Knowledge management impacts on

decision making process

Rolland Nicolas

Abstract This article investigates the deep relation between knowledge management and
decision-making process. Strategy process is concerned with decisions that in¯uence ®rm's
strategic position. This research tries to link how knowledge management in¯uences these
decisions that in¯uence the position. If we can understand what are the knowledge's modes of
integration used over the different phases of the strategy-making process, we can act on these
modes more ef®ciently. Based on a qualitative research developed with 92 ®rms over the last
four years, we study and classify how ®rms implement knowledge management (what we
Rolland Nicolas, Professor in named knowledge management strategies (KMS)) and their impacts on the different phases of
Management, CERAM Sophia- the decision-making process in complex situations. For this second stage we analyze 14
Antipolis, Sophia-Antipolis Cedex,
decision-making processes. The model is based on the Simon's works and is built around the
France ([email protected]).
three phases: intelligence, conception, and selection. We describe knowledge's transforma-
tions over this model and the role of each KMS in each phase. This paper demonstrates that
knowledge types as well as knowledge management strategies have different roles regarding
the phase of the process.
Keywords Knowledge management, Management strategy, Decision making

M
eanings associated with ``knowledge management'' (KM) are multiple and any attempt
to de®ne KM results in a fragmented mosaic of views that exists within the general
framework of an emerging cognitive science. Knowledge management is generally
viewed as a systematic process for creating, acquiring, disseminating, leveraging and using
knowledge to retain competitive advantage and to achieve organizational objectives. One of the
dilemmas against KM is the existence of a gap between ``the reality'' and ``the theory''.
Academics deliver advanced and complex researches on the bene®ts of KM and practitioners
use different KM practices without understanding all their implications. There are few
researches that establish a concrete link between KM and strategy process. Most of the papers
focused on the ``knowledge entity'' and on the link between knowledge, its characteristics and
strategy (Spender, 1996; Grant, 1996; Zack, 1999). In others words, these works explain and
describe the weight of the ``intellectual capital'' in the theory of the ®rm. These works are
essential to understand that there are some modes of integration that allow individuals to apply
their knowledge ef®ciently to the production of goods and services, while preserving the
ef®ciencies from specialization in knowledge production, and show the ®rm's resulting
integrating mechanisms are superior to those available across markets (Grant, 1996).
Nevertheless, KM is not the unit of analysis and the deep relation between KM processes and
strategy process has essentially been ignored. Therefore, this study takes up a challenge of

PAGE 20
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004, pp. 20-31, ã Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270410523880
understanding what are the different impacts of KM on the strategy and decision making
process. This paper is in keeping with the well developed area in strategy process research
which treats the decision maker as a boundedly rational individual who wishes to avoid
uncertainty and searches new solutions when confronted with a problem[1] and which
understands that strategy can also emerge from the random actions of managers, coupled with
learning process (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). This uncertainty
increases since we conceive strategy making as a collective decision-making process.
In this context, there are some modes of integration that allow individuals to apply their
knowledge ef®ciently to the strategy shaping. Indeed, strategy process is concerned with how
effective strategies are shaped within the ®rm and then validated and implemented.

Strategy and decision-making process

Formulating strategy involves the application of the political thought of a company (Andrews,
1971). This thought is based on how ®rms enact their environment, how they mobilize their core
competencies and also how managers scan, interpret and share information from their
environment (Weick, 1995). This approach conceived information or scienti®c knowledge as the
basis of the strategy making. This is possible in a stable context where managers can
understand the characteristics of a pre-given environment[2]. But strategists do not simply use
already existing unproblematic knowledge (Spender, 1996); they also draw upon their own
factual knowledge and create new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). This is why we conceived a
®rm as a dynamic, evolving and quasi-autonomous system of knowledge production and
application. In a volatile context, organizations have to link the strategic dimension with
knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1988, 1994). This explains why one of the new approaches of the
strategy is called the learning approach (Mintzberg et al., 1998). With the ``learning school'', the
strategic process is closed to the learning process and the base of the strategy becomes
knowledge creation[3] (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). That means strategy can
emerge from the random actions of managers coupled with some trial and error learning. In
complex situations, managers are not necessarily able to convey in terms of information,
they do not have the abilities to process information about a pre-given environment. New
approaches of the strategic planning argued that reliance on centralized strategic planning
process is insuf®cient (Andersen, 2000). The strategy process evolves around ongoing learning
from the actions taken by managers in different parts or units of the ®rm. In this paradigm,
strategy is formed over time as shared cognition developed among managers who enact the
®rm's strategic moves. Strategy development has been described as a social learning process,
where relatively autonomous actions are nurtured and promoted by middle managers until they
eventually become a part of or actually shape the organization's of®cial strategy. This approach
of the strategy development is based on informal processes of decision taking and can emerge
even without the awareness of top management. Manager's abilities to make independent
decisions should allow the organization to be more responsive to volatile environment.
Furthermore, learning from manager's autonomous action might support the strategic planning
process, because new experiences can inspire proactive business initiatives. It might be
possible for the organization to learn about new strategic opportunities through the
decentralized strategic option taken by autonomous managers. When strategic planning and
autonomous action are congruent, they are complementary elements of strategy formation that
facilitate learning and adaptation across the organization.
Uncertainty resolution and complexity reduction are one of the ®rm's ``raison d'eÃtre'' ± what
distinguishes it from markets (Spender, 2003). Complexity and uncertainty demand an
organization to process information and to create knowledge in order to coordinate its problem
solving activities (Galbraith, 1977) and to co-evolve with its environment. Theory of the ®rm must
therefore encompass both rational decision-making and uncertainty resolution process
(Spender, 2003). Faced with complexity and uncertainty, strategy-making process is modi®ed
and is under the in¯uence of ambiguity. It exists different types of ambiguity: the ambiguity
about preference, about relevance, about history, and about interpretation (March, 1988).
Understanding these ambiguities is essential not only for understanding and predicting
organizational choice behavior, but also for improving it. If we consider that dealing with
information is not suf®cient to establish a strategy, we consider the Simon's (1977) work as the

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 21
 basis of the decision-making theory. He points out that decision-making process is not always
rational, and that decision makers often posses incomplete and imperfect information. This
approach is completed with the ``garbage can model'' described by Cohen et al. (1972) which
de®nes an alternative order in term of which processes might be understood. Participants dump
various kinds of problems and solutions as they are generated. Even if we do not understand
the decision making process as linear (programmed) or as rational, we conceive all this
approach with a classical model built on three phases: the intelligence phase for which the goal
is to construct and to understand the issue; the conception phase where the purpose is to
conceive the alternative solutions; and the selection phase in which the best solution is chosen.
This model is the precursor of the ``identi®cation-development-selection'' process derived by
Mintzberg et al. (1976) from their empirical analysis. Identi®cation recognizes the need for
decision and develops an understanding of the decision issues. Development leads to the
development of one or more solutions or to the elaboration of an opportunity. Selection
evaluates the alternatives and chooses a solution for commitment to action. The decision
should be considered as the strategic choice in which managers have to be involved.

Method
The research methodology follows the logic of the grounded theory building approach to induce
insights from case study data (Yin, 1989). This article is based on research carried out on 92
®rms. We have interviewed at least two people in each company during the last four years for a
total of 351 interviewees (see Table I). We chose this type of research since we wanted to
develop ideas from the induction of data more than propose general conclusion. We designed a
two-stage study based on exclusively qualitative methods.
The ®rst stage established the representation of our experience of reality. The purpose of this
stage was to understand the context of KM development and how companies develop KM. In
others words, our objectives were: to take stock of KM practices, and their evolution over the
last four years; and to classify theses practices in terms of KM strategies.
The objective of the second stage was to understand the diverse impacts of the different KM
strategies on decision-making process. This second stage examined knowledge transforma-
tions and KMS more closely through multiple case studies. The selection of cases follows the
logic of the theoretical selection, typical for theory building through case study (Eisenhardt,
1989). Our data gathering activity reached a point of ``scienti®c saturation'' (Miles and
Huberman, 1988) with observations from 14 decision-making processes, at which point the

Table I The characteristics of the ®rms surveyed

Firms interviewed are mainly European and US ®rms. The European ones are for around 50 percent
French multinationals. Some of the US companies have been interviewed via their European
headquarters

Firms regions Number Percentage

Europe 49 53
US 37 40
Australian 4 4
Asian 2 3
Total 92 100

Industry Number Percentage

Telecommunication 29 31
Computer 20 22
Health 17 18
Aerospace 11 12
Chemical 10 11
Environment/water 5 5
Total 92 100

PAGE 22
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004
 same or similar elements were extracted from each ®eld site. We choose ®rms faced with
complex situations in order to analyze decision-making process in complex situation. These
processes were strategic planning (long time process), were emergent strategies processes
(short time process) and crisis decisions. Situations were observed through classical strategy
processes (we analyzed executive committees decision making process) as well as during
business driven action-learning programs. Data were collected with the triangulation technique,
through interviews, studies of internal and external documents, and sometimes by participating
observation. Data were gathered through matrices of dimensions (Miles and Huberman, 1988),
and analyzed according to an open coding technique (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Dimensions
described in the matrices are based on the decision-making process studies and on KM
dimensions and characteristics founded in the literature[4].
For the open coding technique, data are ®rst broken down by taking apart an observation, a
sentence, a paragraph and giving each separate idea or event a name. Data is then regrouped
into categories that pull together groups of ideas and events that become subcategories. The
next step is the axial coding which aims to identify main categories and to make connections
between them and their subcategories.
With this method we observed: KM strategies (how ®rms implement and apply KM: motivations,
practices, measures and key success factors); knowledge transformation over the decision
making process; and categories of impacts in strategy process terms.

Results
Trends in knowledge management strategies
Following the results of Hansen et al.'s (1999) research, the ®rst stage of this research points out
that there are three knowledge management strategies. These strategies are summarized with
their general traits as followed:
(1) Technological KMS. This strategy (also named codi®cation strategy (Hansen et al., 1999)
or technocratic school (Earl, 2001)) is designed for the structure and for the cartography
of organizational knowledge. The supports of this KMS are technology, systems and
databases. It focuses on information or explicit knowledge. Individuals have to explicit their
knowledge in order to transfer it via the database.
(2) Personalization KMS. Also named the spatial school (Earl, 2001), is designed for the
emergence of knowledge. With this strategy, knowledge is closely tied to the person who
developed it (Hansen et al., 1999). Firms focus on dialogue and face-to-face technique for
knowledge sharing. The purpose of this KMS is to facilitate learning through shared
experience.
(3) Socialization KMS. This strategy combines both technological and personalization KMS.
Knowledge communities, that is to say, groups of people inhabiting the same knowledge
space and interacting with each other through relationships, represent socialization.
Socialization KMS is designed to exchange and to pool knowledge.
The theory of KM has been evolving over the last ten years and has passed through several
phases (Wiig, 1999; Earl, 2001; Sveiby, 2002). The ®rst of these was the philosophical phase in
which academics focused on the entity of ``knowledge'' and gave this concept a strategic
dimension. The second phase was the technological phase where the IT dimension took the
lead in the management of knowledge. The third was the networked phase where academics
stressed the need to link individuals with trust and dialogue. The latest is the strategic-learning
phase. This phase aligns the learning priorities with business strategies and expressed that KM
should have an impact on decision-making.

`` Communities must have a clear identity to be really

effective.
''

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 23
 From a practitioner approach, this ®rst phase of the research points out that companies are
disappointed with technological strategy. They try hard to build and to sustain knowledge
networks or learning communities. Many companies (67 percent) in our study emphasized the
importance of relationships for knowledge creation and sharing. This takes form as community
of practices or knowledge networks.
Networks or communities are social structures whose shared practices, identities and common
engagement served as a living curriculum for the apprentice (Wenger, 1998; 1999). Some
authors complete this concept with the notion of work and de®ne communities of practice or
self-organized communities as collections of individuals (informal groups) bound by informal
relationships that share similar work roles and common context (Lesser and Prusak, 1999). This
means that individuals or groups interact on a regular basis around work-related issues and
challenges. We do not really believe that we have to limit this notion of practices to the ``work''
dimension but as a corporate or as a joint enterprise dimension (Wenger, 1999). That is the
Ouchi's description of the ``clan networks'' in present-day enterprises where members operate
on an informal basis of shared information and personal trust. One of the main dimensions that
all the authors share is that communities of practice differ from team or group that have task-
oriented approach. These communities must have a clear identity to be really effective, mainly
because they give individuals opportunities to associate themselves with others who share the
same interests, the same functions, and works across the value chain, or work related interests
(Lesser and Prusak, 1999). Collective action and social knowledge claims are legitimized in
terms of community identity. With co-specialized knowledge and collective expertise, the
community can solve business problems and build personal knowledge. Indeed, communities
help retain critical expertise and can improve an organization's responsiveness by enabling
the rapid location of knowledge across the organization. Another bene®t of these intra-
organizational networks is their positive contribution to building a sense of trust, a common
language and the mutual commitment critical to the knowledge sharing process.
Table II synthesizes the evolution of KMS in ®rm over the last ®ve years.
We do not observe a signi®cant result that shows a real difference in the strategy chosen
according to the nationality of the company. We attribute this result to the multinational or global
characteristics of most of the ®rms interviewed. The corporate culture seems to be more in¯uent
on the KMS chosen than the national culture[5].
Knowledge and decision-making process
The distinction between tacit and explicit types of knowledge is widely accepted among KM
researchers. These types of knowledge are involved through the decision-making process in all
the phase but with different intensity. Even if we do not consider this decision-making process
as linear, we schematize it with three distinct phases. Through the preliminary phase, explicit
knowledge is the most important one. Organizations with competitive intelligence process
collects and gathers information or explicit knowledge in order to analyze its actual situation.
The intelligence phase represents the phase of problem de®nition. Individuals involved in the
decision making process have to ®nd re¯ective elements and to manage ignorance[6]. Through
this phase, explicit knowledge helps to argue the de®nition and to nurture the problem, but tacit
knowledge is essentially mobilized to understand the interactions between the elements that
de®ne the complex situation (Simon, 1987). In fact, this process is driven by beliefs[7] and aims
to develop sense making (Weick, 1995). The ®rm de®nes the problem with a collective cognitive
capability to understand the issue and with its ability to construct a group identity. Historical

Table II Evolution of KMS

Knowledge management strategy 1998 2000 2002

Technological 92% 86% 53%

Personalization 6% 8% 12%
Socialization 12% 26% 55%

PAGE 24
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004
knowledge is frequently used in this phase to link the actual situation with a previous. But
emotion is one of the key tacit knowledge, which is involved in this process (Spender, 2003). It
de®nes the perceptions and actions of the group or the person. Consequently, people dialogue
with others and share their experiences and their emotional intelligence (Goleman et al., 2002)
to develop the issue s. By the way, they need to access explicit knowledge in order to better
circumscribe the situation, but this type of knowledge is not the most representative one t. Its
role appears at the end of the process when ®rms have to diagnose the issue (Mintzberg et al.,
1976).
All along this phase, knowledge moves from individual to collective and from collective to
individual. At the beginning, managers have a deep idea regarding to the issue. They try to
divide a problem in different portions or components. They believe that they can solve the
problem in solving each component. Through this phase component knowledge[8] is mainly
involved. When they ®nish to understand and to analyze each element, they focus on the link
between components. Then, they mobilize architectural knowledge[9] in order to understand
how each component is integrated. At this stage emotion is the most representative
architectural knowledge. Emotion is the knowledge which emphases information with feelings
and makes them more interesting than other for the rest of the group. This process helps to
develop unrelated knowledge networks (Hansen, 2002) in ways to understand the problem as a
whole.

The conception phase is a process driven by action where individuals involved in the decision
making process share knowledge without preference regarding to its nature. People grow webs
of meaning around their actions or commitments by creating or modifying cognitive structures
that give signi®cance to these behaviors. They design new solutions or search routines in the
organizational memory. Tacit and explicit knowledge are mobilized with the same interest and
the same frequency u. At this stage, complexity comes from the nature of ontology (Snowden,
2000). If the ontology is ordered, causes-and-effects relationships are known. But if the
ontology is complex or chaotic, the high level of uncertainty causing by no discernable inter-
actions between a high numbers of agents is the source of a complex solution development
and implies a high level of tacit and explicit knowledge. The intensity of tacit knowledge
mobilized is related to the complexity and uncertainty of the situation and of the organizational
context (see Figure 1). Sometimes, complexity implies an improvised concept, which means a
spontaneous collection of tacit knowledge v (Weick, 1995).

Through this phase of conception, managers develop a complex situation in providing multiple
solutions for the problems. When they look for new solutions they create complexity in
developing different distinct states of the system (Cramer, 1993). Each solution represents a
different state and managers are not able to deal with the volume of information that is
necessary to understand the consequence of each solution (Simon, 1993). The stability
becomes the development of a related knowledge network that helps to provide a social
collective knowledge. This knowledge is nurtured by tacit knowledge, intuition and emotion.
When related knowledge network is established, individuals are able to internalize the cognitive
logic and to translate it with their own mental maps. Knowledge is then transferred from a group
to an individual who try to integrate the architectural knowledge as component knowledge. That
means the individual is able to learn and then to abstract and to absorb it (Boisot, 1998).
The selection phase evaluates the alternatives and chooses a solution for commitment to
action. This is the phase where the power of uncertainty is the highest. People have to pickaxe
into the body of knowledge they have developed all along the problem resolution process. The
choice is sometimes linked with explicit knowledge and information but usually people cannot
express the deep reasons of their choices. This choice is related with meÁtis (Baumard, 1999), a
conjectural and tacit knowledge, but most commonly speaking, emotion. Emotion gives people
the power to choose a solution in relation with a speci®c event (the context) and should be
considered as the basis of intuition. This emotion is also an explication of improvisation. At this
stage of the decision making process, it gives sense to some speci®c information or explicit
knowledge that are not necessary related with the dominant logic (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986).

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 25
 Figure 1 The measure of the complexity

We measure complexity with the number of distinct phenomena and identities in which the
group can not distinguish cause and effect relationships (Snowden, 2000) and with the distinct
states number of the system (Cramer, 1993). In fact, we understand complex system according
to the number of different sub-business issues proposed, if these issues resist reductionism
analyses. In other words, it may not be possible to describe issue simply by holding some of
their subsystems constant in order to study other subsystems.
We measure the knowledge tacity with its level of abstraction (Boisot, 1998) and with some
practical dimensions such as ``write on the paper why did you choose this solution or this
hypothesis''.
The following ®gure can illustrate our results: the more the situation is complex, the more the
knowledge mobilized is tacit. That means when people are faced with complex situation they
are not able to deal with all useful information for this problem (Simon, 1945). Consequently
they mobilize tacit knowledge. We observed a breaking point before which people can process
information and deal ef®ciently with the number of identities. After this point, individuals really
need to base their re¯ections on experiences, and on higher tacit knowledge.
knowledge tacity

com plexity

In practice, we observed that people need to argue their choice with explicit knowledge in order
to share ef®ciently what they think and in which solution they believe w. But, before explicating
this knowledge, individuals are in¯uenced by their feelings and emotions. In consequence, they
mobilize a high level of tacit knowledge at this transition between conception and selection x.
Selection consists of screen routines to arrive at a choice (Choo, 1997). Choice is made by a
group with con¯icting goals and interests, within each participant exercising judgment.
Sometimes they contest the choice and have to explain their intuition with their feelings, with
tacit knowledge and, with emotion (Spender, 2003) x. Most of the time, the next step consists
in another argumentation of the choice y. But, it may occur that the internal con¯ict is so
intensive that it conducts to another issue z. It is also the case of strategic decisions that oblige
the ®rm to be faced with another business issue.
This phase is driven by argumentation (explicit knowledge) but gives also an important part to
the improvisation. Improvisation gives a sense to some feelings but is sometimes a
consequence of the system failure. That means improvisation should be the consequence
of the lack of constructive answers and can be considered as the ``last solution but not least
solution''. This solution takes its marks within related knowledge networks and is possible only if
trust exists in the group of managers. To maximize emotion and intuition as the basis for
uncertainty resolution, innovative ®rms use stress and complexity to solve complexity. This
practice is closed to the ``order by chaos'' therapy and is nurtured by the emotion focus.
Knowledge management over the decision making process is schematized in Figure 2.
Discussion: impact of the different KMS on the decision making process
If we believe that business strategy drives knowledge management strategy, we also think and
observed that each of these KMS has a different impact on the strategy and decision making
process. The following re¯ection is based on our idea that KMS need to co-evolve over the
decision making process and must be adapted to each phase of this process.

PAGE 26
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004
 Figure 2 Decision-making process in complex situation

8
Tacit
4

2 5
Explicit

Intelligence Conception Selection

The role of the technological strategy is to provide the right information or knowledge at the right
time to the right person (R 3 ). This supposes that the information/knowledge existed before
the database. This strategy demonstrates the role of the information processing view of
organization where increased information processing capacity is required to handle increased
uncertainty. Knowledge management systems based on a technological approach can be used
to tackle uncertainty. Companies have to understand what type of knowledge people use in
order to solve problems, and executives must be able to articulate this kind of knowledge. Their
impact on the strategy process appears in two stages. The ®rst is before or at the beginning of
the process where this KMS helps to structure the organizational knowledge base and to
accumulate strategic knowledge. The second is at the end of the process where codi®ed
knowledge helps to legitimize the strategic choice. Faced with uncertainty, this KMS in¯uences
the bounded rationality. Individuals give particular weight to information supporting the action
they want to take and ignore information that favors a different action, or weakens the argument
for their choice. This is what we mainly observe and this is why, technological strategy
in¯uences the phase of selection in the decision-making process. In fact this strategy
represents the rational aspect of this process and is ef®cient in ordered domains. This impact
also saves time, which is fundamentally important[10]. It appears that, codi®cation links
basically related knowledge networks. Consequently, it is involved at the beginning of the
process as far as individuals speak the same language or when the situation is not complex.
The impact of socialization strategies is established on a balanced score between the rational
and the less rational choice. By de®nition, this KMS links related knowledge networks. This
strategy helps individuals to develop a shared repertoire of concept, tools and stories or a
shared-vision of the strategy and of the decision. Socialization sustains the rational part of the
process in improving the organization's responsiveness by enabling the rapid location of
knowledge across the organization. But, this strategy is based on the fact that some companies
do not really believe in a high rational choice and some of them think that the process of making
decision is usually less rational and orderly than companies pretend. Knowledge networks or
communities of practice help the organization to develop innovation and to develop a collective
intelligence. This collective intelligence is the result of a creative divergence, which in¯uences
the decision-making process in generating strategic alternatives. The divergence is a chaotic
event in the networking process that implies re¯ections and modi®cations in some routines. This
KMS is mainly involved in the phase of conception through the decision-making process. The
conception of the decision is the result of the development of a collective intelligence. The letter

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 27
 brings individuals a collective rational dimension for choosing the right solution among many.
However, it also enables innovation to take place if none of the potential solution is ef®cient.
Faced with uncertainty, this KMS helps to simplify the decision process and to re®ne the
routines and knowledge in action. When networks' participants simplify the decision process
they reduce uncertainty by developing organizational actions. By restricting the range of
situations and the range of alternatives available, communities of practice and knowledge
networks reduce the cognitive and informational requirements of the decision making-process.
Personalization strategies support teamwork and have the power to create emergent strategies
and to construct not only a collective intelligence for judicious decision-making, but also a
collective intuition. This intuition is the result of the tacit knowledge and experiences sharing
through face-to-face exchanges. When participants enter in this process of developing a
collective intuition they develop a shared cognition that can be implemented in an informal
process of decision-making. This informal process is the basis of the ``phase of intelligence''
which helps the organization to create emergent strategies[11]. This strategy argues the fact
that strategy formulation and implementation are not separable (Mintzberg, 1990). With
personalization, strategies emerge incrementally over time.
With personalization strategy, people can easily use metaphors. With relevant metaphors,
individuals can evoke meaning that is more interesting than what he had in his mind (Nonaka,
1994). Collective metaphors are also very powerful and determine the range of personal action.
Meanwhile, this process of metaphors is not really objective, because oriented metaphors move
people's thought in the direction that the orienter has in mind. To reduce this oriented action,
people can use a writing piece to develop the imagination of the rest of the ream. With this last
action, the process is closed to the socialization strategies, but it stays more reactive. It permits
to de®ne the strategy process as a ``pattern in a stream of actions'' instead of decisions
(Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). In fact, this process helps to detect ef®ciently and quickly novel
features in the environment that may affect the ®rm signi®cantly in the future. Faced with
uncertainty, personalization strategy in¯uences the emotional part of the decision making
process in involving the emotional intelligence of participants.
Figure 3 summarizes the impacts of the KMS all along the decision-making process: 82 percent
of the companies use face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the process to share ideas
about the problem and its de®nition. They continue in developing communities and sense
making activities. Directors or managers act with lobbying activities and try to rally most of
individuals with their beliefs. During this phase they also share formal studies. The KM technique
the most used is the intranet and some communities (72 percent). At the end, they need
references and reports (53 percent use external analysis) and share this explicit knowledge with
technological KM practices. This process is also represented in Figure 4.

Conclusion & lessons learned

Through this research we observed that knowledge management has evolved during the last
®ve years and is today at the beginning of its plenitude. We explored knowledge transformations

Figure 3 Impact of the KM strategies in the decision-making phases

PAGE 28
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004
Figure 4 Knowledge transformation through decision making process

Intelligence Conception Selection

Individual Collective Individual Collective Individual Collective

Component Component Component

Architectural Architectural Architectural

Table III Impact of KMS on decision-making process

Technological Socialization Personalization

Strategy J Structure the organizational J Develop a collective intelligence J Create emergent strategies
knowledge base J Develop innovation J Develop shared cognition
J Accumulate knowledge in order to J Create generative divergences J Construct a collective intuition
legitimate the strategic choice and
support the action
J Gain of time
J Impact on the selection phase J Impact on the phase of conception J Impact on the intelligent phase
Face with J In¯uence the bounded rationality J Build a sense of trust and mutual J In¯uence the emotional part of the
uncertainty obligation decision making process

and ¯uctuations over the phases of the decision-making process, and we demonstrated
that KM has a real role on the decision making process but its impact differs with the KMS
implemented. We showed that each KMS has speci®c impacts and roles over the decision-
making process that we synthesize in Table III. If a ®rm tries to emphasize one of these speci®c
points of the decision-making process, it can choose to right KMS.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank D. Snowden, J.C. Spender and D. Weir for their helpful comments.

Notes
1. This approach is challenged by a position which conceives decision makers as part of complex
networks in which they are not isolated or bounded actors but the outcome of their own narrative
(Snowden, 2000).
2. This approach is based on a representationistic information processing model (Von Krogh and Roos,
1995).
3. As we started, we conceive decision-making process as a collective action, which implies the creation
of a collective knowledge (Spender, 1996).
4. Knowledge's dimensions: epistemological and ontological dimensions and knowledge's transforma-
tions (SECI model).

5. Nevertheless, we observe some tendencies: US ®rms tend to be involved in technological strategy as

well as European companies are involved in personalization and Australian and Asian companies are
involved in socialization.
6. To be successful in complex situations, managers have to ignore existing rules of competition in the
creative destruction of new rules (Starkey, 1996) and they have to develop a general management logic

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 29
 that is both a knowledge structure and a set of management process (Grinyer and Spender, 1979;
Prahalad and Bettis, 1986)
7. Managers understand the problem with their dominant logic (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986).
8. Component knowledge is knowledge about each of the core design concepts and the ways they are
implemented in a particular component (Henderson and Clark, 1990).
9. Architectural knowledge (Henderson and Clark, 1990) is a structural capital (Edvinsson et al., 1997),
and is about the ways in which the components are linked together into a coherent whole.
10. The more a company gains time in its decision-making process, the more it can develop a competitive
advantage based on the differentiation (Porter, 1985). March also thinks that the limits of people's time
and attention strongly in¯uence decision-making.

11. As far as the codi®cation/technological strategy helps the process in the choice phase.

References
Andersen, T.J. (2000), ``Strategic planning, autonomous actions and corporate performance'', Long Range
Planning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp.184-200.
Andrews, K.R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Baumard, P. (1999), Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, Sage, London.
Boisot, M.H. (1995), Information space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Boisot, M.H. (1998), Knowledge Assets, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Chakravarthy, B.S. and Doz, Y. (1992), ``Strategy research process'', Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 5-14.
Choo, C.W. (1998), The Knowing Organization. How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning,
Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Cohen, M.D. and Olsen J.P. (1972), ``A garbage can model of organizational choice'', Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Earl, M. (2001), ``Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy'', Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, Summer, pp. 215-33.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ``Building theories from case study research'', Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14, pp. 532-50.
Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Goleman, D., McKee, A. and Boyatis, R.E. (2002), Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional
Intelligence, Havard Busines School Press, Boston, MA.
Grant, R.M. (1996), ``Toward a knowledge based theory of the ®rm'', Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.
Hansen, M.T. (2002), ``Knowledge Networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in Multiunit
companies'', Organizational Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 232-48.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ``What's your strategy for managing knowledge?'', Harvard
Business Review, March-April, pp. 106-16.
Lesser, E. and Prusak, L. (1999), ``Communities of practices, social capital and organizational knowledge'',
working paper, Institute for Knowledge Management.
March, J.G. (1988), Decisions and Organizations, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1988), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Theoret, A. (1976), ``The structure of unstructured decision processes'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No 2, pp. 246-75.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985), ``Of strategies, deliberate and emergent'', Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 257-72.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari, The Free Press, New York, NY.

PAGE 30
| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004
Nonaka, I. (1988), ``Creating organizational order out of chaos: self-renewal in Japanese ®rms'', California
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 57-73.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ``A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation'', Organization Science, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986), ``The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and
performance'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 458-501.
Simon, H.A. (1945), Administrative Behavior, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Simon, H.A. (1977), The New Science of Management Decision, rev. ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Simon, H.A. (1987), ``Making management decisions: the role of intuition and emotion'', Academy of
Management Executive, February, pp. 58-9.
Simon, H.A. (1993), ``Strategy and organizational evolution'', Strategic Management Journal, Special issue,
Vol. 14, Winter, pp. 131-42.
Snowden, D. (2000), ``Cyne®n: a sense of time and space, the social ecology of knowledge management'',
in Despres, C. and Chauvel, D., Knowledge Horizons, part 3, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, MA,
pp. 237-65.

Spender, J.C. (1989), The Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgment, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Spender, J.C. (1996), ``Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the ®rm'', Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.

Spender, J.C. (2003), ``Uncertainty and emotion in the knowledge-based theory of the ®rm'', available at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jcspender/_wsn/page2.html
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, London.

Sveiby, K.E. (2002), Keynote pro®le, KM Europe 2002, pp. 22-3.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sense Making in Organizations, Sage, London.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Wenger, E. (1999), ``Communities of practices: the key to knowledge strategy'', Knowledge Directions,
Vol. 1 No. 1, Fall, pp. 48-63.
Wiig, K.M. (1999), ``What future knowledge management users may expect'', Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol 3 No. 2, pp. 155-65.
Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Research Studies, Sage, London.

Zack, M. (1999), ``Developing a knowledge strategy'', California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 125-45.

VOL. 8 NO. 1 2004

| JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
| PAGE 31