Advertisement

ASTERIX and 2.0 Knowledge Management

Exploring the Appropriation of 2.0 KMS via the Myth of the Gaulish Village
  • Aurélie Dudezert
  • Pierre Fayard
  • Ewan Oiry
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 446)

Abstract

Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) in companies have profoundly changed in recent years. They have become KMS 2.0 that aim to transform the firm and are driven by a new relationship to knowledge in line with 2.0 organisations. These 2.0 KMS have implemented modes of organisation that disrupt those that previously guided firms’ performance. This can sometimes lead to paradoxical organizational dysfunctions as witnessed by the difficulties faced by some traditionally hierarchical French companies. Through a case study of Constructor and a theoretical background on IS appropriation in organizations and myths in management, we show how the Asterix myth contributes to understanding how 2.0. KMS are appropriated in such companies. We find evidence of similarities regarding knowledge and Knowledge Management between the Asterix’ myth and the behaviours and practices concerning knowledge management within Constructor. As a result, the Asterix’ myth may be a relevant perspective for understanding the obstacles, advantages and appropriations of 2.0. KMS within French organizations.

Keywords

knowledge management knowledge management systems organization 2.0 appropriation myths 

References

  1. 1.
    Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E.: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly 25, 107–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davenport, T.: Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management? Harvard Business Online (2008), http://blogs.hbr.org/2008/02/enterprise-20-the-new-new-know/
  3. 3.
    Boughzala, I., Dudezert, A.: Knowledge Management 2.0: Organizational Models and Enterprise Strategies. IGI Global, Hershey (2011), doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-195-5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dudezert, A.: La Connaissance dans les Entreprises. Éditions La Découverte, Paris (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swanson, E.B., Ramiller, N.C.: Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 28(4), 553–583 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boughzala, I., De Vreede, G.-J.: Vers l’Organisation 2.0: Un Nouveau Modèle Basé sur l’Intelligence Collective. In: Actes de la 15ème Conférence Internationale de l’Association Information et Management, La Rochelle, France (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roulleaux Dugage, M.: Organisation 2.0: Le Knowledge Management Nouvelle Généra-tion. Groupe Eyrolles, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deschamps, C.: Le Nouveau Management de l’Information. La Gestion des Connaissances au Coeur de l’Entreprise 2.0. FYP Éditions, Limoges (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated Change Perspective. Information Systems Research 7(1), 63–92 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fayard, P., Blondeau, E.: La Force du Paradoxe. En Faire une Stratégie? Dunod, Paris (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaumand, C.: Système de Gestion des Connaissances Dédié à la Chaîne Logistique Intra-Organisationnelle: Une Recherche Intervention au Sein de l’Entreprise Bonfiglioli Trans-mission. Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Ecole Centrale Paris (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duhamel, A.: Le Complexe d’Astérix. Essai sur le Caractère Politique des Français. Galli-mard, Paris (1985)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Enrègle, Y.: Du Conflit à la Motivation. Editions d’Organisation, Paris (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    March, J.: Les Mythes du Management. Gérer et Comprendre 57, 4–12 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barthes, R.: Mythologies. Seuil, Paris (1957)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B.: Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340–363 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burkert, W.: Qu’est-ce qu’un Mythe. Les Grands Mythes de l’Humanité. Le Monde des Religions, Hors Série (21), 6–9 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmidt, J.: Entretien: Nos Références Sont Mythologiques. Les Grands Mythes de l’Humanité. Le Monde des Religions, Hors Série (21), 96–97 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Igalens, J.: Le Talent du Griot: L’Art de Transmettre une Représentation, de Partager une Vision. Le Talent Majeur du Responsable Hypermoderne. Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie 17(41), 131–145 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rouvière, N.: Astérix ou la Parodie des Identités. Champs-Flammarion, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fayard, P.: Le Réveil du Samouraï: Culture et Stratégie Japonaise dans la Société de la Connaissance. Dunod/Polia Ed., Paris (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fahey, L., Prusak, L.: The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review 40(3), 265–276 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grover, V., Davenport, T.: General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 5–21 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dzinkowski, R.: The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduc-tion. Management Accounting 78(2), 32–36 (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schubert, P., Lincke, D.-M., Schmid, B.: A Global Knowledge Medium as a Virtual Community: The NetAcademy Concept. In: AMCIS 1998 Proceedings, Paper 207 (1998), http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998/207
  27. 27.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cook, S., Brown, J.: Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organiza-tional Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science 10(4), 381–400 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brown, J.-S., Duguid, P.: Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation. Organization Science 2(1), 40–57 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McElroy, M.E.: The New Knowledge Management: Complexity, Learning, and Sustain-able Innovation. Butterworth-Heinemann, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McAfee, A.: Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. IEEE Engineering Management Review 34(3), 38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McAfee, A.: Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D.: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Penguin, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hamel, G.: The Future of Management. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G.: An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E.: The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How The Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14(3), 399–441 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E.: The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the So-ciology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T.J. (eds.) The Social Constructions of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, pp. 17–50. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    De Vaujany, F.X.: Pour une Théorie de l’Appropriation des Outils de Gestion: Vers un Dé-passement de l’Opposition Conception-Usage. Management & Avenir 3(9), 109–126 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Orlikowski, W.: Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404–428 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weick, K.: Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sellin, C.K.: Des Organisations Centrées Processus aux Organisations Centrées Connais-sance: La Cartographie de Connaissances Comme Levier de Transformation des Organisa-tions. Le Cas de la Démarche de “Transfert de Savoir-Faire” Chez Total. Thèse de Doc-torat en Sciences de Gestion, Ecole Centrale Paris (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Khalil, C., Dudezert, A.: Entre Autonomie et Contrôle: Quelle Régulation pour les Systèmes de Gestion des Connaissances. 18ème Conférence Internationale de l’Association Information et Management (AIM), Lyon (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cabin, P.: Les Mythes de l’Entreprise. In: Cabin, P. (ed.) Les Organisations: État des Sa-voirs, pp. 279-284. Éditions Sciences Humaines, Paris (1999)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grimand, A.: De l’Emergence de Mythes Gestionnaires: Une Déconstruction du Knowl-edge Management au Travers de la Philosophe de Roland Barthes. In: Actes de la 14ème Con-férence Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS), Angers (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vernant, J.-P.: L’Univers, les Dieux, les Hommes. Le Seuil, Paris (1999)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bolman, L., Deal, T.: Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1984)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bowles, M.: Myth, Meaning and Work Organization. Organization Studies 10(3), 405–421 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kaarst-Brown, M.L., Robey, D.: More on Myth, Magic and Metaphor: Cultural Insights into the Management of Information Technology in Organizations. Information Technology & People 12(2), 192–218 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hirschheim, R., Newman, M.: Symbolism and Information Systems Development: Myth, Metaphor and Magic. Information Systems Research 2(1), 29–62 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Andriessen, D.G.: Stuff or Love? How Metaphors Direct Our Efforts to Manage Knowledge in Organisations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6, 5–12 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Andriessen, D.G.: Metaphors in Knowledge Management. Systems Research and Behav-ioral Science 28, 133–137 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nonaka, I.: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review 69(6), 96–104 (1991)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Perlmutter, H.: The Tortuous Evolution of Multinational Enterprises. Columbia Journal of World Business 1, 9–18 (1969)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rouvière, N.: La France des Lumières Est Tout Entière dans Astérix. In: Astérix, Notre Héros: La Saga, pp. 42–47. Le Point, Hors Série Novembre-Décembre (2013)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nonaka, I., Konno, N.: The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Crea-tion. Californa Management Review 40(3), 40–54 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Newbury Park (2002)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550 (1989)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Infor-mation Systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369–386 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1), 3–21 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dudezert, A., Leidner, D.: Illusions of Control and Social Domination Strategies in Knowledge Mapping System Use. European Journal of Information Systems 20(5), 574–588 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Karoui, M., Dudezert, A.: Capital Social et Enjeux de Pouvoir: Une Perspective Socio-Politique de l’Appropriation d’une Technologie de Réseaux Sociaux au Sein d’une Collec-tivité Territoriale. Systèmes d’Information et Management 17(1), 49–80 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Callon, M., Latour, B. (eds.): La Science Telle qu’elle se Fait. Anthologie de la Sociologie des Sciences de Langue Anglaise (Nouvelle Édition Amplifiée et Remaniée). La Décou-verte, Paris (1991)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Boynton, A.C., Zmud, R.W., Jacobs, G.C.: The Influence of IT Management Practice on IT Use in Large Organizations. MIS Quarterly 18(3), 299–318 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Orlikowski, W.: Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies 28(9), 1493–1448 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurélie Dudezert
    • 1
  • Pierre Fayard
    • 1
  • Ewan Oiry
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire CEREGE, Institut d’Administration des Entreprises de PoitiersUniversité de PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations