**4. Operationalization of a maturity KM model exhibiting interpretativist traits**

To summarize, argue and dispose of a KM operationalization model having interpretativist features it is proposed the following proposal:

1. In the *predetermined* level the company does not have a proper capacity to answer or to attend the information coming from external and internal environments. Some entities

A proposal of this kind of models (Desouza, 2006) consists of five levels or stages to evaluate the efforts of the company in KM, whose maturity can be described in a progressive scale: predisposed, reactive, appreciative, organized and optimized. The four components of knowledge management that are assigned to the maturity scale are: sources, analytics, significant and action, This model is similar to that proposed in other disciplines, and the control of its cognitive dimension of learning is based on Bloom's taxonomy (1956), whose points of view provide a valuable way of consider the semiotic

This taxonomy uses value systems to control the personal behavior: penetrating, consistent and foreseeable; for which the proposed model basis starts from the affective and psychomotor dimensions of such taxonomy. The first is the way how humans share their feelings, values, opinions, enthusiasm, motivations and attitudes, as can be seen in Table 3; while the second one provide a point of view in which are not seen diverse objectives of

These spheres provide a good point of view to study the maturity practice of the knowledge management in companies. The work of knowledge management, specially the maturity analysis of KM, can be beneficiated of the perspective proposed by Bloom in the affective

**Reception** The individuals pay attention in passive way; they have the skill for listening

**Valoration** The individuals can assign a value judgment to the objects, phenomena or to

**Characterization** They have a particular value or belief that now exert influence on their behavior, therefore it becomes a feature; they build character or personality

**Disposition** Is a disposition to act, where he is able not only of perceive environment signals, but also to plan action sequences to follow

**Conscious execution** They create new movement patterns to perform task in new environments

**4. Operationalization of a maturity KM model exhibiting interpretativist traits**  To summarize, argue and dispose of a KM operationalization model having interpretativist

1. In the *predetermined* level the company does not have a proper capacity to answer or to attend the information coming from external and internal environments. Some entities

**Perception** It is the skill to use sensorial signals to guide the motor activity

**Guided Answer** The individuals have the skill to follow a guided answer

**Automatic Answer** They can present complex public answers

Table 4. Levels of the psychomotor sphere by Bloom (1956)

features it is proposed the following proposal:

and receiving emotional phenomena; without this level cannot be learning

The individuals participate actively in the learning process; not only react to stimulus, but they also react in some way, and assign value judgments to the

They are able to create and organize a value system; they develop the skill of assign priorities to contrast different values, solving conflicts between them and

for the study of KM.

and psychomotor spheres.

**Answer** 

**Organization** 

learning but hierarchical levels, as described in Table 4.

phenomena

information

Table 3. Levels of the affective sphere by Bloom (1956)

creating an unique value system

inside him could be specialized to and for listening and answering to the environment's information, but they will be limited to the local level. The company lacks of proper competences in all the activities of the psychomotor sphere, because exist a poor perception and ignorance on the information sources. It can be possible that individuals or units have a proper management of these sources, but in the same way it can be within a very local environment. Because of the low perception capacity, the company will have difficulties to properly answer to the learning process. This is natural because the company, at this level, do not has the skill to develop mechanisms, complex public answers, adaptations or to participate in creations, and can exist entities, inside the company that know how to lead these activities, but this not meant that the company know how to do it.


In the Table 5 are described the levels and features of the operationalization of the proposed maturity model.

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 303

development is best understood. The analyzed information increases their scope. The analysis

about the syntax and the terminology. The members of different centers start to take into account external points of view in its work practices.

The meanings generated in the analysis are deep and are shared with the company members. The company will be able of managing the company's language diversity and to promote the dialogue based on meanings.

It will be put into operation mechanisms to ease the permanent review of the generated meanings. Furthermore, it will be a compromise to train agents with the objective of keeping their

to see the reaction of the actions throughout a wider contextoutside the same centers. This will result in an efficiency increase, in addition to changes in the effectiveness.

The company will be able of designing unique actions supported on the new meanings. A repository will be created of the existent actions, which will ease the reuse of the existent knowledge. The actions' feedback process is effective, and will contribute to the evaluation of the

actions.

The actions will be reviewed based on a schedule with the objective of keeping the company's operations updated and at the proper time. The metrics for evaluating the actions

permanently will be upgraded,

repositories grow and become more sophisticated as studied information volume increases.

The company will be able of generate sophisticated analysis, based on

a proper definition of the information and in the element classes

themselves. It is conformed a company repository feasible to promote the reuse of all the analysis for the permanent feedback cycles.

The company is committed to search in a more effective way better methods to evaluate the analysis. The purpose is to rationalize the processes of generation and application of the analysis.

definition of information, maps, and management efforts will widen the

scope of the processes.

The company has developed a repertory that gradually increases talking about their interest sources. These sources will be mapped to examine its convergence and the conflicts in the emitted information. It is developed one standardized architecture to easy the information retrieval. The company will have an almost complete map of their interest sources, having the possibility of receiving information coming from these

sources.

recovery mechanisms. The map of the sources is upgraded and it refines constantly to

The company will commit itself to critically respect the new sources of information, to review the source inventories, and to periodically upgrading the information and the

**Organized**

**Optimized**


**Significant Management** 

Individual agents interpret the meaning, but is

incomplete and usually do not is shared in an effective way with the other people. As a result of bad calibrated will be the necessity of company's knowledge generation and application.

The meanings are shared within the center, and a common language arises that is related to information. It is interchanged, compared, and actively debated -it is feed backedwith the aim of improving the planned indicators for the actions.

The meanings are shared through functions. This process requires translators in order to agree

**Active Management** 

on the

effectiveness of the action.

The regulated actions within the centers will be based on the meaning, which leads to a higher efficiency of the operations and allows flexibility at this level. At this moment, the feedback actions related to actions will be restricted to inside the center.

The alliances of the centers will generate wider ways of action-

experiences-and also will be able

share

Any action will be based on personal intuitive feelings, and there is no disposition for feedback aimed to the monitoring

**Analytic Management** 

There is no standard definition for the information objects; each agent will define the necessary objects. As a result the analytic opinions have low quality and will lack of portability. The generated analysis for each agent will be not harmonic or compatible.

The centers will be standardized regarding to the procedures for the analytic regulation, the deployments, and the repository management. This contributes to the effective transformation of the information in the center.

The centers shares their analysis processes with other centers. The analysis is redefined, and its

 **Features Levels Resources** 

**Disposed**

**Reactive**

**Appreciative**

**Management** 

The individuals, as agents, will have their own resources and the responsibility of managing the information they consider necessary to perform their tasks

With the objective of managing the convergence or the conflicts in the information, are created centers for managing the information and to start to standardize a management process of sources, by creating definitions and the mapping of their origins. As a consequence of local map creation the sources become integrated within the center. The member belonging to the center will have tools to retrieve the pertinent information for each center.

Alliances are formed between the center with the objective of promoting the integration and a source management more effective. The


Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 305

knowledge management subject, available in the literature, probably must result impossible to make a serious analysis of all. Apart from that, much of the literature on knowledge management is centered on technology, particularly on IT, instead of management. At this point it is worthy to say that Nonaka & Takeuchi just include a wide debate on the Information Systems but there is nothing about IT in their whole 1995 book. Supposing that their work will be last ‒in this moment‒, a technology-based approach seems to lose all

Additionally, on this respect it can be argued that the changes in the management, apparently defended by Nonaka & Takeuchi, can appear proposals for changes in the production relationships in the European and American companies, instead of being changes in the production (Adorno, 1968). Apart from that, is an illusion that these changes and ideas, proposed in the production relationships, be critically so substantive as to originate academic enthusiastic acceptances in North America and Europe, while really they are that because they are simple extensions/formalizations of the management techniques that have become stronger, at least since 1960's decade, and that can explain the enthusiasm

The interpretativist perspective seems to be more complex to implement and to model by using ICTs. However, the interest for taking it in this document is to share the object named knowledge based on the support, mapping, storage, understanding and dissemination, to support and to create the many possible activities performed by people through the application of their knowledge. The technological action based on this proposal ranges from the idea that technology can help to "manage knowledge" to the idea that the technologies and approaches for knowledge management can improve the different and complex activities of persons dedicated to create knowledge. These philosophies not necessarily can use different technologies or approaches, but, is different the way in which such technologies are designed and deployed. Curiously, as an interpretativist epistemic commitment it is suggested that any technology developed should be extensible and

This approach is based on interpretative interactionism to recognize the natural perspective of knowledge. Evidently, seems to be that always have been ignored the complexity of the environment in which it is developed and the recurrent interaction between technology, organization and persons, therefore any knowledge management process originates itself in an organizational context through human, social and political interactions. However, because of the complexity and unpredictability of human behavior, strong questions arise about the effectiveness of the search for general laws capable of predicting that behavior. The evolution in the field of KM research and the development of interactionism reasoning emphasize more on the human issue, thus requiring more resources of the interpretativist perspective, in such a way that it offer to the different actors the means to understand and

The interpretivist perspective, suggest many of the authors referred and, in a number of industrial applications, is becoming the dominant paradigm. In the different practices, reality is observed as a subjective phenomenon, knowledge is considered as contextdependent, learning as a social practice that takes place between people, and has been established that knowledge cannot be stored indistinctly because it is determined by each specific situation. But, as mentioned above, from this perspective is difficult to manage, to measure and to understand the meaning of company learning. The interpretivist perspective puts these tasks on the shifting sands of relativism and contextualization. Relativism turns

homilies about the importance of tacit knowledge, especially its personal condition.

demonstrated by the proposer of these ideas.

act in the reality.

adaptable to the different actions taken by knowledge creators.


Table 5. Operationalization of the maturity model of KM having an interpretative trait
