On a "Common
Language"for a "Best Practices"
Daniel E. O’Leary
University of Southern California
3660 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA90089-1421
Oleary@rcf.usc.edu
From: AAAI Technical Report WS-99-13. Compilation copyright © 1999, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
Abstract
firms, this is probably not a problemunless the dictator
changes (e.g., through executive turnover) or there is
attempt to implement the commonlanguages in some
other setting (e.g., sell the best practices knowledge
base).
Knowledgemanagementsystems are becomingembedded
in knowledge work. As part of those knowledge
management
systems, increasingly, firms are developing
best practices knowledgebases that summarizea wide
rangeof enterprise processes.Central to those particular
knowledgebases are common
languagesused to facilitate
access and navigation through the knowledgebase. This
paper summarizes
someof the evidenceas to the necessity
of common
languagesin best practices databases. Further,
somebarriers standing in the wayof development
and use
of these common
languagesare summarized.In addition,
this paper developsa modelfinding it is "impossible"to
rationally choosea common
languagethat meets needs of
all individualsandthe firm, unlessdictatorshipis allowed.
Scope
Consulting firms, such as the "big six" have developed
best practices knowledgebases for their owninternal
direct use. Arthur Andersen and Price Waterhouse
apparently were amongthe first such developers. Each of
these firms have publicly available materials regarding
their best practices knowledge bases (Arthur Andersen
1997, APQC 1997, International
Benchmarking
Clearinghouse 1997, Price Waterhouse 1995 and 1997).
Asa result, the descriptive scopeof this paper is primarily
limited to information available from those sources.
1. Introduction
Increasingly, firms are developing"best practices"
knowledgebases as part of their knowledgemanagement
systems. Best practices (or leading practices) knowledge
bases provide access to enterprise processes that appear to
define the best waysof doing things. At the base of these
best practices knowledgebases is what the developers
(e.g., Price Waterhouse,1997) call a "common
language"
or (International BenchmarkingClearinghouse 1997)
"commonvocabulary."
2. Best Practices KnowledgeBases
Best practices knowledgebases capture information and
knowledge about the best way to do things. Best
practices knowledgebases have found use in a wide range
of enterprises.
For example, as noted by Davenport
(1997), General Motors- HughesElectronics capture best
process reengineering practices in a database. In addition,
major consulting firms, including Arthur Andersen and
Price Waterhouse, have developed best practices
knowledgebases.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the use of
commonlanguages in best practice knowledgebases and
present an analytic model of the choice of common
language concepts that are included in or excluded from
the commonlanguage. This paper finds that based on a
small set of assumptionsit is "impossible" to rationally
choose a commonlanguage that will be optimal for
individual membersof a group and the group itself, unless
"dictatorship" is allowed. Thus, the resulting common
languages are likely to meet the needs of the dictator or
the needs that the dictator sees are important for the
organization. Since the organizations that have developed
best practices knowledgebases typically are for-profit
Best Practice
Firm
Knowledge Bases as Models of the
Best practices knowledge bases typically are based on
process models of the firm, with emphasis on particular
processes and howthose processes relate to each other.
The best practice models are used to organize those
processes for Arthur Andersenand Price Waterhousebest
practices knowledge bases are in exhibits 1 and 2.
60
Exhibit1 -- ArthurAndersen
¯ Understandl I 2. Develop I I 3. Design I I
4. Market
Markets& [---t
Customers
] [ Vision
Strategy& [-’t
] ] Products
ServicesM&
&Sell
5. Produce&l
Deliverfor
Manufaeturin
i
Organization
I
7. Invoice&I
Service
Customers
Deliverfor
Service
Organization
8. Develop and Manage HumanResources
I
9. ManageInformation
I
10. ManageFinancial and Physical Resources
]
I
I 1. Execute Environmental ManagementProgram
I
l
12. ManageExtrernal Relationships
I
[
13. ManageImprovement and Change
Global Best Practice
I
Classification
Scheme (Arthur
Andersen)
Exhibit2 -- Price Waterhouse
\
Perform
Logistics and/,~ Customer
Service
Distribution/
Poo\lo
Marketing and/,~ Products and/~ Products a
Sales / Services
/ Services
Perform Business Improvement
ManaEeEnvironmental Concerns
ManageExternal Re!at!onships
Manage
Corporate
Services
and Fa~
L
ManaE~Financials
Mana~ Human Resources
Provide Lesal Services
Perform Planning and Man*~ement
Perform Procurement
Develnn.
~¢zMaintain
gwt~q18,
andTot,h~,^l^~,_
.....
KnowledgeVlew Multi-Industry
Process Technology (Price Waterhouse)
Whatis in Best Practice KnowledgeBases?
maybe referenceto articles or otherdescriptionsof the
processes. Process measurements
are also summarized
providinga basis for benchmarking.
Somebest practices
knowledgebases include warstories, andinformation
relating processesandtechnologyenablerinformation.
Finally, the knowledgebase mayhave reference to
Best practice knowledge bases include a range of
materials. Typically they include text and or graphic
representationof best practice processes. Best processes
maybe generic or designedfor specific industries. There
61
particular experts on the processes.
with other Knowledgebase Languages?
What is the Relationship
Between Common
Languages and Knowledge ManagementOntologies?
The information describing the process provides a basis
for organization of the best processes. As a result, best
practices are organized by process, performance measure
benchmarks, industry-based process information and
technology enabler.
Are Best Practices
or External Use?
To what extent does a Best Practices KnowledgeBase
Require a CommonLanguage?
There is evidence that developers have found the need for
a common
language in the best practices databases to be a
critical issue. For example, as noted by Price Waterhouse
(1997)
Knowledge Bases for Internal
A CommonLanguage
It is almost impossible to make intelligent
comparisons without a commonset of reference point
to describe the key processes and core capabilities of
a business. Even within the same company,different
divisions cannot compareprocesses whenthey lack a
commonlanguage to describe what they do. The
challenge becomes even greater when executives
attempt to compare separate companies in the same
industry or across different industries. Best practices
must be accompanied by a commonlanguage that
breaks business processes into activities that all
companiesrecognize, understand and share.
Initially best practice knowledgebases were designed for
internal usage. Using best practice knowledge bases,
consultants and auditors could have access to the best
practices in order to help or understand their client’s
processes. Clients benefited indirectly through having
more knowledgeableauditors and consultants.
However, recently firms apparently have become
increasingly interested in direct access in order to
facilitate
"bench marking" with other firms and
improving their work processes. As a result, some
consulting firms have madetheir best practice knowledge
bases directly available to users. For example, Arthur
Anderson’s KnowledgeSpace (http://www.knowledgespace.corn) was made available as a service over the
internet to subscribers in 1998. (In addition to access to
best practices information, subscribers can access news,
and other resources.) As a result, clients can nowdirectly
access best practice information.
How are CommonLanguages Developed?
There is limited information available regarding how
these different commonlanguages have been developed
and how choice was made between alternative language
representations. It is assumedthat different groups that
will be using the commonlanguage are represented by an
individual who represents their interests. Within that
group choices are made regarding which concepts to
include and exclude, what to call particular concepts, etc.
The International
Benehmarking Clearinghouse
apparently madeheavy use of a single source of expertise
in order to develop their common
language.
Best Practice
Knowledge Bases are Part of a
Portfolio of Knowledge Bases
Typically, best practice knowledgebases are treated as a
standalone knowledge base. However, best practice
knowledge bases are only a part of the portfolio of
knowledge management system knowledge bases. In
consulting firms, those knowledge bases also include
proposal knowledgebases, engagement knowledgebases,
news, information and expertise databases and others.
The Center and Arthur Andersen & Co. have
collaborated
closely to bring the Process
Classification Frameworkto life and enhanceit over
the past three years. The center would like to
acknowledgethe staff of Arthur Andersen for their
research and numerousinsights during this effort.
(International BenchmarkingClearinghouse 1997)
3. Common
Languagesin Best Practices
KnowledgeBases
Best practice knowledgebases typically are organized
around a commonlanguage / taxonomy. The existence of
a commonlanguage for best practices knowledge bases
raises a numberof questions.
¯
To what extent does a Best Practices Knowledge
Base Require a CommonLanguage?
¯
Howare CommonLanguages Developed?
¯
How many Best Practice CommonLanguages are
there?
¯
Howdo Best Practice CommonLanguages Interface
How many Best Practice
there?
CommonLanguages are
It is unclear howmanydifferent best practice common
languages have been developed. However, to-date there
have been reports of a few large companies, such as
General Motors (e.g., Davenport 1997), and large
consultants (Arthur Andersen 1997 and Price Waterhouse
62
organization,knowledge
navigation, facilitation of cross
industry comparisons, need to eliminate "insider
terminology,"and the broad base of constituencies, some
of whichare discussedin moredetail here, whileall are
discussedin detail in a longerversionof this paper.
1995and 1997)each developingbest practices databases
and their owncorrespondingcommon
languages.
Which CommonLanguage is Optimal?
Withthe existence of all of these common
languages,
whichis best? Thefact that different common
languages
are emergingprobably is evidencethat developers have
different needsand as a result developdifferent common
languagesto meet those needs. However,there are some
apparent similarities. For example,two of the common
languages that have gotten the most publicity (Price
Waterhouse 1995 and International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse/ArthurAndersen1997) appear to be based
on a common
overall model,Porter’s value chain model
(Porter, 1980).
Knowledge Navigation
A commonlanguage facilitates knowledgenavigation
througha best practices database(ArthurAndersen1997).
Ourexperiencetaught us that the common
organizing
framework
wasvery valuable -- it providesus with a
common
and understandablewayto navigate through
the knowledge.
Cross Industry Usage
How do Best Practice
Common Languages
Interface with other Knowledgebase Languages?
Oneof the benefitsof best practicesis to be able to take a
processin one industry andadapt it to anotherindustry.
Apparently, a common
language can facilitate cross
industry comparisons
(Price Waterhouse
1997).
As a stand alone knowledgebase, best practice common
languagesgenerallydo not needto directly interface with
other knowledgebase languages.However,this is likely
to change as knowledgemanagementsystems become
increasinglyintegrated.
The challenge becomesevengreater whenexecutives
attempt to compareseparate companiesin the same
industryor acrossdifferent industries. Best practices
must be accompaniedby a commonlanguage that
breaks business processes into activities that all
companiesrecognize, understandand share.
What is the Relationship
Between Common
Languages
and Knowledge Management
Ontologies?
Issues relating to common
languagesin best practices
knowledge
basesare part of a larger set of issues referred
to as a knowledgemanagement
ontologies (KMOs).
Eliminates Needfor "Insider Terminology"
The International BenchmarkingClearinghouse (1997)
argued that a commonlanguage allows them to break
awayfrom specialized language. In particular, they
indicatedthat they
At the broadestlevel, an ontologyhas beendefinedas an
explicit specificationof a conceptualization
(e.g., Gruber,
1993). Within artificial intelligence, ontologies are
necessary for multiple independentcomputingagents to
communicate
withoutambiguity.In addition, in artificial
intelligence, ontologiesare the center of muchresearchon
reusability of knowledgebases. A KMO
is a knowledgebased specification that typically describes a taxonomy
that defines the knowledge. Within the context of
knowledge management systems, ontologies are
specifications of discourse in the form of a shared
vocabularyfor humanactors. Ontologiescan differ by
developerandindustry, dependingon their humanusers.
... were convincedthat a common
vocabulary, not
tied to any specific industry was necessary to
classify information by process and to help
companiestranscend the limitations of insider
terminology.
Broad Rangeof Constituencies
In addition, best practices knowledge
bases are designed
for a widerange of users for a widerange of uses. For
example,Price Waterhouse
(1995, p. 12) notes that "More
than 30,000... professionals worldwidehave access to
this tool for the purposeof collecting, refining, and
sharingtheir knowledge
with clients to help themenhance
organizational competitiveness." As noted by Price
Waterhouse,
(1995, p. 9)
4. Why is it Necessary to have a Common
Language?
Witheachof the reports of best practice knowledge
bases,
there is also discussion of the uniquecommon
language
used to access and organize the knowledgebase. The
need for a commonlanguage derives from a numberof
factors including, knowledge reuse, knowledge
Witha common
language to describe the processes
63
and activities of all companies,any companycan
compareitself to another. Price Waterhouse,The
Knowledge
Viewtaxonomy
earl serve as the basis for
best practice comparisons across industries,
languages, and time zones. In fact the taxonomyis
already being used on five continents and has been
translated into several worldlanguages.
TheFramework
does not list all processeswithin any
specific organization. Likewise, not every process
listed in the Frameworkis present in every
organization.
Howdo developers decide what should be included or
excluded? Howdo they choose betweendifferent terms
to be includedin their best practices knowledge
bases?
5. Barriers to a CommonLanguage in a Best
Practices Knowledge Base
Individual Differences
Eachof these barriers suggestthat different individuals
wouldhavedifferent preferences regarding the various
terms and concepts included in or excluded from the
common
language. For example, someusers mayprefer
informationcapturing industry-basedinformation,while
others wouldprefer a "generic"view. Asa result, evenif
there is a commonlanguage, there are likely to be
divergentneeds.
Theseindividual differences, and varyinglevels
of expertise suggest that firms wouldemploya broad
range of individuals in order to generate these common
languages. Accordingly,a modelof howthat group can
rationally makethe choices required for a common
languagewouldbe a helpful andimportantcontribution.
Althoughcommon
languagesare seen as necessary, there
are a number
of barriers to their implementation.
Common
Languages are Costly to Develop
Best practices knowledgebases are particularly complex
anddifficult to develop
... weunderestimatedthe sheer effort necessaryto
translate ... knowledgeabout best practice into
useful explicit knowledge.The central team could
not, on its ownextract ... knowledgeof the
consultantsand the professionalsin the field ....
After a significant effort, the teamhadproduceda
CD-ROM
with the classification scheme,but only
10 of the 170 processespopulated,andwith limited
information. The initial offering almost died an
early death--it seemedmucheffort for little
payoff.(ArthurAndersen,1997,p. 4)
6. A Model of Choosing a Common
Language
This section discusses a model of group choice of a
commonlanguage and vocabulary (Keeny and Raiffa
1993). Five rationality assumptionsare elicited and
methodis sought to satisfy those five assumptionsin
order to generate a rational approach to generate a
commonlanguage.
Generalvs. Specific Vocabulary
A commonlanguage forces all users into the same
vocabulary,so that users are unableto take advantageof
vocabularies that meet specific needs.
This is
unfortunate, since specific technical vocabularies are
typically developed because general language is
insufficient (e.g., Kuhn1970).
Notation
Let S = (a,b,c, ...) be the set of alternativesavailablefor
some concept in the framework. S is the set of
alternatives fromwhichthe choicewill be made.Let I.I
indicate eardinality. Let aRbindicate that onevocabulary
term a is preferredto or indifferent than someother term
b. R is used to stand for the preference relationships
betweenall a and b. For example,R earl be specified
througha utility function UwhereaRbif and only if U
(a) > U (b). Suppose that there are n individuals
responsible for deciding amongeach of the set of
alternatives. Eachindividualwill be treated as oneof the
participants in the set G, the groupmakingthe decision.
Eachmemberin G maybe representatives fromdifferent
subgroupswithin a company,as with Price Waterhouse
(1995, 1997) or from multiple companies, as in the
frameworkdevelopedby the International Benehmarking
Clearinghouse(1997). Each participant is assumed
Incorrect Usage of the Common
Language
Simplyhaving a common
languagedoes not ensure that
users knowhowto use that language. For example,as
noted by Kuhn(1970p. 204) "Totranslate a theory into
one’s ownlanguageis not to makeit one’s own." As a
result, there is potential to misusethe common
language
resulting in comparisons
that are not sensible.
Whatis included and what is excluded?
Commonlanguages make specific inclusion and
exclusion of particular concepts. For example,as noted
by the International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse(1997)
64
have preferences between the choices madefor the
common
language. For example,consulting and auditing
wouldlikely havedifferent preferences. Let P~ represent
the preferencerelationshipof participant j andFj be the
utility functionof participantj. Let aRabindicatethat the
groupas a wholeprefers a over b.
1970).Further, only dictatorships satisfy assumptionsAD.
Discussion
The only group choice method that meets Arrow’s
conditionsis "dictatorial choice." This wasa concernof
Arrowbecause of equity issues. As noted by Arrow
(1970,p. 86)
Assumption A (Complete Domain)
Assume
that n > 2, [Sl ~ 3, andaRabexists for all possible
aRjb. Thatis, there are at least twomembers
in the group,
they choosebetweenat least three alternative concepts
and a group order can be specified for all possible
individualorderings.
... the very act of establishinga dictator or elite to
decideon the social goodmaylead to a distortion of
the pragmatic from the moral imperative. "Power
always corrupts; and absolute power corrupts
absolutely"(LordAction).
AssumptionB (Positive Association of Social and
Individual Orderings)
For decisions that influence intra firm common
languagesfor best practices, there maybe no "equity"
issue. Ideally, common
languages wouldbe chosen to
maximizethe overall company
utility. That is not to say
that those whoestablish common
languagesalways will
always makeoptimal choices. In addition, within
companies,common
languagechoices are likely to leave
somedivisions or subgroupsas beneficiaries over other
divisions and subgroups. However, as soon as the
language is used outside of the organization of the
dictator, beyondthe boundsof the dictator, there can be
concern about the decisions that have been made.
Choicesmadethat met the needs of the dictator, maynot
meetthe needsof users in other organizations.
If aRobfor a set of individualratings, andif (1) cRib,
and c ~ a are not changed,(2) aRjband bRjaV b are not
changedor are modifiedin b’s favor, then aRab. This
says that if the groupprefers a to b andthe only changes
that occur amongindividuals is with someadditional
groupmembers
preferringa, then a is preferredover b.
Assumption C (Independence
Alternatives)
of Irrelevant
Anytwoset of the rankingsmusthaveidentical corporate
choicesin S or subsetsof S. In particular, a choicerule
has independence
of irrelevant alternatives if andonly if
aR6b(for a,b ~ S’, VS’ c_ S) impliesaRab(for a,b ~
If one or morealternatives are removedfrom the set of
choicesof concepts, then the choiceamongthe remaining
alternativesis identical to the original orderingfor those
alternatives.
7. Summary
This paper has investigated commonlanguages and
vocabulariesused in best practices knowledge
bases, also
referred to here as knowledgemanagement
ontologies.
The paper briefly discussed best practices knowledge
bases and the importance of commonlanguages.
Advantages and disadvantages of using common
languages were investigated in order to illustrate
divergent user needs. A model was developed to
understand the group decision process associated with
developinga common
language.
AssumptionD (Individual’s Sovereignty)
For eacha,b, 3 someset of individual orderingsaRjbsuch
that aRGb.Thatis, for eachpair of alternatives a andb,
there is someset of individual orderings such that the
groupprefers a to b.
References
AssumptionE (Nondietatorship)
Arrow,K. 1970. Social Choice and Individual Values,
YaleUniversityPress.
There does not exist somek ~ G, such that aRobif and
only if aRkb,Va,b~ S. Adictatorship wouldexist if one
person (or division or companyrepresented by that
person) determinedthe group’s common
language.
Arthur Andersen. 1997. "Knowledge, The Global
Currencyof the 21st Century."
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
APQC
- AmericanProductivity & Quality Center, 1997.
"Arthur Andersen"
There is no solution that meets assumptionsA-E. This
result is knownas Arrow’simpossibility theorem(Arrow
65
Bernstein, L. 1974. Financial Statement Analysis, Irwin,
Homewood,
Illinois.
Davenport,
T.,"Some Principles
of Knowledge
Management,http://knowman.bus.utexas.edu/kmprin.htm
Ernst & Young, 1997. Center for Business Knowledge,
"Leading Practices KnowledgeBase.
Gruber, T. 1993. "A Translational Approachto Portable
Ontologies," KnowledgeAcq, 5, 2, pp.199-220.
International
Benchmarking Clearinghouse 1997.
"Process Classification Framework."
Keeny, R. and Raiffa, H. 1993. Decisions with Multiple
Objectives, CambridgeUniversity Press
Kuhn,T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution,
SecondEdition, University of ChicagoPress.
Porter, M. 1980. Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New
York.
Price Waterhouse. 1995. "Welcome to Knowledge
View."
Price Waterhouse. 1997. "International
Business
Language," formerly http://www.pw.com/kv/ibltxt.htm
66