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

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 into information (ref. Fig. 2).

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

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 describe the transformation process.

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

Three Postulates that Change Knowledge Management Paradigm 7

The process of transformation of information into tacit knowledge is a process of construction of knowledge. Created knowledge, can be very different from one individual to another when the commensurability of their interpretative frameworks is small, whatever are the causes of it. There are large risks that the same information takes different senses for each of them, and consequently generates a construction of different tacit knowledge in the head of the decision process stakeholders. Unlike the information, knowledge is dynamic. Once constructed it cannot be considered as an object independent from the individual who

Later on, at time Tn+1, when P2 as a sender communicates with a receiver P3, during *a* tacit knowledge articulation phase**,** a sense-giving process enables P2 to articulate a part of his new tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that is no more than information I(P2,Tn+1) for P3. As a result one can understand the importance to clearly distinguish static factual information, which allows describing the context and the situation that raise a problem, from the tacit knowledge of the individual who processes this information to learn and get

Consequently, paraphrasing (Kautz and Kjaergaard 2008) if technology provides the possibility of making information available across time and space (p. 49), we always have to keep in mind the role of individual in the knowledge sharing process, but we do also pay

Our approach is inspired by a KM constructivist paradigm. It induces to consider tacit and explicit knowledge as the outcome of a sense-giving process that involves people engaged in actions, and mainly depend of the organizational context. It implies three fundamental postulates and leads to a definition a KM focused on activities and processes opening on Technological, Managerial, and Socio-technical Well-balanced KM Initiative Strategies

Our observations and experiments within the industry, led us to set forth three postulates: (i) Knowledge is not an object; (ii) Knowledge is linked to the action, and (iii) Company's knowledge includes two main categories of knowledge. We define these postulates

Knowledge exists in the interaction between an interpretative Framework (incorporated within the head of an individual, or embedded into an artifact), and data. This postulate comes from the assumption emphasized by Tsuchiya (1993) concerning tacit knowledge

From an organization perspective, knowledge is created through action. Knowledge is essential for the functioning of support, and value-adding processes (Porter, 1985). Activities contributing to these processes utilize and create knowledge. Thus, the actions finalize the organization's knowledge. This viewpoint takes into account the context and the situation, which allow utilizing and creating knowledge. In particular, we must analyze the role and intentions of the actors - decision-makers - involved with these activities in order to achieve

built it, or the individual who appropriates it to make a decision and to act.

attention to how individual uses technology to share knowledge (p. 43).

knowledge he needs to carry out his tasks.

**4. A constructivist paradigm of KM** 

**4.1.1 Postulate 1: Knowledge is not an object** 

**4.1.2 Postulate 2: Knowledge is linked to the action** 

**4.1 Three fundamental postulates** 

within Organizations

below.

creation ability.

creation phase, P1, has direct access to a set of data outside himself. Then, P1 according to a sense-reading process - that depends of his pre-existing interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions, filters some of these data that take sense for him. At the same time, a sense-giving process using P1's previous tacit knowledge enables P1 to aggregate, supplement and organize selected data into information I(P1,T0). Once created this information becomes a static object independent from P1, and time. It is this information that is passed-on by the individuals or by means of the digital information system (DIS) where it is stored, treated and transmitted as a stream of digital data. During this process, P1's pre-existing interpretative frameworks are not changing; previous tacit knowledge can be reorganized and modified into new tacit knowledge.

Fig. 3. DITEK process model level 2: From information…to tacit and explicit knowledge

At a later stage of the first level process, at time Tn, when P2 perceives the information I(P1, T0) during a reception, self-reflection and observation phase, this information (P1,T0) is captured by P2, who is in different context and situation than P1 who elaborates it. P2 has his own intentions. Then, P2 according to a sense-reading process, interprets this information (P1, T0), filtering data through his pre-existing interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions. At the same time, a sense-giving process that uses P2's previous knowledge operates, and engenders new tacit knowledge. That's the way that changes P2's pre-existing interpretative frameworks, and enriches P2's previous tacit knowledge enabling P2 to understand his situation, identify a problem, find a solution, decide, and act. The results of this process are modified interpretative frameworks, and new tacit knowledge.

creation phase, P1, has direct access to a set of data outside himself. Then, P1 according to a sense-reading process - that depends of his pre-existing interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions, filters some of these data that take sense for him. At the same time, a sense-giving process using P1's previous tacit knowledge enables P1 to aggregate, supplement and organize selected data into information I(P1,T0). Once created this information becomes a static object independent from P1, and time. It is this information that is passed-on by the individuals or by means of the digital information system (DIS) where it is stored, treated and transmitted as a stream of digital data. During this process, P1's pre-existing interpretative frameworks are not changing; previous tacit

Fig. 3. DITEK process model level 2: From information…to tacit and explicit knowledge

and new tacit knowledge.

At a later stage of the first level process, at time Tn, when P2 perceives the information I(P1, T0) during a reception, self-reflection and observation phase, this information (P1,T0) is captured by P2, who is in different context and situation than P1 who elaborates it. P2 has his own intentions. Then, P2 according to a sense-reading process, interprets this information (P1, T0), filtering data through his pre-existing interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions. At the same time, a sense-giving process that uses P2's previous knowledge operates, and engenders new tacit knowledge. That's the way that changes P2's pre-existing interpretative frameworks, and enriches P2's previous tacit knowledge enabling P2 to understand his situation, identify a problem, find a solution, decide, and act. The results of this process are modified interpretative frameworks,

knowledge can be reorganized and modified into new tacit knowledge.

The process of transformation of information into tacit knowledge is a process of construction of knowledge. Created knowledge, can be very different from one individual to another when the commensurability of their interpretative frameworks is small, whatever are the causes of it. There are large risks that the same information takes different senses for each of them, and consequently generates a construction of different tacit knowledge in the head of the decision process stakeholders. Unlike the information, knowledge is dynamic. Once constructed it cannot be considered as an object independent from the individual who built it, or the individual who appropriates it to make a decision and to act.

Later on, at time Tn+1, when P2 as a sender communicates with a receiver P3, during *a* tacit knowledge articulation phase**,** a sense-giving process enables P2 to articulate a part of his new tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that is no more than information I(P2,Tn+1) for P3.

As a result one can understand the importance to clearly distinguish static factual information, which allows describing the context and the situation that raise a problem, from the tacit knowledge of the individual who processes this information to learn and get knowledge he needs to carry out his tasks.

Consequently, paraphrasing (Kautz and Kjaergaard 2008) if technology provides the possibility of making information available across time and space (p. 49), we always have to keep in mind the role of individual in the knowledge sharing process, but we do also pay attention to how individual uses technology to share knowledge (p. 43).

Our approach is inspired by a KM constructivist paradigm. It induces to consider tacit and explicit knowledge as the outcome of a sense-giving process that involves people engaged in actions, and mainly depend of the organizational context. It implies three fundamental postulates and leads to a definition a KM focused on activities and processes opening on Technological, Managerial, and Socio-technical Well-balanced KM Initiative Strategies within Organizations
