PROCESS-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE WORKSPACE BASED
ON SEMANTIC WIKI
Divna Djordjevic
1
, Rayid Ghani
1
and Duncan Fullarton
2
1
Accenture Technology Labs, France, U.S.A.
2
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Keywords: Enterprise, Semantic, Wiki, Collaboration, Informal process, Context, Knowledge transfer, Knowledge
management, Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0.
Abstract: We describe the design of a process-centric solution for a specific enterprise process, proposal development,
in a large consulting company. The solution is based on a semantic wiki and aimed at capturing informal
knowledge processes. It improves collaboration while allowing proposal managers to allocate, track, and
manage the work of development teams. We motivate our system by data gathered from more than 60
potential users and validate the approach through usability tests. We discuss technical and acceptance issues
as well as future steps necessary to maximize deployment of the system.
1 INTRODUCTION
The emergence of Web 2.0 tools with their ease of
collaboration, and increasing trends of
geographically distributed teams in large companies
have prompted the need for improved collaboration
tools in enterprises (McAfee, 2006). Many of Web
2.0 tools when transferred to enterprise
environments have not been very successful.
Therefore, there is a need for a class of enterprise
customized solutions that can provide enterprise
employees with improved ways to collaborate and
share.
In this paper, we describe some recent efforts at
deploying and testing Web 2.0 ideas in a large
consulting organization (Accenture). We analyze the
results of these early deployments and propose our
approach to build process-centric collaboration
workspaces that allow enterprise users to work more
effectively. Our approach is based on semantic wikis
and focuses on improving the proposal development
process at Accenture. We report on the requirements
gathering process, describe the details of the
workspace design, present initial results and discuss
the impact of these results.
2 MOTIVATION
Companies today are constantly looking to develop
tools and methodologies for more efficient
knowledge work. The goals of these efforts include
exploiting the existing repositories better, supporting
knowledge work of individuals, and enabling
collaborative knowledge articulation, capture,
transfer, and sharing.
With these goals in mind, we investigate the
existing Web 2.0 type of tools already in use in
Accenture and try to identify potential bottlenecks:
 A Wikipedia style wiki has been deployed for
more than 2 years but the response from potential
users has been underwhelming. Currently this
wiki has around 1000 pages with
Category:Acronyms type pages being the most
accessed with 35% of all views, followed by
27% of all views being the Main Page.
 There is a wiki-based workspace deployed for a
software development group for their internal
needs but has not been gained enterprise-wide
acceptance since it lacked official IT support.
 There is an enterprise-wide workspace that is
based on Microsoft Office SharePoint Sever
(Microsoft, 2006) that allows collaborative
editing and contribution for registered groups.
The advantage of this solution is the support by
the internal IT department and hence the
capability to integrate with other internal
applications e.g. employees pages.
 Employees pages are a social network platform
allowing micro-blogging, status updates,
Djordjevic D., Ghani R. and Fullarton D..
PROCESS-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE WORKSPACE BASED ON SEMANTIC WIKI.
DOI: 10.5220/0003102302240233
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2010), pages 224-233
ISBN: 978-989-8425-30-0
Copyright
c
 2010 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

connections with the central repository,
reputation building through activity summaries
etc.
The mentioned usage of wikis and employees pages
is aligned with the idea of socially resilient
enterprise (Farrell et. al, 2008) fostering blogs,
wikis, social tagging and corresponding to the idea
of participatory web within the enterprise. To assure
success of adapting Web2.0 ideas to an enterprise
environment, the support of internal IT is necessary.
Since standard enterprise content management
systems are rapidly moving in this direction,
offering blogging and wiki capabilities (e.g.
Microsoft Office SharePoint), it seems that the basic
capabilities now exist to build Web 2.0 style
collaboration and knowledge management tools for
the enterprise.
Although the capabilities to build these tools are
now available, the users in an enterprise are very
different from those on the Web. In an enterprise,
users log in with their ids and therefore do not
benefit from anonymity which often fosters
collaboration on the Web. In standard enterprise
content managements systems as Microsoft
SharePoint users have limited editing power. They
are allowed to manipulate proprietary controls (e.g.
web parts) and to interact with pieces of content as
lists and document libraries.
In the following section we analyze major
business processes in Accenture and perform
interviews and surveys with a number of knowledge
workers to investigate the needs for more flexible
and advanced tools.
3 CASE STUDY
As in a majority of knowledge work oriented
companies, knowledge management systems in
Accenture deal with the result of the knowledge
work rather than the process itself. Knowledge is
created by employees during their daily tasks, but
only the final products get uploaded to the central
repository. This not only leads to loss of detailed
information on how the knowledge coded in the
documents is produced, but also only some
documents are uploaded to the central repository and
shared. Therefore only a portion of the knowledge is
captured and even though employees go to a central
spot – an intranet portal to search for information in
the central repository - often their needs cannot be
addressed and they rely on their personal networks
for information. Since Accenture is a large
consulting company with over 170,000 employees,
dealing with a number of domains, personal
networks do not reach out to all areas. This need
gives rise to Web 2.0 tools for capturing the
knowledge process and finding subject matter
experts or employees working on a similar problem
e.g. the employees pages solution.
3.1 Problem Setting
Consulting companies base their business on
project-based work, i.e., clients issue requests for
proposals addressing the need to solve some of their
problems, and companies respond with the proposal
document. If successful the proposal will lead to a
company being hired for that project. Hence
proposal writing is an integral part of business.
Important factors for creating a compelling proposal
are:
 Explicit knowledge of the organisation gained
through many years of operation, stored in the
repository including templates, recommendations
and guidelines etc.
 Tacit knowledge each individual possesses as a
result of his experience
 Collaborative efforts of teams working on
proposal preparations.
Although the focus here is on the proposal
‘document’, it is important to understand that the
proposal development process is much broader and
begins earlier in the business development lifecycle.
The information is in people’s minds and is reflected
through their actions and decisions (e.g. an adopted
strategy depends on the client, on the market, on the
experience in the market, on past successful projects
etc.). Thus the proposal writing process is an
informal process and while formal guidelines exist
decisions about paths to take in order to produce the
final result are based on experienced individuals
acting in a collaborative manner. While skilled
employees use their tacit knowledge to produce a
winning proposal, less experienced employees have
to resort to the central document repository.
This gives rise to an application that can assure
collaborative development of proposal documents,
while capturing stages in informal processes of
individuals and assuring easier access and reuse of
knowledge. In a matter of speaking a process-centric
and context-aware collaborative workspace assuring
knowledge articulation, creation, transfer and
sharing for employees distributed over workgroups
and geographies.
For this setting we considered wikis as proposal
team workspaces as in (Farrell et. al, 2008). Some
additional reasons for using wikis are reported by

Majchrzak, Wagner and Yates (Majchrzak et.al,
2006) e.g. enhanced reputation benefit for active
enterprise wiki users making work easier and
helping organisations improve their processes. Or as
reported by Denis and Signer (Denis and Signer,
2008) increased transparency over geographically
distributed research teams even though the authors
report that the impact is always greater in cases
when there are no legacy solutions.
3.2 Requirements Gathering
In order to produce requirements for our prototype
we conducted online-surveys, semi-structured
interviews and work shadowing of interest groups.
Table 1 lists the targeted organisations and their
foreseen roles regarding system usage and
deployment.
Table 1: Interviewed and surveyed user groups based on
their foreseen roles.
Responsible entities for
introducing and maintaining
the system
Users of the system
Internal IT organisation Consultants
Collaboration Technology
& Business Leads
Dedicated Proposal
Support Teams
Overall we interviewed and surveyed 50 people, and
work shadowed 10 people - mainly members of the
dedicated proposal support team that supports
proposal teams in writing proposals for large
projects, Figure 1. The interviewed employees had
various relevant position levels as senior managers,
managers, and consultants
.
We initiated the requirements gathering process
by a high-level survey on the usefulness of the
current knowledge repository and enterprise search
tools for targeted processes. 27 participants from the
dedicated teams and consultants answered this
survey. The main themes from their responses were
around types of improvements and solutions for
proposal development tools. Some of the comments
are listed below:
A more advanced taxonomy for searching
following the current <client’s> request for
proposals.
Increasing the contribution to the enterprise
knowledge repository since a lot of documents are
still kept on local machines.
Information relevant to the type of the proposal
being developed should be displayed, based on
workgroups or types of offerings, technologies
involved etc.
Figure 1: Requirement gathering methods vs. targeted
groups within the company with indicated number of
participants.
The work shadowing activity of a dedicated proposal
support team during the life cycle of the proposal
response revealed that: 1) there is no technology
support for continuous refinements and updates
taking place due to the highly collaborative nature of
the proposal writing process spread over multiple
locations, 2) there is a high overhead to maintain
consistency across the different sections of the final
product e.g. naming conventions, acronyms etc.
The final set of requirements was obtained
through structured interviews, analyzes of already
existing internal IT supported workspace solutions,
and comments collected from enterprise social
media channels on what should be done to better
connect people. We don’t go into the details of the
requirements here instead we present a comment
given by one of the interviewees summarising the
general ideas of user requirements:
Easy to initiate group/project work sites with
intuitive, user-friendly document collaboration
capabilities without a need for job aids or training
to learn how to use features.
3.3 Summary of Key Findings
The mentioned methods for requirements gathering
produced a rich set of requirements organized
around necessary functionalities the workspace
should have (e.g. project task list with key
milestones, document library, link to the central
repository with relevant content, team calendar,
issues log etc.).
By analyzing the proposal development process
for different groups we reached several conclusions.
Firstly, the information that is usually needed is
diverse, fine-grained, and context dependent.
Examples include information about a specific
client, a specific industry, a new project the
company is doing in an industry, similar projects
that have been recently started (or finished) in
related areas, credentials that the company has
around a specific technology etc. Secondly, it is

clear that having more prepared and experienced
teams will result in higher chances of winning a
project but the individuals who make up these teams
often rely on tacit, subjective knowledge gained
through personal experience. Therefore by capturing
different steps and results in their work process
assuring knowledge articulation, collaboration and
sharing we can help others become more effective.
4 WORKSPACE DESIGN
To address the issues in this case study around
informal processes and to increase productivity of
knowledge workers two kinds of support tools are
being developed: 1) helping knowledge workers find
the right information given their current context and
task and 2) helping large project teams work
collaboratively, supporting knowledge articulation
and sharing. The first class of tools considers usage
of information technologies mainly relying on
Information Retrieval and Knowledge Discovery
techniques for knowledge management. In this paper
we aim to address the second challenge and help
large teams work collaboratively while trying to
capture informal tacit knowledge. The goal is to
achieve this without introducing considerable
overhead to the knowledge worker.
4.1 Semantic Wikis
In (Schaffert et al., 2006) the authors described
semantic wikis as solutions merging social software
assuring choice of processes and supporting
collaboration with Semantic Technologies enabling
structuring information for easy retrieval, reuse and
exchange between different tools. With this in mind
there have been a number of structured wiki projects
both as research efforts and in the last years as
commercial solutions: Semantic Media Wiki (SMW)
(Krötzsch et al., 2006.), IkeWiki (Schaffert, 2006),
SemperWiki (Oren, 2005), TikiWiki
1
with
Semantics Links extension, Confluence with
Wikidsmart
2
, 2010), SMW+ Semantic Enterprise
Wiki
3
. On one side traditional wikis enable features
as: editing in a browser, use of wiki syntax, rollback
mechanisms with versioned pages, strong linking
between wiki pages and collaborative editing. On
the other side, semantic wikis enable machine
1
http://doc.tikiwiki.org/Semantic
2
http://www.zagile.com/products/wikidsmart.html
3
http://wiki.ontoprise.de/smwforum/index.php/Main_Page
readable representation of underlying wiki
structures, by allowing annotation of links between
pages e.g. through giving them certain types
(Schaffert et al., 2006). Link annotation enables:
enriched content by displaying context relevant
information based on the semantic annotation (e.g.
pages regarding a company can be enriched by a list
of alliance companies); semantic navigation
through enabling additional information regarding
what each link is describing (e.g. Company page can
have links hasEmpoyees, isLocated and wasFounded
displayed for navigation etc.). Semantic search
enables searching for related concept instances using
the underlying knowledge base (e.g. Company x
hasClient would list all annotated clients of a certain
company). Reasoning offers inference of implicit
information by using the wiki knowledge base as
well as external sources.
4.2 Informal Processes
We start from the intuition that tacit informal
knowledge of an employee is learned through years
of experience. We consider two main issues: 1) How
to better capture different steps (or results) of
different tasks so that employees referring to the
central repository have more information and 2)
How to enable the transfer of this knowledge to new
employees.
The major differentiator between our setting and
typical knowledge management setting dealing with
improved navigation browsing and searching is that
we focus on the process, in our case the informal
process of proposal development, and not only on
the end product –the final document.
In (Granitzer et al., 2008) the authors considered
using semantic wikis for organised provision and
efficient retrieval of information. Through their
analysis of different studies they claim that 80% of
knowledge which is required for performing
knowledge work is a result of informal learning.
Wikis were chosen as a supporting tool for informal
learning since they naturally foster participation and
collaboration. In (Schaffert, 2006) Schaffert
introduces ideas around merging social software
(wikis, blogs, social networks etc.) dealing with
social connections and human readable content
dealing with Semantic Web with formal content and
its formal connections. Semantic wikis are therefore
seen as a solution enabling interrelating of informal
unstructured collaboration and conversation records
in wikis. However Granitzer et al. only give an
example scenario, we take their hypothesis further
on and develop a prototype build upon extending
initial ideas.

Additionally recent work from (Dengler et al.,
2009) extends the Semantic Media Wiki software
with process modelling and visualization
functionalities. The reasoning is, similar to the
proposal development process considered in this
work, that formally documented corporate processes
insufficiently reflect the reality of daily work. They
are also enacted in an informal way with frequent
changes. Since our proposed solution is also a
collaborative approach to process design where
process descriptions are gradually improved by
different contributors SMW has been chosen as a
solution for developing the proposal development
workspace.
4.3 Proposal Development Workspace
The proposals are created as a response to a client’s
request for proposals and they need to describe how
the company plans to address the client’s problem
and include other relevant credentials and expertise
the company has for the client or in the area. This
use case is designed to provide context-sensitive
support for proposal writing/review that is based on
the top-down process defined by Accenture and
coupled with the use of informal processes by
individual groups and consultants. We show the
abstracted top down process for proposal
development in Table 2.
Once a client request is identified the project
manager can select his team members and create the
proposal outline. To help him in this process we
developed a set of add-ins for Microsoft Word
which enable easy definition of the proposal outline
and finding experts based on the document provided
by the client. In this paper we don’t not go into
details for this tool since it is a part of the broader
strategy including algorithmic approaches for
finding experts in the company and analyzing
documents.
Moreover, now a project manager can create a
new proposal development workspace from the
comfort of the document itself. A preconfigured
project workspace is created in a matter of seconds
(this is achieved with DotNetWikiBot Framework
4
)
and the selected team members are already added to
the workspace. The workspace is preconfigured so
the data about the team members is added to the
wiki directly from the official employees pages.
Now a project manager has all the data about his
team members. Furthermore the section outline
information defined through the Microsoft Word
4
http://dotnetwikibot.sourceforge.net/
add-in has been automatically passed and wiki pages
for each section are created, with default deadlines
and allocation of section owners and section
reviewers from the team members. These allocations
can be easily updated through form-based editing
enabled by the Semantic Forms extension
5
.
Table 2: Abstracted steps from the formal process for
proposal development.
Step Description
1
Identify requirements
2
Identify collaborators/team
3
Develop high level themes
4
Create outline with sections
5
Assign sections to individuals
6
Support individuals in finding content to complete
sections
7
Support checkpoints and alerts
8
Consolidate drafts of sections and ensure
consistency, compliance, high-level theme
integration, tracking changes
9
Consolidate to produce final document
10
Review
11
Finalize
Once the workspace is created using the above
described ‘wizard’, a collaborative approach can be
taken to develop high-level themes, and add client-
relevant information and data tailored to the
particular instance of the proposal development
workspace. Additional data is also retrieved from
Accenture’s internal sources. Furthermore the
workspace also has a capability that allows the
project manager to define the basic set of tasks his
team members need to follow either based on a
predefined formal process or some modification
(e.g. an improved process that has proved to work
better on a number of similar projects). By following
formal processes or proposing modifications to the
process team members can collaboratively develop
the document and the workspaces will keep trace of
their activity. In the long run some level of the
informal process can be captured in the collaborative
workspace including collaborative development of
best–practice processes to follow.
To give support for steps 8, 9 and 10 from Table
2 the document writers and reviewers have to rely on
their own experience and a set of algorithmic
solutions being developed as a support but outside of
the scope of this paper.
We are using SMW family of extensions for the
MediaWiki to develop our workspace and to help
proposal managers optimize the proposal writing
5
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms

Figure 2: Collaborative project workspace, with main features and functionalities.
process and to help team members effectively
collaborate. The following functionalities are
implemented (also see Figure 2):
Automatic Configuration of a new proposal
development workspace which is customized for
proposal development with templates and forms
enabling functions as:
 adding team member by enterprise id,
 adding proposal sections,
 allocating section contributors and reviewers
 allocating, adding and organizing meetings,
 adding and organizing tasks,
 calendar (including importing data into MS
Outlook) and timeline view,
 task list etc.
Dynamic Data Population of a new workspace
from live Accenture’s sources (employees pages,
offerings data, credentials data, similar proposals
etc.). This is achieved through exploiting link
annotations in SMW. The project manager just
needs to define several fields in a generic form
description of the workspace as who the client is or
to which class of offerings the proposal belongs to
and the relevant information is imported from
Accenture’s data sources.
Faceted (Dynamic) browsing for querying pages of
the imported content through the use of Semantic
Result Formats extension
6
.
Content Annotation (extension developed
specifically for this use case) of uploaded documents
to SMW based on Accenture’s vocabulary (~4000
terms) in order to reduce the burden of manually
tagging documents when uploading to the central
repository enabling knowledge sharing. For each
uploaded document a tag box displays discovered
properties e.g. for every pair of property name and
property value (e.g. PertinentToCountry :Latvia,
PertinentToDomainSpecialty: BusinessIntelligence)
from the vocabulary the appearance of a value in the
text enables the annotation of that text with the
property name.
Desktop-based Access and import capabilities
from SMW to MS Word for facts, sections, offerings,
6
http://wiking.vulcan.com/dev/index.php/SemanticWikiTag_extension
Project related information: client,
team members, relevant organization
unit, offerings category,
hli
Meeting and
task list
Find people with certain skill
proficiency levels and years of
experience
Dynamically imported, task relevant
information, from the repository based on
the data about: the client, the relevant
organization unit, the offerings category,
the relevant technology, the relevant
offerings & credentials, the team.
Tag Cloud for
document annotation.
Process Visualization

Figure 3: Knowledge elements and relations among them for the proposal development workspaces.
etc. The Semantic WikiTag extension enables to
access data on the wiki through a Wiki Office Add-
in
7
.
Process Visualization allows representation and
visualization of formal processes (Dengler et al.,
2009).
Additional expansions as Halo
8
with an advanced
annotation mode allows easier semantic content
annotation through what you see is what you get
WYSIWYG-like manner. So there is no need for use
of cryptic wiki syntax.
In Figure 3 we can see a simplified view of the
underlying knowledge structure for the proposal
development workspace. The initial steps when
designing the workspace were governed by the
existing requirements (section 3) and by inherited
structures from the companies knowledge exchange
e.g. employee’s pages already had attributes as
name, location, level, skills, proficiency,
organizational unit etc.
In a similar manner each automatically imported
knowledge element had a predefined set of attributes
Table 3. These details are omitted in Figures 3 to
assure simplicity. We can see that every person has a
skill and years of experience and proficiency level
7
http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/SRF.
8
http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Project_Halo
for that skill.
A person can be a member of a community of a
workgroup and can be either an editor or a reviewer
of a proposal section. Furthermore he is a
participator in a task or an event. Every process is
made out of successive steps. A person, task, event
and process are all members of the proposal
workspace, which on the other side has helpful
content e.g. offerings and credentials.
Table 3: Knowledge structure of some of the imported
knowledge elements.
Knowledge
element
Attributes
Credential
id, free text, type, organization, industry,
service line etc.
Offerings
id, free text, offering category, relevant
function, development status etc.
Proposals
id, client, free text, offering category,
organization, technology, industry etc.
Hence every time a new workspace is created the
information in the workspace is organized alongside
defined categories and properties. Overtime for
every project detailed information will be captured,
including steps that team members took to reach the
final product, as well as results of intermediate steps,
and issues confronted with. Through the detailed log
of their actions and the attached documents at
different phases, the informal processes can be better

captured. Furthermore the participants will have an
option to modify formal processes and help build
best practice processes, collaboratively. In case that
they are willing to annotate the free content and
build-up the underlying knowledge structure they
can do so either by using the basic functionality we
provided (automatic annotation using Accenture’s
vocabulary or other external sources) or they can
benefit from an easy annotation interface (Halo
extension).
5 RESULTS
We performed a number of tests regarding basic
technical requirements, stability, robustness and
acceptability of performance of the developed
prototype by interviewing domain experts. The goal
was also to assure compliance of the prototype
workspace with the requirements. In addition to the
tests, we also interviewed potential users of the
system and found that the process-editing
functionality needed to be easier to use (similar to
Microsoft Visio) and that some of the search
functionalities needed to be faster.
During the tests the prototype was both
demonstrated and domain experts stepped through
user procedures to identify usability defects and
further user requirements. These tests were aimed at
project managers who would initiate the usage of a
collaborative proposal development workspace and
consultants (team members who would use the
collaborative features of the workspace).
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
This paper describes efforts around the development
of a process-centric solution for a specific proposal
development process in Accenture based on
semantic wikis, and early efforts at deploying such a
solution to a small group of users.
Through using semantic structure in a wiki the
proposal development workspace aims at tackling
the issues of collaborative knowledge articulation
and sharing while allowing proposal managers to
allocate, track, and manage the work of the proposal
development team. This approach enables
individuals to collaborate while using data that is
relevant to their current task (e.g. dynamic imports
from the company repository). We also enable them
to benefit from lightweight semantics, facilitated
through structured data, to easily organize tasks and
meetings, create automatic reports, reuse
information and correct inconsistency problems.
The developed solution offers project leaders the
ability to organize documents (e.g. proposal
documents) by allocating sections to different team
members, keeping track of deadlines and tasks
through a calendar and timeline view, exploiting
version control, enabling new ways of data
aggregation etc. At the same time the workspace is
designed to support team members by automatically
displaying helpful and reusable content related to the
project. For example a team workspace for proposal
development offers content like similar proposals,
offerings and credentials. They are imported from
Accenture’s repository based on the client, and
organizational unit, offerings category, industry and
technology the proposal document is related to. On
the other hand information can be easily pulled from
the wiki into documents with an add-in for
recognizing wiki entities in the written text and
offering import and browse functionality.
Several issues around the adaptation of such a
technology have appeared in an environment which
already offers a solution for team workspaces that
has limited capabilities but is supported by the IT
organization. By including the new user
requirements coming out of this study and assuring
compatibility with existing internal IT solutions we
believe we can overcome this problem.
We believe that the initial success of our
prototype was due to the integration of the SMW
with internal enterprise data sources (containing data
about people, vocabulary terms, etc.), and
integration with document editing tools (MS Word).
The key features we plan to implement in order to
improve the adoption of this prototype are
improving the user interface (giving better section
editing and process editing interfaces), and
improving process visualization.
We also plan to analyze activity logs to
algorithmically detect steps in an informal process
and display it in the wiki for comparison with formal
processes. Assuring factual consistency for content
being shared and used by team members while
writing the proposal document is another direction
for future work. This is planned to be addressed
through knowledge leveraging on the underlying
wiki structure and the facts stored in the proposal
workspace.
We believe that the possibility of having a
semantic wiki enabling a workspace in an enterprise
opens many doors for better knowledge capturing,
collaboration and knowledge transfer. We believe

that starting from a solution that offers more
integration with mentioned internal IT supported
solutions will assure better adaptation.
Overall the predefined team workspace, the
imports of knowledge from Accenture’s repository
and the connections to the familiar work
environment aim at facilitating the use of the wiki as
a collaborative project workspace offering
possibilities and incentives to exploit the
collaborative nature of Web 2.0 technologies that
have been so successful on the open Web.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is partially funded by the IST project
ACTIVE (ICT-FP7-215040).
REFERENCES
Danis, C., Singer, D., 2008. A wiki instance in the
enterprise: opportunities, concerns and reality. In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW '08.
ACM, New York.
Dengler, F., Lamparter, S., Hefke, M. & Abecker, A.
2009. Collaborative Process Development using
Semantic MediaWiki. In Knut Hinkelmann & Holger
Wache, ed., 'Wissensmanagement'.
Farrell, R., Kellogg, W., Thomas, J., 2008. The
Participatory Web and the Socially Resilient
Enterprise. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, In
Proceedings of CSCW.
Granitzer, G., Stocker, A., Hoefler, P., Tochtermann, K.,
2008. Informal Learning with Semantic Wikis in
Enterprises: A PragmaticApproach. In ED-MEDIA
2008 - World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications.
Krötzsch M, Vrandencic D., Volkel M, 2006. Semantic
MediaWiki . In The Semantic Web – ISWC.
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., and Yates, D. 2006. Corporate
Wiki Users: Results of a Survey. In Proceedings of the
2006 international Symposium on Wikis (Odense,
Denmark, August 21 - 23, 2006). WikiSym '06.
McAfee, A.,2006.Entrpise 2.0:The Down of Emergent
Collaboration. In MITSlaon Management Review.
Microsoft, 2006. Using Blogs and Wikis in Business,
Business Advantages Offered by Using Blogs and
Wikis with Microsoft® SharePoint® Products and
Technologies. http://www.microsoft.com
Oren. E., 2005. SemperWiki: A Semantic Personal Wiki.
In Proceedings of the ISWC Workshop on the
Semantic Desktop. Nov. 2005.
Schaffert, S., 2006. Semantic Social Software:
Semantically enabled Social Software or Socially
enabled Semantic Web. In S. Schaffert, Y. Sure (Eds.).
Semantic Systems. From Visions to Applications.
Wien: OCG Verlag.
Schaffert., S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A.,
Hilzensauer, W., Schaffert. S., 2006. Learning with
Semantic Wikis. In SemWiki2006.
Schaffert.S., 2006. IkeWiki: A Semantic Wiki for
Collaborative Knowledge Management. In: 1st
International Workshop on Semantic Technologies in
Collaborative Applications STICA 06, Manchester,
UK, June 2006.
Stocker, A., Tochtermann, K., 2009. Exploring the Value
of Enterprise Wikis: A Multiple-Case Study. In
International Conference on Knowledge Management
and Information Sharing (KMIS).