Knowledge Ontology

This paper presents a biological view of knowledge and organizations formulated to provide a framework for understanding organizational knowledge and organizational knowledge management systems. This framework extends ideas based Karl Popper's (1972) epistemology of objective knowledge; Maturana and Varela's (1980, 1987) ideas of autopoiesis as extended to organizations by von ; ideas of organizational evolution; John OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) loop concept of the cybernetics of adaptation; and Ian Coombe's (1994Coombe's ( -1999) ) definitions of knowledge-related terms.

This paper addresses the need for reexamining the cognitive perspective on the role of language in social research. From the autopoietic perspective, language is not a tool to reveal an objective world; rather language is a venue for action, coupling the cognitive domains of two or more agents. Responsible research enquiry would seek to create systemic communication practices that allow the coexistence of differing understandings within. Creating a dialogue for exploring and emerging meaning is essential in developing understanding and validating the research results.

If knowledge management is to be more than an art, it needs to be based on a sound epistemology and understanding of organizations. We present a paradigm and an ontology of organizational knowledge based on Karl Popper's 1972 and later works on evolutionary epistemology, Maturana and Varela's concept of living things as self-producing complex systems ("autopoiesis"), and theories of hierarchically complex systems. This approach to ontology development leads us to conclude that organizations can become living systems and thus have emergent properties of a higher order than the sum of the parts. We develop this theoretical argument by providing examples of how several different types of knowledge created by people within organizations emerge and change through time. We suggest the social processes of creating these different types of knowledge gives rise to meta-levels of organization that act to maintain the existence and coherence of organizations. We think that our ontology improves the basis for understanding the nature of knowledge that is important for proper organizational functioning. We draw out recommendations about the management of transformations between personal and organizational knowledge. We propose this biological understanding of knowledge in organizations because as practitioners, we think it provides a way of interpreting the dynamics of what actually happens in the realm of managing organizational knowledge. Thus, we lay a foundation for better understanding the considerable challenges associated with developing a practical approach to organizational knowledge management as a result.

Organization studies have recently had plentiful new approaches and paradigms, such as the autopoiesis theory. Maturana and Varela developed the theory of autopoiesis -a biological theory of autopoietic systems -in order to explain the particular nature of living in the physical domain. Their main contribution has been to provide a concise specification of the defining characteristics of living systems, including humans. Several authors, especially the sociologist Luhmann, have tried to extend such theory to social systems, including organizations. Social systems are systems that are based on the interactions of living systems. The question therefore arises if organizations are also autopoietic systems. In this paper, this question and the relevance of the autopoiesis theory are discussed for understanding organizational changes and self-maintenance, from a biological point of view. Supported by the autopoiesis theory, organizations can be interpreted as networks of interactions, processes and rules of coordination.

Interaction is the latest currency in architecture, as responsive components are now reacting to the inhabitant of the space. These components are designed and installed by the architect with a view to the phenomenology of space, where the experience of the environment is previewed and pre-constructed before it is translated into the conception of the space. However, this traditional approach to new technology leaves no scope for the architecture to be alive in and of itself, and thus the installed piece quickly becomes just that?an installation: isolated and uncontained by its environment. In this paper, we argue that a way to approach a responsive architecture is to design for a piece that is truly living, and in order to propose a living architecture first we need to understand what the architecture of a living system is. This paper suggests a conceptual framework based on the theory of Autopoiesis in order to create a ?self-producing? system through an experiment entitled, ?The ...

Einstein (Einstein et al 1930) considered that to understand the cause’s one level of description is insufficient. Systemism being holism and individualism (Bunde 1996) makes system science to be at the same line. Paritsis and Stewart (1983) regarding the brain, namely that for the description of the brain processes concluded

Certain ontology and epistemology perspectives are most relevant to human systems' enquiry. These are derived from a synergy of insights from theories of autopoiesis, interpersonal neurobiology and complexity. Ontology has implications for our comprehension of the nature of human systems: 1/ Human systems are embodied and situated, exhibiting selforganising and emergent properties; 2/ Human experience is personal but not private, it is born in the interactions with the environment, and is validated by the human structure; 3/ Changes in human structure are necessarily subservient to conservation of autopoiesis, i.e. self-production and maintaining life. The epistemological implications deem ontology and epistemology as mutually informative in human enquiry; the thrust of this article. Our knowledge is limited by our capabilities of awareness. The quality of perception interlinks with cultivating awareness and intentionality for maintaining wellbeing, i.e. sustaining life-enhancing conditions. The concept of 'wellbeing informatics' is used to outline a tangible approach to evaluating wellbeing.

For many years three key aspects of creative processes have been glossed over by theorists eager to avoid the mystery of consciousness and instead embrace an implicitly more formal, computational vision: autonomy, phenomenality and the temporally embedded and bounded nature of creative processes. In this paper we will discuss autopoiesis and creativity; an alternative metaphor which we suggest offers new insight into these long overlooked aspects of the creative processes in humans and the machine, and examine the metaphor in the context of dance choreography.

Certain ontology and epistemology perspectives are most relevant to human systems' enquiry. These are derived from a synergy of insights from theories of autopoiesis, interpersonal neurobiology and complexity. Ontology has implications for our comprehension of the nature of human systems: 1/ Human systems are embodied and situated, exhibiting selforganising and emergent properties; 2/ Human experience is personal but not private, it is born in the interactions with the environment, and is validated by the human structure; 3/ Changes in human structure are necessarily subservient to conservation of autopoiesis, i.e. self-production and maintaining life. The epistemological implications deem ontology and epistemology as mutually informative in human enquiry; the thrust of this article. Our knowledge is limited by our capabilities of awareness. The quality of perception interlinks with cultivating awareness and intentionality for maintaining wellbeing, i.e. sustaining life-enhancing conditions. The concept of 'wellbeing informatics' is used to outline a tangible approach to evaluating wellbeing.

If knowledge management is to be more than an art, it needs to be based on a sound epistemology and understanding of organizations. We present a paradigm and an ontology of organizational knowledge based on Karl Popper's 1972 and later works on evolutionary epistemology, Maturana and Varela's concept of living things as self-producing complex systems ("autopoiesis"), and theories of hierarchically complex systems. This approach to ontology development leads us to conclude that organizations can become living systems and thus have emergent properties of a higher order than the sum of the parts. We develop this theoretical argument by providing examples of how several different types of knowledge created by people within organizations emerge and change through time. We suggest the social processes of creating these different types of knowledge gives rise to meta-levels of organization that act to maintain the existence and coherence of organizations. We think that our ontology improves the basis for understanding the nature of knowledge that is important for proper organizational functioning. We draw out recommendations about the management of transformations between personal and organizational knowledge. We propose this biological understanding of knowledge in organizations because as practitioners, we think it provides a way of interpreting the dynamics of what actually happens in the realm of managing organizational knowledge. Thus, we lay a foundation for better understanding the considerable challenges associated with developing a practical approach to organizational knowledge management as a result.

Certain ontology and epistemology perspectives are most relevant to human systems' enquiry. These are derived from a synergy of insights from theories of autopoiesis, interpersonal neurobiology and complexity. Ontology has implications for our comprehension of the nature of human systems: 1/ Human systems are embodied and situated, exhibiting selforganising and emergent properties; 2/ Human experience is personal but not private, it is born in the interactions with the environment, and is validated by the human structure; 3/ Changes in human structure are necessarily subservient to conservation of autopoiesis, i.e. self-production and maintaining life. The epistemological implications deem ontology and epistemology as mutually informative in human enquiry; the thrust of this article. Our knowledge is limited by our capabilities of awareness. The quality of perception interlinks with cultivating awareness and intentionality for maintaining wellbeing, i.e. sustaining life-enhancing conditions. The concept of 'wellbeing informatics' is used to outline a tangible approach to evaluating wellbeing.

This paper provides an evaluation of the literature pertaining to the autopoietic, connectionist, and cognitivist epistemological paradigms. These paradigms exist at the individual and organisational level through diametrically opposed functionalist versus interpretive and integrative sociotechnical knowledge management perspectives. The alignments of individual and organisational epistemologies are essential to the effectiveness of a knowledge management system. Knowledge management should consider the roots of knowledge theoretically in order to share or manage knowledge dissemination successfully in organisations. The term 'knowledge sharing' has been emphasised and discussed comprehensively through its epistemological influential factors. This paper concludes the development of a Knowledge Management Epistemological Synthesis Model (KM-ES Model) and a comprehensive discussion and conclusion section focussing on the implications of epistemological influences on the knowledge management system of an organisation. The results from this study provide both researchers and academicians with a clear understanding of the interplay between epistemologies and a foundation for establishing an effective organisational knowledge management system.

This paper will show that the Autopoietic theory does not change the long-run goals and objectives of the strategic plan.  The Autopoietic theory, when applied to SM provides efficiency in maintaining the competitive advantage, which, is the loosely defined theory of strategic management, according to Shekhar (2009).  Secondly, this paper will show that it is the use of organizational learning as argued by Mintzberg (1993); Witcher and Chau (2012) that allows for the Autopoietic theory to function — providing learned parameters and variables that are
required to apply automatic or programmatic corrective functions.

This paper will examine the development of sustainable SME methods for tracking tacit (informal) knowledge transfer as a series of networks of larger complex system. Understanding sustainable systems begins with valuing tacit knowledge networks and their ability to produce connections on multiple levels. The behaviour of the social or socio-technical aspects of a system in relation to the explicit formal/physical structures need to be understood and actively considered when utilizing methodologies for interacting within complex systems structures.This paper utilizes theory from several previous studies to underpin the key case study discussed. This approach involved examining the behavioural phenomena of an SME knowledge network. The knowledge network elements were highlighted to identify their value within an SME structure. To understand the value of these emergent elements from between tacit and explicit knowledge networks, is to actively, simultaneously and continuous support sus...

Social autopoiesis does not operate in physical space and cannot be understood by analyzing cause-effect relationships. Social systems are observing systems operating in the space of meaning. Therefore a validation procedure guided by the classic rules for determining autopoietic systems is misleading. However, the target article clarifies a point of great importance for sociological research: the difference between autopoiesis and autonomy (closure).

If knowledge management is to be more than an art, it needs to be based on a sound epistemology and understanding of organizations. We present a paradigm and an ontology of organizational knowledge based on Karl Popper’s 1972 and later works on evolutionary epistemology, Maturana and Varela’s concept of living things as self-producing complex systems ('autopoiesis'), and theories of hierarchically complex systems. This approach to ontology development leads us to conclude that organizations can become living systems and thus have emergent properties of a higher order than the sum of the parts. We develop this theoretical argument by providing examples of how several different types of knowledge created by people within organizations emerge and change through time. We suggest the social processes of creating these different types of knowledge gives rise to meta-levels of organization that act to maintain the existence and coherence of organizations. We think that our ontology improves the basis for understanding the nature of knowledge that is important for proper organizational functioning. We draw out recommendations about the management of transformations between personal and organizational knowledge. We propose this biological understanding of knowledge in organizations because as practitioners, we think it provides a way of interpreting the dynamics of what actually happens in the realm of managing organizational knowledge. Thus, we lay a foundation for better understanding the considerable challenges associated with developing a practical approach to organizational knowledge management as a result.
Keywords: knowledge management, evolutionary epistemology, knowledge ontology, organization theory, autopoiesis, OODA loop