In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Pr... more In the foreword of the book untitled “The New Age in Knowledge” (O’Dell and Hubert 2011) Larry Prusak describes some of the main principles focused on knowledge management at the beginning days (p. xi): i) Knowledge is a fixed pool, a collection of resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general view resting on a constructivist paradigm. In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
Uploads
Papers by Michel Grundstein
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.
resources that can be measured and used by standard management techniques; ii) Technology is the key tool to unlock the value of this resource – more technology, the
better; and iii) Individuals are the critical unit of analysis in working with knowledge – the more productive the individual is the more knowledge is being used. He concludes: “It is
now clear in hindsight that these principles were developed with information in mind, not knowledge, and that they were not at all suitable to working with such elusive intangible. It is because of these ideas that many knowledge management efforts ran into problems and that the whole subject began to fade in the minds of busy executives.” However, although it does not always get the expected outcomes when put at work in organizations, the positivist paradigm of KM, influenced by computer science and
information technology, is the most implicitly recognized paradigm by researchers and practitioners in KM. From our viewpoint, this paradigm needs to be enlarged to a general
view resting on a constructivist paradigm.
In this chapter we put down background theory and assumptions; notably, we introduce the concept of “commensurability of interpretative frameworks,” and we propose an empirical
model (DITEK) that attempts to describe the transformation process from data to information and from information to tacit and explicit knowledge. Then, we suggest a constructivist paradigm of KM within organizations based on three fundamental postulates. This leads to envisage new KM perspectives that induce specific KM Governance, and leads towards a technological, managerial, and socio-technical well-balanced KM approach within organizations referring to general model for knowledge management within organization so called MGKME. Finally, we sketch out the architecture of an enterprise’s information and knowledge system (EIKS), and we propose a well-balanced KM initiative strategy within organizations.