Establishing and Ad Hoc Infrastructure

1
ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYMENT: THE CASE OF KNOWLEDGEBASED
SYSTEMS
MICHEL GRUNDSTEIN
MG Conseil, 4 rue Anquetil, Nogent sur Marne, 94130, France
Lamsade, Paris Dauphine University, Place du Maréchal De Lattre de Tassigny,
75775, Paris, France
E-mail: mgrundstein@mgconseil.fr
Abstract: In this paper, referring to the Model for General Knowledge Management within the
Enterprise (MGKME), we emphasize two of the operating elements of this model, which are
essential to insure the organizational learning process that leads people to appropriate and use
concepts, methods and tools of KM considered as an innovative technology: the “Ad hoc
Infrastructures” element, and the “Organizational Learning Processes” element. The Nonaka’s SECI
models, and the Japanese concept of Ba, underlie these two elements. The case of the “Semi-opened
Infrastructure” model implemented to deploy Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge-based Systems
within a large industrial company illustrates what could be the application of these concepts in the
real field. Meanwhile, we partially validate MGKME. Furthermore, we consolidate the “Semiopened
Infrastructure” model, which becomes a pattern of reference allowing implementing an “Ad
hoc Infrastructure” for innovative technologies deployment.
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Model for General Knowledge Management within the
Enterprise (MGKME), Semi-opened Infrastructure Principle, Organizational Learning Processes,
Innovative Technologies Deployment, SECI Model, Japanese concept of Ba.
1. Introduction
In the Knowledge Society (Lytras and Sicilia, 2005), Enterprises are more and more
concerned with Knowledge Management (KM) as a key factor for improving their
efficiency and competitiveness, notably their innovative capabilities. However, very
often, KM is considered from a technological viewpoint that induces to consider
knowledge as an object independent of individuals. Thus, as observed by Kjaergaard,
Kautz and Nielsen (2008) “The practice of knowledge management is often reduced to
the implementation of new IT-based systems, procedures for documenting and sharing
information, and documents themselves though there are examples to the contrary. By
focusing on externalization and documentation of knowledge, important organizational
aspects, in particular human and social issues, can be over looked (p. 71).” Those
practices disregard the innovative potentialities of KM. In our research group, supposing
that Knowledge is not manageable as if it was a data or information, we postulate that
KM must address activities that utilize and create knowledge more than knowledge by
itself. With regard to this issue, we elaborated a sociotechnical approach of KM within
the enterprise, and we synthesized it into an empirical model called Model for General
Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME). Seven elements, classified
into two categories, characterize this model. In particular, two of these elements, the
2
“Ad-hoc Infrastructure”, and the “Organizational Learning Processes” are essential to
insure the learning process that leads people to appropriate and use concepts, methods
and tools of KM considered as an innovative technology.
In this paper, after having put down background theory and assumptions, we present
MGKME, emphasizing on two of the operating elements suggested by this model: the
“Ad hoc Infrastructures” element, and the “Organizational Learning Processes” element.
That leads to introduce the Nonaka’s SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), and the
Japanese concept of Ba (Nonaka and Konno, 1998. Then, considering the case of
innovative technologies deployment within a large industrial company, that are
Intelligence Artificial and Knowledge-based Systems, we describe the “Semi-opened
Infrastructure” model, which was implemented, highlighting the link with Nonaka’s
SECI model, and the Japanese concept of Ba. In that way, we make a transposition that
considers this model as an instance of the two MGKME’s element mentioned above.
Consequently, we partially validate MGKME. Furthermore, we consolidate the “Semiopened
Infrastructure” model as a pattern of reference to deploy innovative technologies.
2. Background Theory and Assumptions
2.1. Research motivations, method, and objectives
Our research follows a constructivist paradigm (Perret and Séville, 2003) that is deeply
rooted in our pragmatic experience in the real field.
As a practitioner having to manage deployment of innovative technologies (such as
computer aided design, knowledge based systems, and others) in large companies just
when these technologies were conceived into universities and laboratories, I observed
that we always needed to elaborate a model with sociotechnical perspectives, which
could be used as a pattern of reference for all stakeholders, in order to engender the
essential learning process that leads people to appropriate and use these technologies.
Notably, I elaborated, the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” model presented in this paper.
This model is an empirical model that has been used in each case I handled.
Later on, when becoming Associate Researcher in the domain of KM, we perceived
the lack of general model of KM that integrates sociotechnical perspectives. This point of
view is often disregarded when considering the technical approach of KM, although
hundred of frameworks can be found in the literature (CEN-CWA 14924-1, 2004). That
leads us to elaborate MGKME that is briefly presented in section 3.
Meanwhile, our research on KM makes us discover the Nonaka’s SECI model, and
the Japanese concept of Ba. That is the source of the idea to link these theoretical
concepts to our pragmatic experience with the implementation of “Semi-opened
Infrastructure” model, and to consolidate it. Thus we reached two objectives at the same
time:
1. Validate two of the MGKME’s elements: the “Ad hoc Infrastructures” element, and
the “Organizational Learning processes” element.
3
2. Consolidate the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” model as a pattern of reference to
deploy innovative technologies.
2.2. Three fundamental postulates
Our observations and experiments within the industry, led us to set forth three postulates:
(i) Knowledge is not an object; (ii) Company’s knowledge includes two main categories
of knowledge; and (iii) Knowledge is linked to the action. We define these postulates
below.
(i) Knowledge is not an object
Knowledge exists in the interaction between an interpretative Framework (incorporated
within the head of an individual, or embedded into an artifact), and data. This postulate
comes from the assumption emphasized by Tsuchiya (1993) concerning knowledge
creation ability. He highlighted how organizational knowledge is created through
dialogue, and pointed out how commensurability of the interpretative frameworks of the
organization’s members is indispensable for an organization to create organizational
knowledge for decision and action. Here, commensurability is the common space of the
interpretative frameworks (e.g. cognitive models or mental models) of each member.
Tsuchiya states, “It is important to clearly distinguish between sharing information and
sharing knowledge. Information becomes knowledge only when it is sense-read through
the interpretative framework of the receiver. Any information inconsistent with his
interpretative framework is not perceived in most cases. Therefore, to share individual’s
knowledge, members’ interpretative frameworks commensurability is indispensable.” (p.
89). In other words, knowledge that we use to understand a situation, solve a problem
and act, results from the sense given, through our interpretative frameworks, to data that
we perceive among the information transmitted to us. Consequently, explicit knowledge,
codified, stored, and processed into digital information system, is not more than
information. We call it “Information source of knowledge for someone”. We consider
this information as knowledge when members having a large commensurability of their
interpretative frameworks commonly understand it. For example, such is the case for
members having the same technical or scientific education, or members having the same
business culture. In these cases, codified knowledge makes the same sense for each
member.
(ii) Company’s knowledge includes two main categories of knowledge
Within a company, knowledge consists of two main categories (see Table 1): on the one
hand, explicit knowledge includes all tangible elements (we call it “know-how”); and on
the other hand, tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966), includes intangible elements (we call it
“skills”).
The tangible elements are collective knowledge. They take the shape of formalized
and codified knowledge in a physical format (databases, procedures, plans, models,
4
algorithms, and analysis and synthesis documents), or are embedded in automated
management systems, in conception and production systems, and in products. The
intangible elements are inherent to the individuals who bear them, either as collective
knowledge - the “routines” that are non-written individual or collective action procedures
(Nelson and Winter, 1982) or personal knowledge (skills, crafts, “job secrets”, historical
and contextual knowledge of environment, clients, competitors, technologies, and socioeconomic
factors).
Table 1: The Two Main Categories of Company’s knowledge
(iii) Knowledge is linked to the action
From a business perspective, knowledge is created through action. Knowledge is
essential for the functioning of support, and value-adding processes (Porter, 1985).
Activities contributing to these processes utilize and create knowledge. Thus, the actions
finalize the company’s knowledge. This viewpoint takes into account the context and the
situation, which allow utilizing and creating knowledge. In particular, we must analyze
the role of the actors - decision-makers - involved with these activities in order to achieve
the company’s missions. Therefore, knowledge is linked to their decisions, their actions,
and their relations with the surrounding systems (people and artifacts).
2.3. Knowledge Management (KM) Perspectives
In 1990, the Initiative for Managing Knowledge Assets (IMKA, 1990) was initiated by a
few companies (Carnegie Group, Inc., Digital Equipment Corporation, Ford Motor
5
Company, Texas Instruments, Inc., and US WEST Advanced Technologies, Inc.). They
defined for the first time the notion of knowledge assets: “Knowledge assets are those
assets that are primary in the minds of company's employees. They include design
experience, engineering skills, financial analysis skills, and competitive knowledge.”
Gradually, numerous research works were carried out, enterprise’s KM initiatives were
deployed, and an abundant literature enriched the domain of Knowledge Management.
So that the concept of KM highlighted a broad range of topics and became a fuzzy
concept taking as many senses as people speaking about it.
The introduction to KMIS conference (KMIS, 2009) shows the same understanding:
“There are several perspectives on KM, but all share the same core components, namely:
People, Processes and Technology. Some take a techno-centric focus, in order to
enhance knowledge integration and creation; some take an organizational focus, in
order to optimize organization design and workflows; some take an ecological focus,
where the important aspects are related to people interaction, knowledge and
environmental factors as a complex adaptive system similar to a natural ecosystem.”
Furthermore we distinguished two main approaches underlying KM: (i) a
technological approach that answers a demand of solutions based on the technologies of
information and communication (ICT); and (ii) a managerial and sociological approach
that integrates knowledge as resources contributing to the implementation of the strategic
vision of the company.
Most of time, KM is considered from a technological viewpoint. However, in our
research group, relying on Tsuchiya’s works, we argue that knowledge is dependent of
the individual’s interpretative framework, and the context of his action. Consequently,
knowledge resides primarily in the heads of individuals, and in the social interactions of
these individuals. It cannot be consider as an object such as data are in digital
information systems. Thus, it appears that KM addresses activities, which utilize and
create knowledge more than knowledge by itself. With regard to this question, since
2001, our group of research has adopted the following definition of KM (Grundstein and
Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2003): “KM is the management of the activities and the processes
that enhance the utilization and the creation of knowledge within an organization,
according to two strongly interlinked goals, and their underlying economic and strategic
dimensions, organizational dimensions, socio-cultural dimensions, and technological
dimensions: (i) a patrimony goal, and (ii) a sustainable innovation goal” (p.980). The
patrimony goal has to do with the preservation of knowledge, their reuse and their
actualization; it is a static goal. The sustainable innovation goal is more dynamic. It is
concerned with organizational learning that is creation and integration of knowledge at
the organizational level.
To launch Knowledge Management initiatives Enterprises need referring to a pattern
of reference, which integrates sociotechnical perspectives in their strategic vision of KM.
In this article, we refer to MGKME, a Model of General Knowledge Management within
the Enterprise developed by Grundstein (2005; 2007). This model supports the definition
6
and the postulates described above. Moreover, it brings a general vision of KM, which is
people-focused (Wiig, 2004).
3. MGKME, a Model for General Knowledge Management within the
Enterprise
At first, the Model for General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise
(MGKME) was aimed to constitute a pattern of reference for our research group. Today,
it can be used to assess the Enterprise’s Knowledge Management Maturity Level
(Grundstein, 2008). You will find a brief description of the MGKME hereafter.
The MGKME (see Figure 1), supports our full meaning of KM as defined in
paragraph 2.3.
SOCIOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT
Action
Strategy
Governing
Values Consequences
Organizational Learning
Double Loop
Learning
Single Loop
Learning
Collaborative Tools
Company’s Portals
Web-based
Technologies
Communication Interactions
Community of Practice
Value-adding
Processes
METHODS TOOLS
PLAN
DO
CHECK
ACT
1
7
2
5
6
7
4
3
©Michel Grundstein
ad hoc
INFRASTRUCTURES
Fig. 1. Model for General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (Grundstein, 2007)
MGKME is an empirical model based both on our experience within the industry,
and on our research works. The work of Morin and Le Moigne (1999) that focuses on
Complexity and System thinking inspires it. MGKME suggests a sociotechnical approach
defined by Coakes (2002) as “the study of the relationships and interrelationships
between the social and technical parts of any system” (p. 5). It focuses on people and
value adding processes. Moreover, the MGKME presents an attempt to articulate the
Deming’s Cycle PDCA well known by quality practitioners, and the Single-Loop
Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön’s organizational
learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1996). It suggests ad hoc infrastructures derived from
7
the Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI model and the Japanese concept of Ba. It highlights
four generic KM processes (Grundstein, 2007, p. 254-255).
MGKME is composed of two main categories of elements. The underlying elements
consist of (1) sociotechnical environment and (2) value adding processes. The operating
elements focus on the underlying elements. They consist of (3) managerial guiding
principles, (4) ad hoc infrastructures, (5) generic KM processes (Locating, Preserving,
Enhancing, and Actualizing processes), (6) organizational learning processes, and (7)
methods and supporting tools.
In this article we will focus on the “ad hoc infrastructures”, and the “organizational
learning processes”, which are two elements of the model’s operating elements.
3.1. Ad-hoc Infrastructures
The ad hoc infrastructures are adapted sets of devices and means for action. Beyond
a network that favors cooperative work, it is important to implement the conditions that
will allow sharing and creating knowledge. Relevant infrastructures must be set up
according to the specific situation of each company, and the context of the envisaged KM
initiative. These infrastructures could be inspired by the SECI spiral of conversion Model
proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and the Japanese concept of Ba that “can be
thought as a shared space for emerging relationships (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, p. 40);
Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000, p. 16-17).
3.1.1. The SECI Model
The SECI (acronym for socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization)
process of knowledge creation, is introduced in the theory of organizational knowledge
creation developed to describe how organizations create and utilize knowledge. This
model was criticized by numerous authors as stated by Nonaka and Peltokorpi, (2007):
“Instead of building on the theory or proposing viable alternative frameworks, scholars
have criticized the nature and role of tacit knowledge and its conversion to explicit
knowledge in this theory” (p. 68). However, according to our own experience within the
industry, we found that SECI fitted very well with our own vision expressed before we
heard of it (Grundstein, 1996, p.142). So, we agree with Nonaka and Peltokorpi when
they state “The theory is holistic and should be understood as an interpretative frame to
understand the process of knowledge creation and utilization in organizations” (p. 80).
Furthermore it appeared to be a pragmatic tool well understood by practitioners.
The SECI Model includes the following elements (see Figure 2): (i) two forms of
knowledge (tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge); (ii) a cycle in spiral of conversion
of knowledge (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization); (iii) three
levels of social aggregation (individual, group, organization).
8
3.1.2. The Japanese Concept of Ba
To describe the concept of Ba, we will express our own understanding by paraphrasing
Nonaka and Konno (p. 40): Ba is a shared space for emerging relationships and
interactions between knowledge stakeholders. This space can be physical (e.g., office,
dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail, teleconference), mental (e.g., shared
experience and, ideas) or any combination of them. It can be a network of persons who
share common objectives; a place would allow achieving the synthesis of the rationality
and of the intuition as a wellspring of new knowledge; a place where would take place a
shared knowledge creation; a platform that would allow individual and collective
knowledge to progress. So, participate in a Ba stimulates the involvement of an
individual, a group, an organization by giving them the possibility to transcend the
borders and the limits of their own perspectives. In another article (Nonaka, Toyama, &
Konno, 2000, p. 16-17) modified the name of Ba previously design in 1998. Hereafter,
we briefly describe the four types of Ba (see Figure 2).
Adapted from:
Ikujiro Nonaka et Hirotaka Takeuchi (1998)
Ikujiro Nonaka, Ryoko Toyama and Noboru Konno (2000)
g
g o
g
Combination
i g i
Socialization
i
i
i
i i
g
Externalization
o
i
g
Internalization
o organisation
g group
i iindividual
Tacit Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
Tacit Knowledge
Explicit
Knowledge
To
From
Systemizing
Ba
Group to Group
Dialoguing Ba
Peer to Peer
Originating
Ba
Face to face
Exercising Ba
On the field
©Michel Grundstein
Fig. 2. The SECI Model and the Japanese Concept of "Ba"
• The Originating Ba is a place where individuals share feelings, emotions,
experiences, and mental models. It is the primary Ba from which the knowledgecreation
begins and represents the socialization phase. Physical, face- to- face
experiences are the key to conversion and transfer of tacit knowledge.
• The Dialoguing Ba (previously Interacting Ba) is a place where tacit knowledge is
made explicit, thus it represents the externalization process. Through dialogue,
9
individuals’ mental models and skills are converted into common terms and concepts.
Two processes operate in concert: individuals share the mental model of others, but
also reflect and analyze their own. Dialogue is key for such conversions; and the
extensive use of metaphors is one of the conversion skills required.
• The Systemizing Ba (previously Cyber Ba) is a place of interaction in a virtual world
instead of real space and time; and it represents the combination phase. The
combination of explicit knowledge is most efficiently supported in collaborative
environments utilizing information technology. The use of on-line networks,
groupware, documentations, and database enhance this conversion process.
• The Exercising Ba is a space that facilitates the conversion of explicit knowledge to
tacit knowledge. It supports the internalization phase. Thus, the internalization of
knowledge is enhanced continuously by the use of formal knowledge (explicit) in real
life or simulated applications.
3.2. Organizational Learning Processes
The Organizational learning processes underlay the whole Generic KM processes
elements. The aim of the organizational learning process is to increase individual
knowledge, to reinforce competencies, and to convert them into a collective knowledge
through interactions, dialogue, discussions, exchange of experience, and observation.
The main objective consists in fighting against the defensive routines that make barriers
to training and change. So, it is a question of helping the members of the organization to
change their way of thinking by facilitating an apprenticeship of a constructive way of
reasoning instead of a defensive one. This is essential to make people use and appropriate
new concepts and innovative technologies.
4. Ad hoc Infrastructures for Innovative Technologies Deployment: the case of
Knowledge-Based Systems (KBS) deployment.
As an example of ad doc infrastructure, we present the case of Knowledge-Based
Systems (KBS) deployment within a large French Nuclear Power Plant Company. In that
case, a Semi-opened Infrastructure was implemented. This typical infrastructure is
described below as it may be thought as a concrete application of the concept of Ba.
4.1. Overview
The Semi-opened Infrastructure was launched to support deployment of new innovative
technologies. At first, in 1978, it was dedicated to introduce Computer-Aided Design.
Then, under another format, it became the organizational learning structure created and
led from 1983 to 1995 in order to introduce the concepts and technologies of Artificial
Intelligence, and to develop and deploy Knowledge-Based Systems applications. It is
this format that is described in this article. In that last case, the aim of the Semi-opened
10
Infrastructure was to encourage the individual and collective apprenticeship, to favor
knowledge acquisition, to leverage emergence of new products, and to implement
computer applications using artificial intelligence technologies.
Nowadays the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” model answers the issues highlighted
by the “ad hoc infrastructures” and “the “organizational learning processes” that
constitutes two of the operating elements of the MGKME.
4.2. Semi-opened Principles
The semi-opened principles are presented figure 3.
Considering the field characterized by a specific context, where people are
confronted with situations continually evolving, one can observe two reasoning loops:
(1) The deductive reasoning loop that characterizes the analytic approach of operational
and business units; and (2) the inductive reasoning loop that characterizes the systemic
approach of an overall perception.
Fig. 3. Semi-opened Principles
The Semi-opened Platform, which is a neutral space that favors the interactions, is
an evolution and progress space where people interact following these two ways of
reasoning. It is what, Edgar Morin (Morin and Le Moigne, 1999) call Dialogic Principle
that “combines two principles or notions that must be mutually exclusive, but that are
integral parts of the same reality” (p. 264). In the Overall Perception Area, inductive
reasoning is involved inducing partial models of action, processes, and techniques. In the
Creative Relations Area, people interactions, in deep analysis, and knowledge sharing,
11
engender symbiosis of ideas. The issue is to transcend the deductive rationality of
operational units by sharing models of action, processes and techniques induced by the
inductive rationality of a multidisciplinary group. That makes people transcending their
own interpretative frameworks, and constructing collective representations.
4.3. Semi-opened Infrastructure Description
To expand, the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” requires a Multidisciplinary Group, and the
existence of an Evolution and Progress Space. We describe below the infrastructure that
was implanted in the case of KBS deployment (see Figure 4).
Fig. 4. “Semi-Opened Infrastructure” model for Innovative Technologies Deployment
4.3.1. The Leadership Space 􀁰
This space was constituted with engineers, organizers, and sociologists accustomed to
doing inductive reasoning. This Multidisciplinary Group was in charge to deploy KBS
over the whole company.
By comparison with SECI model and Ba (see figure 2), the Leadership space can
be thought as an instance of the Originating Ba where physical face-to-face experiences
are the key to conversion and transfer of tacit knowledge between people who
complement each other.
12
4.3.2. The Evolution and Progress Space 􀁯
This space represents a place, which was a physical room situated at headquarter where
P1 and P4 had to work and to learn in interaction with the Multidisciplinary Group. In
the Evolution and Progress Space, P1 and P4 have had to practice they own deductive
reasoning and to learn to work with the Multidisciplinary Group practicing an inductive
reasoning. So people were interacting following dialogic principle. In the Evolution and
Progress Space, learning was especially effective, and interpretative frameworks of P1
and P4 were evolving. Arrows show: (i) how P1 and P4 evolved in the Evolution and
Progress Space; (ii) how P1 and P4 disseminated their new knowledge in their own unit,
and how organizational learning was deployed. The Evolution and Progress Space has
proved to be a place of contacts, a field of multiple cultures, where the potentialities of
each knowledge owner have been capitalized.
The Evolution and Progress Space can be though as both instances of the
Dialoguing Ba and the Systemizing Ba because all phenomena described section 3.1.2
appeared in practical terms.
4.3.3. The Working Space 􀁮
This space represents two operational units (Core Competence A and B), whatever is
their geographical localization, where P1 and P4 are employees whose roles are to
communicate on KBS, and to implement applications in their own unit. P1 and P4 are
used to deductive reasoning.
The Working space can be thought as an instance of the Exercising Ba where
people who have had the opportunity to work and to learn with the multidisciplinary
group transmit there new knowledge (concepts, tools and methods of the innovative
technologies) to the members of their own unit. There is a transfer of explicit knowledge
and a continuous conversion of this knowledge to tacit knowledge by its use in the real
life and implemented applications.
4.4. Outcomes
The status of knowledge-based systems (KBS) development, as of October, 1991, is
presented on the basis of a simplified problem-solving process typology close to the
company's preoccupations (see Table 2).
92 cases broken down as follows were handled: 27 studies, 31 mock-ups, 17
prototypes, 17 systems. 50 physicals systems described in a catalogue in different
domains: 38 in the interpretation and diagnosis domain, 10 in the conception and design
domain, 2 in the monitoring and process control domain.
13
Table 2. Simplified Problem-solving Process Typology
5. Conclusions
In this paper, referring to the Model for General Knowledge Management within the
Enterprise (MGKME), we emphasized two of the operating elements suggested by this
model: the “Ad hoc Infrastructures” element, and the “Organizational Learning
processes” element. From a KM viewpoint, these two elements are essential to insure the
organizational learning process that leads people to appropriate and use concepts,
methods and tools of KM considered as an innovative technology.
Then, considering the case of Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge-based Systems
(KBS) deployment within a large industrial company, we made a link between the
“Semi-opened Infrastructure” model implemented in that case, and the Nonaka’s SECI
models, and the Japanese concept of Ba, which underlie the two MGKME’s elements
mentioned above. In that way, we made a transposition considering this model as an
instance of these two MGKME’s elements. Consequently, we partially validated
MGKME.
14
Likewise, we pointed out that the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” model, although
implemented more than a decade ago in different innovative technologies deployment
circumstances, was consolidated by the theoretical Nonaka’s SECI models, and the
Japanese concept of Ba. So, we recommend stakeholders, in charge to deploy innovative
technologies within large enterprise, to use the “Semi-opened Infrastructure” model as a
pattern of reference to implement an “Ad hoc infrastructure”, which insure them to
practice a sociotechnical approach. That will engender the necessary organizational
learning process that is essential to make people appropriate and use innovative
technologies, allowing a successful deployment of these technologies.
References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996) Organizational Learning II, Theory, Method, and
Practice, Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
CEN-CWA 14924-1 (2004) “Knowledge Management Framework”, In: European Guide
to Good Practice in Knowledge Management (Part 1), Brussels: CEN, CWA 14924-
1:2004 (E). Retrieved June 19, 2004, from
fttp://cenftp1.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/KM/CWA14924-01-2004-
Mar.pdf
Coakes, E. (2002) “Knowledge Management: A Sociotechnical Perspective”, In: Cokes
E., Willis, D. and Clarke, S. (Eds), Knowledge Management in the Sociotechnical
World, Chapter 2: 4-14. London: Springer-Verlag.
Grundstein M. and Rosenthal-Sabroux C., (2003) Three Types of Data For Extended
Company’s Employees: A Knowledge Management Viewpoint”, In: Khosrow-Pour,
M. (Ed.), Information Technology and Organizations: Trends, Issues, Challenges
and Solutions, IRMA Proceedings: 979-983, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Grundstein M., (1996) “CORPUS, an Approach to Capitalizing on Company
Knowledge,” In: Ein-Dor, Ph. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Economics and
Management: 139-152, Tel-Aviv, Israel: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Grundstein, M., (2005) “MGKME: A Model for Global Knowledge Management within
the Enterprise”, 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge
Management and Organizational Learning, Proceedings ICICKM05: 201-211,
American University in Dubai, UAE. Reading, UK: ACL.
Grundstein, M., (2007) “Knowledge Workers as an Integral Component in Global
Information System Design”, In: Law, W. (Ed.), Information Resources
Management: Global Challenges, chap. XI: 236-261, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Grundstein, M., (2008) “Assessing the Enterprise’s Knowledge Management Maturity
Level”, International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, Vol.4, No. 5: 415-426.
IMKA, (1990) IMKA Technology Technical Summary, July 30.
Kjaergaard, A., Kautz, K., and Nielsen, P. A., (2008) “Making sense of Project
Management”, In: Nielsen, P. A. and Kautz, K. (Eds), Software Processes &
Knowledge. Beyond Conventional Software Process Improvement Chapter 5: 71-87,
Aalborg, Denmark: Software Innovation Publisher, Aalborg University.
15
KMIS (2009) International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information
Sharing. Madeira, Portugal. Extracted, from http://www.ickm.ic3k.org/ April 2009
Lytras, M.D. and Sicilia, M.A. (2005) “The Knowledge Society: a manifesto for
knowledge and learning”, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 1, Nos. ½: 1–11.
Morin, E. and Le Moigne, J-L. (1999) L’Intelligence de la Complexité, Paris, France:
L’harmattan.
Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998) “The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for
Knowledge Creation”, California Management Review, spring 1998, Vol. 40 No. 3:
40-54.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N. (2000) “SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified
Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation”, Long Range Planning 33: 5-34. Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Nonaka, I. and Peltokorpi, V. (2007) “Tacit Knowledge: a Source of Innovation”,. In:
Schreinemakers, J.F. and van Engers, T.M. (Eds), 15 years of Knowledge
Management, Advances in Knowledge Management Vol. 3: 68-82, Wûrsberg,
Germany: ERGON Verlag.
Perret, V., and Séville, M. (2003) « Fondements épistémologiques de la recherche », In :
Thiétard, R. A. (Ed.), Méthodes de recherche en management, Chapitre 1 : 13- 33,
Paris, France: Dunod, 2nd édition.
Polanyi, M. (1966) The tacit dimension, London: Routledge &Kegan Paul Ltd.
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance, New York, USA: The Free Press.
Tsuchiya, S. (1993) “Improving Knowledge Creation Ability through Organizational
Learning” In: ISMICK'93 Proceedings, International Symposium on the
Management of Industrial and Corporate Knowledge (pp. 87-95). Compiègne,
France: University of Compiègne.
Wiig, K., (2004) People-Focused Knowledge Management. How Effective Decision
Making Leads to Corporate Success, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann.