Zeb, J; Froese, T and Vanier, D (2015) An ontology-supported asset information integrator system in infrastructure management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(4), pp. 380-397. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop and apply an ontology-supported asset information integrator system (AIIS) in the domain of infrastructure management. The two objectives are: first, to describe how different ontologies developed as part of this research support the design of message templates (MTs) that were implemented in the AIIS; and second, to explain the development and application of the prototype system for tangible capital asset (TCA) reporting. Design/methodology/approach - The proposed system was developed in the MS SharePoint platform using a four-step methodology: create a web site and library; review and modify MTs; design and configure workflows; and add functionalities. Findings - First, the architecture, methodology, and evaluation of the two ontologies: Transaction Domain Ontology and Tangible Capital Asset Ontology, developed as part of this research work were briefly introduced to describe how both the ontologies supported the design of MTs that were implemented in the AIIS. Second, the AIIS was successfully developed and applied in the domain of infrastructure management for the Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment Reporting. Practical implications - The development of the AIIS would enable industry experts to exchange the tangible capital information. The built-in search engine and history services would help the experts to search a transaction and track the transaction history. The real-time visualisation of the data would help in decision making. Originality/value - Infrastructure agencies use diversified information systems to manage infrastructure systems. Due to propriety nature of the information systems, the TCA data generated is heterogeneous and inconsistent, which make it difficult to exchange with other organisations. Also, the existing applications focus on processing and managing the TCA data for a variety of tasks; however, lack to support data exchange with other organisations. This emphasises the gap that requires the development of an ontology-supported collaboration system in the domain of infrastructure asset management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; information system; asset information integrator system; asset inventory and condition assessment reporting; infrastructure asset management; infrastructure management; tangible capital asset; tangible capital asset ontology; tangible capital |
| Index terms: | message template, methodology, decision-making, tangible capital, collaboration, tangible capital asset ontology, condition assessment reporting, information system, tangible capital asset, visualization, history, workflow, agency, infrastructure management, platform, data exchange, infrastructure asset management, ontology, prototype, asset management, functionality, asset inventory |
| Subjects: | design features, modelling and simulation, communication, economic analysis, architectural and construction history, asset management, decision analysis, sociology, information systems, data exchange, research methods, design practice, education and knowledge transfer, management, infrastructure engineering, digital design |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here