competency modelling targeted on boosting configuration of virtual organizations
TRANSCRIPT
Competency modelling targeted on boosting configuration of Virtual Organizations
Ekaterina Ermilova, Hamideh Afsarmanesh
Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[email protected], [email protected]
(Received $$ $$$ 2009; final version received $$ $$$ 2009)
Modelling of organization’s competency has been researchedduring the last decades. One line of this research hasfocused on addressing collaborative networks oforganizations. Virtual organizations Breeding Environments(VBEs) as the base for dynamic formation of VirtualOrganizations (VOs) are particularly in need of strongmanagement of their organizations’ competencies. Many large1st generation VBEs fail due to their inability to dynamicallyprocess and analyse information about their memberorganizations and particularly processing their members’competencies needed for dynamic and agile VO configuration.This paper introduces the “4C-model” (Capabilities +Capacities + Costs + Conspicuities), developed tocomprehensively specify competencies of VBE memberorganizations. As such, the 4C-model directly addresses andpromotes efficiency in VO formation, and thus increasesorganizations’ involvement in potential VirtualOrganizations. The paper further addresses the development ofan ontology for the competency model.
Keywords: competency modelling; virtual organization; virtual organizations breeding environment
1. IntroductionIn turbulent market and society conditions, stimulated byfast technology development and high customer demand, alarge number of small and medium organizations/enterprises,the so called SMEs, are threatened. Having few machinery aswell as human resources and low possibilities and support
1
To cite this article: Ekaterina Ermilova & Hamideh Afsarmanesh (2010): Competency modelling targeted on boostingconfiguration of virtual organisations, Production Planning & Control, 21:2, 103-
for innovation, they are unable to both respond to the morecomplex, market/society opportunities and to compete withlarger organizations.
During the last decades both research and practice haveconcluded that the SMEs’ chances to remain competitive inthe market/society increase if they work together withothers, within the so called Virtual Organizations (VOs)(Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2008, Franke 2002). Asmembers of VOs, SMEs benefit from joining their resourcesand competencies in order to better compete in themarket/society. For instance, SME companies in themanufacturing sector establish collaborative networks aimingto produce more complex and cost/quality effective productsfor their customers. Similarly, travel agencies set upcollaborative networks together with for example the hotels,airlines, and car rental companies, aiming to offer morevalue-added and/or personalized services.
Since the member organizations in VOs are geographicallydistributed, e.g. in different countries, there are a largenumber of differences among them, including characteristicsrelated to their working and sharing culture and principles.Among others, the distributed way of work results in severalinteroperability challenges. For example, heterogeneity inthe semantics of the exchanged information betweenorganizations, which usually poses ICT challenges foroperation and management of VOs to the level that it maycause the failure of the collaborative networks (Pouly etal. 2005).
Research and practice in the area of collaborativenetworks have also shown that establishing longer termassociations among SMEs can act as a facilitator foreffective agile formation and setting up of VOs. Thereforethe last decade has also witnessed the establishment of anumber of Virtual organizations Breeding Environments (VBEs)that have emerged to facilitate this purpose.
The research presented in this paper contributes toboosting the performance of VBEs and specially their VOconfiguration in through the introduction of formal andunified modelling for competencies of the VBE member
2
organizations. This section first addresses the concept ofthe Virtual organizations Breeding Environment (subsection1.1) and the VO configuration within VBEs (subsection 1.2).The main aims of this paper as well as its main content arethen addressed in subsection 1.3.
The work on this paper is partially supported by the FP6IP project ECOLEAD (2004-2008) (Camarinha-Matos et al 2008-1, ECOLEAD 2008), funded by the European Commission.
1.1. Concept of Virtual organizations Breeding EnvironmentCollaborative networks (CNs) of organizations have beenaddressed by research since 1990. Some earlier forms ofcollaboration networks such as “supply chains”, “virtualenterprises”, “industrial districts”, and “virtual weborganizations” are specified in details in the literature by(Bremer et al. 1999), (Molina and Flores 2000), (Franke2002), (Mejia and Molina 2002), (Camarinha-Matos andAfsarmanesh 2003), (Cooke and Huggins 2004), (Pouly et al.2005), and (Plüss and Huber 2005).
In the ECOLEAD project (ECOLEAD 2008), two specifictypes of collaborative networks of organizations, namely thedynamic Virtual Organization (VO) and the Virtual organizations BreedingEnvironment (VBE) were singled out from other forms of CN andcharacterized in details. The definitions of these two typesof collaborative networks follow:
Dynamic Virtual Organization represents a short-term goal-orientednetwork of legally independent organizations that come together and shareresources and skills to achieve common goals, such as preparing a proposal or abid, or jointly performing the tasks needed to satisfy an opportunity, while usingthe computer networks and software systems as the base communication /interaction infrastructure (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2004).
Virtual organizations Breeding Environment is a strategic association oforganizations and their related supporting institutions, adhering to a base longterm cooperation agreement, and adoption of common operating principles andinfrastructures, with the main goal of increasing both their chances and theirpreparedness towards collaboration in potential Virtual Organizations(Afsarmanesh and Camarinha-Matos 2005).
As such, VBEs represent long-term networks that aim toeffectively support their member organizations with fluent and
3
dynamic creation of opportunity-driven short-term VOnetworks.
A number of running strategic networks/clusters oforganisations around the world are known and have beenstudied by researchers. In this paper, these networks arereferred to as “1st generation VBEs” (Afsarmanesh et al.2008). The objective of this paper is to solve specificchallenges of these VBEs in relation to the engineering andmanagement of their competencies that shall support themwith getting closer to their more advanced 2nd generation.
1.2. VO configuration within VBEsImproving the VO creation process in VBEs has already beenaddressed in the state of the art research literature. Asdescribed in (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008-2), the VOcreation process within 2nd generation VBEs consists ofthree main phases, namely: Preparatory phase, including identification and
characterization of a new Collaborative Opportunity (CO)arisen in the market/society, as well as a rough planningof a new VO to respond to this CO.
Consortia formation phase, including search and suggestion ofthe best-fit partners for a new VO among the VBE memberorganizations, composition of a new VO, and negotiationamong the candidate VO partners.
VO launching phase, including detailed VO planning,contracting among the VO partners, and the VO set-up.
4
Figure 1. An example Call for Tender (Camarinha-Matoset al. 2008-2)
During the second phase, the VO creation requires anextensive analysis of the information about the VBE memberorganizations. When a new CO is identified (e.g. through acall for tender as illustrated in Figure 1) andcharacterized, as a first step its specifities need to bematched against the aggregate information about the VBEmembers, in order to identify if this VBE can address thisspecific Collaborative Opportunity.
The CO description can best be represented through twomain parameters, namely the product that represents thefinal good that needs to be manufactured together with itsconstituting components, as well as the project defined forthe offering of the final service together with itsconstituting activities. Decomposition of a CO in terms ofdecomposition of its related products and projects isillustrated in Figure 2. Namely, the solid lines demonstratefor example that products are decomposed into assemblies,then assemblies are decomposed into sub-assemblies, and soforth. However in some cases products or assemblies aredecomposed directly into the components as addressed withthe dashed lines.
5
Project Decom positionProduct Decom position
Product
Assemblies
Sub-Assemblies
Components
Project
Activities
Sub-Activities
Tasks
Project
Activities
Sub-Activities
Tasks
Figure 2. Product and Project Decomposition (Camarinha-Matoset al. 2008-2)
Therefore, in order to be able to create a new VO, anumber of VBE members should be able to collectively perform allactivities/tasks needed for the project, as indicated in theproject decomposition, as well as to collectively produce allcomponents of the final product/service as defined in theproduct decomposition. Consequently, in order to participatein VOs and particularly in the VBE’s search for VO partners,each VBE member should provide the VBE with the informationabout the activities it is able to perform through the VBEand the products/services it can produce/offer, which areall in fact constituents of organization’s competency. Thecompetency information therefore is the main informationrequired from the VBE members in order to participate in theVO creation processes, and thus the VO creation within theVBE can be referred to as “competency-based VO creation”.
Furthermore, in order to promote itself towardsinvitation / involvement for new VOs, a VBE member mustprovide detailed and up-to-date information about itscompetencies. Based on the analysis of the competencyinformation provided by all members, the VO broker selectsthe best-fit partners in the VBE for the potentialestablishment of a new VO.
In very small VBEs, the competency information canperhaps be even transmitted orally from the VBE members tothe VBE administrator and/or the VBE coach. However inmedium to large size VBEs, and depending on organization’scomplexity and especially in dynamic VBEs - continuouslyadjusting their competencies to the changing conditions in
6
the market/society, the task of collection and analysis ofcompetency information by human actors in the VBE is noteffective. In such VBEs, ICT-based mechanisms are requiredto support the management of VBE members’ competencies.
Our empirical studies of more than ten 1st generationVBEs from Europe and Latin America (see the names of theseVBEs in section 2) have identified the lack of propercompetency management approaches in these VBEs, as well asthe lack of supporting generic competency models. The meredefinition of member organization’s competency is difficult,since competency is generally considered as a “tacitknowledge”, which is hard to comprehensively capture, modeland represent.
In our case study we investigated the current state ofthe art applied to modelling of organizations’ competencieswhich was conducted through a questionnaire in the 1stgeneration VBEs. The main conclusions from the analysis ofcollected results in relation to existing VBE members’competency models are addressed below: Only about 50% of VBEs store and handle competencies of
their members in digital formats (e.g. Microsoft Officedocuments).
Majority of the existing 1st generation VBEs haveindicated that there is no common understanding anddefinition for “competency”. However, the competencies inthese VBEs often refer to the some of the following:member’s products / services, business processes, andresources, etc. Therefore to boost the VO creation, generic modelling
of competency as well as design and development of the ICT-based competency management system is challenging.
1.3. Aim of this paperIn earlier definitions, organization’s competency mainlyaddresses its capabilities, for example Gallon (Gallon etal. 1995) defines competency as “aggregation ofcapabilities, where synergy that is created has sustainablevalue and broad applicability”. However participation oforganizations in general VBE activities such as the VO
7
configuration, training, marketing, and trust establishment,require prior submission and analysis of their more detailedcompetencies (Afsarmanesh and Camarinha-Matos 2005). Forthis purpose, the information needed for an organizationtypically includes an accurate description of the member’scapabilities, its free resources’ capacities, the productioncosts for each of its product, as well as any conspicuousproof of the validity of the provided information.
Competency is generally considered as a “tacitknowledge”, which is hard to comprehensively capture, modeland represent. Furthermore, in different disciplines,competency is associated with different types ofcharacteristics, e.g. from some intangible characteristicssuch as “knowledge” (HR-XML 2001) and “attitude” (AndrosConsultants 2000) to tangible characteristics such as“resource” (Javidan 1998) and “product” (Molina and Flores1999).
The competency model introduced in this paper tosupport the VO creation in VBEs is called the “4C-model”,including 4 generic and comprehensive components, namely:capability, capacity, cost, and conspicuity.
In this paper, we state and discuss that thedefinition, modelling and representation of organizations’competencies depend on the targeted objectives for this taskand then we especially focus on the target of promoting theVO creation in VBEs, which is the aim of this paper. Insection 2, we address some specific end-users’ requirements,related to competency modelling and management in VBEs,which affects the design of the organization’s competencymodel in VBEs. Then, in section 3, we address an overview ofdifferent competency models developed during the lastdecades, as well as their different objectives. Based onboth the identified requirements and the lessons learnedfrom the overview, section 4 presents the developed 4C-modelof competency for VBEs. Further we extend the generic 4Ccompetency model into specific domains of activities andalso introduce new concepts of “aggregate competency” and“collective competency”. Section 5 addresses the
8
specification of the 4C-model of competency in the form ofan ontology. Section 6 concludes this paper.
2. Requirement analysis for competency modelling in VBEsOur requirement analysis for competencies in VBEs isperformed in collaboration both with end-users and otherstakeholders from several industrial VBE networks, and withexperts in the area of Collaborative Networks and VBEs.These two classes of participants are further addressedbelow.
The industry users from running 1st generation VBEstypically consisted of VBE administration, VBE coaches, aswell as regular VBE member organizations. Particularly, morethan ten VBEs from Europe and Latin America were involved inthe ECOLEAD project and have been contacted for ourrequirement analysis. Eight VBE networks providedsubstantial support during this research, including IECOSfrom Mexico (IECOS 2008), Virtuelle Fabrik AG fromSwitzerland (Virtuelle Fabric 2008), Toolmaker Cluster ofSlovenia (TCS) from Slovenia (TCS 2008), VIRFEBRAS fromBrazil (VIRFEBRAS 2008), HELICE from Spain (HELICE 2008),CeBeNetwork from Germany (CeBeNetwork 2008), AutomotiveCluster of Slovenia (GIZ ACS) from Slovenia (ACS 2008), andSwiss Microtech (SMT) from Switzerland (SMT 2008).
The domain experts, representing the research/academicexperts in the area of Collaborative Networks and VBEs,mainly included university professors and members ofresearch institutes. The contacted domain experts wereeither involved in the ECOLEAD project or represented the CNexperts, members of the international SOCOLNET (Society ofCollaborative Networks) consortium (SOCOLNET 2008)). Severalof these experts have the position of coaches in theirregional VBE networks of 1st generation. These expertsactively participated in the requirement analysis andevaluation activities conducted by our research.
At the first stage of our study, a set of questionnaireswere prepared, aimed to collect basic requirements inrelation to competency models and basic functionality for
9
competency management from the end-users and the domainexperts. The results generated from the analysis of thisexperimental study constituted the main requirement criteriafor our approach to modeling and management oforganizations’ competencies in VBEs. These criteriaincluded: Competency purpose: In VBEs, organizations’ competenciesare required mainly for promotion of the VBE members towardsinvolvement in potential VOs. Competency elements: Organizations’ competencies areassociated with a variety of elements in different VBEs,such as their ability to perform: tasks, business processes,jobs, core business activities and practices, and whenapplying a merge of human/physical/ICT resources (e.g. theknowledge, skills, and even work ethics of the personnel, orthe available machinery at the organization), andfurthermore aimed at offering different products and/orservices to the market/society. Competency availability: Availability and/or free capacityof the VBE member organization’s competency, which can beoffered to potential new VOs, should be announced with ahigh degree of details. Competency validity: Validity of the provided competencyinformation needs to be properly addressed in the VBE. Forexample, customers’ letters of satisfaction/recommendationcan be made available to VBEs, with the contact informationof the person who has signed the letter. Furthermore, astrict system (e.g. certificates) shall exist, with whichVBEs can evaluate the data provided by organizations inorder to assure information accuracy, so that organizationsdo not claim false competencies at the VBE level. Competency costs: VBE member organizations shall announcethe “costs” related to offering their competencies withinthe VOs. Therefore, for each element of organization’scompetency, its costs need to be addressed. Competency naming: Some existing VBEs have noticed thatcompetencies cannot be identified only by their names. Forexample, if two companies both have competencies called“milling” it does not mean that they do similar milling
10
tasks. Therefore, a set of other characteristics forcompetency needs to be defined in order to distinguishbetween competencies with similar names. Competency model adaptability: Considering the very widevariety and spectrum of VBE’s domains of activities, e.g.manufacturing, tourism, environment research, health care,scientific research, etc. as well as the heterogeneity ofapplications in each domain, identification andcategorization of a unified/generic structure ofcompetencies is challenging. The generic competency modelshall be comprehensive in order to be adapted for differentdomains in which a VBE can be established, and theninstantiated for each specific VBE Competency creation: New competencies may be generated inVOs, thus the competency model should support creation of anew competency out of a set of existing competencies. Competency collection: Competencies held by the VBE andthat can be offered to the market/society are represented bythe collection of the VBE members’ competencies. Thus, thecompetency model should support aggregation of competencies.
At the second stage of our study, aiming to support allrequirements identified during the first stage, we designedthe 4C competency model and developed a software system tomanage the organizations’ competency related information.This system, called PCMS (Profile and Competency ManagementSystem) (Ermilova and Afsarmanesh 2007), offers specificfunctionality and services for competency management basedon the prepared competency model. These aim to processdifferent aspects of the competency, introduced in the 4C-model, as well as to provide effective web-interfaces andweb-services for both human and software access andprocessing of competency related information.
At the third stage, the 4C-model and the PCMS went througha series of trial evaluation and finally validation in realrunning industry VBE networks associated with the ECOLEADproject. During this stage the competency model was furtherimproved and evolved. Another objective for the developmentof the VBE competency model was its proper alignment withthe concepts introduced by previous research in this area as
11
addressed in section 3.
3. State of the art in organization competency This section subsequently presents several existingdefinitions and models for organization’s competency, asbeing addressed in three disciplines of (1) intra-organization managerial sciences and industrial engineering,(2) inter-organization managerial sciences, and (3) networksmanagerial sciences. These disciplines although are relatedto each other, have different position in regards to thecompetency model, and thus the models defined in thesedisciplines also differ. The main objective for this sectionis to provide a comprehensive overview of differentdeveloped competency models in order to further position our4C-model of competency, described in section 4, among therelated research on competency models.
While the detailed description of all addressed state-of-the-art competency models is outside the scope of thispaper, below Table 1 represents a survey of the mainreferenced models, specifically addressing their mainobjectives, competency definitions, and fundamentalcompetency components. The main conclusion made out of thestudy is the following: Although the competency models arenot uniform, they correspond to and inter-relate with eachother via similar components. Depending on the context,where the competency is modelled, and depending on thepurpose for modelling, similar components are extended withsome more specific components.
Table 1. Summary of the state of the art works onorganization’s competency modeling
Ref.Name ofthemodel
Objective forcompetencymodeling
Competency definition and/orfundamental components in the
competency model(1) Intra-organization managerial sciences
12
(Prahalad and Hamel 1990)
Corecompetencenotion
Strategicplanning andprovidingmeans forachievingbettersynergiesamong itsvariousbusiness unitsin a multi-businesscorporation.
“the collective learning in theorganization, especially how to co-ordinate diverse production skillsand integrate multiple streams oftechnologies”– Production skills– Technologies
(Javidan 1998)
Corecompetencehierarchy
Extension ofthe corecompetencynotion.
– Resources (physical resources,human resource, organizationalresources Capabilities(organization abilities to exploitresources)
– Competencies (cross-functionalintegration and coordination ofcapabilities)
– Core competencies (skills and areasof knowledge that are shared acrossbusiness units and result fromintegration and harmonization ofSBUs’ competencies)
(2) Inter-organization managerial sciences
(HR-XML 2001)
HR-XMLcompetenciesschema
Providingtradingpartnersstandardizedand practicalmeans toexchangeinformationaboutcompetencieswithin avariety ofbusinesscontexts
“a specific, identifiable, definable,and measurable knowledge, skill,ability and/or other deployment-related characteristic (e.g.attitude, behavior, physical ability)which a human resource may possessand which is necessary for, ormaterial to, the performance of anactivity within a specific businesscontext”– Taxonomy Id – Competency Id – Competency Evidence – Competency Weight – Competency (resulted from thedecomposition the “top-level”competency)
(3) Networks managerial sciences
13
(Molina and Flores
1999)
CoreCompetencies inthemanufacturingclusters
Matching offulfilling thetasks definedfor a new VOagainst theconstituentskillsprovided bythe cluster oforganizations
– Products– Processes (Business Processes)– Skills (Technology) – Task (set of activities/operations)service
(SFB4571999),
(Mueller 2006)
Competence cells
Planning ofproductionsystem in thecompetencecell-basednetworks
“the smallest autonomous performanceunit able to create value, beindivisible and able to existindependently”– Competence of humans– Resources (production areas,stocks, personnel, work equipmentand auxiliary equipment,organizational and financial means)
– Fulfilled task or executed function
(Boucher et al.
2005)
s-a-r-Cmodel
Competenceincrease forindividualfirms within anetwork offirms
“the interaction between threecomponents: the professionalsituations, the actors, and theresources”– Professional Situation (tasks andproblems)
– Actor (human resources of the firm)– Resource (material capabilities)
A summary of our main observations follow:
1) The competency definitions and models differ from onemodel to another, depending on the purpose for competencymodeling.
2) There are two competency components that are common inall models, namely (i) “resource”, including “human resource”(also called “actor”), “physical resources”, “ICTresources” (also called “technologies” or “skills”) and afew other types of resources, and (ii) “activity” (also called“process”, “production skill”, “capability”,“professional situation”, “task” or “problem”). Theabsence of uniformity of naming of the same competencycomponents is caused by difference in the context, wherecompetency is being modeled.
14
3) Different models provide different extensions to the two-components-base addressed above in (b), such as the“taxonomy” and “classification” of competencies, as wellas “competency weight” and “competency evidence” in (HR-XML 2001).
4) The structure and level of details addressed incompetency models depend on further intentions of usingthis specific model. Models, used for further creation ofcompetency repositories, structuring and processing ofcompetencies, such as in (HR-XML 2001) are typically moredetailed.
4. The 4C-model of competency The main objective of the “4C-model of competency” is the“promotion of the VBE member organizations towards theirparticipation in future VOs”. The four fundamentalcomponents of competency in this model represent:“Capability”, “Capacity”, “Cost” and “Conspicuity”. Adescription, as well as a motivation for the appearance ofeach component in this model, is further addressed below. Weprovide the following definition of competency.
Organizations’ competencies in VBEs represent up-to-date informationabout their capabilities, capacities, costs, as well as conspicuities,illustrating the accuracy of their provided information, all aimed atqualifying organizations for VBE participation, and mostly orientedtowards their VO involvement.
The main features that make the 4C-model unlike other models(as addressed in section 3) are the following:
The 4C-model is developed in the context of VO creationwithin VBEs. Thus, the competency structure and mainelements primarily intend to meet the specific VBErequirements (as addressed in section 2).
The 4C-model is the base for development of acompetency database, as well as the system forcataloguing and processing of competencies (i.e. thePCMS). Thus, the competency structure shall bedetailed, and shall support further structuring andprocessing of the competencies.
15
The main objective of the competency model for VBE memberorganizations, which is called “4C-model of competency”, isthe “promotion of the VBE member organizations towards theirparticipation in future VOs”. While the competency itself isan element of the profile model, it also has an embedded,compound structure. The four fundamental components ofcompetency in this model are identified through the state ofthe art study and the requirement analysis and represent:“Capability”, “Capacity”, “Cost” and “Conspicuity”.
4.1. Definition of the 4 elements Similar to other competency models addressed in section 3,the 4C competency model needed in VBEs has a compoundstructure. However, the primary emphasis in this model goesto the four following components, which are identifiedthrough our experimental study as necessary and sufficientcomponents. The reasons why these elements are introduced asprerequisites for the 4C-model are addressed below:
1. C apabilities represent the processes and activities oforganizations. When collective business processes aremodelled for a new VO, the VO planner has to search forspecific processes or activities that can be performed bysingle organizations, an order to instantiate the model.2. C apacities represent free capacities of resources neededto perform one capability. Specific capacities oforganizations are needed to fulfil the quantitative valuesof capabilities, e.g. amount of production units per day. Ifcapacity of one member for a specific capability is notenough for a new VBE, another member (or a group of members)who has the same capability can be also invited. 3. C osts represent the costs of products/services provisionin relation to one capability. They are needed to estimateif invitation of a specific group of members to a VO doesnot exceed the planned VO budget.4. C onspicuities represent means for the validity ofinformation provided by the VBE members about theircapabilities, capacities and costs. The conspicuities in
16
VBEs mainly include certified or witnessed documents, suchas certifications, licenses, recommendation letters, etc.
4.2. Detailed specification of the 4C-modelAn illustration of the generic 4C-model of competency,applicable to all variety of VBEs, is addressed in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Generic 4C-model of competency
Further, detailed definitions of all competencycomponents are provided in Table 2. Please note that in thethird column of this table we address if there is anycorrespondence/match between aspects introduced in the 4C-model of competency and both: the requirements for thecompetency model, described in section 2, and the othercompetency models, described in section 3.
Table 2. Definitions of concepts represented in the 4C-model of competency
17
Concept: Definition: Match:Competency Competency is a compound object that cannot be
represented by one textual value. The same as in(Javidan 1998), in 4C-model, competency isassociated with a set of specific capabilities. (Javidan
1998),
(HR-XML2001)
Competencyclass
Competency can be classified by domains and theirspecific sectors, e.g. “metalworking competency”,“health-care competency”, etc. Competency canalso belong to two or several classes.
Competencydescription
Although a Competency class in general identifiesa competency, a more extensive textual definitionof each competency can be also provided.
Capability The capability is defined as an ability “toperform a task or activity”. In our modelCapability further refer to Capacity, which infact represents Free Capacity of all Resourcesexploited within that Capability. Furthermore, wedefine two main types of capabilities, such asprocess (mainly for manufacturing domain) (Molinaand Flores 1999) and activity (for service-oriented domain).
(Javidan1998),
(Molinaand
Flores1999),
Empiricalrequirement analysis
Capabilityclass
Capabilities can be classified. First, they canbe divided into two disjoint classes of “process”and “activity”. Second, they can be furtherclassified by the domain or a specific sector.Capability can also belong to two or severalclasses at the same time.
Capabilitydescription
Although a Capability class in general identifiesa capability, a more extensive textual definitionof each capability can be also provided.
Capacity Capacity is described as the current availabilityof resources needed to perform one specificcapability. The capacity component is mainlyresulted from our study of VBE requirements. Empirical
requirement analysis
Capacity-Measure
This represents a measure unit for a specificcapacity, e.g. “thousands units per hour”, or“hours a day”.
Capacityrate
This is a specific numeric value for capacityrelated to its measure unit, e.g. e.g. “20thousands units per hour”
Resource The resource class represents the elementsapplied to business processes in theorganizations.
(Molinaand Flores1999),
Resource Resources can be classified. First, they can be
18
class divided into four disjoint classes of “Humanresources”, “Physical resources”, “ICTresources”, and “Organizational resources” (e.g.brand and reputation). Further, for each class,the domain-specific sub-classes can be provided,such as “manufacturing machinery” for the“Physical resource” class. Empirical
requirement analysis
Resourcedescription
Although a Resource class in general identifies aresource, a more extensive textual definition ofeach specific resource can be also provided.
Resourcequantity
This is a number or amount of a specificresource, owned by a VBE member organization.
Product The Product represents both goods and servicesthat belong to the outputs of theprocesses/activities represented by the memberorganizations’ capabilities. The main descriptorsof product include: name, textual description,type (i.e. of product or service), productionstrategy (e.g. “engineering to order” for goodsand “design of services” for services), andcontribution to sales.
(Molinaand Flores1999),
Empiricalrequirement analysis
Cost Costs represent the costs of products/servicesprovision in relation to one capability. They areneeded to estimate if invitation of a specificgroup of members to a VO will not exceed theplanned VO budget.
Empiricalrequirement analysis
Cost item This is an item, for that the cons is provided,for example “100 thousands units a day”.
Cost value This is a monetary prize for a Cost item.Conspicuity
The conspicuity of the competency information isprovided through the evidence documents that is apart of the profile model (section 4.4.2.1). Thisknowledge class is introduced to represent theindication / proof of validity of the competencyinformation provided by the organization. Aconspicuity can either be an on-line document orsome web accessible information, e.g.organization’s brochures, web-site, etc.Conspicuity documents can indicate the productquality, financial stability, etc., and they willbe maintained in the VBE when provided by the VBEentities. The main reason for introducing theconspicuity documents in the VBE is to avoidbaseless claims of competencies by organizations.Therefore the issue of verification/validation of
(HR-XML2001),
Empiricalrequirement analysis
19
the competency data is also necessary to beaddressed.
Conspicuity class
The conspicuity of information validity, can beof two different kinds including: the “witnessedconspicuity” documents (e.g. a letter ofrecommendation or an article in a magazine/newssection), and the “authorized / certifiedconspicuity” documents (e.g. accreditationstatements, financial ratings, licenses,certificates, patents and awards).
Document title
This is a title of a specific conspicuitydocument.
Document ID
This is a specific identifier (e.g. licensenumber) of a conspicuity document.
Issuer This is the name of an organization, or a person,that issued a specific conspicuity document.
Validity period
This is a validity period (e.g. March 2000 -March 2010) of a conspicuity document.
The solution for both unique naming of competencies anddistinguishing similar competencies from each other has beenalso specified for the 4C-model of competency. As addressedin Table 2, this model does not suggest one single elementfor identification of competencies, for example only the“Competency name” (e.g. “Welding”, “Papers writing”, etc.).Rather the definition of a competency, addressed by the 4C-model, includes a number of characteristics that distinguishdifferent competencies from each other, such asCapabilities, Capacities, etc. Considering this set ofidentifying information, every single element can beuniquely identified.
In our approach we suggest a competency identificationapproach addressing two types of identifiers – first the oneused by the software agents and second the one used by thehuman agents who access VBE’s competency information. Forthe access by the software agents, competencies shall beidentified at the level of databases, through a specialsystem ID. This ID has no associated semantic, but itsupports unique competency identification, used withinsoftware systems. On the other hand, for the access bypeople, competencies shall be identified through a
20
combination of the Competency class and a detailed textualCompetency description (as addressed in Table 2).
4.3. Domain extension of the generic 4C-model of competencyFurther to the elements of the generic 4C-model that areshared by all VBEs (as addressed in section 4.2) independentof their domain area application, there is a number ofcompetency elements that are VBE domain (business area)dependent and/or specific VBE application dependent. Toaddress the specifities of competencies in different VBEdomains and application environments, while supporting thereusability and replicability of the model in different VBEdomains/applications, the 4Cs-model of competency has threefollowing levels: Core level that represents the generic competency model,applied to all VBEs (as addressed in section 4.2). Domain level that represents an extension of the corelevel with specific components related to each domain orbusiness area of the VBEs. Many domain extensions can bedefined for the competency model, depending on the number ofdifferent VBE activity/business domains existing in themarket and society. All VBEs from the same domain can sharethe same domain extension. At the domain level, the domainextension is integrated to the object-classes (e.g.Competency Class, Capability Class) in the genericcompetency model of the core level (see Figure 4). Forinstance, as illustrated in Figure 4, the Capability Classdefinition of the generic 4C-model at the core level isextended at the domain level with a number of domainspecific capability classes (e.g. Metalworking, Productdesign, etc.). Please note that for the “Capacity” elementin the 4C-model, the domain extension is applied to theCapacity Measure element (see Figure 4). Application level that represents an extension of thedomain level with new components related to every specificapplication environment of the VBE. Namely, each VBE has itsown application extension. The application extension is alsodirectly integrated to the domain extension of the genericcompetency model as the specific sub-classes of domain
21
classes, e.g. for the capabilities, resources, etc.
Figure 4. Domain extension of the 4-C model of competency:A) generalized representation of domain capability extension
and B) some exemplified domain capability extensions
Based on the domain and application classificationsintroduced in each VBE, the PCMS will organize/collect/groupcompetencies and their components.During the creation stage of every VBE’s life cycle
(Afsarmanesh and Camarinha-Matos 2005), the domain andapplication level extensions for its competency model shallbe created, while during the VBE’s operation and evolutionstage these extensions may further evolve. Development of the domain/application extensions from
scratch is a time-consuming task. However some “prototypes”of domain extensions exit and can be applied. For example,the activity classifications provided in the NACE codes(NACE 2008) represent a “prototype” for domain-dependentclassifications of competencies and capabilities that can beused for VBEs.
4.4. Aggregate and collective competency
To properly support the competency-based VO creation inVBEs, this section introduces two new concepts of “aggregatecompetency” and “collective competency”, as also illustratedin Figure 5.An aggregate competency represents a total aggregation/merge
of competency definitions of one, several, or of all membersinside a VBE. This aggregation is primarily focused on (1)evaluation of the ability of a group of VBE members, or ofall its members to address the criteria demanded through
22
COs, (2) identification of the general competency gaps inthe entire VBE while compared against most COs related tothe VBE domain and application, as well as (3) preparationof VBE’s aggregate competency catalog for the VBE customersas a part of VBE marketing activities.
Figure 5. A) Example VBE structure and B) Competencydissemination in the VBE
Competency aggregation is performed only at the level of“competency instances” (actual existing competencies inVBE), but not on the level of the “competency model”. Themain rules for aggregation of several object-instances (e.g.competency-instances, resource-instances, capability-instances) are the following:a. If two or more object-instances belong to the same
class (e.g. Competency class, Capability class, as wellas Capacity measure), they are merged into one aggregateobject-instance. For example, if competencies c1, c2 andc3 (see Figure 5) belong to the same “Welding” class (seeFigure 4), they become one aggregate competency-instance.If all of them belong to different classes, they remainseparate instances. If two of them, e.g. c1 and c2,belong to the same Competency class, while c3 does not,the c1 and c2 instances become one aggregate competencyinstance, while the c3 instance remains a separateinstance.
b. If the values for the same attribute of two or moreaggregated object-instances (see a. above) are strings,they all become values of the same attribute of theaggregate object-instance. For example, if thecompetency-instances c1, c2, and c3 are aggregated in one
23
instance, the Competency description attribute (seeFigure 3) of the resulted aggregate competency instancehas 3 values that are equal to Competency descriptions ofc1, c2, and c3.
c. If the values for the same attribute of two or moreaggregated object-instances (see a. above) are numeric,they are summarized. For example, the capacity-rate of anaggregation of two capacity-instances is a sum ofcapacity-rates of these capability-instances.
d. If the values for the same attribute of two or moreaggregated competency-instances (see a. above) areobjects-instances (e.g. capability-instances), they areprocessed the same as competency-instances (i.e. from a.to e. above). For example, if the competency-instancesc1, c2, and c3 are aggregated, the Capability attribute(see Figure 1) of the resulted aggregate competency isequal to the aggregation of all capabilities associatedwith c1, c2, and c3.
A collective competency represents a partialaggregation/merge of competencies of a group of VBE membersthat constitute the (candidate) partners to form a specificVO. In other words, the collective competency represents aVO Broker’s predefined “competency plan” for VO, that needsto be fulfilled by the selected group of VBE members. Thepredefined collective competencies are primarily needed inorder to (1) get matched against the aggregate competency ofthe same group of VBE members, (2) calculate the remainingfree capacities of each VBE member in addition to thosewhich are currently occupied by its involvement in the VOs,and (3) develop the VO’s profile. Definitions of all collective competencies shall be
prepared manually matching VO Brokers’ plans, based on COs,during the creation phase of each VO.
5. Development of the 4C-models Considering the ontology addressing all elements of VBE
and required for effective VBE management, the competencymodel is developed and specified as one specific sub-
24
ontology within the VBE-ontology (Afsarmanesh and Ermilova2009) as defined below:
The VBE-ontology represents a unified and formal conceptual specificationof the heterogeneous knowledge in VBE environments to be easily accessed byand communicated between human and application systems, for the purpose ofVBE knowledge modelling, collection, processing, analysis, and evolution.
The VBE-ontology developed in ECOLEAD has a compoundstructure and consists of ten sub-ontologies, representingthe ten different VBE work areas of: VBE-self, VO, VBEmember, VBE profile and competencies, VBE history, VBEtrust, VBE value system, VBE management system, VBEgovernance, and VBE bag of assets. Figure 6 illustrates apartial screen-shot from the unified 4C-model of competencydeveloped within the VBE profile and competency sub-ontology.
More specifically, Figure 6 addresses a set of concepts(as shown by the darker boxes) of the sub-ontology, and aset of relationships defined among the concepts (as shown bythe links/connectors). These relationships can be of twotypes, namely of the “attribute of” (a/o) and the “subclassof” (sup) types. For example, this Figure addresses thatCompetency has three main attributes including Competencyclass, Competency description, and Capability. The VBEprofile and competency sub-ontology is built up in the Hozoeditor (Sunagawa et al. 2004).
Development of the competency model in the form of anontology provides many advantages (Afsarmanesh and Ermilova2009), particularly it supports: Establishment of common understanding in VBEs about thecompetency concepts
Semi-automated creation of the competency database withinthe PCMS system
Semi-automated customization of the PCMS for a specificVBE domain of activity
25
Figure 6. Partial screen-shot from the developed 4Ccompetency model
The competency model is deployed within the PCMS system.A partial screen-shot from the PCMS addressed in Figure 7illustrates the search functionality for specific millingcapabilities of the VBE member organizations.
26
Figure 7. Example screenshot from the PCMS’s searchfunctionality
6. Conclusion
The main objective of this paper is to present the designand specification of the “4C-model” of competency. This ICT-based model is developed to represent competencies of memberorganizations involved in a specific type of CollaborativeNetworks called Virtual organizations Breeding Environments- VBEs. Detailed specification of the competency model oforganizations is required for effective support of thechallenging task of dynamic VBE creation in VBEs. Manyrunning VBEs (the so called 1st generation VBEs) fail totimely configure new VOs due to the lack of ICT-basedmechanisms for collection, processing, and analysis of theirmembers’ competencies. As such, development of anappropriate ICT-based competency model boosts the dynamic
27
configuration of VOs, and is a required component of the 2ndgeneration VBEs.
The proposed model of competencies for VBE memberorganizations’ is generic enough to be applied to a widevariety of VBEs operating in different domains of activity(e.g. to the VBEs in the metalworking domain, as well as tothe VBEs in the health care domain). The 4C-model ofcompetency, presented in this paper, introduces aninnovative abstraction for this concept.
This paper explains the role of organization’scompetency modeling and management for VO configuration andaddresses the main requirements from the end-users (i.e.representatives of running 1st generation VBEs, as well asdomain experts) point of view. It addresses several existingstate-of-the-art competency models for organizations. Itpositions the 4C-model of organization’s competency amongthe other addressed models and illustrates itsapplicability/validity for the context of VO creation.
To better address the competency-based creation of VOs,the new concepts of “aggregate competency” and “collectivecompetency” are introduced. The aggregate competencyrepresents the aggregation/merging of all members’competencies within VBE. Aggregate competency is needed forperforming activities such as identification of competencygaps in the entire VBE when considering the demandsidentified through the existing opportunities in themarket/society. Similarly, VBE’s aggregate competencies arerequired for the purpose of marketing of VBEs. Thecollective competency represents a partial merging ofspecific competency components of VO partners, that fulfillthe criteria specified in the VO’s collaborativeopportunity. As such, collective competencies of VO partnersaddress and evaluate the ability of a group of VBE membersto satisfy the VO requirements and thus to form a new VO. Itis also required for calculation of remaining freecapacities of each VBE member after its involvement in VOs.This paper also presents the approaches for derivation ofaggregate competencies and collective competencies.
In the EC founded ECOLEAD project (ECOLEAD 2008), based
28
on the 4C-model of competencies, an ontology and a databasesystem is developed to support managing the VBE members’competencies. Furthermore, a VBE competency managementsystem called PCMS is developed to support the collection,cataloguing, and processing of different competencies inthis environment. The description of this database and themanagement system of PCMS are the subject of a forthcomingpaper.
ReferencesAfsarmanesh, H., Ermilova, E., 2009, Management of Ontology in VO
Breeding Environments Domain. To appear in International Journal ofServices and Operations Management – IJSOM, special issue on Modelling andManagement of Knowledge in Collaborative Networks (Indersciencepublisher)
Afsarmanesh, H., Camarinha-Matos, L.M, 2005, A framework formanagement of virtual organizations breeding environments. InProceedings of 6th PRO-VE'05 - Collaborative Networks and their BreedingEnvironments (Springer), 35-48, Valencia, Spain, 26-28 Sept2005.
Afsarmanesh, H., Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Ermilova, E., 2008, VBEreference framework. In L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh,M. Ollus (ed.) Methods and Tools for collaborative networked organizations(Springer, New York), ISBN: 978-0-387-79423-5, 35-68.
Allen, C., 2007, Competencies (Measurable Characteristics)Recommendation.http://ns.hr-xml.org/2_5/HR-XML-2_5/CPO/Competencies.html. (viewed 12-11-2007)
Andros Consultants (company), 2000, Selecting the best – theroles of competencies.http://www.andros.org/intouch/SiT_0602_SelectBest_competencies.pdf (viewed02/2007)
Aguilera, C. M., Castañeda, A., Guerrero, F., 2006, Past, presentand future of the andalusian aeronautical cluster. InProceedings of PRO-VE’06 - Network-centric collaboration and SupportingFrameworks (Springer), 25-27 Sep 2006, Helsinki, Finland.
Boucher, X., Peillon, S., Burlat, P., 2005, Towards a decisionsupport for a collaborative increase of competencies withinnetworks of firms. In Research Report G2I-EMSE 2005-600-009,(Ecoledes Mines de Saint-Etienne)
Boucher, X., Bonjour, E., Grabot, B., 2007, Formalisation and usecompetencies for industrial performance optimisation: A
29
survey. In Int. J. Computers in Industry, 58, 98–117Bremer, C., Mundim, A., Michilini, F., Siqueira, J., Ortega, L,
1999, A Brazilian case of VE coordination. In Proceedings ofIFIP TC5 WG5.3 / PRODNET Working Conference on Infrastructures for VirtualEnterprises: Networking Industrial Enterprises (Kluwer) 153, 377 - 386
Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and Afsarmanesh, H., 2003, Elements of abase VE infrastructure, In J. of Computers in Industry, 51, (2),139-163
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., 2004, The emergingdiscipline of collaborative networks. In Proceedings of PRO-VE'04 - Virtual Enterprises and Collaborative Networks (Kluwer AcademicPublishers) ISBN 1-4020-8138-3, 3-16, 23-26 Aug 2004
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus M. (ed.), 2008,Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked Organizations(Springer, New York), ISBN: 978-0-387-79423-5
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Oliveira, A.I., Demsar, D., Sesana, M.,Molina, A., Baldo, F., Jarimo, T., 2008-2, VO creationassistance services. In L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh,M. Ollus (ed.) Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked Organizations(Springer, New York), 156-190, ISBN: 978-0-387-79423-5
CeBeNetwork Group, http://www.cebenetwork.de (viewed 14-10-2008)Cooke, P., Huggins, R., 2004, A tale of two clusters: high
technology industries in Cambridge. In International Journal ofNetworking and Virtual Organisations, 2, 2, 112-132
ECOLEAD - integrated FP-6 project, 2004-2008, www.ecolead.org(viewed 26.09.2008)
Franke, U.L., 2002, The Competence-Based View on the Managementof Virtual Web Organizations. In Managing Virtual Web Organizationsin the 21st Century: Issues and Challenges (Idea Group Inc)
Gallon, M. R., Stillman, H. M., Coates, D., 1995, Putting corecompetency thinking into practice. In Research TechnologyManagement, 38, 3
Grant, R. M., 1991, The Resource-based theory of competitiveadvantage: Implications for strategy formulation. In CaliforniaManagement Review (Spring), 33, (3), 114-135
Hamel, G, 1994, The Concept of Core Competence. In G. Hamel, A.Heene (ed.) Competence-based Competition (Wiley), 11-34
HELICE, https://www.fundacion-helice.net/irj/portal (viewed 14-10-2008)HR-XML consortium, http://www.hr-xml.org (viewed 12-11-2007)IECOS Network, http://www.iecos.com (viewed 17-09-2008)Javidan, M., 1998, Core Competence: What does it mean in
practice? In Long Range planning, 31(1), 60-71 Mejia, R., Molina. A., 2002, Virtual enterprise broker:
30
Processes, methods and tools. In L.M. Camarinha-Matos (ed.)Collaborative Business Ecosystems and Virtual Enterprises(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston), 81-90
Molina, A., Flores, M., 1999, A Virtual Enterprise in Mexico:From Concepts to Practice. In Journal of Intelligent and RoboticsSystems, 26, 289-302
Molina, A. and Flores M., 2000, Exploration of BusinessOpportunities: The role of the virtual enterprise broker. InL.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, R. Rabelo (e d.) E-Business and Virtual Enterprise. Managing Business Cooperation (KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston)
Mueller, E., 2006, Production planning and operation incompetence0cell based networks. In Production Planning & Control,17, (2), 99-112
NACE codes,http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html(viewed 28/02/2008)
Plüss, A. and Huber, C., 2005, Virtuellefabric.CH – A sourcenetwork for VE in mechatronics. In Virtual Organizations – Systems andPractices (Springer)
Pouly, M., Monnier, F., Bertschi, D., 2005, Success and failurefactors of collaborative networks of SME. In Proceedings of6th PRO-VE'05 - Collaborative Networks and their Breeding Environments(Springer), 35-48, Valencia, Spain, 26-28 Sept 2005
Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990, The core competence of thecorporation. In Harvard Business Review, 68, (3), 79-90
SFB457, 1999, Sonderforschungbereich 457 Hierarchielose regionaleProduktionsnetze, In Finanzierungsantrag 2000, 2001, 2002, TUChemnitz
Swiss Microtech Enterprise Network, http://www.swissmicrotech.ch(viewed 18-09-2008)
SOCOLNET consortium, www.socolnet.org (viewed 14-10-2008)Sunagawa, E., Kozaki, K., Kitamura, Y., Mizoguchi, R., 2004,
Organizing Role-concepts in Ontology Development Environment.In AI Technical Report (Artificial Intelligence Research Group,I. S. I. R., Osaka Univ.), AI-TR-04-1.
Toolmaker Cluster of Slovenia, http://www.toolscluster.net/sog.php(viewed 14-10-2008)
Vallejos, R.V., Lima, C., Varvakis, G., 2006, A framework tocreate a virtual organisation breeding environment in theMould and die sector, In Proc. of PRO-VE’06 conference, Network-Centric Collaboration and Supporting Frameworks (Springer)
VIRFEBRAS, http://www.virfebras.com.br (viewed 14-10-2008)
31
Virtuelle Fabric, http://www.virtuellefabrik.ch/VFPage/index.html (viewed14-10-2008)
32