**9. Conclusions and perspectives**

Most of time, the positivist paradigm of KM thought as a means to acquire, codify, store and disseminate knowledge, considers knowledge as an object, and so disregards the importance of individual's tacit knowledge used in action. Although this paradigm of KM is greatly shared, without awareness when elaborating KM initiative's strategy, we can confuse the notions of information and knowledge. The constructivist paradigm of KM proposed in this paper is founded on the DITEK process model, and three postulates. It brings an open definition of KM focused on the activities and processes that enhance the utilization and the creation of knowledge within organizations; in doing so, it induces a well-balanced technological, managerial and socio-technical KM initiative strategy. Therefore, to avoid misunderstanding during the strategic orientation phase of a KM initiative, we pointed out that it was fundamental to clearly distinguish the notion of information from the notion of knowledge.

The three postulates that change the paradigm of KM induce an open definition of KM that leads to integrate the whole dimensions that should be involved in a KM initiative. They induce a specific KM governance, and lead towards a technological, managerial, and sociotechnical well-balanced KM initiatives within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Furthermore, distinguishing Information from Knowledge opens our mind on a different view of information systems: these systems based on Digital Information System (DIS) integrate people, both at the same time, as users and components of the system. This pragmatic vision needs thinking about the architecture of an Enterprise's Information and Knowledge System (EIKS), which must be a basis of discussion during the strategic orientation phase of a general KM initiative.
