Aurélie Dudezert

Illusions of control and social domination strategies in knowledge mapping system use

In recent years, the overload of information has driven companies to develop visualization technologies as a way to graphically represent knowledge for decision making. On the basis of visualization technologies and on knowledge modeling techniques, knowledge maps (Kmaps) help represent the knowledge assets of a company as graphical discrete objects. Yet such systems, because of their visual representation of knowledge, are prone to creating illusions. Using a case study of three firms’ use of Kmaps in their Human Resource departments and drawing upon Bourdieus social theory, illusion of control theory, and IS as signal and symbol theory, our study provides a critical perspective on the use of Kmaps by groups of actors to reinforce their social domination in business organizations. We find that Kmap use can lead to illusions of knowledge control and illusions of executive control and that in response to the potential for knowledge illusions, three social domination strategies – a signal and symbol strategy, an avoidance strategy and an evidence strategy – are employed. Implications of these results on Knowledge Management and Information Systems Management future research are discussed.

Knowledge Management 2.0: Organizational Models and Enterprise Strategies

In the last few years, Knowledge Management (KM) practices have evolved in organizations. Due to the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, new usages of information and knowledge sharing have emerged (Enterprise 2.0). The book aims to give an overview on theoretical and empirical research that investigates the next Knowledge Management (KM) generation (McElroy, 2002) in the Web 2.0 age, which would be called KM 2.0 (Dudezert & Boughzala, 2008). It highlights evolutions of the KM area with a global focus and an international dimension of studies. The objective is also to compare different approaches and practices developed in different countries and cultures.

Knowledge Management Systems, Autonomy and Control: How to Regulate? A Case-Study in an Industrial Company

There is a general agreement that knowledge represents a sustainable competitive advantage for enterprises working in turbulent and unpredictable environments (Drucker, 1993; Grant, 1996; Alavi and Leidner, 2001). As knowledge becomes essential, organizations are restructuring themselves in order to better use this valuable asset. The implementation of knowledge management systems (KMSs) has led to the emergence of new organizational forms such as post-bureaucratic and decentralized organizations. In fact, these systems seem to affect the control and the autonomy of organizational actors. On the one hand, KMSs enhance horizontal communication and encourage self-organizing and self-managing teams. They facilitate access to information and contribute to individuals’ cognitive development. Hence, employees have greater levels of autonomy that allow them to better address problematic situations. Besides, technologies are socially constructed. Their use is structured by employees’ interpretation and mental models (Orlikowski, 1996). In this respect, KMSs supported by these technologies amplify ‘uncertainty zones’ (Crozier and Friedberg, 1977) and employees’ autonomy. Additionally, knowledge sharing largely depends on employees’ willingness and engagement. On the other hand, KMSs control organizational actors’ activities through formalizing their collaboration practices and informal exchanges, and increasing the transparency of their work and interactions.