KNOWLEDGE WORKERS AS AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT IN GLOBAL INFOR- MATION SYSTEM DESIGN

Analyzing an information system through knowledge’s point of view causes a change that, inevitably, engenders the awareness of the importance of the human and sociocultural dimensions to improve its performances. This chapter, based on a Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME) helps to stress the need of integrating the knowledge worker, both at once, as a component, and a user of the information systems within extended companies. Actually, this challenge, put out by a knowledge management's vision that is centered on the core business processes, and the people, ought to be included in the strategies for Information Resources Management. Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 3 INTRODUCTION Under the influence of globalization and the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), the Enterprise turned into Extended Company. That implies cross-cultural impact of its members, who are the components and the users of information systems (IS) disseminated all over the world. As knowledge workers, the users are in the heart of the IS that are implemented. Therefore, their knowledge, which is rooted in their individual’s culture, are beginning to be a key factor of success for the design, the development, the implementation, and the utilization of information systems. More and more, employees’ knowledge must be considered as an asset as it was as soon as 1990 when Carnegie Group, Inc., Digital Equipment Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Texas Instruments, Inc., and US WEST Advanced Technologies, Inc., launched the Initiative for Managing Knowledge Assets. They defined for the first time the notion of knowledge assets as follows: “Knowledge assets are those assets that are primary in the minds of company's employees. They include design experience, engineering skills, financial analysis skills, and competitive knowledge” (IMKA, 1990). As of that date, numerous research works were carried out, enterprise applications were deployed, and an abundant literature has enriched the domain of Knowledge Management (KM). Nevertheless, KM could not exist without information technologies, which have drastically changed our relationship with space and time. In turn, from the KM point of view, IT cannot be efficient without the knowledge of users. Gradually, the concept of KM has highlighted a broad range of topics and became a fuzzy concept taking as many senses as people speaking about it. For instance, in his editorial preface, untitled “What is Knowledge Management?” M.E. Jennex (2005a) has gathered some authors’ definitions that show that there is no common evidence about what KM is. In our research group, we consider that knowledge cannot be processed as an Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 4 object independently of the person who has to act. Thus, we think 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 amplify the utilization and the creation of knowledge within an organization, according to two additional goals closely interlinked, and their underlying economic and strategic dimensions, organizational dimensions, socio-cultural dimensions, and technological dimensions: (i) a patrimonial goal; (ii) a sustainable innovation goal. As we can see, this definition, directly addresses some elements of the Corporate Governance and one of its subsets the IT Governance. Except that it does not exist a unify pattern of reference upon which a KM Governance could be established. Therefore, the focus of our ongoing research is to establish such a pattern that fits with our definition of KM. It is the purpose of the MGKME, a Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise. In this chapter, after having introduced a brief description of the Extended Company, we open a discussion based on the concepts that have been used to establish the MGKME. Doing so, we stress the links between Information Resources Management, and KM. Thus, we successively introduce the following topics: distinguishing the concept of knowledge from the concepts of data and information; analyzing the impact of the cultural factors on the Knowledge Management Systems (KMS); and introducing the concept of KM Governance. Then we describe the MGKME. This model suggests a systemic approach of KM and considers the knowledge workers, both at once, as components and users of the KMS. Finally, we put in perspective how this model could help establishing people-focused KM Governance principles linked with Corporate and IT Governance. Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 5 THE EXTENDED COMPANY A brief description The enterprise increasingly develops its activities in a planetary space with three dimensions: (i) A global space: this space covers the set of the organization that are the geographic places of implantation. (ii) A local space: this space corresponds to the subset of the organization situated in a given geographic zone. (iii) A space of influence: this space is the field of interactions of the company with the others organizations. The hierarchical company locked up on its local borders is transformed into an Extended Company, without borders, opened and adaptable. Furthermore, this Extended Company is placed under the ascendancy of the unforeseeable environment that leads towards uncertainty and doubt. One can remark that, depending of the geographic place of implantation of the local space (e.g. US, South America, Europe, and Asia), the vision of the global space is dependant of the local culture of members. Behaviors may be different, and understanding of things can cause a hierarchical antinomy in the importance of the decisions and choices that are made. The Extended Company meets fundamental problems of information exchange and knowledge sharing among, on the one hand, its formal entities distributed in the world (offices, core competencies, business units, projects), and, on the other hand, the company's employees (nomadic or sedentary), bearers of diversified values and cultures according to the places of their implantation. Two kinds of information networks overlap (ref. figure 1): Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 6 Figure 1: The Formal and Informal Digital Information Networks within the Extended Company (i) A formal information network between the internal or external entities in which circulate data and codified knowledge. This network is implemented under intranet and extranet technologies. (ii) An informal information network between members, nomadic or sedentary employees, in which information exchanges and tacit knowledge sharing take place. This network is implemented through communication technologies. The Evolution of the Employees’ Role within the Extended Company In the Extended Company, initiatives and responsibilities are increasing, whatever the individuals’ hierarchical levels and roles are. Employees are placed in situations in which they need to take decisions. They become decision-makers who utilize and create more and more knowledge as a basis for their efficiency. On this basis, Davenport and Prusak (1998), state that Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 7 “What makes knowledge valuable to organizations is ultimately to make better the decisions and actions taken on the basis of knowledge” (p.170). Therefore, knowledge is the crucial factor enabling employees to improve their decision-making processes and to enhance their competencies. To answer their missions, these individuals, commonly pointed out as knowledge workers, have to access information, knowledge, and skills widely distributed in the global and influence spaces of their organization. They must rely on the formal and the informal information networks of the company through their sedentary or mobile computerized workstation. The computerized workstation becomes a window opened on the company’s planetary space of activities. Thus, beyond the technical infrastructures that are implemented the essential role of the digital information system is to provide relevant information to each employee at all levels of the hierarchy, so that he can control his situation, make decisions and undertake actions. Nevertheless, we have to distinguish between “the knowledge of knowers and the codification of that knowledge” (Haeckel, 2000, p.295). Accordingly, information systems must supply means to share personal knowledge with distant colleagues, and to enable access to essential codified knowledge in order to solve problems out of routine. BACKGROUND THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS Data, Information, Knowledge As highlighted by Snowden (2000), "The developing practice of KM has seen two different approaches to definition of knowledge. One arises from information management and sees knowledge as some higher-level order of information, often expressed as a triangle progressing from data, through information and knowledge, to the apex of wisdom. Knowledge here is seen as a thing or entity that can be managed and distributed through advanced use of technoloDraft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management, Global Challenges (pp. 236261), Idea Group Publishing, 2007. 8 gy...The second approach sees the problem from sociological basis. These definitions see knowledge as a human capability to act” (pp. 241-242). The Information Management Approach of Knowledge The 


INTRODUCTION
Under the influence of globalization and the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), the Enterprise turned into Extended Company.That implies cross-cultural impact of its members, who are the components and the users of information systems (IS) disseminated all over the world.As knowledge workers, the users are in the heart of the IS that are implemented.Therefore, their knowledge, which is rooted in their individual's culture, are beginning to be a key factor of success for the design, the development, the implementation, and the utilization of information systems.More and more, employees' knowledge must be considered as an asset as it was as soon as 1990 when Carnegie Group, Inc., Digital Equipment Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Texas Instruments, Inc., and US WEST Advanced Technologies, Inc., launched the Initiative for Managing Knowledge Assets.They defined for the first time the notion of knowledge assets as follows: "Knowledge assets are those assets that are primary in the minds of company's employees.They include design experience, engineering skills, financial analysis skills, and competitive knowledge" (IMKA, 1990).
As of that date, numerous research works were carried out, enterprise applications were deployed, and an abundant literature has enriched the domain of Knowledge Management (KM).
Nevertheless, KM could not exist without information technologies, which have drastically changed our relationship with space and time.In turn, from the KM point of view, IT cannot be efficient without the knowledge of users.Gradually, the concept of KM has highlighted a broad range of topics and became a fuzzy concept taking as many senses as people speaking about it.
For instance, in his editorial preface, untitled "What is Knowledge Management?" M.E.Jennex (2005a) has gathered some authors' definitions that show that 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, we think 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 amplify the utilization and the creation of knowledge within an organization, according to two additional goals closely interlinked, and their underlying economic and strategic dimensions, organizational dimensions, socio-cultural dimensions, and technological dimensions: (i) a patrimonial goal; (ii) a sustainable innovation goal.
As we can see, this definition, directly addresses some elements of the Corporate Governance and one of its subsets the IT Governance.Except that it does not exist a unify pattern of reference upon which a KM Governance could be established.Therefore, the focus of our ongoing research is to establish such a pattern that fits with our definition of KM.It is the purpose of the MGKME, a Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise.
In this chapter, after having introduced a brief description of the Extended Company, we open a discussion based on the concepts that have been used to establish the MGKME.Doing so, we stress the links between Information Resources Management, and KM.Thus, we successively introduce the following topics: distinguishing the concept of knowledge from the concepts of data and information; analyzing the impact of the cultural factors on the Knowledge Management Systems (KMS); and introducing the concept of KM Governance.Then we describe the MGKME.This model suggests a systemic approach of KM and considers the knowledge workers, both at once, as components and users of the KMS.Finally, we put in perspective how this model could help establishing people-focused KM Governance principles linked with Corporate and IT Governance.

A brief description
The enterprise increasingly develops its activities in a planetary space with three dimensions: (i) A global space: this space covers the set of the organization that are the geographic places of implantation.
(ii) A local space: this space corresponds to the subset of the organization situated in a given geographic zone.
(iii) A space of influence: this space is the field of interactions of the company with the others organizations.
The hierarchical company locked up on its local borders is transformed into an Extended Company, without borders, opened and adaptable.Furthermore, this Extended Company is placed under the ascendancy of the unforeseeable environment that leads towards uncertainty and doubt.One can remark that, depending of the geographic place of implantation of the local space (e.g.US, South America, Europe, and Asia), the vision of the global space is dependant of the local culture of members.Behaviors may be different, and understanding of things can cause a hierarchical antinomy in the importance of the decisions and choices that are made.
The Extended Company meets fundamental problems of information exchange and knowledge sharing among, on the one hand, its formal entities distributed in the world (offices, core competencies, business units, projects), and, on the other hand, the company's employees (nomadic or sedentary), bearers of diversified values and cultures according to the places of their implantation.
Two kinds of information networks overlap (ref.figure 1): (ii) An informal information network between members, nomadic or sedentary employees, in which information exchanges and tacit knowledge sharing take place.This network is implemented through communication technologies.

The Evolution of the Employees' Role within the Extended Company
In the Extended Company, initiatives and responsibilities are increasing, whatever the individuals' hierarchical levels and roles are.Employees are placed in situations in which they need to take decisions.They become decision-makers who utilize and create more and more knowledge as a basis for their efficiency.On this basis, Davenport and Prusak (1998), state that "What makes knowledge valuable to organizations is ultimately to make better the decisions and actions taken on the basis of knowledge" (p.170).Therefore, knowledge is the crucial factor enabling employees to improve their decision-making processes and to enhance their competencies.To answer their missions, these individuals, commonly pointed out as knowledge workers, have to access information, knowledge, and skills widely distributed in the global and influence spaces of their organization.They must rely on the formal and the informal information networks of the company through their sedentary or mobile computerized workstation.The computerized workstation becomes a window opened on the company's planetary space of activities.Thus, beyond the technical infrastructures that are implemented the essential role of the digital information system is to provide relevant information to each employee at all levels of the hierarchy, so that he can control his situation, make decisions and undertake actions.Nevertheless, we have to distinguish between "the knowledge of knowers and the codification of that knowledge" (Haeckel, 2000, p.295).Accordingly, information systems must supply means to share personal knowledge with distant colleagues, and to enable access to essential codified knowledge in order to solve problems out of routine.

Data, Information, Knowledge
As highlighted by Snowden (2000), "The developing practice of KM has seen two different approaches to definition of knowledge.One arises from information management and sees knowledge as some higher-level order of information, often expressed as a triangle progressing from data, through information and knowledge, to the apex of wisdom.Knowledge here is seen as a thing or entity that can be managed and distributed through advanced use of technolo- gy…The second approach sees the problem from sociological basis.These definitions see knowledge as a human capability to act" (pp.241-242).

The Information Management Approach of Knowledge
The information management approach of knowledge is the most widespread.This approach focuses on technological and applications perspective.It induces to consider knowledge as an object, and so to disregard the importance of people.Envisaged under the angle of the system of information, knowledge is implicitly treated as an object independent from the knower that creates it and utilizes it.More often that not, although the authors take care of proposing a definition intended to distinguish the concepts of data, information and knowledge, these three concepts are quickly expressed in term of data processing: knowledge being only a type of information.As an example (ref.

Information
Data set structured and organized to give shape to a message resulting from a given context and so perfectly subjective.

Knowledge
Knowledge is new information acquired by an intelligent process, study or practice.
These definitions show an underlying positivist paradigm that leads to characterize and to organize the concept of data, information and knowledge, into a hierarchical vision of objects.
Thus, the authors who join this perspective are mainly interested with the contents of the know- 9 ledge of the organization.They are focusing on building and managing stocks of codified knowledge that can be stored, retrieved, and transferred by information systems.

The Sociological Approach of Knowledge
In the information management approach of knowledge one places too little emphasis on knowledge creating activities that, as mentioned by Davenport and Prusak (1998), "take place within and between humans" (p. 6).This approach do not underline that the knowledge resides primarily in the heads of individuals, and in the social interactions of these individuals as pointed out by Cohen and Prusak (2001) under the Social capital concept.They define the Social capital concept as follows: "Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible" (p.4).
In the same way, we suggest an approach that is built upon the assumption emphasized by Tsuchiya (1993) concerning knowledge creation ability.He states that "Although terms 'datum', 'information', and 'knowledge' are often used interchangeably, there exists a clear distinction among them.When datum is sense-given through interpretative framework, it becomes information, and when information is sense-read through interpretative framework, it becomes knowledge" (p.88).He emphases how organizational knowledge is created through dialogue, and highlighted how "commensurability" of the interpretative frameworks of the organization's members is indispensable for an organization to create organizational knowledge for decision and action.Here, commensurability must be understood as the common space of the interpretative frameworks (e.g.cognitive models or mental models) of each member.Tsuchiya states that "It is important to clearly distinguish between sharing information and sharing knowledge.Information becomes knowledge only when it is sense-read through the interpretative framework of the receiver.Any information inconsistent with his interpretative framework is not perceived in most cases.Therefore, commensurability of interpretative frameworks of members is indispensable for individual knowledge to be shared" (p.89).In other words, we can say that tacit knowledge that resides in our brain results from the sense given,  In an other way, Wiig (2004) who highlights a discontinuity between information and knowledge describes this process clearly: "the process by which we develop new knowledge uses prior knowledge to make sense of the new information and, once accepted for inclusion, internalizes the new insights by linking with prior knowledge.Hence, the new knowledge is as 11 much a function of prior knowledge as it is of received inputs.A discontinuity is thus created between the received information inputs and the resulting new knowledge" (p.73).
To conclude, we can say that codified knowledge is not more than information.It can be considered as knowledge when members having a large commensurability of their interpretative frameworks commonly understand it.For example, such is the case for members having the same technical or scientific education, or members having the same business culture.In these cases, codified knowledge makes the same sense for each member (ref. figure 3).

Impact of Cultural Factors on Knowledge Management Systems
In this section, we introduce the idea of considering the knowledge workers as integral components of Knowledge Management Systems (KMS).Then we analyze the impact if individual's culture on KMS.Finally, we suggest key indicators to assess the individual's culture.

Considering Knowledge workers as an Integral Component in Global Information System Design
KM becomes a reality in the implementation of systems, which are, paraphrasing Joel de Rosnay (de Rosnay, 1975): "A set of components in dynamic interaction organized according to a purpose."These systems are often called Knowledge Management Systems (KMS).Although this term "does not seem to have a consensus definition" (Jennex, 2005b, p. i), it usually answers to the technological approach of KM.
From our point of view, this approach considers that knowledge can be handled as if it was an object, without any relationship with individual's perspective.Although this idea is greatly shared, we argue that the design of a KMS should integrate the role of the knowledge workers, and consider them as integral components of the system.Thus, in their study on Collaborative Knowledge Management System (CKMS) design [1], Chua and Brennan (2004) emphasize that "One of the most important components of CKMS is the knowledge workers, who are also the users of the system, and the workspaces they are associated with" (p.172).
Like Chua and Brennan, we insist on the importance to integrate the knowledge worker as a component, and a user of the information system.In fact, relying on Tsuchiya's works, we argue that knowledge is dependent on the individual's interpretative frameworks, the context of his action, and the situation that activated them.Interpretative frameworks are key processors that transform data into information and information into knowledge that in turn changes the prior interpretative framework.These frameworks have been elaborated all along the life of each employee from his birth to the date of the context and situation that lead him to make decisions based on his sense-reading and sense-giving capabilities to process information (ref. Figure 2).

Impact of Individual's Culture on KMS
Individual's cultures are the bases on which employees' interpretative frameworks are deeply rooted.Consequently, we must stress the role of cultural factors whenever social interactions and sharing of information and knowledge are essential to enable efficiency in the global economy.In the same way, Chua and Brennan seem to observe the same phenomenon, "It is generally assumed that CKMS activities such as the forwarding of information, collaboration among workers in different departments, storing of information, the monitoring and tracking of purposes are supported, and facilitate learning and development of knowledge workers within this collaborative environment.Unfortunately, while CKMS generally support these activities, the influence of worker's knowledge and behavioral patterns to the successful working of the CKMS is often greatly underestimated.It is therefore important to design CKMS with the knowledge worker's constraints in terms of their qualifications or previous knowledge but also in term of other factors such as their cultural background, in mind.If we do not consider these factors accordingly, systems will not be suitable for some of the CKMS tasks that involve and rely on the knowledge workers" (P.175).
To conclude, as employees' interpretative frameworks are transducers that give sense to information and codified knowledge, we argue that individual's culture is a key factor to enable employees to make-sense to information that they access from information systems, and so internalize it and transform it into action.Thus, in order to make the information and the codified knowledge efficient, one must consider the knowledge workers's culture.

Key Indicators to Assess Individual's Culture
"Numerous IS researchers have been interested to explain differences in adoption and/or usage of IT/IS by considering the impact of culture -primary national culture on human beha-vior and the way humans use the IT" (Corbitt, Peszinski, Inthanond & Hill, 2004, p.65)The key indicators, listed table 2, provide empirical evidence that they have an impact on the individual's cognitive abilities, and so develop different interpretative frameworks.Accordingly, when considering the knowledge worker as an information system component, we suggest regarding these indicators as criteria to develop a cultural analysis study in order to conceive, realize, and implement collaborative information systems.

Individualism / Collectivism
Refers to the relationship between the individual and the collectivity that prevails in society (high versus low context differences).It is reflected in the way live and work together.
Individualism -a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives and who are motivated by their own preferences.Individuals see information as independent of its context., Collectivism.
-a social pattern that consists of closely linked individuals who see themselves as belonging to one or more collectives and who are motivated by norms, which are imposed by the collectives.Priority to the goals of the collectives over their own personal goals.Duties and obligations -emphasize historical and contextual information -Tacit versus explicit knowledge -Systemic versus independent -Social environment, -Degree of rationality,

Time orientation
Attitudes towards time which shape the way in which people structure their actions -represents trade-offs made between long longterm value and short-term profitability.
LTO (future -long term orientation) stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards.Deferred gratification of needs, long-term virtues -frugality, perseverance, building a strong market position, structured problem solving, saving and investing in particular, STO (current -short-term orientation) stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of 'face' and fulfilling social obligations.But considers also immediate gratification, short term focusing, spending, bottom line, analytical thinking.
-Immediate versus deferred gratification, -Spending versus saving, -Quick results versus perseverance -Sense of shame and losing face Doing / Thinking Propensity for action versus analysis and reflection

High -propensity for action and driven by immediate results
Low -space for reflection, experimentation and evaluation -Action orientation, -Reflection and analysis, philosophizing, -Resource driven versus process driven Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management,, Idea Group Publishing, 2007.

Knowledge Management Governance
After having considered the Corporate Governance and the Information Technology Governance concepts, we attempt to tackle with a Knowledge Management Governance perspective drawing a link with the Corporate and IT Governance principles.

The OECD Corporate Governance
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) corporate governance principles were originally issued in 1999.They have since become the international benchmark for corporate governance.OECD governments in April 2004 agreed the new Principles, and defines Corporate Governance as shown on figure 4 (OECD, 2004, p.11).

The COBIT ® IT Governance
Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT ® , 2000, 2002, 2005)   was initially published by the Information Systems Audit and Control Foundation, Inc. in 1996.Guldentops (2004) states that "COBIT ® presents an international and generally accepted IT control framework enabling organizations to implement an IT Governance structure throughout the enterprise" (p.277).A fourth edition has been edited in 2005.In the Executive Summary IT Governance is defined as shown on figure 4 (COBIT ® , 2005, p.6).
IT governance provides the structure that links IT process, IT resources and information to enterprise strategies and objectives.To achieve success, corporate governance and IT governance can no longer be considered separate and distinct disciplines.The COBIT ® Management Guidelines helps to support these needs.They have identified specific Critical Success Factors, Key Goal Indicators, Key Performance Indicators and an associated Maturity Model for IT Governance.

KM Governance Perspectives
Corporate Governance and IT Governance do not explicitly mention to consider Intellectual Capital as a resource in the enterprise strategies.Even so, as pointed out by Edvinsson and Malone (1997), "The core of the so-called knowledge economy is huge investment flows into human capital as well as information technology" (p.12).However, we 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.To enable such a study, we must refer to a KM pattern of reference to elaborate KM Governance principles.

Towards a unified KM pattern of reference
Despite the fact that numerous Knowledge Management Frameworks have been suggested all over the world, it does not exist a unify pattern of reference supporting our definition of KM as described in the introduction.For example, let us consider The European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management (CEN-1, 2004).The project team has collected, categorized and analyzed more than 140 KM Frameworks.We can notice that this work has produced a high-quality practical outcome that is a reference point to achieve a good understanding of KM.Nevertheless, as contributors to this project, we underline the predominant positivist paradigm, and the information management approach of KM that have inspired the project team.Moreover, we have observed that few of them were "people-focused" as Wiig (2004) states: "our emphasis is on people and their behaviors and roles in enterprise operations (p.XXV)."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 suggest two KM Governance Perspectives depending on the first or the second approach (ref.figure 4).

Figure 4. KM Governance Perspective
On the one hand, the technological approach leads to reduce knowledge to codified knowledge that is no more than information.In that case, we can manage KM projects in the same way than IS projects.Specific criteria inherent to KMS must connect KM Governance and IT Governance principles.On the other hand, the managerial approach that integrates knowledge as a resource focuses on the core business processes and the people.Corporate Governance principles must integrate the risks linked to the utilization and creation of knowledge These aspects involve elaborating Management Governance Guidelines for KM as CO-BIT ® is for IT.The aim of the Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME), described hereafter, is to contribute to elaborating a guiding framework that serves as a pattern for KM Governance Guidelines.

MGKME DESCRIPTION
The MGKME supports our full meaning of KM as defined in the introduction of this chapter.It is an empirical model.It should result in the implementation of Knowledge Management Systems that take into account knowledge workers as components of the systems and that allow them to be autonomous and to achieve their potentialities.The MGKME consists of seven key elements shared out into two main categories: the Underlying elements and the Operating elements.Hereafter we describe each of those elements (ref.figure 5).

The 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 are essential factors, which leverage their potentialities, and that actually enable them to achieve effective results.
Therefore, from our perspective, socio-technical environment , and value-added processes are fundamental components of the Knowledge Management System.As a result, they constitute the underlying elements of the MGKME upon which the other elements should focus.

Socio-Technical Environment of the Enterprise
The Socio-Technical 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 workspaces, weblogs, wikis, CoPs).Interacting is not enough.Stewart (2001) states that "Making time to converse at every level of an organization is not an indulgence, not a luxury, it is an imperative" (p. 1).He observes what happens 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).

Value-added Processes of the Enterprise
Value-added processes represent the organizational contexts for which knowledge are essential factors of performance.It is in this context that is implanted a KM initiative.Tonchia and Tramontano (2004) states that "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".They 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.

The Operating elements
The operating elements of the MGKME constitute the operating components of the KMS.
They focus on the underlying elements, and consist of managerial guiding principles , ad hoc infrastructures , generic KM core processes , organizational learning processes , and methods and supporting tools for KM .

Managerial Guiding Principles for KM
The managerial guiding principles for KM bring a vision aligned with the enterprise's strategic orientations, and suggest KM Governance guideline by analogy with COBIT®, which concerns IT principles of coordination and control of performances.In particular, we must establish KM indicators.Numerous publications and books relates to that subject (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Roos, 1999;Moore, 1999;Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham, 2000, section III;CEN-4, 2004).In order to monitor a KM initiative we suggest two main categories of indicators: (i) a category of indicators that focus on the impacts of the initiative favoring enhancement of intellectual capital, and measuring the level of maturity of KM within the enterprise; (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 propose a way to get a good articulation between the Deming's cycle and the Organizational learning (ref.figure 6).
Firstly, we refer to the PDCA cycle of activities -plan, do, check, and act (Martin, 1995, p. 207).This cycle, first advocated by Deming (1992)  Secondly, we refer to the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning in the organizational learning theory defined by Argyris & Schön (Argyris and Schön, 1996) as "Learning that results in a change in the values of the theory-in-use, as well as in its strategies and assumptions" (p.21).Thus, we point out the key contribution of Knowledge Management to Change 2 defined by Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1975).

Ad hoc Infrastructures for KM implementation
The ad hoc 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.Relevant infrastructures must be set up according to the specific situation of each company, and the context of the envisaged KM initiative.These infrastructures 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).As an example, we present the Semi-Opened Infrastructure of Work that has been implemented in order to deploy Knowledge-Based Systems (KBS) within large French Nuclear Power Plant Company (Grundstein, de Bonnières, & Para, 1988).
The aim of the Semi-Opened Infrastructure of Work was to encourage the individual and collective apprenticeship, to favor knowledge acquisition, to leverage emergence of new products, and to implement computer applications using artificial intelligence technologies.To expand, the Semi-Opened Infrastructure of work requires Multidisciplinary Group, and the existence of an Evolution and Progress Space.We describe briefly the functioning principle below (ref.figure 7).The Leadership Space was constituted with engineers, organizers, and sociologists accustomed to doing inductive reasoning.This Multidisciplinary Group was in charge to deploy KBS over the whole company.
The Working Space represents two operational units (Core Competence A and B), whatever is their geographical localization, where P1 and P4 are employees whose roles are to communicate on KBS, and to implement applications in their own unit.P1 and P4 are used to deductive reasoning.
The Evolution and Progress Space represents a place, which was a physical room situated at headquarter where P1 and P4 had to work and to learn in interaction with the Multidisciplinary Group.In the Evolution and Progress Space, P1 and P4 have had to practice they own deductive reasoning and to learn to work with the Multidisciplinary Group practicing an inductive reasoning.So people were interacting following two ways of reasoning.It is what, Edgar Morin call Dialogic Principle that "combines two principles or notions that must be mutually exclusive, but that are integral parts of the same reality" (Morin & Le Moigne, 1999, p. 264).In the Evolution and Progress Space, learning was especially effective, and interpretative frameworks of P1 and P4 were evolving.Arrows show: (i) how P1 and P4 evolved in the Evolution and Progress Space; (ii) how P1 and P4 disseminated their new knowledge in their own unit, and how organizational learning was deployed.The Evolution and Progress Space has proved to be a place of contacts, a field of multiple cultures, where the potentialities of each knowledge owner have been capitalized.

Generic KM Core Processes
The generic KM core 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 four 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 (ref.Figure 8).Thus, we have identified four generic KM core processes corresponding to the resolution of these categories of problems.We describe these processes below.The Locating Process deals with the location of Crucial Knowledge, that is, know-how (explicit knowledge) and skills (tacit knowledge) that are necessary for decision-making processes, and for the progress of the essential processes that constitute the heart of the activities of the company: 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 mentioned an approach named Draft Chapter 11, Wai K. Law (Ed), Information Resources Management,, Idea Group Publishing, 2007.
The Preserving Process deals with the preservation of knowledge and skills.When knowledge can be articulated 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 notably described in (Schreiber et al, 2000).When knowledge cannot be articulated, then interactions through communities of practice or other types of networks must be encouraged.
The Enhancing Process deals with the benefit of knowledge 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 knowledge 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.

Organizational Learning Processes
The Organizational learning processes underlay the whole generic KM core 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.Therefore, it is a ques-tion 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.

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, (Baek, Liebowitz, Prasad, & Granger, 1999;Becker, 1999;Huntington, 1999;Wensley & Verwijk-O'Sullivan, 2000).Among all these 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 ends of KM are integrated into the digital information system.
From our viewpoint, the digital information system, centered on the knowledge worker, requires a human centric design approach to place the knowledge worker into the heart of the design process (Rosenthal-Sabroux, 96).The design must not dissociate the knowledge worker, stakeholder of different functional and organizational groups and lines of business or projects, from the professional processes in which he is engaged, the actions he performs, the decisions he makes, and the relations he has with his company environment (persons and artifacts).As such, the design must integrate individuals as components of the 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.We distinguish three natures of information: the Mainstream-Data, the Source-of-Knowledge-Data, and the Shared-Data (Grundstein and Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2003).

29
The Mainstream-Data makes up the flow of information that informs us on the state of a company's business process.The Shared-Data constitutes the information handled with the new ICT devices.These devices cause a break with older technologies, a rupture linked to the relationship of humans to space, and time.They give us the capacity to be ubiquitous, and take us from the real to a virtual world, from the manipulation of concrete to abstract objects.The Source-of-Knowledge-Data is the result of a knowledge engineering approach that offers techniques and tools for acquiring and representing knowledge.This knowledge is codified knowledge.It can be transferred easily through information systems.It is immediately intelligible by knowledge workers who share the same interpretative frameworks with the knower who had been asked to have his knowledge acquired, represented, and then codified.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS
The Model for Global Knowledge Management within the Enterprise (MGKME) supports our full meaning of KM as defined in the introduction of this chapter.It is a guiding framework for KM that supplies a "people-focused KM" as proposed by Wiig.It establishes a complementary approach based both on our experience within the industry, and on our research works.It presents an attempt to articulate the Deming's Cycle with the Single-Loop Learning and Double-Loop Learning defined in the Argyris & Schön's organizational learning theory.
In this chapter, based on the MGKME, we have emphasized the need to incorporate the employees' knowledge within the information and knowledge management systems in such a way that the knowledge of the knower should be distinguished from the flows of codified knowledge that are processed within the systems.To do so, it appears that users of the information systems should be considered as knowledge workers, and be thought as components of the systems.
However, the individual's culture may engenders the incommensurability of the employees' interpretative frameworks (e.g.cognitive models or mental models), and so have a key influence on the design, the development, the implementation, and the utilization of the systems.
To avoid such risks, we must envisage establishing KM Governance principles that would incorporate the role of knowledge workers as components, and users of the information systems.On the one hand, these KM Governance principles should be connected with IT Governance principles by means of specific criteria inherent to Knowledge Management Systems.On the other hand, they should be connected with Corporate Governance principles by taking into account the risks linked to the utilization and creation of knowledge.That could be one of IRM challenges for the coming years.
We expect that the MGKME will serve as a pattern of reference for establishing KM Governance principles.Moreover, we hope to succeed to consolidate it in order to become an open framework that enables each enterprise to assess the maturity level of its Knowledge Management System, and to adapt its KM program.In the future, we should complete and validate the MGKME, by developing our researches in that sense.That will result in developing appropriated methods, and constructing a set of qualitative indicators and specific tools.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: The Formal and Informal Digital Information Networks within the Extended Company through our interpretative frameworks, to data that we perceive among the informations that are transmitted to us (ref.figure 2).

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Creation of individual's tacit knowledge 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.Well-known in Quality Management, the Deming's PDCA Wheel presents a simplified cycle to achieve design and continual improvement of a product or of a process.The cycle consists of four stages: (i) PLAN in order to induce a structured program of actions.(ii) DO to develop the program, and test conformity to protocols.(iii) CHECK (or STUDY) to verify, to analyze, and to understand the results.(iv) ACT to react, to propose and to decide the modifications and the improvements.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Semi-Opened Infrastructure for the Implementation of Organizational Learning

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Generic KM Core Processes and Capitalizing on Company's Knowledge Assets Problems table 1), let's see the definitions extracted from the report of the Information Management Club for the largest French Enterprises CIGREF (2000, pp.15-17).
(Darby, Herbolzheimer & van Winkelen, 2004) to highlight the link between national cultural dimensions and the individual's culture, we have chosen to report on the research undertook during 2003 to 2004 by the Knowledge Management Forum organized by Henley Management College in the UK(Darby, Herbolzheimer & van Winkelen, 2004).This research was launched to find out perceptions of the impact of cross-cultural factors and issues relating to KM. Research included six case study companies who employ over 100,000 employees worldwide in the telecommunications, pharmaceutical and business consulting sectors.To provide a geographical spread the dataset includes five US, three South American (Brazil and Uruguay), 7 European (France and UK), and 4 Asian (China) sites.In their research, Darby, Herbolzheimer, and van Winkelen, state that "one of the main difficulties in the analysis of culture and its impact on KM initiatives is to separate the business from the national culture" (p.233).They concentrate on five national cultural dimensions, which are power distance, tolerance of ambiguity, individualism -collectivism, time orientation, and doing -thinking(pp.241-242).We have converted their descriptions under an analysis framework that lists key indicators to assess the individual's culture(ref.table2).

Table 2 .
Key indicators to assess individual's culture