**2. Background theory and assumptions**

#### **2.1 Research motivations, method, and objectives**

Our research follows a constructivist paradigm that is deeply rooted in our pragmatic experience in the real field. As a practitioner having to manage deployment of innovative

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 3

author; the second conjecture is that simplicity counts in management and that this has the effect of privileging a theoretical position that is clearly linked to a working and productive legacy in information system but more importantly, clears up the messy situation of exactly understanding the notion of knowledge in organizations; the third conjecture is painted on an even broader canvas. If one has a worldview that is cumulative and sees the world as consisting of innumerable little bits (now not in the technical sense) of matter that all add up to the while by the process of accumulation and simple organization and categorization, then a data information knowledge model would make sense…That means that a mechanistic and positivist worldview is to be found at the base of the easy acceptance of the

In fact, we think that, beyond all these studies, we have to position our thoughts in the contextual field where the notion of data, information, and knowledge are used: in our case, the field of enterprises and more generally organizations. That leads to conceive how the transformation process should be envisaged using the concept of commensurability of

Our approach is built upon the assumption emphasized by Tsuchiya concerning knowledge creation ability. He states, "Although terms 'datum', 'information', and 'knowledge' are often used interchangeably, there exists a clear distinction among them. When datum is sense-given through interpretative framework, it becomes information, and when information is sense-read through interpretative framework, it becomes knowledge (p.88)". In other words, we can say that tacit knowledge that resides in our brain results from the sense given, through our interpretative frameworks, to data that we perceive among the information transmitted to us. Or rather, Knowledge exists in the interaction between an Interpretative Framework (incorporated within the head of an individual, or embedded into

In a different way, Wiig (2004) who highlights a discontinuity between information and knowledge describes this process clearly. He states, "The process, by which we develop new knowledge, uses prior knowledge to make sense of the new information and, once accepted for inclusion, internalizes the new insights by linking with prior knowledge. Hence, the new knowledge is as much a function of prior knowledge as it is of received inputs. A discontinuity is thus created between the received information inputs and the resulting new

Consequently, we postulate that knowledge is not an object processed independently of the person who has to act. So, we can say that formalized and codified knowledge that are independent from individual, are not more than information. Furthermore, as emphasized by Haeckel (2000) we must discern "the knowledge of knower and the codification of that

Tsuchiya emphases how organizational knowledge is created through dialogue, and highlighted how "commensurability" of the interpretative frameworks of the organization's members is indispensable for an organization to create organizational knowledge for decision and action (ref. Fig. 1). Here, commensurability is the common space of the set of interpretative frameworks of each member (e.g. cognitive models or mental models directly

interpretative frameworks highlighted by (Tsuchiya 1993).

**2.3.2 Conditions for considering information as knowledge** 

**2.3.1 Creation of Individual's tacit knowledge** 

**2.3 The concept of commensurability of interpretative frameworks** 

DIK model."

an artifact), and data.

knowledge (p. 73)."

knowledge (p. 295)."

technologies (such as computer aided design, knowledge based systems, and others) in large companies just when these technologies were conceived into universities and laboratories, we observed that we always needed to elaborate a model with socio-technical perspectives, which could be used as a pattern of reference for all stakeholders in order to engender the essential learning process that leads people to appropriate and use these technologies. Later on, when becoming Associate Researcher in the domain of KM, we perceived the lack of general model of KM that integrates socio-technical perspectives. This point of view is often disregarded when considering the technical approach of KM, although hundred of frameworks can be found in the literature (CEN-CWA 14924-1, 2004). As a practitioner we always had to consider the constructivist paradigm that underlies the creation of knowledge, and consequently KM approach. As a researcher we always had to be confronted with the positivist paradigm that most often considers knowledge independently of its links with action, and the context of organizations. Thus, our researches, notably in the domain of KM, are continuously oriented towards a well-balanced use of positivist and constructivist paradigms within organizations.

#### **2.2 The dominant positivist paradigm of KM**

Numerous authors analyzed the notions of data, information and knowledge. Let us quote notably Davenport and Prusak (1998, pp.1-6), Sena and Shani (1999), Takeuchi and Nonaka, (2000), Amin and Cohendet, (2004, pp. 17-30), Laudon and Laudon, (2006, p. 416). Besides, Snowden (2000,) makes the following synthesis: "The developing practice of knowledge management has seen two different approaches to definition; one arises from information management and sees knowledge as some higher-level order of information, often expressed as a triangle progressing from data, through information and knowledge, to the apex of wisdom. Knowledge here is seen as a thing or entity that can be managed and distributed through advanced use of technology…The second approach sees the problem from a sociological basis. These definitions see knowledge as a human capability to act (pp. 241-242)."

The dominant positivism paradigm of KM is implicit in the DIKW (Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom) hierarchy model. This model induced numerous computers and information researches. For example, (Rowley, 2007) revisiting the DIKW hierarchy by examining the articulation of the hierarchy in a number of widely read textbooks in information systems and knowledge management preferably published in 2003 and later, noted that "there is a consensus that data, information and knowledge are to be defined in terms of one another, although data and information can both act as inputs to knowledge; the tangle of concepts can be explored at two levels – the relationship between data and information, and the relationship between information and knowledge p.174);" and she raised the question: "Is there a sharp divide between data, information and knowledge, or do they lie on a continuum with different levels of meaning, structure and actionability occurring at different levels (p. 175)."

More recently, (Muller and Maasdorp 2011) point out the dominance of the DIK model in information science. They have three conjectures as to why knowledge management practitioners and authors prefer the DIK model. The first one concerns information theory background, the second one is about simplicity, and the third one rests on accumulative worldview. Their ideas are closely akin to ours. Let's quote some of their conjunctures: "the first possible explanation for the dominance of the DIK model in KM is that it is an effect of background in information theory or communication theory of the practitioner or the

technologies (such as computer aided design, knowledge based systems, and others) in large companies just when these technologies were conceived into universities and laboratories, we observed that we always needed to elaborate a model with socio-technical perspectives, which could be used as a pattern of reference for all stakeholders in order to engender the essential learning process that leads people to appropriate and use these technologies. Later on, when becoming Associate Researcher in the domain of KM, we perceived the lack of general model of KM that integrates socio-technical perspectives. This point of view is often disregarded when considering the technical approach of KM, although hundred of frameworks can be found in the literature (CEN-CWA 14924-1, 2004). As a practitioner we always had to consider the constructivist paradigm that underlies the creation of knowledge, and consequently KM approach. As a researcher we always had to be confronted with the positivist paradigm that most often considers knowledge independently of its links with action, and the context of organizations. Thus, our researches, notably in the domain of KM, are continuously oriented towards a well-balanced

Numerous authors analyzed the notions of data, information and knowledge. Let us quote notably Davenport and Prusak (1998, pp.1-6), Sena and Shani (1999), Takeuchi and Nonaka, (2000), Amin and Cohendet, (2004, pp. 17-30), Laudon and Laudon, (2006, p. 416). Besides, Snowden (2000,) makes the following synthesis: "The developing practice of knowledge management has seen two different approaches to definition; one arises from information management and sees knowledge as some higher-level order of information, often expressed as a triangle progressing from data, through information and knowledge, to the apex of wisdom. Knowledge here is seen as a thing or entity that can be managed and distributed through advanced use of technology…The second approach sees the problem from a sociological basis. These definitions see knowledge as a human capability to act

The dominant positivism paradigm of KM is implicit in the DIKW (Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom) hierarchy model. This model induced numerous computers and information researches. For example, (Rowley, 2007) revisiting the DIKW hierarchy by examining the articulation of the hierarchy in a number of widely read textbooks in information systems and knowledge management preferably published in 2003 and later, noted that "there is a consensus that data, information and knowledge are to be defined in terms of one another, although data and information can both act as inputs to knowledge; the tangle of concepts can be explored at two levels – the relationship between data and information, and the relationship between information and knowledge p.174);" and she raised the question: "Is there a sharp divide between data, information and knowledge, or do they lie on a continuum with different levels of meaning, structure and actionability

More recently, (Muller and Maasdorp 2011) point out the dominance of the DIK model in information science. They have three conjectures as to why knowledge management practitioners and authors prefer the DIK model. The first one concerns information theory background, the second one is about simplicity, and the third one rests on accumulative worldview. Their ideas are closely akin to ours. Let's quote some of their conjunctures: "the first possible explanation for the dominance of the DIK model in KM is that it is an effect of background in information theory or communication theory of the practitioner or the

use of positivist and constructivist paradigms within organizations.

**2.2 The dominant positivist paradigm of KM** 

occurring at different levels (p. 175)."

(pp. 241-242)."

author; the second conjecture is that simplicity counts in management and that this has the effect of privileging a theoretical position that is clearly linked to a working and productive legacy in information system but more importantly, clears up the messy situation of exactly understanding the notion of knowledge in organizations; the third conjecture is painted on an even broader canvas. If one has a worldview that is cumulative and sees the world as consisting of innumerable little bits (now not in the technical sense) of matter that all add up to the while by the process of accumulation and simple organization and categorization, then a data information knowledge model would make sense…That means that a mechanistic and positivist worldview is to be found at the base of the easy acceptance of the DIK model."

In fact, we think that, beyond all these studies, we have to position our thoughts in the contextual field where the notion of data, information, and knowledge are used: in our case, the field of enterprises and more generally organizations. That leads to conceive how the transformation process should be envisaged using the concept of commensurability of interpretative frameworks highlighted by (Tsuchiya 1993).

#### **2.3 The concept of commensurability of interpretative frameworks 2.3.1 Creation of Individual's tacit knowledge**

Our approach is built upon the assumption emphasized by Tsuchiya concerning knowledge creation ability. He states, "Although terms 'datum', 'information', and 'knowledge' are often used interchangeably, there exists a clear distinction among them. When datum is sense-given through interpretative framework, it becomes information, and when information is sense-read through interpretative framework, it becomes knowledge (p.88)". In other words, we can say that tacit knowledge that resides in our brain results from the sense given, through our interpretative frameworks, to data that we perceive among the information transmitted to us. Or rather, Knowledge exists in the interaction between an Interpretative Framework (incorporated within the head of an individual, or embedded into an artifact), and data.

In a different way, Wiig (2004) who highlights a discontinuity between information and knowledge describes this process clearly. He states, "The process, by which we develop new knowledge, uses prior knowledge to make sense of the new information and, once accepted for inclusion, internalizes the new insights by linking with prior knowledge. Hence, the new knowledge is as much a function of prior knowledge as it is of received inputs. A discontinuity is thus created between the received information inputs and the resulting new knowledge (p. 73)."

Consequently, we postulate that knowledge is not an object processed independently of the person who has to act. So, we can say that formalized and codified knowledge that are independent from individual, are not more than information. Furthermore, as emphasized by Haeckel (2000) we must discern "the knowledge of knower and the codification of that knowledge (p. 295)."

#### **2.3.2 Conditions for considering information as knowledge**

Tsuchiya emphases how organizational knowledge is created through dialogue, and highlighted how "commensurability" of the interpretative frameworks of the organization's members is indispensable for an organization to create organizational knowledge for decision and action (ref. Fig. 1). Here, commensurability is the common space of the set of interpretative frameworks of each member (e.g. cognitive models or mental models directly

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 5

Relying to the theories and assumptions set out above, we elaborated a model that attempt to describe the transformation process from data to information, and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. This model, called DITEK process model, describes at a first level the relationship between data and information, and at a second level the relationship between information, and tacit and explicit knowledge (ref. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Contrary to the idea of continuum between the concepts of data, information, and knowledge induced by the DIKW hierarchical model, DITEK process model shows a discontinuity between these concepts. At a first level, we have to consider the relationship between data and information. This level must be thought as a basic process where data are discrete raw elements perceived, gathered, and filtered by a person before to be aggregated, supplemented, and organized

**3. From data to information, and tacit and explicit knowledge: The DITEK** 

**process model** 

into information (ref. Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. DITEK process model level 1: From data…to information

describe the transformation process.

At a second level, we have to consider the relationship between information, and tacit and explicit knowledge. This level is in rupture with the first one, it presupposes that information already exists whatever are time and context in which it was created. Let's

A sender P1 is acting in specific context and situation at time T0. P1 has pre-existing interpretative frameworks, previous tacit knowledge, and intentions. In an information

forged by education, experience, beliefs, and value systems). Tsuchiya states "It is important to clearly distinguish between sharing information and sharing knowledge. Information becomes knowledge only when it is sense-read through the interpretative framework of the receiver. Any information inconsistent with his interpretative framework is not perceived in most cases. Therefore, commensurability of interpretative frameworks of members is indispensable for individual knowledge to be shared (p. 89)."

Fig. 1. Commensurability of Interpretative Frameworks (I.F.) and Individual Sense-Making

Consequently, information can only be assimilated to knowledge when members having a large commensurability of their set of interpretative frameworks commonly understand it in the same way. In that case, we call it "*information source of knowledge for someone*." Such is the case for members having the same technical or scientific education, or members having the same business culture. In these cases, formalized and codified knowledge make the same sense for each member; that enables to speak of knowledge bases, and flows of knowledge. However, one must take into account that interpretative frameworks evolve in a dynamic way: they are not rigid mindsets. Especially, when considering that, as time is going on, contexts and situations evolve. Thus, the contribution of scientific results, techniques and new methods, the influence of young generations being born with Web (Y generation or Digital Native), the impact of identity crisis and multiple cultures, modify the interpretative frameworks, and create a gap between individuals' commensurability of interpretative frameworks.

forged by education, experience, beliefs, and value systems). Tsuchiya states "It is important to clearly distinguish between sharing information and sharing knowledge. Information becomes knowledge only when it is sense-read through the interpretative framework of the receiver. Any information inconsistent with his interpretative framework is not perceived in most cases. Therefore, commensurability of interpretative frameworks of members is

Fig. 1. Commensurability of Interpretative Frameworks (I.F.) and Individual Sense-Making

Consequently, information can only be assimilated to knowledge when members having a large commensurability of their set of interpretative frameworks commonly understand it in the same way. In that case, we call it "*information source of knowledge for someone*." Such is the case for members having the same technical or scientific education, or members having the same business culture. In these cases, formalized and codified knowledge make the same sense for each member; that enables to speak of knowledge bases, and flows of knowledge. However, one must take into account that interpretative frameworks evolve in a dynamic way: they are not rigid mindsets. Especially, when considering that, as time is going on, contexts and situations evolve. Thus, the contribution of scientific results, techniques and new methods, the influence of young generations being born with Web (Y generation or Digital Native), the impact of identity crisis and multiple cultures, modify the interpretative frameworks, and create a gap between individuals' commensurability of interpretative

frameworks.

indispensable for individual knowledge to be shared (p. 89)."
