See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228554838

Success and Failure Criteria for Knowledge

Management Systems

Article

CITATIONS READS

2 877

3 authors:

Mario Benassi Paolo Bouquet

University of Milan Università degli Studi di Trento
22 PUBLICATIONS 1,121 CITATIONS 122 PUBLICATIONS 2,594 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roberta Cuel
Università degli Studi di Trento
51 PUBLICATIONS 511 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Okkam - Enabling the Web of Entities (FP7) View project

Academic spin-offs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paolo Bouquet on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Success and Failure Criteria
for Knowledge Management Systems

Mario Benassi1, Paolo Bouquet2, Roberta Cuel3

2 University of Milan,

Department of Information Sciences,

via Comelico 39/41 – 20100 Milan, Italy
mbenassi@dsi.unimi.it

2 University of Trento,

Department of Information and Communication Technology,

Via Sommarive, 14 -- 38050 Povo, Trento, Italy
bouquet@dit.unitn.it

3 University of Trento,

Department of Computer and Management Science,

Via Inama, 5 -- 38100 Trento, Italy
rcuel@cs.unitn.it

Abstract

Knowledge management and more generally systems dealing with informa-

tion creation, storage and retrieval are supposed to be a key factor for firms’
success. However, enthusiasm about their introduction is often paralleled
 by disenchantment and delusion about their effectiveness and real use.
Taking such failures seriously, we investigate reasons leading to success
or failure of KM dissemination. Using a case study approach, we investigate
the link between organizational profile and structure and information needs
to be supported by KM systems, and offer a general framework to explain
why –holding technology constant- the end result may differ widely. We
conclude our investigation by suggesting that coherence and match are
crucial ingredients to make KM work.

Keywords. Knowledge Management, Distributed Knowledge Management,

Knowledge Node, Technological architecture, Organizational model.

Track: Strategy and management in knowledge-based organizations

1. Introduction

In the last 20 years, knowledge has been considered as one of the most, if not
the most, important organizational asset and KM has been considered as a disci-
pline "realized in practice", which allows organizations to improve their capabili-
ties capitalizing “organizational knowledge”.
Organizational knowledge derives both from knowledge of single individuals
and units that participate to the firm activities. Definitions about KM abound [Har-
ris1], but despite existing differences KM can be considered as a set of practices
allowing organizations to create, refine, store, and share knowledge, often through
information communication technology (ICT). Increasing popularity of KM as a dis-
cipline is paralleled by the huge amount of investments made by firms and organi-
zations on technological systems to transform capture, organize, store, and share
workers’ knowledge [Zilich1].
 Despite the claim, made by businessmen and consultants, that complex KM
systems are a right answer to knowledge management users’ needs, these sys-
tems are often deserted by users.
In other words, very often KM systems don’t reach the expected results, and are
not effectively used by workers, who continue to produce and share knowledge in
the way they did before the introduction of such systems. As explained in [Boni-
facio2] the effectiveness of KM systems depends on different variables, which are
both technological and organizational. It is not only the type of technology (for ex-
ample obsolete databases, or communication protocols) of KM systems, but their
technological architectures and a lot of other organizational variables – such as
organizational model, social systems, individuals skills, organizational culture, and
so on – that might influence their effectiveness.
In particular we argue that KM systems partially fail because their representa-
tions of knowledge des not satisfy the needs and the interpretation schemas of
users. Especially in complex organizations workers – specialized in different sec-
tors, with different needs, different ways of thinking, and different interpretation
schemas – cannot be forced to use a unique system of knowledge representation
that they might consider it either as oppressive or irrelevant [Bowker1].
In our research we analyze two important variables which determine success or
failure of KM systems:
- organizational model: it describes the way in which organization is
structured in functions, and activities. From a KM point of view, it repre-
sents groups, teams, or communities that manage knowledge according
to their local interpretation schema. In other words it reflects the system
of interpretation schemas of individuals or groups of individuals (such as
teams, communities, offices) that participate to the firm activities;
 - technological architecture: it reflects the way in which knowledge is
represented within a KM system, namely how many representation
schemas are allowed to be managed within the system.
In this paper, it is argued that success (or failure) of KM systems depends on the
coherence (or incoherence) – in terms of centralization or distribution – between
the technological architecture of KM systems and the organizational model of the
firm.
This claim is demonstrated by three case studies, three complex organizations
in which (using the same technology - Lotus Notes) different KM systems have
been implemented. Through these analysis we demonstrate that KM systems (with
different technological architecture) are effective and successfully implemented
when organizational models and technology architectures are coherent (both cen-
tralized, or both distributed); on the other hand KM systems fail, or partially fail,
when technological architectures are centralized and organizational models are
distributed, or vice versa, when technological architectures are distributed and or-
ganizational models are centralized.

2. Coherence between Organizational Models and Technological

Architectures

Different approaches are used to manage knowledge, and these have an influ-
ence on the technological architecture of KM systems implemented within firms. In
the next paragraphs both organizational models and technological architecture are
defined, focusing on centralization and distribution criteria.
 2.1. Organizational Models

In literature it is widely described that two dual approaches on KM have evolved

and developed: the centralized approach (or northwestern approach) and the dis-
tributed approach (or subjectivist/Japanese approach) [Nonaka1].
According to the KM centralized approach, knowledge is considered reproduci-
ble within an organization only when it can be made objective, refining it by all indi-
viduals, environmental, and contextual conditions considered “raw” materials
[Bonifacio2]. In other words, knowledge cannot be reused or shared in other
organizational units, when it contains “details” which cannot be replicated. The
“refining” processes of knowledge are done by individuals, who – wanting to
create a “pure” and unique knowledge – eliminate some characteristics of
knowledge in favor of others, supposed more useful. Then, a unique and ap-
parently objective representation of knowledge is spread out within the firm, and all
workers are forced to use it.
From the KM point of view, we can say that organizational models are central-
ized when they allow the creation of a common and unique knowledge representa-
tion – called interpretation schema –. Centralized organizational models are very
useful for organizational units (such as small firms, offices, teams, or communities)
whose workers need to participate all together, sharing a common view and a
unique way of thinking, namely a unique interpretation schema. Interpretation
schema is continuously created, and modified through processes of participation
and reification [Wenger1]. Often participation and reification are connected proc-
esses, and people – participating in a group – reify their interpretation schema
adopting, using, creating and modifying artifacts (i.e. procedures, routines, work-
flows, archives, spatial disposition of the workplace, document categories, file
managers, document managers, databases) that better suit their emerging needs.
 Even if a unique and supposedly shared interpretation schema is developed
within complex organizations, workers might not understand it, or may interpret it in
different ways. A lot of authors from both cognitive (e.g. [Bouquet1, Ghidini1,
Mccarthy1, Fauconnier1, Dinsmore1]) and social sciences (e.g. [Goffman1,
Dougherty1]) studied the coexistence of different interpretational schemas, and the
resulting orientation shows that interpretation schemas are only partially reducible
to each others, and no unique, common, and shared schema can satisfy all users.
Therefore it doesn’t exist a unique and pure version of knowledge, and in [Benere-
cetti1] it is called local knowledge: the different, partial, approximate, perspective
interpretation of the world generated by individuals or groups of individuals (such
as organizational units) which use their personal interpretation schema. In other
words, knowledge cannot be made objective, unique, and understandable for
more than one organizational unit, because it is strongly connected with individu-
als’ interpretation schemas. A distributed approach of KM is necessary (or the
subjectivist/Japanese approach) in which each organizational unit can manage its
knowledge according to its local interpretational schema, and can exchange
knowledge with others without a unique and shared interpretation schema. Organ-
izational models which sustain these processes and allow the creation of autono-
mous interpretation schemas are called distributed organizational models. These,
are very useful, for example, in complex knowledge based organizations com-
posed by different organizational units, which are specialized in different activities,
with different needs, and therefore with different interpretation schemas [Boni-
facio3].
In conclusion we can say that there are two different organizational models which
sustain the two KM approaches:
 - centralized organizational model: knowledge is continuously negoti-
ated and created within an organizational unit (perspective making
[Boland1], single loop learning [Argyris1]),
- the distributed organizational model: knowledge is continuously man-
aged within organizational units, and it is continuously negotiated by
people who try to understand how other units look like from different inter-
pretation schemas (perspective taking [Boland1], double loop learning
[Argyris1]).

2.2. Technological architectures

Companies have invested huge amounts of money in order to manage knowl-

edge through ICT. Even though KM systems use different technologies, tools, and
methodologies, they seem to share some typical features. These, described by
[Davenport1] aim at sustain informal communities, connect individuals through
corporate-wide Intranet, allow mutual understanding using and designing corporate
languages, and finally create an Enterprise Knowledge Portal (EKP), a simple and

EKP

KB

CONTRIBUTION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE TOOLS

Figure 1. Centralized architecture of KM systems

unique interface that allows individuals to create, and share corporate knowledge.
Focusing the attention on semantic features and looking at traditional KM sys-
tems, we can figure out that technological architectures are usually composed (as
it is shown in Figure1) by:
- collaborative environments (such as communities tools, communication
protocols) which sustain informal communities (virtual or not) where "raw"
knowledge is produced through spontaneous and emerging social inter-
actions;
- contribution workflows to refine, organize, and codify “raw” knowledge
into a unique interpretation schema;
- Knowledge Bases (KBs) to collect contents organized according to a
common and unique corporate conceptual schema which represent a
unique and shared interpretation schema;
- Enterprise Knowledge Portal (EKP) to provide a single point of access
for the members of different organizational units (different personalization
processes can be developed on the same KB, namely each user can
have different profiles to obtain customized information from the same
KB).
The system described in Figure 1. is based on a centralized technological archi-
tecture. It tries to force, de-facto, a privileged knowledge representation onto peo-
ple who may not share it. Then it is necessary to develop a new kind of system
which supports the processes of the distributed organizational model:
- the autonomous management of local knowledge within organizational
units;
- the processes of mutual understanding among organizational units, namely
how the world looks like from different interpretation schemas (Figure 2.).
 Figure 2. Distributed architecture of KM systems

2.3. Organizational Models and Technological Architectures Coherences

Despite Orlikowski in [Orlikowski1] and [Orlikowski2] says that workers have to

adapt on technology systems, and technology systems must be changed to better
suit the users’ needs, Bowker and Star say that a system has to respect the work-
ers way of thinking [Bowker1]. It is evident that, looking at KM and KM systems,
there is a strong correlation between organizational models of the firms and tech-
nological architecture of KM systems. In other words, technological architectures of
KM systems must sustain the organizational models, allowing workers to manage
their local interpretation schemas.
We argue that KM systems will satisfy users when KM is allowed according to
workers’ interpretation schemas, and will fail when technological architecture of
KM systems is not able to manage the interpretation schemas of the workers. Ac-
cording to Figure 3. KM systems will be effective (the introduction of KM system
will be successful) in these two cases:
 FAILURE
KM System is considered SUCCESS
Distributed
oppressive
Organiza-
tional Model FAILURE
SUCCESS KM System is considered
irrelevant
Centralized

Centralized Technological Architecture Distrib-

uted
Figure 3. KM systems’ architectures and Organizational models

- both the technological architecture and the organizational model are

centralized: the KM system manages a unique representation of knowl-
edge which corresponds to the privileged interpretation schema, shared by
workers, developed within the firm;
- both the technological architecture and the organizational model are
distributed: the technological architecture of KM system allows workers to
manage more than one interpretation schema developed within autono-
mous organizational units.
Otherwise KM systems will fail when workers don’t use it, because it is consid-
ered either irrelevant or oppressive. These situation are determined by a gap be-
tween technological architecture of KM systems, and organizational model of the
firm:
- the technological architecture is centralized and the organizational
model is distributed: the centralized technological architecture force peo-
ple, who work in autonomous organizational units managing personal in-
terpretation schemas, to manage their knowledge using a privileged and
unique interpretation schema;
 - the technological architecture is distributed and the organizational
model is centralized: a huge number of interpretation schemas can be
managed within the KM systems, but workers might use and understand
only one of these: the privileged and unique interpretation schema of the
firm.
In the next paragraph three case studies will demonstrate the failure and the
success of KM systems according to the coherence or incoherence between or-
ganizational models, and technological architectures.

2. Case studies

In this paragraph three case studies are described: three complex organizations
which have developed KM systems using the same technology, Lotus Notes. Ana-
lyzing different KM systems developed within the firms, we focus the attention on
problems of coherency between organizational models of the firms and techno-
logical architecture of the systems.

3.1. Andersen Consulting case study

Andersen Consulting was one of the most important global consultant firm. Its
organizational model was distributed: composed by autonomous units (teams and
communities) which operated contemporary in three dimensions:
1. divisions: Assurance & Business Advisory, Tax, Legal & Business Advi-
sory, Business Consulting, and Global Corporate Finance;
2. geographic communities: Pacific area, Europe, Asia, USA, Italy, France,
Canada, and so on;
 3. industries communities: Banking, Tourism, Industrial production, and so
on.
As described in [Bonifacio1, Bonifacio5] Andersen Consulting was a knowledge
based organization in which knowledge was considered one of the most important
organizational assets. Andersen Consulting tried to develop a lot of KM systems,
and Lotus Notes was one of the first technology used. The first system introduced
was able to organize local knowledge bases with personalized and autonomous
interpretation schema. Despite workers couldn’t share documents and information
with other groups – because of a common and shared system of classification (or
interpretation schema) was missed –, the system had a great success. For each
organizational unit, the technological architecture and the organizational model
were centralized, therefore a unique representation of knowledge within the system
corresponded to the interpretation schema of the local unit.
In the ‘90s another KM system based on Lotus Notes was developed: Andersen
On-line. It was a peer to peer communication system used by knowledge workers
to communicate, and share knowledge with other organizational units. Workers
were able to manage their local knowledge in the way they preferred – using per-
sonal interpretation schema –, and to exchange knowledge with other units. In
short time the Andersen On-line system had a great success and then became
crawly of participants. Then some problems figured out, it became difficult to find
other workers with similar experiences and backgrounds, therefore for workers it
was not easy explain – to people without similar background – their needs and
point of views. To understand each others, workers started to share very general
information, and no more useful information were exchanged. They were not able
to solve their specific problems and to improve their personal knowledge. There-
fore a lot of individuals decided to not use Andersen On-line because they per-
ceived it irrelevant, too much general to obtain useful information.
At the beginning Andersen On-line had a great success because both the organ-
izational model and the technological architecture were distributed. Then, it had a
partial failure, because despite the organizational model was distributed, the tech-
nological architecture didn’t allow differentiation among different interpretation
schemas.

3.2. Gesto case study

GESTO is an Italian service providing company started in the late 1960’s [Be-
nassi1, Benassi2, Greve1]. GESTO has a network structure composed by a steer-
ing group that evaluates projects, and a variable number of self-organizing groups
which use artefacts, and internal KM systems which better suit their needs. Its or-
ganizational model is distributed, each group manages knowledge in an autono-
mous way, according to its needs, and its locally defined interpretation schema.
Moreover the steering group has the function of knowledge coordinator across the
entire organization, it makes knowledge sharable through the matching of different
interpretation schemas.
KM systems in GESTO are based on a common Lotus Notes database which
contain detailed information about projects (for example title and main objectives,
a brief description, time and length, whether the project was completed or sus-
pended, whether it had an external client or was done for internal purposes, the
names of the initiator, team leader, and participants) and a list of skills and skill
levels of each worker. GESTO employees use Lotus Notes to organize projects,
they access the database of ongoing projects with their participants to ?nd who is
available at what time to be included in a project. Therefore KM system’s architec-
ture is distributed: each self-organizing group can create and manage its own per-
sonal and local interpretation schema. Knowledge sharing among these autono-
mous groups is guaranteed by knowledge coordination processes of the steering
group, and by general rules that make life easier for everyone in the organization.

3.3. Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. case study

Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. is one of the most important Italian building company. Its
organizational model is distributed, it is composed by a centre – with different ser-
vice offices such as administrative, EDP, security, quality, and human resources
offices –, and a constellation of temporary building firms which operate in a geo-
graphically distributed environment. These firms are temporary organized, and
workers join a new organizational unit when a new temporary firm is created, or a
new building area is started. Each unit, in particular temporary firm, is completely
autonomous, it creates and manages its interpretation schema in the way that bet-
ter suits workers’ needs.
KM system in Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A is based on Lotus Notes and is composed
by a huge number of databases, which satisfy all the needs of the service offices.
People of different offices can autonomously manage information, that is custom-
ized through profiling systems. All the organizational KBs are organized, stored,
and managed according to a common and unique interpretation schema, therefore
the technological architecture of Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A’s KM system is centralized.
The firm decided to develop centralized architecture of KM systems because data
are considered crucial for strategic issue, and any duplication, asynchronous, or
not updated information is perceived as a problem to overcome.
 Within Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. KM systems are perceived by workers in different
ways. Service offices consider KM systems as successful instruments, mainly be-
cause their interpretation schemas are represented by particular and complex
views of the KM systems. Otherwise, autonomous temporary firms consider Lotus
Notes applications as an oppressive system which workers are forced to use to
exchange knowledge with the centre.

3. The DKM approach

To solve the gap between organizational models and technological architecture

we are developing a new approach on KM: the Distributed Knowledge Manage-
ment (DKM) approach. As described in [Bonifacio1] the DKM approach takes into
account two very general principles: the Principle of Autonomy – each organiza-
tional unit should be granted a high degree of autonomy to manage its local knowl-
edge and its interpretation schema –, and the Principle of Coordination – each
organizational unit must be enabled to exchange knowledge with others not
through the adoption of a single, common interpretation schema –.
Using this approach we can look at organizations and analyze the type of organ-
izational model they have, to define the technological architecture of KM systems.
The organizational model is seen as a constellation of local organizational units
with their local interpretation schema. These organizational units are reified by the
concept of Knowledge Node (KN) [Bonifacio4], which considers:
- the knowledge owner: one or more individuals (the organizational unit)
who manages the local interpretation schema;
 - the system of artifacts: all the procedure, databases, and other tools
which allow individuals to manage knowledge through participation and
reification;
- the context: its interpretation schema.
A methodology to define organizational units, KNs, and therefore organizational
model (from the KM point of view) is under development as part of EDAMOK, a
joint project of the Institute for Scientific and Technological Research (IRST,
Trento) and of the University of Trento.
Moreover a technological system of KM which adopts the DKM approach (de-
scribed in [Bonifacio6]) is developed in order to sustain distributed organizational
models. It allows to manage more than one interpretation schema, in particular a
number of the interpretation schemas that correspond to the number of KNs.

4. Conclusions

Three case studies are not enough to draw robust conclusions, but, paraphrasing
a famous Simon’s motto, they are better than nothing.
Andersen Consulting, Gesto and Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. are different organizations
dealing with different competitive industries, a different history, a different organ-
izational profile, a different strategy, and so on. Although differences are huge,
these three companies can be treated as equivalent, for they have dealt with is-
sues normally addressed by KM systems.
Rather than exhibiting a common, homogeneous behaviour, each show how tech-
nological systems may be interpreted and used in a peculiar way. Technology
and KM systems are therefore an “open book”, to be filled, arranged and used by
organizations. Such flexibility is a double-edge sword: it offers various degrees of
freedom, but at the same time it may be illusive, for KM can turn to an information
trap. This is especially true if organizations do not pay attention to the inter-
interdependence between organizational profile and KM architecture.
In this paper, we have offered several examples of how this issue may be dealt
with, and offered a general framework to explain why the same application tool
can, alternatively, succeed or fail.
By using as main variables the nature of technological architecture and the or-
ganizational model, we offer a simple matrix that can be of some help for planning
and managing the introduction of KM applications. We do believe that, although
information and knowledge are by nature distributed, several alternative solutions
are possible. This is a bad and a good news at the same time. It is a bad news,
for we cannot infer from a KM characteristics how information and knowledge will
be created and the organization really work. It is a good news, for it forces re-
searchers and businessmen to dig more, hoping to find a “correct” formula to lev-
erage both technology and organizations’ strengths.

References

[Argyris1] C. Argyris. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard business re-
view, 1999.
[Benassi1] M. Benassi, A. Greve GESTO —A Network Company? Journal of
Market-Focused Management.Vol.1(4):301-323,1996.
[Benassi2] M. Benassi, A. Greve, J. Harkola Looking for a network organization.
Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol.4(3):205-229,1999.
[Benerecetti1] M. Benerecetti, P. Bouquet, and C. Ghidini. Contextual Reasoning
Distilled. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence,
12(3):279–305, July 2000.
[Boland1] R. J. Boland, and R. V. Tenkasi Perspective Making and Perspective
Taking in Communities of Knowing, Organization Science, 6, 4 (July-August),
1995.
[Bonifacio1] M. Bonifacio, P. Bouquet, and A. Manzardo. A distributed intelligence
paradigm for knowledge management. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series
2000 on Bringing Knowledge to Business Processes. AAAI, 2000.
[Bonifacio2] M. Bonifacio, P. Bouquet, and P. Traverso. Enabling distributed
knowledge management. Managerial and technological implications. Informatik
- Informatique, 1/2002.
[Bonifacio3] M. Bonifacio, P. Bouquet, and R. Cuel. The Role of Classification(s) in
Distributed Knowledge Management. Proceedings of 6th International Confer-
ence on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information Engineering Systems & Al-
lied Technologies (KES'2002), Special Session on Classification. 2002 Am-
sterdam, IOS Press.
[Bonifacio4] M. Bonifacio, P. Bouquet, and R. Cuel. KNs: the building blocks of a
distributed approach to KM. Journal for Universal Computer Science, vol.6,
2002.
[Bonifacio5] M.Bonifacio, P.Bouquet, P.F.Camussone Knowledge Management:
Teoria e prassi a confonto. Il caso Andersen. AIDEA 2002, Novara 2002.
[Bonifacio6] M.Bonifacio, R. Cuel, G. Mameli, M. Nori. A Peer-to-Peer Architecture
for Distributed Knowledge Management, Proceedings of 3rd International
Symposium on Multi-Agent Systems, Large Complex Systems, and E-
Businesses (MALCEB'2002)", Erfurt/Thuringia, Germany.
[Bouquet1] P. Bouquet. Contesti e ragionamento contestuale. Il ruolo del conte-
sto in una teoria della rappresentazione della conoscenza. Pantograph, Geno-
va (Italy), 1998.
[Bowker1] G. C. Bowker and S. L. Star. Sorting things out: classification and its
consequences. MIT Press., 1999.
[Davenport1] T. H. Davenport, D. W. De Long, and M. C. Beers. Successful
knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), Winter
1998.
[Dinsmore1] J. Dinsmore. Partitioned Representations. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, 1991.
[Doughuerty1] D. Dougherty. Interpretative barriers to successful product innova-
tion in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 1992.
[Fauconnier1] G. Fauconnier. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Scien-
ce, 22(2):133-187, 1998.
[Ghidini1] C. Ghidini and F. Giunchiglia. Local Models Semantics, or Contextual
Reasoning = Locality + Compatibility. Artificial Intelligence, 127(2):221-259,
April 2001.
[Goffman1] I. Goffamn. Frame Analysis. Harper & Row, New York, 1974.
[Greve1] A. Greve, M. Benassi, J. Harkola “Combining Expertise Raises Produc-
tivity: The Contributions Of Human And Social Capital To Performance” in M.
Benassi (2002) Longitudinally Exploring Organizations, Cedam
[Harris1] K. Harris and M. Fleming and R. Hunter and B. Rosser and A. Cushman,
The Knowledge Management Scenario: Trends and Directions for 1998-2003,
Gardner Group 1998.
 [McCarthy1] J. McCarthy. Notes on Formalizing Context. Proc. of the 13th Interna-
tional Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 555-560, Chambery,
France, 1993.
[Nonaka1] I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi “The knowledge-creating company” Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Inc.,1995
[Orlikowski1] W.J. Orlikowski and D.C. Gash. Technological Frames: Making
Sense of Information Technology in Organization. ACM Transactions on Infor-
mation Systems, 1994 Vol.12/2, April, pages 174-207.
[Orlikowski2] W. J. Orlikowsy, and D. Robey Information Technology and the Struc-
turing of Organizations. Information Systems Research, 2, 2 (June), 1991.
[Wenger1] E. Wenger. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity,
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[Zilich1] R. Zilich Organic Knowledge Management e Dynamic Workplace per la
gestione della conoscenza in IBM, Sistemi & Impresa, n. 6 luglio/agosto 2002.

View publication stats