characterizing the processes. The third part focused on the relationship between actors. The fourth part focused on identifying and analyzing some difficulties. The second meeting lasted one hour during which we identified the potentially sensitive process. The map of processes required to support the PMECP is illustrated in figure 6. It should be noted that this map has been validated by three decision makers. Because of the large number of sub-processes that compose the care process we must choose the sensitive processes. To achieve this goal we applied the approach presented
above in section IV. After constructing the list of criteria to characterize and identify the sensitive processes, we evaluate each process in respect to these criteria in order to choice the sensitive processes.
Figure 6. Map of processes The first list of criteria that we have identified is illustrated in Table 1. Once this list is built we constructed a matrix which contains the list of actions (i.e. potentially sensitive processes) in the lines and the criteria in columns. This matrix was made by three actors. Among the sensitive processes which we identified, we quote the neuro-pediatrics examination. The indicators that have allowed us to characterize this process respectively to all criteria are as follows: Efficacy: The neuro-pediatrics examination has a very important impact on care quality in term of efficacy. The success of this process influence on the care quality. In fact the quality of the diagnostics of the majority of clinical examinations depends on the quality of the neuromotor assessment. Cost: The cost of this process is very high in term of time allocated by volunteer doctors (three doctors). The doctor commitment depends on the support duration that can reach two years. During this period the doctors involved regularly and voluntarily to clinical examinations and assessments. Complexity: The neuro-pediatrics examination is very complex. It is composed of several activities and needs a neuro-motor assessment which is necessary for initial assessment in collaboration with a group of doctor and
paramedics. The neuro-pediatrics examination is a central process in term of dependence with other processes. Actors’ affiliations: All doctors who are affiliated to the neuro-pediatrics examination are volunteers. They work in different organizations (such as CHU Hédi Chaker). Visibility: Since the neuro-pediatrics examination is a central process, so its results are needed to all others processes. For this reason it is visible by all stakeholders involved in PMECP. Accessibility: The level of accessibility of information resources is low. The patient’s medical records are dispersed between ASHMS and CHUs. So it is not always possible to access to the medical information contained in these records. Knowledge sustainability: all knowledge produced by the process is sustainable. The new diagnoses are the outcome of clinical examination based on the skills of doctors. This is a new knowledge produced. This knowledge should be capitalized throughout the patient care and can be useful for other care support. Knowledge transferability: The majority of knowledge extracted from this process is not recorded on physical support (like: the protocol support, some diagnoses and conclusions). Therefore the knowledge is held by healthcare professionals and the rate of transferability from one actor to another is low. Knowledge substitutability: medical knowledge is very accurate. Therefore we cannot substitute the knowledge by another (example of knowledge: technique of the neuromotor examination, care protocol).
5.3. Discussion It should be noted that we have identified some difficulties during applying the phase of identification sensitive processes due to the complexity of the PMECP. In one hand the ASHMS is a social structure with limited financial resources. In addition, all doctors evolved in PMECP are volunteers and work at different organizations. Secondly doctors are not available. So we found a lot of difficulties during interviews. Therefore we could not complete the construction of the mission tree. Indeed the tree mission is made from left to right in answering the question “How”. Then it is verified by a rereading of right to left asking the question “Why”. This tree mission has a double goal: it gives managers a common representation of goals and it helps to identify critical processes. It should be noted that we have invested considerable time to build the process mapping.
6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS In this paper we have addressed an approach for constructing a draft of criteria list in order to identify the sensitive processes of an organization. The analysis of these processes is necessary to locate knowledge that need to be capitalized. We follow both bottom-up and top-down approaches. We adopted the method of identification of crucial knowledge for companies [5]. Our goal is to consolidate and to adapt this method to the medical field. This new approach elicits preference of decision makers to identify sensitive processes. The applicative framework of this research work was done in collaboration with the ASHMS. In future work we will propose an additive linear function as aggregation model to identify sensitive processes. After identifying the sensitive processes, we will proceed at a detailed characterization of the notion of process. However, the terminologies related to this concept are manifold, which can be a source of confusion. In front of this problem we plan to use a tool that plays the role of bridge between the different conceptualizations. This is what the foundational ontologies, such as DOLCE are supposed to supply.
REFERENCES [1] D.P. Ford and D.S. Staples, “Perceived value of knowledge: the potential informer's perception,” Knowledge Management in Research and Practice 4, 3– 16 (2006). [2] SSR. Abidi, “Healthcare Knowledge Management: The Art of the Possible,“ In David Riano (Eds) K4CARE, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 4924, Springer, 2008, pp 1-21. [3] J. Charlet, “L’ingénierie des connaissances, développement, résultat et perspectives pour la gestion des connaissances médicales“ Rapport de HDR. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 2002. [4] A. Baneyx, J. Charlet and M.C Jaulent, “Building an ontology of pulmonary diseases with natural language processing tools using textual corpora,” I. J. Medical Informatics 76(2-3): 208-215 (2007). [5] O. Steichen, C. Daniel-Le Bozec, M-C Jaulent and J. Charlet, “Building an Ontology of Hypertension Management,” AIME 2007: 292-296. [6] J. Charlet, B. Bachimont and M.-C Jaulent, “Building medical ontologies by terminology extraction from texts: An experiment for the intensive care units”. Computer in Biology and Medicine, 36(7-8) :857–870, July-August 2006. ISSN : 0010-4825.
[7] R. Dieng-Kuntz, D. Minier, M. Ruzicka, F. Corby, O. Corby, L. Alamarguy and P.H. Luong, “Medical Ontology and Virtual Staff for a Health Network, in: Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web,” EKAW’2004, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3257, October 5-8, p. 187-202 [8] T.D Cao, R. Dieng-Kuntz and B. Fiès, “An OntologyGuided Annotation System for Technology Monitoring,” IADIS’2004, Spain, October 6-9 2004, vol. 1, p. 651-658 [9] F. Gandon, R. Dieng-Kuntz, O. Corby and A. Giboin, “Semantic Web and Multi-Agents Approach to Corporate Memory Management,” 17th IFIP World Computer Congress IIP Track - Intelligent Information Processing, Montréal, Canada, M. Musen, B. Neumann, R. Studer (editors), August 2002, p. 103-115 [10] M.S. Abdullah, R. Paige, C. Kimble and I. Benest, “A UML Profile for Knowledge-Based Systems Modelling,” The fifth IEEE International Conference SERA’2007. [11] SR. Abidi, SSR. Abidi, H. Sajjad and M. Shepherd, “Ontology-based Modelling of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Clinical Decision Support System for Breast Cancer Follow-up Interventions at Primary Care Settings”. 12th MEDINFO’2007.
[19] B. Tseng and C. Huang, “Capitalizing on Knowledge: A Novel Approach to Crucial Knowledge Determination,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, Volume 35, Issue 6, 919931, 2005. [20] I. Saad, M. Grundstein, and C. Sabroux, "Une méthode d’aide à l’identification des connaissances cruciales pour l’entreprise". Revue SIM, Volume 14, n° 3, 2009. [21] I. Saad. "Une contribution méthodologique pour l’aide à l’identification et l’évaluation des connaissances nécessitant une opération de capitalisation". Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris-Dauphine 2005. [22] S. Greco, B. Matarazzo, and R.Slowinski, “Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, 129(1):1{47, 2001. [23] T.H Davenport, PROCESS INNOVATION: REENGINEERING WORK THROUGH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, Harvard Business Press. 1993. [24] M. Champy and J. Hammer, REENGINEERING THE CORPORATION: A MANIFESTO FOR BUSINESS REVOLUTION, New York : Harper Business 1993.
[12] S. Bringay : ”Les annotations pour supporter la collaboration dans le dossier patient électronique,” Thèse de doctorat, UPJV (2006).
[25] Ph. Lorino, LE CONTROLE DE GESTION STRATEGIQUE, LA GESTION PAR LES ACTIVITES, Dunod 1997.
[13] R. Dieng-Kuntz, D. Minier, F. Corby, O. Corby, L. Alamarguy and P.Luong, “Ontologie médicale et staff virtuel pour un réseau de soins,” IC2004.
[26] ISO9000, “Qualité et systèmes de management ISO 9000, Afnor,” 2000.
[14] M. Grundstein, “From capitalizing on Company Knowledge to Knowledge Management”. chapter 12, p. 261-287, in Knowledge Management, Classic and Contemporary Works by Daryl Morey, Mark Maybury, Bhavani Thuraisingham, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 2000. [15] J.L. Ermine, I. Boughzala and T. Tounkara, “Critical knowledge Map as a Decision Tool for Knowledge Transfer Actions,” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 4, n°2, pp. 129-140 (2006) [16] J. Pomian and C. Roche, MANAGEMENT DES CONNAISSANCES ET ORGANISATION DU TRAVAIL, Paris 2002. [17] M. Grundstein, C. Rosenthal-Sabroux and A. Pachulski, “Reinforcing Decision Aid by Capitalizing on Company’s Knowledge”, European Journal of Operational Research, 145, pp. 256-272, 2003. [18] J. Golebiowska, “Exploitation des ontologies pour la mémoire d’un projet véhicule : méthode et outil SAMOVAR“, Thèse de doctorat, Université de NiceSophia Antipolis, 2002.
[27] C. Morley, J. Hugues, B. Leblanc and O. Hugues. PROCESSUS METIERS ET S.I. EVALUATION, MODELISATION, MISE EN ŒUVRE, Dunod 2007. [28] B. Roy and D. Bouyssou. AIDE MULTICRITÈRE À LA DÉCISION: MÉTHODES ET CAS, Economica, Paris, 1993 [29] Ph. Lorino METHODES ET PRATIQUES DE LA PERFORMANCE, 3e édition, Editions d’Organisation, Paris, 2003. [30] ISO/CEI, Norme 15504, TECHNOLOGIES DE L’INFORMATION. EVALUATION DE PROCESSUS DE LOGICIEL, Afnor, 1998. [31] G. Jean, L’URBANISATION DU BUSINESS ET DES SI, Hermès, 2000. [32] B. Roy. MULTICRITERIA METHODOLOGY FOR DECISION AIDING. Kluwer Academic. Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996. [33] M. Turki, I. Saad, G. Kassel and F. Gargouri, “Une
méthode d’aide au management des connaissances pour améliorer le processus de suivi et d’évaluation de la prise en charge des enfants IMC : application de l’ASHMS”, EGC’2010, p. 685-686.
