1 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT - dfki.uni-kl.de file1st PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT Covering period...

1st PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTCovering period 01.07.2000 - 31.12.2000

Project title: Decor – Delivery of Context-Sensitive OrganizationalKnowledge

Project number: IST-1999-13002

Project duration: 01.07.2000 – 30.06.2002

Project coordinator: DFKI (Kaiserslautern)

Project partners: NTUA / ICCS (Athens), PLANET ERNST & YOUNG(Athens), SEMA GROUP BELGIUM (Brussels), IKA(Athens), DHC (Saarbrücken)

Number of deliverable: D8

Workpackage: WP9

Title of deliverable: 1st Periodic Progress Report

Nature of document: Report

Version: Final

Classification: Int

Date of delivery: 15.01.2001

Project funded by the EuropeanCommunity under the “ Information Society

Technology” Programme (1998-2002)

WP 9 Project Management

DECOR/D8 - 1st Progress Report iii DFKI, PLANET-EY, DHC, ICCS, SEMA, IKA

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................5

2. WORK PROGRESS OVERVIEW ....................................................6

2.1. Short Overview of the DECOR Approach............................................62.2. Work Objectives & Results Achieved in the Reporting Period ..........13

2.2.1. WP1: Assessments ................................................................................... 132.2.2. WP2: Basic Archive System...................................................................... 152.2.3. WP4: Weak-workflow Modelling................................................................ 162.2.4. WP8: Dissemination & Implementation..................................................... 172.2.5. WP9: Project Management ....................................................................... 192.2.6. WP10: Assessment & Evaluation.............................................................. 192.2.7. Updated Gantt Chart ................................................................................. 222.2.8. Table of Deliverables................................................................................. 232.2.9. Summaries of Deliverables ....................................................................... 24

2.3. Planned Activities vs. Actual Work ....................................................322.4. Activities per Workpackage...............................................................34

2.4.1. Progress Overview Sheet DFKI ................................................................ 342.4.2. Progress Overview Sheet NTUA / ICCS ................................................... 392.4.3. Progress Overview Sheet PLANET-EY .................................................... 422.4.4. Progress Overview Sheet SEMA .............................................................. 452.4.5. Progress Overview Sheet IKA................................................................... 472.4.6. Progress Overview Sheet DHC................................................................. 49

2.5. Comparative Information on Budgets (Person months) .....................532.6. State-of-the-Art Update .....................................................................552.7. Planned Work for Next Reporting Period..........................................56

3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION .....................57

3.1. Project Meetings ...............................................................................573.1.1. 1st Project Meeting.................................................................................... 573.1.2. 2nd Project Meeting................................................................................... 573.1.3. 3rd Project Meeting ................................................................................... 58

3.2. Technical Workpackage Meetings.....................................................583.2.1. Meetings for WP1 (Assessments)............................................................. 583.2.2. Meetings for WP4 (Workflow).................................................................... 603.2.3. Meetings for WP9 (Project Management) ................................................. 613.2.4. Meetings for WP10 (Evaluation & Assessment) ....................................... 61

3.3. Other Meetings or Travels.................................................................623.4. Contractual Issues ............................................................................643.5. Co-operation With Other Projects......................................................663.6. Problems and Risks ..........................................................................673.7. Comparative Information on Budgets (Costs)....................................683.8. Dissemination / Exploitation of Results..............................................70


DECOR/D8 - 1st Progress Report iv DFKI, PLANET-EY, DHC, ICCS, SEMA, IKA

Please note: the EC needs to determine which part of this document has to beconsidered confidential and which part can be freely distributed. The DECORConsortium decides that Section 1 (Executive Summary) and Section 2 (WorkProgress Overview) can be considered public, but not Section 3 (ProjectManagement and Co-ordination).


DECOR/D8 - 1st Progress Report 5 DFKI, PLANET-EY, DHC, ICCS, SEMA, IKA

1. Executive Summary

The DECOR (Delivery of context-sensitive organisational knowledge) project (IST-1999-13002) develops, tests, and consolidates new methods and tools for business-processoriented knowledge management.

Three end-user environments serve as test-beds for validation and iterativeimprovement of innovative approaches to build:

- knowledge archives organised around formal representations of businessprocesses to facilitate navigation and access,

- active information delivery services which - in collaboration with a workflow tool tosupport weakly-structured knowledge-intensive work - offer the user in a context-sensitive manner helpful information from the knowledge archive, and

- methods for an organisation analysis from the knowledge perspective, required assupporting methods to design and introduce the former two systems.

This report summarises the work of the first semester of the project, the main purpose ofwhich was to analyse the three pilot user environments thoroughly, to develop a sharedvision and understanding of the project goals, and to prepare the stage for thesubsequent work packages which are going to introduce the process-orientedknowledge archives in the three pilot sites.

This document is organised according to the EC’s guidelines for preparing project re-ports. Its main contents are the summary of work objectives and results achieved in theseveral work packages tackled, the progress overview sheets summarising the indivi-dual partners’ activities during the last period, an overview of the other deliverablesproduced during the first project semester, and several pieces of administrativeinformation about the way of working, resources consummation etc. Since this is the firstDECOR report, it starts with a hopefully comprehensive and self-contained introductioninto the project goals and objectives, its main approach, and the rough structure of ourwork-plan.

From the project management’s point of view, the project is on track as planned, withoutconsiderable deviations, plan changes, or risks faced such that the work for the nextsemester could be started according to the work-plan.



2. Work Progress Overview

2.1. Short Overview of the DECOR Approach

Since this is the first DECOR Progress Report, we briefly repeat our project approach.The main technical objective of DECOR is:

(a) to provide a structured archive, organised around the notion of the company´sbusiness processes, which is equipped with

(b) active, context-sensitive knowledge delivery to promote a better exploitation ofexplicit knowledge sources.

Figure 1 illustrates theoverall scenario we wantto support.

Starting point is the obser-vation that in a companythe organisational know-ledge base of explicitly do-cumented knowledge isnormally spread out overmany different sources ofdocuments, forms, mediaetc. Furthermore, links andrelationships between do-cuments - except for a fewsimple standard links suchas sequences of documentversions, the semantics ofwhich is hardwired in thedocument managementsystem - which are not partof documents but existbetween documents, areusually not represented.Ontology-based know-ledge and informationsystems acquire from thecommunity of systemusers the commonly ag-reed upon domain struc-tures and kind of links

DECOR maintechnical objectives

The DECOR overallsupport scenario

Ontologies allowhomogeneous accessto heterogeneousknowledge items.

Figure 1: The DECOR Overall Scenario



logically organising a certain domain of expertise or area of work. Then, some kind offormal representation of these generally accepted domain knowledge structures, theontology, is the basis for a homogeneous, concept-based (instead of the usual keyword-based) content description of knowledge sources which can be used for knowledgeportals to support manual browsing and for information retrieval algorithms evaluatingqueries against an archive system.

In DECOR we will examine in particular the role of formally modelled businessprocesses as one such ontology which can be employed to specify the creation, or thepotential usage context, or both, for a given knowledge item.

On the other hand, users are engaged in their daily work routines; they don’t want tospend much time in searching for information or storing expertise. What they wouldneed is an active, context-sensitive knowledge delivery service which "knows" whatthe user is actually doing and uses this information for autonomous informationmanagement services at the desktop.

The DECOR approach to achieve this goal employs a workflow management system asthe host system which is aware of the specific tasks/activities to be performed by eachuser at a given point in time. We consider weakly-structured workflow models for repre-senting knowledge-intensive business work routines which are usually not so strict andpredetermined as, e.g., administrative workflows. Enriched workflow models describeinformation flow between work activities and information needs for specific tasks. Theinformation assistant observes the running workflow and interprets modelled informationneeds to offer active information support from the process-oriented structured archive;further it maintains a notion of information retrieval context using the additionally mode-lled information flow variables which allows for more precise queries to the knowledgearchive. Task context can also be used for information storage to describe the creationcontext of a given knowledge item. Altogether, existing knowledge sources are used andextended in a more efficient and more consistent way throughout the company.

However, the above scenario is based upon a number of non-trivial (and not so cheap)organisation analysis and modelling steps. Business process maps and other domainontologies for knowledge organisation and content description, weakly-structured work-flows models for knowledge-intensive business processes, and information flow andinformation needs for workflow enrichment, must be acquired and maintained over time.The overall approach must be introduced in a company in the larger context of a com-prehensive Knowledge Management (KM) or Business Process Management (BPM) - orbetter: Business-Process Oriented KM - project. All required steps should be carried outby "normal" consultants in a "normal organisation" at reasonable costs and with a pre-dictable result. Recapitulating we can say that we need a structured approach for run-ning Business-Process Oriented KM projects which supports all necessary project stepswith appropriate methodological guidance and modelling tools.

Process-orientedstructured archive

Workflow-triggeredknowledge delivery

Business knowledgemethod



To sum up the review of our technical approach, we list below the specific DECORobjectives and related “products” to be delivered:

• Objective 1: Enable sharing and reuse of context-sensitive, process-relatedexplicit knowledge.�

DECOR Product 1: Process-oriented Knowledge Archive

• Objective 2: Ensure extensive exploitation and user-friendly access toKnowledge Archive content.�

DECOR Product 2: Workflow-triggered Knowledge Delivery Toolkit• Objective 3: Support knowledge-oriented analysis of organisations and

processes.�

DECOR Product 3: Business Process & Knowledge Modelling Toolkit

The layout of the project and the planning of our work follows some guiding principles:

• Develop tool plus method:

It is a common error of IT people to develop complex approaches and powerfultools, and leave the users alone with them. Normally, this results in a waste ofmoney and resources without a better result than frustration. KnowledgeManagement (KM) is a typical example where accompanying measures inintervention areas such as organisational roles, processes, and culture arecritical for the successful use of technology. On the other hand, deliberatesoftware tools sometimes leverage considerably the effect of, or are a keyenabler for management methods or business engineering approaches. Thebest example is Business-Process Reengineering where process modelling andsimulation tools like the ARIS™ or the ADONIS™ tool set were the mainreasons for the success of the business strategy.

Consequently, DECOR, in the tradition of its KM predecessor project Know-Net,aims at a total solution for business-process oriented knowledge managementwhich (i) equips all software tools to be installed with appropriate methodologicalguidance about how to introduce them into an end-user environment, and (ii)vice versa, provides modelling tools for all steps in the introduction methodrequiring sophisticated domain analysis and knowledge modelling activities.

Since the knowledge about technologically innovative approaches and theknowledge about the very needs of "normal" customers are usually not concen-trated in the same institution, the DECOR consortium includes three companieswith thorough knowledge about methods and tools for business transformationand organisation design:

- PLANET ERNST & YOUNG (PLANET-EY) is the leading Greek manage-ment consulting company with profound experience in business process re-engineering, knowledge management, and strategy consulting

Summary: DECORobjectives andproducts to bedelivered

Guiding principlesof the project

Integratingmethodological andsoftware work ...

... means you needtechnology providersplus consultingprofessionals in yourteam



- SEMA Group Belgium (SEMA) is the Belgian arm of one of Europe´s mostimportant software and consulting companies with specific strengths insystems integration and change management

- Dr Herterich & Consultants (DHC) is a young German software and consul-ting house with specific expertise in the area of SAP R/3 introduction andmaintenance for logistic processes in the pharmaceutical and chemicalindustry

Having these experienced consultants in the boat guarantees practicallyoriented work with results which take into account what is realistic in businessand what isn't. Moreover, they "bridge the gap" between technology providersand end-users in the project. After the end of the project, the consulting partnerswill be disseminators of the project insights and results in their daily business.

• Interleave development and test:

In order to produce practically relevant, yet innovative results, the DECOR pro-ject aims at a balance between (i) test of innovative ideas in real applicationscenarios, (ii) technical consolidation of research approaches at the demonstra-tor stage, and (iii) development of really new approaches.

This means that a set of mutually complementing software and method modulesof different levels of maturity are developed, tested in three pilot user test-beds,and iteratively improved during the project duration with feedback from theusers. This strategy guarantees project results close to the market, minimisesfailure risks, and allows separate exploitation of parts of the project results evenbefore the end of the project, and also in the case when other parts do not keepto what they promised. Further, the modular design of the overall DECORsolution allows one to better take into account the particularities of specificapplication environments.

In concrete, the DECOR work is organised around the development of threepilot systems in the medical and social security sector:

- One pilot is being installed at IKA, the Greek Social Security Institute. Thesystem will support the process of granting full old age pension to insuredpeople which - as part of a normal administrative workflow - contains fewcentral, knowledge and document intensive steps for finding a decision.These steps must be legally checkable, they are often done withuncertainty, are influenced by many legal regulations, and they are centralfor the correct result of the process. The DECOR pilot will improve aconsistent, high quality of service for these decision steps. The IKA work willbe coached by PLANET-EY.

- One pilot is placed at the interface between CHU Brugmann, a mostimportant Brussels hospital and CPAS, the body of each city that has todeal with people who are in social, financial, … trouble. In the workflow ofaccomplishing the patient file and sending administrative and accountingdata to CPAS there are often delays and wrong decisions made due tomissing information, knowledge and experience (which is available in othersteps of the process) which leads to heavy financial losses.

Development ofthree pilot systemsstands in the centreof our work

The pilot systems arehosted by DECORconsortium membersor companies closelyconnected todisseminatorpartners



- One pilot is being built for the Plasmaverarbeitungsgesellschaft (PVG) inSpringe, Germany. This company, a subsidiary of the German Red Cross,deals with the acquisition, transport, storage, and processing of blood andblood plasma donors. In this highly sensitive application area, all softwaresystems employed, and in particular the company’s SAP R/3 installationmust be validated according to national and international laws andregulations. The process of making changes to this SAP R/3 system whilekeeping the validation status is document and knowledge-intensive and willbe supported by our pilot system. The PVG case will be coached by DHC.

• Build upon existing approaches:

In order to build on European strengths and further exploit former, publiclyfunded research efforts, we try to incorporate prior work in the respective areasas far as possible, so as to build upon sound foundations. Orientation towardswell-accepted open standards improves the later exploitation potential of theproject results. In particular, we build upon the following ground:

- The overall knowledge management framework and philosophy continuesand further develops prior work in the EC funded Know-Net (KnowledgeManagement with Intranet Technologies) project.

- Methodological work on modelling, organisation analysis and ontologybuilding is rooted in the CommonKADS and IDEF suites of modellingmethods.

- The software approach for context-driven, active information deliveryconsolidates experiments done in the German basic research effortKnowMore (Knowledge Management for Learning Organizations).

- The software developments will be based upon existing tools provided byDHC. For interfaces, interchange formats and further extensions, we willinvestigate well-accepted and upcoming standardisation efforts like XML,RDF/Schema, OIL, or Topic Maps.

The technical work in DECOR is being done by partners with proven strengthsin the respective areas:

- DFKI has thorough experience in building knowledge-based systems,participated in Know-Net, ran KnowMore, and is in close contact with themain players in the ontology representation community.

- ICCS has a long history in research and application of workflow systemsand business process modelling. They participated in Know-Net.

DECOR builds onsolid ground

Besides end-usersand consultants(disseminators),technology providerscomplete theDECOR consortium



To sum up, the DECOR consortium structure can be depicted as follows:

The work in DECOR is organised as shown in the figure below.

The work started with the assessment of available tools and methods with respect to theneeds of the user partners. Under guidance and supervision of the disseminatorpartners and with help of the developers, the users modelled their respective ontologiesand identified the business processes suitable for archive structuring and knowledgeenactment (work-package WP1). In parallel, technical details are clarified and a basicarchive architecture is realised (WP2). Thus early practical experience and a clearidentification of weaknesses and importance of the research directions is assured. Thiswork is concluded by milestone M1. In WP3, archive prototypes are realised at the usersites, based on the basic architecture and the modelled background knowledge. Undersupervision and guidance of the disseminators, the user partners will process asufficient amount of relevant documents to fill the archive with the critical massnecessary for further tests. Possible weaknesses in the ontologies and the modellingcapabilities are identified. The modelling tools and methods for business processes areextended to cover the handling of weakly-structured business processes and thedescription of the appropriate knowledge needs. In WP5, an enactment service for theextended business process models is realised as a developer prototype. Disseminatorsand users model the extended process structures at each user site. This work isconcluded by milestone M2. Using the models and the developer prototype, the activeorganisational memories are installed at the three user sites. The operational systemsform milestone M3. The systems are tested and evaluated in day-to-day work at the



user sites; feedback is collected and improvements are made. During the project, asystematic methodology for introduction of OM systems in enterprises is documented,taking insights and experience from all work-packages into account. Not shown in thefigure, work-packages WP8 (Dissemination & Implementation), WP9 (ProjectManagement), and WP10 (Assessment & Evaluation) are ongoing activities for theduration of the whole project.



2.2. Work Objectives & ResultsAchieved in the Reporting Period

2.2.1. WP1: Assessments

The main work objective of WP1 was to evaluate promises of the DECOR scientificapproach as well as candidate tools and techniques to realise this approach with respectto the particular situations at the user partners’ enterprise environments. At the end ofthis first work period there should be a very clear vision of what we want to achieveconcretely in the three pilot environments plus some preliminary work results preparingthe further steps in work packages 2 and 3.

To this end, work was organised in four streams:

• Task 1: Mapping of the user situations with existing techniques for buildingorganisational memories:

- The project goals and approach were discussed in the team to come to a higherdegree of shared vision, mission, values, and goals between researchers,consultants, and end-users. The user sites were examined to find possible test-bed scenarios and contact persons.

- Existing business processes at three user sites were examined with respect totheir knowledge intensiveness and support potential.

- Information sources dealt with in the given business processes were identifiedand described in order to find out information modelling needs for the design ofthe Basic Archive System.

- It was clarified in each pilot scenario which ontologies were available andrequired to describe the particular user environments.

- Technical approaches to reach the DECOR goals were evaluated anddiscussed. As a result the project consortium decided to use the DHCCognoVision® tool as the basis for realising the Pilot Knowledge Archives.

• Task 2: Conceptual specification of the OM instantiations and realisation of pilotontologies:

- For each case study it was decided which concrete business process should beconsidered for the DECOR pilot case:

� SEMA will implement the pilot system for CHUB, Brussels, a public

hospital administration company. The selected process is thesending of a request to the CPAS (Centre Public d'Aide Sociale, thebody of each city that has to deal with people who are in social,financial, … trouble) for non-solvent patients



� DHC will implement the pilot system for PVG, Springe, a

pharmaceutical company. The process to be supported is thechange management for a validated SAP R/3 system.

� PLANET will lead the IKA case study in Athens. The business

process selected is the granting of full old age pension.

- For each case study, the information types to be modelled and dealt with wereselected and described. The relevant information types gave input for theontology development process (see below).

- For each case study, the selected business process was analysed in detail withthe draft OM method (close to parts of the CommonKADS approach).

- For each case study, the relevant ontological structures were acquired anddocumented. Initial domain ontologies (where necessary) were built using thedraft OM method (adapted from the IDEF5 method).

- Then, these ontologies were used as structuring elements and links in the DHCCognoVision ® tool.

• Task 3 Evaluate experience during modelling:

- Regarding the focus of the work in the method stream of the project, it wasdecided to shift some emphasis from the parts described in the project"Description of work" - awareness, diagnosis - which are already covered to agood extent in the Know-Net method (now being tested on a large-scale in theIST LEVER project), in the Siemens framework, or in the Boeing/Uscholdmethodology - to the topics process analysis, ontology engineering, and rolesfor KM in organisations.

- All analysis and knowledge acquisition activities in the three user sites weredone and documented on the basis of the same draft OM methodology. Theteam decided to build this initial methodology (see above) upon anamalgamation of (parts of) CommonKADS and IDEF5.

- Problems and weaknesses of the draft process analysis and ontologydevelopment method were gathered and discussed and will be input in the nextsemester in iterative improvement steps for method development.

- The need for tool support and better integration of already existing structureswas identified and will be discussed for method refinement.

The respective deliverables (D4, D5, D6) have been finalised and submitted to theCommission. Together these deliverables constitute milestone M1 of the DECORproject. The main output to be produced for M1 was a clear understanding for the threecase studies, a clear definition of what to go for in the three pilot sites, and setting thestage for a business-process oriented, ontology-based knowledge archive. In detail, therespective deliverables can be described as follows:

• D4: OM technology assessment

The deliverable presents the three pilot sites in general plus the selected casestudies. The selected business processes are comprehensively described using the



draft method presented in deliverable D6. This description includes a description ofthe rough focus area and process flow, roles and people involved, and detailed taskdescriptions including required knowledge areas, documents, and information items.

• D5: User pilot ontologies

The deliverable (type: implementation) is realised by implementing the acquiredinformation structuring ontologies as structuring elements in the CognoVision ® toolwhich can be demonstrated at the review meeting and is documented usingscreenshots for illustration.

The so-implemented ontologies were built in the second part of the method ofdeliverable D6 (the first part of which is given in deliverable D4) with the help of theIDEF5 forms and lists: source material index, source material description forms,term pool, term description forms, kind pool, characteristic pool, relation pool. Theusage of the method (part II) was documented, as it logically follows, directly afterthe prior steps of the method (part I).

Hence, deliverables D4 and D5 (at least the paper-based documentation of theresults) have been merged into one physical document.

• D6: OM methodology 1st draft: awareness, diagnosis, basic ontologicalengineering

The deliverable motivates the need and prospects of business-process orientedknowledge management, analyses some related work and input to the project, andthen describes the method used for the analyses presented in deliverables D4 / D5.This first draft of the method amalgamates elements from the CommonKADSmethod (process analysis) and the IDEF5 approach (ontology engineering). Furtherthe document shows how the resulting ontological structures can be mapped ontothe technological means of the DHC CognoVision ® tool.

2.2.2. WP2: Basic Archive System

Work-package 2 started in the middle of the first project semester and will be finished inthe middle of the second project semester. The objective of WP 2 is to specify andprototypically implement the archive system with which the three process-oriented pilotknowledge archives will be built.

The main work comprises analysis of required functionalities and restrictions from theusers, examination of existing tools and approaches, specification of desirable featureswith respect to open standards etc, and implementation of a usable prototype.

During the preparation for the project start it turned out that DHC's CognoVision® toolprovides a powerful and flexible software basis for exactly such purposes as we aim atwith the DECOR archive system. So the team decided to find out whether CognoVisioncould not be the software basis for WP2, and finally agreed upon this approach.

The basic approach of the CognoVision® tool and ist usage for the DECOR goals will bepresented in the review meeting as part of DHC's D1/D2 presentation.



Hence the focus of work shifted a little towards, e.g., training of disseminators and end-users with the CognoVision® tool, comparison of competitor functionalities andalternative approaches, mapping of general scientific wording and concepts to theCognoVision® approach and techniques, discussing interfaces etc to be compliant andopen enough, and identification of weaknesses / specification of required extensions inorder to make the tool successful in the test-bed environments.

Consequently the role of DHC shifted a bit from being mainly a consultant / disseminatortowards a technology provider also giving tool support which consumes, of courseresources. On the other hand, a similar amount of work was spared at the DFKI sitesince we could already build upon a reasonably good software basis. In order to re-establish a (as far as possible cost-neutral) balance in the project, DFKI to some extenttook over DHC work for work-package WP8 - Dissemination & Implementation -regarding the Consortium Exploitation Agreement and project PR material, and DFKI willuse the now free resources to build a powerful extension of CognoVision® by interfacingit with a tool for automatic classification of documents (the annotation / indexingbottleneck was considered by all users as a critical success factor for an ontology-baseddocument management system).

2.2.3. WP4: Weak-workflow Modelling

A main assumption in the more innovative part of the DECOR approach is the idea thatconventional workflow approaches providing a strong structuring mechanism forspecification of workflow control is not suited to deal with the ad-hoc effects, frequentexceptions, and common changes in knowledge-intensive work activities.

So, the objectives of work-package WP4 are to design a workflow approach flexibleenough to support knowledge-intensive business processes, build a modelling tool forthe specification of such workflow models, and extend the DECOR OM method bymodules dealing with the methodological aspects of such a workflow modellingcomponent.

Work for WP4 started in the middle of the first project semester and will end after thefirst year of the project. The work in WP4 is based on the business process analyses ofWP1 which were already tuned towards finding knowledge-intensive parts of the workand potential problems for conventional workflow approaches.

Work already started for Task 1 of WP4 (Define extended BPM formalism includingweak workflows) and Task 2 of WP4 (Specify workflow modelling tool and methodology)included:

• Discussing the concept of weakly-structured workflows and the requirements fromthe pilot scenarios with the end-users. One result was that a full traditional workflowapproach must be a proper subset of the method to be designed. Anotherrequirement was a rigorous pleading for easy-to-use, "end-user-compliant"interfaces. Further, technical integration issues of the workflow tool andCognoVision® were discussed.

• Examining scientific literature about knowledge work with respect to requirementsfor workflow tool support. First conclusions are presented in a workshop discussionpaper and will be discussed in a workshop in March 2001 which is conjointly



organised by DECOR team members. During this it turned out that in the area of E-Government very similar ideas are discussed by some people. We will exchangeour ideas with them in June 2001 at a E-Government workshop.

• Scanning of scientific literature and the workflow market for similar approaches andtools. It turned out the there is a great diversity of approaches in the same direction,but not yet a really generally accepted view of the topic. Our results will bedocumented in a survey paper and will lead to an extended market watch for theWP8 (Dissemination & Implementation).

• An initial modelling formalism providing the basic means for traditional strongly-structured workflow is being specified, and its mapping onto CognoVision®structuring elements was examined.

2.2.4. WP8: Dissemination & Implementation

Work-package 8 is an ongoing activity for the whole project duration. Its objective is tofoster a wide recognition of the project approach and results, in the participatingorganisations, the scientific community, and the economic world as well. The ultimategoal is to prepare a successful commercial and scientific exploitation of project resultsafter and within the project.

To this end, five areas of activities were identified:

• Task 1: Market analysis

In order to prepare a successful commercial exploitation of project (end andintermediary) results, the main target customers and markets must be identified.Since the project is still too young to clearly see all important features (andlimitations) of the products to be delivered, the initial work in this first semestermainly dealt with defining the result expected by DECOR, roughly characterisingthe market development and segmentation, and identifying potential areas ofcompetition. Initial activities regarding market watch were done at the GermanDMS conference and exhibition (Document Management Systems) the KMEurope-2000 in Brussels (KM tools).

• Task 2: Active exploitation / commercialisation of project results

As a first step into this direction, the project was presented as part of the "ECvillage" in the KM Europe-2000 exhibition and trade fair. The ProjectPresentation (D1) and the project website were finalised, press releases and PRmaterial were planned and discussed, but postponed to later phases of theproject when specific results can already be presented to potential customers.

As a preparation step for later specific contacts and to foster the KM ideas inprinciple, PLANET-EY sponsored the First Greek KM Conference in November2000, with over 200 executives attending. Keynote speakers at this event wereDorothy Leonard (Harvard Business School), Larry Prusak (IBM), and August-Wilhelm Scheer (IDS). Further conference speakers were George Doukidis



(Athens University of Economics and Business), Eelco Kruizinga (CIBIT), andGregory Mentzas (ICCS).

• Task 3: Disseminate results in the scientific community

Though it is a bit early to discuss project results in the scientific community afterhalf a year of the project, the project’s main approach plus the DECORprinciples coming from prior research projects were published (see list ofpublications below). DECOR ideas and tools will be discussed with the scientificcommunity plus professional consultants and tool providers in a Germanworkshop on "Business Process Oriented Knowledge Management" in Marchwhich is initiated and co-organised by DECOR team members.

• Task 4: Sharing and communication within 5th Framework

The normal scientific communication and collaboration is listed below ("Co-operation with other Projects").

As a side effect of the collaboration with another DFKI IST-project usingontologies (CAWICOMS) the idea arose to repeat the KALIF "Sharing Day onOntologies" hosted by DFKI in November 1999. We are now looking for theappropriate form, time, and support to initiate a kind of an "IST Ontology Day".

• Task 5: Accomplishing the consortium exploitation agreement

The consortium exploitation agreement shall ensure a good way of workingduring the project and prepare a smooth exploitation of project results after theproject with respect to Intellectual Property Rights. In particular, it shall clarifyand detail the provisions of Art. II.11 and II.15 of the DECOR Contract whichmeans in particular:

- To identify the scope of the Pre-existing know-how and patents brought tothe contract,

- To identify the ownership for the knowledge and patents produced incollaboration in performing the Contract.

- To establish procedures concerning the integration of external softwaremodules with respect to further exploitation.

To prepare such a project, we gathered material from the EC guidelines, priorEC projects, and the IPR helpdesk. Since the wording and some principles ofEC politics has changed since the 4th Framework, former contract templatescould not be adopted directly.

Further complications arose from the fact that some end-users involved see thecosts of the final DECOR software as a critical factor for the overall approach.So, pricing politics for some components for the duration of the project as wellas for after the project and for further exploitation afterwards had to benegotiated between the partners. Finally, a proposal for a ConsortiumExploitation Agreement was agreed upon which is delivered as deliverable D2the main principles of which will be presented at the review meeting. However,the agreement will probably not be signed by the time of the meeting since itmust first be approved by the legal departments of the organisations involved.



The deliverables associated with work-package 8 (D1, D2, D3) have been finalised andsubmitted to the Commission - under reserve for D2 as explained above. Here is a shortsummary of their content:

• D1: Project presentation

According to the EC "Guidelines for Project Reports" in KA II, the ProjectPresentation gives a short and handy overview of the main DECOR facts andfigures, the project objectives, technical approach and expected results. It willbe the basis for further public relations material to be produced in the upcomingperiods of the project. It is made available on paper and electronically on theDECOR website.

• D2: Consortium exploitation agreement

See above.

• D7: Dissemination and use plan: baseline report

The Dissemination and Use Plan of DECOR is intended to be a living documentcontinuously updated and extended as the project proceeds and new deveop-ents on the markets can be observed. This first version focuses on the productand the market issues. More specifically, a comprehensive description of theDecor product is being given along with a description of the market, the targetsegments of the market and the current competition. Since the project is still inits first stage of execution, it is not of relevance to touch upon issues such asmarketing, interest shown by prospective customers and financial forecasts.These issues may be considered in the mid-version of the Dissemination & UsePlan and will definitely be contained in the last version at the end of the project.

2.2.5. WP9: Project Management

Work-package 9 is an ongoing activity over the complete project duration, its objective isto ensure strategic and daily management of the project. The work for WP9 comprisestwo tasks:

• Task 1: Administrative management

• Task 2: Technical management

As the only deliverable to be produced for WP9 in the first project semester, thisprogress report (D8) has been finalised and submitted to the EC.

2.2.6. WP10: Assessment & Evaluation

The objective of work-package WP10 is to continuously check DECOR’s performanceagainst the EC’s criteria for successful RTD projects. Besides scientific andtechnological quality and innovation (which will mainly be demonstrated by the presenceof DECOR team members as acknowledged participants in scientific and commercialevents), community added value (which is dealt with in work-package WP8),management and resources (which is continuously checked in the reviews and progress



reports), the main goal is to validate the project’s success regarding its contribution tocommunity social objectives & economic development and scientific & technologicalprospects.

Work in WP10 comprises two tasks:

• Task1: Set criteria

Here, measurable criteria and baselines shall be determined against which projectsuccess will be validated. They shall indicate the benefits created by DECOR froman end-user’s point of view.

• Task2: Project monitoring

Project performance is evaluated using the criteria and baselines determined inTask 1.

Work for WP10 is mainly co-ordinated and performed by a project member not too muchinvolved in other project activities in order not to "corrupt" his objective observation.

The main approach of the evaluation procedure is to derive regularly (beginning of theproject, middle, end of the project) qualitative valuations of people relevant for severalclasses of success criteria (groups of end-users in each pilot site for the technologicalachievements and end-user support, the project manager to assess the way of workingin the project, and the EC’s project officer to assess the project management and overalladvancement). Comparison of different assessment meetings will show trends anddevelopments in the project appreciation. Each assessment lasts about 30 min to 4hours, depending on the liveliness of discussions.

For each of these three target groups, a catalogue of questions aiming at anassessment of innovativeness and usefulness of specific project results. The catalogueis organised around the work objectives The questions purposely do not ask for simplequantitative or check-box answers but aim at stimulating discussion and finding out the"answers behind the answers".

For Task 2 (Project monitoring), the first round of assessment workshops will be almostfinished at the project review’s time. Preliminary results can be presented at the reviewmeeting. As a by-product, a main observation was that coming through the qualitativeapproach to a good discussion led to a much better understanding of the project goalsby the end-users, to a better mood in the project group, and - vice versa - to a betterunderstanding of the end-users’ concerns by the developers and consultants. Allanswers gathered in the first round of interviews are analysed and quantitativelyevaluated. The result of this quantitative evaluation of the first round of interviews is thebaseline to assess against later evaluations in the upcoming rounds of interviews. Sinceour case study progress was a bit delayed compared to the ideal case (see Section"Planned and Actual Work"), the first round of interviews has not yet been closed so thata presentation of the baselines in the actual form of deliverable D3 would not be valid.

During the reporting period, deliverable D3 (Evaluation criteria) has been finalised andsubmitted to the Commission in a preliminary form.

It describes the evaluation criteria used for the project-internal quality control andprogress monitoring. It starts with a short overview of the assessment philosophy



followed. Then, a preliminary report of the work already done and the work still to bedone is given, as well as the results achieved so far. In the appendices, the secondversion of the "Assessment and Evaluation Handbook" - the basis for the interviews - isattached, together with the concrete output of the interviews already made. Thedeliverable is preliminary since not all initial interviews have been accomplished yet.

WP

9

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent

DE

CO

R/D

8 -

1st P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

22

DF

KI,

PLA

NE

T-E

Y, D

HC

, IC

CS

, SE

MA

, IK

A

2.2.

7.U

pd

ated

Gan

tt C

har

t

Nr.

Vor

gang

snam

e1

WP

1: A

sses

smen

ts

21.

1 U

ser

site

ana

lysi

s

31.

2 P

ilot O

ntol

ogie

s

41.

3 O

ntol

ogy

Met

hodo

logy

5M

ileS

tone

/Rev

iew

M1

6W

P2:

Bas

ic A

rchi

ve

72.

1 T

echn

ical

par

ticul

ariti

es

82.

2 S

tand

ards

92.

3 T

echn

. Com

mitm

ent

10

WP

3: P

ilot k

now

ledg

e ar

chiv

es

11

3.1

Arc

hive

inpu

t

12

3.2

Arc

hive

met

hod

13

WP

4: W

eak

wor

kflo

w m

odel

ing

14

4.1

WW

F fo

rmal

ism

15

4.2

WW

F m

odel

ing

16

4.3

WW

F m

etho

d

17

Mile

ston

e /R

evie

w M

2

18

WP

5: W

F-t

rigge

red

Kno

wle

dge

deliv

ery

19

5.1

Inte

rfac

e de

finiti

on

20

5.2

WW

F e

ngin

e

21

WP

6 In

tegr

ated

WF

& k

now

ledg

e m

odel

ing

22

6.1

Info

nee

d m

odel

23

6.2

Mod

elin

g fe

edba

ck

24

6.3

Impr

ove

mod

elin

g to

ol

25

Mile

ston

e/R

evie

w M

3

26

WP

7: S

oftw

are

Tes

t & R

efin

emen

t

27

7.1

Inst

all s

yste

m

28

7.2

Use

sys

tem

29

7.3

Ref

ine

syst

em

30

WP

8: D

isse

min

atio

n &

use

31

8.1

Mar

ket a

naly

sis

32

8.2

Com

mer

cial

ize

resu

lts

33

8.3

Sci

entif

ic c

omm

unic

atio

n

34

8.4

5th

Fra

mew

ork

shar

ing

activ

ities

35

8.5

Exp

loita

tion

agre

emen

t

36

WP

9: P

roje

ct m

anag

emen

t

37

9.1

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mgm

t.

38

9.2

Tec

hnic

al M

gmt.

39

WP

10:

Ass

essm

ent &

eva

luat

ion

40

10.1

Set

crit

eria

41

10.2

Con

tinuo

us m

onito

ring

42

End

of P

roje

ct

07.0

008

.00

09.0

010

.00

11.0

012

.00

01.0

102

.01

03.0

104

.01

05.0

106

.01

07.0

108

.01

09.0

110

.01

11.0

112

.01

01.0

202

.02

03.0

204

.02

05.0

206

.02

DECOR: Project IST-1999-13002 1st Periodic Progress Report

January 2001 page 23 DFKI, ICCS, PLANET-EY, SEMA, IKA, DHC

2.2.8. Table of Deliverables

Project Number: IST-1999-13002

Project Acronym: DECOR

Title: Delivery of context-sensitive organisational knowledge

Del.No.

Revision

Title Type1 Classifi-catio

n2

DueDate

IssueDate

1 Project presentation R Pub

2 Consortium exploitation agreement R Int

3 Evaluation criteria R Int

4 OM potential assessment R Int

5 User pilot ontologies D Int

6 OM methodology, 1st draft R IST

7 Dissemination & use plan,baseline report

R Int

8 1st Progress Report R Int

1 R: Report; D: Demonstrator; S: Software; W: Workshop; O: Other – Specify in footnote

2 Int.: Internal circulation within project (and Commission Project Officer + reviewers ifrequested) Rest.: Restricted circulation list (specify in footnote) and Commission SO + reviewers only IST: Circulation within IST Programme participants FP5: Circulation within Framework Programme participants Pub.: Public document



2.2.9. Summaries of Deliverables

2.2.9.1. D1: Project presentation

DELIVERABLES SUMMARY SHEET




Deliverable N°: D1

Due date: 01-Oct-2000

Delivery Date: 15-Jan-2001

Short Description:

The project presentation presents the main objectives, approach, expected results,and administrative data to interested people. It is structured according to theEC “Guidelines for Preparing Project Reports” for IST KA II.

Partners owning: DFKI

Partners contributed: all

Made available to: EC, reviewers, world (via project webpage)



2.2.9.2. D2: Consortium exploitation agreement





Deliverable N°: D2

Due date: 01-Oct-2000


Short Description:

This document fixes the common understanding about intended commerciali-sation of expected DECOR results and handling of IPR questions within theproject. It contains the text of a legally binding contract to be signed by eachDECOR project partner. In particular, it shall clarify and detail the provisionsof Art. II.11 and II.15 of the DECOR Contract which means morespecifically:

- To identify the scope of the pre-existing know-how and patents brought to thecontract,

- To identify the ownership for the knowledge and patents produced incollaboration in performing the contract.

- To establish procedures concerning the integration of external softwaremodules with respect to further exploitation.

Partners owning: DHC


Made available to: EC, reviewers



2.2.9.3. D3: Evaluation criteria





Deliverable N°: D3

Due date: 01-Nov-2000


Short Description:

This deliverable describes the evaluation criteria used for the project internalquality control and progress monitoring. It starts with a short overview of theassessment philosophy followed. Then, a preliminary report on the workalready done and still to be done is given, as well as results achieved so far.In the appendices, the second version of the "Assessment and EvaluationHandbook" - the basis for the interviews - is attached, together with theconcrete output of the interviews already made.

The deliverable is preliminary since not all initial interviews have yet beenaccomplished.

Partners owning: SEMA





2.2.9.4. D4: OM potential assessment





Deliverable N°: D4 (plus D5)

Due date: 31-Dec-2001


Short Description:

This deliverable describes the three case studies tackled in DECOR in somedetail. To this end the first part of the DECOR Business Knowledge Method(delivered with D6) is used to analyse each of the three customer sites and thebusiness processes selected for the project. The analysis of the businessprocess leads to the ontological structures used for the organisation of theprocess-oriented knowledge archive to be installed and filled in WP3. Sincethe ontologies logically follow from the application of the method,deliverables D4 and D5 are merged into one document.






2.2.9.5. D5: User pilot ontologies





Deliverable N°: D5 (plus D4)



Short Description:

The analysis of the business process described in D4 leads to the ontologicalstructures used for the organisation of the process-oriented knowledge archive tobe installed and filled in WP3. Deliverable D5 has the form of a softwaredemonstrator which can be shown at the review meeting. Here we describe theresult in short. Since the ontologies logically follow on from the application ofthe method, deliverables D4 and D5 are merged into one document.

Partners owning: DHC





2.2.9.6. D6: OM methodology, 1st draft





Deliverable N°: D6



Short Description:

This document describes the first part of the DECOR Business KnowledgeMethod. It deals with analysing business processes with respect to the knowledgerelated. The method starts with an analysis of overall process and tasks, andcontinues with gathering and processing input material for ontology constructionusing an approach adopted from the IDEF5 method.

The method described was the basis for the analysis of the three DECOR casestudies documented in deliverables D4 and D5.

Partners owning: PLANET





2.2.9.7. D7: Dissemination and use plan: baseline report





Deliverable N°: D7



Short Description:

This document is the first version of the Dissemination and Use Plan, whichfocuses on the product and the market issues. More specifically, acomprehensive description of the Decor product is being given along with adescription of the market, the target segments of the market and the currentcompetition. Since the project is still in its first stage of execution, it is notrelevant to touch upon issues such as marketing, interest shown byprospective customers and financial forecasts. These issues may beconsidered in the mid-version of the Dissemination and Use Plan and willdefinitely be contained in the last version at the end of the project.

Partners owning: PLANET





2.2.9.8. D8: First Progress report





Deliverable N°: D8



Short Description:

The first progress report documents the work of the first semester of the projectaccording to the EC “Guidelines for Preparing Project Reports” for IST KAII.



Made available to: EC, project reviewers



2.3. Planned Activities vs. Actual Work

In general, the DECOR work proceeded as planned. In the following we describe twospecific areas of deviations, but not with critical implications.

Workpackage 2 (Basic archive system):

As already mentioned in the description of the work already done in WP2, the DECORteam decided to use the DHC CognoVision® tool as a software basis for the realisationof the basic archive system. This decision causes some shift of roles and tasks betweenDHC and DFKI which was originally intended to develop such a system from scratch orfrom existing modules.

From the DHC side this decision binds resources in an unexpected manner since DHChas to provide tool support and training to disseminators and end-users as well astechnical co-operation with the DFKI. On the other hand, a similar amount of DFKI efforthas been reduced. As a consequence two steps were taken. First, DFKI took overseveral activities belonging to WP 8 - Dissemination and Implementation (marketanalysis, preparation of the Consortium Exploitation Agreement) from DHC. Second, thescope of the Basic Archive System to be aimed at was widened. Since the DECOR userpartners identified ontology-based document annotation as a possible bottleneck for asuccessful system deployment (an observation also made in prior projects) we decidedto investigate not only the design of a process-oriented ontology-based documentarchive, but also an interface to an automatic text classification component to support (orautomate) document indexing. As part of the WP2 analyses of existing input software, aDFKI software engineer together with DHC already investigated the question of aCognoVision® classification interface plus two candidate classification tools, a researchprototype developed in a DFKI basic research project, and a commercial tool(MindAccess) developed from prior DFKI work by a DFKI spin-off (and meanwhile alsoshareholder) company, insiders information management GmbH. Up to now, we wereable to realise this shift of work between DHC and DFKI more or less cost neutrally.

A nice side effect of this decision is that the practical tests with an new, innovative com-bination of commercial tools on the one hand improves the stability and maturity of themodular software solution delivered (and this means, raises the exploitation potential),but on the other hand justifies the research budget with public funding which would havebeen more difficult if we would only have used or improved the DHC software.

For the remaining work in WP2, however, we will focus in the second project semestermore than initially planned on examining open standards for interfaces, communication,and storage in order not to rely too much on DHC decisions made earlier without thescope of the DECOR objectives.

Another effect of the decision for CognoVision® is a delay in the signing process of theConsortium Exploitation Agreement. Since two of the end-user partners are (more orless) public bodies with rigorous budget limitations, questions like costs for theCognoVision® installation, training, and use during and after DECOR, or costs for a



organisation-wide roll-out after the project turned out to be critical for the projectsuccess. This is even more the case regarding the MindAccess tool. These things had tobe clarified and taken into account in the construction of the Consortium ExploitationAgreement which will be presented at the review meeting. So, the text delivered is apreliminary deliverable, which will probably not be signed by the review meeting.

Workpackage 1 (Assessments):

During the pilot site assessments it turned out that it already took longer than expectedbefore the consulting partners had accepted, understood, and were fully committed tothe ideas of ontology-based document archives on the one hand and the ideas ofweakly-structured workflow on the other hand. This took even longer for the end-usersinvolved. So it seemed useful to not start the detailed pilot analyses until at least apreliminary version of the method was available. Other, specific reasons - normal whenworking with "real" customers - like waiting for the new hardware to be used at PVG,delayed pilot site analysis somewhat. So, although we have accomplished thedeliverables promised in the workplan, the detailed specification of the eventuallyexpected functionality of the three pilot systems could be further away. Such delays inWP1 are also the reason that a considerable amount of SEMA budget is still untouched.



2.4. Activities per Workpackage

2.4.1. Progress Overview Sheet DFKI

PROGRESS OVERVIEW SHEET1

Organisation: DFKIWorkpackage/Task

Plannedeffort2

PlannedDate3

Actual Date4 Resourcesemployed2

CumulativeResources2

WholeProject

Start End Start End This Period Since start

WP 1 6 PM M1 M6 M1 M6 6 PM 6,58 PM Task 1.1 M1 M3 M1 M6 2.5 PM 2.8 PM Task 1.2 M3 M6 M3 M6 3 PM 3.28 PM Task 1.3 M3 M6 M3 M6 0.5 PM 0.5 PMWP 2 6 PM M4 M9 M4 - 3 PM 3 PM Task 2.1 M4 M6 M4 M6 0.875 PM 0.875 PM Task 2.2 M4 M8 M4 - 2 PM 2 PM Task 2.3 M7 M9 M4 - 0.125 PM 0.125 PMWP 3 6 PM M7 M12 - - - - Task 3.1 M7 M12 - - - - Task 3.2 M7 M12 - - - -WP 4 3 PM M4 M12 M4 - 2 PM 2 PM Task 4.1 M4 M7 M4 - 1.5 PM 1.5 PM Task 4.2 M7 M10 M4 - 0.5 PM 0.5 PM Task 4.3 M6 M12 - - - -WP 5 6 PM M13 M18 - - - - Task 5.1 M13 M15 - - - - Task 5.2 M13 M18 - - - -WP 6 4 PM M13 M18 - - - - Task 6.1 M13 M18 - - - - Task 6.2 M14 M17 - - - - Task 6.3 M16 M18 - - - -

�� !#"$�%��"%� " ��&��' � (��)�+*��,�.-�/��0/�" �' 1� ��2!)�� "3��"$� 4��5��"3��+6879 �� (��)�;:<��,�2=2��>?�@��"$��)��A' "$�%�B�� 8C �� D�+��B/B� �� !)��E �� E �)� �� ,�@��B��"$��* (8(�FD6G9H$I J�K�L#M5N�I O N�I�P�Q+M.R0N�L9S$I J�K�L#M5N�I Q�N�T�L�M5UVXW�Y)Z;[<\�],^�_ Z�`�^�a b a�\�` ^�a�\ c�],^�dfe�d ^hg d$i j+k c�`+`�\�l ^)Z m�\ i5^�c�Y�^�\�l Z@Y2^�Z m�\],Z�_ j+k \�^�\�ln�o�p)q;r<s�t,u�v q�w�u�x y x�s�w u�x�s z�t,u�{f|�{ uh} y~z��.z�t,u��Bz��%��} �5u�z�p�u�s�� q@p2t,q@v �+� s�u�s��



WP 7 4 PM M19 M24 - - - - Task 7.1 M19 M20 - - - - Task 7.2 M20 M24 - - - - Task 7.3 M21 M24 - - - -WP 8 3 PM M1 M24 M1 - 1.25 PM 1.25 PM Task 8.1 M4 M24 M4 - 0.2 PM 0.2 PM Task 8.2 M10 M24 M3 - 0.35 PM 0.35 PM Task 8.3 M1 M24 M1 - 0.3 PM 0.3 PM Task 8.4 M1 M24 M1 - 0.15 PM 0.15 PM Task 8.5 M1 M5 M1 - 0.25 PM 0.25 PMWP 9 5.5 PM M1 M24 M1 - 1.5 PM 1.5 PM Task 9.1 M1 M24 M1 - 1 PM 1 PM Task 9.2 M1 M24 M1 - 0.5 PM 0.5 PMWP 10 1 M1 M24 M1 - 0.25 PM 0.25 PM Task 10.1 M1 M4 M1 - 0.25 PM 0.25 PM Task 10.2 M4 M24 M4 - - -Total 44.5 PM 14.58 PM 14.58 PMOne person month is equal to x5 Person hours

Main contribution during this periodWorkpackage/Task ActionWP 1 AssessmentsTask 1.1(User site analysis)

• present project approach in project kick-off• discuss selection of concrete pilot business processes with

consultants• examine CognoVision as a tool for DECOR archive• host CognoVision workshop in Kaiserslautern• discuss and improve structure and content and write general

introductory parts (business-process oriented knowledgemanagement) of deliverable D4 describing the case studies

Task 1.2(Specification of pilotsystems)

• meet DHC consultants to discuss PVG study• visit PVG with DHC to get to know the pilot site and “sell” the

DECOR ideas• meet DHC to discuss D4/D5 finalisation

Task 1.3(Evaluate modellingexperience)

• give to PLANET-EY and ICCS method input (CommonKADS,IDEF5, ontology development approaches) and discuss draftOM method

• discuss modelling experience with PVG, SEMA• watch other European projects (OnToKnowledge, PROMOTE)

to look for interesting contributions for methodologyWP 2 Basic archive systemTask 2.1(Analyse user sites)

• host CognoVision workshop in Kaiserslautern to check toolsuitability with consultants

Task 2.2(Evaluate possible

• test and install CognoVision, check stability and power wrtDECOR goals

�A��B� � �#� ��+�� 5�� )��2��B��$�� B��+�#�.��



input) • map CognoVision concepts and terms to standard ontologyapproaches

• evaluate insiders’ (a Kaiserslautern based DFKI spin-off andshareholder company) automatic classification tool MindAccessto enhance CognoVision functionality, program CORBAinterface from Java, and specify and discuss linkage strategy toCognoVision with DHC

• ditto for DFKI's TCW (text classification workbench)• run tests for classification software with DHC documents• discuss and test Protégé (Stanford University) as possible

modelling tool• evaluate VISIO as possible modelling tool (wrt price,

availability, power, flexibility, interfaces, user-friendliness)Task 2.3(Commitment ontechnology)

• examine user sites with respect to hardware/softwareenvironment

• test and discuss VISIO as a modelling tool with DHC andConsortium

• investigate open standards for ontologyrepresentation/interchange (Topic Maps, RDF/S, OIL)

WP4 Weak-workflow modellingTask 4.1(Extended BPMformalism)

• working meeting with ICCS about input for WP4 (relatedapproaches, possible strategies, survey paper)

• commitment with ICCS and whole consortium about way ofworking and co-operation with DFKI Frodo project

Task 4.2(Modeling tool)

• translate DHC document on workflow modelling method as amodelling front-end for CognoVision

Task 4.3(Workflowmethodology)

• discussion paper about characteristics of knowledge-intensivework processes

• discussion paper about integration areas for business processand knowledge management approaches

WP8 Dissemination & ImplementationTask 8.1(Market analysis)

• discuss strategy for task 8.1 with PLANET• provide input (Ovum report, pointers to relevant products) for

market watch in the area of ontology-based documentmanagement

• write DECOR product description part of deliverable D7Task 8.2(Exploitation ofresults)

• host project homepage• prepare DFKI project Flyer (German, English) for DECOR• prepare Project Presentation and discuss with DECOR team

(deliverable D1)• prepare DECOR flyer and poster for KM Europe fair and

represent the project there• discuss and prepare negotiations for a strategic partnership

between DHC GmbH and insiders information managementGmbH (a DFKI spin-off and shareholder) to jointly exploitDECOR results later on in the area of a CognoVision® -MindAcess® integration



Task 8.3(Scientificcommunication)

• present project ideas at a Dagstuhl seminar on “ InterdisciplinaryApproaches to Knowledge Management”

• work on workflow survey paper with ICCS• write two journal papers about the ideas of business-process

oriented knowledge management and the coupling of workflowand active information retrieval (Knowledge-Based Systems,Information Systems Frontiers)

• initiate and co-organise a national German workshop onbusiness-process oriented knowledge management as part of thefirst German Conference on Knowledge Management(WM’2001, Baden-Baden)

• “weakly-structured workflow” paper accepted for workshop inMarch 2001

• “business-process oriented KM” overview paper accepted forworkshop in March 2001

• write a “E-Government + KM” paper with ICCS (submitted to aworkshop in June 2001)

• discuss with other DFKI ontology projects about joint activitiesand plan an IST sharing day on ontologies

Task 8.4(Sharing within 5th

Framework)

• keep contact with PRMOTE, CAWICOMS,ONTOKNOWLEDGE, LEVER

• keep contact with European KM ForumTask 8.5(Exploitationagreement)

• together with DHC, prepare draft of agreement on the basis ofother European projects, discuss within consortium, improveand finalise contract

WP9 Project ManagementTask 9.1(Administrativemanagement)

• keep contact to the EC regarding project start, modus ofdelivering reports, details of review meeting

• prepare administrative information for first progress report, coststatements, first review presentation

• support other partners wrt reporting activities and review• organise process of finalising and sending deliverables for the

first semesterTask 9.2(Technicalmanagement)

• plan agendas and operate three project meetings• operate a Lotus Notes based project document repository

WP10 Assessment & EvaluationTask 10.1(Set criteria)

• provide (GQM literature, contacts to other European projects)and discuss (EFQM) to SEMA for the basic approach tomeasurement

• meet SEMA to discuss and improve initial quality handbook• discuss with SEMA approach and form of the first deliverable

for WP10



Deliverables due this periodDeliverablenumber

Title of Deliverable Status (DraftFinal, Pending)

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8

Project presentationConsortium exploitation agreementEvaluation criteriaOM potential assessmentUser pilot ontologiesOM methodology, 1st draftDissemination and use plan: baseline report1st Progress report

FinalDraftDraftFinalFinalFinalFinalFinal

Dissemination actions (articles, workshops, conferences etc.)

see above, before, and below

Deviations from the planned work schedule/reasons/corrective actions/special attentionrequired

- none -

Planned actions for the next period

According to workplan.



2.4.2. Progress Overview Sheet NTUA / ICCS


Organisation: ICCS

Workpackage/Task

Plannedeffort7

PlannedDate8

Actual Date9 Resourcesemployed2


WholeProject


WP 1 6 M1 M6 M1 M6 6 6WP 2 3 M4 M9 M4 - 1,5 1,5WP 4 8 M4 M12 M4 - 2,5 2,5WP 8 1 M1 M24 M1 - 0,25 0,25WP 9 2 M1 M24 M1 - 0,5 0,5Total 20 10,75 10,75One person month is equal to 16010 Person hours


• examined IKA’s business processes with respect to theirknowledge intensiveness and support potential

• attend CognoVision workshop in KaiserslauternTask 1.2(Specification of pilotsystems)

• participated in meetings with IKA and PLANET-EY for theselection of the business process and the information types to bemodelled.

• wrote part of D4 referring to the IKA’s business case (ontologycreation and ontology refinement)

• discussed with PLANET-EY the documentation of IKA’sontological structures.

• mapped the ontology of the selected IKA’s business process toCognoVision

�9�� ¡�¢�£�¤�¡�¥��¦�§�¨ © ª#«$¨%¨�«%£ « ¢�¥&¦�¬ £ �¡)¦+®�¡�¤�¥,¥.¯�°�¤�¡0°�« ¤¬ ±��¤�¤�¢2ª)¦�¡�� ¤�¡�«3¦�©«$£ ²�§�¤�¥5¢�«3¦�£+³8´9��¤ �¡)¦;µ<¤��,¢2¶2¦�·?¦@¡�©�«$£��¢)¦�¡A¬ «$¨%¨B��¤��8¸ ��£�© �� D +¡�¦B°B¤ ¢��¤ ª)¦�¡�¹ ¥��£�© ��¢�¢�� ¢��¤�¹ ¢)¦ ¢��¤ �,¦@¡�¡�¤�¥ �¦�£B©�«$£�® 8�ºD³»½¼$¾ ¿�À�Á#Â5Ã�¾ Ä Ã�¾�Å�Æ+Â.Ç0Ã�Á9È$¾ ¿�À�Á#Â5Ã�¾ Æ�Ã�É�Á�Â5ÊËXÌ�Í)Î;Ï<Ð�Ñ,Ò�Ó Î�Ô�Ò�Õ Ö Õ�Ð�Ô Ò�Õ�Ð ×�Ñ,Ò�ØfÙ�Ø ÒhÚ Ø$Û Ü+Ý ×�Ô+Ô�Ð�Þ Ò)Î ß�Ð Û5Ò�×�Í�Ò�Ð�Þ Î@Í2Ò�Î ß�ÐÑ,Î�Ó Ü+Ý Ð�Ò�Ð�Þà9á�â)ã;ä<å�æ,ç�è ã�é�ç�ê ë ê�å�é ç�ê�å ì�æ,ç�ífî�í çhï ë~ì�ð.ì�æ,ç�ñBì�ò%ò�ï ð5ç�ì�â�ç�å�ó ã@â2æ,ã@è ô+ò å�ç�å�óõ0ö2÷�ø�ùBú û ü#ø ý�þ+ÿ�ú þ��5ú�� ü��ÿ��ùBú�ÿ��ø �ý ��ú�ÿ�� þ+ÿ�� û ��ú�ÿ��




• reviewed state-of-the-art methods for knowledge managementand ontology development.

• wrote part of D6 (step 3 and 4 of the OM methodology, i.e.ontology creation and ontology refinement)

WP 2 Basic archive systemTask 2.1(Analyse user sites)

• participated in training on the CognoVision tool• installed and used the CognoVision tool• discussed with DHC about the support of Greek fonts by the

CognoVision toolWP4 Weak-workflow modellingTask 4.1(Extended BPMformalism)

• examined several traditional workflow tools (commercial andresearch prototypes) and their capabilities with respect toworkflow modelling and enactment

• discussed with DFKI and DHC the use of CognoVision tool andpossible synergies between DÉCOR and other DFKI projects asfar as the workflow part is concerned

• identified the requirements for IKA’s case with respect toweakly-structured workflows

• working on the specification of the workflow modellingformalism and its mapping onto CognoVision structuringelements

Task 4.2(Modelling tool)

• discussed with DFKI and DHC technical integration issues ofthe workflow tool and CognoVision

WP8 Dissemination & implementationTask 8.3(Scientificcommunication)

• work on workflow survey paper with DFKI• write a E-Government + KM paper with DFKI (accepted for

workshop in June 2001)WP9 Project managementTask 9.1(Administrativemanagement)

• participated in project and technical meetings• prepared cost statement for the first semester• provided input for the first progress report


Title of Deliverable Status (DraftFinal,Pending)

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8

Project presentationConsortium exploitation agreementEvaluation criteriaOM potential assessmentUser pilot ontologiesOM methodology, 1st draft: awareness,diagnosis,ontologiesDissemination and use plan: baseline report1st Progress report


Dissemination actions (articles, workshops, conferences etc.)• Sponsor of the Knowledge Management Initiative conference on Knowledge

Management and the Learning Organisation (Athens, 16-17/11/00)• Participated in KM Europe 2000 conference (Brussels, 20-22/11/00)




-none-

Planned actions for the next periodAccording to the workplan.



2.4.3. Progress Overview Sheet PLANET-EY


Organisation: PLANET – ERNST & YOUNG S.A.

Workpackage/Task

Plannedeffort12

PlannedDate13

ActualDate14

Resourcesemployed2


WholeProject


WP 1 8 M1 M6 M1 M6 8 8WP 2 3 M4 M9 M4 - 1,5 1,5WP 3 9 M7 M12 - - - -WP 4 9 M4 M12 M4 - 3 3WP 5 6 M13 M18 - - - -WP 6 10 M13 M18 - - - -WP 7 6 M19 M24 - - - -WP 8 9 M1 M24 M1 - 2,25 2,25WP 9 4 M1 M24 M1 - 1 1WP 10 8 M1 M24 M1 - 2 2Total 72 17,75 17,75One person month is equal to 16015 Person hours


• examined business processes at IKA’s site with respect to theirknowledge intensiveness and support potential.

• attended Cogno Vision workshop in Kaiserslautern


• in co-operation with IKA, the business process to be consideredwas selected and the information types to be modelled wereselected

�� !�"#�%$��&'�(*) +�, (-(�,-! ,* �$.&�/ ! 0��&21��"#$3$�4%5�"#�65�,*"�/ 7��"�"� �+�&�� "#��,8&�), ! 9�'�"#$: �,8&!2;=<>��" 0��&@?A"��3 �B�&CD&E��), !�� &�F/ , (-(��"��=G �#!�) ��H�2��&�5�" ��" +�&��I $�#!�) �� "#I �& ��" �3&E��"#$��&!�)�, !�1 0=0�JH;KML>N O P�Q#R�S:TO U TO�V�W2S�X6TR>Y O P�Q#R�S:TO W�TZ�R�S:[\^]`_�a�b@cAd�e3f%g bh�f�i j i�d#h f�i�d k�e3f�lnm�l*fMo l p q2r*k#h2h�d�s f�b t�d p:f�k�a�f�d�s bEa�f�b t�de3bg q2r*d�f�d�su6v%w�x�y@zA{�|3}%~ y��}�� {#� }��{ ��|3}��n��*}M� ��#��|3}��#�-�� :}��x�}�{�� yEx�|3yE~ �2�*{�}�{��F�� *��2�� :�� #�� #�� ¡��2�� #�� ¢ ��¡



• wrote part of D4 referring to the IKA’s business case (businessprocess description and detailed task analysis)

• discussed with ICCS the documentation of IKA’s ontologicalstructures


• reviewed numerous existing methodological approachesreferring to knowledge management and ontology development

• described the first draft of the OM methodology in D6WP 2 Basic archive systemTask 2.1(Analyse user sites)

• participated in training on the Cogno Vision tool• installed and used the Cogno Vision tool• discussed with DHC about the support of Greek fonts by the

Cogno Vision toolWP 4 Weak work-flow assessmentTask 4.2(Modeling tool)

• identified the requirements for IKA’s case with reference to theworkflow management

• reviewed with other partners similar approaches and toolsWP 8 Dissemination and ImplementationTask 8.1(Market analysis)

• prepared the baseline report of the dissemination and use plan(market description, market segmentation and competitionanalysis)

Task 8.5(Exploitationagreement)

• presented the purposes and the scope of the IPR agreement atthe kick-off meeting

• provided DFKI with input for the IPR agreementWP 9 Project managementTask 9.1(Administrativemanagement)

• prepared cost statement for the first semester• provided input for the first progress report• participated in project and technical meetings

WP 10 Assessment & evaluationTask 10.1(Set criteria)

• discussed with SEMA various possible approaches to theevaluation of DECOR’s performance

• facilitated the evaluation process in IKA.



D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8

Project presentationConsortium exploitation agreementEvaluation criteriaOM potential assessmentUser pilot ontologiesOM Methodology 1st draft: awareness, diagnosis, ontologiesDissemination and use plan: baseline report1st Progress report



£ Participation in the KM Europe 2000 Conference, Brussels, 20-22 November



¤ Participation in KMI Conference, Athens, 16-17 November


During the reported period, no significant deviations from the workplan have occurred.


According to the workplan.



2.4.4. Progress Overview Sheet SEMA


Organisation: SEMA

Workpackage/Task

Plannedeffort17

PlannedDate18

ActualDate19

Resourcesemployed2


WholeProject


WP 1 1368 h. M1 M6 M1 524,4 h. 524,4 h. Task 1.1 314,5 314,5 Task 1.2 116,9 116,9 Task 1.3 52,4 52,4WP 9 608 h. M1 M24 M1 148,5 148,5WP 10 1368 h. M1 M24 M1 497,8 497,8 Task 10.1 M1 M4 Task 10.2 M5Total 3 344 h. 1 170,4 1 170,4One person month is equal to7,4 h x 152 days = 152 h.20

Person hours

Main contribution during this periodWorkpackage/Task ActionWP 1 AssessmentsTask 1.1 • Hardware analysis and purchase (customer configuration)

• Meeting preparation and follow up• Assessment (discussion and sharing of experience)

Task 1.2. • Pre-analysis and selection of a case study with CHUB• Analysis of the selected business process

Task 1.3. • Visit of KM EuropeWP9 Project management

¥M¦>§�¨�©�ª «�¨�¬��®�¯#¬%°�ª�±²�³*´ µ�¶ ³-³�¶-® ¶*�°.±�· ® ¸�¬�±2¹¬�¯#°3°�º%»�¯#¬6»�¶*¯�· ¼�ª�¯�¯��µ�±¬�¨ «�¯#¬�¶8±�´¶ ® ½�²�¯#°:�¶8±®2¾=¿>ª�¯ ¸�¬�±@ÀA¯�©3�Á�±ÂD±E¬�´¶ ®�¨��±¬F· ¶ ³-³�©�ª�¯�©=Ã ¨#®�´ ¨#«H«2¬�±�»�¯ �ª�¯ µ�±¬�Ä °¨#®�´ ¨��¨�©�ª �ª�¯#Ä �± �ª�¯ ©3±E¬�¬�¯#°�«�±®�´�¶ ®�¹ ¸=¸�ÅH¾ÆÈÇÊÉ Ë Ì�Í#Î�Ï:ÐË Ñ ÐË�Ò�Ó2Ï�Ô6ÐÎ>Õ Ë Ì�Í#Î�Ï:ÐË Ó�ÐÖ�Î�Ï:×Ø^Ù`Ú�Û�Ü@ÝAÞ�ß3à%á Üâ�à�ã ä ã�Þ#â à�ã�Þ å�ß3à�ænç�æ*àMè æ é ê2ë*å#â2â�Þ�ì à�Ü í�Þ é:à�å�Û�à�Þ�ì ÜEÛ�à�Ü í�Þß3Üá ê2ë*Þ�à�Þ�ìîMï>ð�ñ�ò@óAô�õ3ö%÷ òø�ö�ù ú ù�ô#ø ö�ù�ô û�õ3ö�üný�ü*öMþ ú�û#ÿ�û�õ3ö��û��þ ÿ:ö�û�ñ�ö�ô�� òEñ�õ3òE÷ ��*ô�ö�ô�� !�� "#!�$%��&��'$(� )*��+!�$ ,�!��-&�! � )*��+!�$ . !�$(&�,



Task 9.1(Administrativemanagement)

• participated in project and technical meetings• prepared cost statement for the first semester• provided input for the first progress report

WP10 Assessment and EvaluationTask 10.1 • Decide about evaluation criteria

• Description of evaluation criteria• D3 assessment criteria report

Task 10.2 • Assessment handbook version 1 & 2• Initial project monitoring


Title of Deliverable Status (DraftFinal,Pending)

D3 • Evaluation Criteria• Assessment Handbook, version 1 and version 2• WP10 Project Monitoring: Initial Assessment raw data

December 2000• WP10 Project monitoring : Initial assessment report,

December 2000

FinalDraftIntermediate

Intermediate


Some presentations have been delayed as the tools and methods were available later thanforecast.Therefore, the contacts and the launching of the assessment with the pilot site, CHUBrugmann, did not begin in due time.For the project monitoring, the assessment of PVG has been delayed because the user was notavailable before end of January 2001. The analysis and diagnosis will be done later to ensureobjectivity in the process. The resources foreseen for this task will be needed later.

Planned actions for the next periodAccording to the workplan.



2.4.5. Progress Overview Sheet IKA


Organisation: SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE (IKA)

Workpackage/Task

Plannedeffort22

PlannedDate23

ActualDate24

Resourcesemployed2


WholeProject


WP 1 5 M1 M6 M1 M6 5 5WP 2 2,5 M4 M9 M4 - 1,25 1,25WP3 6 M7 M12 - - - -WP 4 2 M4 M12 M4 - 0,6 0,6WP5 1 M13 M18 - -WP6 8 M13 M18 - -WP7 3,5 M19 M24 - -WP 8 3 M1 M24 M1 - 0,75 0,75WP 9 1,5 M1 M24 M1 - 0,37 0,37WP 10 5 M1 M24 M1 - 1,25 1,25Total 37,5 9,22 9,22One person month is equal to 16025 Person hours


• in co-operation with PLANET-EY reviewed various businessprocesses with respect to their knowledge intensiveness andsupport potential.


• participated in several meetings with PLANET-EY and ICCSin order to select the business process to be considered and theinformation types to be modelled

/�021#3�4�5 6*3*7�8�9(:�7<;#5(=�>�?�@ A�B'?�?�B�9 B�8�;C=(D 9 E�7�=�F�7�:�;G;-H<I�:�7JI�B�:#D K*5(:�:�8 A�=�723 6*:�7�BL=�@B'9 M2>(:�;�8�BL=�9�NPOQ5(: E�7�=SRT:�4G8 U =�VW=X7�@�B'9(3�8�=�7YD B'?�?�4�5(:�4PZ 3�9(@ 3�6[6�7�=�I�: 8�5(: A�=�7�\ ;3�9(@ 3�8�8�3�4�5 8�5(:�\ 8�= 8�5(: 4G=X7�7�:�;#6*=�9�@2B'9(F EPE�][N^�^Q_'` a*b�c�d�e�` f e�`(g�h�d-iJe�cQj'` a*b�c�d�e�` h(e�k�c�d�lmonqp�r�sStTu�vGw<x s�y(w�z { z(u�y w�z(u |�vGw�}�~�}�w�� }'� ��|�y�y(u�� w�s �*u ��w�|*r�w�u�� sXr w�s �*uvGs�x ��u�w�u��<��S�T��G�<� ��(�� (�� (� ��G�� -��G�� *�� X� �G�X� ��Y �¡�¢�£ ¤ ¥�¡�¦�§�¨�£ §�©�£�ª ¥�«�¨ ¬#«�%¢�£�¨�®�¡'(¦ ¯*£�¨�©+«� °�«�§�¨�©-®�« ¤ ¯*£�¨�©+«� ± «�(®�°



• provided input for the part of D4 referring to IKA’s businesscase

WP 2 Basic archive systemTask 2.1(Analyse user sites)

• discussed the potential for the use of the CognoVision tool atthe IKA’s site

• provided specific requirements (such as the use of Greek fonts)WP 4 Weak work-flow assessmentTask 4.2(Extended BPMformalism)

• identified the requirements for IKA’s case with reference to theworkflow management

WP 8 Dissemination and ImplementationTask 8.5(Exploitationagreement)

• participated in discussions on the IPR agreement

WP 9 Project managementTask 9.1(Administrativemanagement)

• prepared cost statement for the first semester• provided input for the first progress report• participated in project meetings

WP 10 Assessment & evaluationTask 10.1(Set criteria)

• participated in the evaluation process in IKA.



D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8

Project presentationConsortium exploitation agreementEvaluation criteriaOM potential assessmentUser pilot ontologiesOM Methodology 1st draft: awareness, diagnosis, ontologiesDissemination and use plan: baseline report1st Progress report



./.Deviations from the planned work schedule/reasons/corrective actions/special attentionrequired

During the reported period, no significant deviations from the workplan have occurred.


According to the workplan.



2.4.6. Progress Overview Sheet DHC


Organisation: DHC

Workpackage/Task

Plannedeffort27

PlannedDate28

ActualDate29

Resourcesemployed2


WholeProject


WP 1 420 h M1 M6 436 h 436 h Task 1.1 M1 M3 244 h 244 h Task 1.2 M3 M6 192 h 192 h Task 1.3 M3 M6WP 2 350 h 128 h 128 h Task 2.1 M4 M6 128 h 128 h Task 2.2 M4 M8 Task 2.3 M7 M9WP 3 560 h M7 M12 Task 3.1 M7 M12 Task 3.2 M7 M12WP 4 280 h M4 M12 68 h 68 h Task 4.1 M4 M7 68 h 68 h Task 4.2 M7 M10 Task 4.3 M6 M12WP 5 140 h M13 M18 Task 5.1 M13 M15 Task 5.2 M13 M18WP 6 700 h M13 M18 Task 6.1 M13 M18 Task 6.2 M14 M17 Task 6.3 M16 M18WP 7 350 h M19 M24 Task 7.1 M19 M20

²�³Q´#µ�¶�· ¸*µ*¹�º�»(¼�¹<½#·(¾�¿�À�Á Â�Ã'À�À�Ã�» Ã�º�½C¾(Ä » Å�¹�¾�Æ�¹�¼�½G½-Ç<È�¼�¹JÈ�Ã�¼#Ä É*·(¼�¼�º Â�¾�¹2µ ¸*¼�¹�ÃL¾�ÁÃ'» Ê2¿(¼�½�º�ÃL¾�»�ËPÌQ·(¼ Å�¹�¾SÍT¼�¶Gº Î ¾�ÏW¾X¹�Á�Ã'»(µ�º�¾�¹YÄ Ã'À�À�¶�·(¼�¶PÐ µ�»(Á µ�¸[¸�¹�¾�È�¼ º�·(¼ Â�¾�¹�Ñ ½µ�»(Á µ�º�º�µ�¶�· º�·(¼�Ñ º�¾ º�·(¼ ¶G¾X¹�¹�¼�½#¸*¾�»�Á2Ã'»(Æ ÅPÅ�Ò[ËÓÕÔ×Ö'Ø Ù*Ú�Û�Ü�Ý�Ø Þ Ý�Ø(ß�à�Ü-áJÝ�ÛQâ'Ø Ù*Ú�Û�Ü�Ý�Ø à(Ý�ã�Û�Ü�äåoæqç�è�éSêTë�ìGí<î é�ï(í�ð ñ ð(ë�ï í�ð(ë ò�ìGí�ó�ô�ó�í�õ ó'ö ÷�ø�ò�ï�ï(ë�ù í�é ú*ë ö�í�ò*è�í�ë�ù éXè í�é ú*ëìGé�î ÷�ø�ë�í�ë�ùû�üQý�þ�ÿ�� ÿ�� !�"�*þ"�"��# ÿXþ$�Gÿ%� &'��"��#



Task 7.2 M20 M24 Task 7.3 M21 M24WP 8 420 h M1 M24 132 h 132 h Task 8.1 M4 M24 104 h 104 h Task 8.2 M10 M24 Task 8.3 M1 M24 16 h 16 h Task 8.4 M1 M24 Task 8.5 M1 M5 44 h 44 hWP 9 210 h M1 M24 Task 9.1 M1 M24 Task 9.2 M1 M24WP 10 210 h M1 M24 80 h 80 h Task 10.1 M1 M4 80 h 80 h Task 10.2 M4 M24Total 3640 h 884 h 884 hOne person month is equal to 14030 Person hours

Main contribution during this periodWorkpackage/Task ActionWP 1Task 1.1(User site analysis)

• Meeting DFKI-DHC in Saarbrücken (18.8.2000)• English translation of CognoVision• CognoVision Workshop in Kaiserslautern (14./15.9.2000)• Meeting DFKI-DHC in Saarbrücken (25.10.2000)• Meeting DFKI-DHC-ICCS in Saarbrücken (8.12.2000)• Analyse Requirements ValidationServer – Workflow• Meeting with PVG in Spring (19.12.2000)• Potential Assessment at user site (D4)


• Ontology Validation Server (D4)

WP 2Task 2.1(Analyse user sites)

• Disseminate potential of CognoVision at different projectmeetings

• Prototype Web-Client for CognoVisionWP 4 Weak-workflow modelling Task 4.1(Extended BPMformalism)

• Meeting DFKI-DHC in Saarbrücken (25.10.2000)• Meeting DFKI-ICCS-DHC in Saarbrücken (8.12.2000)• Documentation of methods of modelling in Visio

(*)$+-, .�/ 0 12,�3�4'5"/ 4�6!/�7 198�5$:;8�<=.�/�5">�,?<�3 @A/�5�6B8�< C�8�4'526�>"8 0 @A/�5�6B8�< D 8�<�>�C



WP 8 Dissemination & Implementation Task 8.1(Market analysis)

• Market analysis Knowledge Management Systems, DMSEssen (5. – 7. 9. 2000)

Task 8.3(Scientificcommunication)

• Preparation of Contribution to WM 2001 Baden-Baden (14.– 16. March 2001) in the workshop Business ProcessOriented Knowledge Management

Task 8.5(Exploitationagreement)

• Preparation of IPR Agreement

WP 9 Project management Task 9.1 • Kick-Off Meeting in Brussels (17./18. July 2000)

• Project meeting in Athens (11.- 13. October 2000)• Project meeting in Athens (13. – 15. December 2000)

WP 10 Project management Task 10.1(Administrativemanagement)

• participated in project meetings• prepared first cost statement• input for this progress report



D2 Consortium Exploitation Agreement DraftD4 OM potential assessment FinalD5 User pilot ontologies Final


- see above, WP 8 -


- none -

Planned actions for the next period• SAP-Microsoft Forum (28.2 – 1.3.2001)• Participation at KM 2001 in Baden-Baden (14.-16.3.2001)• CeBit 2001 (22. – 28.3.2001)

DE

CO

R: P

roje

ct IS

T-1

999-

1300

21st

Per

iodi

c P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

Janu

ary

2001

page

53

D

FK

I, IC

CS

, PLA

NE

T-E

Y, S

EM

A, I

KA

, DH

C

2.5.

Co

mp

arat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

on

Bu

dg

ets

(Per

son

mo

nth

s)

Eff

ort

in p

erso

n m

onth

s fo

r re

port

ing

peri

od 0

1/07

/200

0 -3

1/12

/200

0 -

Par

tner

s 1-

4

DF

KI

ICC

SP

LA

NE

T-E

YSE

MA

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

WP

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

WP

16

6.58

66.

586

66

68

88

89

3.45

93.

45

WP

23

36

31.

51.

53

1.5

1.5

1.5

31.

52.

5-

5-

WP

3-

-6

--

3-

-9

--

-9

-

WP

41.

52

32

32.

58

2.5

33

93

1.5

-6

-

WP

5-

-6

--

9-

-6

--

-1

-

WP

6-

-4

--

2-

-10

--

-10

-

WP

7-

-4

--

3-

-6

--

-6

-

WP

80.

751.

253

1.25

0.25

0.25

10.

252.

252.

259

2.25

1-

10-

WP

91.

51.

55.

51.

50.

50.

52

0.5

11

41

11

41

WP

10

0.5

0.25

10.

250.

250

10

22

82

1.5

3.27

59

3.27

5

Tot

al13

.25

14.5

844

.514

.58

11.5

10.7

538

10.7

517

.75

17.7

572

17.7

522

7.7

697.

7

Per

iod:

E

st.:

esti

mat

ed e

ffor

t,

Act

.: ac

tual

eff

ort

Tot

al:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

tota

l eff

ort,

Act

.: ac

cum

ulat

ed e

ffor

t to

date

DE

CO

R: P

roje

ct IS

T-1

999-

1300

21st

Per

iodi

c P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

Janu

ary

2001

page

54

D

FK

I, IC

CS

, PLA

NE

T-E

Y, S

EM

A, I

KA

, DH

C

Eff

ort

in p

erso

n m

onth

s fo

r re

port

ing

peri

od 0

1/07

/200

0 -3

1/12

/200

0 -

Par

tner

s 5-

6

IKA

DH

CT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

al

WP

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

Est

.A

ct.

WP

15

55

53

3.15

33.

1537

32.1

837

32.1

8

WP

21.

251.

252.

51.

251.

250.

92.

50.

911

8.15

228.

15

WP

3-

-6

--

-4

--

-37

-

WP

41

0.6

20.

61

0.49

20.

4911

8.59

228.

59

WP

5-

-1

--

-1

--

-24

-

WP

6-

8-

--

5-

--

39-

WP

7-

-3.

5-

--

2.5

--

-25

-

WP

81

0.75

30.

750.

750.

943

0.94

65.

4629

5.46

WP

90.

375

0.37

1.5

0.37

0.37

5-

1.5

-4.

754.

3718

.54.

37

WP

10

1.5

1.25

51.

250.

375

0.57

1.5

0.57

6.12

57.

345

25.5

7.34

5

Tot

al10

.125

9.22

37.5

9.22

6.75

6.05

266.

0575

.125

65.5

1528

765

.515

Per

iod:

E

st.:

esti

mat

ed e

ffor

t,

Act

.: ac

tual

eff

ort

Tot

al:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

tota

l eff

ort,

Act

.: ac

cum

ulat

ed e

ffor

t to

date



2.6. State-of-the-Art Update

When the DECOR proposal was written, the idea of business-process orientedknowledge management (BPOKM) was promoted only by very few people in the world.The same holds true for the technical approach of coupling a workflow system forcontext representation with active information delivery agents.

In the meantime a small community of interested people has begun to consolidate. AnAAAI Spring Symposium in March 2000 in Stanford, USA (with DFKI participation),showed a growing interest in the topic and a workshop to be held in March 2001 inBaden-Baden, Germany, co-organised by the DECOR team, yielded some excellentsubmissions. Moreover, the IST project PROMOTE follows some goals similar to theDECOR objectives. However, close personal contacts exist to the PROMOTE team sothat synergies instead of competition potential can be explored.

Hence, at the moment these developments have no direct impact on the DECOR work-plan or the DECOR exploitation potential since these are mostly academic partners, fewpromote a total solution like DECOR, and all of them can be observed within the marketwatch activities of WP8. We plan to wait until the Baden-Baden event and then try togive an overview of the BPOKM "market" in form of either a scientific survey paper or arelated section in the next version of the DECOR Dissemination & Use Plan.

In the area of ontology-based archives several very active research and commercialinitiatives for ontology representation are ongoing, e.g., pushing the ISO topic mapstandard, pushing the RDF/Schema initiative, or trying to promote a general ontologyinterface language (OIL, IST project OnToKnowledge). We plan to have a deep analysisof these ongoing activities within the remaining parts of WP2 in order to provideappropriate interfaces for our archive system. Maybe a good idea to ponder over is toco-ordinate an IST sharing day on ontologies.



2.7. Planned Work for Next Reporting Period

Respecting the specific directions already mentioned above, the work in the next semes-ter will follow the workplan without considerable modifications. The two main streams ofwork in this second semester of the DECOR project are (i) filling the three pilot archiveswith real data/information/documents, and (ii) specify in detail the approach to realiseweakly-structured workflows. In detail, the following topics will be addressed:

• WP2 Basic Archive System

- map general concepts of ontology-based document archives to CognoVision®elements and prepare system documentation

- specify interfaces to be compliant with modelling tools and interchangestandards

- realise specific adaptations for test users (Greek fonts etc)

- implement interface to MindAccess or generic classification tool

• WP 3 Pilot Knowledge Archives

- install CognoVision in three pilot sites

- fill archive systems with real data, index documents, and find documentrelationships in the test applications

- adapt structures with feedback from users

- install and test automatic classification module

- improve and extend methodology

• WP4 Weak-workflow Modelling

- specify formalism for weakly-structured workflows (WWF)

- implement WWF modelling tool as an extension to the existing modellingcapabilities, linked to CognoVision

- formulate methodology for working with a WWF tool

• WP8 Dissemination and implementation

- continue as started ...

• WP9 Project Management

- continue as started ...

• WP10 Evaluation and Assessment

- finalise Assessment Handbook and first round of interviews



3. Project Management and Co-ordination

During the reporting period three consortium meetings took place, as well as a numberof working meetings on specific workpackages. The overall project meetings are roughlyscheduled every two months and will be organised each time by a different partner.Technical meetings are scheduled when necessary and are mainly bilateral meetingsdetermined by the geographical and topic-oriented partner tandems induced by theconsortium structure and project workplan. The specific events are described in thefollowing. The DECOR team collaborates using an internet-based electronic documentarchive. During the reporting period, no specific problems or risks wrt Project Manage-ment and Coordination occurred.

3.1. Project Meetings

3.1.1. 1st Project Meeting

The Project Kick-Off Event was organised by DFKI and PLANET and took place inBrussels (Belgium) on 17 -18 July 2000. The participants in the meeting are listed below.The main focus of the kick-off was naturally to disseminate and discuss the project goalswithin the team and plan the approach for the pilot site analyses.

Organization ParticipantsDFKI Andreas Abecker

Tino SarodnikMichael Sintek

ICCS Spyros DioudisGregory MentzasGiorgos Papavassiliou

PLANET Raphael KoumeriMaria Legal

SEMA Bernard MathotDaniel Haulet

IKA Ntina MaistrouDHC Christian Houy

Stephan Müller

3.1.2. 2nd Project Meeting

The 2nd Project Meeting was organised by PLANET and took place in Athens (Greece)on October 11-13, 2000. The work in the meeting focussed on planning the way ofworking in the three pilot cases. The participants in the meeting were as follows:



Organisation ParticipantsDFKI Andreas Abecker

Tino SarodnikICCS Spyros Dioudis

Gregory MentzasGeorge Papavassiliou

PLANET Maria LegalSEMA Bernard Mathot

Daniel HauletIKA Ntina Maistrou

Renia NikolopoulouDHC Stephan Müller

3.1.3. 3rd Project Meeting

The 3rd Project Meeting was organised by ICCS and took place in Athens (Greece) onDecember 13-15, 2000. Main concerns of the meeting were planning the preparation ofthe deliverables to be accomplished for the first review meeting, and planning the way ofwork in the second semester of the project. The following people participated in themeeting:

Organisation ParticipantsDFKI Andreas Abecker

Tino SarodnikICCS Spyros Dioudis

Gregory MentzasGeorge Papavassiliou

PLANET Maria LegalSEMA Daniel Haulet

Bernard MathotIKA Ntina Maistrou

Renia NikolopoulouDHC Stephan Müller

3.2. Technical Workpackage Meetings

3.2.1. Meetings for WP1 (Assessments)

Technical Meeting, Saarbruecken Germany, August 18, 2000

• Participant(s): Stephan Mueller, Christian Houy (DHC),Andreas Abecker, Tino Sarodnik (DFKI)

• Details: Discuss way of working in WP1 and WP4, details about project administration.

• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessments), WP 4 (Weak Workflow),WP 10 (Project Management)



Technical Meeting, Athens Greece, September 13, 2000

• Participant(s): Maria Legal (PLANET-EY), Gregoris Mentzas,Spyros Dioudis(ICCS), Ntina Maistrou (IKA)

• Details: Discussion about IKA processes.• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessments)

Technical Meeting, Kaiserslautern Germany, September 14-15, 2000

• Participant(s): Stephan Mueller, Rudi Herterich (DHC), Andreas Abecker,Tino Sarodnik, Ludger van Elst (DFKI),Bernard Mathot (SEMA), Maria Legal (PLANET),Giorgos Papavassiliou, Spyros Dioudis (ICCS)

• Details: Training in the use of the DHC CognoVision tool.Plan way of working in WP1.

• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessments), WP 2 (Basic Archive System)

Technical Meeting, Athens Greece, November 1, 2000

• Participant(s): Maria Legal (PLANET-EY), Giorgos Papavassiliou, SpyrosDioudis(ICCS), Ntina Maistrou, Renia Nikolopoulou (IKA)

• Details: Analysis of IKA’s pension process• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessments)

Technical Meeting, Athens Greece, November 15, 2000

• Participant(s): Maria Legal (PLANET-EY), Giorgos Papavassiliou, SpyrosDioudis(ICCS), Ntina Maistrou, Renia Nikolopoulou (IKA)


Technical Meeting, Athens Greece, December 11, 2000

• Participant(s): Maria Legal (PLANET-EY), Spyros Dioudis(ICCS),Ntina Maistrou (IKA)


Technical Meeting, Springe, Deutschland, 18.12.00

• Participants: A.Abecker (DFKI), S. Müller (DHC)• Details: Introduction of DECOR at PVG

(Plasmavertriebsgesellschaft mbH)• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

User site kickoff meeting, Brussels Belgium, July 24, 2000

• Participant(s): Daniel Haulet, Bernard Mathot (SEMA),Yves Leulier (CHU Brugmann)



• Details: User site CHU Brugmann kickoff meeting.• Contribution to: WP1(Assessment) and WP 10 (Evaluation and Assessment)

KMEurope conference, Brussels Belgium, November 20, 2000

• Participant(s): Daniel Haulet, Bernard Mathot, Marie-Claire Mulders (SEMA),• Details: Visit of the exhibition• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment) & WP10 ( Evaluation & assessment)

User site analysis meeting, July 20, 2000 at CHUB

• Participant(s): Bernard Mathot (SEMA), M. Leulier, EDP• Details: presentation of the project• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

User site analysis meeting, September 27-28, 2000 at CHUB

• Participant(s): Bernard Mathot (SEMA), M. Leulier, Parron (head of unit)and Van Dewinckel (head of service ADMIS2)

• Details: Pre-analysis and selection of the business process• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

User site analysis meeting, October 05-06, 2000 at CHUB

• Participant(s): Bernard Mathot (SEMA), M. Leulier and Parron• Details: validation of the presentation of the CHUB case study for the

meeting in Athens• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

User site analysis meeting, October 20-21, 2000 at CHUB

• Participant(s): Bernard Mathot (SEMA), M Van Dewinckel• Details: case study analysis• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

User site analysis meeting, December 05+06+07, 2000 at CHUB

• Participant(s): Bernard Mathot (SEMA), M Van Dewinckel• Details: analysis of the BP• Contribution to: WP1 (Assessment)

3.2.2. Meetings for WP4 (Workflow)

Technical Meeting WP 4, Kaiserslautern & Saarbruecken, December 6-8, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Abecker, Heiko Maus, Sven Schwarz (DFKI), GiorgosPappavassiliou (ICCS), Stephan Mueller, Christian Houy (DHC)

• Details: Detailed planning of work in WP4, especially the use of theDHC CognoVision tool and possible synergies betweenDECOR and related DFKI projects. Further: Workflow survey



paper.• Contribution to: WP 4 (Weak workflow modelling)

3.2.3. Meetings for WP9 (Project Management)

Pre-Project Consultation, Saarbruecken Germany, March 23, 2000

• Participant(s): Stephan Mueller, Christian Houy, Rudi Herterich (DHC),Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi (DFKI)

• Details: Discuss DECOR project goals and way of working• Contribution to: WP 9 (Project Management)• Remark: not charged to DECOR budget

Pre-Project Consultation, Athens Greece, May 10, 2000

• Participant(s): Maria Legal (PLANET), Gregory Mentzas, Spyros Dioudis,Giorgos Pappavassiliou (ICCS), Andreas Abecker (DFKI)

• Details: Determine focus of work and collaboration in DECOR• Contribution to: WP 9 (Project Management)• Remark: not charged to DECOR budget

Pre-Project Consultation, Saarbruecken Germany, June 15, 2000

• Participant(s): Stephan Mueller, Christian Houy, Rudi Herterich (DHC),Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi, Tino Sarodnik (DFKI)

• Details: Determine focus of work and collaboration in DECOR• Contribution to: WP 9 (Project Management)• Remark: not charged to DECOR budget

Co-ordination meeting, Brussels Belgium, November 21, 2000

• Participant(s): Daniel Haulet, Bernard Mathot, (SEMA), Grigoris Mentzas,Maria Legal (Planet), Andreas Abecker (DFKI)

• Details: Co-ordination & discussion• Contribution to: WP8, D2 - Consortium exploitation agreement

3.2.4. Meetings for WP10 (Evaluation & Assessment)

Technical Meeting, Brussels Belgium, November 23, 2000

• Participant(s): Daniel Haulet, Bernard Mathot (SEMA),Andreas Abecker (DFKI)

• Details: Working out the project assessment criteria and procedure.• Contribution to: WP 10 (Evaluation and Assessment)

Initial assessment CHU Brugmann, Brussels Belgium, December 6, 2000

• Participant(s): Daniel Haulet, Bernard Mathot (SEMA),



Yves Leulier (CHU Brugmann)• Details: User site CHU Brugmann initial assessment.• Contribution to: WP 10 (Evaluation and Assessment)

3.3. Other Meetings or Travels

DMS Essen Germany, September 7-9, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Marx (DHC)• Details: Fair on document management,

knowledge management, security.• Contribution to: WP 8 (Dissemination and Exploitation) - Market survey,

competitor evaluation

Technical Discussion with IST project CAWICOMS, Saarbruecken Germany,October 10, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Abecker, Ludger van Elst (DFKI-KL),Markus Meyer, Ralph Schaefer (DFKI-SB)

• Details: Information exchange about EC project managementand the use of ontologies in information systems.

• Contribution to: WP 9 (Project Management), WP 2 (Archive System),WP 5 (Modelling)

Technical Discussion with IST project PROMOTE, Olten - Solothurn - Switzerland,November 8, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Abecker, Ludger van Elst (DFKI),Knut Hinkelmann (FH Solothurn)

• Details: Information exchange about approaches to businessprocess oriented knowledge management.

• Contribution to: WP2 (Archive System), WP 5 (Modelling)• Remark: not charged to DECOR budget

KM Europe 2000, Brussels Belgium, November 20-22, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Abecker (DFKI)• Details: European knowledge management exhibition and fair. DECOR

was represented as an IST project at the EC’s umbrella stand.• Contribution to: WP 8 (Dissemination and Exploitation) - Market survey,

competitor evaluation• Remark: approved by Mr Banti

Technical Discussion with IST project CAWICOMS, Kaiserslautern Germany,December 4, 2000

• Participant(s): Andreas Abecker, Ludger van Elst (DFKI-KL),



Markus Meyer (DFKI-SB)• Details: Information exchange about EC project management and

the use of ontologies in information systems.• Contribution to: WP 9 (Project Management), WP 2 (Archive System),

WP 5 (Modelling)• Remark: no costs involved



3.4. Contractual Issues

1.) As already reported to the Commission in a separate communication: In October2000, PLANET S.A. merged with the Management Consulting Sector ofERNST&YOUNG in Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria, FYROM, Yugoslavia, Albaniaand Moldova. The resulting company, PLANET ERNST & YOUNG maintains thetradition and business values of PLANET, a leader in the Greek consultant sector for anumber of years, and ERNST&YOUNG’s regional network for south-eastern Europe,part of one of the largest consultant networks globally. PLANET ERNST&YOUNG is thefirst Greek multinational company in the consulting services sector, its business activitiescovering companies, corporations and institutions in both the public and private sector inthe region. The switch from PLANET to PLANET ERNST & YOUNG will not affect theinvolvement of the company in the DECOR project.

2.) Since there was quite a long delay between the date of proposal submission and thebeginning of the project, there were, of course, considerable changes in the peoplementioned in the proposal and people now really working in DECOR. In detail thefollowing changes must be reported:

• DFKI: due to family reasons Claudia Wenzel was replaced by Tino Sarodnik.

o Short CV of Tino Sarodnik: Tino Sarodnik studied computer science andeconomics at the University of Kaiserslautern (Germany) and receivedthe Diploma (master’s degree) in 1998. Since 1996, he has beenworking at the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKIGmbH) in Kaiserslautern. Since 1998 he has been a member of theInformation Management and Document Analysis Lab. He worked as asoftware engineer in the KnowMore (Knowledge Management forLearning Organisations), ESB (Electronic Fault Recording) and VirtualOffice (Media-independent handling of administrative workflows)projects.

• ICCS: instead of Christos Halaris, now Giorgos Papavassiliou joined theDECOR team.

o Short CV of Giorgos Papavassiliou: Born in 1974, he graduated in 1998from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of theNational Technical University of Athens (Greece). The Diploma Thesiswas in the area of Workflow Management Systems applied in ProjectManagement. He holds a Degree of Proficiency in English fromCambridge University. Currently a Ph.D. candidate in the InformationManagement Unit of ICCS. He worked on the SupplyPoint Esprit projectwhich was about developing an online procurement system.

• PLANET ERNST & YOUNG: instead of Dimitris Apostolou who is doing hismandatory military service, Maria Legal entered the DECOR project.

o Short CV of Maria Legal: She holds a Diploma Degree in ChemicalEngineering from NTUA (National Technical University of Athens) and a



MSc in Engineering Business Management from the University of War-wick (UK). She has worked as an affiliated scientist in the Laboratory ofIndustrial and Energy Economics, Department of Chemical Engineering(NTUA), participating in projects in the area of Performance Measure-ment Systems. Currently, she is a Consultant in the Management Con-sulting Services Unit of PLANET ERNST & YOUNG, working mainly onprojects in the area of Knowledge Management.

• SEMA: in order to improve the work in Workpackage 10 (Evaluation andAssessment), Daniel Haulet joined the DECOR team.

o Short CV of Daniel Haulet:: Born in 1957, Daniel Haulet holds a Degreein Computer and Human Sciences from the Free University of Brussels.He is Scientific Collaborator to the Free University of Brussels forpsychology and people management. He participates to the “PublicManagement Program” organised by the Trade School Solvay. Heorganises the session of e-government and the citizen relationship andbrings his business experience to the change management module. Hehas written international papers on change management, businessprocess re-engineering and Human resources management. He isHuman Factors Consulting Manager by Sema. He develops an originalmethodology in change companionship and business transformation.Currently he manages the global transformation of the GeneralDirectorate of Economy and employment of Region Wallonie with aparticular focus on SME regional aids and the DECOR project with aparticular focus on project assessment and user expectations.

• IKA: In order to better analyse the business process selected for the IKA casestudy, Konstantina Maistrou and Renia Nikolopolou completed the IKA-DECORcrew.

o Short CV of Konstantina Maistrou: Degree in Economics fromAristotelion University of Thessaloniki (Greece) and Systems Analysiscertificate (ELKEPA). Since 1984, she is in IKA at the IT Department.Currently, head of the Technical Secretariat at Management Sector.Experience in business management, also in requirements analysis,strategic planning, design, development, audit, evaluation andstructured documentation of integrated Information Systems andcomprehensive data communication.

o Short CV of Zaharenia Nikolopoulou: Head of the Administrative Co-operation Department of the International Relations Division of IKA.Experience in European Union Regulations implementation, in theSocial Security domain. Currently participating as a member in aworking-group, planning the data collection needed for the database ofthe large-scale integrated IT System of IKA.



3.5. Co-operation With Other Projects

Since DECOR is still in its first stage, the technical co-operation with other projects hasnot gone very far yet. We just keep loose contact to projects with similar goals and plansome closer co-operation when our project results will be more tangible. Currently, ourcontacts focus on the following projects:

• IST Project Promote (IST-1999-11658) - Process oriented methods and tools forknowledge management. Similar approach, similar objectives. Close personalcontacts. Joint publication planned.

• IST Project Comma (IST-1999-12217) - Corporate memory management throughagents. Few similar technical approaches. Loose contact, joint workshoporganisation.

• IST Project CAWICOMS (IST-1999-10688) - Customer adaptive web interface ofproducts and services with multiple suppliers. DFKI internal co-operation aboutcommon principles of ontology-based information systems. Joint publicationplanned. Joint organisation of an IST sharing day on ontologies discussed.



3.6. Problems and Risks

No concrete problems or risks have already appeared during the project. Speculatively,a couple of risk areas could be identified:

• In the case that the DECOR approach turns out to be useful and profitable, and theidea becomes widespread in the commercial world, a big software house with aconsiderable budget could easily overtake us on our way. Besides the fact that thiswould show the great potential of the project idea even without using the concreteDECOR results, we still believe that the total solution approach with a conjointevolution of method and tool is a unique selling point of DECOR. Moreover, theDECOR consortium structure makes a really European-wide exploitation possiblewhich is difficult for a competitor to achieve.

• At the moment it is not yet clear how important the idea of weakly-structuredworkflows is really in the examined, more strict administrative business processes.This remains to be seen during the next reporting period. However, even if theseaspects of the project would be irrelevant for the end-users, the other modules of theDECOR solution would remain useful. Moreover, we design the WWF approach tobe a proper superset of conventional workflow approaches.

• In the case that the three pilot systems should be so successful that the end-usersor their superordinated bodies want to invest in a wider roll-out, it could become aproblem that the costs for the DECOR input tools (CognoVision, MindAccess) couldbe difficult for the budgets of public administrations. We tried to prevent foreseeableproblems with the structure of our Consortium Exploitation Agreement. All problemscannot be avoided in this area. Such considerations must be taken into accountwhen determining our intended customers in the future versions of the Dissemina-tion & Use Plan.

Commercialcompetitors

Relevance of weaklystructured workflow

Costs for DECORinput tools

DE

CO

R: P

roje

ct IS

T-1

999-

1300

21st

Per

iodi

c P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

Janu

ary

2001

page

68

D

FK

I, IC

CS

, PLA

NE

T-E

Y, S

EM

A, I

KA

, DH

C

3.7.

Co

mp

arat

ive

Info

rmat

ion

on

Bu

dg

ets

(co

sts

- 10

0% -

no

t re

qu

este

d E

C c

on

trib

uti

on

)

Cos

ts in

eur

o fo

r re

port

ing

peri

od 0

1/07

/200

0 -3

1/12

/200

0, P

artn

er 1

-4

DF

KI

ICC

SP

LA

NE

T-E

YSE

MA

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

Cos

t ca

tego

ryE

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.

Dir

ect

cost

s

1. P

erso

nnel

9500

010

4000

3261

0710

4000

4413

941

456

1521

1341

456

3572

651

797

1306

4351

797

8313

255

647

3136

6855

647

2. D

urab

le e

quip

men

t49

3447

0049

3447

00-

--

--

-90

8269

1890

8269

18

3. S

ubco

ntra

ctin

g-

--

--

--

-48

2812

547

1931

012

547

7500

-45

000

-

4. T

rave

l and

sub

sist

ence

5300

5600

2120

056

0062

5067

3225

000

6732

8250

1809

3300

018

0980

0049

3832

000

4983

5. C

onsu

mab

les

500

4300

2000

4300

--

--

--

--

6. C

ompu

ting

--

--

--

--

--

--

7. P

rote

ctio

n of

kno

wle

dge

--

--

--

--

--

--

8. O

ther

spe

cifi

c co

sts

--

--

--

--

--

--

-

Subt

otal

1057

3411

8600

3542

4111

8600

5038

948

188

1771

1348

188

4880

466

153

1829

5366

153

1077

1467

503

3997

5067

503

Indi

rect

cos

ts

9. O

verh

eads

1771

283

500

7084

883

500

1007

896

37,5

3542

396

37,5

7418

475

778

2710

2575

778

4521

227

337

1705

1227

337

Tot

al12

3446

2021

0042

5089

2021

0060

467

5782

521

2536

5782

512

2988

1419

3145

3978

1419

3115

2926

9484

057

0262

9484

0

Peri

od:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

cos

ts,

Act

.: ac

tual

cos

ts

Tot

al:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

tota

l cos

ts,

Act

.: ac

cum

ulat

ed c

osts

to d

ate

No

te 1

: si

nce

th

e co

st s

tate

men

t st

ill h

as t

o b

e d

eliv

ered

, an

d a

t th

is d

ate

the

fin

al f

igu

res

for

the

year

200

0 ca

n n

ot

yet

be

det

erm

ined

def

init

ely,

all

fig

ure

s ar

e st

ill p

relim

inar

y!

No

te 2

: th

e es

tim

ated

fig

ure

s fo

r D

FK

I w

her

e ca

lcu

late

d u

nd

er t

he

assu

mp

tio

n o

f th

e A

C m

od

el (

100%

EC

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n).

In

th

em

ean

wh

ile D

FK

I sw

itch

ed t

o t

he

FF

(50

% E

C c

on

trib

uti

on

) fu

nd

ing

mo

del

wh

ich

is t

he

bas

is f

or

the

actu

al d

ata.

DE

CO

R: P

roje

ct IS

T-1

999-

1300

21st

Per

iodi

c P

rogr

ess

Rep

ort

Janu

ary

2001

page

69

D

FK

I, IC

CS

, PLA

NE

T-E

Y, S

EM

A, I

KA

, DH

C

Cos

ts in

eur

o fo

r re

port

ing

peri

od 0

1/07

/200

0 -3

1/12

/200

0, P

artn

er 5

-6

IKA

DH

CT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

alP

erio

dT

otal

Per

iod

Tot

al

Cos

t ca

tego

ryE

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.E

st.

Act

.

Dir

ect

cost

s

1. P

erso

nnel

2189

415

376

9020

015

376

5102

251

500

2177

6051

500

3309

1331

9776

1230

491

3197

76

2. D

urab

le e

quip

men

t-

-48

0025

0048

0025

0018

816

1411

818

816

1411

8

3. S

ubco

ntra

ctin

g-

--

-12

328

1254

764

310

1254

7

4. T

rave

l and

sub

sist

ence

4375

1048

1750

010

4852

5030

1221

000

3012

3742

523

139

1497

0023

139

5. C

onsu

mab

les

--

--

500

4300

2000

4300

6. C

ompu

ting

--

--

7. P

rote

ctio

n of

kno

wle

dge

--

--

8. O

ther

spe

cifi

c co

sts

--

--

Subt

otal

2626

916

424

1077

0016

424

6107

257

012

2435

6057

012

3999

8237

3880

1465

317

3738

80

Indi

rect

cos

ts

9. O

verh

eads

1751

512

301

7216

012

301

1806

018

245

7708

018

245

1827

6128

8009

6970

4828

8009

Tot

al43

784

2872

517

9860

2872

579

132

7525

732

0640

7525

753

9289

6006

7817

6769

960

0678

Peri

od:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

cos

ts,

Act

.: ac

tual

cos

ts

Tot

al:

Est

.: es

tim

ated

tota

l cos

ts,

Act

.: ac

cum

ulat

ed c

osts

to d

ate

DECOR: Project IST-1999-13002 1strd Periodic Progress Report


3.8. Dissemination / Exploitation of Results

Since DECOR is still in its first semester the focus is not yet primarily on dissemination.Nevertheless, a couple of activities can already be reported:

• July 2000: DECOR website is up

• November 2000: DECOR project presentation finished

• November 2000: DFKI (A. Abecker), PLANET (M. Legal) and ICCS (G. Mentzas)represent Decor as part of the EC’s IST presentation at the KM Europe 2000Exhibition, http://www.kmeurope.com

• December 2000: A. Abecker (DFKI), G. Mentzas (ICCS): Paper Submission: ActiveKnowledge Delivery in Semi-Structured Administrative Processes. Submitted to:Workshop "Electronic Government and Knowledge Management", Sienna, Italy, May22 - 24, 2001.

• January 2001: Workshop paper accepted: H. Maus, A. Abecker, A. Bernardi (DFKI):Knowledge Management Support as a Combination of Workflow, IntelligentInformation Retrieval, and Automatic Document Understanding

• January 2001: Workshop paper accepted: S. Schwarz, A. Abecker, M. Sintek(DFKI): Requirements for Weak Workflow Support as a basis for KnowledgeManagement

• January 2001: Workshop paper accepted: R. Herterich, St. Mueller (DHC): Processoriented knowledge management with CognoVision

DECOR-related Publications of DECOR team members during the reporting period:

• Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi, Heiko Maus, Michael Sintek, and ClaudiaWenzel: Information Supply for Business Processes - Coupling Workflow withDocument Analysis and Information Retrieval. Knowledge-Based Systems Journal13(5):271-284, Special Issue on AI in Knowledge Management, Elsevier, 2000.

• Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi, Knut Hinkelmann, Otto Kühn, and MichaelSintek. Context-Aware, Proactive Delivery of Task-Specific Knowledge: TheKnowMore Project. Int. Journal on Information Systems Frontiers (ISF) 2(3/4):139-162, Special Issue on Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory, Kluwer,2000.

• Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi, Michael Sintek, Knut Hinkelmann. EnterpriseInformation Infrastructures for Active, Context-Sensitive Knowledge Delivery, In:Stuart Barnes (ed.) Knowledge Management Systems: Theory and Practice.International Thomson Business Press, 2001. In print.

• Andreas Abecker, Ansgar Bernardi, and Michael Sintek. Proactive KnowledgeDelivery for Enterprise Knowledge Management. In Guenther Ruhe and Frank

DECOR: Project IST-1999-13002 1strd Periodic Progress Report


Bomarius (eds.) Learning Software Organizations - Methodology and Applications.Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS 1756. December 2000.

Scheduled activities:

• March 2001: DHC represent DECOR at CeBIT’2001, Hannover

• March 2001: A. Bernardi, A. Abecker (DFKI) give a tutorial about "Product andProcess Oriented Approaches to KM Support" including a Decor project descriptionand a presentation of the DHC CognoVision tool, the backbone of the Decor "BasicArchive System" as part of the German WM’2001 KM conference

• March 2001: H. Maus, A. Abecker (DFKI): co-organise a national German workshopabout "Process-oriented knowledge management" (the main topic of Decor) as partof the 1st German Conference on Knowledge Management (WM’2001) in Baden-Baden

• November 2001: DECOR representation at KM Europe 2001, The Hague

1 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT - dfki.uni-kl.de file1st PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT Covering period...

Documents

Transcript of 1 PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT - dfki.uni-kl.de file1st PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT Covering period...