**3. Perspectives of knowledge management**

Applying the Burrel & Morgan framework (1979) in a social and company-related research, Schultze (1998) identified four research paradigms in KM: radical humanism, radical structuralism, interpretativism and functionalism, as it is showed in the Table 2.

Among these paradigms exist a continuity between the subjective and objective perspectives: from the objective's point of view, knowledge is considered as an object awaiting to be discovered, that can exist in a number of forms ‒tacit or explicit‒, and in a number of places –individual, group or organization (Schultze, 1998)-; from subjective point of view it is pointed out that knowledge emerge through a continuous elaboration, it is determined by social practices of communities, and cannot be located in an specific place because it cannot exist independently of human experience and social practices of knowing (Schultze, 1998).

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 293

exploiting knowledge. They argue that, with the goal of persist; the companies must

Many years of research in Japanese companies –and other western companies– convince us that knowledge creation has been the most important source of their international

In view of the fact that market is conceived like dynamic, it is inferred that constantly it is

We called knowledge creation as the ability of a company, as a whole, for creating new knowledge, spread it out, and incorporate it in products, services and systems… The objective of this study is formalizing a general model of the creation of company knowledge

This approach ‒and many others in the field of knowledge management‒ hypothesize and, undoubtedly encourage, a desire without precedents for the knowledge in the company. As Orlikowski (2002) points out, this has little to do with a ‒picturesque- desire based in the curiosity for knowledge. The knowledge management literature is focused in the needs of

The comprehension that knowledge is the new competitiveness resource, has affected like a thunder to the West world. But all this talks about the importance of knowledge-for companies and countries-make little contribution to understand how is created the

Philosophically this is significant. The current epistemology is in a big extent a regulatory activity; most of philosophers have occupied themselves of the issue of how to assess the demand of knowledge, and they have abandoned at a great extent the generative issues. The knowledge management literature emphasizes on the generative aspects and let uncovered a big part of regulatory aspects –in fact, the consequence is that these problems have been solved. Sometimes, one has the secure impression that while useful things are produced, the

There are deep implications of this point of view, but the complimentary discussions are out of the scope of this work. At a certain extent, it can be pointed out, from a critic perspective; Lyotard (1984) established these arguments in the 70's. A key argument of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) is that knowledge is divided in different categories; the main difference is

Lyotard (1984) was one of the first persons in associate, in a systemic way; the production of knowledge to the economic wellness and, at a certain extent, the knowledge management

Cannot be denied the current predominant existence of techno-science, which is the massive subordination of cognitive declarations to the finality of the best possible performance, which is the technologic criterion. But mechanics and industrial, especially when entering fields traditionally reserved for the artists, carry with them much more power effects. The objects and thoughts originated in scientific knowledge and capitalist economy transmit one of the rules that support their possibility: the rule that there is no reality if it is not verified by a consensus among the partners between a concrete knowledge and concrete compromises. This rule is not of little consequence it is the footprint made over the policies of the scientists and the capital manager through a kind of scape from reality based on the

continuously offer new products and competitive services.

needed new knowledge to support the existence of a company.

the competitive companies – or maybe in their stockholders‒:

debates about its trustiness are limited to the scholasticism.

that the authors indicate is that of tacit and explicit knowledge.

literature is a kind of "non-rigorous" extension of this thesis:

competitiveness (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. viii).

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, pp. vii-ix).

knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 7).

**3.1.1 Lyotard's performativity principle** 

According to these paradigms, functionalism prevails on KM current research, that frequently contrast with the interpretativism, because exist a lack "*of structuralist perspectives or humanists in the research on knowledge management*" (Jashapara, 2004). Probably the weight of both perspectives can be affected by its incapability to accept post-structural theories (Schultze, 1998), for this reason they must be mixed in a "*critical perspective*" to accept them (Schultze, 1998; Venters, 2002).


Table 2. The four paradigms in the KM research (Schultze, 1998)

Schultze applies a framework developed by Burrell & Morgan (1979), with the objective of locating the theories of knowledge management. In the application of this framework the following perspectives are identified.

#### **3.1 The functionalist perspective**

Knowledge exists as an objective representation of the world that is waiting for being discovered by a human agent. Schultze (1998) argues that this approach, that can be found in Hedlund (1994) and in Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), represents an objectivist perspective of knowledge because it considers that it exist in different ways and places. Besides inheriting the features of the objectivist perspective, the functionalist approach is highly scientific, it uses quantification methods, coding and of structure to make the most of knowledge, and depends the most of technology and of the *"activities managed by the databases"* to achieve their objectives (Venters, 2002).

In the last decade, relatively, there has been an explosion of literature on the knowledge management field. Almost all of this literature is managerialist and is supported on the belief that competitive advantages can be derived from knowledge exploitation ‒both for companies and countries‒ in the developed countries. A typical argument is:

The widely forecasted "information society" and "knowledge economy" are emerging like concrete "facts. The main theoretical researchers on management point out that is much more profitable for a company to invest a certain amount on its knowledge assets instead of investing the same amount of money on material goods (Probst *et al*., 2000, p. 3).

The challenge is for both; creating new knowledge and exploiting the previous one ‒inside a company‒ in a more aggressive way being different to the way it has been until now. The work of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) have one of the seminal accounts of these processes, and offer prescriptions ‒for the managers of foreign companies‒, related to how creating and

According to these paradigms, functionalism prevails on KM current research, that frequently contrast with the interpretativism, because exist a lack "*of structuralist perspectives or humanists in the research on knowledge management*" (Jashapara, 2004). Probably the weight of both perspectives can be affected by its incapability to accept post-structural theories (Schultze, 1998), for this reason they must be mixed in a "*critical perspective*" to accept them

**The sociology of change** 

**Sociology of regulation** 

Schultze applies a framework developed by Burrell & Morgan (1979), with the objective of locating the theories of knowledge management. In the application of this framework the

Knowledge exists as an objective representation of the world that is waiting for being discovered by a human agent. Schultze (1998) argues that this approach, that can be found in Hedlund (1994) and in Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), represents an objectivist perspective of knowledge because it considers that it exist in different ways and places. Besides inheriting the features of the objectivist perspective, the functionalist approach is highly scientific, it uses quantification methods, coding and of structure to make the most of knowledge, and depends the most of technology and of the *"activities managed by the databases"* to achieve

In the last decade, relatively, there has been an explosion of literature on the knowledge management field. Almost all of this literature is managerialist and is supported on the belief that competitive advantages can be derived from knowledge exploitation ‒both for

The widely forecasted "information society" and "knowledge economy" are emerging like concrete "facts. The main theoretical researchers on management point out that is much more profitable for a company to invest a certain amount on its knowledge assets instead of

The challenge is for both; creating new knowledge and exploiting the previous one ‒inside a company‒ in a more aggressive way being different to the way it has been until now. The work of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) have one of the seminal accounts of these processes, and offer prescriptions ‒for the managers of foreign companies‒, related to how creating and

companies and countries‒ in the developed countries. A typical argument is:

investing the same amount of money on material goods (Probst *et al*., 2000, p. 3).

**Radical Structuralism** 

perceptions

**Functionalism** 

perceptions

knowledge and work

 Knowledge as an object that can exist independently of human actions and **O b j e c t i v i s m** 

 The value of knowledge and work is refuted, and it becomes a source of conflict

 Knowledge as an object that can exist independently of human actions and

There is a consensus about the value of

(Schultze, 1998; Venters, 2002).

**Radical Humanism** 

knowing

conflict

**Interpretativism** 

knowing

knowledge and work

following perspectives are identified.

**3.1 The functionalist perspective** 

their objectives (Venters, 2002).

Knowledge as social practice of

 The value of knowledge and work is refuted, and it becomes a source of

Knowledge as social practice of

There is a consensus about the value of

Table 2. The four paradigms in the KM research (Schultze, 1998)

**S u b j e c t i v i s m**  exploiting knowledge. They argue that, with the goal of persist; the companies must continuously offer new products and competitive services.

Many years of research in Japanese companies –and other western companies– convince us that knowledge creation has been the most important source of their international competitiveness (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. viii).

In view of the fact that market is conceived like dynamic, it is inferred that constantly it is needed new knowledge to support the existence of a company.

We called knowledge creation as the ability of a company, as a whole, for creating new knowledge, spread it out, and incorporate it in products, services and systems… The objective of this study is formalizing a general model of the creation of company knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, pp. vii-ix).

This approach ‒and many others in the field of knowledge management‒ hypothesize and, undoubtedly encourage, a desire without precedents for the knowledge in the company. As Orlikowski (2002) points out, this has little to do with a ‒picturesque- desire based in the curiosity for knowledge. The knowledge management literature is focused in the needs of the competitive companies – or maybe in their stockholders‒:

The comprehension that knowledge is the new competitiveness resource, has affected like a thunder to the West world. But all this talks about the importance of knowledge-for companies and countries-make little contribution to understand how is created the knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 7).

Philosophically this is significant. The current epistemology is in a big extent a regulatory activity; most of philosophers have occupied themselves of the issue of how to assess the demand of knowledge, and they have abandoned at a great extent the generative issues. The knowledge management literature emphasizes on the generative aspects and let uncovered a big part of regulatory aspects –in fact, the consequence is that these problems have been solved. Sometimes, one has the secure impression that while useful things are produced, the debates about its trustiness are limited to the scholasticism.

There are deep implications of this point of view, but the complimentary discussions are out of the scope of this work. At a certain extent, it can be pointed out, from a critic perspective; Lyotard (1984) established these arguments in the 70's. A key argument of Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) is that knowledge is divided in different categories; the main difference is that the authors indicate is that of tacit and explicit knowledge.

#### **3.1.1 Lyotard's performativity principle**

Lyotard (1984) was one of the first persons in associate, in a systemic way; the production of knowledge to the economic wellness and, at a certain extent, the knowledge management literature is a kind of "non-rigorous" extension of this thesis:

Cannot be denied the current predominant existence of techno-science, which is the massive subordination of cognitive declarations to the finality of the best possible performance, which is the technologic criterion. But mechanics and industrial, especially when entering fields traditionally reserved for the artists, carry with them much more power effects. The objects and thoughts originated in scientific knowledge and capitalist economy transmit one of the rules that support their possibility: the rule that there is no reality if it is not verified by a consensus among the partners between a concrete knowledge and concrete compromises. This rule is not of little consequence it is the footprint made over the policies of the scientists and the capital manager through a kind of scape from reality based on the

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 295

The different issue is that the exploitation ‒or liberation‒ of explicit knowledge, do not is enough, or even important. Apart from that, the involved processes in the active management of the process of dynamic knowledge creation ‒for example, knowledge management‒ have escaped themselves in a big extent of the critic attention until now. To critically analyze the tacit dimension, other approaches can give important trails, like the analysis of the pastoral power of Foucault as far it provide the beginning of a genealogic approach for the analysis of the relationships power/knowledge, intrinsic in the typical contemporary descriptions ‒and the prescriptions‒ of knowledge management ‒tacit‒ in the

This way of power it is applied itself to the daily life that categorize the individual, it mark him by his own individuality, gives himself his own identity, it imposes him a truth law which must be recognized and that other people must recognize in him. It is a way of power that make individual subjects … The modern western State has integrated, in a new politic way, an old technique of power that was originated in the Christian institutions. We can call this technique of power that was originated in the Christian institutions. We can call this technique pastoral power… This way of power does not can be exerted without knowing the inside of people's mind, without exploring their soul, without making them reveal their most deep secrets. This implies knowledge of the conscience, and the ability for detecting it

One of the main techniques of the pastoral power was the religious confession, vital to obtain a deep knowledge of the subjects: their intentions, aspirations, secrets … The original objective of the pastoral power ‒and its confessional technologies associated‒ was the religious salvation. Of course, in the lay western societies, mainly, the religious salvation can had lost their traditional meaning, however Foucault points out that the pastoral power, like

We can see a change in its objective. This is not anymore a matter of people led to their salvation in the other world, but instead of that it has to do with guarantee it in this that world. And, in this context, the world salvation has different meanings: health, wellnessthat is enough wealth, life status- security, protection against accidents. A set of "worldly" objectives pretends to occupy the place of the religious aims of the traditional pastoral…

The origin of the legitimization of the active management of knowledge creation processes is in the calling to the secular salvation. Additionally, it is about processes that transcend the normal limits of the management, conceived as an aspect of the traditional relationships capital-work. Foucault traces the genealogy of this conception back to the old Hebrew, Greek and Roman civilizations. A key concept in the indicated topics is that the pastor: I only want to show some typical topics of the pastoral power…The pastor call together, guides and lead his flock…that pastor call together are dispersed individuals. They come together when heard his voice: "I whistle and they congregate themselves"…In other words, the immediate presence of the pastor and the direct action make that the flock exist… the act of watching them is important. Become evident two aspects of the pastor devotion: in first place, he acts, works, exercises, for those who he fed and that are asleep; in the second place, that takes care of them, he pay attention to all and watch for everyone. He has to know their

**3.1.3 The pastoral power and the knowledge management in Foucault** 

Foucault characterize this way of power in this way:

a way of power, still prevails, but in other ways:

competitive companies.

(Foucault, 1982, pp. 212-214).

(Foucault, 1982, p. 215).

metaphysic facts, religious and politics that the mind thinks that supported it. This escape is absolutely necessary for the arousal of science and capitalism (Lyotard, 1984, pp. 76-77).

However, like has been already mentioned, Nonaka & Takeuchi establish a difference between the tacit and explicit knowledge; from which, […] the most important type of knowledge is the tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. viii).

Curiously, if Nonaka & Takeuchi seriously considered – and the management literature seems to make it- therefore, for critic purposes, the tacit knowledge is where must be focused the attention. However, a big part of the Lyotard's argument it is referred to, more or less completely, explicit knowledge; the tacit knowledge do not consider it predominantly textual. Consequently, in this context, the critic solution for the problems of the performativity principles proposed by Lyotard, would not be sustainable anymore:

Finally we are in position of understand how the computerization of the society affects this problems. Could be become in the "dreamed" instrument for controlling and regulating the market system, extended to include own knowledge and ruled exclusively for the performativity principle…But also might help to the groups…, to provide them with information of what generally lack for taking decisions. The line to follow for the computerization when taking the second of these roads is, at the beginning, quite simple: to allow the public free access to the memory and to the data banks. The language games could be information games perfect at any specific moment (Lyotard, 1984, p.67).

A critic theory on the diffusion of tacit knowledge must take an approach very different. Apart from this, Lyotard has little to say about active management of knowledge process creation in a place like a competitive company.

#### **3.1.2 The process of creation of dynamic knowledge**

Which specific interventions are involved in the creation of knowledge in the literature of knowledge management? An answer could be arrogant because exist so many answers to this short question, ¡as books on knowledge management! Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) reach some conclusions to explain their theoretical and pragmatic suppositions, and help to provide guidance about the questions with which must be managed. To start, we could ask ourselves, ¿how can totally be created the knowledge? Of course, is of enough common sense to point out that the creation of knowledge it is not "by casualty", but also seems of enough common sense to point out that knowledge generally is discovered instead of be generated. The key point here is to point out that the use of the term "created" involves an active process; in fact, different dynamic processes are adopted:

In our theory of company knowledge creation we adopt the traditional definition of knowledge like "true belief justified". It is important to notice, however, that if it is true that western epistemology has been centered like the essential attribute of knowledge, we remark the nature of knowledge as "justified belief"… While traditional epistemology emphasize on the absolute feature, static, and non-human of knowledge, typically expressed in propositions and formal logic, we consider knowledge as a dynamic human process for justifying the personal belief towards "truth" (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 58).

Truth is, very probably with quotation marks, because the justification for the generated "thing" must be based in the future: in the acceptance of the consumer of the products or services, produced like the result of "knowledge" generated in the competitive marketinstead of be generated in a direct evidence of truthfulness. In a sense, this is perhaps the final conclusion of the justification argument for perfomativity presented by Lyotard (1984).

metaphysic facts, religious and politics that the mind thinks that supported it. This escape is absolutely necessary for the arousal of science and capitalism (Lyotard, 1984, pp. 76-77). However, like has been already mentioned, Nonaka & Takeuchi establish a difference between the tacit and explicit knowledge; from which, […] the most important type of

Curiously, if Nonaka & Takeuchi seriously considered – and the management literature seems to make it- therefore, for critic purposes, the tacit knowledge is where must be focused the attention. However, a big part of the Lyotard's argument it is referred to, more or less completely, explicit knowledge; the tacit knowledge do not consider it predominantly textual. Consequently, in this context, the critic solution for the problems of the performativity principles proposed by Lyotard, would not be sustainable

Finally we are in position of understand how the computerization of the society affects this problems. Could be become in the "dreamed" instrument for controlling and regulating the market system, extended to include own knowledge and ruled exclusively for the performativity principle…But also might help to the groups…, to provide them with information of what generally lack for taking decisions. The line to follow for the computerization when taking the second of these roads is, at the beginning, quite simple: to allow the public free access to the memory and to the data banks. The language games could

A critic theory on the diffusion of tacit knowledge must take an approach very different. Apart from this, Lyotard has little to say about active management of knowledge process

Which specific interventions are involved in the creation of knowledge in the literature of knowledge management? An answer could be arrogant because exist so many answers to this short question, ¡as books on knowledge management! Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) reach some conclusions to explain their theoretical and pragmatic suppositions, and help to provide guidance about the questions with which must be managed. To start, we could ask ourselves, ¿how can totally be created the knowledge? Of course, is of enough common sense to point out that the creation of knowledge it is not "by casualty", but also seems of enough common sense to point out that knowledge generally is discovered instead of be generated. The key point here is to point out that the use of the term "created" involves an

In our theory of company knowledge creation we adopt the traditional definition of knowledge like "true belief justified". It is important to notice, however, that if it is true that western epistemology has been centered like the essential attribute of knowledge, we remark the nature of knowledge as "justified belief"… While traditional epistemology emphasize on the absolute feature, static, and non-human of knowledge, typically expressed in propositions and formal logic, we consider knowledge as a dynamic human process for

Truth is, very probably with quotation marks, because the justification for the generated "thing" must be based in the future: in the acceptance of the consumer of the products or services, produced like the result of "knowledge" generated in the competitive marketinstead of be generated in a direct evidence of truthfulness. In a sense, this is perhaps the final conclusion of the justification argument for perfomativity presented by Lyotard (1984).

justifying the personal belief towards "truth" (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 58).

knowledge is the tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. viii).

be information games perfect at any specific moment (Lyotard, 1984, p.67).

creation in a place like a competitive company.

**3.1.2 The process of creation of dynamic knowledge** 

active process; in fact, different dynamic processes are adopted:

anymore:

The different issue is that the exploitation ‒or liberation‒ of explicit knowledge, do not is enough, or even important. Apart from that, the involved processes in the active management of the process of dynamic knowledge creation ‒for example, knowledge management‒ have escaped themselves in a big extent of the critic attention until now. To critically analyze the tacit dimension, other approaches can give important trails, like the analysis of the pastoral power of Foucault as far it provide the beginning of a genealogic approach for the analysis of the relationships power/knowledge, intrinsic in the typical contemporary descriptions ‒and the prescriptions‒ of knowledge management ‒tacit‒ in the competitive companies.

#### **3.1.3 The pastoral power and the knowledge management in Foucault**

Foucault characterize this way of power in this way:

This way of power it is applied itself to the daily life that categorize the individual, it mark him by his own individuality, gives himself his own identity, it imposes him a truth law which must be recognized and that other people must recognize in him. It is a way of power that make individual subjects … The modern western State has integrated, in a new politic way, an old technique of power that was originated in the Christian institutions. We can call this technique of power that was originated in the Christian institutions. We can call this technique pastoral power… This way of power does not can be exerted without knowing the inside of people's mind, without exploring their soul, without making them reveal their most deep secrets. This implies knowledge of the conscience, and the ability for detecting it (Foucault, 1982, pp. 212-214).

One of the main techniques of the pastoral power was the religious confession, vital to obtain a deep knowledge of the subjects: their intentions, aspirations, secrets … The original objective of the pastoral power ‒and its confessional technologies associated‒ was the religious salvation. Of course, in the lay western societies, mainly, the religious salvation can had lost their traditional meaning, however Foucault points out that the pastoral power, like a way of power, still prevails, but in other ways:

We can see a change in its objective. This is not anymore a matter of people led to their salvation in the other world, but instead of that it has to do with guarantee it in this that world. And, in this context, the world salvation has different meanings: health, wellnessthat is enough wealth, life status- security, protection against accidents. A set of "worldly" objectives pretends to occupy the place of the religious aims of the traditional pastoral… (Foucault, 1982, p. 215).

The origin of the legitimization of the active management of knowledge creation processes is in the calling to the secular salvation. Additionally, it is about processes that transcend the normal limits of the management, conceived as an aspect of the traditional relationships capital-work. Foucault traces the genealogy of this conception back to the old Hebrew, Greek and Roman civilizations. A key concept in the indicated topics is that the pastor:

I only want to show some typical topics of the pastoral power…The pastor call together, guides and lead his flock…that pastor call together are dispersed individuals. They come together when heard his voice: "I whistle and they congregate themselves"…In other words, the immediate presence of the pastor and the direct action make that the flock exist… the act of watching them is important. Become evident two aspects of the pastor devotion: in first place, he acts, works, exercises, for those who he fed and that are asleep; in the second place, that takes care of them, he pay attention to all and watch for everyone. He has to know their

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 297

This self-education…it is carried out through different operation on the self-body of the

A part of the behavioral management requirements will be the "pastoral" function of

 *From tacit to tacit*. The described process for this conversion is the "socialization", because tacit knowledge is acquired through experience and is possible to transmit it to other people; personal education is as important as anything in this cognitive process. This education occurs at a big extent by own initiative, and requires proper arrangements and pastoral incentives. It is important to point out that, in theory, the

 *From tacit to explicit*. The described process for this conversion is called "externalization", and essentially consists in textually describing, at a big extent, the personal knowledge; although not always it will be possible to express directly this

When we cannot find an expression for an image by deductive or inducement analytic methods, we have to use a non-analytic method. Therefore the externalization is, often led

However, for this to be useful, this knowledge must be codified in a very precise language. It can be a considerable margin to encourage the critic research referred to this mode of

 *From explicit to explicit.* This process describe like "combination", in which any cognitive learning, mainly coming text sources –for example, databases-, falls under the paraph of "combination". It is interesting the –politics- pretext from Lyotard (1984) of "giving to the audience free access to the memory and databanks", because, it has been considered within the borders of the knowledge creating company. Discussing about the Kao

For granting "the free access to the information", computer systems has been introduced in all Kao company, with all the information filed in a database. Through this system, any person in Kao can access the databases included in the sales information systems, marketing, production, distribution, and the complete information network that includes all its offices in Japan. The unique feature of this system is that any member, without being of importance their job or the section that it belongs to within the company system, has full access to the database –except a limited amount of personal information. In other words, any person can access the rich explicit knowledge base that exists within the company system by this "free access to the information system" (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 172). In certain way, surprisingly, the risk is perceived like a result of this politic, which indicates a considerable difference between this approach, where security and the "need of knowing"

 *From explicit to tacit*. The described process for this conversion is the "internalization", something that is difficult to describe. Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) suggest "learning-bydoing" (p. 69-70). Once again the person is the center, because he learns to express formally in writings. The explicit operations in the person are the essential thing here,

persons, in their own souls, in their own behavior (Rabinov, 1984, p.11).

Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) provide four models of knowledge "conversion":

disciplinary procedures have no role, or very little, in this process.

company ‒in Japan‒, Nonaka & Takeuchi point out the following:

problems is essential, and the old "disciplinary" approaches for managing.

by metaphors and/or analogies (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p.65).

turning isolated tacit knowledge into socialized explicit knowledge.

**3.1.4 Knowledge creation processes** 

knowledge in prose or charts,

speech.

as is showed in:

flock as a whole and in detailed way. Apart from knowing where are the good pastures, the current laws and the order of the things, but he must know the particular needs of each of them…The power of the pastor implies to pay attention to each member of the herd (Foucault, 1982a, pp. 61-63).

The CEO's of the knowledge creation companies – in theory – express many of these features, because their role is to take advantage from both tacit and explicit knowledge, generated in the lower levels of the company, to obtain competitive advantages:

The basic function of knowledge agents, who are the company's CEOs, is the management of the whole creation process at company level…The officials of knowledge must be aware that their aspirations and ideals determine the quality of the knowledge that the company creates. It is a fact that the senior manager's ideals are important, they by themselves are not enough; they must promote a high degree of personal commitment for other members of the knowledge creation team. For that, is preferable an open and erroneous view, that is sensitive to a number of interpretations. A more erroneous view allows team members of the same company the freedom and autonomy to establish their own goals, creating on them more compromise to ascertain which really means the management ideals (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, pp. 156-157).

The management of knowledge creation cannot be achieved by using the old technique of disciplinary/hierarchical management. Managing the "herd" of potential creators of knowledge involves a considerable number of classic foucaultian power/knowledge topics, particularly "subjectivation" ‒ways in which persons become themselves in subjects‒, that was explained by Rabinow:

The third mode of Foucault's objectivation represents his more original contribution. We are going to call it "subjectivation". The process is systematically different from the other two modes…The dividing practices, roughly speaking, are domination techniques…The interaction between these domination modes and the diverse social scientific ways of classification, despite of the new clarity and the power given by Foucault in his analysis and historic studies, has been recognized by other thinkers…On the contrary, in the third mode, the "subjectivation", Foucault analyzes processes of self-education in which the person is immerse (Rabinov, 1984, pp. 10-11).

The creation process of tacit knowledge requires than the actors be dynamic self-educated to produce their own tacit knowledge, which can be transmitted, by different methods, to other company members for their commercial exploitation.

Let's begin with the ontological dimension. Strictly speaking, the knowledge is created only by individuals. A company cannot create knowledge without individuals. The company support individuals' creativity or provides the contexts for them can create knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 59).

However, to exploit such knowledge it will be necessary put it available for others in the company.

The explanation of how Japanese companies create new knowledge is limited to the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. To have an idea or personal premonition is a low-value issue for the company, unless that which is isolated can be converted into explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 11).

The employee must accept to perform the self-education activities in different ways, both physical and cognitive, because tacit knowledge can be created in the two ways. This is essentially the subjectivation process identified by Foucault,

This self-education…it is carried out through different operation on the self-body of the persons, in their own souls, in their own behavior (Rabinov, 1984, p.11).

A part of the behavioral management requirements will be the "pastoral" function of turning isolated tacit knowledge into socialized explicit knowledge.

#### **3.1.4 Knowledge creation processes**

296 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

flock as a whole and in detailed way. Apart from knowing where are the good pastures, the current laws and the order of the things, but he must know the particular needs of each of them…The power of the pastor implies to pay attention to each member of the herd

The CEO's of the knowledge creation companies – in theory – express many of these features, because their role is to take advantage from both tacit and explicit knowledge,

The basic function of knowledge agents, who are the company's CEOs, is the management of the whole creation process at company level…The officials of knowledge must be aware that their aspirations and ideals determine the quality of the knowledge that the company creates. It is a fact that the senior manager's ideals are important, they by themselves are not enough; they must promote a high degree of personal commitment for other members of the knowledge creation team. For that, is preferable an open and erroneous view, that is sensitive to a number of interpretations. A more erroneous view allows team members of the same company the freedom and autonomy to establish their own goals, creating on them more compromise to ascertain which really means the management ideals (Nonaka &

The management of knowledge creation cannot be achieved by using the old technique of disciplinary/hierarchical management. Managing the "herd" of potential creators of knowledge involves a considerable number of classic foucaultian power/knowledge topics, particularly "subjectivation" ‒ways in which persons become themselves in subjects‒, that

The third mode of Foucault's objectivation represents his more original contribution. We are going to call it "subjectivation". The process is systematically different from the other two modes…The dividing practices, roughly speaking, are domination techniques…The interaction between these domination modes and the diverse social scientific ways of classification, despite of the new clarity and the power given by Foucault in his analysis and historic studies, has been recognized by other thinkers…On the contrary, in the third mode, the "subjectivation", Foucault analyzes processes of self-education in which the person is

The creation process of tacit knowledge requires than the actors be dynamic self-educated to produce their own tacit knowledge, which can be transmitted, by different methods, to

Let's begin with the ontological dimension. Strictly speaking, the knowledge is created only by individuals. A company cannot create knowledge without individuals. The company support individuals' creativity or provides the contexts for them can create knowledge

However, to exploit such knowledge it will be necessary put it available for others in the

The explanation of how Japanese companies create new knowledge is limited to the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. To have an idea or personal premonition is a low-value issue for the company, unless that which is isolated can be

The employee must accept to perform the self-education activities in different ways, both physical and cognitive, because tacit knowledge can be created in the two ways. This is

generated in the lower levels of the company, to obtain competitive advantages:

(Foucault, 1982a, pp. 61-63).

Takeuchi, 1995, pp. 156-157).

was explained by Rabinow:

immerse (Rabinov, 1984, pp. 10-11).

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 59).

company.

other company members for their commercial exploitation.

converted into explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 11).

essentially the subjectivation process identified by Foucault,

Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) provide four models of knowledge "conversion":


When we cannot find an expression for an image by deductive or inducement analytic methods, we have to use a non-analytic method. Therefore the externalization is, often led by metaphors and/or analogies (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p.65).

However, for this to be useful, this knowledge must be codified in a very precise language. It can be a considerable margin to encourage the critic research referred to this mode of speech.

 *From explicit to explicit.* This process describe like "combination", in which any cognitive learning, mainly coming text sources –for example, databases-, falls under the paraph of "combination". It is interesting the –politics- pretext from Lyotard (1984) of "giving to the audience free access to the memory and databanks", because, it has been considered within the borders of the knowledge creating company. Discussing about the Kao company ‒in Japan‒, Nonaka & Takeuchi point out the following:

For granting "the free access to the information", computer systems has been introduced in all Kao company, with all the information filed in a database. Through this system, any person in Kao can access the databases included in the sales information systems, marketing, production, distribution, and the complete information network that includes all its offices in Japan. The unique feature of this system is that any member, without being of importance their job or the section that it belongs to within the company system, has full access to the database –except a limited amount of personal information. In other words, any person can access the rich explicit knowledge base that exists within the company system by this "free access to the information system" (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 172). In certain way, surprisingly, the risk is perceived like a result of this politic, which indicates a considerable difference between this approach, where security and the "need of knowing"

problems is essential, and the old "disciplinary" approaches for managing.

 *From explicit to tacit*. The described process for this conversion is the "internalization", something that is difficult to describe. Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) suggest "learning-bydoing" (p. 69-70). Once again the person is the center, because he learns to express formally in writings. The explicit operations in the person are the essential thing here, as is showed in:

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 299

awaiting to be acquired, through experimentation or by thought; instead of that, these approaches point out that it is required an interaction between the ego and the external world; which is evident in the Edmunf Husserl work about phenomenology and, particularly, that of Martin Heidegger (Inwood, 2002). These perspectives point out that even the simplest learning consists of a complex social process; the individuals interpret the world and learn from it through these forms of social interaction (Daft & Weick, 1984). The interpretativist perspective emphasize on the action inside practice. "*Work practice … seems to be essential to understand the identity and knowledge acquisition when working*" (Brown & Duguid, 2001), and the meaning is created through action within a specific social context (Cook & Brown, 1999). A particular interpretativist KM model emphasize on the construction of knowledge, inside company, through an exchange social process in which knowledge is consecrated within their own company structures (Demarest, 1997). Once it has been incorpored to the organization, the knowledge it is disseminated through social processes (Demarest, 1997; McAdams & Mc Creedy, 1999, 1999a). This fact of emerging is a similar practice to the interpretativist work about KM of Orlikowski (2002), who presents knowledge as "*emergent from actions located and occurring that company members commit themselves to perform*". Orlikowski suggest that knowledge is promulgated every day and each practice of persons, which suggest that the debate about knowledge must be intrinsically related to practice. In his work, the emphasis on practice indicates that knowledge must be seen like "*in a particular moment, that which have been made by practice*"

with knowledge, and the practice must be considered like mutually constitutive.

(Venters *et al*., 2002).

of a company's dialogue.

maturity model.

**3.2.1 KM Maturity model in the interpretativist perspective** 

This entire works suggest that an interpretativist approach for the management of knowledge must consider knowledge like an active object, because is like embedded in recurrent human practices (Venters et al, 2002). Transference of knowledge from one place to other does not mean that knowledge be an object that become mobile when is transmitted, codified or is offered like a basic service. On the contrary, knowledge becomes mobile like a product embedded permanently in all human activity within a social context

When using an interpretativist approach is emphasized in the social nature of the creation of knowledge, which leads to approaches for its management that are centered on human interaction instead of being centered on information. Knowledge is considered like a continuous achievement (Kogut & Zander, 1996), and a process rather than an object (Spender, 1996). These approaches consider, within the KM interpretativist approaches, concepts like "sense construction" and "practice community", because they are centered in social practices of creation and application of knowledge. Also is introduced the concept of "*thought on the action*", aimed to conceptualize the creation of knowledge by thought on practice. Apart from that, they consider the communication role in KM through the concept

The maturity models proposed from this perspective are of evolutionary nature, this is, consist of a number of stages in which the complexity level is increased from one to another searching for perfection; additionally, are considered like strengthen models that have operational conditions to satisfactorily maximize the changes in the companies. The maturity models, particularly these of evolutionary nature, are characterized by the presence of multiple optimal stages that normally refer to the development stages in the

An internalization example trough "learning-by-doing" can be seen in Matsushita, when he implemented a policy in all the company to reduce the working day to 1800 hours in 1993…The objective of the policy was not to reduce costs, but innovating the way of thinking and managing by reducing working day, and to increase person's creativity. Many departments were confused about how to implement that policy, that was clearly communicated like explicit knowledge…It was indicated to all the departments that it must experiment with the policy of 150 work hours during a month. Through an own experience the employees have to learn how it would be to work 1800 hours a year. An explicit concept, to reduce the work time to 1800 hours, was internalized through one-month experience (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 70).

In this way, the written prescriptions were internalized like person's processes and activities. These four knowledge conversion modes explicitly involve operations on all the body and the mind. The adjustments in which they must occur hardly seem to be "disciplinary" companies of the past; however, there are strong traits that should be occurring subjectivation processes.

#### **3.2 The interpretativist perspective**

The knowledge cannot be located in a specific place because it has not independent existence of human experience and social practices (Schultze, 1998). Schultze argues that this approach, that can be observed in authors like Tenkasi & Boland (1996) and Brown & Duguid (1998), represent a perspective more subjective or intersubjective, because it considers that knowledge is generated continuously through social practice of communities. This approach inherits the features of the subjectivist perspective and is centered in supporting the social processes and structures in which is shared knowledge, and does not consider technology as a solution by itself, instead of that it considers it a support to the social activity of knowledge exchange (Venters, 2002). The features of the problem of the research problem in KM suggest adopting the interpretativist perspective. As Walsham (1995) points out, the interpretativist methods suppose that knowledge of reality is a social construction of human agents. To understand the KM problems inside a company and try to solve them, are processes strongly based on the opinions of the participants in the company. For this perspective the functionalism, based on the empiricist and rationalist approach, can be pertinent to know about the rational world, but they do not consider the role of the individuals as part of knowledge in social world. This is based on Immanuel Kant's studies, in which is accepted that the mind it is not a passive *tabula rasa* or a blank leaf, but that actively participates in the organization of the sensorial experiences; the argument is that the direct knowledge of things by themselves ‒which Kant call "*noumena*"‒ is impossible. The *noumena* are not knowledge by themselves, but the understanding of that is achieved through the application of our a priori knowledge for creating cognitive phenomena to ourselves (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). The point of view here is that human knowledge is achieved through experience and that is "*intrinsically undetermined*" (Tsoukas, 1996; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

This point of view also considers the work of Karl Marx –accepting that it is centered on the action instead of being centered on knowledge-, who observe the perception as an interaction between the cognoscente subject –subject- and that known –object-; and, particularly in which the truth is demonstrated in practice, which provides a tie between knowledge creation and action (Russel, 1967). Do not considers that knowledge exist *a priori*

An internalization example trough "learning-by-doing" can be seen in Matsushita, when he implemented a policy in all the company to reduce the working day to 1800 hours in 1993…The objective of the policy was not to reduce costs, but innovating the way of thinking and managing by reducing working day, and to increase person's creativity. Many departments were confused about how to implement that policy, that was clearly communicated like explicit knowledge…It was indicated to all the departments that it must experiment with the policy of 150 work hours during a month. Through an own experience the employees have to learn how it would be to work 1800 hours a year. An explicit concept, to reduce the work time to 1800 hours, was internalized through one-month experience

In this way, the written prescriptions were internalized like person's processes and activities. These four knowledge conversion modes explicitly involve operations on all the body and the mind. The adjustments in which they must occur hardly seem to be "disciplinary" companies of the past; however, there are strong traits that should be

The knowledge cannot be located in a specific place because it has not independent existence of human experience and social practices (Schultze, 1998). Schultze argues that this approach, that can be observed in authors like Tenkasi & Boland (1996) and Brown & Duguid (1998), represent a perspective more subjective or intersubjective, because it considers that knowledge is generated continuously through social practice of communities. This approach inherits the features of the subjectivist perspective and is centered in supporting the social processes and structures in which is shared knowledge, and does not consider technology as a solution by itself, instead of that it considers it a support to the social activity of knowledge exchange (Venters, 2002). The features of the problem of the research problem in KM suggest adopting the interpretativist perspective. As Walsham (1995) points out, the interpretativist methods suppose that knowledge of reality is a social construction of human agents. To understand the KM problems inside a company and try to solve them, are processes strongly based on the opinions of the participants in the company. For this perspective the functionalism, based on the empiricist and rationalist approach, can be pertinent to know about the rational world, but they do not consider the role of the individuals as part of knowledge in social world. This is based on Immanuel Kant's studies, in which is accepted that the mind it is not a passive *tabula rasa* or a blank leaf, but that actively participates in the organization of the sensorial experiences; the argument is that the direct knowledge of things by themselves ‒which Kant call "*noumena*"‒ is impossible. The *noumena* are not knowledge by themselves, but the understanding of that is achieved through the application of our a priori knowledge for creating cognitive phenomena to ourselves (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). The point of view here is that human knowledge is achieved through experience and that is "*intrinsically undetermined*" (Tsoukas, 1996;

This point of view also considers the work of Karl Marx –accepting that it is centered on the action instead of being centered on knowledge-, who observe the perception as an interaction between the cognoscente subject –subject- and that known –object-; and, particularly in which the truth is demonstrated in practice, which provides a tie between knowledge creation and action (Russel, 1967). Do not considers that knowledge exist *a priori*

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 70).

occurring subjectivation processes.

**3.2 The interpretativist perspective** 

Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

awaiting to be acquired, through experimentation or by thought; instead of that, these approaches point out that it is required an interaction between the ego and the external world; which is evident in the Edmunf Husserl work about phenomenology and, particularly, that of Martin Heidegger (Inwood, 2002). These perspectives point out that even the simplest learning consists of a complex social process; the individuals interpret the world and learn from it through these forms of social interaction (Daft & Weick, 1984).

The interpretativist perspective emphasize on the action inside practice. "*Work practice … seems to be essential to understand the identity and knowledge acquisition when working*" (Brown & Duguid, 2001), and the meaning is created through action within a specific social context (Cook & Brown, 1999). A particular interpretativist KM model emphasize on the construction of knowledge, inside company, through an exchange social process in which knowledge is consecrated within their own company structures (Demarest, 1997). Once it has been incorpored to the organization, the knowledge it is disseminated through social processes (Demarest, 1997; McAdams & Mc Creedy, 1999, 1999a). This fact of emerging is a similar practice to the interpretativist work about KM of Orlikowski (2002), who presents knowledge as "*emergent from actions located and occurring that company members commit themselves to perform*". Orlikowski suggest that knowledge is promulgated every day and each practice of persons, which suggest that the debate about knowledge must be intrinsically related to practice. In his work, the emphasis on practice indicates that knowledge must be seen like "*in a particular moment, that which have been made by practice*" with knowledge, and the practice must be considered like mutually constitutive.

This entire works suggest that an interpretativist approach for the management of knowledge must consider knowledge like an active object, because is like embedded in recurrent human practices (Venters et al, 2002). Transference of knowledge from one place to other does not mean that knowledge be an object that become mobile when is transmitted, codified or is offered like a basic service. On the contrary, knowledge becomes mobile like a product embedded permanently in all human activity within a social context (Venters *et al*., 2002).

When using an interpretativist approach is emphasized in the social nature of the creation of knowledge, which leads to approaches for its management that are centered on human interaction instead of being centered on information. Knowledge is considered like a continuous achievement (Kogut & Zander, 1996), and a process rather than an object (Spender, 1996). These approaches consider, within the KM interpretativist approaches, concepts like "sense construction" and "practice community", because they are centered in social practices of creation and application of knowledge. Also is introduced the concept of "*thought on the action*", aimed to conceptualize the creation of knowledge by thought on practice. Apart from that, they consider the communication role in KM through the concept of a company's dialogue.

#### **3.2.1 KM Maturity model in the interpretativist perspective**

The maturity models proposed from this perspective are of evolutionary nature, this is, consist of a number of stages in which the complexity level is increased from one to another searching for perfection; additionally, are considered like strengthen models that have operational conditions to satisfactorily maximize the changes in the companies. The maturity models, particularly these of evolutionary nature, are characterized by the presence of multiple optimal stages that normally refer to the development stages in the maturity model.

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 301

2. In the *reactive* level the company answers to the external pressure to improve the knowledge management; for example, implement strategies to attend and answer the signals in a selected sphere. The company learns to manage in a better way the information coming from the selected sources. At this point, is possible to find the analogy with the perception that has a baby about the information coming from his parents: the baby starts to tune with their voices and gestures, but still is difficult to him to recognize the persons that does not belong to their surrounding family. At this level is expected that the company improve the perception, the disposition to act, and that show answers to the learning between the centers and the selected

3. In the *appreciative* level the company start to give value to the need of establish interdisciplinary agreements and comprehensive analysis to achieve a better appreciation for the information sources, the used analysis for processing it and the meaning acts and of action management. The company starts to increase their range of perception, improves the disposition to act, and starts to maturate in its capacity to learn guided answers. This because now is connected by knowledge management activities through the entities, and start to develop mechanisms and instances limited to complex open answers. To develop these answers a company needs to have

4. In the *organized* level the company presents an organized architecture around knowledge: resource management, analytic management, significant management and active management; and it will be able of carry out all the activities: perception, disposition to act, guided answer, mechanisms, complex answers, adaptation and creation, which can be attributed to the presence of a holistic structure of knowledge

5. Finally, in the *optimized* level, are observed similarities between the personality and character construction concepts in the knowledge management. With the aim of operating this level, the company will benefit itself from the opening to continuous improvement, and will support on the practices and current skills of the different KM components. The company optimizes its ability for adaptation and creation. The objective is to decrease the time necessary to adapt to the environment changes, and increase the fluency and abilities coming from new actions, with the objective of being

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

coordination of its knowledge management activities through entities.

know how to do it.

areas.

management.

maturity model.

more proactive instead of being reactive.

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

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 for the study of KM.

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 learning but hierarchical levels, as described in Table 4.

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 and psychomotor spheres.


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


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