A Multiagent System Prototype of a Tacit Knowledge Management Model to Reduce Labor Incident Resolution Times
Source abstract
Abstract
The transformation of the tacit knowledge of a company’s human resources into permanent organizational capital in spite of possible staff turnover is of business interest. This research focuses on the management of tacit knowledge to resolve labor incidents and reduce resolution times. We present the GESTAC model, a name derived from the first syllables of the Spanish words “gestión” (management) and “tácito” (tacit), which identifies, locates and rates people in the business domain capable of resolving a labor incident logged by a user employed by the company. In order to achieve its objective, the GESTAC model follows the tacit knowledge management paradigm, according to which tacit knowledge that could eventually resolve the logged incidents is identified, captured and stored in a permanent database, and then evaluated and disseminated to the people who have need of the knowledge. This could lead to the knowledge source being automatically rerated, and the entire process restarted. The aim is to contribute to the state of the art, showing that by applying tacit knowledge management to a specific domain the GESTAC model is able to reduce incident resolution times with respect to traditional systems. The model was prototyped (GESTAC_APP) using the multiagent systems paradigm.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Business Process Modeling and Analysis · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Scheduling and Optimization Algorithms
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Engineering, University ORT Uruguay, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay
School of Computer Science, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus Montegancedo, 28660 Madrid, Spain
School of Computer Science, Madrid Open University, UDIMA, 28400 Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Investigación para la Gestión Integrada de Zonas Costeras (IGIC), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. What is the organizational knowledge?10.1111/1467-6486.00268 ↗
2. Turoff, M., and Linstone, H.A. (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley.
3. Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology10.1023/B:AGNT.0000018806.20944.ef ↗
4. (2019, August 02). Design CASE Tool for Agent-Oriented Repositories, Techniques, Environments and Systems. Available online: http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/descartes/index.php.
5. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 ↗
6. (2019, August 02). Financial Accounting Standards Board, Concepts Statements. Available online: https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/PreCodSectionPage&cid=1176156317989.
7. Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Nonprofit Organizations10.1002/nml.11308 ↗
8. Davenport, T., and Prusak, L. (1998). What Do We Talk about when We Talk about Knowledge?. Working Knowledge. How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press.
9. Thompson, A., Peteraph, M., Gamble, J., and Strikland, A. (2012). Administración Estratégica. Teoría y Casos, Mc Craw Hill Companies. [18th ed.].
10. Wisdom, management and organization10.1177/1350507614542901 ↗
11. Probst, G., Raub, S., and Romhardt, K. (2001). Administre el Conocimiento. Los Pilares para el Éxito, Prentice Hall.
12. Chiavenato, I. (2006). Introducción a la Teoría General de la Administración, McGraw Hill.
13. Chauvel, D., and Despres, C. (1999). Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline Rooted in a Long History—Draft of Chapter 1. Knowledge Management, Butterworth Heinemann.
14. Understanding the effect of knowledge management strategies on knowledge management performance: A contingency perspective10.1016/j.im.2014.03.001 ↗
15. Martinez, M.L. (2010). Gestión de Conocimientos para la Ingeniería de Requerimientos, Facultad de Informática, Universidad de Comahue.
16. Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques10.14429/djlit.29.276 ↗
17. A new multi-agent system framework for tacit knowledge management in manufacturing supply chains10.1007/s10845-008-0142-0 ↗
18. Impact of operator experience on information feedback and reusability10.1080/09537287.2012.692169 ↗
19. Gal, Y.A., Pfeffer, A., Kasturirangan, R., and Richards, W. (2009, January 29–31). A Model of Tacit Knowledge and Action. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/CSE.2009.479 ↗
20. Seidler-de Alwis, R., Hartmann, E., and Gemunden, H.E. (2004, January 2). The role of tacit knowledge in innovation management. Proceedings of the 20th Annual IMP Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
21. A Multiagent Approach for Collective Decision Making in Knowledge Management10.1007/s10726-010-9202-x ↗
22. Karunananda, S., Ratnayake, U., Mendis, K., and Samaratuga, U. (2007, January 9–11). Tacit Knowledge Modelling in Intelligent Hybrid Systems. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS, Penadeniya, Sri Lanka.
23. The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management practice10.1016/S0024-6301(97)00025-3 ↗
24. Hedlund, G., and Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of Knowledge Management in the West and Japan—Chapter 5. Implementing Strategic Process: Change, Learning and Cooperation, Macmillan.
25. Reviewing the knowledge management literature: Towards a taxonomy10.1108/13673270310492967 ↗
26. ICBS—Intellectual capital benchmarking systems10.1108/14691930110385937 ↗
27. Wagner, R., and Stenberg, R.J. (1986). Tacit knowledge and intelligence in the every world. Practical Intelligence: Nature and Origins of Competence with Everyday World, Cambridge University Press.
28. Cheng, M.Y.K., and Cohen, R. (2005, January 24–29). Reasoning about Interaction in a Multi-User Systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on User Modeling, Edingburgh, UK.
29. Epistemología social y consenso en la ciencia
30. Aguilera-Luke, A.M. (2019, August 02). La Gestión de Conocimientos Organizacional. Independent, Version: 01, Forthcoming. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312155359_LA_GESTION_DEL_CONOCIMIENTO_ORGANIZACIONAL.
31. Dierkes, M., Berthoin, A., Child, J., and Nonaka, I. (2003). A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Understanding the Dynamic Process of Creating Knowledge. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press.
32. ITIL-Information Infrastructure Library (2019, August 02). United Kingdom’s Office of Government Commerce (GC). CCTA y OGC. Available online: https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/itil.
33. A Multi-Agent System for the Solution of Fuzzy Incidents in Telecommunications
34. Choi, B. (2002). Numerical Methods for the Valuation of American. Options under Jump-Diffusion Processes. [Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School, The University of Texas].
35. Cornu, L. (1999). Confianza en las relaciones pedagógicas. Construyendo un Saber Sobre el Interior de la Escuela, Ediciones Novedades Educativas.
36. Soto Barrera, J.P. (2009). Una arquitectura multi-agente y un modelo de confianza para gestionar el conocimiento en comunidades de práctica. Área de conocimiento: Lenguajes y sistemas informáticos. [Ph.D. Thesis, Escuela Superior de Informática, Universidad de Castilla, La Mancha, Departamento de Tecnologías y Sistemas de Información].
37. Paolino, L. (2019, August 02). Multiagent System. Available online: https://sites.google.com/view/gestac-multiagente.
38. Merriam-Webster (2019, August 02). Common Sense. Available online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common sense.
39. Bungue, M. (2019, August 02). Metodicidad. Available online: https://sites.google.com/site/filosofiaysuscontenidos/edad-media-moderna-y-idealismo/metodicidad-sistematicidad-y-axiomaticidad.
40. (2019, August 02). Definición de Interés. Available online: http://definicion.de/interes/#ixzz4JzdeRL2x.
41. Randstad (2019, August 02). Trabajo en Equipo. Available online: https://www.randstad.es/tendencias360/trabajo-en-equipo-la-union-conlleva-al-exito/ http://innovacioneducativa.upm.es/competencias-genericas/formacionyevaluacion/trabajoEquipo.
42. Shah, B., and Allen & Overy (2019, August 02). Capturing Tacit Knowledge. Do You Know More than You Think? An Examination of the Challenges Involved in Capturing Tacit Knowledge. Available online: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-1024700?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=12003.
43. Stenmark, D. (2000, January 4–7). Turning Tacit Knowledge Tangible. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.
44. Bajracharya, P., and Roma Masdeu, N. (2006). Tacit Knowledge Transfer in Small Segment of Small Enterprises. [Master’s Thesis, Ekonomiska Institutionen].
45. Cheng, M.Y.K., and Cohen, R. (2005). Reasoning about Interaction in a Multi-User Systems. Int. Conf. User Modeling, 189–198.10.1007/11527886_25 ↗
46. Roman, P.E. (2011, March 01). Web User Behavior. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering System in the Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial. Available online: http://www.cmm.uchile.cl/~proman/Thesis.Pablo.E.Roman.pdf.
47. Quintero, C. (2019, August 02). Como Medir y Evaluar las Capacidades. Available online: https://prezi.com/rcjuczmwex9o/como-medir-y-evaluar-las-capacidades/.
48. (2019, August 02). Available online: www.hibernate.org.
49. Smith, J.S., and Duffy, A.H.B. (2001, January 21–23). Re-using knowledge: Why, what and where. Proceedings of the 2001 3th International Conference on Engineering Design, (ICED 01), Glasgow, UK.
50. Doucet, P., and Sloep, P.B. (1992). Mathematical Modeling in the Life Sciences, Ellis Horwood Ltd.. ISBN 13: 9780135620182.
51. Law, A.M., and Kelton, W.D. (2014). Simulation Modelling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill.
52. Lynch, D.R., and Davies, A.M. (1997). A Pragmatic Approach to Model Validation. Quantitative Skill Assessment for Coastal Ocean Models, American Geophysical Union.
53. Hutchin, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press. ISBN-10: 0262581469.10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 ↗
54. Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering10.1109/TSE.2002.1027796 ↗
55. Juristo, N., and Moreno, A.M. (2001). Basic of Software Engineering Experimentation, Springer Science and Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4757-3304-4 ↗
56. Salkind, N., and Escalona, R.L. (1999). Métodos de Investigación, Prentice Hall.
57. Sato, G.Y. (2019, August 02). Metodología Científica. Departamento Académico de Electrónica. Available online: https://es.scribd.com/document/284343777/Metodologia-científica.
58. Kerlinguer, F. (2019, August 02). Investigación del Comportamiento. Available online: http://www.academia.edu/6753714/Investigacion_Del_Comportamiento_-_Kerlinger_Fred_N_PDF.
59. The Statistical Analysis of Insect Counts Based on the Negative Binomial Distribution
60. Pazos, J. (2019, August 02). El Método Experimental y Científico. Tipos de Experimentos. Available online: https://www.google.com.uy/search?q=metodo+experimental+j+pazos&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ahZ7IEI8_WavbM%253A%252C51-nE9c2pXMzCM%252C_&usg=__HUpg6mT9iIiE-wjH.
61. Mason, R.D. (2019, August 02). Estadística para la Administración y Economía. Mexico. Alfoamaga—Grupo Editor S.A.. Available online: http://dspace.ucbscz.edu.bo/dspace/bitstream/123456789/13994/1/10213.pdf.
62. (2019, August 02). Minitab. Available online: www.minitab.com.