2014 | 1(35) | 141-151
Article title

Knowledge-Based System for Assessment of Economic Situation of Enterprise

Title variants
System z bazą wiedzy do oceny kondycji ekonomicznej przedsiębiorstwa
Languages of publication
In the paper, the author’s conception of building an intelligent system for predicting economic situation of enterprises is presented. This conception is captured in the form of the prediction chain (PC). A process of reasoning by analogy is performed using a Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) methodology. In the paper, a model of an enterprise, concentrating on identification of the competence potential and competence gap, is shown. A protocol of an assessment of potential and assessment of competence gap in a given range, using the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), is presented. Individual elements of a system for creating the knowledge are captured in the form of an A-E-AE (Agent-Expert-Acts of Explanation). The structures of classes in the Protege editor are shown. At the end, a coordination diagram in the UML language is depicted. This diagram makes up a diagram of the interface between an expert and a CBR system.
W pracy przedstawiono architekturę systemu z bazą wiedzy, którego zadaniem jest ocena ekonomicznej kondycji przedsiębiorstwa. Baza wiedzy została skonstruowana w oparciu o ontologię A-E-AE (Agent-Ekspert-Akty Wyjaśniania). Przedstawiono diagram klas w edytorze języka OWL — Protege. Strukturę procesu wyjaśniania oceny ekonomicznej sytuacji przedsiębiorstwa przedstawiono na diagramie UML. Proces rozpoznawania w systemie jest oparty na metodologii CBR (Case-Based Reasoning) — wnioskowanie poprzez analogię z bazy przypadków.
  • University of Management and Administration in Zamość
  • Aamodt, A., and E. Plaza. 1994. “Case-Based Reasoning — Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches.” Ai Communications no. 7 (1): 39–59.
  • Altman, E.I. 1993. Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy. A Complete Guide to Predicting & Avoiding Distress and Profiting from Bankruptcy. 2 ed, Wiley finance editions. New York: Wiley.
  • Andreasik, J. 2007. “A Case Base Reasoning System for Predicting the Economic Situation on Enterprises – Tacit Knowledge Capture Process (Externalization).” In Computer recognition systems 2, edited by M. Kurzyński, 718–730. Berlin-New York: Springer.
  • Andreasik, J. 2008. “Enterprise Ontology — Diagnostic Approach.” 2008 Conference on Human System Interactions, Vols 1 and 2:503–509.
  • Argenti, J. 1976. Corporate Collapse. The Causes and Symptoms. London-New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Brooking, A. 1999. Corporate Memory. Strategies for Knowledge Management. London: International Thomson Business Press.
  • Carlucci, D., B. Marr, and G. Schiuma. 2004. “The Knowledge Value Chain. How Intellectual Capital Impacts on Business Performance.” International Journal of Technology Management no. 27 (6–7): 575–590. doi: 10.1504/Ijtm.2004.004903.
  • Forman, E.H., and M.A. Selly. 2001. Decision by Objectives. How to Convince Others That You Are Right. River Edge, N. J.: World Scientific.
  • Harzallah, M., G. Berio, and F. Vernadat. 2006. “Analysis and Modeling of Individual Competencies. Toward Better Management of Human Resources.” Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part a-Systems and Humans no. 36 (1): 187–207. doi: 10.1109/Tsmca.2006.859093.
  • Holsapple, C.W., and M. Singh. 2001. “The Knowledge Chain Model. Activities for Competitiveness.” Expert Systems with Applications no. 20 (1): 77–98. doi: 10.1016/S0957–4174 (00)00050–6.
  • Jussupova-Mariethoz, Y., and A.R. Probst. 2007. “Business Concepts Ontology for an Enterprise Performance and Competences Monitoring.” Computers in Industry no. 58 (2): 118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.008.
  • Kirkwood, C.W. 1997. Strategic Decision Making. Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Spreadsheets. Belmont: Duxbury Press.
  • Lu, J., L. Sun, and X. Ma. 2002. “An Evaluation Model for Enterprise Competence and Case Study.” USA-China Business Review no. 2 (2).
  • Montresor, S. 2004. “Resources, Capabilities, Competences and the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Economic Studies no. 31 (5): 409–434. doi: 10.1108/01443580410555528.
  • Pepiot, G., N. Cheikhrouhou, J.M. Furbringer, and R. Glardon. 2007. “UECML: Unified Enterprise Competence Modelling Language.” Computers in Industry no. 58 (2): 130–142. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.010.
  • Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press.
  • Prahalad, C.K., and G. Hamel. 1990. “The Core Competence of the Corporation.” Harvard Business Review no. 68 (3): 79–91.
  • Richardson, B., S. Nwankwo, and S. Richardson. 1994. “Understanding the Causes of Business Failure Crises. Generic Failure Types: Boiled Frogs, Drowned Frogs, Bullfrogs and Tadpoles.” Management Decision no. 32 (4): 9–22. doi: 10.1108/00251749410058635.
  • Saaty, T.L. 2001. Decision Making for Leaders. The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. The analytic hierarchy process series. Pittsburgh, Pa.: RWS Publ.
  • Seppänen, V. 2002. “Evolution of Competence in Software Subcontracting Projects.” International Journal of Project Management no. 20 (2): 155–164.
  • Vasconcelos, J.A.B., C. Kimble, F.R. Gouveia, and D. Kudenko. 2001. Reasoning in Corporate Memory Systems. A Case Study of Group Competencies. Paper read at ISMICK’01, October, at Université Technologie Compiègne.
  • Watson, I.D. 2003. Applying Knowledge Management. Techniques for Building Corporate Memories. Amsterdam-Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.