Michel Grundstein
email: mgrundstein@mgconseil.fr

Professor Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux

Transposing a Global Vision of Knowledge Management to a Global Vision of Information Management

Keywords: ), Knowledge Management (KM), Knowledge Management System

The definition of Information System do not consider individual as a component of the Information System. In this paper we present our postulates, and our definition of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems. We describe the Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME) that has been conceived in order to serve as a referential for Knowledge Management Systems in enterprise. Then we suggest a transposition of this model to Information System. This transposition leads to highlight two axis of research: (i) How to consolidate the concept of Information System considering individuals as users and components of the system; and (ii) How to use Information System as one of the factors enabling organizational learning processes.

INTRODUCTION

Many authors have already defined the concept of Information System, for example let's quote the following definitions: "An Information System is an organized set of resources: material, software, employees, data, procedures, in order to acquire, to process, to store, to disseminate information (data, documents, image, sound, etc.) in organization" (Reix, 2000, p. 75).

"An Information System is the set of all elements that contribute to the process and the circulation of informations in an organization (data base, software, procedures, documents) including Information Technology" (Educnet, 2006).

"Technically, we can define an Information System as a set of elements interconnected which collect (or recover), process, store and disseminate information in order to support decision and process control in organization" (Laudon, 2000, p.8).

1

Technological vision of the Information System underlies these definitions. They do not take into account the actors of the enterprise as an integral part of Information System, that means as media and processors of information. Moreover, our research on Knowledge Management (KM) leads us to conceive a model that can serve as a referential in order to positioning Knowledge Management researches and Knowledge Management initiatives in enterprise. This model called "Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise" (MGKME) highlights the necessity to consider actors as, at the same time, users and components of a Knowledge Management System.

In this paper we present our postulates and our vision of Knowledge Management, and. we describe the Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME). Then we highlight the concept of Knowledge Management Systems (KMS), and we show how it can be transposed to Information Management System. This leads us to suggest two axis of research: (i) How to consolidate the concept of Information System considering individuals as users and components of the system; and (ii) How to use Information System as one of the factors enabling organizational learning processes.

Our Vision of Knowledge Management

KM is often looked at from a technological viewpoint, which leads to consider the knowledge as an object and disregard the importance of the people. To avoid this drift, in 2001, the CCRC ECRIN Working Group defines KM as follows:

"KM is the management of the activities and the processes that enhance the utilization and the creation of knowledge within an organization, according to two strongly interlinked goals, and their underlying economic and strategic dimensions, organizational dimensions, socio-cultural dimensions, and technological dimensions: (i) a patrimony goal, and (ii) a sustainable innovation goal."

This definition implies three postulates: (i) Company's knowledge includes two main categories of knowledge; (ii) Knowledge is not an object; and (iii) Knowledge is linked to the action. These postulates are defined below.

(i) Company's knowledge includes two main categories of knowledge

Within a company, knowledge consists in explicit knowledge on the one hand, composed of all tangible elements (we call it "know-how"), and on the other hand tacit knowledge [START_REF] Polanyi | The Tacit Dimension[END_REF], which includes intangible knowledge (we call it "skills"). The tangible elements are formalized in a physical form (databases, procedures, plans, models, algorithms, analysis and synthesis documents) and/or are embedded in automated management systems, conception and production systems, and in products. The intangible elements are inherent to the individuals who bear them, either as collective knowledge (the "routines" -non-written individual or collective action procedures [START_REF] Nelson | An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[END_REF] or as personal knowledge (skills, crafts, "job secrets", historical and contextual knowledge, environmental knowledge -clients, competitors, technologies, socio-economic factors). Ref. Figure 1.

(ii) Knowledge is not an object

Knowledge lies in the interaction between an interpretative Framework (incorporated within the head of an individual, or embedded into an artifact) and data.

This postulate is based on the theories developed by [START_REF] Tsuchiya | Improving Knowledge Creation Ability through Organizational Learning[END_REF], who deals with the construction of tacit individual knowledge. According to his research, the tacit knowledge, which lies within one's brain, is the result of the meaning one allocates -through one's interpretative schemesto the data that one perceives as part of all the information received. This individual knowledge is tacit and it may or may not be expressed. It becomes collective knowledge as soon as it is shared by other individuals, whose interpretative schemes are "commensurable", i.e. schemes that enable a minimal common level of interpretation, which is shared by all members of the organization.

Figure 1: The Two Main Categories of Company's knowledge (iii) Knowledge is linked to the action

From a business perspective, knowledge is created through action. Knowledge is essential for the functioning of business and projects processes, and is finalized through their activities. Hence, one has to be interested in the activities of the actors -decision-makers -engaged in the processes contained in the company's missions. This vantage point is included in the use of the concept of knowledge, which cannot be separated from the individual placed within the company, his/her actions, decisions and relations with the surrounding systems (people and artifacts).

MGKME DESCRIPTION

The MGKME supports our full meaning of KM as defined above. It should be seen as an empirical model. It consists of two main categories of elements (ref.

The Underlying elements (I)

The core knowledge is embodied in people heads and their abilities to utilize them, and to generate new knowledge at the same time. The Information Technologies and the tangible technical resources enhance their competence, while Value-Added Processes, and Organizational Infrastructures are structuring their activities. Nevertheless, their social interactions [START_REF] Cohen | Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work[END_REF] are essential factors, which leverage their potentialities, and that actually enable them to achieve effective results. Therefore, from our perspective, Sociotechnical Environment, and Value-Added Processes are fundamental elements that constitute the underlying elements of the MGKME.

The Sociotechnical Environment

3

The Sociotechnical Environment constitutes the social fabric where autonomous individuals supported by ICT and tangible resources interact and are conversing through physical or virtual places (coffee machines, collaborative work spaces, weblogs, wikis, CoPs). Interacting is not enough. Thus, [START_REF] Stewart | The Conversing Company, its culture, power and potential[END_REF] observed what happens when there is interacting without conversing: "Stories are not told and associated sense of adventure is lost; knowing is not shared because questioning is not fostered; people become isolated, angry, resentful and do what they do with no real joy; while a business may be profitable it is likely that it is not operating at anywhere near its potential" (p. 17).

Figure 2. Model for Global Knowledge Management Within the Enterprise (MGKME) The Value-Added Processes

Value-Added Processes represent the organizational context for which knowledge is the essential factor of performance. It is in this context that is implanted a KM initiative. As pointed out by [START_REF] Tonchia | Process Management for the Extended Enterprise[END_REF]: "Process Management, with the concepts of internal customers and process ownership, is becoming one of the most important competitive weapons for firms and can determine a strategic change in the way business is carried out". These authors specify that: "Process Management consists in the rationalization of processes, the quest for efficiency/effectiveness, a sort of simplification/clarification brought about by common-sense engineering" (p. 20). As Process Management engenders structural changes, when doing Business Process Reengineering we should consider KM activities in order to identify knowledge, which is the essential factor to enable Value-Added Processes to achieve their goals efficiently.

The Operating elements (II)

The operating elements of the MGKME focus on the underlying elements. They consist of managerial guiding principles, relevant infrastructures, generic KM processes, organizational learning processes, and methods and supporting tools.

The Managerial Guiding Principles

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 Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT ® , 2000, 2002) that was initially published by the Information Systems Audit and Control Foundation, Inc. in 1996. The IT Governance Institute issued the third edition, which incorporates all-new material on IT Governance and Management Guidelines, in 2000. COBIT ® presents an international and generally accepted IT control framework enabling organizations to implement an IT Governance structure throughout the enterprise (Guldentops, 2004, p. 277).

In particular, KM indicators must be established. Numerous publications and books relates to that subject (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Roos, 1999) [START_REF] Moore | Performance Measures for Knowledge Management[END_REF] [START_REF] Morey | Knowledge Management, Classic and 11 Contemporary Works[END_REF], section III) (CEN-4, 2004). From our viewpoint, two main categories of indicators should be constructed in order to monitor a KM initiative: (i) a category of indicators that focus on the impacts of the initiative favoring 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, we should find a way to get a good articulation between the Deming's cycle and the Organizational learning (ref. figure 3). Firstly, we refer to the PDCA cycle of activities -plan, do, check, and act (Martin, 1995, p. 207). This cycle, first advocated by [START_REF] Deming | Out of the Crisis[END_REF] is well known as the Deming's Cycle by Quality Management practitioners. The PDCA cycle has inspired the ISO 9004 (2000) Quality Standards in order to get a continuous process improvement of the Quality Management System. Secondly, we refer to the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön 's organizational learning theory [START_REF] Argyris | Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method, and Practice[END_REF]. Thus, we point out the key contribution of Knowledge Management to Change 2 defined by [START_REF] Watzlawick | Changements : paradoxes et psychothérapie[END_REF].

Figure 3. Deming's Cycle and Organizational Learning Articulation

The Relevant Infrastructures

5

The Relevant Infrastructures 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. This infrastructure could be inspired by the Japanese concept of Ba that "can be thought as a shared space for emerging relationships" (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40).

The Generic KM Processes

The generic KM processes answer the problem of capitalizing on company's knowledge defined in the following way: "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" (Grundstein, 2000, p. 263).

Several problems co-exist. They are recurring problems with which the company was always confronted. These problems constitute a general problematic that has been organized in five categories (Grundstein, 2000, p. 268). Each of these categories contains sub-processes that are aimed to contribute a solution to the set of overall problems. Thus, we have identified four Generic KM Processes corresponding to the resolution of these categories of problems (ref. figure 4). These processes are described below.

Figure 4. Generic KM Processes

The Locating Process deals with the location of Crucial Knowledge: it is necessary to identify it, to locate it, to characterize it, to make cartographies of it, to estimate its economic value, and to classify it. One can mention an approach named GAMETH  [START_REF] Grundstein | From capitalizing on Company's Knowledge to Knowledge Management[END_REF][START_REF] Grundstein | GAMETH ® , A Decision Support Approach to Identify and Locate Potential Crucial Knowledge[END_REF]) specifically aimed to support this process.

The Preserving Process deals with the preservation of know-how and skills: when knowledge can be put 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 that are notably described in [START_REF] Schreiber | Knowledge Engineering and Management. The CommonKADS Methodology[END_REF]. When knowledge cannot be put into words, then interactions through communities of practice or other types of networks must be encouraged.

6

The Enhancing Process deals with the added-value of know-how 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 know-how 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.

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. So, 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.

The Methods and Supporting Tools for KM

The methods and supporting tools relevant for KM can be determined only when considering the enterprise context and the envisaged KM initiative. One can find the descriptions and the characteristics of technologies, methods and supporting tools relevant for KM in many publications such as, for example, [START_REF] Baek | Intelligent Agents for Knowledge Management, Toward Intelligent Web-Based Collaboration within Virtual Teams[END_REF] [START_REF] Becker | Knowledge Discovery[END_REF] [START_REF] Huntington | Knowledge-Based Systems: A Look at Rule-Based Systems[END_REF]) [START_REF] Wensley | Tools for Knowledge Management[END_REF].

Actually, as mentioned by [START_REF] Grundstein | Three Types of Data For Extended Company's Employees: A Knowledge Management Viewpoint[END_REF]: "(Employees) become decision-makers who use and produce more and more knowledge as a basis for their efficiency… Commonly pointed out as « Knowledge-Workers», (they) have to access know-how and skills widely distributed in the global and influence spaces of their organization… The computerized workstation becomes a window opened on the company's planetary space of activities" (p. 979). As a result, the information and application portals have become essential for the knowledge workers who have to share with colleagues disseminated all around the world.

Thus, portals must be seen as collaborative Information Systems, as mentioned by [START_REF] Chua | Enhancing Collaborative Knowledge Management Systems Design[END_REF] in their study on Collaborative Knowledge Management System (CKMS) defined as follows: "A Collaborative Knowledge Management System (CKMS) is an integrated systems tool that enables collaboration between its users and its components" (p. 171). They emphasize that "one of the most important components of CKMS is the knowledge workers, which are also the users of the system, and the workspaces they are associated with" (p.172). Moreover, analyzing ISO/IEC 9126 (1991) Quality Standard, Chua and Brennan point out that, "existing interpretations of ISO 9116 account for their role as users however not for their role as systems components" (p. 172).

We insist on the importance to integrate the individual as a component of the system. In fact, relying on the professor Tsuchiya's works [START_REF] Tsuchiya | Improving Knowledge Creation Ability through Organizational Learning[END_REF], we argue that knowledge is dependent of the individual's mental model and the context of his action. Consequently, knowledge resides primarily in the heads of individuals, and in the social interactions of these individuals. It cannot be consider as an object such as data are in digital information systems. Likewise, information can be misunderstood as it makes sense for an individual through his interpretative framework. As mental models and interpretative frameworks are directly forged by cultural factors, it induces to stress the role of cultural factors when social interactions and sharing information and knowledge are essential to enable efficiency in the global economy. Therefore, the project manager should consider the individual (knowledge worker and decision-maker) both at once as a user, and a component of the Knowledge Management System. Consequently, the conception of the digital Information System has to take into account the nature of the information that the individual, as a decision-maker, must be able to access. Three natures of information must be distinguished: the Mainstream-Data, the Sourceof-Knowledge-Data, and the Shared-Data [START_REF] Grundstein | From capitalizing on Company's Knowledge to Knowledge Management[END_REF]Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2001,2003).

Among the tools, the information and applications Portal, that supplies a global access to the information, can meet the needs of KM. In that case, the functional software and the tools answering the aim of KM is integrated into the digital Information System.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

KM becomes a reality in the implementation of a system, which is, paraphrasing Joel de Rosnay (de Rosnay, 1975): "A set of components in dynamic interaction organized according to a purpose." The purpose of this system is to amplify the utilization and the creation of knowledge so as to improve the enterprise's effectiveness. This system is often called Knowledge Management System (KMS) although this term "does not seem to have a consensus definition" (Jennex, 2005, p. i). So we have to distinguish between a model for a KM initiative and a KMS which is its implementation in the real world.

MGKME suggests a sociotechnical approach defined as "the study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any system" (Coakes, 2002, p. 5). So, the KMS that materializes MGKME is composed of organizational, human, and technical components. Thus, taking MGKME as a model of reference, avoids limiting the notion of KMS to the notion of Information Technology (IT) based system that reduces a KMS to a data processing system. This is often the case as shown, for example, by the Raman, Ryan and Olfam's study (2006, p. 34). These authors, when speaking about KMS, refer to the works of [START_REF] Alavi | Knowledge managemen and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issue[END_REF], and [START_REF] Gupta | Creating knowledge based organizations[END_REF]. In this way, KMS is "developed to support and enhance the organizational knowledge processes of knowledge creation, storage, retrieval, transfer and application" (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 114). Furthermore, "knowledge management systems are divided into several major categories, as follows: groupware, including e-mail, e-log, and wikis; decision support systems; expert systems; document management systems; semantic networks; relational and object oriented databases; simulation tools; and artificial intelligence" [START_REF] Gupta | Creating knowledge based organizations[END_REF].

The figure 5 shows an instantiation of MGKME into a KMS. Identifying the KMS components included into the MGKME elements enable to measure the maturity of the knowledge management initiative within the enterprise.

Figure 5. Instantiation of the MGKME

TRANSPOSING THE GLOBAL VISION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TO A GLOBAL VISION OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The concept of Information Management within the enterprise covers two notions: (i) the reality of the enterprise that evolves and undertakes, disseminates and records information, (ii) the digital Information System, the artificial object conceived by humans to support employees to collect, store, process and disseminate the information, in order to carry out their activities within the context of the organization.

When considering the instantiation of MGKME into a Knowledge Management System as shown on figure 5, we can make a transposition to Information Management System (IMS). According to this hypothesis, the components of the IMS should be as follows (ref. figure 6).

  figure 2): (I) the Underlying elements, and (II) the Operating elements.

Enterprise (MGKME

Underlying components

The Sociotechnical Environment and the Value-Added Processes give a concrete expression to the first notion of Information Management, that is the reality of the enterprise that evolves and undertakes, disseminates and records information.

Operating components

The operating components represent the second notion that is the digital Information System, the artificial object conceived by humans to support employees to collect, store, process and disseminate the information, in order to carry out their activities within the context of the organization.

Thus, the Managerial Guiding principles and Generic IM Processes (that are the transposition of Generic KM processes) are directly issued from IT Governance Principle, and Processes described in the COBIT®; the Ad hoc infrastructures are implemented as Information Management System Department; Methods and Supporting Tools (such as Data Management, ERP, IDAS, Portals, Research Tools, Web 2.0, UML, MERISE) issue from IS. They complement one another with KM Methods and Tools (such as CSCW, MAS, KBS, Semantic Web, Ontology, Organizational Memory, Common KADS, MASK, GAMETH®).

The only component that does not exist is the Organizational Learning Component.

Figure 6. Transposing Knowledge Management System to Information Management System

CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Many authors have already defined the concept of Information System. These definitions are underlined by a technological vision of the Information System. They do not take into account the actors of the enterprise as an integral part of Information System that means as media and processors of information. We expect that the MGKME will serve as a pattern of reference for establishing a Model for Global Information Management within the Enterprise (MGIME). Thus, the Information Management System components described in this paper should be the partial or total implementation of the MGIME elements. In this case it appears that, on the one hand, some methods and tools coming from KM can be integrated into the Information Management System, and on the other hand that Information Management System does not integrates organizational learning.

We hope to succeed in elaborating the MGIME that should become an open framework as a basis to launch two axis of research: (i) How to consolidate the concept of Information System considering individuals as users and components of the system; and (ii) How to use Information System as one of the factors enabling organizational learning processes.

In the future, we should complete and validate the MGIME, by developing our researches in that sense.


Michel Grundstein
email: mgrundstein@mgconseil.fr

Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux -

Professor, Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux

Knowledge Management System as a Sociotechnical System

In this paper, we refer to MGKME

INTRODUCTION

In his editorial preface untitled Establishing the Foundations of the Knowledge Management Discipline [START_REF] Jennex | Editorial Preface: Establishing the Foundations of the Knowledge Management Discipline[END_REF] relates conclusions raised from the workshop that Dave Croadell and himself led at the 2006 Hawaii Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) "which started a research effort that we hope results in formal establishment of the theoretical foundations of knowledge management. (p.i) " Seven key areas were identified: KM Foundations, Knowledge Transfers, KM Systems, KM Research Methods, KM Success, Ethical Issues in KM, and KM Education.

As mentioned by [START_REF] Jennex | Editorial Preface: What is Knowledge Management[END_REF] we all agree, "There is no common evidence about what KM is." In our research group, we consider that knowledge cannot be processed as an object independently of the person who has to act. Thus, it appears that KM must address activities that utilize and create knowledge, more than knowledge by itself. With regard to this question, since 2001, our group of research has adopted the following definition of KM:

"KM is the management of the activities and the processes that enhance the utilization and the creation of knowledge within an organization, according to two strongly interlinked goals, and their underlying economic and strategic dimensions, organizational dimensions, sociocultural dimensions, and technological dimensions: (i) a patrimony goal, and (ii) a sustainable innovation goal."

This paper refers to MGKME, our Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise [START_REF] Grundstein | Towards a Model for Global Knowledge Management Within the Enterprise (MGKME)[END_REF][START_REF] Grundstein | MGKME: A Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise[END_REF][START_REF] Grundstein | Towards a Pattern of Reference to Elaborate KM Governance Principles: The MGKME Example[END_REF], and supplies a global vision that integrates the four dimensions of Knowledge Management, namely: economic and strategic dimension, organizational dimension, sociocultural dimension, and technological dimension. Based on this vision of KM, we argue that KM is rooted on a Sociotechnical World that constitutes the underlying fabric on which KM approaches and researches must be established. So the question of Sociotechnical World must be considered as another key area for the over mentioned research effort.

BACKGROUND THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS

After having considered the Knowledge Management Governance perspective drawing a link with the Corporate and IT Governance principles, we emphasize the importance of distinguishing the notion of KM pattern of reference versus the notion of KM System (KMS).

The KM Governance Perspectives

Corporate Governance (OECD, 2004, p.11) and IT Governance (COBIT, 2005, 4th Edition, Executive Summary, p.6) do not explicitly mention Intellectual Capital as a resource to be considered in the enterprise strategies. Even so, as pointed out by [START_REF] Edvinsson | Intellectual Capital, Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower[END_REF]: "The core of the socalled knowledge economy is huge investment flows into human capital as well as information technology. And, stunningly, neither of these appears as positive values in traditional accounting. Rather, it is often just the opposite. Yet, these investments are the key tools of the new value creation" (p. 12). However, as highest international institutions sponsor Corporate Governance, we are encouraged to 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 (ref. figure 1). However, despite the fact that numerous KM Frameworks have been suggested all over the world, it does not exist a unify KM pattern upon which KM Governance principles could be established.

For example, let us consider the European Project Team in charge to elaborate The European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management on behalf of the European Committee for Standardization Workshop on Knowledge Management. This Workshop was running from September 2002 till September 2003 (CEN-1, 2004). The Project Team has collected, categorized and analyzed more than 140 KM Frameworks. Nevertheless, as contributors to this project, we have observed that few of them were "people-focused" as highlighted by [START_REF] Wiig | People-Focused Knowledge Management. How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success[END_REF]. 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 of the company.

Therefore, we can suggest two KM Governance Perspectives depending on the first or the second approach. On the one hand, the technological approach leads to reduce knowledge to codified knowledge that is no more than information. In that case, we manage KM projects in the same way than Information System projects. KM Governance should be connected with IT Governance principles by means of specific criteria and specific IT tools inherent to KM functionalities. On the other hand, the managerial approach that integrates knowledge as a resource focuses on the core business processes and the people. In that case, KM Governance should be connected with Corporate Governance principles by taking into account the risks linked to the utilization and creation of knowledge.

Figure 1. KM Governance Perspective

KM Pattern of Reference versus KM System (KMS)

KM becomes a reality in the implementation of a system, which is, paraphrasing Joel de Rosnay (de Rosnay, 1975): "A set of components in dynamic interaction organized according to a purpose" (p. 93). 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) although this term "does not seem to have a consensus definition" (Jennex, 2005, p. i). Therefore, we have to distinguish between the notion of KM pattern of reference, and the notion of KMS, which is the implementation of this pattern in the real world.

To implement KMS components, Enterprises need a framework that is a pattern of reference in order to integrate KM Governance principles in their strategic vision, and to use KM as a factor that enable improving performance. In this paper, we refer to MGKME, our Model of Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise [START_REF] Grundstein | Towards a Model for Global Knowledge Management Within the Enterprise (MGKME)[END_REF][START_REF] Grundstein | MGKME: A Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise[END_REF][START_REF] Grundstein | Towards a Pattern of Reference to Elaborate KM Governance Principles: The MGKME Example[END_REF].

MGKME, A MODEL FOR GLOBAL KM WITHIN THE ENTERPRISE

MGKME supports our full meaning of KM as defined in the introduction. It is an empirical model (ref. Figure 2). It materializes a synthesis vision of more than twenty years experience in the KM field. It rests on the General System Theory first established by von Bertalanffy who cares very much on the humanist approach (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. XI). The work of [START_REF] Morin | L'Intelligence de la Complexité[END_REF] that focuses on Complexity inspires it. Moreover, the MGKME presents an attempt to articulate the Deming's Cycle (Martin, 1995, p. 207) and the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Thus, we point out the key contribution of KM to Change 2 defined by [START_REF] Watzlawick | Changements : paradoxes et psychothérapie[END_REF]. Moreover, the suggested "ad hoc infrastructures" derives from the SECI model [START_REF] Nonaka | The Knowledge Creating Company[END_REF], and the concept of "BA" [START_REF] Nonaka | The Concept of "Ba": Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation[END_REF]

MGKME A PATTERN FOR IMPLEMENTING SOCIOTECHNICAL KMS

MGKME suggests a sociotechnical approach defined as "the study of the relationships and interrelationships between the social and technical parts of any system" (Coakes, 2002, p. 5). Therefore, the KMS that materializes MGKME is composed of organizational, human, and technical components. Thus, taking MGKME as a pattern of reference, avoids limiting the notion of KMS to the notion of Information Technology (IT) based system that reduces a KMS to a data processing system. This is often the case as shown, for example, by the Raman, Ryan and Olfam's study (2006, p. 34). These authors, when speaking about KMS, refer to the works of [START_REF] Alavi | Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issue[END_REF], and [START_REF] Gupta | Creating knowledge based organizations[END_REF]. In this way, KMS is "developed to support and enhance the organizational knowledge processes of knowledge creation, storage, retrieval, transfer and application" (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 114). Furthermore, "knowledge management systems are divided into several major categories, as follows: groupware, including e-mail, e-log, and wikis; decision support systems; expert systems; document management systems; semantic networks; relational and object oriented databases; simulation tools; and artificial intelligence" [START_REF] Gupta | Creating knowledge based organizations[END_REF].

Therefore, we must consider underlying elements as the fundamental components of the KMS. We describe these elements hereafter.

MGKME 's Underlying Elements

The core knowledge is embodied in people heads and their abilities to utilize them, and to generate new knowledge at the same time. The information technologies and the tangible technical resources enhance their competence, while value-added processes and organizational infrastructures are structuring their activities. Nevertheless, their social interactions [START_REF] Cohen | Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work[END_REF], supported by ICT tools are essential factors, which leverage their potentialities, and that actually enable them to achieve effective results. Therefore, from our perspective, sociotechnical environment, and value-added processes are fundamental elements that constitute the underlying elements of MGKME.

The Sociotechnical Environment

The Sociotechnical Environment constitutes the social fabric where autonomous individuals supported by ICT and tangible resources interact and are conversing through physical or virtual places (coffee machines, collaborative work spaces, weblogs, wikis, CoPs). Interacting is not enough. Thus, [START_REF] Stewart | The Conversing Company, its culture, power and potential[END_REF] observed what happen when interacting without conversing: "Stories are not told and associated sense of adventure is lost; knowing is not shared because questioning is not fostered; people become isolated, angry, resentful and do what they do with no real joy; while a business may be profitable it is likely that it is not operating at anywhere near its potential" (p. 17).

Actually, as mentioned by Grundstein and Rosenthal-Sabroux (2003): "(Employees) become decision-makers who use and produce more and more knowledge as a basis for their efficiency… Commonly pointed out as « Knowledge-Workers», (they) have to access know-how and skills widely distributed in the global and influence spaces of their organization… The computerized workstation becomes a window opened on the company's planetary space of activities" (p. 979). As a result, the information and application portals have become essential for the knowledge workers who have to share with colleagues disseminated all around the world.

Thus, portals are collaborative information systems, as mentioned by [START_REF] Chua | Enhancing Collaborative Knowledge Management Systems Design[END_REF] in their study on Collaborative Knowledge Management System (CKMS) defined as follows: "A Collaborative Knowledge Management System (CKMS) is an integrated systems tool that enables collaboration between its users and its components" (p. 171). They emphasize, "One of the most important components of CKMS is the knowledge workers, which are also the users of the system, and the workspaces they are associated with" (p.172). Moreover, analyzing ISO/IEC 9126 (1991) Quality Standard, Chua and Brennan point out that, "existing interpretations of ISO 9116 account for their role as users however not for their role as systems components" (p. 172).

The sociotechnical 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 a KMS that takes into account the individuals, both as components and users of a system that allows them to be autonomous and to achieve their potentialities.

The Value-added processes

Value-added processes derive from the value chain described by [START_REF] Porter | Competitive Advantage: Creating and Substaining Superior Performance[END_REF] 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-added processes represent the organizational context for which knowledge is essential factors of performance. It is in this context that is implanted a KM initiative.

As pointed out by [START_REF] Tonchia | Process Management for the Extended Enterprise[END_REF]: "Process Management, with the concepts of internal customers and process ownership, is becoming one of the most important competitive weapons for firms and can determine a strategic change in the way business is carried out." These authors specify that: "Process Management consists in the rationalization of processes, the quest for efficiency/effectiveness, a sort of simplification/clarification brought about by common-sense engineering" (p. 20). As Process Management engenders structural changes, when doing Business Process Reengineering we should consider KM activities in order to identify knowledge that is essential factor to enable value-added processes to achieve their goals efficiently.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE TRENDS

Our world is fundamentally a Sociotechnical Word, which is a world deeply characterized by human and technological interactions. These interactions drastically affect people relationships with space and time. Therefore, if we considered that the core knowledge is embodied in people heads and their abilities to utilize them, and to generate new knowledge at the same time, we cannot speak about KM without taking into account these interactions. In this way, beyond the economic, organizational, and cultural dimensions, the specific sociotechnical context characterizes every KM initiative development.

Mostly spread, the technological approach leads to ignore an essential factor linked to the notion of Social Capital. To avoid this risk, we need to elaborate KM Governance principles. Thus, we have introduced our own experience and research by proposing an empirical Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME). MGKME stands on a sociotechnical approach that highlights two levels of elements: underlying elements, and operating elements. It is an ideal status to reach. It is a pattern of reference used in order to assess the KM maturity of an enterprise. We expect that it will contribute to enhance the sociotechnical approach of KM.

To conclude, let us consider the seven key KM research areas identified by the workshop that Croadell and Jennex led at the 2006 Hawaii Conference on System Sciences (HICSS): KM Foundations, Knowledge Transfers, KM Systems, KM Research Methods, KM Success, Ethical Issues in KM, and KM Education. We observe that sociotechnical approach is not explicitly mentioned, although, Sociotechnical World is an underlying part of KM research. We do think that "Sociotechnical World" must be an additional key research area to introduce into the research effort initiative.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME)

Table 1 )

 1 ; (II) the operating elements focus on the underlying elements. They consist of managerial guiding principles, ad hoc infrastructures, generic KM processes, organizational learning processes, and methods and supporting tools (ref. Table 2).

Table 1 .

 1 MGKME 's Underlying elements

	Model Level	Elements		Key Issues
			-	Enterprise 's Activities (sector, key value-chain elements, geographical distribution,
				Size, Market, mass or batch manufacturing processes, product lifecycle, oral or written
	(I) UNDERLYING ELEMENTS	Sociotechnical Environment	--	culture) Relations and Interactions between ICT, Structure, and People: their roles, their tasks Capability to learn and Innovate
			-	Social and Intellectual Capital Management Involvement

Table 2 .

 2 MGKME 's Operating elements

	Model Level	Elements		Key Issues
			-	Vision
		Managerial Guiding	-	KM Governance Principles
		Principles	-	Main Development Axes
			-	Indicators
			-	Content and Document Management Systems
		ad hoc Infrastructures	--	Collaborative Information Systems Organizational conditions encouraging interaction, communication, and knowledge
				sharing
			-	Locating Process
			-	Preserving Process
		Generic KM Processes	-	Enhancing Process
	(II)		-	Actualizing Process
	OPERATING
	ELEMENTS		-	Team Learning Processes
			-	New Organizational Structures Experiments
		Organizational Learning	-	Global Vision, and Systemic Approach
		Process	-	Routines (defensives and constructive)
			-	Knowledge Dissemination
			-	Constant Evolution versus Change (Norbert Alter, 2000)
			-	General Methods and Tools
			-	Researches Issues
		Methods and		Knowledge Engineering, Artificial Intelligence (Semantic WEB and Ontology)
		Supporting Tools		CSCW -Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Multi-agents Systems)
				Social Networks (Identification, Visualization, and Informal Social Network Analysis
				Systems)

CONCEPT DEFINITIONS

Deming 's Cycle

Well-known by Quality Management practitioners as PDCA cycle, the Deming's Cycle is presented as a simplified cycle of activities to achieve design and continual improvement of a product or of a process. This process as first advocated by W. Edwards Deming (Deming, 1992). The cycle consists of four stages: (i) PLAN to establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with customer requirements and the organization's policies in order to induce a structured program of actions. (ii) DO to develop the program, and test conformity to protocols. (iii) CHECK to verify, to analyze, to understand, and to report the results. (iv) ACT to react, to propose and to decide the modifications and the improvements.

The PDCA cycle has inspired the NF EN ISO 9004-2000Quality Standards (ISO 9004, 2000) in order to get a continuous process improvement of the Quality Management System.

Double-Loop Learning

Double-Loop Learning is "learning that results in a change in the values of the theory-in-use, as well as in its strategies and assumptions" (Argyris & Schön, 1996, p.21)

Japanese concept of "Ba"

The concept of Ba was originally proposed by the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida and was further developed by Shimizu [START_REF] Shimizu | Ba Principle: New Logic for the Real-Time Emergence of Information[END_REF]. To describe this concept, we will express our own understanding by paraphrasing Nonaka and Konno (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40):

Ba can be thought of as a shared space for emerging relationships and interactions between knowledge stakeholders. This space can be physical (e.g., office, dispersed business space), virtual (e.g., e-mail, teleconference), mental (e.g., shared experience and, ideas) or any combination of them. It can be a network of persons who share common objectives; a place would allow achieving the synthesis of the rationality and of the intuition as a wellspring of new knowledge; a place where would take place a shared knowledge creation; a platform that would allow individual and collective knowledge to progress. So, participate in a Ba stimulates the involvement of the individuals by giving them the possibility to transcend the borders and the limits of their own perspectives.

Single-Loop Learning

Single-Loop Learning is "instrumental learning that changes strategies of action or assumptions underlying strategies in ways that leave the values of a theory of action unchanged" (Argyris & Schön, 1996, p.20).

Sociotechnical perspectives

"Sociotechnical perspectives can be characterised as holistic, and whilst not being panoptic in character, take a more encompassing view of the organization, its stakeholders in knowledge and the environment in which it operates, than many other organizational views which are limited by their origins and paradigms.

The world sociotechnical, in its origins, is a combination of two paradigms: the social and the technical. It was thus intended to describe a broader view of the role of technology in an organization than either paradigm could offer on its own. Technology, it was argued, should be seen, discussed and developed not just as a technical artefact but in the light of the social environment in which it operated" (Coakes 2002, p. 4).

Watzlawick's Change 2

In their studies on the human behavior and change [START_REF] Watzlawick | Changements : paradoxes et psychothérapie[END_REF] infer that: "There are two types of change. The first one takes place inside a given system that, in itself, remains unchanged: they call it Change 1. The second one modifies the system itself: they call it Change 2." (p. 28-29).