Skip to main content
Log in

Enterprise models of measurement: A comparison of existing models used for quality management and e-business

  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To bring benefits of e-business to bear for knowledge intensive quality management business processes, ‘quality’ must be modeled within the enterprise model used for e-business. Fundamental to modeling quality is measurement; quality cannot be assessed until it is first measured. In this paper, enterprise models of measurement are surveyed, with emphasis on those used for enterprise resource planning and business-to-business software. A key survey finding is that there are limitations in sharing enterprise models between organizations, because semantics of models’ terms are not formally defined. Rather than have a computational enterprise model automatically deduce meanings of terms based upon represented definitions, users are often left to interpret meanings external to the model. As well, measurement models tend to be small implicit partial models of a quality module. These findings motivate the need for a more exhaustive and formal model, in an ontology of measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Management Association (1992).Blueprints for Service Quality: The Federal Express Approach, AMA Publications: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, B., Colony, G., Woodring, S., and Rhielander, T., Lieu C. (1996). “The Prudent Approach to R/3”,Packaged Application Strategies, Vol.1, No. 1, Forrester Research, Inc., 1033 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. E. and Shapiro, S. C. (1995). “Ontological Mediation: An Overview”,Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Menlo Park CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commerce One, Inc. (2000). “MarketSite.net: XML & CBL Resources: CBL FAQ” [Online], Available: http://www.commerceone.com/xml/cbl/cblfaq.html, July 9.

  • Commerce One, Inc. (2000). “Commerce One XML Common Business Library (XCBL™), an Interconnectivity Guide, Version 2.0.1”,Commerce One, Inc., Hacienda Business Park, Bldg. #4, 4440 Rosewood Dr., Pleasanton, CA 94588, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, P.B. (1979).Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes R. and Farquhar A. (1999). “Large-Scale Repositories of Highly Expressive Reusable Knowledge”,IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 14, No. 2, March/April.

  • Fox, M.S., Fadel, F.G. and Chionglo J.C. (1993). “A Common-Sense Model of the Enterprise”, in2nd IE Research Conference Proceedings, May 1993, Los Angeles, CA, 1993.

  • [Fox & Grüninger (1998)] Fox, Mark S. and Grüninger, Michael (1998). “Enterprise Modeling”,AI Magazine, AAAI Press, Fall 1998, pp. 109–121.

  • Gruber, Thomas R. (1993). “Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing”, InInternational Workshop on Formal Ontology, N. Guarino & R. Poli, (Eds.), Padova, Italy.

  • i2 Technologies, Inc. (2000). “Intelligent E-Business Solutions”, [Online], Available: http://www.i2.com/.

  • Inktomi (1999). “The Inktomi Shopping Taxonomy” [Online], Available:http.://support.inktomi.com/Shopping/Public/Docs/ShoppingTaxonomy.txt, April 23, 1999.

  • Kim, Henry M. (1999). “Representing and Reasoning about Quality using Enterprise Models”,Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5S 3G9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.M. and Fox, M.S. (2000). “Construction of Ontology Based Enterprise Models for E-Commerce”,Data and Knowledge Engineering, Submitted.

  • Kim, Henry M. (2001). “Enabling Integrated Decision-Making for Electronic Commerce by Modelling an Enterprise’s Sharable Knowledge”,Journal of Internet Research, To Appear.

  • Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., and Zelm M. (1999), “CIMOSA: enterprise engineering and integration”,Computers in Industry, Vol. 40 Nos. 2–3, pp. 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. B. (1995). “Cyc: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure”Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38, No. 11.

  • SAP AG (1995).SAP R/3 System: Quality Management, SAP AG, Neurottstrasse 16, 69190 Walldorf, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAP AG (1998). “Business Framework: SAP Business Objects” [Online], Available:http://www.sap.com/bfw/index.htm, March 16.

  • SAP AG (2000). “Welcome to SAP E-Business Solutions” [Online], Available: http://www.sap.com/.

  • Scheer, August-Wilhelm (2000).Aris—Business Process Frameworks, Springer-Verlag.

  • Siebel Systems Inc. (2000). “Siebel Systems”, [Online], Available: http://www.siebel.com/.

  • Smith, Howard and and Poulter, Kevin, (1999). “Share the Ontology in XML-based Trading Architectures”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42, No. 3.

  • Enterprise Integration Laboratory (2000). “TOVE Ontologies” [Online], Available:http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/tove/toveont.html, July.

  • Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., and Yannis, Z. (1998). “The Enterprise Ontology”,The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 13.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, H.M. Enterprise models of measurement: A comparison of existing models used for quality management and e-business. Oper Res Int J 2, 85–92 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940123

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940123

Keywords

Navigation