Astérix and the Knowledge Management 2.0: An exploration of KMS 2.0 appropriation by the myth of Gallic Village
Keywords:
Gestion des Connaissances, Systèmes de Gestion des Connaissances, Organisation 2.0, Appropriation, MythesAbstract
KM processes in companies have profoundly changed in recent years. They became 2.0 KM processes that aim to transform the firm and are driven by a new approach of knowledge in line within 2.0 organisations. These 2.0 knowledge management systems involved oraganisational modes that disrupt with 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 Information Systems appropriation in organizations and myths in management, we show how the Asterix myth contributes to understand 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. This paper contributes to research papers dealing with the impact of symbolism in IS appropriation.
References
Alavi, M. et Leidner, D.E. (2001), Knowledge management and knowledge management Systems: conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, p.107-136.
Alberts D.S., Garstka J.J, Stein P.F. (2000), Network Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, Rapport du DoD Command and Control Research Program
Andriessen D.G. (2008), Stuff of love? How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge in organisations, Knowledge Management Research and Practices, N°6, p. 5-12
Andriessen D.G. (2011), Metaphors in Knowledge Management, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 28, p. 133-137
Barthes R. (1957), Mythologies, Éditions du Seuil, Paris
Bolman L., Deal T. (1984), Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Franscico
Boughzala I., De Vreede G.-J. (2010) «Vers l'organisation 2.0 : un nouveau modèle basé sur l'intelligence collective», Actes de la 15ème Conférence Internationale de l’Association Information et Management, La Rochelle, France
Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). The Influence of IT Management Practice on IT Use in Large Organizations. Mis Quarterly, 18(3).
Bowles M. (1989), Myth, Meaning and Work Organization, Organizational Studies, Vol.10, n°3, p. 405-421
Brown J-S., Duguid P. (1991), Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation, Organization Science, vol.2, n°1, p. 40-57
Burkert W. (2013), « Qu’est-ce qu’un mythe », in Les grands mythes de l’humanité, Le Monde des Religions, Hors Série n°21, p. 6-9
Cabin P. (1999), « Les mythes de l’entreprise », in Les organisations, Editions Sciences Humaines, p. 279-284
Callon M., Latour B. (ed.) (1991), La Science telle qu'elle se fait. Anthologie de la sociologie des sciences de langue anglaise (Nouvelle édition amplifiée et remaniée), Paris, La Découverte.
Castells M. (1998), L’ère de l’information. Vol. 1. La société en réseau. Paris, Fayard
Cook S., Brown J. (1999), Bridging Epistemologies: the Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing, Organization Science, vol.10, n°4, p. 381-400
Corbin, J. et Strauss, A. (1990), Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria, Qualitative Sociology, Vol 13, n°1, p. 3-21.
De Vaujany F-X. (2006), Pour une théorie de l'appropriation des outils de gestion : vers un dépassement de l'opposition conception-usage, Management & Avenir, Vol. 3, n°9, p. 109-126.
De Vaujany F-X., Vaast, E. (2013), If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy, Organization Science, 2013.0858.*
de Vaujany F-X., Mitev N., Vaast E. & Laniray P. (2014), Materiality and time, Historical perspectives on organizations, artifacts and practices, Palgrave, à paraître.
Deschamps C. (2009), Le Nouveau management de l’information. La gestion des connaissances au coeur de l’entreprise 2.0., FYP éditions, Limoges, Collection Entreprendre
Dudezert A, (2013), La connaissance dans les entreprises, La Découverte, Paris.
Dudezert A., Leidner D. (2011), Illusions of control and Social Domination Strategies in Knowledge Mapping System Use, European Journal of Information Systems, 20, 5, p. 574-588
Duhamel A. (1985), Le Complexe d'Astérix. Essai sur le caractère politique des Français, Gallimard, France
Dzinkowski R. (2000), The measurement and management of intellectual capital: An introduction, Management Accounting, vol.78, n°2, p 32-36
Enrègle Y. (1985), Du conflit à la motivation, Editions d’Organisation, France
Fahey L., Prusak L. (1998), The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management, California Management Review, vol. 40, n°3, p. 265-276
Fayard P., (2006), Le réveil du samouraï : Culture et stratégie japonaise dans la société de la connaissance, Dunod/Polia Ed., France
Fayard P. (2011), Comprendre et appliquer Sun Tzu : 36 stratagèmes de sagesse en action, Dunod/Polia, France
Fayard P., Blondeau E. (2014), La force du paradoxe. En faire une stratégie ?, Dunod, France
Feldman M., March J. (1981), Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol, Administrative Science Quaterly, Vol. 26, p. 171-186
Gaumand C. (2014), Système de Gestion des Connaissances dédié à la chaîne logistique intra-organisationnelle : une recherche intervention au sein de l’entreprise Bonfiglioli Transmission, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Ecole Centrale Paris, 2014
Grimand A. (2005), «De l’émergence de mythes gestionnaires : une déconstruction du knowledge management au travers de la philosophe de Roland Barthes», Actes de la 14ème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS), Angers, France
Grover V., Davenport T. (2001), General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 18, n°1, p 5-21
Hamel G. (2008), La Fin du Management: inventer les règles de demain, avec la collaboration de Bill Breen, Vuibert, Paris
Hatchuel A., Le Masson P., Weil B. (2002), «De la gestion des connaissances aux organisations orientées conception», in Faire de la recherche en systèmes d’information, coordonné par F. Rowe, Vuibert, Paris, FNEGE, p. 155-170
Hirscheim R., Newman M. (1991), Symbolism and Information Systems Development : Myth, Metaphor and Magic, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, N° 1, p. 29-62
Igalens J. (2011), Le talent du griot. L’art de transmettre une représentation, de partager une vision. Le talent majeur du responsable hypermoderne, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie, Vol. XVII, No. 41, mars: 131-145
Kaarst-Brown M. L., Robey D. (1999), More on myth, magic and metaphor: Cultural insights into the management of information technology in organizations, Information Technology & People, Vol. 12, N°: 2, p 192 - 218
Karoui M. (2013), Visibilité du capital social à travers les médias sociaux : Etudes de cas sur les dynamiques sociales de l’appropriation d’un outil d’Analyse de Réseaux Sociaux , Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Ecole Centrale Paris, 2012
Karoui M., Dudezert A. (2012), Capital social et enjeux de pouvoir : une perspective socio-politique de l'appropriation d'une technologie de réseaux sociaux au sein d'une collectivité territoriale» Systèmes d'Information et Management, Vol 17, n°1, p. 49-80
Khalil C., Dudezert A. (2013), « Entre autonomie et contrôle : quelle régulation pour les systèmes de gestion des connaissances », 18ème Conférence Internationale de l’Association Information et Management (AIM), Lyon, France, Mai 2013 (16 pages)
March J. (1999), Les mythes du management, Gérer et Comprendre, n°57, p. 4-12
McAfee, A. (2006), Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration, Engineering Management Review, IEEE, vol.34, n°3, p.38
McAfee, A. (2009), Enterprise 2.0: new collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest challenges, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachussetts
Meyer J.W., Rowan B., (1977), Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Sep., 1977), pp. 340-363.
Nelson R.R. et Winter S.G.(1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Le Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nonaka I. (1991), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Harvard Business Review, Novembre-Décembre, p. 96-104
Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Editions Oxford University Press, New York.
Nonaka I., Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for Knowledge Creation. Californa Management Review. Vol. 40. N° 3.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, Vol 3, n°3, p. 398-427.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996), Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective, Information Systems Research, Vol 7, n°1, p. 63-92.
Orlikowski W. (2000), Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organization Science, vol. 11, n°. 4, p. 404-428.
Orlikowski W. (2007), Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work, Organization Studies, vol.28, n°9, p. 1493-1448
Pemberton J., and Stonehouse G. (2004), «The Organizational Characteristics of Knowledge-Centricity», In Innovations of Knowledge Management, coordonné par B. Montano, IGI Global, p.99-123
Perlmutter, Howard (1969). "The Tortuous Evolution of Multinational Enterprises". Columbia Journal of World Business (1): 9–18.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). 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, 399-441.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of. The Social Constructions of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, 17.
Roulleaux-Dugage M. (2007), Organisation 2.0 : Le knowledge management nouvelle génération, Eyrolles, Paris, Collection Stratégie
Rouvière N. (2008), Astérix ou la parodie des identités, Flammarion, coll. « Champs », France
Rouvière N. (2013), « La France des Lumières est tout entière dans Astérix », in Astérix, Notre Héros : la Saga, Le Point, Hors Série, Novembre-Décembre, p. 42-47
Schmidt J. (2013), Entretien : Nos références sont mythologiques, in Les grands mythes de l’humanité, Le Monde des Religions, Hors Série n°21, p. 96-97
Schubert P., Lincke D., Schmid B (1998), «A global Knowledge Medium as a Virtual Community : the Netacademy concept», Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (eds.), Baltimore, MD, p. 618-620
Sellin C.K. (2011), Des organisations centrées processus aux organisations centrées connaissance :la cartographie de connaissances comme levier de transformation des organisations. Le cas de la démarche de « Transfert de Savoir-Faire » chez Total, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Ecole Centrale Paris, 2011
Swanson E.B, Ramiller N.C. (2004) Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 553-583
Tapscott D., Williams AD. (2008), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Penguin Books, New York
Vernant J-P. (1999), L’Univers, les Dieux, les Hommes, Paris, Le Seuil, 1999
Weick K. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks California, 1995
Wenger E. (1998), Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1998
Yin R.K., (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, eds. 2002.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author bears the responsibility for checking whether material submitted is subject to copyright or ownership rights (e.g. figures, tables, photographs, illustrations, trade literature and data). The author will need to obtain permission to reproduce any such items, and include these permissions with their final submission.
It is our policy to ask all contributors to transfer for free the copyright in their contribution to the journal owner. There are two broad reasons for this:
- ownership of copyright by the journal owner facilitates international protection against infringement of copyright, libel or plagiarism;
- it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, in either print or electronic form, are handled efficiently in accordance with our general policy which encourages dissemination of knowledge within the framework of copyright.
In conformity with the French law, the author keeps the 'moral rights' related to the article:
- The 'authorship right': It is the author's right to have his name associated with each publication and exploitation of the article.
- The 'integrity right': It can be claimed by the author if he finds that during an exploitation, his work has been distorted (cutting, reassembly...).
