Knowledge Nodes: the Reification of Organizational
The Pizzarotti Case Study1
(Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento,
Department of Computer Sciences, University of Verona, Italy
(University of Trento, Italy
(Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento,
Abstract: In our work a new approach, the Distributed Knowledge
Management (DKM) approach, is used and organizations are seen as constellations
of communities, which "own" local knowledge and exchange it through
meaning negotiation coordination processes. In order to reify communities
within a DKM system, the concept of Knowledge Node (KN) is used and then
applied in a case study: a complex Italian national firm, the Impresa Pizzarotti
& C. S.p.A. All communities of practices are unveiled and reified as
KNs within a high level architecture of a DKM system. In this paper it
is argued that, even if knowledge has to be organized and made useful to
the whole organization, there are types of knowledge that must be managed
in an autonomous way, and the DKM approach is a good system to deal with
Key Words: Distributed Knowledge Management, Communities, Knowledge
Category: H.4.2, C.2.4
Most KM systems aim at creating large, homogeneous knowledge repositories,
in which corporate knowledge is made explicit, unified, represented and
organized according to a unique - supposedly shared - conceptual schema
(e.g. an ontology, a classification system) [Davenport
et al., 1998], [Borghoff and Pareschi, 1998].
In this work it used the DKM approach [Bonifacio et al.,
2002d] in which it is argued that traditional KM systems, and in particular
the unique and objective conceptualization of corporate knowledge, are
incompatible with the very nature of knowledge, and consequently are often
deserted by users. The DKM approach is based on two main principles: the
principle of autonomy, which grants organizational units a high degree
of semantic autonomy in managing their local knowledge (perspective making
[Boland and R.V.Tenkasi, 1995], or single loop learning
[Argyris, 1999]), and the principle of coordination,
which allows each organizational unit to exchange knowledge with other
units through processes of perspective taking [Boland
and R.V.Tenkasi, 1995] or double loop learning [Argyris,
short version of this article was presented at the I-KNOW '03 (Graz, Austria,
July 2-4, 2003).
Therefore, complex knowledge-based organizations can be seen as "constellations"
of local "knowledges", that is to say organizational units either
formal (e.g. divisions, market sectors) or informal (e.g. interest groups,
teams) exhibiting some degree of semantic autonomy, namely the ability
to manage knowledge locally and to develop a specialized perspective on
the world through social interaction, participation and reification processes
A KM system, which supports both the principles of autonomy and coordination,
and is based on the DKM approach, is called DKM system, which considers
local heterogeneity, and negotiation/coordintation of different conceptual
schemas [Bouquet et al., 2002], as potential sources
of new insights/ideas and innovations which are the basis of organizational
learning and adaptability.
2 Knowledge Nodes as organizational units
In order to develop a DKM system within a firm, the new concept of Knowledge
Node [Bonifacio et al., 2002a] is adopted to reify
As shown in figure 1, each KN represents a semantically
autonomous unit composed, in other word a community of practice, by:
- a knowledge owner: an individual or a collective entity that
has the capability of managing its own knowledge (e.g. worker, manager,
team, community, office);
- a system of artifacts: the system of procedures, activities,
documents, archives, technologies, languages, and so on, used by the knowledge
owner to manage local knowledge in a way that best suits its environmental
condition and its needs;
- a context: an explicit representation of a knowledge owner's
perspective (or personal conceptual schema).
Therefore a DKM system is composed by a "constellation of KNs"
(see figure 2), each one managing knowledge in an autonomous
way, and exchanging knowledge through negotiation/coordination processes.
One of the most suitable technological solutions for a DKM system is the
creation of a peer to peer system, in which each peer has the characteristics
of a KN [Bonifacio et al., 2002e]2
is under development as part of EDAMOK (http://edamok.itc.it/),
a joint project carried out by the Institute for Scientific and Technological
Research (IRST, Trento) and by the University of Trento (Italy).
Figure 1: Knowledge Node
Figure 2: A DKM system composed by KNs
3 The case study: Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A.
In order to develop a DKM system within the firm, an effective methodology
of analysis is needed. As described in [Cuel, 2003 a]
and in [Cuel, 2003b] this methodology has to focus
the attention on two relevant aspects based on the two DKM's principles:
- identify the borders of existing KNs within the firm, namely organizational
units which exhibit some degree of semantic autonomy (principle of autonomy);
- identify the way in which knowledge is exchanged across the whole organization
through negotiation/coordination processes (principle of coordination).
This methodology has been applied to a complex Italian building industry,
the Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. The aims of the analysis were:
- to develop a high level architecture of KM systems based on the DKM
approach, unveiling KNs and their relations;
- to figure out which kind of knowledge can be managed within an autonomous
organizational unit and how it can be made available to others.
Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. has a complex organizational model because
of the nature of the product and the characteristics of the sector. Production
processes need to be localized in the areas in which the product is created,
therefore building yards are spread out over the country and in Europe.
The central offices are organized as services which support the production
(e.g. the security office, the quality office, the administration office),
and since they are located in the same building, each service has its own
organization and structure.
To unveil KNs we made ethnographic interviews with 36 workers selected
in different offices and in 16 different roles, and we visited 3 different
building yards. This analysis allowed us to unveil KNs looking at knowledge
owners, the systems of artifacts, the contexts and, more importantly, the
kind of knowledge that is exchanged within a community and the way in which
people negotiate/coordinate knowledge across the whole organization. Each
building yard must solve specific problems which are connected with the
kind of production, and other environmental factors (e.g. the weather,
local costumers and suppliers); and each service office has its own structure
and its own way of working which expresses semantic autonomy. Each one
of them is managed in an autonomous way, and a specialized system of artifacts
are used in the way that best suits local needs. Moreover, in this analysis
some other cross-organizational communities, which exhibit some degree
of semantic autonomy, have been discovered: the group of project managers
and the group of yard managers. These groups are not formally recognized
by the firm, and are composed by workers (belonging to several other units)
who need to manage knowledge according to a particular conceptual schema,
and to use a personalized system of artifacts in order to work. For instance,
the project managers communicate all together in an informal way (e.g.
phone-calls, discussions over a cup of coffee) to develop common knowledge
and a shared conceptualization schema that are used to develop new projects;
they share systems of artifacts (such as specific timetables) and a specific
language (such as technical words) which allow them to manage their work.
Within each organizational unit (e.g. offices in the central building,
and building yards), people, through their work, exhibit some degree of
semantic autonomy (e.g. by developing their system of artifacts, different
working and problems solving practices, using specialized and personalized
languages), thus the Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. might be seen as
a constellation of communities of practices (CoPs). Therefore, local building
yards, centralized offices and cross-organizational communities have been
unveiled and reified as KNs.
Figure 3: DKM system of Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A.
We observed that concepts as quality, security and so on, are perceived
- and related processes are developed - in different ways. For example,
on one hand, in the "Barilla" building yard, the quality control
process is not a daily activity managed by dedicated resources and it has
no specific schedules. On the other hand, in the "Fontanellato"
building yard, the quality control is one of the most important processes.
In particular, every days workers have to control the quality of products
and activities and periodically they meet all together to discuss new quality
As shown above, in our analysis, we focused the attention on identifying
the way in which knowledge is exchanged across the whole organization.
These processes are often unveiled through negotiation/coordination processes
such as workflows management systems, shared artifacts, and institutionalized
practices within the firm (e.g. software procedures, modules for requests,
periodic meetings). From a KM perspective, the Impresa Pizzarotti &
C. S.p.A. has historically developed standardized and shared knowledge
repositories (which are managed according to a set of common and supposedly
shared conceptual schemas) with the aim to manage a unique version of data,
and to coordinate all the organizational processes. These schemas include,
for example, shared taxonomies to classify suppliers, and project documentation
or quality procedures developed and managed by the Electronic Data Processes
Indeed, during an interview, the responsible of EDP office said that
his work consists in controlling data and information workflows developed
within the organization. Workers ask to develop personalized systems which
support some specific processes, but the management and the EDP office
are worried about the coherence and the transparency of information. Thus
centralized procedure are developed and used across the whole organization
but offices and building yards are still asking to use specialized procedures
which suit local needs.
We discovered that the centralized KM system has been developed according
to the need, expressed by the management, to coordinate each organizational
unit creating a common and shared knowledge system, and developing standardized
knowledge exchanging processes. Such approach, that was reified in the
design of collaborative repositories and workflow applications, revealed
some weaknesses which are basically rooted into the distributed nature
of knowledge introduced above. As observed during an interview with a manager,
if in a building yard a new type of stone-mason's hammer is needed, workers
have to draw up a buying request form, then send it (through a document
management system, which will store all the information into the enterprize
knowledge repository) to the purchasing office which will provide the requested
tool. The buying request process is a centralized workflow, developed to
deal with the centralized repository and to coordinate all the buying processes
of the whole organization. From a KM point of view we can say that the
buying request successfully reflected a unique conceptualization schema
according to which knowledge is stored and organized within the enterprize
In our analysis we discovered that quite often the buying request process,
although technically correct, is not enough to obtain a good result. In
particular, every time the tool requires specific characteristics, the
requester and the company buyer need to exchange additional contextual
information using informal communication channels which are not officially
considered in the collaborative system. In the analysis it has been emerged
that most of the time the buying request refers to a non standard forniture
(such as a special hummer, a new mechanism, . . . ), and in the most of
the cases the purchasing office is not able to understand the real needs
of requesters. Phone calls, meetings or emails are necessary to establish
a coordination process based on meaning negotiation through which workers
attempt to make clear "what they mean by what". These communication
processes between company peers (who are part of different offices or CoPs)
are not formalized by the buying work-flow, and are developed according
to the personal perspectives of the actors. In other words, formalized
processes of knowledge exchange are constantly supported by informal and
personalized meaning negotiation/coordination processes which allow people
to understand each other, and to effectively achieve their goals.
As shown in this example, and as depicted in our analysis, most of the
knowledge exchange processes, developed within the Impresa Pizzarotti &
C. S.p.A., are not able to create a unique understanding on the meaning
of what is communicated. Therefore the KM system has to take into account
the need expressed by organizational entities to manage knowledge with
some degree of autonomy while enabling coordination processes across different
As described in figure 3, we suggest a DKM system
which is composed by an enterprize knowledge repository (centralized applications
which are organized according to the firm's conceptual schema) and a constellation
of KNs which autonomously manage local knowledge, and exchange it, through
personalized meaning negotiation/coordination processes.
According to this view, the Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. has recently
accepted that current knowledge exchange practices and artifacts are, as
a matter of fact, characterized by a strong need of autonomy that must
be sustained and compensated focusing on coordination rather than standardization.
For example, in terms of artifacts, groupware tools are being customized
and used in a way that clearly mirrors how work and knowledge is actually
organized within and across different KNs. In fact each yard, office and
team is now able to instantiate and maintain its own local repository and
work-flow processes. Organizational procedures are gradually being redesigned
accordingly, allowing each yard, for example, to autonomously manage some
core processes, such as purchase of specific materials, or the recruitment
of specialized workers. For example in the Modena SCARL different views
are used on a common DB, such as general notes, services, production, visits,
security, quality, and so on. As a consequence, the EDP office and IT consultants
will now focus their efforts in designing coordination/translation processes
across heterogeneous nodes of content, document work-flows, categorization
and taxonomies rather than developing shared and standardized procedures.
The EDP office is now developing two different systems in which information
about human resources, dedicated to administrative function, are managed
in the central offices and in the building yards. These two applications
refers to the same domain of data but manage them through different schemas.
Through our interviews, we focused the attention on different kind of
knowledge which is needed and exchanged within the firm. In particular,
we proved that even if some kind of knowledge has to be centralized, organized,
and managed by EDP office according to a common and shared conceptual schema,
there are other types of knowledge that must be managed in an autonomous
way and have to be negotiated and coordinated every time.
Finally the DKM system we proposed in figure 3,
seems to be more effective than other traditional and centralized systems,
because it allows people to manage knowledge according to personal views,
and it seems to be more consistent with how knowledge is actually managed
by people. In conclusion the Impresa Pizzarotti & C S.p.A. is developing
both new personalized and local procedures which allow CoPs to manage knowledge
in the way they prefer; and new centralized procedures, which enable workers
to contribute to the common and shared organizational knowledge.
[Argyris, 1999] Argyris, C. (1999). Teaching Smart
People How to Learn. Harvard business review.
[Boland and R.V.Tenkasi, 1995] Boland, J., and Tenkasi,
R.V. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of
Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4):350-372.
[Bonifacio et al., 2002a] Bonifacio, M., Bouquet,
P., and Cuel, R. (2002a). Knowledge Nodes: the Building Blocks of a Distributed
Approach to Knowledge Management. Journal of Universal Computer Science,
8(6):652-661. Springer Pub. & Co.
[Bonifacio et al., 2002d] Bonifacio, M., Bouquet,
P., and Traverso, P. (2002d). Enabling Distributed Knowledge Management.
Managerial and Technological Implications. Novatica and Informatik/Informatique,
[Bonifacio et al., 2002e] Bonifacio, M., Cuel,
R., Mameli, G., and Nori, M. (8-10 October 2002e). A Peer-to-Peer Architecture
for Distributed Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of 3rd International
Symposium on Multi-Agent Systems, Large Complex Systems, and E-Businesses
(MALCEB'2002)., Erfurt/Thuringia, Germany.
[Borghoff and Pareschi, 1998] Borghoff, U. M. and
Pareschi, R. (1998). Information Technology for Knowledge Management.
[Bouquet et al., 2002] Bouquet, P., Dona, A., Serafini,
L., and Zanobini, S. (2002). Contextualized Local Ontologies Specification
via CTXML. In Bouquet, P., editor, Working Notes of the AAAI-02 workshop
on Meaning Negotiation. Edmonton (Canada). July 28, 2002. AAAI, AAAI
[Cuel, 2003a] Cuel, R. (2003). A Knowledge-Oriented
Analysis of Organizations. Knowledge Nodes: the Building Blocks of a Distributed
Knowledge Management Approach. Proceedings of Doctoral Consortium (DCEIS
2003)., Angers - France.
[Cuel, 2003b] Cuel, R. (2003) A New Methodology
for Distributed Knowledge Management Analysis. Proceedings of I-KNOW
'03 - `Industry meets Science' (I-KNOW 2003)., Graz - Austria. Springer
Pub. & Co.
[Davenport et al., 1998] Davenport, T. H., Long,
D. W. D., and Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects.
Sloan Management Review, 39(2).
[Wenger, 1998] Wenger, E. (1998). Communities
of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University