Ontology of Online Management Tools Aimed at Artificial

Management Implementation: An Example of Use in Software Design

Olaf Flak

Management Institute, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce, ul. S. Żeromskiego 5,

25-369 Kielce, Poland

Keywords: Artificial Management, Artificial Managers, Software Design, System of Organizational Terms.

Abstract: After the first age of robotics in mechanical processes rapid development of computer science and Internet

causes that AI will overwhelm team management in the future. Both, the rapid development of artificial

intelligence in business management and the need of an adequate ontology to represent the organizational

world has created a significant research gap. As the result of that the research problem should be solved: if it

is possible to create a comprehensive, coherent and formalized methodological concept of the management

sciences, which will allow to design and implement real artificial management. The aim of the paper is to

present the solution to the research problem in its ontological part, and to show the use of such an ontology

to replace the human manager with an artificial manager. The paper describes the definition of ontologies and

the considerations for their creation in various software applications, presents the results of theoretical and

practical research on the creation of a theoretical concept, called the system of organizational terms, which

contains an ontology of organizational reality that meets the requirements for the practice of creating

ontologies for software and enables the design and implementation of artificial managers.

1 INTRODUCTION

After the first age of robotics in mechanical processes

and manufacturing rapid development of computer

science and Internet has given opportunities to

replace team managers with robots (McAfee and

Brynjolfsson, 2016). If this happens, this would be the

real accomplishment of P. Drucker’s words that in the

future “computers” will not only make decisions but

they will do much more (Drucker, 1967).

Research on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in

management slowly appears as a biggest challenge

for the future (Teddy-Ang and Toh, 2020). Firstly, AI

in management seems to exceed any other

technological breakthrough that humanity has ever

seen (Antonescu, 2018). Secondly, human-machine

teaming (HMT) seems to be a promising paradigm to

approach future situations in which humans and

autonomous systems closely collaborate (van der

Vecht, van Diggelen, Peeters, Barnhoorn and van der

Waa, 2018). Although there are still discussions if AI

management will evolve in artificial management or

in artificial leadership (Derrick and Elson, 2018), it

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8815-1185

seems that AI will overwhelm team management in

the future (Webber, Detjen, MacLean and Thomas,

2019).

Therefore in recent years, there has been a huge

interest in developing ontologies in the area of

information communication systems which can

gather and build knowledge on the particular human

activities. This has been widely used in software

systems design (Fonseca, Barcellos, and Falbo,

2017). As a result of this process, there has been an

increasing range of software systems which engage a

variety of different ontologies in order to

management tasks such as creation, storage, search,

query, reuse, maintenance the wholes systems (Lee

and Goodwin, 2006). As Staab and Studer (2010)

claimed, in recent decades the use of ontologies has

been used in a great range of applications mostly in

knowledge management.

Both, the rapid development of artificial

intelligence as the key factor in business management

and the need of an adequate ontology to represent the

organizational world has created a significant

research gap. As the result of that the author of this

Flak, O.

Ontology of Online Management Tools Aimed at Artiﬁcial Management Implementation: An Example of Use in Software Design.

DOI: 10.5220/0011986800003464

In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2023), pages 621-628

ISBN: 978-989-758-647-7; ISSN: 2184-4895

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

621

paper formulated the research problem, if it is

possible to create a comprehensive, coherent and

formalized methodological concept of the

management sciences, including an ontology of the

organizational reality, which will allow to design and

implement real artificial management.

At this point, it is necessary to clarify three

adjectives contained in such a formulated research

problem. First, it was based on the condition that the

concept should be holistic, which means that it should

include in its scope all or most of the issues that form

the basis of doing management science in order to

know what a human manager really does. Second,

according to the assumption expressed in the research

problem, the methodological concept should be

coherent, that is, internally inconsistent and internally

complementary. Third, the concept should be

formalized, so there should be well-defined rules on

how to apply its various elements of a software

replacing human managers with robots, defined either

in detail or in the form of universal and scaled

principles.

The aim of the paper is to present the solution to

the research problem in its most important part, and

to show the use of such an ontology in the designed

and implemented information system, built to replace

the human manager with an artificial manager.

Section 2 of the paper describes the definition of

ontologies and the considerations for their creation in

various software applications. Section 3 presents the

results of theoretical research on the creation of a

theoretical concept, called the system of

organizational terms, which contains an ontology of

organizational reality that meets the requirements for

the practice of creating ontologies for software and

enables the design and implementation of artificial

managers. Section 4 describes the results of testing

the use of the designed ontology and the software, and

Section 5 presents conclusions for further research.

2 ONTOLOGIES IN

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND

SOFTWARE DESIGN

2.1 Philosophical Foundations of an

Ontology in Management Science

Ontology is a formal, given in advance description of

phenomena in a given slice of reality, the

characteristics of which are describable by certain

variables or parameters (Chang, Terpenny, and

Koelling, 2010).

Marian (2008) defines ontology as a way of

organizing knowledge about a certain fragment of

reality. Knowledge is usually organized in a

hierarchical way, containing the most important

entities resulting from the model of this reality, as

well as the relations between these entities. On the

other hand, ontology is “an enunciated

parameterization of a conceptualized phenomenon”

(Cui, Tamma, and Bellifemine, 1992, p. 204).

W.V.O. Quinn (Brink and Rewitzky, 2002, p. 543)

used to say that in terms of ontology, millennia of

ontological inquiry can be encapsulated in three

words: “what is here?” It must be admitted that this

definition, although expressed by a question, is quite

suggestive.

Prechtl (2007) gives L. Wittgestein's

understanding of ontology, whose philosophy had a

significant influence on the approach to the ontology

of the system of organizational terms, the

methodological concept containing the ontology

ontology as “the totality of objects, qualities,

designations, states of affairs about which certain

statements are formed in a given language” (Prechtl,

2007, p. 119). The intention of Wittgenstein was to

construct a logically perfect language with which to

describe what really is. The influence of

Wittgenstein’s perspective on the system of

organizational terms is described in Section 3.

From the point of view of management science,

two more types of understanding of ontology should

be given. The distinction is the criterion of

permanence. Namely, M. Javed, Y.A. Abgaz and C.

Pahl (2010) define a certain type of ontology, which

they call consistent ontology, i.e. an ontology that is

unchanging and does not take into account the

emergence of new concepts describing a given slice

of reality. The second type of ontology is an ontology

in which entities are created dynamically based on

certain rules. These entities are unpredictable before

the moment the ontology is defined (Petrov, 2010).

This type of ontology is included in the concept of the

system of organizational terms.

Correctly created ontology provides the basis for

building knowledge on a given subject and shows the

relationship between phenomena, represented by

concepts with a precisely defined meaning (Chang,

Terpenny, and Koelling, 2010). There is a view in the

literature that whatever ontological assumptions are

made in a given scientific discipline (e.g.,

management science – author’s note), different

objects of reality (organizational – author’s note) are

understood differently by different researchers and

within different research projects (Laudan, 1984).

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

622

They may be objective, independent of the cognizing

subject, or they may be subjective (in the original

“values” – author’s note), forming an inseparable

bond with the subject (Ghenea, 2013). They can also

be “quasi-objective” products of the intellect, called

conceptual objects and serving as instruments of

cognition. Finally, they can be objects that are a

mixture of all three approaches above. M. Foucault in

his book “Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution”

asks: “what, in the present day, lies at the limit of

human cognition?”. He writes that this is not a

question about the theory of truth, but about the

ontology of “our time”, which is the ontology of

“ourselves” (Giri, 2006, pp. 228).

Summarizing the consideration of the meaning of

ontology, it can be said that it provides a conceptual

framework for the representation, sharing and

management of knowledge through a system of

concepts, their hierarchy, the relations assigned to

them, and the way they are semantically distinguished

(El-Diraby, Lima, and Feis, 2005).

As an example of an ontology in management

science it can be shown an outline of an ontology

using both resource and process approaches. The

entities in this ontology are described with nouns (the

effect of the resource approach), and are created as a

result of activities described with verbs (the effect of

the process approach) (Rao, Reichgelt, and Osei-

Bryson, 2009). This approach was one of the

reference points for the creation of the ontology in the

system of organizational terms.

2.2 Purposes of an Ontology in

Software Design

Ontology in the area of software design can be defied

as “the set of activities that concern the ontology

development process, the ontology life cycle, and the

methodologies, tools and languages for building

ontologies” (Cakula and Salem, 2013, p. 14). In the

other way, ontologies in software engineering offer a

formal representation of knowledge. They are created

for inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as to

use a common vocabulary in a specific domain with

the purpose of sharing information by concepts and

relations between these concepts (Gayathri and Uma,

2018). The motivations for building an ontology in

software engineering is sharing a common

understanding of the structure of information between

users of applications and allowing them to reuse this

knowledge.

It is useful to show the research on purposes of

using they used ontologies. The research showed, that

72% of respondents expected that an ontology will

deliver conceptual modelling and data integration. A

little less, 65% of respondents claimed that the

purpose of an ontology in software design is to define

knowledgebase schemas and linking data from

different public knowledgebases. Knowledge sharing

and providing common access to heterogeneous data

pointed 56% of respondents and 50% of the pointed

ontology-based search as purpose of a software

ontology (Warren, Mulholland, Collins, and Motta,

2014).

An ontology in software design is the conceptual

and terminological description of shared knowledge

about a specific domain, which means making

improvements in communication using the same

system in terms of terminology and concept (Fonseca,

Barcellos, and Falbo, 2017). Ontologies are vital parts

of applications supporting common life, enabling

analysis of high-throughput datasets, data

standardization and integration, search, and discovery

(Fraga, Vegetti, and Leone, 2020).

3 ONTOLOGY OF THE

ORGANIZATIONAL REALITY

IN THE SYSTEM OF

ORGANIZATIONAL TERMS

In designing the ontological assumptions in the

system of organizational terms, three theoretical

assumptions, presented quite often in the literature,

were tried to be fulfilled. Namely, these were: a need

expresses entities in the organizational reality and

relations between them, a language of the ontology

describes existing entities and their relations; the

ontology is the mechanism created so that existing

entities and their relations are organised to produce

those that are wished for (Hall and Rapanotti, 2017).

The notion of entities, in the system of organizational

terms called facts, is therefore central to our design

theory.

Establishing the ontology of the organizational

reality in the system of organizational terms it was a

decision to complete and keep software architecture

requirements. There were three main question to

which the ontology should answer. Firstly, what

concepts should be considered in that ontology so it

can support the architectural completion process?

Secondly, how can the relationships between entities

and attributes in question support that process?

Thirdly, how could knowledge inference capabilities

including knowledge search, tracing and data

compatibility be developed by using proper tools and

ontology?

Ontology of Online Management Tools Aimed at Artiﬁcial Management Implementation: An Example of Use in Software Design

623

The result of the design process was developed

and tested in the last years (Flak, 2015; Hoffmann-

Burdzińska and Flak, 2015; Yang, Flak and

Grzegorzek, 2018; Flak, 2018; Flak, 2019; Flak,

2020; Flak, 2021). The philosophical foundation of

the system of organizational terms is based on

Wittgenstein’s philosophy: his theory of facts (the

only beings in the world) and “states of facts” (Brink

and Rewitzky, 2002). According to this approach

team management can be organised by events and

things. From Wittgenstein’s perspective both items

(things and events) can be described by “states” in

every moment of time.

Specifically, as shown in Figure 1, each event and

thing have the label n.m, in which n and m represent

a number and a version of a thing, respectively. Event

1.1 causes thing 1.1, which in turn releases event 2.1

that creates thing 2.1. Thing 1.1 simultaneously starts

event 3.1 which creates thing 3.1. Then, thing 3.1

generates a new version of the first event, i.e. event

1.2. In such a way, a new version of the first thing is

created, which is called thing 1.2. So, the managerial

action structure consists of, e.g. event 1.1 and thing

1.1. As it was shown in Figure 2, differences between

features of goal 1.2 and goal 1.1. let us do reasoning

on the team management process (Flak, 2018). This

ontology lets us record managerial actions (Figure 2)

one by one and it is possible to answer what a team

manager and his team members really do (Sinar and

Paese, 2016).

Figure 1: Theoretical pattern of „states of facts” in the

organizational reality.

Figure 2: Managerial action structure in software design.

In the system of organizational terms there are 10

basic pairs of items in such an ontology, consisted of

things and events. There are: set goals (GOALS), 2 -

describe tasks (TASKS), 3 - generate ideas (IDEAS),

4 - specify ideas (SPECIFICATIONS), 5 - create

options (OPTIONS), 6 - choose options

(DECISIONS), 7 - check motivation

(MOTIVATION), 8 - solve conflicts (CONFLICTS),

9 - prepare meetings (MEETINGS), 10 - explain

problems (PROBLEMS). Capital letters mean online

managerial tools designed as research tools and

implemented in the software called

TransistorsHead.com, in Figure 3, described in

Section 4.

The description of the main ontological

considerations should begin with a presentation of the

assumption made in the concept of the system,

according to which the following principles exist in

the ontology of the organizational reality: identity,

non-contradiction, excluded middle, sufficient

rationale and purposefulness. On the basis of the

literature on the subject, it is concluded that the

ontology of the organizational reality must include an

exhaustive classification of entities and universal

rules for creating types of these entities and naming

them. It is also necessary to describe the use of natural

language to create statements about entities in

organizational reality.

It is assumed that the evolution of the

organizational reality is modal in nature. The

occurrence of certain entities and relations between

them entails the exclusion of other entities and

relations between them, either increasing the

probability of certain entities or implying them

necessarily.

It is concluded that there are two classes of

entities. The first class includes entities that

unchanged persist over time. The second class

includes entities that persist over a given interval of

time. This assumes that the ontology of the

organizational reality is dynamic, which means that

the types of entities within a given class of entities

occur in the organizational reality as a function of

time on the basis of universal rules. It is also inferred

about entities in the organizational reality that they

can exist either outside or inside a human entity (a

manager or an organizational participant). These

entities are objective or subjective in nature,

respectively.

With a view to the scientific study of the

organizational reality, it was assumed that the

organizational reality consists of facts. A fact is

defined as the result of observation of an entity in the

organizational reality, recorded in the form of

information. Facts are divided into: invariably lasting

over time (facts of the thing class) or lasting over a

given period of time (facts of the event class). Facts

are divided into either external (objective facts) or

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

624

internal (subjective facts) to a human entity (a

manager or an organizational participant). It is

assumed that the occurrence of a subjective fact is

determined only by the individual, and the occurrence

of an objective fact is shared by more than one person.

A fact of the thing class is defined as a real object

or an intentional object. A fact of the thing class is

otherwise a resource of an organization in the

resource approach in management science. This

assumes that a fact of class thing is represented by a

concept whose name is a noun. A fact of the event

class occurs when two states of affairs describing the

same facts of the thing differ from each other in ways

other than simply due to the passage of time, meaning

that a fact of the thing class at time t1 exhibited a

certain characteristic and at time t2 no longer exhibits

it, or vice versa. A fact of event class is a process in

the process approach in management science. It is

assumed that a fact of the event class is represented

by a concept whose name is a verb.

Listing the most important ontological

determinants of the organizational reality, from the

point of view of the operationalization of

organizational quantities, it is still necessary to point

out the concept of state of affairs, which is understood

as a set of either absolute or relative characteristics of

a fact. An equally important thesis, adopted after the

literature on the subject, is that the linguistic

description of a fact in the organizational reality is an

elementary sentence, which is meaningful. Any

sentence composed of elementary sentences is a

sentence function.

In terms of ontological conditions, two important

hypotheses are also put forward. First, it is

conjectured that the state of affairs of any fact can be

determined by determining the previous and

subsequent states of affairs of that fact or other facts

occurring in the organizational reality. Second, it is

conjectured that the organizational reality can be

described by means of adjacency relations between

facts or relations of co-occurrence of facts over time.

4 RESULTS OF RESEARCH

4.1 Example of Online Management

Tools Design

Software ontology representation, which was

designed and implemented by the author of this paper,

is the set of online management tools called

TransisorsHead.com (dashboard shown in Figure 3)

which record parameters of the managerial actions

(effects marked with a green round, e.g. a goal 1.1 as

a result of set 1.1).

According to the theoretical background of

ontology of the organizational reality 10 online

management tools were created. They were

implemented as online management tools available

within the website browser. 10 different tools to track

10 separate managerial actions, e.g. setting goals,

describing tasks, checking motivation, explaining

problems, preparing meetings, generating ideas.

TransistorsHead.com records changes in team

management processes, which from the ontological

perspective are represented by resources (a fact of the

thing class – a primary organizational term in Figure

1). It reminds making a movie of teamwork with

frames of features team management processes and

the frames are represented by primary organizational

terms (resources) in the organizational reality. It is

necessary to say this approach to recording human

behaviour is in the contrary to the most popular one,

which focuses on processes. In TransistorsHead.com

there are recorded every version of the resources

changed by its process. Than, as a movie with frames,

it is possible to reproduce how a human manager

behaved in the past (Flak and Pyszka, 2022).

When designing the tools, there were to main

assumptions. Firstly, any management tool covers all

essential features which could describe a resource

(represented by the primal organizational term – see

Figure 1). Secondly, any management tool was

designed as simple as it was possible. Users should

want to use them during the research as research tools

without any external motivation.

From the theoretical point of view online

management tools have the following features.

Firstly, according to the idea of an “unit of behaviour”

(Curtis, Kellner, and Over, 1992) every online

management tool tracks and records one specific

managerial action (green circles in Figure 2).

Secondly, when a manager uses any online

management tool it is equal to an event which effects

in a fact of the thing class, equal to a process which

results in a resource, respectively (Flak, 2018) (Figure

2). Thirdly, every tool is useful for recording a certain

managerial action (Flak, 2018).

The platform is available at transistorshead.com,

after clicking TRY IT a user gets its trial logins and

can use the tools (the dashboard after login in Figure

3). There are 10 different tools for different

managerial actions, described in Section 3.

Ontology of Online Management Tools Aimed at Artiﬁcial Management Implementation: An Example of Use in Software Design

625

Figure 3: TransistorsHead.com dashboard.

4.2 Example of Online Management

Tools Use

A potential of the ontology of the organizational

reality designed as a part of the system of

organizational and used in online management tools

(TransistorsHead.com) were checked and proved in

many previous observations conducted by the author

of this project in the last few years. In Table 1 there

are descriptions of a few research (aims and main

conclusions).

Table 1: TransistorsHead.com dashboard.

Respondents, research

methods and tools

Student of Management

from Silesian universities.

Research method:

longitudinal observation.

Research tools: online

management tools

(

TransistorsHead.com

)

Aim of the research Main conclusions

Assessment of using the

system of organizational

terms in team

effectiveness

It is possible to assess

team effectiveness based

on the recorded team

management processes

(Hoffmann-Burdzińska

Flak, 2015

)

Using pattern recognition

in team management

processes

It is possible to assess

similarities of managers

actions by pattern

recognition methods

(Yang, Flak, and

Grzegorzek, 2018).

Assessment of design

thinking effectiveness in

teamwork.

Using the system of

organizational terms and

online management tools it

is possible assess

effectiveness of desi

thinking in teamwork

(

Flak, 2018

)

Influence of a culture on

teamwork.

Using the system of

organizational terms and

online management tools it

is possible measure an

influence of a culture on

teamwork (Flak, 2019).

Recording managerial

actions in motivating

aimed at team

management automation.

It is possible to use the

system of organizational

terms and online

management tools, firstly,

for recording managerial

actions in the field of

motivation, secondly,

repeat the manager’s

trajectory of actions by an

algorithm (Flak, 2020).

Recording managerial

actions in order to imitate

a human manager by an

artificial manager.

Literature review and own

empirical research show

the new organizational

reality with hybrid virtual

teams, consisting of

humans as well as artificial

agents. In this

organizational reality

management tasks, or even

a leader’s role, would be

taken over by artificial

intelligence (Flak and

Pyszka, 2022).

Firstly, it was possible to record managerial

actions by online management tools (Flak, 2015;

Hoffmann-Burdzińska and Flak, 2015; Yang, Flak

and Grzegorzek, 2018; Flak, 2018; Flak, 2019; Flak,

2020; Flak, 2021). Secondly, gathered data enabled

concluding trajectories of managerial actions and

repeat them by algorithms (Flak and Pyszka, 2022).

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

626

5 CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the paper was to present the solution to the

research problem, which meant the ontology of the

organizational reality, designed in the methodological

concept called the system of organizational terms.

This ontology is focused on such representation of a

manager’s work that it would be possible to

implement artificial management in real life. This

solution of the research problem covers the research

gap, which was a marge of the rapid development of

artificial intelligence as the key factor in business

management and the need of an adequate ontology to

implement artificial managers able to replace

humans.

As it was described in Section 4.2., the ontology

of the organizational reality has been checked in

many research since 2015 and particularly the last

research promises the ability to use this ontology in

replacing human managers with robots (Flak and

Pyszka, 2022).

The ontology of the organizational reality meets 5

criteria of ontology evaluation. First, consistency,

which means that there is no contradictory knowledge

inferred all definitions and axioms. Second,

completeness – it is complete based on assumptions

and cover all possible states of the reality. Third,

conciseness, which means that the ontology does not

contain any unnecessary concepts. Fourth,

expandability gives a possible of expansion without

any changes of definitions. Fifth, sensitiveness – the

ontology is sensitive to a small changes in definitions

(Gómez-Pérez, 2004).

What is more important, the fact that such a

software as TransistorsHead.com is embedded with a

function of recording any managerial action taken by

a huma manager and team members (Figure 2), who

operate in 10 areas of team management, let us think

about imitating this human manager by an artificial

intelligence. Recorded data together with pattern

recognition of human behaviour and machine

learning will allow to implement an artificial manager

(Flak and Pyszka, 2022). These extraordinary

combination self-learning management tools and

machine learning algorithms imitating main common

managerial actions of human managers are the future

research and implementation work planned by the

author.

REFERENCES

Antonescu, M. (2018). Are Business Leaders Prepared to

Handle the Upcoming Revolution in Business Artificial

Intelligence? Quality-Access To Success, 19(5), 15-19.

Brink, C., and Rewitzky, I. (2002). Three Dual Ontologies.

Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31(6), 543-468.

Cakula, S., and Salem, A.-B. M. (2013). E-learning

developing using ontological engineering, WSEAS

Transactions on. Information Science and Application,

10(1), 14-25.

Chang, X., Terpenny, J., and Koelling, P. (2010). Reducing

Errors in the Development, Maintenance and

Utilisation of Ontologies. International Journal of

Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(4), 341-352.

Cui, Z., Tamma, V.A.M., Bellifemine, F. (1999). Ontology

Management in Enterprises. BT Technology Journal,

17(4), 98-107.

Curtis, B., Kellner, M., and Over, J. (1992). Process

Modelling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 75-90.

Derrick, D. C., and Elson, J. S. (2018). Automated

Leadership: Influence from Embodied Agents. In F.

Nah and B.S. Xiao (Eds.), HCI in Business,

Government, And Organizations (pp. 51-66). Book

Series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10923.

Drucker, P. F. (1967). The Manager and the Moron.

McKinsey Quarterly, December, http://www.

mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-ins

ights/the-manager-and-the-moron

El-Diraby, T. A., Lima, C., and Feis, B.: Domain

Taxonomy for Construction Concepts - Toward a

Formal Ontology for Construction Knowledge. Journal

of Computing in Civil Engineering, 19(4), 394-411.

Flak, O. (2018). Teamwork Research Method Based on The

System Of Organizational Terms and Online

Management Tools. International Journal of

Contemporary Management, 17(2), 7-34.

Flak, O., Hoffmann-Burdzińska, K., and Yang, C. (2018).

Team Managers Representation and Classification

Method based on the System of Organizational Terms.

Results of the Research. Journal of Advanced

Management Science, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pp. 13-21.

Flak, O. (2019). System of Organizational Terms as a

Theoretical Foundation Of Cultural Identity Research

Using an Online Research Tool for Teaching Reflective

Practice. International Journal of Arts and Sciences,

12(01), 243-256.

Flak, O. (2020). The system of organizational terms used

for recording managerial activities in the field of team

motivation. In A. Ujwary and A. Nalepka (Eds.), New

Challenges in Economic Policy, Business, and

Management (pp. 199-221). Warszawa: Institute of

Economics, Polish Academy of Sciences.

Flak, O. (2021). Knowledge Acquisition on Team

Management Aimed at Automation with Use of the

System of Organizational Terms. In Maria De Marsico,

G.S. Baja and A. Fred (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th

International Conference on Pattern Recognition

Applications and Methods ICPRAM (302–311),

February 4-6, 2021.

Ontology of Online Management Tools Aimed at Artiﬁcial Management Implementation: An Example of Use in Software Design

627

Flak, O., and Pyszka, A. (2022). Evolution From Human

Virtual Teams to Artificial Virtual Teams Supported by

Artificial Intelligence. Results of Literature Analysis

and Empirical Research. Problemy Zarządzania

(Management Issues), 20(96), 48-69.

Fonseca, V. S., Barcellos, M. P., and Falbo, R. (2017). An

ontology-based approach for integrating tools

supporting the software measurement process. Science

of Computer Programming, 135, 20-44.

Fraga, A. L, Vegetti, M., and Leone, H. P. (2020).

Ontology-based solutions for interoperability among

product lifecycle management systems: A systematic

literature review. Journal of Industrial Information

Integration, 20, 100176.

Gayathri, R., and Uma, V. (2018). Ontology based

knowledge representation technique, domain modeling

languages and planners for robotic path planning: A

survey. ICT Express, 3(2), 69-74.

Ghenea, S. V. (2015). On Facts and Values. Scientific

Journal of Humanistic Studies, 7(12), 11-14.

Giri, A. K. (2006). Creative Social Research: Rethinking

Theories and Methods and the Calling of an

Ontological Epistemology of Participation. Dialectical

Anthropology, 30, 227-278.

Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology evaluation. In:

Handbook on Ontologies (pp. 251-273), S. Staab and R.

Studer (Eds.), Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Hall, J. G., and Rapanotti, L. (2017). A design theory for

software engineering. Information and Software

Technology, 87, 46–61.

Hoffmann-Burdzińska, K., and, Flak, O. (2015).

Management by Objectives as a Method of Measuring

HR Teams Effectiveness. Journal of Positive

Management, 6(3), 67-82.

Javed, M., Abgaz, Y. A., and Pahl, C. (2010). Ontology-

based Domain Modelling for Consistent Content

Change Management. World Academy of Science,

Engineering and Technology, 4(11), 1700-1704.

Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of

Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Lee, J., and Goodwin, R. (2006). Ontology management for

large-scale enterprise systems. Electronic Commerce

Research and Applications, 5, 2–15.

Marian, M. D. (2009). Ontologies Representation and

Management as a Semantic Tool for Organizational

Memory Consolidation. Annals of the University of

Oradea, Economic Science, 4(1), 976-980.

McAfee, A. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2016). Human work in

the robotic future: Policy for the age of automation.

Foreign Affairs, 95(4), 139-150.

Petrov, V. (2010). Dynamic Ontology as an Ontological

Framework of Anticipatory Systems. Foresight, 12(3),

s. 38-49.

Rao, L., Reichgelt, H., and Osei-Bryson, K. M. (2009). An

Approach for Ontology Development and Assessment

Using a Quality Framework. Knowledge Management

Research and Practice, 7, 260-276.

Sinar, E., and Paese, M. (2016). The new leader profile.

Training Magazine, 46, 46-50.

Staab, S., and Studer, R. (2010). Handbook on ontologies.

Springer

Teddy-Ang, S., and Toh, A. (2020). AI Singapore:

Empowering a smart nation. Communications of the

ACM, 63(4), 60–63.

van der Vecht, B., van Diggelen, J., Peeters, M., Barnhoorn,

J., and van der Waa, J. (2018). Social Artificial

Intelligence Layer for Human-Machine Teaming. In Y.

Demazeau Y; J. Bajo, and A.F. Caballero (Eds.),

Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-

Agent Systems, and Complexity (pp. 262-274). Lecture

Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 10978.

Warren, P, Mulholland, P., Collins, T., and Motta, E.

(2014). Using ontologies: understanding the user

experience. In: Knowledge Engineering and

Knowledge Management (pp. 579-590), Lecture Notes

in Computer Science, Springer.

Webber, S. S., Detjen, J., MacLean, T. L., and Thomas, D.

(2019). Team challenges: Is artificial intelligence the

solution?. Business Horizons, 62(6), 741-750.

Yang, C., Flak, O., and Grzegorzek, M. (2018).

Representation and Matching of Team Managers: An

Experimental Research. IEEE Transactions on

Computational Social Systems, 5(2), 311-323.

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

628