2
Knowledge Management

In 1993, Peter Drucker stated that "increasingly, productivity of knowledge will be decisive in [the] economic and social success [of a country, industry or business]... In respect to knowledge, no company, no industry, no country has any 'natural' advantage or disadvantage. The only advantage it can possess is in respect to how much it obtains from universally available knowledge. The only thing that will increasingly matter in national as well as in international economics is management's performance in making knowledge productive" [DRU 93]. This vision has proved increasingly relevant over time. Companies have become aware of the value of non-material capital, particularly of knowledge capital [EDV 97, PIE 96]. Beyond the implicit approach to knowledge management (KM) on a daily basis, companies need to take a conscious and proactive approach in order to survive and to gain a durable competitive advantage [DAV 98]. Activities and processes should be put in place in order to promote optimal creation, identification and use of essential knowledge applied to their value-adding processes. This is the aim of KM.

In this chapter, following a brief historical overview, we will describe the two main approaches used in KM. Then, we will discuss management principles specific to the KM context. Finally, we will introduce the model for general knowledge management within the enterprise (MGKME). This idealized model is based on the key role played by individuals. It uses a managerial and sociotechnical approach to KM [COA 02] and attempts to combine the advantages of the two complementary approaches discussed previously.

2.1. Historical overview

The concept of KM first emerged in the early 1990s. In 1991, a "business knowledge capitalization" cycle was proposed, following on from work in developing knowledge-based systems [GRU 88], in the context of knowledge engineering, in which knowledge is considered as a collection of manageable objects. The concept of "knowledge capitalization" was defined as follows: capitalizing knowledge within a company involves considering the knowledge used and produced by a company as a set of resources, and drawing interest on these resources in order to increase the capital [GRU 95].

Other initiatives were being developed at the same time. The notion of knowledge assets was defined in 1990 by the initiative for managing knowledge assets (IMKA) project: knowledge assets are those assets that are primarily in the minds of a company's employees. They include design experience, engineering skills, financial analysis skills and competitive knowledge [IMK 90]. This definition laid the foundations for the concept of KM.

In 1991, Tom Stewart issued a warning to companies in an article in Fortune [STE 91], advising them to focus more on knowledge than on material assets: "Intellectual capital is becoming corporate America's most valuable asset and can be its sharpest competitive weapon. The challenge is to find what you have - and use it". In November 1992, Karl M. Wiig launched the first tutorials on KM, entitled Knowledge Work in the Corporation: Knowledge Engineering for the Progressive Organization during the third International Symposium of Knowledge Engineers in Washington, DC. In 1993, Peter Drucker [DRU 93] identified knowledge as the new basis for competition in a post-capitalist society: "More and more, the productivity of knowledge is going to become, for a country, an industry, or a company, the determining competitiveness factor. In the matter of knowledge, no country, no one industry, no one company has a "natural" advantage or disadvantage. The only advantage that it can ensure to itself is to be able to draw more from the knowledge available to all than others are able to do". In 1995, Nonaka and Takeuchi published a seminal work on knowledge creation and use in Japanese businesses: The Knowledge-Creating Company [NON 95]. In the English-speaking world, the concept of KM began to develop in 1994, and the concept took a more concrete form from 1996 onward, with the nomination of the first executives responsible for KM implementation. In the same year, Dorothy Leonard-Barton published a study on the role of knowledge in manufacturing companies: Wellsprings of Knowledge [LEO 95]. In 1997, we were fortunate enough to participate in the first seminar organized on the subject by B.P. Hall in San Francisco [HAL 97].

In 1997, "knowledge and intellectual asset management" positions were created in a number of companies, essentially in the English-speaking world [GRU 98]. In France, Cofinoga appointed a knowledge manager in early 1999, and Veritas included a KM function in its company organigram later the same year.

In 2000, Morey et al. published Knowledge Management, Classic and Contemporary Works [GRU 00]. This book was based on contributions from a large number of authors, and the theories and methods expressed in the work form the basis of contemporary KM.

A considerable amount of research has been carried out in the intervening years, applications have been implemented in a variety of businesses, and the domain of KM has been enriched by abundant written contributions, with the development of different schools of thought [ALA 01, REG 07].

Two different, complementary dominant approaches may be encountered: the first approach is said to be "technological", the second approach "managerial" and sociotechnical. A number of reference frameworks have been proposed, but very few give an equal weighting to the two approaches. Moreover, the technological approach, which tends to predominate, has often ignored the fundamental role played by individuals. Finally, the emergence and maturation of Web 2.01 created conditions for the convergence of these points of view, with the integration of sociotechnical aspects.

2.2. Knowledge Management: two dominant approaches

Over the period from 1997 to 2004, the SIGECAD2 group seminar organized 34 meetings with presentations and discussions on the emerging theme of KM and its interactions with information and decision assistance systems in companies.

This seven-year period saw the adoption of the term "Knowledge Management" by a wide range of individuals, each attributing a meaning to the term in accordance with their own personal perspectives.

More recently, the essential part played by information and communications technology (ICT) has become increasingly apparent, notably with relation to applications using Web 2.0. These technologies offer support for company activities and generate technical and organizational infrastructures, which can introduce an element of rigidity; they have also led to fundamental shifts in our relationships with space and time, knowledge, the perception of reality and the material world.

Guided by a study of interactions with information systems and decision aid activities, two broad, complementary approaches to KM may be defined as follows:

1. - a technological approach which responds to a need for ICT-based solutions. This approach focuses on coding explicit, stable and clearly-defined knowledge (generally of a scientific and/or technical nature). It concerns the implementation of computer-based tools, databases and specific techniques for knowledge acquisition and representation;
2. - a managerial and sociotechnical approach which integrates knowledge as assets for use in implementing the strategic vision of the company. This approach focuses on company performance, and on sharing and exchange of tacit, conjectural and dynamic knowledge (generally organizational knowledge). It involves decision processes, learning processes and skills management, networking and the use of social networks (notably communities of practice).

These approaches will be described in the next sections.

2.2.1. The technological approach

The technological approach is the most widespread approach to KM. Seen from the perspective of an information system, knowledge is implicitly treated as an object which is independent from the person who creates and uses it.

Although authors are generally careful to offer distinct definitions of the concepts of data, information and knowledge, the three concepts tend to be considered in terms of data processing in the context of IT-based applications. In this case, knowledge is simply a form of enriched data, as shown in the definitions included in the Club Informatique des Grandes Entreprises Françaises (CIGREF) report (Table 2.1), produced by a workgroup with the aim of specifying the aims and practices of major organizations in France [CIG 00].

Table 2.1. Data, information and knowledge

The examples of definitions given above show a desire for description, leading to a characterization and hierarchization of objects. With the Data to Information, and from...