Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)

Published online 2 February 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:10.1002/sres.960

& Research Paper

A Method for Enterprise Knowledge Map

Construction Based on Social
Classication
Lu Liu 1*, Jing Li 2 and Chenggong Lv 1
1
School of Economics and Management, BeiHang University, Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Economics and Business Administration, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

Knowledge map is an important and effective instrument for enterprise knowledge

management. A large number of unordered knowledge resources in the enterprises
bring about difculties to the knowledge map construction. It is necessary to construct
the enterprise knowledge map from a systematic perspective. Considering inuences of
individuals cognition on the organizational knowledge structure, this paper introduces
social classication into the enterprise context and proposes a three-level architecture for
enterprise knowledge map construction, i.e. the individual knowledge tagging, the
domain topic selection and the inter-domain association analysis layer. In this architec-
ture, domain serves as the basic unit to display knowledge and their relationships, as well
as provides a pragmatic context for knowledge navigation and reuse. Incorporating the
above elements, a method is formulated and applied to a real-world case. Copyright #
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords Knowledge management; knowledge map; social classication; systems science

INTRODUCTION 2000). Knowledge management is increasingly

With the acceleration of global economy and IT
development, enterprises today endeavour to
explore better approaches to improve organiz-
ational adoption, survival and competence in the
new business environment characterized by dynamic,
discontinuous and rapid pace of change (Yogesh,
* Correspondence to: Lu Liu, School of Economics and Management,
BeiHang University, Beijing 100083, China.
E-mail: liulu@buaa.edu.cn
viewed as a crucial factor for organizational
sustainable competitive advantages (Chase, 1997;
Wiig, 1997; Li, 1999a,b; Yogesh, 2000; Yang and
Li, 2001; Chen and Li, 2006; Li and Zhao, 2006; Qi
et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2006). It represents the recent
effort on information management and embodies
organizational processes that seek synergistic
combination of data and information processing
capacity of IT, and the creative and innovative
capacity of human beings.
Empirical studies have shown that while
organizations learn and create knowledge, they

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPER
also forget (i.e. do not remember or lose track of
the acquired knowledge) (Argote et al., 1990; Darr
et al., 1995). Many organizations accumulate
knowledge along with their business progresses.
Especially the advent of the internet has pro-
vided mechanisms for collecting information
together, and acquiring knowledge over great
distances at any time through new modes of
knowledge sharing and enabled partnerships. It
is common that enterprises possess a large
number of knowledge resources involving com-
plicated structures and the employees have to
unfortunately spend so much time and effort on
knowledge searching and selection before they
can nd out what they want. To address these
problems, many solutions have been proposed.
Knowledge map is one of them.
Knowledge map is an effective knowledge
management tool (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
Vail, 1999; Mertens et al., 2003). For the conven-
ience of knowledge navigating and searching, it
species the captured knowledge and their
relationships and displays them in ordered and
friendly forms. Currently, the enabling technol-
ogies of knowledge map mainly are intranet-
based software solutions which combine
powerful visualization techniques with data-
base management system (Eppler, 2001). Yet,
while the technological implementation can lead
to a useful knowledge map artefact, the process
of mapping is even more challenging. Essentially,
the knowledge mapping process is the process of
knowledge organization and classication. Many
approaches have been suggested to organize
knowledge in organizations that basically fall
into two groups. On the one hand, AI methods
are suggested to support knowledge modelling
and classication, especially for some kinds of
web contents. On the other hand, business
processes models are used as a starting point
to identify the most critical business knowledge
in organizations (Studer et al., 1998). However, in
the organizations so far mostly pragmatic
approaches are applied. In most of the cases,
knowledge classication is determined by a
committee in a workshop without much meth-
odical support (Maier, 2004). No matter how the
knowledge map is constructed, it has to be
characterized with the following factors:
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
144
Syst. Res.

it can effectively map a large number of
knowledge items that are represented in a
variety of types of media into some reasonable
categories,

the taxonomy in the enterprise knowledge map
has to reect the characteristics of business
process and be comprehensive to knowledge
workers.
According to the above requirement, the
existing methods are more or less unsuitable
for enterprise knowledge map construction.
Knowledge mapping is always such a compli-
cated process that we intend to discuss the issue
from a systematic perspective. Systems science
has been considered as the basis for information
systems. A wealth of research in information
systems in the framework of systems science has
produced an astonishing array of theoretical
results and empirical insights, and a large suite of
tools and methods (Xu, 2000; Wareld, 2007,
2008). Systems science also promises to be an
important foundation of knowledge manage-
ment. Besides information technologies, human
beings are the indispensable component in
enterprise knowledge management. They are
involved in the knowledge creation, sharing and
usage activities. At the same time they interact
with each other and learn from each other. It is
necessary to put more emphasis on individuals
cognition on knowledge map construction. So
here, social classication is introduced to assist
the knowledge organization of the individual
level. Upon that, domain level and inter-domain
level will be constructed to show how individual
knowledge structure will affect the organiz-
ational knowledge structure.
KNOWLEDGE MAP
Many denitions of knowledge maps that we
have found in the academic papers are similar,
but less specic. Generally, a knowledge map is
the display of acquired knowledge and relation-
ships (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Vail, 1999).
The knowledge in knowledge map may involve
various shared contents, such as text, graphics,
videos, models and data. The relationships
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
Lu Liu et al.
Syst. Res.
among them are determined by linking concepts
or topics discovered from these shared contents.
Knowledge mapping is dened as the process of
associating items of information or knowledge in
such a way that the mapping itself also creates
additional knowledge (Vail, 1999).
Knowledge mapping strategies differ with
respect to the degree of formality that they focus.
On the one hand, methods and techniques from
the eld of AI and computer science are highly
formal and represent knowledge in the form of
ontologies, domain models or vector space model
(VSM) that can be processed by computers. On
the other hand, knowledge mapping techniques
often primarily serve as a tool for human beings
to better understand the structure of important
areas of knowledge or competence and their
relationships to, e.g. the persons, groups or other
organizational units that create, hold, seek,
distribute or apply the knowledge. Currently
there are three main methods for constructing
knowledge maps, including building directories,
manually drawing maps and automatic knowl-
edge classication (Ong et al., 2005).
Building Directories
A directory is an alphabetical or classied list of
names, addresses and other data. Here the
directory denotes the classication of infor-
mation entities in the form of hierarchy, accord-
ing to the presumed relationships of the real-
world entities that they represent. On the internet
a web directory is usually used to organize topics
in groups and subgroups, such as YAHOO! and
Open Directory Project. It is a simple but effective
way to organize a large volume of information,
especially when coupled with a search engine.
Nevertheless, it is recognized that the interface of
directory becomes increasingly difcult for users
to navigate as the hierarchy grows larger
(Massicotte, 1988; Drabenstott and Weller, 1996).
Manually Drawing Knowledge Maps
Concept maps (Novak and Gowin, 1984) and
topic maps (Pepper, 2002) are both like drawings
to organize information, in which blocks represent
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Method for Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification
RESEARCH PAPER
concepts, topics or things and connecting lines
represent relationships. Topic map is one of the
most important standards (International Organ-
ization for Standardization, 2006) for the descrip-
tion of semantics of documents and web
resources that foster intelligent information
search and processing. The key concepts in topic
maps are topics, associations and occurrences, i.e.
resources that are linked to topics. These kind of
maps can help better organize, display and
understand knowledge. However, the manualy
creation process requires high creators cognitive
skills and signicant time and effort. The
automatic drawing method is highly desirable.
Automatic Knowledge Classication/
Clustering
More recent work constructs the knowledge
maps for some kinds of web contents (such as
news(Ong, 2005)), employing machine-learning
algorithms to cluster the web documents. Docu-
ment representation and clustering technique are
two major issues in text clustering. The VSM is
usually adopted to represent documents, where a
document is represented as a multidimensional
vector, while each dimension corresponds to a
unique key term extracted from the documents.
A common clustering technique is Self-Organiz-
ing Map (SOM), which is an unsupervised neural
networks algorithm. Chen et al. (1996) categor-
ized a portion of the internet documents with
multilayered SOM to generate a hierarchical
knowledge map system. Ong (2005) employed an
improved interface combining a 1D alphabetical
hierarchical list and a 2D SOM island display to
automatically generate a hierarchical NewsMap.
To some extent, the knowledge map construc-
tion method based on the automatic text classi-
cation is effective. However, when applied in a
real organizational environment, it suffers from
many problems. First, the method relies much on
the linguistic usage. Clearly, in organizational
knowledge repository there are many kinds of
les, such as drafts, videos, which have few
words and consequently are not suitable for this
kind of methods. Second, the design of taxonomy
may not reect business needs (Marwick, 2001).
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
145
RESEARCH PAPER
By constructing a knowledge map, it should
become possible to examine the knowledge we
depend upon on a global scale and from different
perspectives (Eppler, 2001). But more important,
knowledge map should serve as a navigation of
the required knowledge, as it is almost forgotten
by most of the designers when they are designing
knowledge maps. If we consider the knowledge
map construction from the user perspective, the
basic idea of constructing a knowledge map of
the global enterprise might be old. As an indi-
vidual employee and a project team is the actual
knowledge user and knowledge application
context, the knowledge map should put more
emphasis on assisting an individual employee, or
a team in understanding and using the knowl-
edge available in an organizational setting. It is
quite pragmatic to construct a knowledge map
from the knowledge application context.
To address the above problems, social classi-
cation is introduced into the enterprise knowl-
edge map construction.
INTRODUCING SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION
INTO BUSINESS CONTEXT
Social classication, which is also called folks-
onomy, refers to the collaborative way in which
information can be organized on the web. It
allows users to publicly add keywords to the
shared contents, as it is totally different from the
traditional categorizing performed by an
authority or authors. Users can not only categor-
ize information for themselves, but also browse
the information categorized by others. Today,
tagging is a widespread phenomenon popular-
ized by applications such as social bookmarking
(Del.icio.us) and social photo sharing (Flickr).
Keywords tagging is nothing new; the interesting
thing is that when persons tag in a public space,
the collection of their keyword/value associ-
ations becomes a useful source of data in the
aggregate (Gruber, 2005). However, it is dis-
cussed in some researches that tagging on the
internet has some limitations and weaknesses.
For instance, ambiguity can emerge as users
apply the same tag in different ways, while the
lack of synonym control can lead to different tags
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
146
Syst. Res.
being used for the same concept, precluding
collocation (Mathes, 2004).
However, tagging is receiving recognition in
the intranet applications. The Pennsylvania State
University Library has rolled out a social book-
marking service called Penn Tags (http://tags.
library.upenn.edu/) for its community. Anyone
can browse the items in the database, but only
community members can add entries. The Berk-
man Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
Law School launched a social bookmarking site
called H20 Playlist (http://h2obeta.law.harvard.
edu/). In the corporate world, IBM is developing
an enterprise-wide social bookmarking appli-
cation called dogear. IBM already has a robust
internal taxonomy and plans to augment that with
folksonomies. It is not a case of a folksonomy
replacing a taxonomy. IBM thinks that dogear
has the potential to help reveal the interests and
expertise of co-workers in order to solve real-
world problems, dogear can also help foster
communities of practice and increase communi-
cation. We argue that social classication would be
a fruitful way when it is applied in an organization.

As the employees, especially those who work in
the same or similar domain, share common
business goals and have relatively similar
business background, the problem in uncon-
trolled vocabulary will be solved to some extent.

Social classication generated by employees
will facilitate workplace democracy and the
distribution of knowledge organization tasks
among people actually using them, which will
reect the real situation of knowledge under-
standing and using from the users.

Social classication is embedded in the
workers business processes, and could mini-
mize the cognitive load for KM tasks.

Social classication is most helpful for an
enterprise when there is nobody in the
librarian role or there are too many unor-
dered contents for few authorities to classify.

Social classication can provide insights into
an individuals expertise and facilitate learning
from others.
So here we propose an improved social
classication-based method to organize knowledge
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
Lu Liu et al.
Syst. Res.
resources and construct enterprise knowledge
map.
OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED METHOD
In this section, we describe the knowledge map
structure and the architecture of the proposed
method for knowledge map construction.
Figure 1 shows the proposed knowledge map
structure. To illustrate the knowledge and their
relationship, our proposed knowledge map is
composed of a number of domains, topics,
knowledge resources and relationships.
For an enterprise-wide knowledge map, it is
very difcult to draw all kinds of knowledge and
their categories into one picture. In order to
design taxonomy to cover the whole area of
interest in enough details, here we dene domain
as the basic unit to organize knowledge and their
relationships. Domain is the context where a
specic task, project or business will be carried
out and also where knowledge is used, so
domain-based knowledge mapping is more
meaningful. Similar to topic map, our proposed
knowledge map also consists of topics, which
represent some concepts in a domain. Topics in
different domains are related to each other by
associations. A topic may also be related to
knowledge resource by its occurrences.
Figure 2 shows the architecture of the knowl-
edge map system. In Figure 2, there are three
major tasks associated with the knowledge map
construction method: individual knowledge
Figure 1. Knowledge map structure
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Method for Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification
RESEARCH PAPER
tagging, domain topic selection and inter-domain
topic association analysis.

Individual knowledge tagging is a process of
social classication, which is the basis of the
enterprise knowledge map construction. When
individuals refer to some documents, which
are helpful or important for his work, they will
tag them. This is a process where knowledge
workers organize their knowledge.

Domain topic selection is a process to construct
a knowledge map for a team or department.
When the members have classied the knowl-
edge of interest, domain topics will be selected
from the tags given by individual through an
algorithm.

Inter-domain topic association analysis is a
process to construct the enterprise knowledge
map. It is carried out when two topics in
different domains are similar with each other
to some extent.
The relevant details will be discussed in the
next section.
KNOWLEDGE MAP CONSTRUCTION
In this section, the method to construct the
enterprise knowledge map is described in detail.
According to the framework mentioned in the
last section, the method includes three steps:
individual knowledge tagging, domain topic
selection and inter-domain topic association
analysis.
Individual Knowledge Tagging
Individual tagging is a process for an employee
to organize the knowledge of interest and form a
personal knowledge map, which records every
users ideas about knowledge classication and
his knowledge usage manners. When an
employee who works in a specic domain create
or experience with a document, he will label the
document with one or more proper labels which
he thinks could describe the document.
The social classication is formally stated as
follows.
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
147
RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Figure 2. The basic procedure of knowledge map construction

To account for the full environment of social his knowledge usage manners. It means more for
tagging clearly, we dene the tagging to be a the organization. The collection of tagging data
three-place relation, Tagging (tagger, object, label). will provide great insight into the status of
Let Tagging ftg1 ; tg2 ;    ; tgk ;    ; tgs g be the allocating and applying knowledge and help to
set of tagging records, where tgk pl ; di ; tj , construct the enterprise knowledge map.
tgk k 1; 2;    ; s is a piece of tagging record.
pl l 1; 2;  ; h, di i 1; 2;  ; m, tj j 1; 2;  ; n
respectively denotes an individual employee, a Domain Topic Selection
knowledge item and a tag.
From the individual perspective, all of his We have mentioned above that a domain
tagging records will form a knowledge-tag provides a context where knowledge items and
matrix in Table 1. Here we can regard the tags
as attributes of the knowledge items. Table 1. A knowledge-tag matrix of an individual employee
In order to describe individuals knowledge t1 t2 t3 t4
classication pattern, we can construct the Hasse
Graph of the concept lattice (Sahraoui et al., 1999) d1 1 0 1 0
and form the individual knowledge map d2 0 1 0 0
(Figure 3). d3 0 1 1 1
Individual tagging is a process to form a d4 0 0 1 0
d5 1 1 1 1
personal knowledge map, which records every
d6 1 1 0 1
users ideas about knowledge classication and

Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres

148 Lu Liu et al.

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER

For the domain A, C is dened by the domain

expert as C fc1 ; c2 g, where c1 denotes import-
ant for the domain and c2 denotes not important
for the domain. Then the information gain of
each tag is calculated as follows:

Pt1 0:0021; Pt2 0:0219; Pt3

Figure 3. Individual knowledge map 0:2983; Pt4 0:0274; Pt5 0:0021

So here we select tag t3 as the representative

their relationships are displayed. When a specic
task or project is carried out, a domain appears.
As the project is going on, the tag space will
consist of many unique terms, words or phrases
that are tagged on documents. An example of
knowledge tagging records of domain A is
shown in Table 2. It is highly desirable to reduce
the tag space without sacricing categorization
accuracy.
According to Yangs study on feature selection
techniques (Yang and Pedersen, 1997), infor-
mation gain has relatively good performance. So
here the domain topic is selected by analysing
domain members tagging data and calculating
the information gain of each tag. The bigger the
information gain of the tag is, the better the tag
classies the document to a category. Assume
that the current tag is t, and the set of categories
made by domain expert is C {c1, c2, . . .,cm}, the
information gain of tag t is dened to be
X
m f1; 0:5; 0:5; 0:75; 0:25; 0; 0; 0; 0g. Figure 4 is the
IGt  Pci log Pci
i1
X
m
Pt Pci =t log Pci =t
i1
X
m
Pt Pci =t log Pci =t
i1
attribute for this domain. Of course, it has no
problem to select the top three or top ve tags.
After selecting the representative tag, we have
to link the documents to the topic to show the
occurrences. Table 2 can be transformed into a
domain knowledge-tag matrix in Table 3.
This matrix is different from Table 1. Let
B fbij g be the matrix, where


u if di is labelled with tj
bij
0 else
u denotes the tagging frequency of tag tj for
knowledge item di. Here, we dene Supportj to
measure the support of tag tj from all knowledge
items: Supportj fs1j ;    ; sij ;    smj g, where
bij
sij m
max bij
i1
So, the support of tag t3 is Support3
domain knowledge map.
Inter-Domain Topic Association Analysis
In order to facilitate knowledge reuse among the
organization scope, it is necessary to relate the
topics of different domains by similarity, which is

Table 2. All tagging records of a domain

d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9

p1 t1, t3 t2 t2, t3,t4 t3 t1, t2,t3,t4 t1, t2,t4

p2 t1 t1 , t3 t2, t3 t4 t1,t4 t4,t5
p3 t1, t3 t1,t2,t5 t3 t1,t2,t5 t2,t5 t5
p4 t2, t3 t2,t3 t2 t3 t2 t4 t5
p5 t1, t3 t1,t2

Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres

Method for Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification 149

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Table 3. Knowledge-tag matrix of domain A

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5

d1 4 1 4 0 0
d2 2 3 2 0 1
d3 0 3 2 1 0
d4 0 0 3 0 0
d5 3 4 1 1 1
d6 1 1 0 2 0
d7 1 0 0 2 0
d8 0 1 0 0 1
d9 0 0 0 1 3

Figure 5. Inter-domain topic association

the process of the enterprise-wide knowledge

map construction.
Topic (tag) here is represented in vectors domain A and domain B (we do not list the
topicx fw1x ; w2x ;    wmx g,where each wix is a tagging data in domain B).
weight for document di for topic x and
wix six i 1; 2;    ; m. Similarity of two topics
in different domain equals to cosine of the angle KNOWLEDGE MAP SYSTEM
between them, i.e. IMPLEMENTATION

topicx  topicy Based on the proposed method, a prototype

simtopicx ; topicy cosu   
topicx topic  knowledge map system is being implemented in
y a knowledge management project for a Chinese
P
wix  wiy manufacturing enterprise. The enterprise will be
rP i
r referred to as HFC due to condentiality. HFC is
P 2
w2ix wiy a large state-owned aviation industrial limited
i i company in northeast China. Its main business
scope covers the design and development of
If the similarity between topic x and topic y is aeroplans. Design is a knowledge-intensive
greater than a predened threshold b, then we activity. After more than 50 years of develop-
will build a connection between these two topics. ment, HFC has accumulated a large number of
Otherwise, there is no association between them. unordered knowledge materials, which leads to
Figure 5 shows the topic association between the ineffectiveness of knowledge searching and
using, so it is an urgent task for HFC to organize
its knowledge resources and construct its own
knowledge map.
The system employs service-oriented architec-
ture (Zhang et al., 2008). Individual tagging, work
centre knowledge recommendation and organ-
izational knowledge map construction are
designed to be the three fundamental functions
of the system.
Individual tagging is an important function in
the system. It allows users to organize knowledge
of interest during his work. When a user tags a
Figure 4. Domain knowledge map document in the repository, the tagging action

Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres

150 Lu Liu et al.

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER

Figure 6. Individual tagging

Figure 7. The user interface

will be stored as a record and the tag will be
saved as an attribute, as is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows the user interfaces of individual
tagging.
We design a virtual collaboration environment,
work centre, to manage the knowledge in a
domain. Work centre is a platform where members
can share opinions about knowledge classication
application. On one hand, every members tagging
data will be collected and analysed, and a
recommendation based on collaborative tagging
will be given. On the other hand, an expert in this
domain draws the domain knowledge map
according to his/her expertise and experiences.
The enterprise knowledge map is constructed
when the topics in different domain are related to
each other by similarity.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we design a method for enterprise
knowledge map construction based on social
classication. Social classication is currently
popular on the internet. We demonstrate the

Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres

Method for Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification 151

RESEARCH PAPER
collaborative tagging will provide some prag-
matic benets for enterprise knowledge organ-
ization. Unlike other methods for knowledge
map construction, the proposed method devel-
ops the enterprise knowledge map as a multi-
level system including knowledge tagging on
individual level, topic selection on the domain
level and topic association on the inter-domain
level. By virtue of the collaborative nature of
social classication and the similarity of knowl-
edge structure in a business domain, our method
proposes that the knowledge structure in a
business domain can be analysed and integrated
from individual knowledge tagging. The enter-
prise knowledge map is then organized based on
domain to display topics, knowledge resource
and their relationships.
The project is still going on and further
research is more challenging. With the imple-
mentation of the system, we can obtain more
tagging data from users. It is necessary in further
research to rene the algorithms in the above
method and validate them with the real data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant
No.70671007.
REFERENCES
Argote L, Beckman SL, Epple D. 1990. The persistence
and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Man-
agement Science 36(2): 140154.
Chase RL. 1997. The knowledge-based organization:
an international survey. The Journal of Knowledge
Management 1(1): 3849.
Chen Y, Li L. 2006. Deriving information from CRM for
knowledge management-a note on a commercial
bank. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23(2):
141146.
Chen H, Schuffels C, Owig R. 1996. Internet categor-
ization and search: a machine learning approach.
Journal of Visual Communications and Image Repres-
entation Science 7(1): 88102.
Darr ED, Argote L, Epple D. 1995. The acquisition,
transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
152
Syst. Res.
organizations: productivity in franchises. Manage-
ment Science 41(11): 17501762.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard
Business School Press: Boston.
Drabenstott KM, Weller MS. 1996. The exact-display
approach for online catalog subject searching.
Information Processing & Management 32(6): 719
745.
Eppler MJ. 2001. Making knowledge visible
through intranet knowledge maps: concepts,
elements, cases, In OT Proceedings of HICSS-2001,
the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Gruber T. 2005. Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up
of Apples and Oranges. The First on-Line conference
on Metadata and Semantics Research. http://tom-
gruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm
[November 2005].
International Organization for Standardization. 2006.
The Topic Maps Reference Model. http://www.
isotopicmaps.org/tmrm/ [2006].
Li L. 1999a. Proposing an architectural framework
of hybrid knowledge-based system for pro-
duction rescheduling. Expert Systems 16(4): 273
279.
Li L. 1999b. Knowledge-based problem solving: an
approach to health assessment. Expert Systems with
Applications 16(1): 3342.
Li L, Zhao X. 2006. Enhancing competitive edge
through knowledge management in implementing
ERP systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
23(2): 129140.
Maier R. 2004. Knowledge Management System: Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies for Knowledge
Management. Springer Verlag: Berlin.
Marwick AD. 2001. Knowledge management technol-
ogy. IBM Systems Journal 40(4): 814830.
Massicotte M. 1988. Improved browsable displays for
online subject access. Information Technology and
Libraries 7(4): 373380.
Mathes A. 2004. Folksonomies-Cooperative Classi-
cation and Communication through Shared Metadata.
http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-
mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
[December 2004].
Mertens K, Heisig P, Vorbeck J. 2003. Knowledge Man-
agement: Concepts and Best Practices. Springer: Berlin.
Novak JD, Gowin DB. 1984. Learning How to Learn.
Cambridge University Press: New York.
Ong T, Chen H, Sung W, Zhu B. 2005. Newsmap: a
knowledge map for online news. Decision Support
Systems 39(4): 583597.
Pepper S. 2002. The TAO of Topic Maps: nding the
way in the age of infoglut http://www.ontopia.net/
topicmaps/materials/tao.html [April 2002].
Qi J, Xu L, Shu H, Li H. 2006. Knowledge management
in OSSan enterprise information system for the
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
Lu Liu et al.
Syst. Res.
telecommunications industry. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 23(2): 177190.
Sahraoui HA, Lounis H, Melo W, Mili H. 1999.
A concept formation based approach to object identi-
cation in procedural code. Automated Software
Engineering Journal 6(4): 387410.
Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D. 1998. Knowledge
engineering: principles and methods. Data & Knowl-
edge Engineering 25(12): 161197.
Vail EF. 1999. Knowledge mapping: getting started
with knowledge management. Information Systems
Management 16(4): 1623.
Wareld JN. 2007. Systems science serves enterprise
integration: a tutorial. Enterprise Information Systems
(1) 2: 235254.
Wareld J. 2008. Seven challenges for information sys-
tem designers. In Frontiers in Enterprise Integration, Xu
L (ed.). Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA; 13.
Wiig KM. 1997. Knowledge management: an introduc-
tion and perspective. The Journal of Knowledge Man-
agement 1(1): 614.
Copyright
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Method for Knowledge Map Construction Based on Social Classification
RESEARCH PAPER
Xu L. 2000. The contribution of systems science to
information systems research. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science 17: 105116.
Xu L, Wang C, Luo X, Shi Z. 2006. Integrating knowl-
edge management and ERP in enterprise infor-
mation systems. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science 23(2): 147156.
Yang B, Li L. 2001. Development of a KBS for managing
bank loan risk. Knowledge-based Systems 14: 299
302.
Yang Y, Pedersen JO. 1997. A comparative study on
feature selection in text categorization. In Proceedings
of ICML-97, 14th International Conference on Machine
Learning 412420.
Yogesh M. 2000. Knowledge management and new
organization forms: a framework for business model
innovation. Information Resources Management Journal
13(1): 514.
Zhang T, Ying S, Cao S, Zhang J. 2008. A modeling
approach to service-oriented architecture. Enterprise
Information Systems 2(3): 239257.
Syst. Res. 26, 143^153 (2009)
DOI:10.1002/sres
153