**5. Discussion and conclusions**

There is no doubt that the selection of a KM management perspective depends on considering the knowledge as true facts about the world or considering it as a social construction. Although both perspectives can be epistemologically mutually exclusive, as is implicit in the analyzed literature, in practice the elements of one of them is used indistinctly by the other. Because of this, that really should matter is the way in which each perspective is introduced and is used to manage knowledge in the company. What is the practical meaning of this? In first place, you can adopt an approach through the appreciation and understanding of the "environment" in which knowledge management is planned; however, the construction of that knowledge is not trivial. Subsequently, you must select a set of methods and management techniques to implement any approach; this requires drawing a matrix that establishes relationships between the environment, the approach and the application method selected. Finally, the selection must be implemented for KM.

It is evident, in the functionalist perspective, that the knowledge creating company is, at least in theory, a "beast" very different to the disciplinary company. Much of the later Foucault subjects, about power and subjectivity, undoubtedly seem to be more adequate to analyze the effects of the power that use the knowledge creating companies, but it is necessary to doubt about whether these analysis can go beyond thematic conclusions. The most important examples given by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) are inside Japanese companies – most of the genealogic studies have been European.

Considering that the USA-based companies follow many social patterns seen in European companies, there is big similarities between North America's history and Western Europe history at the genealogic/ideological level ‒very few genealogic materials is available in Japan. Until recent times there was not much cross fertilization exchange ‒of ideologies, social structures, etc.‒ among Europe, North America and Japan, despite that is worthy a review on the influence of United States of America ‒in Japan‒, immediately after 1945.

However, that referred to the genealogy itself, which is with are formed the management styles and other things, is easily accepted by people. In this sense, is worthy to revisit many Foucault's subjects, particularly those relative to subjectivation, when the management styles defended by Nonaka & Takeuchi are so ephemeral. But, is it that way? The knowledge management already shows many aspects of the current mode, which is a result of the established modern literature related to bad management. The analysis of the knowledge functionalist perspective is centered on the work by Nonaka & Takeuchi, precisely because if this become wider to consider the multiple approaches in the

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

the application method selected. Finally, the selection must be implemented for KM.

companies – most of the genealogic studies have been European.

It is evident, in the functionalist perspective, that the knowledge creating company is, at least in theory, a "beast" very different to the disciplinary company. Much of the later Foucault subjects, about power and subjectivity, undoubtedly seem to be more adequate to analyze the effects of the power that use the knowledge creating companies, but it is necessary to doubt about whether these analysis can go beyond thematic conclusions. The most important examples given by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) are inside Japanese

Considering that the USA-based companies follow many social patterns seen in European companies, there is big similarities between North America's history and Western Europe history at the genealogic/ideological level ‒very few genealogic materials is available in Japan. Until recent times there was not much cross fertilization exchange ‒of ideologies, social structures, etc.‒ among Europe, North America and Japan, despite that is worthy a review on the influence of United States of America ‒in Japan‒, immediately after 1945. However, that referred to the genealogy itself, which is with are formed the management styles and other things, is easily accepted by people. In this sense, is worthy to revisit many Foucault's subjects, particularly those relative to subjectivation, when the management styles defended by Nonaka & Takeuchi are so ephemeral. But, is it that way? The knowledge management already shows many aspects of the current mode, which is a result of the established modern literature related to bad management. The analysis of the knowledge functionalist perspective is centered on the work by Nonaka & Takeuchi, precisely because if this become wider to consider the multiple approaches in the

There is no doubt that the selection of a KM management perspective depends on considering the knowledge as true facts about the world or considering it as a social construction. Although both perspectives can be epistemologically mutually exclusive, as is implicit in the analyzed literature, in practice the elements of one of them is used indistinctly by the other. Because of this, that really should matter is the way in which each perspective is introduced and is used to manage knowledge in the company. What is the practical meaning of this? In first place, you can adopt an approach through the appreciation and understanding of the "environment" in which knowledge management is planned; however, the construction of that knowledge is not trivial. Subsequently, you must select a set of methods and management techniques to implement any approach; this requires drawing a matrix that establishes relationships between the environment, the approach and

skills upgraded, in the same manner the compromise to keep, as much as possible, the efficiency of the compatible mechanisms.

always thinking in executing them as soon as possible. The company will have a diverse repository of actions to take advantage, and it will be updated on a regular basis.

represent the changes in the company's internal and external environments.

**5. Discussion and conclusions** 

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

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 demonstrated by the proposer of these ideas.

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 adaptable to the different actions taken by knowledge creators.

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 act in the reality.

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

Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 307

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (2000). *Working Knowledge: How organizations manage what they know*. Harvard Business School Press, ISBN-13: 978-0875846552, Boston. Davenport, T. H.; Jarvenpaa, S. & Beers, M. (1996). Improving knowledge work processes. *Sloan Management Review*, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 53-65, ISSN: 0019-848X. Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding Knowledge Management. *Long Range Planning*, Vol. 30,

Desouza, K. C. (2006). *Knowledge Management Maturity Model: Theoretical development and preliminary empirical testing*. PhD dissertation: University of Illinois at Chicago. Diakoulakis, I. E.; Georgopoulos, N. B.; Koulouriotis, D. E. & Emiris, D. M. (2004). Towards

Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. *Harvard Business Review*. Jan-Feb,

Drucker, P. F. (1993). *Post-Capitalist Society*. Harper Paperbacks, ISBN-13: 978-0887306617,

Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 215-233, ISSN: 0742-1222. Foucault, M. (1982). *The subject and power*. In H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinov (Eds.): Michel

Foucault, M. (1982a). *The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language*. Vintage,

Hedlund, G. (1994). A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-form Corporation. *Strategic Management Journal*, Vol. 15, No. S2, pp. 73-90, ISSN: 00246301. Inwood, M. (2002). *Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction*. Oxford University Press, ISBN-13:

Jashapara, A. (2004) *Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach*. Pearson Education

Johnson, P. & Duberley, J. (2000). *Understanding Management Research: An Introduction to* 

Kanter, J. (1999). Knowledge management practically speaking. *Information Systems* 

Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1996). What Firms do? Coordination, Identity and Learning.

KPMG (1998). *Knowledge Management. Research Report 1998*. KPMG Management

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). *The Postmodern Condition*. Manchester University Press, ISBN: ISBN: 0-

Marshall, A. (2008). *Principles of Economics*. Evergreen Review, ISBN: 9781573921404,

Marshall, L. (1997). Facilitating knowledge management and knowledge sharing: New

Consulting. On line: http://www.brint.com/papers/submit/knowmgmt.pdf,

opportunities for information professionals. *Online*, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 92-102, ISSN:

a holistic knowledge management model. *Knowledge Management*, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.

Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago University Press, pp.

No. 3, pp. 374-384, ISSN: 0024-6301.

208-226, ISBN: 0226163121, Chicago.

Limited, ISBN-13: 978-0273682981, UK,

*Epistemology*. Sage, ISBN-13: 978-0761969181, London.

*Management*, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 7-15, ISSN: 1934-8703.

*Organization Science*, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 502-518, ISSN: 1047-7039.

32-46, ISSN: 1367-3270.

Oxford.

pp. 1-11. ISSN: 0017-8012.

ISBN: 9780394711065, UK.

978-0192854100, Oxford.

[Apr. 2011].

London.

0146-5422.

8166-1173-4, Manchester.

measurement almost impossible because their constantly changing rules. If the situation or context is the key factor for knowledge, the learning should not be based on the foundation of truth but on the environment. The implications of this perspective include comprehensive concepts like business ethics and cultural morality; therefore, selecting this perspective is a task that must be taken seriously.

As a final comment, and, because the subject of knowledge management generates a huge amount of material coming from researchers and practice, it is suggested to continuously review the material in order to achieve the construction of a broader vision. Additionally, to have a minimum understanding on KM, it is suggested the review of some closely-related issues like person and company learning, communication processes, computer support to collaborative work, company changes and information systems.

#### **6. References**


measurement almost impossible because their constantly changing rules. If the situation or context is the key factor for knowledge, the learning should not be based on the foundation of truth but on the environment. The implications of this perspective include comprehensive concepts like business ethics and cultural morality; therefore, selecting this perspective is a

As a final comment, and, because the subject of knowledge management generates a huge amount of material coming from researchers and practice, it is suggested to continuously review the material in order to achieve the construction of a broader vision. Additionally, to have a minimum understanding on KM, it is suggested the review of some closely-related issues like person and company learning, communication processes, computer support to

Adorno, T. W. (1968). Late Capitalism or Industrial Society? Is Marx Obsolete? *Diogenes*, No.

Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge

Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations. *Journal of Knowledge* 

Bloom, B. S. (1956). *Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals,* 

Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. *California Management Review*, Vol. 40,

Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. *Organization Science*, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 198-213, ISSN: 1047-7039. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). *Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis*. Ashgate

Burton-Jones, A. (1999). *Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work and Learning in the New Economy*. Oxford University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0198296225, Oxford. Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (1998). *Information, Systems and Information Systems*. John Wiley

Cook, S. D. N. & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance

Costello, G. (1996). *Knowledge Management in Strategic alliances: The Role of Information* 

Daft, R. & Weick, K. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems. *Academy of Management Review*, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 284-295, ISSN: 0363-7425. Davenport, T. & Grover, V. (2001). Special Issue: Knowledge Management (editorial). *Journal of Management Information Systems*, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-4, ISSN: 0742-1222. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). *Working Knowledge: How organizations manage what they know*. Harvard Business School Press, ISBN-13: 978-1578513017, Boston.

between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. *Organization* 

Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. *MIS* 

*Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain*. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, ISBN-13: 978-

collaborative work, company changes and information systems.

*Quarterly*, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107-136, ISSN: 02767783.

*Management*, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 68-75. ISSN: 1367-3270.

64, pp. 1-16, ISSN: 0392-1921.

No. 3, pp. 90-112, ISSN: 0008-1256.

Publishing, ISBN-13: 978-1857421149, London.

*Science*, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 381-400, ISSN: 1047-7039.

& Sons, ISBN-13: 978-0471958208, USA.

*Technology*. University of Oxford, Oxford.

0582280106, USA.

task that must be taken seriously.

**6. References** 


Knowledge Management Maturity Model in the Interpretativist Perspective 309

Scarbrough, H.; Swan, J. A. & Preston, J. C. (1999). *Knowledge Management: A literature review*.

Schultze, U. & Boland, R. (2000). Place, Space and knowledge work: a study of outsourced

Schultze, U. (1998). Investigating the contradictions in knowledge management. *Proceedings* 

Sieloff, C. G. (1999). If only HP knew what HP knows: the roots of knowledge management

Snowden, D. (2000). Private Presentation. Senior Consultant on Knowledge Management at

Spender, J. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three concepts in

Stewart, T. A. (1997). *Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations*. Doubleday, ISBN-

TFPL (1999). *Skills for knowledge management: building a knowledge economy*. White Paper.

Tiwana, A. (2000). *The Knowledge Management Toolkit*. Prentice Hall, ISBN-13: 978-

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. *Strategic Management Journal*, 17, Winter Special, pp. 11-25, ISSN: 0143-2095. UNESCO (2005). Hacia las sociedades del conocimiento. Ediciones UNESCO, ISBN 92-3-

Venters, W. (2002). Literature for C-Sand: Knowledge management. *C-SandD/WP/1002/2*. On

Venters, W.; Cushman, M. & Cornford, T. (2002). Creating Knowledge for Sustainability:

*Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities*, Athens, Greece, Apr. 5-6. Von-Krogh, G.; Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. (2000). *Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the* 

Walsham, G. 1995. The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. *Information Systems* 

Ward, V. &Holtham, C. (2000). The role of private and public space in knowledge

line: http://www.c-sand.org.uk/Documents/WP1001-02-KMLitRev.pdf. [Apr.

Using SSM for Describing Knowledge Environments and Conceptualizing Technological Interventions. *Proceedings of Third European Conference on* 

*Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation*. Oxford University

management*. Proceedings of Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies*,

Tapscott, D. (1997). *Digital Economy*. McGraw-Hill, ISBN-13: 978-0071353199, New York. Tenkasi, R. V. & Boland, R. J. (1996). Exploring Knowledge diversity in knowledge intensive

*Management*, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 79-91, ISSN: 0953-4814.

London: TFPL Ltd., 17-18 Britton Street London EC1M 5TL.

*Technology*, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 187-219, ISSN: 0959-8022.

*current issues and future changes*, Helsinki, Finland, Dec. 10 – 13.

London.

1367-3270.

IBM. *In T. B. Council (Ed.)*. Oxford.

13: 978-0385483810, New York.

63-78, ISSN: 0953-4814.

0130128539, New Jersey.

Press, ISBN-13: 978-0195126167, Oxford.

Coventry, UK, Freb. 10-11.

*Research*, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 376-394, ISSN: 1526-5536.

304000-3, Paris.

2011].

Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, ISBN-13: 978-0852927991,

computer systems administrators. *Accounting, Management and Information* 

*of IFIP Working Groups 8.2 and 8.6 Joint working conference on information systems:* 

at Hewlett-Packard. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 47-53, ISSN:

search of a theory. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.

firms: a new role for information systems. *Journal of Organizational Change* 


McAdam, R. & McCreedy, S. (1999). A critical review of knowledge management models. *The Learning Organization*, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 91-101, ISSN: 0969-6474. McAdam, R. & McCreedy, S. (1999a). The process of Knowledge Management within

Neef, D. (1999). Making the case for knowledge management: the bigger picture.

Nicolas, R. (2004). Knowledge management impacts on decision making process. *Knowledge* 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). *The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese companies* 

Nonaka, I. (2008). *The Knowledge Creating Company*. Harvard Business Review, ISBN-13: 978-

Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of

O'Dell, C. S.; Essaides, N.; Ostro, N. & Grayson, C. (1998). *If Only We Knew What We Know:* 

O'Leary, D. E. (2001). How knowledge reuse informs effective system design and

OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1996). *The Knowledge-*

Orange, G.; Dugat, J. & Acker, P. (2000). Ductal®: New ultra high performance concretes –

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in

Probst, G., Raub, S. & Romhardt, K. (2000). *Managing Knowledge*. Wiley, ISBN-10:

Quintas, P.; Lefrere, P. & Jones, G. (1997) Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. *Long* 

Rabinov, P. (1984). *Introduction*. In P. Rabinov (Ed), *The Foucault Reader*, Penguin, ISBN:

Raub, S. & Ruling, C. C. (2001). The knowledge management tussle – speech communities

Rennie, M. (1999). Accounting for knowledge assets: Do we need a new financial statement?

Russell, B. (1967). *A History of Western Philosophy*. Simon & Schuster, ISBN-13: 978-

*Information Technology*, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 113-130, ISSN: 0268-3962.

and rhetorical strategies in the development of knowledge management. *Journal of* 

*International Journal of Technology Management*, Vol. 18, No. 5-8, pp. 648-659. ISSN:

*Range Planning*, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 385–991, ISSN: 0024-630.

*Process Management*, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 101-113, ISSN 1092 4604.

*Management Decision*, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 72-78, ISSN: 0025-1747.

*Management*, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 20-31, ISSN: 1367-3270.

*Based Economy*. OECD, OCDE/GD(96)102, Paris.

912143-18-7, pp. 781-790, Lyon, France, Sep. 12-15.

Oxford.

0024-6301.

1047-7039.

0267-5730.

0671201586, London.

1422179741, Boston.

0684844749, New York.

0471997684, Chichester.

0394713400, Harmonds worth.

Organizations: a Critical Assessment of both Theory and Practice. *Knowledge and* 

*create the dynamics of innovation*. Oxford University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0195092691,

Dynamic Knowledge Creation. *Long Range Planning*, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 5-34, ISSN:

*The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice*. Free Press, ISBN-13: 978-

implementation. *IEEE Intelligent Systems*, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 44-49, ISSN: 1541-1672.

Damageres istance and micromechanical analysis. *Proceedings of BEFIB-V*, ISBN: 2-

Distributed Organizing. *Organization Science*, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 249-273, ISSN:


**14** 

*Germany* 

**Implementation Process of a Knowledge** 

Knowledge management has often been identified as an important challenge for sustained organizational success and as a prerequisite for the productivity and flexibility of corporate and non-corporate organizations. Due to the global interconnectedness of markets today, the scope and quality of individual employees' knowledge have taken their place alongside more traditional organizational resources such as work and capital. Knowledge of employees is considered as the most important knowledge source within organizations. Therefore, it is necessary to explicitly plan and manage the development, consolidation, representation and application of the knowledge of organizations and individuals to support a learning organization. Above all, knowledge communication between employees is essential for growth of learning. When employees share knowledge with other colleagues within their organization, that knowledge can become a source of competitive advantage (Solano, 2010). The issue is finding the colleagues within an organization who can provide the knowledge and skills needed in a given situation. This is particularly true in large organizations, such as an international corporation with geographically distributed departments. Within the domain of knowledge management, the problem of finding a suitable expert is usually solved with the help of expert finding systems such as company yellow pages or similar tools. This article presents a case study in a biotechnological company concerning the implementation of yellow pages. The implementation process included four phases. Phase 1 comprehends a knowledge management diagnosis, including a differentiated needs analysis concerning knowledge management domains. Phase 2 is concerned about the design and phase 3 is comprehends the realization of this intervention; and in phase 4 the rollout of the intervention takes place (Tarlatt, 2001; Winkler

Especially in the global situation of competitive pressure, organizations acknowledge the importance of developing innovative concepts for using their own resources and existing synergies to have an optimum effect while simultaneously minimizing costs. Innovative knowledge generation and utilization in for-profit and non-profit organizations are essential for the future and therefore require an intelligent, responsible and human knowledge

**1. Introduction** 

& Mandl, 2007).

management.

**2. Knowledge management in organizations** 

**Management Initiative: Yellow Pages** 

Stéphanie Gretsch, Heinz Mandl and Raphaela Schätz

*Ludwig-Maximilian-University* 

