English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article is the second in a series on the science of group and organizational processes. The earlier article made a case for seeking a common representation of group and organizational processes. This article offers a solution by providing a working definition of group and organizational processes and deriving a working representation of them.Four candidate group and organizational process representations are introduced and evaluated. The first is the MIT process dictionary, the second is knowledge engineering, the third is dynamic simulation, and the fourth is process frameworks. Each has strengths and weaknesses. At this time the process framework view of group and organizational processes has some advantages. Axioms, definitions, and proofs are used to derive the process framework and some of its properties.

A Working Common Representation of Group and Organizational Processes