a framework ea

8/18/2019 A framework EA

1/21

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcim20

Download by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] Date: 14 February 2016, At: 21:5

International Journal of Computer IntegratedManufacturing

ISSN: 0951-192X (Print) 1362-3052 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

A framework for modelling enterprisecompetencies: from theory to practice inenterprise architecture

Reza Vatankhah Barenji, Majid Hashemipour & David A. Guerra-Zubiaga

To cite this article: Reza Vatankhah Barenji, Majid Hashemipour & David A. Guerra-Zubiaga

(2015) A framework for modelling enterprise competencies: from theory to practice inenterprise architecture, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 28:8,

791-810, DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563

Published online: 09 May 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 306

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563#tabModulehttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-05-09http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-05-09http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tcim20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tcim20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcim20


2/21

A framework for modelling enterprise competencies: from theory to practice

in enterprise architectureReza Vatankhah Barenji

a *, Majid Hashemipour

a and David A. Guerra-Zubiaga

b

a Department of Mechanical Engineering EMU, Eastern Mediterranean University, Mersin, Turkey;

bCIDESI, Texas A&M University,

College Station, CO, USA

( Received 6 October 2012; accepted 3 March 2014)

Enterprise competency refers to knowledge that describes the skills and abilities possessed by a particular enterprise. This paper proposes a new framework for intra-enterprise competency modelling. First, formal denitions of enterprisecompetency and related aspects (i.e. resource, activity, and knowledge) are presented. Second, conceptual subcategories(i.e. capability, cross-functional co-ordination, and cross-functional integration) are discussed for the purposes of capabilityand competency modelling. The framework is illustrated by developing a competency knowledge base for a bicycle plant with two sectors. The competency knowledge base provides information important to decision-making, and can act as anindicator for an enterprise’s willingness to engage in robust collaboration.

Keywords: capability concept; competency modeling; competency management; enterprise modeling; enterprise engineering

1. Introduction

Nowadays, enterprises use comprehensive assemblage knowl-

edge to meet customers’ requirements and offer competitive

prices for their products or services (Paiva, Roth, and

Fensterseifer 2002; Baxter et al. 2009). An enterprise seeks to

preserve, manage, maintain, transfer, and enhance their knowl-

edge to improve their decision-making processes and obtain

competitive advantages (Chen, Doumeingts, and Vernadat

2008; Weston 2013). Among industrial practitioners, there is

an increasing interest in capitalising on both theoretical and

practical enterprise knowledge (Usman et al. 2013).

Knowledge capitalisation is the process of reusing previously

stored and modelled knowledge of a given domain as a means

to performnew tasks (Guerra-Zubiagaand Young2008b). The

purpose of capitalisation is to locate and illuminate enterprise

knowledge, maintain, access, and actualise it, understand how

to better use and diffuse it, and to synergise and valorise it

(Cantú et al. 2009; Gunasekaran and Ngai 2007).

Within the literature, enterprise models and ontologies

have continuously been used to capitalise knowledge in an

explicit and structured manner (Molina et al. 2007;

Vernadat 2002). The goal of the enterprise model is to

dene the semantics associated with enterprise knowledgein an easy-to-understand way (Vernadat 2007). Ultimately,

the primary objectives of enterprise ontology are to

create easy-to-understand denitions of the enterprise’s

(Vernadat 2010, 2007; Tarasov, Sandkuhl, and Henoch

2006): (a) business entities and relationships; (b) processes

and planning; (c) organisational structure; (d) market

details and products/services; and (e) high-level planning

and preferences. The articial intelligence and enterprise

modelling communities have developed important enter-

prise models and/or ontologies, including the Toronto

Virtual Enterprise (TOVE), the Open Information

Model (OIM), Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open

System Architecture (CIMOSA), ISTI Distributed Enterprise

Ontology, Business Process Modelling Language (BPML),

and Collaborative Network Organisation (CNO). A

detailed review of these ontologies and other relevant enter-

prise ontologies and modelling frameworks is provided in

reference Abdmouleh, Spadoni, and Vernadat (2004).

In addition to the enterprise model, it is important to

capture and manage the knowledge and skills of enterprises’

internal competencies (Ljungquist 2008). Enterprise

Competency is a crucial factor in business scenarios, in that it

provides a more nuanced description of an enterprise’s

(Ljungquist 2007; Javidan 1998) or individual’s (Harzallah

and Vernadat 2002) prole. Such a prole demonstrates the

knowledge, skills, experience, and attributes necessary to

effectively implement a dened function (Berio, and

Vernadat 2006; Harzallah and Vernadat 2002; Harzallah).

That Competency is an essential component of enterpriseengineering, acting as a new means to consider knowledge

capitalisation (Huat Lim, Juster, and de Pennington 1997),

associated with a new vision of performance (Trejo et al.

2002; Capece and Bazzica 2013), as well as new forms of

ontology (Khilwani, Harding, and Tiwari 2011; Barenji,

Hashemipour, and Guerra-Zubiaga 2013a). First, the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0951192X.2014.928113)

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing , 2015

Vol. 28, No. 8, 791 – 810, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.901563

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.928113http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.928113http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.928113http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2014.928113


3/21

understanding and auditing of competencies acquired,

required, and desired by a company and second, representing

them in a structured manner are benecial steps for enhancing

the company’s performance (Jussupova-Mariethoz and Probst

2007; Chungoora et al. 2013).

Researchers have explored the importance of enter-

prise Competency in several ways: by suggesting coreCompetency models to sustain competitive advantage

(Draganidis, Chamopoulou, and Mentzas 2006;

Ljungquist 2008), by building on the concept ’s basic

tenets to invent similar concepts (Pareto and Snis 2007,

September ; Ljungquist 2008), and by developing pro-

cesses for its identication and management (Javidan

1998; Ljungquist 2007). One body of existing work

focuses on ways to empirically model competencies

using company task forces and resources, as well as cap-

ability concepts as part of the identication and manage-

ment process (Kristianto, Helo, and Takala 2011;

Rahimifard and Weston 2009).

Ermilova and Afsarmanesh (2010) recognise threelevels of abstraction for Competency modelling: (1)

intra-enterprise, (2) inter-enterprise, and (3) network. The

major motivation for enterprise competency modelling is

at network level (i.e. Collaboration Networks (CNs))

(Cheikhrouhou, Tawil, and Choudhary 2013). In the crea-

tion phase of a network, it is vital to have a robust

enterprise knowledge base embedded with partners’ com-

petencies. Most competency modelling purposes are typi-

cally considered at these three levels (Khilwani, Harding,

and Choudhary 2009).

Because only a few experiential studies exist on the

topic, it has recently been suggested that there is a lack of

knowledge about enterprise internal Competency model-ling (Macris, Papadimitriou, and Vassilacopoulos 2008;

Cantú et al. 2009). In small size enterprises, enterprise

competencies’ modelling is typically based on oral infor-

mation and general applications. In more complex enter-

prises, however, Competency modelling on a human basis

is not any more effective (Chungoora, Canciglieri, and

Young 2010).

Extant research has been valuable for clarifying

Competency, effective Competency management practices

(Molina et al. 2007; Panetto and Molina 2008) and the

ways in which enterprise competencies can be identied

(Harzallah and Vernadat 2002; Javidan 1998; Zoiopoulos,

Morris, and Smyth 2008). However, one shortcomings of

the literature is the lack of clear empirical denitions

for associated concepts (e.g. resource, capability)

(Ljungquist 2008). In addition, a signicant contribution

is made for competency modelling and management at

concept and/or basic levels, and there has been a small

number of contributions to enterprise competency model-

ling at tangible detail level (Pertusa-Ortega, Molina-

Azorín, and Claver-Cortés 2010; Pépiot et al. 2007).

Moreover, there has been a substantial amount of research

within managerial sciences and industrial engineering

(Barenji and Hashemipour 2014; Cui and Weston 2012)

related to enterprise competency modelling and manage-

ment, but few of these efforts have considered enterprise

competency from an enterprise information technology

perspective. Instead, research within these domains has

largely focused on manufacturing companies. From this brief state of the art, a major need appears that is not only

clarifying competency related ‘associated concepts’ but

also detail modelling of enterprise competency from IT

points of view.

A framework has been developed to model intra-

enterprise competency to provide important decision-mak-

ing information for the people with moderate knowledge

on enterprise engineering. It can be derived and adapted to

every enterprise’s need. This framework was applied to a

bicycle plant with two sectors. To do this, we rst analyse

the concept of competency and its aspects (i.e. resource,

activity, and knowledge). Next, intra-enterprise compe-

tency modelling subcategories (i.e. capability, cross-func-tional co-ordination (CFC), and cross-functional

integration (CFI)) are presented in terms of its entities

and relationships. Then, we discuss the necessary steps

for operationalising this framework through a case study.

Finally, we present a relational knowledge base model of

the case study and its various functionalities and offer

some concluding remarks.

2. Enterprise competency: concept and trends

Enterprise competency is an important paradigm for obtain-

ing competitive advantages and leverage by using a ‘know-

how’ approach (Tarasov 2012). It refers to the skills andabilities of an organisation needed to carry out certain tasks

based on knowledge and experience of its methods and

resources (Pépiot et al. 2007). Understanding and sharing

competencies improves rm performance in a number of

respects (Cuenca, Ortiz, and Vernadat 2006; Huat Lim,

Juster, and de Pennington 1997; Barenji et al. 2012;

Jardim-Goncalves, Agostinho, and Steiger-Garcao 2012):

(a) attracting, retaining, and improving the best available

resources for creating and realising continuous value crea-

tion and distribution; (b) publishing the competency of

one’s own rm in the market and identifying potential

opportunities for co-operation; (c) increasing awareness

about one’s own current capabilities as well as understand-

ing competencies that other companies can offer (thereby

allowing for the identication of areas for future develop-

ment); and (d) initiating or mediating new partnerships.

In earlier denitions and models, competency primar-

ily refers to capabilities. As a result, ‘competency’ and

‘capability’ are often considered synonymous. For exam-

ple, Gallon, Stillman, and Coates (1995, 24) dene com-

petency as ‘aggregation of capabilities, where synergy that

is created has sustainable value and broad applicability’.

792 R.V. Barenji et al.


4/21

Javidan (1998) proposed a different denition to supple-

ment the conceptualisation proposed by Gallon and

Stillman. While the traditional denition did not account

for an enterprise’s multi-functionality, the denition pro-

posed by Javidan is based on an enterprise’s functions

(e.g. manufacturing and marketing sectors). He concep-

tually distinguished the associated concepts in a ‘

compe-tencies hierarchy’. The hierarchy treats resources as the

foundation. Capabilities are modelled such that they are

built upon resources. Finally, competencies are built upon

resources and capabilities.

Attempts at modelling enterprise competency are typi-

cally carried out within two distinct research communities

(Berio and Harzallah 2005): (a) managerial sciences and

industrial engineering and (b) information/knowledge man-

agerial sciences. The focus on intra-enterprise competency

modelling gives rise to the question of how internal com-

petencies of an enterprise can be identied, captured, and

modelled in a manner identiable by human and machine,

allowing an enterprise to successfully engage global com- petition and endure uctuating market conditions. There

has been a substantial amount of research within manage-

rial sciences and industrial engineering (Abel 2008; Bodea

et al. 2010; Ermilova and Afsarmanesh 2010) related to

enterprise competency modelling and management, but

few of these efforts have considered enterprise competency

from an enterprise information technology perspective

(Berio and Harzallah 2005; Bernus and Schmidt 2006).

Instead, research within these domains has largely focused

on manufacturing capabilities. As a starting point for this,

Molina et al. (1995) propose a model for manufacturing

capability to support concurrent engineering. The authors

introduced manufacturing capability as combination of

processes, resources, and strategies in a specic work ow.

Further, they believe that manufacturing capability models

can be used to support concurrent engineering. A number

of researchers have applied Molina and Bell’s manufactur-

ing capability model to create knowledge base. Most nota- bly Zhao, Cheung, and Young (1999) proposed a model to

support virtual enterprises. Liu and Young (2004) utilise

information and knowledge models to support global man-

ufacturing co-ordination decisions. Further, Guerra-

Zubiaga and Young (2008a) developed a manufacturing

knowledge model to facilitate decision-making. Further

research work on manufacturing capability and decision

support systems focuses on contexts can be found at

Kandjani and Bernus (2011), Kim et al. (2013), Macris

et al. (2009), Rajpathak and Chougule (2011), Barenji

(2013), and Barenji, Barenji, and Hashemipour (2014).

To summarise, (1) resource, activity, and manufacturing

strategy are three fundamental components for capabilitymodelling, (2) extant research has mapped manufacturing

strategy as knowledge related to processes and resources

(knowledge), and (3) capabilities are the building blocks of

the enterprise’s competencies.

In the context of a complex paradigm like competency,

modelling is fundamental for understanding, managing,

simulating, and predicting the attribute of the paradigm,

and especially for software development (Büyüközkan and

Arsenyan 2012; Scheuermann and Leukel 2013). Figure 1

illust rates some of the important questions that a modeller

may pose when attempting to model competency at the

Figure 1. Examples of modelling purposes.

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 793


5/21

intra-enterprise level. Certainly, many other relevant ques-

tions may be asked in relation to competency modelling.

There are several models for enterprise competency

within the research communities outlined earlier. These

models, though related to each other, have different areas

of application. Therefore, the models themselves differ. For

the purpose of explication, Table 1 summarises the most oft-cited research for enterprise competency modelling.

3. Enterprise data infrastructure

An enterprise’s data infrastructure is a layered set of data

that provides a foundation for strategic initiatives such as

(a) outlining the business’s aims and objectives for

improved collection and use of data, (b) improving business

processes, (c) making decisions regarding the future of new

and changed systems, and (d) integrating, warehousing, and

reporting initiatives. An enterprise data infrastructure is not

fully represented by a set of detailed models of individual

systems, because the models cannot convey the macro-level

information required to meet the stated strategic initiatives.Additionally, top-level models cannot be used exclusively,

as they fail to include suf cient detail for answering impor-

tant questions. Instead, enterprise data infrastructure is

mapped as a generic tree structure to model existing enter-

prise data. To highlight enterprise competency, the infra-

structure proposed in this this paper is shown in Figure 2.

The infrastructure has been divided into four key tiers:

Table 1. Current competency.

Reference Research contribution Modelling area

Intra-enterprise (managerial sciences)

(Prahalad and Hamel 1990) Core competency notation Organisation competency, denition at concept level

(Javidan 1998) (Ljungquist 2007)

Core competency hierarchy Organisation competency, concept model

(Gilgeous and Parveen 2001,222)

‘To assist in core competence management an enablingcore competence lens model was presented together with a framework for core competence maintenance’

Enterprise competency, organisationcompetency, at detail level

(Bhamra, Dani, and Bhamra2011, 2738)

‘Investigating the existence and nature of corecompetency concepts within a section of UK SMEmanufacturing organizations’

Organisation competency, concept and basic level

Intra-enterprise (Information/knowledge managerial sciences)(Zhang and Lado 2001) Analyse IS role in raising organisational competencies

and prompting the CFI necessary to achieve scale,scope, and learning curve economies for an enterprise.

organisational competency at concept level

(Walsh and Linton 2001) Develop a framework for enterprise competencymodelling

Enterprise competency, organisationcompetency at concept level

(Harzallah and Vernadat 2002) Competency modelling and management Enterprise competency, and individualcompetency at basic level

Inter-enterprise (managerial sciences)((HR-XML 2001) Partner selection Sharing competency, at organisational

level

Inter-enterprise (Information/knowledge managerial sciences)(HR-XML 2001) Providing trading partners standardised and practical

means to exchange information about competencieswithin a variety of business contexts

Sharing competency, at organisationallevel

Network (managerial sciences)(Molina and Flores 1999) Core competencies in the manufacturing clusters Organisation competency at concept

level

Network (information/knowledge managerial sciences)(Müller 2006) Planning of production system for the competency cell-

based networksEnterprise competency, basic and detail

level(Paszkiewicz and Picard 2011) Partner selection in Virtual Organisation Breeding

EnvironmentsEnterprise competency modelling at

detail level(Cheikhrouhou, Tawil, and

Choudhary 2013, 2142)‘Extension of the competence-oriented modeling

approach through a unied enterprise competencemodeling language (UECML), based on enterprisearchitecture models, to virtual organizations’

Enterprise competency, modelling at basic level and detail level

(Ermilova and Afsarmanesh2010)

Competency modelling for collaborative network organisations

Organisation competency, basic anddetail level



6/21

Enterprise General Information, Enterprise Workplace

Information, Enterprise-wide Technical Information, and

Manage Effectiveness Information. The infrastructure

representation begins with Enterprise General Information,

which captures basic information about the enterprise.Enterprise General Information contains four subclasses of

information, including enterprise name, enterprise story,

address(s), and key persons. The second tier, Enterprise

Workplace Information, is intended to capture the market

details of the enterprise. It includes information about the

sector (e.g. mining, farming, construction, and manufactur-

ing), the products/services offered by the enterprise, both

existing and target consumers, and commercial nancial

highlights (e.g. revenue, prot, income, and employees).

The third tier is Enterprise-wide Technical Information,

which is intended to capture an enterprise’s competencies.

Competencies consist of all assets, tangible and intangible,

human and non-human, that are possessed and controlled

by the company that permit it to devise and apply value-

enhancing strategies (Chen and Vernadat 2004). This tier

contains three subclasses, including processes, resources,

and knowledge related to process(es) and resource(s). The

Manage Effectiveness Information tier contains the infor-

mation that an enterprise publishes to draw the attention of

consumers and vendors for new business opportunities. The

subclasses included in this tier are: past projects, relation-

ships (e.g. relevant with other enterprises), and achieve-

ments (e.g. parents and standards). The focus of this paper

is on the third tier of this infrastructure.

4. Competency: subcategories and modelling aspects

Enterprise competency models are generally used for repre-

senting relevant business activities and products or services

offered by a company (Tripathi and Suri 2010). In this paper,

we use Javidan’s (1998, 261) enterprise competency deni-

tion to explore competencies ‘across functional co-ordina-

tion and integration of capabilities’. This denition includes

three broad subcategories: co-ordination, integration, and

capability. First, co-ordination, according to Barenji,

Hashemipour, and Guerra-Zubiaga (2013, 114), ‘is orderly

arrangement of activities to provide unity of action in the

pursuit of common goals within a sector ’. Second, integra-

tion is dened as ‘establishing mechanisms and links that

facilitate the needed integration of the activities of different

functions to ensure that these functions work together effec-tively to achieve the overall objectives of the enterprise’

(Peñaranda et al. 2010, 864). Finally, capability is dened

as a sector ’s capability represented by a set of information

that is embodied by all available resources and correspond-

ing activities that can be performed by those resources, as

well as the knowledge about how these resources and activ-

ities can be used effectively, ef ciently, and economically

(Guerra-Zubiaga and Young 2008a). The sector ’s capability

denition contains three aspects (Tripathi and Suri 2010) (i.e.

resource, activity, and knowledge):

● Resource: the building block of capabilities (Javidan

1998). Resources can be categorised into threegroups: physical resources (e.g. plant, equipment),

human resources (e.g. manpower, management

team, training, experiences), and organisational

resources (e.g. brand name). While resources are

tangible (e.g. equipment), others are intangible (e.g.

nancial resources) (Vichare et al. 2009).

● Activity: according to Camarinha-Matos (2001,

1014), ‘from a bottom-up perspective, activities

carried out by a company are usually organised in

“clust ers” of inter-related activities called processes

(business processes). The composition of each pro-

cess is designed in order to achieve a (partial)

specic goal’. Alternatively, from top-down view,a process can be decomposed into a hierarchy of

sub-process and activities.

● Strategies (Knowledge): decisions are made regard-

ing the use and organisation of resources and activ-

ities (e.g. constraints imposed on the use of a certain

type of resources and/or activates) (Kandjani and

Bernus 2013). In the capability model, knowledge

represents how resources and activities are struc-

tured and used to support the function to achieve

the objectives of a sector.

One major dif culty associated with modelling enterprise

competency is the ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ of the sectors’ capabil-

ities with varied backgrounds and priorities. For example,

in a manufacturing enterprise, capabilities of the design

sector often fall in the domain of striking aesthetics, the

manufacturing sector is drawn toward standardised designs,

the research and development (R&D) sector scientists are

drawn toward novel technological applications, and the

marketing sector seeks industry benchmarks and require-

ments for customer satisfaction. These different orientations

may generate priorities that are opposed to one another,

Figure 2. Enterprise data infrastructure.



7/21

resulting in unco-operative behaviours for CFC and CFI of

the capabilities. Unsurprisingly, ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ in sectors’

capabilities have become a challenging concern for enter-

prise competency modelling. In particular, there are two

important issues for enterprise competency modelling.

First, what are the best methods for strengthening ‘CFC’

in sector ’s capabilities? Second, what are the best strategies

for strengthening ‘CFI’ in sectors’ capabilities within the

enterprise? Figure 3 illustrates an enterprise competency

model in terms of sectors’

capabilities, ‘

CFC’

and ‘

CFI’.

As shown in this gure, from bottom to top, each sector

contains one or many capabilities origin from its divisions.

These capabilities are ingredients for ‘CFC’ process aiming

to generate a sector ’s capability. The ‘CFI’ process on the

sectors capabilities will result enterprise competency.

5. Proposed multi-level intra-enterprise competency

modelling framework

In this section, a multi-level framework is developed to

capture and model enterprise competency. This framework

is based on a set of aspects and subcategories required to

describe enterprise competency. For the sake of consis-

tency, we have named our framework the Multi-Level

Intra-Enterprise Competency Modelling Framework and

adopted the abbreviation MICMF for use throughout the

text. MICMF is based on three high-level concepts that

collectively represent an enterprise’s competency (see

Figure 4).

● Basic Integration and Co-operation (BIC) Level.

The BIC captures fundamental aspects information

regarding each sector ’s competency. The fundamen-

tal aspects of information for competency are

resource(s) information, activity(ies) information,

and knowledge related to resources and processes.

● Sector’s Capability Functionalities (SCF) Level.

SCF intended to model sector capability (SC) in

accordance with sector-specic goals. In other

words, the SCF level deals with modelling the cap-

abilities of sectors at division layers towards the

accomplishment of its assigned capabilities for intra-enterprise competency.

● Intra-Enterprise Competency Functionalities

(ICF) Level. ICF is intended to accomplish the

‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ processes on sectors’ capabilities

in accordance to each sector-specic goal and the

enterprise global goal(s).

As shown in Figure 4, MICMF contains BIC, SCF, and

ICF levels. In MICMF, each level’s output is input for the

next level. These graphics are intended to represent a

sequence of level attainments, which begin at the bottom

level and work upward. The inputs for the BIC level are

resource(s) information, activity(ies) information, and

knowledge. The BIC level assigns suitable data to the

appropriate capabilities. Ultimately, the output produced

at the ICF level is enterprise competency. The SCF level is

in charge of sectors capability modelling. Based on cap-

abilities from the previous level, the key responsibility of

the ICF level is enterprise-level competency modelling.

The interface between the levels is shown with thick and

break lines, where a thick line represents capabilities

associated aspects information. Break lines illustrate

Figure 3. Enterprise competency subcategories.



8/21

sector-level capabilities. Next, BIC, SCF, and ICF levels

of the MICMF are claried in detail.

5.1. BIC level

Capabilities are scattered throughout an enterprise’s var-

ious sectors (Agyapong-Kodua, Weston, and Ratchev

2012). Because capability can be decomposed into a hier-

archy of sub-capabilities, the sector ’s capabilities must be

considered at different levels of abstraction (Ajaefobi and

Weston 2009). To structure a SC, four levels have beendened: Division, Group, Class, and Subclass. The use of

four levels is consistent with the classication structure of

CPC (dened by the UN Statistical Division).

As an example in a manufacturing enterprise:

Sector: Department (e.g. production department anddesign department)

Division: Factory of a department (engine factory of pro-duction department)

Group: Shop at a factory (e.g. crank shaft shop at enginefactory)

Class: Cell at a shop (e.g. crank shaft grinding cell at crank shaft shop)

Subclass: Station at a cell (e.g. centre less grinding stationat the crank shaft grinding cell).

Within the literature, several terms indicate the funda-

mental aspects of competency, including production

skills, technologies, resources, capabilities, processes,

and actors. Boucher, Bonjour, and Grabot (2007)

Figure 4. Multi-level intra-enterprise competency modelling framework.

Figure 5. Functional hierarchy and capability representation.



9/21

consider professional situation, actor, and resource in

their analyses. Müller (2006) considers humans,

resources, and fullled tasks as fundamental components.

The authors adapts the Molina and Bell (1999) research

on manufacturing data modelling, and distinguishes

resource, activity, and knowledge for each of the sectors

within the enterprise as the fundamental aspects for enterprise competency.

The basic premise of BIC level is to organise enter-

prise data as set of distinct components that can be inde-

pendently gathered to develop a variety of capabilities

through the combined components. From a top-down per-

spective, capabilities implemented by a sector are usually

organised into ‘clusters’ of inter-related capabilities from

different divisions, groups, classes and subclasses. These

capabilities have heterogeneous data type that is often

hard to interoperability (Trejo et al. 2002).

Assume a sector contains l capabilities, SC = {C 1,C 2,

…,C l } and a capability consists of mi divisions, C i = ( X i;1,

X i;2,… X i;mi ), where X i; j is a sub-capability a division j in capability i and contains nm groups, X i; j = ( xi; j ;1,

xi; j ;2; . . . ; x i; j ;nm Þ and t n classes, xi; j ;k = ( yi; j ;k ;1, yi; j ;k ;2,…, yi; j ;k ;t n ). For each yi; j ;k ;h capability at class layer, at the

subclass level there are three distinct compounds:

resource, process, and knowledge.

Figure 6 shows the functional hierarchy for engine

production capability and the hierarchical levels for repre-

senting this capability.

5.2. SCF level

The basic idea for the SCF level of MICMF is capability

modelling. A generic SC model in the top-level diagram,

which is composed of all the main classes and their

relationships, makes possible the realisation of a single

conceptual capability model. A SC model is illustrated

in Figure 6, where a facility is considered to be

composed of one or many resources, activities, and

knowledge. Among resources, activities, and knowl-

edge, there are many associated relationships. The role

names of the associations between classes show that

resources perform activities, and knowledge constrains

both resources and activit ies. The hierarchal structure for

resources has been modelled as: human, physical, ICT,and organisational resources. In the same way as for the

resource class, an activity hierarchal structure has been

identied, as has the relationships between classes. Any

one instance of an activity is related to one or many

instances of the resources features that specify the pre-

condition and post-condition of that activity. Any

resource feature can be achieved by one or multiple

different activities. Knowledge restricts the use of

resources and activities.

The formalisation of SC is as follows. Let us consider

for subsequent modelling a set of sectors at an enterprise

E = {S1, S2, S3, …}.

Denition 1 (SC) – Capability can be understood as

sector ’s ability to perform activities, tasks, acts, or pro-

cesses possible through corresponding resources and

knowledge, aimed at achieving a specied number of

outcomes.

For modelling the remaining concept, let us consider

the set of capabilities at sector α: C α ¼ C α1;fC α2; . . . ; C αng in which each element C αi stands for acapability. The following denition introduces the concept

of capability, which is built upon three building aspects. It

can be specied as a set

C αi ¼ X αi; Rαi; K αif g; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n

Such that:

Figure 6. Sector capability (SC) model (Guerra-Zubiaga and Young 2008a).



10/21

X αi ¼ xα1; xα2; x3α; ::; xα j

¼ f xα j j xα j is a activity; task ;act or process for ith capability at sector αg;i ¼ 1; . . . ; n; j ¼ 1; . . . ; m

Rαi ¼ r α1;r α2; r 3α; ::; r α j

¼ fr α j jr α j is a resource for ithcapability at sector αg; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n; j ¼ 1; . . . ; m

K αi ¼ k α1;k α2; k 3α; ::; k α j

¼ fk α j jk α j is a knowledge for

ith capability at sector α

g; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n; j ¼ 1; . . . ; m

Denition 2 (Sector’s task-oriented capability) – A

subset of a sector capabilities set represents capabilities

which are needed to run a specic outcome or specic goal.

For sector α it can be shown as C α where:

C α C i

C α ¼ fC /1; C /2; C /3; . . . ; C /ng ¼ fC /k j C /k is a selected

capabilityat sector α for a specific task g; k ¼ 1; :::; n

5.3. ICF level

The basic idea at ICF level of MICMF is ‘CFC’ and

‘CFI’ of capabilities. CFC of capabilities of a sector has

been identied as a key operation for enterprise compe-

tency creation process (Müller 2006). The successful

achievement of the enterprise’s global goals depends

not only on the appropriate co-ordination of sectors’

capabilities, but the proper integration of the capabilities

at enterprise level is also vital. Additionally, a potential

defect in one node (sector capabilities) may jeopardise

the enterprise competency model. As shown in Figure 7,

the competency may, on its (their) turn, be decomposed

into several sub-capabilities whose activities are sup-

ported (performed) by various service functions avail-

able in the sectors. The interdependencies (sequence/

parallelism, synchronisation, data ow, and precedence

conditions) among capabilities, at the various sectors,

must be properly integrated in order to achieve the

enterprise global goals. ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ of capabilities

are dened as:

De

nition 3 (CFC of capabilities) –

CFC is a link among capabilities within a sector; this link seeks to fund

relations between the activities of the capabilities using

sector ’s ‘ product/service work ow diagram’. CFC

acts as union for the other component of the capability

(i.e. resource f Rα1 ̈Rα2 ̈Rα3¨ . . . ̈Rαng and knowl-edge f K α1 ̈K α2 ̈K α3¨ . . . ̈K αmg). CFC is the set of ordered pairs ð x; fxÞ; where x is the independent activityand the x is dependent on x.

CFC C ð Þ ¼ f x; xð Þ j x 2 C and CFC xð Þ ¼ Xg

CFC xð Þ ¼ 0; if a is not sector to the other activities¼ x; is reachable from product =service workflow

diagram:

where:

● C is a capability set

x; x; x are activity, task, act or process.

Denition 4 (CFI of capabilities) – CFI is a link among

capabilities of sectors within an enterprise. This link seeks

to fund relations among the activities of the capabilities at

the enterprise using enterprise’s ‘ product or servicestructural model’. CFI acts as union for the other compo-

nent of the capability between sectors (i.e. resource

f Rα1 ̈Rα2 ̈Rα3¨ . . . ̈Rαng and knowledge f K α1 ̈K α2 ̈K α3¨ . . . ̈K αmg).

CFIαβ C α; C β

¼ f xα; X β

j x 2 C α and CFI xαð Þ ¼ x β g

CFI xαð Þ¼ 0;if xα is not sector on the other activities at

sector β

¼ n β ; is reachable based on product =service

8<:

structural model:

Denition 5 (Enterprise’s competency) – It is

dened as CFC and CFI of task-oriented capabilities

aimed at achieving a global outcome or goal.

Enterprise’s competency denition can be formu-

lated as:

Competencyj1;2G ¼ C 1 C

2 ¼ CFI12 CFC

ni¼1fC

1ig

;

CFC mi¼1fC

2ig

Figure 7. Cross functional integration/co-operation.



11/21

Competencyj1;2;3G ¼ C 1 C

2 C

3 ¼ CFI12 CFC

ni¼1fC

1ig

;

CFC mi¼1fC

2ig

; CFC mi¼1fC

3ig

Competencyj1;2;::;nG ¼ C 1 C

2 . . . C

n ¼ CFI12... n 1ð Þ

CFI12... n2ð Þ . . . CFI12½ ½CFC ni¼1fC 1ig

;

CFC mi¼1fC 2ig

; . . .; CFC k i¼1fC

nig

where:

● G represents a specic outcome or goal.

● 1, 2, 3,…, n is an index for representing sectors.

● C m is task-oriented capability for sector m as

dened previously.

● n

i¼1fC αig ¼ C α1¨C α2¨C α3¨ . . .¨C αnf g.

● CFI and CFC

○

CFInm is cross-function integration between sec-tor n and sector m.

○ CFC is cross function co-ordination.

6. A case study

The manufacturing system where this case study was

carried out is in the custom-designed bicycle industry.

This industry has been operating for over 15 years in

Cyprus and has a growing market demand – generally of

European origin – for its products. To exemplify the

operation of the MICMF, let us deliberate on two sectors

in this industry. These sectors co-operate to design and

fabricate a new bicycle’

s frame. In this scenario, sector A prepares detail model of the desired frame using a CAD

system and denes some additional characteristics for this

part. This technical specication is then sent to sector B.

Sector B might accept the proposed design or suggest

changes that have to be negotiated with sector A until an

agreement is reached. Finally, sector B is responsible for

fabricating the frames. Competency modelling objectives

at this example concern the identication, updating, and

exploitation of the intra-enterprise competency. The fra-

mework of Figure 4 was adapted to the domain study.

MICMF is grouped into three operational levels,

which facilitate the competency modelling. These levels

groups tasks according to their competency modellingaspects and/or subcategories. Each level is useful in cer-

tain situations.

BIC Level:

(a) Identify and list required capabilities of the sector,

(b) Assign resources, activities, and knowledge to the

sequenced capabilities.

SCF Level:

(a) Interactions of capabilities within sectors and

between the sectors

(b) SC model.

ICF Level:

(a) CFC of capabilities within a sector, and CFI of

capabilities between sectors

(b) Competency representation

BIC Level:

(a) Identify and list required capabilities of sector.

The rst step for competency modelling is identication

and evaluation of the exist capabilities at the sectors.

Work-station oriented (or goal-oriented) approach is

used for identication and evaluation of necessary andacquired capabilities at the sectors. This process include

four stages: (1) analysis of goal; (2) deriving the structure

of goal; (3) determination of the various capabilities

needed to overcome goal; and (4) sequencing those

acquired.

There are methods for identication and evaluation

of necessary capabilities at a sector. Among the exist-

ing methods, the observation, the description, the inter-

view, the method of the critical incidents, and the grid

of Kelly can be mentioned (Harzallah and Vernadat

2002). Here, the method used to identify capabilities

is based on the interview approach. In this example the

goal of the sector A is design, prototyping and testing anew bicycle’s frame and for sector B is fabricate and

quality control of the new frame. Furthermore, the

enterprise global goal is offering a new designed

bicycle to the market. After ident ication process, the

listed capabilities are then sequenced so that they fol-

low the order in which they will be performed.

Successful completion of these attempts often requires

a good knowledge of process planning, manufacturing

features and manufacturing resources. In this example,

C Mfg : and C Desgi n: are the set of capabilities for sector A

and B of the enterprise, respectively:

C Mfg : ¼ ‘Cutting’; ‘Forming’; ‘Joining’; ‘Weighing’;f

‘Painting’; ‘Finalisation’; ‘Quality control’g

C Lab ¼ ‘Conceptdesign’;‘Prototyping’;‘Analysis’;f

‘Test ’;‘Detail design’g



12/21

(b) Assign resources, activities, and knowledge to the

sequenced capabilities

To complete the BIC level, it is necessary that the

resources (e.g. machines and tools) and activities (e.g.

manufacturing processes), as well as the knowledge that

is needed for each capability are assigned. For theresources, activity, and knowledge assign processes of

acquired capabilities, interviews of personal appreciation,

samples, and references are used. The ‘Detail design’ at

sector A furthermore ‘Cutting’ and ‘Forming’ capabilities

at sector B have the following sub elements:

Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate the assigned resources, activ-

ities, and knowledge for the capabilities of the sectors.

SCF Level:

(a) Interactions of capabilities within sectors and

between the sectors

Clarication of the interactions between the capabilities

within the sector and among sectors of an enterprise is

vital since it will be used at next level of the framework.

For simple cases, numbers (also called capability numbers)

indicate the sequence in which the capabilities will take

place. For example, in sector B, rst the cutting capability

must be nished, and then the forming capability, before

painting capability takes place. Sometime a capability can

have a exible sequence and sometimes two or more

capabilities can take place simultaneously. In a similar

way, specic interactions between the capabilities have to

be done for each of the sectors of the enterprise. For a case

with numerous interactions between the capabilitiessequence diagrams are applicable for this purpose.

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the sequence diagrams for the

interactions of capabilities within the sector A and B.

Furthermore, the sequence diagram in Figure10 demon-

strates the interaction of capabilities among sector A and B.

(b) Capability modelling

To store competency aspects in a structural manner, it is

signicant to model the capabilities within the sectors.

Thus the study has been oriented to create capabilitymodels. The capability model which is introduced pre-

viously (Denition 3 – shown in Figure 6) was adapted to

all the identied capabilities at the enterprise. This model

is used to capture all the aspects (i.e. resource, activity,

and knowledge) of the capabilities. Figure 11 shows what

a more comprehensive and detailed the cutting capability

would look like when performed with a model.

A capability knowledge base is developed to assure

that the knowledge of capabilities at the sectors is

Cutting@ Mfg : ¼

fCentre cutting; Curve cuttingg

fCentre Cutting fixture; Curve Cutting fixture; Tool1; Tool2; Cutting M2; T1; T2g

fCutting M1 Manual; Cutting M2 Manual; Center Cutting Handbook ; Curve Cutting HandBook g

8><>:

9>=>;

¼

xC 1;; xC 2 r C 1;r C 2;r C 3r C 4;r C 5; r C 6; r C 7; r C 8

k C 1;k C 2;k C 3; k C 4

8><>:

9>=>;

Forming@ Mfg : ¼

Tube forming; Bendingf g

Tube forming Die; Tube forming press; Bending M; T3; T4f g

Tube forming HandBook ; Bending HandBook ; Tube formingpress manualf g

8><>:

9>=>;

x F 1;; x F 2

r F 1;r F 2;r F 3r F 4;r F 5

k F 1;k F 2;k F 3

8><>:

9>=>;

Quality Control@ Mfg : ¼

NDT testingf g

Ultrasonic NDT Machine; T7f g

Testing eorksheet ; Ultrasonic NDT machine manualsf g

8>:

9>=>; ¼

xQC 1;

r QC 1;r QC 2 k QC 1;k QC 2

8>:

9>=>;

Detail desgin@ Desgin: ¼

Partdesgin; Assembling; Drawingf g

CADf g

Detail desgin skillf g

8><>:

9>=>; ¼

x DD1; x DD2; x DD3f g

r DD1f g

k DD1f g

8><>:

9>=>;



13/21

Table 2. The resource, activity, and knowledge assuaged to the capabilities at sector A.

Resource Process Knowledge

Concept capabilityDrawing tablet Quick sketching a few concepts Design skillDrawing tools Shading and reningTechnical software Choosing-one

designer type 1 3D modellingRening 3D model

Prototyping capabilityRapid prototyping Proof-of-Principle Prototyping prototyping technicalmachine Form Study Prototyping worksheet Common hand tools User Experience Prototyping RP machine manualsTechnician type 8 Visual Prototyping

Functional PrototypingTest and analysis capabilityStatic test apparatus Static test ABAQUS document Dynamic test Dynamic test Static test worksheet apparatus Structural analysis Dynamic test worksheet ABAQUS software Aerodynamic test Aerodynamic test Aerodynamic test worksheet apparatus Static test apparatus

Technician type 8 manualTechnician type 9 Dynamic test apparatus manual

Aerodynamic test apparatus manualDetail designCAD Part design Detail design skill

Assemblies designDrawing

Table 3. The resource, activity, and knowledge assuaged to the capabilities at sector B.

Resource Process Knowledge

Cutting capabilityCentre Cutting xture Centre Cutting (CC) Cutting Machine1Manual

Curve Cutting Fixture Curve Cutting (CuC) Cutting Machine2 ManualTool 1 – Tool 2 Centre Cutting Process Hand Book Cutting Machine 1 Curve Cutting Hand Book Cutting Machine 2Technician type 1Technician type 2Forming CapabilityTube forming Die Tube forming Tube forming process Hand Book Tube forming press Bending Bending process Hand Book Bending Machine Tube forming press manualTechnician type 3Technician type 4Joining capabilityOxyacetylene welding system Gas welding Welding process Hand Book Welding xture Welding machine manualsElectrodeTechnician type 5Painting capabilityHand abrasive machine Paint preparation Paint preparation worksheet Painting oven Painting Painting oven manualTechnician type 6Finalisation CapabilityTechnician type 7 Cleaning Cleaning worksheet Cleaning machine Labelling Cleaning machine manualQuality control capabilityUltrasonic NDT machine NDT testing Testing worksheet Technician type 7 Ultrasonic NDT machine manuals



14/21

capitalised. At present, the knowledge base is developed

under Microsoft Access and is operational. The relational

model of the capability knowledge base is represented in

Figure 12. The use of a standard incoming application

adds knowledge gathering process (Figure 13) to thecapability knowledge base system.

ICF Level:

(a) ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ of capabilities

Three main subcategories of enterprise competency

exploitation are dened as: (1) SC; (2) CFC; and (3)

CFI. The SC subcategory concerns the store of enterprise

competency aspects (i.e. resource, activity, and knowl-

edge) which is resulted as a capability-based knowledge

base. The ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ subcategories concern the

linking of enterprise competency aspects.

The ‘CFC’ process (Denition 3) was adapted to allthe identied capabilities at the sectors. To do this, the

sector ’s capabilities sequence diagram (Figures 9 and 10)

is used. As examples:

CFC Cutting→ Forming:

fð xC 1;0Þ; ð xC 2;0Þgr C 1;r C 2;; r C 3;r C 4;r C 5;; r C 6;r C 7;r C 8;r F 1;r F 2;r F 3r F 4;r F 5

k C 1;k C 2;k C 3;k C 4;k F 1;k F 2;k F 3

8<:

9=;

Figure 8. Interactions of capabilities at design sector.



15/21

CFC Cutting→ Quality Control:

fð xC 1; xQC 1Þ; ð xC 2; xQC 1Þgr C 1;r C 2;; r C 3;r C 4;r C 5;; r C 6;r C 7;r C 8;r QC 1;r QC 2

k C 1;k C 2;k C 3;k C 4;k QC 1;k QC 2

8<:

9=;

Using the capabilities sequence diagram among the sec-tors (Figure 11), the ‘CFI’ process (Denition 4) was

adapted to the identied capabilities at the enterprise. As

an example:

CFI Detail Design →Cutting:

fð x DD1; xC 1Þ; ð x DD1; xC 2;Þ; ð x DD2;0Þ; ð x DD3;0Þgr DD1; r C 1; r C 2; r C 3f g

k DD1; k C 1; k C 2; k C 3; k C 4; k C 5f g

8<:

9=;

Figure 14 illustrates the application which is developed

for ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ processes, aiming to appreciate this

processes using the knowledge base and the sector ’s

‘capabilities sequence diagrams’ at the sector or the

enterprise. The ‘CFC’ and ‘CFI’ processes were sepa-

rately adapted to each of the identied capabilities at the

enterprise.

(b) Enterprise competency representation

At this stage all the competency aspects were stored, and all

the competency associated subcategories were linked as well;the next step is to represent enterprise competency. Using

enterprise competency denition (Denition 5), the example

given below depicts competency creation process at the

enterprise. For simplication in this example, only three

capabilities (detail design from sector A, and cutting and

quality control from sector B) are taken in to consideration.

Competency (Cutting, Quality Control) →(Detail Design):

fð xC 1; xQC 1; x DD1Þ; ð xC 2; xQC 1; x DD1Þgr C 1;r C 2;; r C 3;r C 4;r C 5;; r C 6;r C 7;r C 8;r QC 1;r QC 2

k C 1;k C 2;k C 3;k C 4;k QC 1;k QC 2

8<:

9=;

Figure 15 depicts the dialog boxes in which the com-

petency are shown. The dialog boxes also show the fea-

tures of the competency stored in the knowledge base. The

experimental software developed can show capability

attributes by clicking on the particular sign beside each

row. For example, two existing activity instances can be

observed: (a) curve cutting, and (b) tube forming. For the

curve cutting process there exist two boxes entitled as

Figure 9. Interactions of capabilities at manufacturing sector.

Figure 10. Interactions of capabilities among the design andmanufacturing sectors.



16/21

curve cutting record N1 and record N2. Within each boxes

the interrelated activity which are resulted from CFC

process is listed. Furthermore, external related activity

which results from CFI process and its desired capability

is listed in another row. It is important to emphasise that

by clicking on a capability at the boxes, the activity and

resource information and the activity and resource knowl-

edge will be displayed in separate dialog boxes. The

developed prototype application and competency knowl-

edge base captured, managed, and published the enterprise

Figure 11. The capability model for the cutting capability.

Figure 12. Relational model of capability knowledge base.



17/21

internal competency knowledge with a consisted set of

concepts and aspects. The contents of competency knowl-

edge base is demonstrated in two human usage and

machine readable (XML) formats. This knowledge base

can be used to support various enterprise applications

related to competences of an enterprise and presents a

clear understanding of the enterprise detail area of

expertise.

7. Conclusions

The paper rst presents an overview of work in the area of

enterprise’s competency modelling from two different per-

spectives, namely ‘managerial science and industrial engi-

neering’ and ‘IT managerial science’. The need for an

empirical competency modelling from IT managerial per-

spective is discussed in detail, and the shortcoming of the

existing competency models is discussed. An enterprise

data infrastructure for integrating knowledge of the enter-

prise is presented and the responsibility of the competency

model at intra-enterprise data infrastructure is highlighted.

A multi-level competency modelling framework for intra-

enterprise is presented. The need for a multi-level model-

ling framework for CFC and CFI for sector ’s capabilities

is discussed in detail and the resulting requirements are

represented. Based on previous contributions for capabil-

ity modelling, a generic SC model is proposed, and CFC

and CFI of the capabilities are deed as major advance-

ments for intra-enterprise competency modelling. An

example based on the proposed framework is currently

under implementation. The developed experimental sys-

tem offers four benets, in that they (a) enhance the

organisations willingness to collaborate, (b) boost the

organisation’s competitiveness, (c) facilitate appropriate

decision-making, and (d) nally help to integrate the entire

organisation.

Figure 13. Screen shot of the application for entering resource and activity information and knowledge for capability modelling purpose.

Figure 14. Screen shot of the application for CFC and CFI processes.



18/21

References

Abdmouleh, A., M. Spadoni, and F. Vernadat. 2004. “DistributedClient/Server Architecture for Cimosa-Based EnterpriseComponents.” Computers in Industry 55 (3): 239 – 253.doi:10.1016/j.compind.2004.08.002 .

Abel, M. H. 2008. “Competencies Management and LearningOrganizational Memory.” Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (6): 15 – 30. doi:10.1108/13673270810913595.

Agyapong-Kodua, K., R. H. Weston, and S. Ratchev. 2012. “TheIntegrated Use of Enterprise and System Dynamics

Modelling Techniques in Support of Business Decisions.” Advances in Decision Sciences 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/ 804324.

Ajaefobi, J. O., and R. H. Weston. 2009. “Application of Enterprise Modelling (EM) Principles to Improving thePerformance of a Semi-Automated Production System.” Advanced Materials Research 62 – 64: 293 – 302.doi:10.4028/www.scientic.net/AMR.62-64.293 .

Barenji, R., M. Hashemipour, A. Barenji, and D. Guerra-Zubiaga. 2012. “Toward a Framework for Intra-EnterpriseCompetency Modeling.” In 2nd International Conference Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering Applications, December 12 – 15, 284 – 288. Zouk-Mosbeh:IEEE.

Barenji, R. V. 2013. “Towards a Capability-Based DecisionSupport System for a Manufacturing Shop.” InCollaborative Systems for Reindustrialization, edited by L.M. Camarinha-Matos and R. J. Scherer, 220 – 227. Berlin:Springer.

Barenji, R. V., A. V. Barenji, and M. Hashemipour. 2014. “AMulti-Agent RFID-Enabled Distributed Control System for aFlexible Manufacturing Shop.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 71: 1773 – 1791.

Barenji, R. V., and M. Hashemipour. 2014. “EnterpriseCompetency Modeling-A Case Study.” In Technological Innovation for Collective Awareness Systems, edited by

L. M. Camarinha-Matos, N. S. Barrento, and R. Mendonça,157 – 164. Berlin: Springer.

Barenji, R. V., M. Hashemipour, and D. A. Guerra-Zubiaga.2013a. “Toward a Modeling Framework for OrganizationalCompetency.” In Technological Innovation for the Internet of Things, edited by L. M. Camarinha-Matos, S. Tomic, andP. Graca, 142 – 151. Berlin: Springer.

Barenji, R. V., M. Hashemipour, and D. A. Guerra-Zubiaga.2013b. “Developing a Competency-Assisted CollaborativePromotion Modeling Framework in Higher Education.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 107: 112 – 119.

Baxter, D., R. Roy, A. Doultsinou, J. Gao, and M. Kalta. 2009.“A Knowledge Management Framework to Support Product-Service Systems Design.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22 (12): 1073 – 1088. doi:10.1080/ 09511920903207464.

Berio, G., and M. Harzallah. 2005. “Knowledge Management for Competence Management.” Journal of Universal Knowledge Management 1: 21 – 28.

Bernus, P., and G. Schmidt. 2006. “Architectures of InformationSystems.” In Handbook on Architectures of InformationSystems, edited by P. Bernus, K. Mertins, and G. Schmidt,1 – 9. Berlin: Springer.

Bhamra, R., S. Dani, and T. Bhamra. 2011. “CompetenceUnderstanding and Use in SMEs: A UK ManufacturingPerspective.” International Journal of Production Research49 (10): 2729 – 2743. doi:10.1080/00207541003738873.

Bodea, C. N., C. Elmas, A. Tanasescu, and M. Dascalu. 2010.“An Ontological-Based Model for Competences inSustainable Development Projects: A Case Study for Project ’s Commercial Activities.” Am teatru Economic 27:177 – 189.

Boucher, X., E. Bonjour, and B. Grabot. 2007. “Formalisationand Use of Competencies for Industrial PerformanceOptimisation: A Survey.” Computers in Industry 58 (2):98 – 117. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.004 .

Büyüközkan, G., and J. Arsenyan. 2012. “Collaborative Product Development: A Literature Overview.” Production Planning

Figure 15. Enterprise competency representation.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2004.08.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913595http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913595http://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2012%2F804324http://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2012%2F804324http://dx.doi.org/10.4028%2Fwww.scientific.net%2FAMR.62-64.293http://dx.doi.org/10.4028%2Fwww.scientific.net%2FAMR.62-64.293http://dx.doi.org/10.4028%2Fwww.scientific.net%2FAMR.62-64.293http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920903207464http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920903207464http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207541003738873http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207541003738873http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920903207464http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920903207464http://dx.doi.org/10.4028%2Fwww.scientific.net%2FAMR.62-64.293http://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2012%2F804324http://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2012%2F804324http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913595http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913595http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2004.08.002


19/21

& Control 23 (1): 47 – 66. doi:10.1080/09537287.2010.543169.

Camarinha-Matos, L. M. 2001. “Execution System for Distributed Business Processes in a Virtual Enterprise.” Future Generation Computer Systems 17 (8): 1009 – 1021.doi:10.1016/S0167-739X(01)00044-9 .

Cantú, F. J., A. Bustani, A. Molina, and H. Moreira. 2009. “AKnowledge-Based Development Model: The Research Chair Strategy.” Journal of Knowledge Management 13 (1):154 – 170. doi:10.1108/13673270910931233.

Capece, G., and P. Bazzica. 2013. “A Practical Proposal for a‘Competence Plan Fulllment ’ Key Performance Indicator.” Knowledge and Process Management 20 (1): 40 – 49.doi:10.1002/kpm.1403.

Cheikhrouhou, N., A. R. H. Tawil, and A. Choudhary. 2013.“Modelling Competence-Based Virtual Organisations Usingthe Unied Enterprise Competence Modelling Language.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (7):2138 – 2159. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.709648 .

Chen, D., G. Doumeingts, and F. Vernadat. 2008. “Architecturesfor Enterprise Integration and Interoperability: Past, Present and Future.” Computers in Industry 59 (7): 647 – 659.doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016 .

Chen, D., and F. Vernadat. 2004. “Standards on EnterpriseIntegration and Engineering – State of the Art.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 17 (3): 235 – 253. doi:10.1080/09511920310001607087 .

Chungoora, N., O. Canciglieri Jr, and R. I. Young. 2010. “TowardsExpressive Ontology-Based Approaches to ManufacturingKnowledge Representation and Sharing.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 23 (12):1059 – 1070. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2010.518976 .

Chungoora, N., A. F. Cutting-Decelle, R. I. M. Young, G.Gunendran, Z. Usman, J. A. Harding, and K. Case. 2013.“Towards the Ontology-Based Consolidation of Production-Centric Standards.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (2): 327 – 345. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.627885.

Cuenca, L., A. Ortiz, and F. Vernadat. 2006. “From UML or DFD Models to CIMOSA Partial Models and EnterpriseComponents.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19 (3): 248 – 263. doi:10.1080/ 03081070500065841.

Cui, Z., and R. H. Weston. 2012. “Enterprise and SimulationModelling in Enterprise Architecture Execution.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 12 (4): 429 – 448. doi:10.1504/IJISE.2012.050122.

Draganidis, F., P. Chamopoulou, and G. Mentzas. 2006. “September an Ontology Based Tool for Competency Management and Learning Paths.” 6th International Conference onKnowledge Management (I-KNOW 06), Graz, September 6 – 8, 1 – 10.

Ermilova, E., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2010. “Competency

Modelling Targeted on Boosting Con

guration of VirtualOrganisations.” Production Planning and Control 21 (2):103 – 118. doi:10.1080/09537280903441872.

Gallon, M. R., H. M. Stillman, and D. Coates. 1995. “PuttingCore Competency Thinking into Practice.” ResearchTechnology Management 38 (3): 20 – 28.

Gilgeous, V., and K. Parveen. 2001. “Core CompetencyRequirements for Manufacturing Effectiveness.” Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (3): 217 – 227. doi:10.1108/ 09576060110391183.

Guerra-Zubiaga, D. A., and R. I. Young. 2008a. “Design of aManufacturing Knowledge Model.” International Journal of

Computer Integrated Manufacturing 21 (5): 526 – 539.doi:10.1080/09511920701258040.

Guerra-Zubiaga, D. A., and R. I. Young. 2008b. “Informationand Knowledge Interrelationships within a ManufacturingKnowledge Model.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 39 (1 – 2): 182 – 198.doi:10.1007/s00170-007-1194-6.

Gunasekaran, A., and E. W. T. Ngai. 2007. “KnowledgeManagement in 21st Century Manufacturing.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (11): 2391 – 2418.doi:10.1080/00207540601020429.

Harzallah, M., G. Berio, and F. Vernadat. 2006. “Analysis andModeling of Individual Competencies: Toward Better Management of Human Resources.” IEEE Transactions onSystems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 36 (1): 187 – 207. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2005.859093.

Harzallah, M., and F. Vernadat. 2002. “It-Based CompetencyModeling and Management: From Theory to Practice inEnterprise Engineering and Operations.” Computers in Industry 48 (2): 157 – 179. doi:10.1016/S0166-3615(02)00003-9.

HR-XML. (2001). Consortium. Accessed November 28, 2010.http://www.hr-xml.org/

Huat Lim, S., N. Juster, and A. de Pennington. 1997. “EnterpriseModelling and Integration: A Taxonomy of Seven KeyAspects.” Computers in Industry 34 (3): 339 – 359.doi:10.1016/S0166-3615(97)00069-9 .

Jardim-Goncalves, R., C. Agostinho, and A. Steiger-Garcao.2012. “A Reference Model for Sustainable Interoperabilityin Networked Enterprises: Towards the Foundation of EIScience Base.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25 (10): 855 – 873. doi:10.1080/ 0951192X.2011.653831.

Javidan, M. 1998. “Core Competence: What Does It Mean inPractice?” Long Range Planning 31 (1): 60 – 71. doi:10.1016/ S0024-6301(97)00091-5.

Joshi, K. 1998. “Cross-Functional Integration: The Role of Information Systems.” Journal of Information Technology

Management 9: 21 – 30.Jussupova-Mariethoz, Y., and A. R. Probst. 2007. “Business

Concepts Ontology for an Enterprise Performance andCompetences Monitoring.” Computers in Industry 58 (2):118 – 129. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.008 .

Kandjani, H., and P. Bernus. 2011. “Capability Maturity Modelfor Collaborative Networks Based on Extended AxiomaticDesign Theory.” In Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks, edited by L. M. Camarinha-Matos,A. Pereira-Klen, and H. Afsarmanesh, 421 – 427. Berlin:Springer.

Kandjani, H., and P. Bernus. 2013. “The Enterprise ArchitectureBody of Knowledge as an Evolving Discipline.” In Enterprise Information Systems, J. Cordeiro, L. A.Maciaszek, and J. Filipe, 452 – 470. Berlin: Springer.

Khilwani, N., J. A. Harding, and A. K. Choudhary. 2009.“Semantic Web in Manufacturing.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 223 (7): 905 – 924. doi:10.1243/ 09544054JEM1399.

Khilwani, N., J. A. Harding, and M. K. Tiwari. 2011. “EnterpriseCompetence Organization Schema: Publishing the PublishedCompetences.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture225 (6): 921 – 942.

Kim, C., K. Kim, J. Lee, D. Kang, and K. Ryu. 2013. “Ontology-Based Process Model for Business Architecture of a Virtual


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537287.2010.543169http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537287.2010.543169http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0167-739X(01)00044-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270910931233http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fkpm.1403http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2012.709648http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2007.12.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001607087http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.518976http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2011.627885http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2011.627885http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F03081070500065841http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F03081070500065841http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJISE.2012.050122http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537280903441872http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09576060110391183http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09576060110391183http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920701258040http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00170-007-1194-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207540601020429http://dx.doi.org/10.1109%2FTSMCA.2005.859093http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(02)00003-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(02)00003-9http://www.hr-xml.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(97)00069-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2011.653831http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2011.653831http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0024-6301(97)00091-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0024-6301(97)00091-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F09544054JEM1399http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F09544054JEM1399http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F09544054JEM1399http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F09544054JEM1399http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0024-6301(97)00091-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0024-6301(97)00091-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2011.653831http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2011.653831http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(97)00069-9http://www.hr-xml.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(02)00003-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166-3615(02)00003-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1109%2FTSMCA.2005.859093http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207540601020429http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00170-007-1194-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920701258040http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09576060110391183http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09576060110391183http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537280903441872http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJISE.2012.050122http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F03081070500065841http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F03081070500065841http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2011.627885http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2011.627885http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.518976http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001607087http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2007.12.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207543.2012.709648http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fkpm.1403http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270910931233http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0167-739X(01)00044-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537287.2010.543169http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537287.2010.543169


20/21

Enterprise.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26 (7): 583 – 595.

Kristianto, Y., P. Helo, and J. Takala. 2011. “ManufacturingCapabilities Reconguration in Manufacturing Strategy for Sustainable Competitive Advantage.” International Journal of Operational Research 10 (1): 82 – 101. doi:10.1504/ IJOR.2011.037264.

Liu, S., and R. I. Young. 2004. “Utilizing Information andKnowledge Models to Support Global Manufacturing Co-ordination Decisions.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 17 (6): 479 – 492. doi:10.1080/ 09511920310001650025.

Ljungquist, U. 2007. “Core Competency Beyond Identication:Presentation of a Model.” Management Decision 45 (3):393 – 402. doi:10.1108/00251740710745034.

Ljungquist, U. 2008. “Specication of Core Competence andAssociated Components: A Proposed Model and a CaseIllustration.” European Business Review 20 (1): 73 – 90.doi:10.1108/09555340810843708.

Macris, A., E. Papadimitriou, and G. Vassilacopoulos. 2008. “AnOntology-Based Competency Model for Work ow ActivityAssignment Policies.” Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (6): 72 – 88. doi:10.1108/13673270810913630.

Molina, A., and R. Bell. 1999. “A Manufacturing ModelRepresentation of a Flexible Manufacturing Facility.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 213 (3):225 – 246. doi:10.1243/0954405991516723.

Molina, A., and M. Flores. 1999. “A Virtual Enterprise inMexico: From Concepts to Practice.” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 26 (3/4): 289 – 302. doi:10.1023/ A:1008180621733.

Molina, A., T. Lan Andrew Ellis, R. Lan Marr Young, and R.Bell. 1995. “Modelling Manufacturing Capability to Support Concurrent Engineering.” Concurrent Engineering 3 (1):29 – 42. doi:10.1177/1063293X9500300105.

Molina, A., H. Panetto, D. Chen, L. Whitman, V. Chapurlat, andF. Vernadat. 2007. “Enterprise Integration and Networking:

Challenges and Trends.” Studies in Informatics and Control 16 (4): 353 – 368.

Müller, E. 2006. “Production Planning and Operation inCompetence-Cell-Based Networks.” Production Planning &Control 17 (2): 99 – 112. doi:10.1080/09537280500223863.

Paiva, E. L., A. V. Roth, and J. E. Fensterseifer. 2002. “FocusingInformation in Manufacturing: A Knowledge Management Perspective.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 102(7): 381 – 389. doi:10.1108/02635570210439472.

Panetto, H., and A. Molina. 2008. “Enterprise Integration andInteroperability in Manufacturing Systems: Trends andIssues.” Computers in Industry 59 (7): 641 – 646.doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.010 .

Pareto, L., and U. L. Snis. 2007. “An Interactive VisualizationModel for Competence Management: An Integrative

Approach.”

Proceedings of I-KNOW, Vol. 7, Graz,September 5 – 7, 440 – 447.Paszkiewicz, Z., and W. Picard. 2011. Modelling Competences

for Partner Selection in Service-Oriented Virtual Organization Breeding Environments. Elsevier. arXiv pre- print arXiv:1111.5502.

Peñaranda, N., R. Mejía, D. Romero, and A. Molina. 2010.“Implementation of Product Lifecycle Management ToolsUsing Enterprise Integration Engineering and Action-Research.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 23 (10): 853 – 875. doi:10.1080/ 0951192X.2010.495136.

Pépiot, G., N. Cheikhrouhou, J. M. Furbringer, and R. Glardon.2007. “UECML: Unied Enterprise Competence ModellingLanguage.” Computers in Industry 58 (2): 130 – 142.doi:10.1016/j.compind.2006.09.010 .

Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., J. F. Molina-Azorín, and E. Claver-Cortés. 2010. “Competitive Strategy, Structure and FirmPerformance: A Comparison of the Resource-Based Viewand the Contingency Approach.” Management Decision 48(8): 1282 – 1303. doi:10.1108/00251741011076799.

Prahalad, C. K., and G. Hamel. 1990. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Rahimifard, A., and R. H. Weston. 2009. “A Resource-BasedModelling Approach to Support Responsive ManufacturingSystems.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 45 (11 – 12): 1197 – 1214.doi:10.1007/s00170-009-2025-8.

Rajpathak, D., and R. Chougule. 2011. “A Generic OntologyDevelopment Framework for Data Integration and DecisionSupport in A Distributed Environment.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 24 (2):154 – 170. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2010.531291.

Scheuermann, A., and J. Leukel. 2013. Task Ontology for Supply Chain Planning – A Literature Review.

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1 – 14. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2013.834472.

Tarasov, V. 2012. “Ontology-Based Approach to CompetenceProle Management.” Journal of Universal Computer Science 18 (20): 2893 – 2919.

Tarasov, V., K. Sandkuhl, and B. Henoch (2006). UsingOntologies for Representation of Individual and EnterpriseCompetence Models. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Computer Sciences Research, Innovation and Vision for the Future (RIVF 2006), Ho ChiMinh City, February 12 – 16, 205 – 212). Piscataway, NJ: IEEEOperations Center.

Trejo, D., S. Patil, S. Anderson, andE. Cervantes. 2002. “Framework for Competency and Capability Assessment for ResourceAllocation.” Journal of Management in Engineering 18 (1):

44 – 49. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:1(44).Tripathi, P., and R. K. Suri. 2010. “Development of Competence

Based Management and Performance Assessment System for Academic Management: Empirical Investigation.” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 1 (4):357 – 361.

Usman, Z., R. I. M. Young, N. Chungoora, C. Palmer, K. Case,and J. A. Harding. 2013. “Towards A Formal ManufacturingReference Ontology.” International Journal of Production Research, 51 (22): 6553 – 6572.

Vernadat, F. B. 2002. “Enterprise Modeling and Integration(EMI): Current Status and Research Perspectives.” Annual Reviews in Control 26 (1): 15 – 25. doi:10.1016/S1367-5788(02)80006-2.

Vernadat, F. B. 2007. “Interoperable Enterprise Systems:

Principles, Concepts, and Methods.”

Annual Reviews inControl 31 (1): 137 – 145. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2007.03.004.

Vernadat, F. B. 2010. “Technical, Semantic and OrganizationalIssues of Enterprise Interoperability and Networking.” Annual Reviews in Control 34 (1): 139 – 144. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2010.02.009 .

Vichare, P., A. Nassehi, S. Kumar, and S. T. Newman. 2009. “AUnied Manufacturing Resource Model for RepresentingCNC Machining Systems.” Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing 25 (6): 999 – 1007. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2009.04.014.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJOR.2011.037264http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJOR.2011.037264http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001650025http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001650025http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F00251740710745034http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09555340810843708http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913630http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F0954405991516723http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA:1008180621733http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA:1008180621733http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1063293X9500300105http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537280500223863http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F02635570210439472http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2007.12.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.495136http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.495136http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F00251741011076799http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00170-009-2025-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.531291http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2013.834472http://dx.doi.org/10.1061%2F(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:1(44)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1367-5788(02)80006-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1367-5788(02)80006-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2007.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2007.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2010.02.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2010.02.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rcim.2009.04.014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rcim.2009.04.014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rcim.2009.04.014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rcim.2009.04.014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2010.02.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2010.02.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2007.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.arcontrol.2007.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1367-5788(02)80006-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS1367-5788(02)80006-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1061%2F(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:1(44)http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2013.834472http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.531291http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00170-009-2025-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F00251741011076799http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2006.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.495136http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F0951192X.2010.495136http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compind.2007.12.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F02635570210439472http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537280500223863http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1063293X9500300105http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA:1008180621733http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA:1008180621733http://dx.doi.org/10.1243%2F0954405991516723http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F13673270810913630http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F09555340810843708http://dx.doi.org/10.1108%2F00251740710745034http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001650025http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09511920310001650025http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJOR.2011.037264http://dx.doi.org/10.1504%2FIJOR.2011.037264


21/21

Walsh, S. T., and J. D. Linton. 2001. “The Competence Pyramid: AFramework for Identifying and Analyzing Firm and IndustryCompetence.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 13 (2): 165 – 177. doi:10.1080/09537320124246.

Weston, R. H. 2013. “Modelling Framework to Support Decision-Making in Manufacturing Enterprises.” Advancesin Decision Sciences 2013: 1 – 23.

Zhang, M. J., and A. A. Lado. 2001. “Information Systems andCompetitive Advantage: A Competency-Based View.”Technovation 21 (3): 147 – 156. doi:10.1016/S01664972(00)00030-4.

Zhao, J., W. M. Cheung, and R. I. M. Young. 1999. “AConsistent Manufacturing Data Model to Support VirtualEnterprises.” International Journal of Agile Management Systems 1 (3): 150 – 158. doi:10.1108/14654659910296517.

Zoiopoulos, I. I., P. W. G. Morris, and H. J. Smyth. 2008.“Identifying Organizational Competencies in Project Oriented Companies: An Evolutionary Approach.” In Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, edited byA. Dainty, September 1 – 3, 547 – 555. Cardiff: Association of Researchers in Construction Management.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09537320124246http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0166497

a framework ea

Documents