**6. MGKME, A Model for General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise**

#### **6.1 KM Empirical Model versus KM System**

KM becomes a reality in the implementation of a system. The purpose of this system is to amplify the utilization and the creation of knowledge to improve the enterprise's effectiveness. This system is often called Knowledge Management System (KMS). Therefore,

Corporate Governance and IT Governance do not explicitly mention to consider Intellectual Capital as a resource in the enterprise strategies. Even so, as pointed out by Edvinsson and Malone (1997), "The core of the so-called *knowledge economy* is huge investment flows into human capital as well as information technology" (p. 12). However, we think that the knowledge economy will oblige to take into account Intellectual Capital. Consequently, we need to study the link between KM, and Corporate Governance and IT Governance. To enable such a study, we must refer to a KM pattern of reference to elaborate KM

Despite the fact that numerous Knowledge Management Frameworks have been suggested all over the world, it does not exist a unify pattern of reference supporting our definition of KM as described in the paragraph 4.2. For example, let us consider *The European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management* (CEN-CWA 14924-1, 2004). The project team has collected, categorized and analyzed more than 140 KM Frameworks. We can notice that this work has produced a high-quality practical outcome that is a reference point to achieve a good understanding of KM. Nevertheless, as contributors to this project, we underline the predominant positivist paradigm, and the information management approach of KM that have inspired the project team. Moreover, we have observed that few of them were "*peoplefocused"* as Wiig (2004) states: "our emphasis is on people and their behaviors and roles in enterprise operations (p. XXV)." Furthermore, we have distinguished two main approaches underlying KM: (i) a technological approach that answers a demand of solutions based on the technologies of information and communication (ICT); (ii) a managerial approach that integrates knowledge as resources contributing to the implementation of the strategic vision

Therefore, we suggest two KM Governance Perspectives depending on the first or the

On the one hand, the technological approach leads to reduce knowledge to codified knowledge that is no more than information. In that case, we can manage KM projects in the same way than IS projects. Specific criteria inherent to KMS must connect KM Governance and IT Governance principles. On the other hand, the managerial approach that integrates knowledge as a resource focuses on the core business processes and the people. Corporate Governance principles must integrate the risks linked to the utilization and creation of

These aspects involve elaborating Management Governance Guidelines for KM as COBIT® is for IT. The aim of the Model for General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME), described hereafter, is to contribute to elaborating a guiding framework that

KM becomes a reality in the implementation of a system. The purpose of this system is to amplify the utilization and the creation of knowledge to improve the enterprise's effectiveness. This system is often called Knowledge Management System (KMS). Therefore,

**6. MGKME, A Model for General Knowledge Management within the** 

**5.3 KM Governance Perspectives** 

**5.3.1 Towards a unified KM pattern of reference** 

serves as a pattern for KM Governance Guidelines.

**6.1 KM Empirical Model versus KM System** 

Governance principles.

of the company.

knowledge

**Enterprise** 

second approach (ref. Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. KM Governance Perspective

we have to distinguish between the notion of KM Empirical Model that is a template, and the notion of KM System - a context dependant system, which is the implementation of this template in the real world (ref. Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. KM Empirical Model and KM System

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 13

Quality Management System. Secondly, we refer to the *Single-Loop Learning* and *Double-Loop* 

Furthermore, we should think about the *Ad-hoc* infrastructures, which are adapted sets of devices and means for action. Beyond a network that favors cooperative work, it is important to implement the conditions that will allow sharing and creating knowledge. An *ad hoc* infrastructure must be set up according to the specific situation of each company, and the context of the envisaged KM initiative. The SECI spiral of conversion Model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and the Japanese concept of *Ba* inspire this infrastructure

(Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno, 2000; Grundstein, 2011).

**PLAN Action strategy**

**Governing Values**

**Double-Loop learning**

**Innovation**

**Change 2** P. Watzlawick

**6.5 The generic KM processes** 

finally, determining "crucial knowledge".

problems (ref. Fig. 7).

**ACT** *Improving*

©Michel Grundstein

Fig. 6. Deming's cycle and Argyris & Schön's Organizational learning

**CHECK** *Understanding*

**DO** *Action*

**Single-Loop learning**

The generic KM processes answer the problem of capitalizing on company's knowledge defined in the following way (Grundstein, 1996) "*Capitalizing on company's knowledge means considering certain knowledge used and produced by the company as a storehouse of riches and drawing from these riches interest that contributes to increasing the company's capital*" (p. 141). Several problems co-exist. They are recurring problems for a company. These problems constitute a general problematic that has been organized in five categories. Each of these categories contains sub-processes aimed to contribute a solution to the set of overall

The **Locating KM Process** deals with the location of Crucial Knowledge, that is, Knowledge (explicit or tacit) that is essential for decision-making processes and for the progress of the support and value-adding processes. One can mention GAMETH® (Grundstein, 2000; Grundstein & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2004), an approach that provides the elements that lead to identifying the problems, clarifying the needs for knowledge, identifying and locating potential crucial knowledge, specifying the value-based assessment of this knowledge, and

**Results Consequences**

**Quality**

**Deming's Cycle (PDCA)**

*Learning* defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory

**Single-Loop and Double-Loop learning (Argyris et Schön)**

To implement KMS components, Enterprises need a general model that is a pattern of reference (a template) in order to integrate KM Governance principles in their strategic vision, and to use KM as a factor that enable improving their efficiency and competitiveness. In this chapter, we refer to MGKME, our Model of General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (Grundstein, 2005a, 2007, 2008) that articulates the enterprise's sociotechnical environment, the enterprise's value-adding processes, the managerial guiding principles specific to KM and the *Ad-hoc* infrastructures, the generic KM processes, and the organizational learning processes.

#### **6.2 The enterprise's sociotechnical environment**

E. Coakes (2002) defines sociotechnical approach as "*the study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any system*" (p. 5). From KM viewpoint, the Socio-technical Environment constitutes the social fabric where autonomous individuals, supported by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and tangible resources, interact and are conversing through physical or virtual places (coffee machines, collaborative workspaces, weblogs, wikis, CoPs).

The socio-technical approach leads to emphasizing the link between knowing and action, with due regard to the basic constraints of the social system that is to give a sense to working time. Thus, KM initiative should result in Knowledge Management System (KMS) components that take into account the individuals, both as components and users of a system that allows them to be autonomous and to achieve their potentialities.

#### **6.3 The enterprise's value adding processes**

Value adding processes derive from the value chain described by Porter (1985) who identifies nine value-adding activities that he classifies into two main categories. The "primary activities" are: 1) in-bound logistics, 2) operations, 3) out-bound logistics, 4) marketing & sales, and 5) Services. The "support activities" are: 1) business infrastructure, 2) human resource management, 3) technological development, and 4) supplies. In this way, Value-adding processes represent the organizational context for which knowledge is essential factors of performance. It is in this context that is implanted a KM initiative.

#### **6.4 The managerial guiding principles specific to KM and the** *Ad-hoc* **infrastructures**

The Managerial Guiding Principles should bring a vision aligned with the enterprise's strategic orientations, and should suggest a KM Governance principles by analogy with COBIT®. In particular, we established KM indicators. Numerous publications and books relates to that subject. From our viewpoint, we constructed two main categories of indicators in order to monitor a KM initiative: (i) a category of indicators that focus on the impacts of the initiative that favor enhancement of intellectual capital, (ii) a category of indicators that insure monitoring and coordination of KM activities, measuring the results, and insuring the relevance of the initiative.

In addition (ref. Fig. 6), we suggest a way to get a good articulation between the Deming's cycle PDCA (Deming,1982), and Argyris and Schön's Organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, 1996).

Firstly, we refer to the PDCA cycle of activities – plan, do, check, and act; this cycle well known as the *Deming's Cycle* by Quality Management practitioners, has inspired the ISO 9004 (2000) Quality Standards in order to get a continuous process improvement of the

To implement KMS components, Enterprises need a general model that is a pattern of reference (a template) in order to integrate KM Governance principles in their strategic vision, and to use KM as a factor that enable improving their efficiency and competitiveness. In this chapter, we refer to MGKME, our Model of General Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (Grundstein, 2005a, 2007, 2008) that articulates the enterprise's sociotechnical environment, the enterprise's value-adding processes, the managerial guiding principles specific to KM and the *Ad-hoc* infrastructures, the generic KM processes, and the

E. Coakes (2002) defines sociotechnical approach as "*the study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any system*" (p. 5). From KM viewpoint, the Socio-technical Environment constitutes the social fabric where autonomous individuals, supported by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and tangible resources, interact and are conversing through physical or virtual places (coffee machines,

The socio-technical approach leads to emphasizing the link between knowing and action, with due regard to the basic constraints of the social system that is to give a sense to working time. Thus, KM initiative should result in Knowledge Management System (KMS) components that take into account the individuals, both as components and users of a

Value adding processes derive from the value chain described by Porter (1985) who identifies nine value-adding activities that he classifies into two main categories. The "primary activities" are: 1) in-bound logistics, 2) operations, 3) out-bound logistics, 4) marketing & sales, and 5) Services. The "support activities" are: 1) business infrastructure, 2) human resource management, 3) technological development, and 4) supplies. In this way, Value-adding processes represent the organizational context for which knowledge is essential factors of performance. It is in this context that is implanted a KM

**6.4 The managerial guiding principles specific to KM and the** *Ad-hoc* **infrastructures**  The Managerial Guiding Principles should bring a vision aligned with the enterprise's strategic orientations, and should suggest a KM Governance principles by analogy with COBIT®. In particular, we established KM indicators. Numerous publications and books relates to that subject. From our viewpoint, we constructed two main categories of indicators in order to monitor a KM initiative: (i) a category of indicators that focus on the impacts of the initiative that favor enhancement of intellectual capital, (ii) a category of indicators that insure monitoring and coordination of KM activities, measuring the results, and insuring

In addition (ref. Fig. 6), we suggest a way to get a good articulation between the Deming's cycle PDCA (Deming,1982), and Argyris and Schön's Organizational learning (Argyris and

Firstly, we refer to the PDCA cycle of activities – plan, do, check, and act; this cycle well known as the *Deming's Cycle* by Quality Management practitioners, has inspired the ISO 9004 (2000) Quality Standards in order to get a continuous process improvement of the

system that allows them to be autonomous and to achieve their potentialities.

organizational learning processes.

**6.2 The enterprise's sociotechnical environment** 

collaborative workspaces, weblogs, wikis, CoPs).

**6.3 The enterprise's value adding processes** 

initiative.

Schön, 1996).

the relevance of the initiative.

Quality Management System. Secondly, we refer to the *Single-Loop Learning* and *Double-Loop Learning* defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory

Furthermore, we should think about the *Ad-hoc* infrastructures, which are adapted sets of devices and means for action. Beyond a network that favors cooperative work, it is important to implement the conditions that will allow sharing and creating knowledge. An *ad hoc* infrastructure must be set up according to the specific situation of each company, and the context of the envisaged KM initiative. The SECI spiral of conversion Model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and the Japanese concept of *Ba* inspire this infrastructure (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno, 2000; Grundstein, 2011).

Fig. 6. Deming's cycle and Argyris & Schön's Organizational learning

#### **6.5 The generic KM processes**

The generic KM processes answer the problem of capitalizing on company's knowledge defined in the following way (Grundstein, 1996) "*Capitalizing on company's knowledge means considering certain knowledge used and produced by the company as a storehouse of riches and drawing from these riches interest that contributes to increasing the company's capital*" (p. 141).

Several problems co-exist. They are recurring problems for a company. These problems constitute a general problematic that has been organized in five categories. Each of these categories contains sub-processes aimed to contribute a solution to the set of overall problems (ref. Fig. 7).

The **Locating KM Process** deals with the location of Crucial Knowledge, that is, Knowledge (explicit or tacit) that is essential for decision-making processes and for the progress of the support and value-adding processes. One can mention GAMETH® (Grundstein, 2000; Grundstein & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2004), an approach that provides the elements that lead to identifying the problems, clarifying the needs for knowledge, identifying and locating potential crucial knowledge, specifying the value-based assessment of this knowledge, and finally, determining "crucial knowledge".

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 15

The MGKME, described hereafter (ref. Fig. 8), supports our full meaning of KM as defined in paragraph 4.2. It is an empirical model based both on our experience within the industry, and on our research works. MGKME rests on a Sociotechnical approach. It focuses on people and value adding processes. Moreover, the MGKME presents an attempt to articulate the Deming's Cycle PDCA and the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory. It suggests "*ad hoc* infrastructures" derived from the Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI model and the Japanese concept of "*BA*". It highlights four generic KM processes (Grundstein, 2007): Locating crucial knowledge process; Preserving crucial knowledge process; Enhancing crucial

MGKME is composed of two main categories of elements: (I) the underlying elements consist of (1) socio-technical environment and (2) value adding processes; (II) the operating elements focus on the underlying elements. They consist of (3) managerial guiding principles, (4) *ad hoc* infrastructures, (5) generic KM processes, (6) organizational learning

Values Consequences

*ad hoc* **INFRASTRUCTURES**

**Collaborative Tools**

**DO**

**Community of Practice**

**ACT**

Fig. 8. Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise

Web-based Technologies

**CHECK**

*Communication Interactions*

**METHODS TOOLS**

Key Issues to address for every elements of each level are synthesized in Table 2 and 3. Table 2 represents the underlying level of MGKME. The Underlying level of the MGKME contains the elements of MGKME that underlie the operating components of the Knowledge Management System. The core knowledge is embodied in people heads, and their abilities to utilize them and to generate new knowledge at the same

**Company's Portals**

**PLAN**

Double Loop Learning

**7**

**4**

**3**

Single Loop Learning

knowledge process; and Actualizing crucial knowledge process.

processes, and (7) methods and supporting tools.

*Organizational Learning*

**SOCIOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT**

Action Strategy

Governing

*Value-adding Processes*

**6.7 MGKME description** 

**1**

**6**

**7**

©Michel Grundstein

**2**

**5**

The **Preserving Process** deals with the retention of knowledge and skills. When knowledge can be articulated into words, it is necessary to acquire it with the bearers of knowledge, to represent it, to formalize it, and to conserve it. This leads to Knowledge Engineering activities notably described in (Schreiber et al, 2000). When knowledge cannot be articulated, then interactions through communities of practice or other types of networks must be encouraged.

The **Enhancing Process** deals with the benefit of knowledge and skills. It is necessary to make them accessible according to certain rules of confidentiality and safety, to disseminate them, to share them, to use them more effectively, to combine them, and to create new knowledge. Here is the link with innovation processes.

The **Actualizing process** deals with the actualization of knowledge and skills. It is necessary to appraise them, to update them, to standardize them and to enrich them according to the returns of experiments, the creation of new knowledge, and the contribution of external knowledge. Here is the link with business intelligence processes.

Fig. 7. The Generic KM Processes

#### **6.6 The organizational learning processes**

The Organizational learning processes underlay the whole generic KM processes. The aim of the organizational learning process is to increase individual knowledge, to reinforce competencies, and to convert them into a collective knowledge through interactions, dialogue, discussions, exchange of experience, and observation. The main objective consists in fighting against the defensive routines that make barriers to training and change. Therefore, it is a question of helping the members of the organization to change their way of thinking by facilitating an apprenticeship of a constructive way of reasoning instead of a defensive one.

#### **6.7 MGKME description**

14 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

The **Preserving Process** deals with the retention of knowledge and skills. When knowledge can be articulated into words, it is necessary to acquire it with the bearers of knowledge, to represent it, to formalize it, and to conserve it. This leads to Knowledge Engineering activities notably described in (Schreiber et al, 2000). When knowledge cannot be articulated, then interactions through communities of practice or other types of networks

The **Enhancing Process** deals with the benefit of knowledge and skills. It is necessary to make them accessible according to certain rules of confidentiality and safety, to disseminate them, to share them, to use them more effectively, to combine them, and to create new

The **Actualizing process** deals with the actualization of knowledge and skills. It is necessary to appraise them, to update them, to standardize them and to enrich them according to the returns of experiments, the creation of new knowledge, and the contribution of external

The Organizational learning processes underlay the whole generic KM processes. The aim of the organizational learning process is to increase individual knowledge, to reinforce competencies, and to convert them into a collective knowledge through interactions, dialogue, discussions, exchange of experience, and observation. The main objective consists in fighting against the defensive routines that make barriers to training and change. Therefore, it is a question of helping the members of the organization to change their way of thinking by facilitating an apprenticeship of a constructive way of reasoning instead of a

must be encouraged.

Fig. 7. The Generic KM Processes

defensive one.

**6.6 The organizational learning processes** 

knowledge. Here is the link with innovation processes.

knowledge. Here is the link with business intelligence processes.

The MGKME, described hereafter (ref. Fig. 8), supports our full meaning of KM as defined in paragraph 4.2. It is an empirical model based both on our experience within the industry, and on our research works. MGKME rests on a Sociotechnical approach. It focuses on people and value adding processes. Moreover, the MGKME presents an attempt to articulate the Deming's Cycle PDCA and the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory. It suggests "*ad hoc* infrastructures" derived from the Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI model and the Japanese concept of "*BA*". It highlights four generic KM processes (Grundstein, 2007): Locating crucial knowledge process; Preserving crucial knowledge process; Enhancing crucial knowledge process; and Actualizing crucial knowledge process.

MGKME is composed of two main categories of elements: (I) the underlying elements consist of (1) socio-technical environment and (2) value adding processes; (II) the operating elements focus on the underlying elements. They consist of (3) managerial guiding principles, (4) *ad hoc* infrastructures, (5) generic KM processes, (6) organizational learning processes, and (7) methods and supporting tools.

<sup>©</sup>Michel Grundstein

Fig. 8. Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise

Key Issues to address for every elements of each level are synthesized in Table 2 and 3. Table 2 represents the underlying level of MGKME. The Underlying level of the MGKME contains the elements of MGKME that underlie the operating components of the Knowledge Management System. The core knowledge is embodied in people heads, and their abilities to utilize them and to generate new knowledge at the same

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 17

KM Governance Principles (strategic alignment,

Content and Document Management Systems

Organizational conditions encouraging interaction,

Collaborative Information Systems

communication, and knowledge sharing

New Organizational Structures Experiments General Vision, and Systemic Approach Routines (defensive or constructive)

Constant Evolution versus Change ( Alter, 2000)

Knowledge Engineering, Artificial Intelligence (Semantic

CSCW -Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Multi-

Social Networks (Identification, Visualization, and Informal Social Network Analysis Systems)

articulation between quality and organizational learning

Model

 *ad hoc*

Managerial Guiding Principles

Infrastructures

Generic KM Processes

Organizational Learning Process

Methods and Supporting Tools

Table 3. MGKME's operating Level

knowledge is no more than information.

**II** 

O P E R A T I N G

LEVEL

Level Elements Key Issues

Vision

management)

Locating Process Preserving Process Enhancing Process Actualizing Process

Indicators

Main Development Axes

Team Learning Processes

Knowledge Dissemination

General Methods and Tools

 A Knowledge System (KS), consisting of tacit knowledge embodied by the individuals, and of explicit knowledge formalized and codified on any shape of supports (documents, video, photo, digitized or not). Under certain conditions, digitized knowledge is susceptible to be stored, processed and spread with the DIS. In that case,

We insist on the importance to integrate the individual as a component of the system. In fact, relying to our assumptions, we argue that knowledge resides primarily in the heads of individuals, and in the social interactions of these individuals. Knowledge is dependent of the individual's interpretative frameworks, and the context of his action. Consequently, as mental models and interpretative frameworks are directly forged by cultural factors, it induces to stress the role of cultural factors when social interactions, information sharing and knowledge transfer are essential to enable efficiency in the global economy. Here, knowledge transfer

WEB and Ontology)

agents Systems)

Impact of Web 2.0

time. The information technologies and the tangible technical resources enhance their competence, while value-adding processes and organizational infrastructures are structuring their activities. Nevertheless, their social interactions are essential factors, which leverage their potentialities, and that actually enable them to achieve effective results. Therefore, from our perspective, socio-technical environment, and value-adding processes are fundamental components of the Knowledge Management System.


#### Table 2. MGKME's underlying Level

Table 3 represents the operating level of MGKME. The operating level of MGKME contains the elements of MGKME that focus on the underlying components of the Knowledge Management System, and consist of managerial guiding principles, ad hoc infrastructures, generic KM processes, organizational learning processes, and methods and supporting tools for KM.
