938 pp.938-945

------ INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE

Assessment of and prospects for research on Knowledge Managementin Europe

Valerie FERNANDEZ*, Henri ISAAC**

A - KM research in Europe and its entry into the European Commission's scientificpolicy

In the field of research in Europe, the European Union has become a major financialpartner and an impetus factor. By harmonising the bases for analysis, the European Court ofAuditors has estimated that Community credits account for a quarter of total financing ofresearch projects implemented using public funds. Thus, for example, the budget for the 6thframework programme (2003-2007) is 3.25 billion euros per year, which is a sum compa-rable to interventions by the civil research budget in France.The importance of this budget also lies in the scheduling. Like the majority of significant

EU policies, the research policy is scheduled within a multi-annual framework'. Taking allprogrammes together, over 10,000 research and development initiatives benefit from Com-munity support, with an average of five partners for each of these (we note that these aredouble partnerships. On the one hand, they are based on co-operation between partners fromseveral Member States, with the notable idea of generating a European identity. On the otherhand, they involve public-private partnerships favoured by the EC which aim to decompart-mentalise research activities).We can emphasise that research does not always seem to be perceived in the same way in

France and in the EU. European research fits into a logic of 'pre-competitive' research in itsvery definition, goal and in the explicit interlinking of research/industry and competitive-ness. This is a concept that is occasionally somewhat removed from the traditional Frenchidea which is less oriented to the market, competitiveness and applied knowledge than tounderstanding phenomena.The European Commission finances research and development programmes incorporated

into a set of 4-year framework programmes called FPRTD (Framework Programme ResearchTechnology Development), abbreviated to FP. FP6 extends over the period 2003-20072. TheEuropean Union's activities are divided up by topics, and one of these is the InformationSociety (tsr [Information Society Technologies] programme). We note that it is one of thepriority programmes in FP6 and that KM topics and projects fit into this framework.'. One ofthe eight directorates (Directorate E - Interfaces, Knowledge and Content Technologies,Applications, Information Market) is in charge of the projects that interest us here".

* GETffelecom Paris, Department of Economic and social sciences - 46, rue Barrault 75013 Paris.** UMR CNRS 7088 Dauphine, Recherches en Management (Crepa), Universite Paris Dauphine, 75775 PARISCedex 16, France.I. It is even the first policy historically that benefited from such budget programming.2. FP VI (2003-2007) ; FP V (1998-2002); Esprit programme (1994-1998).3. 1ST (stands for Information Society Technologies) is a single integrated research programme that builds on theconvergence of information processing, communications and media technologies. It has a four-year budget ofapproximately 3.6bn euros (the biggest budget in FP 6).4. Finally, we point out that different types of European projects exist: IP, STREP, NoE, CA, SSA.• The IPs (Integrated Projects) are research projects involving a large number of partners (10 to 20 partners).• STREPs (Specific Targeted Research Projects) are smaller scale projects (5 to 15 partners).• NoEs (Networks of Excellence): aim to construct networks of excellence that bring European partners together.• The CAs and SSAs are lighter initiatives aimed at co-ordinating European initiatives.

ANN. TELECOMMUN., 62, n? 7-8, 2007 1/8

INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE 939

B - KM research in Europe: an approach and an analysis framework for projects

The first observation from our research is that a significant wave of Knowledge Manage-ment projects have existed in Europe since 2000. Various options were open to us for presen-ting the fields covered by the programmes and the projects that received financing from theEC. The simplest perspective would have been to adopt the now classic distinction betweenthe essential phases of the knowledge cycle (identification, extraction, codification, storage,sharing, exploitation and capitalisation). However, we considered this unsuitable to the criti-cal analysis of programmes financed in view of the main stake defined by the EuropeanCommission itself at the Lisbon conference, that is to endow the European area with a dis-tinctive position in the field of Organisational Knowledge Management (' ... to become themost dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010').The analysis framework that we selected is therefore based on a study carried out for the

Commission by IBM Global services in 20045 from this perspective, based on the followingproblem: what potential(s) exists for a European area ofknowledge?The study undertaken aimed to develop prospective scenarios for KM research, so that it

could then, in a second phase, assess the research programmes undertaken in Europe andevaluate their contribution to the future competitiveness of the European Economic Area.The analysis framework selected is based on the work of the Sante Fe Institute, notably theconcept of "complexity" in the KM field, and on work done within the same perspective inSpain (Catalonia) under the leadership of Max Boisot (guest professor at INSEAD, France), bythe School of Economics and London Business School, the University of Leece in Italy, theSINTEF research programme in Oslo, Norway and by the Finnish Futures Research pro-gramme in Helsinki, Finland. Several university experts in the field, consultants, industria-lists and EC projects officers were also interviewed. We linked consultation of EC sites anddifferent interviews held with experts in the field to this study''.The study highlights five scenarios for the development of research into knowledge

management in Europe up to 2010.Five major approaches in knowledge management research can be identified in the pers-

pective that we have selected:• the knowledge engineering approach (1);• the approach centred on the human factor (2);• the approach centred on mathematical analysis of complexity (3);• the approach based on social complexity (4);• the consensual approach, which is situated at the junction of the four previousapproaches (5).

5. 'Business Knowledge Management: A study on market prospects, business needs and technological trends', IBMGlobal Consulting, 2004.6. The online databases consulted:http://cordis.europa.eu/frlhome.htmlhttp://www.beepknowledgesystem.org/default.asphttp://www.knowledgeboard.comlhttp://www.sibis-eu.org/aboutlabout.htmhttp://www.insead.fr/CALTIEncyclopedialComputerSciences/GroupwarelWorkflowIhttp://europa.eu.intlinformation_society/activities/index_en.htmhttp://www.eukn.orgleukn/abouteuknlindex.html

We would like to thank the following people in particular for the time that they allocated to us:• Paul Hearn, Assistant to the Director, Directorate F - Emerging Technologies and Infrastructures, EuropeanCommission• Anne Jubert, Agilience Group, who was a «project officer» at the European Commission managing KM researchprojects (2000-2003).• Christophe Roche, Professor at the University of Savoie, manager of the CONDILLAC team,http://ontology.univ-savoie.fr/condillac/

2/8 ANN. TEUicOMMUN., 62, n° 7-8, 2007

940 INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE

The following figure is proposed to classify these different approaches. The verticaldimension establishes a distinction between knowledge that can be formalised in principlefrom theoretical approaches and emerging knowledge that is built during action or discoveredthrough data analysis:

Rules Hsurts c

18 8·~···· · ····· · 8···········8 8

Engln rlng ~ Hum n-e nt dppro ch ppro ch

FIG. 1-Scenarios for km research in 2010 (Source: ibm Global services, 2004).

As we shall see, the essential share of research carried out within the Knowledge Mana-gement Made in Europe programme (KMME, FP5 and FP6) adopts the knowledge engineeringapproach (IBM Global Services, 2004). From this scientific perspective of knowledge (1),approaches are essentially based on information technologies and modelling. They aim toproduce knowledge bases, content management tools, information portals, and to producebest practices formalised in these tools.Contrary to the first perspective, the human factor centred approach (2) is based on the

hypothesis that knowledge is difficult to model because it arises from multiple social interac-tions embedded in social and cultural contexts that are not very favourable to generalisationas universal rules (such as 'best practices'). With this in mind, knowledge is anchored in indi-viduals. As a result, the problems are quite different from the technical approach as know-ledge management essentially involves socialisation actions to share and disseminateknowledge.The mathematical complexity approach (4) extends the knowledge engineering approach

by recognising that knowledge can be formalised in technical systems that produce manage-ment rules. It differentiates itself from knowledge engineering through a different approachto knowledge modelling that is based more on discovering rules from data using methodssuch as ontologies, semantics, artificial intelligence than on formalising knowledge in prin-ciple.For its part, the social complexity approach (5) rejects technical approaches based on pre-

dictability and formalisation. It emphasises innovation in knowledge management and the

ANN. TELl~COMMUN.,62, n° 7-8, 2007 3/8

INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE 941

fact that innovation frequently entails breaks, which have difficulty accommodating proce-dures (which 'best practices' quickly become). These approaches also seek to integrate cul-tural and linguistic dimensions into the problem of knowledge management.The consensual approach (3) is positioned clearly at the junction of the four preceding

approaches without making clear hypotheses on the status of knowledge and methods formanaging it. It is essentially the preserve of consultancy firms, which mix methods and toolsthat appear relevant to them vis-a-vis demands expressed by the market. It hardly offers pros-pects for developing any competitive advantage for Europe insofar as projects swing towardsresearch depending on fashionable effects that are not very capable of producing robustmethodologies for economic players.

C - Putting the KM research projects in Europe into perspective"

The European Commission seems to have identified the importance of knowledge andknowledge management in the competitiveness of the European area from the mid 1990s.But other projects dating from 1994 onward can be described as KM oriented projects.With the FP4 and FP5 programmes, the projects tend to be 'learning and training' oriented.

Fifty projects have been implemented and one of their major characteristics has been to hea-vily involve industrialists, major companies (Airbus, Volkswagen, etc.) and SMES. All of theseprojects bring together 400 participants (industrial, academic and research laboratories). Thisfirst wave of research is quite marked because it is oriented towards the management of for-mal knowledge and could be summarised very concisely by the term 'document manage-ment' , i.e. finding documents, information and knowledge that the players need in a businesssituation. The underlying hypothesis is that knowledge can be codified. The main thrusts ofresearch are:- knowledge codification- organisational/social software: community based research- knowledge access and sharing (intranet, tagging documents in legacy systems)- knowledge discovery

The projects financed in the framework of the FP5 fell into three categories:« As we have already mentioned, the first can be categorised as 'first generation KMS' and

concentrate on the following topics and concepts: information portals - tools and methodo-logies integrating information necessary for back and front office processes in organisationsto a greater or lesser extent.The European Commission itself recognises that these first FP5 projects "suffered from a

lack of a holistic framework or people or community-centred approach" (in IBM, 2004).« The second wave, from 1999 to 2000, aimed for more holistic treatment of primarily

tacit knowledge in organisations. The main topics and concepts developed were: tools andmethodologies linking knowledge and business processes: assessment or measurement-typeprojects (measure and benchmark knowledge management implantation within and betweenorganisations and to manage and measure impact of knowledge life cycles within the enter-prise; tools, methodologies and good practices, which accelerate creative exchange between

7. We eliminated 'e-learning' related projects (Technology-enhanced Learning, abbreviated to TeLearn) from ouranalysis. These projects were a priority of call 1 and 4 (there were five of these). Eight were selected out of119 proposals in the context of the first 1ST invitation to tender from the 6th FP. We considered that the problemsof e-learning were a field related to knowledge management as studied in this special issue.

4/8 ANN. TELI':COMMUN., 62, n? 7-8, 2007

942 INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE

people working within and across organisations). The end objective of such projects is tosupport the transition of organisations into knowledge-based communities.« The 3rd generation of KMS (2001-2002) represented a further movement away from the

classical KM engineering approach. However, we note some 'human-centred' projects thatfocus on people as unique holders of knowledge and exchanges between people as primarygenerators of new knowledge for innovation. As well as networks and working groups, whichattempt to build critical mass within and outside the 1STprogramme.The "flagship" programme developed within the framework of the FP5 1STprogramme is

KMME (Knowledge Management Made in Europe). It started after the launch of the 5th FP to"create a strong brand for European KM research and practice". One of the major epistemolo-gical directions the initiative declared was to pursue the challenge of social complexity as akey factor in the knowledge economy, using a holistic approach. This positioning selected bythe European Commission is the major axis of Europe's competitive position on these KMissues. A second goal was linked to this later, i.e. the target of building a community aroundthe subject of KMME. Thus, it is simultaneously a programme to build epistemic communities(sharing and creation of knowledge on KM) and involving practice (sharing knowledge in thefield).The approach adopted by the Commission was therefore vast and very wide. Up to 2002

(start of FP6), the EC was involved in a phase of learning and awareness-building of KM issuesamong EU states, a type of acculturation of economic players to these problems. This phasedid not lead to extremely significant advances but led to the emergence of a general KMculture in Europe. This focusing of research produced its own limits and the Commissionclearly identified the need to extend research to the social aspects of knowledge management(people-centric KM). A consensus appears to exist today that the right choices were not made.As such, the majority of FP6 projects are IT oriented because the KMMEprogramme was inclu-ded in the 1STprogramme. So we record many projects that are very oriented towards know-ledge languages, content management, digital content and the Semantic web. Moreover, theprogrammes come under the banner of "knowledge & content'". However, very few projectsaddress the area of social complexity that many experts contest as having high potential forEuropean specific Knowledge Management. In the third wave a significant number of pro-jects were funded that are advanced on the mathematical complexity scale and addressconcepts as intelligent agents and the Semantic web.The social complexity of distributing and sharing knowledge is largely absent in projects,

which has prompted many experts to think that the EU has lost four years through its choices.It seems that the same phenomenon can be observed in the us. Many of projects in the

first phase were industry or sector specific and helped to solve problems specific to the sectoror industry, without addressing issues which were of benefit across different sectors or withimpact on the industry value chain.The clustering of funded projects also shows a clear separation between projects that

concentrate on mathematical complexity, most often developing from engineeringapproaches and projects funded in the systems thinking, human centred area. Very few pro-jects contain elements of both. Thereby, we can observe a polarisation effect in terms of pro-

8. Many collaborative working tools oriented towards certain professions and/or applied sectors. Or very appliedresearch. We will cite innovative projects on corporate vocabularies (with the concept of CoP which favours thedefinition of shared conceptualisation in the background). As regards the issue of ontologies (conceptualisation ofa field), we can emphasise the French specificities oriented towards a linguistic section, whereas, for example, thereis a greater interest in Italy and in the UK in conceptualisation (definition of objects that make it possible to graspthe real world), i.e. a linguistic approach in France and a more conceptual approach elsewhere in Europe.

ANN. TELI~COMMUN., 62, n° 7-8, 2007 5/8

INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE 943

jects funded (technology related versus human-centred). In addition, the actual current orga-nisation of the European Commission units dealing with Knowledge Management shows apolarisation, with units in Brussels dealing with e-business applications and human-centredapproach and Luxembourg units dealing with knowledge interfaces and technologicalaspects.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the FP5 Knowledge Cluster and KMMEinitiative (IBM, 2004):

1. The financed projects seem to have been heavily oriented towards a traditional Engi-neering approach to KM. This approach was unlikely to have a large impact on Euro-pean innovation and the achievement of the Lisbon objectives.

2. The objective to focus more on human-centred KM and mathematical complexity aspotential areas for European leadership were also clearly indicated and very appro-priate at the time

3. More of the €65m budget could and arguably should have been allocated to projects inline with the original KMME objectives. Overall, the KMME initiative has only partiallysucceeded in fulfilling its original objectives and it must therefore be questioned whe-ther the €65m investment has yet had a major impact on fulfilling the Lisbon objec-tives. One can observe the following factors: in many cases project results areunpublished due to Intellectual Property considerations and therefore the impact is dif-ficult to assess in a study of this nature. It appears that some projects have shown nodiscernable results whatsoever. There is high concentration of projects funded in theclassical engineering approaches quadrant which are not likely to have a major impacton European innovation or competitiveness.

4. In terms of KMME specific communications, there has been concentration on the Euro-pean Knowledge Management Forum Knowledge Board project, which has been verysuccessful in building a community but may not have succeeded in being truly repre-sentative of European KM thinking. There are high registration numbers but relativelylow number of regular contributors and difficulty in maintaining high quality, up-to-date content with budget constraints.

5. There has been relatively low visibility of the FP5 KM cluster and KMME initiative des-pite considerable personal commitment of key project officers and a resulting relativelylow level of awareness (Google search on KMME makes some references to paperspublished by the EC or references on the Knowledge Board site). The branding cam-paign did have some impact but this is only marginal. The KMME campaign was notdistinctive enough in its subject matter, or rigorous enough in its published researchunder the KMME brand to attract wide interest. Web searches reveal that that few docu-ments were published related to KMME and those that are found are repetitive.

Roadmap for European competitiveness in KM

Actions that are appropriate as the first draft road map for the future are as follows:1. Determine the future strategy regarding European Commission KM initiatives to includerelevant units from both Brussels and Luxembourg in this process to avoid polarisation.The main opportunity for Europe to create the world's most dynamic knowledge eco-nomy and future efforts should be focused, at least in part, on achieving more awarenessof unique European abilities in this area and position of world leadership.

2. These actions should be closely linked to European SMES and enlargement countries.

6/8 ANN. TEUO;COMMUN., 62, n° 7-8, 2007

944 INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE

It appears essential to bolster a European school of thought in the KM field while referringto the Lisbon conference", This European School appears to be particularly active at theintersection between Artificial Intelligence and Human-centred computing. This window ofopportunity for Europe that the IBM study describes as "social complexity" represents a newapproach, combining advanced thinking in mathematics and Artificial Intelligence withemerging thinking in the area of social sciences. The NoEs' role seems to be particularly cru-cial and moreover it is possible to note many projects of this type financed in the frameworkof FP6. Finally, let us emphasise the role to be played by European-style companies and typi-cal European sectors, e.g. Italian fashion-houses, Swiss watchmakers or German car manu-facturers.

Some ''flagship'' projects identified by our contacts:

1ST Projects co-funded under Framework Programme VI (2003-2007) in the area ofsemantic-based knowledge systems:

« AIM@SHAPE - Advanced and Innovative Models And Tools for the development ofSemantic-based systems for Handling, Acquiring, and Processing Knowledge Embedded inmultidimensional digital objects - www.aim-at-shape.net (NoE project)«ALVIS - Superpeer Semantic Search Engine - www.alvis.info/alvis (open source)« KB20 - The European Knowledge Space - www.knowledgeboard.com« REWERSE - Reasoning on the Web with Rules and Semantics - http://rewerse.net (NoE)

KM-related 1ST projects co-funded under Framework Programme V (1998-2002) in thearea oforganisational knowledge management

«BEEP(Best eEurope Practices) has developed a structured methodology for best practicecases and has a pilot database up and running (with several KM case studies including Sie-mens). www.beep-eu.org.Jeremy.Millard@teknologisk.dk« DISRUPT-IT is implementing a dynamic management methodology, which fosters with

disruptive innovation in smart organisations. www.disruptit.org - santi.ristol@barcelona.sema.slb.com - http://www.disruptit.org/enJdownloads.htm« MILK is developing a KM solution for web-oriented multimedia companies and e-com-

merce providers, which integrates technological, organisational and business aspects for typi-cal work situations of knowledge workers distributed over space and time. milk@irso-bep.it« NIMCUBE is developing a holistic reference methodology for new use and innovation

management and measurement in R&D, and providing methods and IT solutions for measu-ring, managing and optimising reuse of knowledge and innovation. marc.pudlatz@iao.fhg.de

Interesting projects funded under the Learning and Training in Industry Theme (Esprit1994-1998)

« KALIF provided a meeting place for projects funded under the Esprit LTI theme and laun-ched the Portal for IT for Learning and Training in Industry. www.cibit.com/site-en.nsf -www.lti-portal.org.« KLEE&CO provided solutions for KM challenges in creative and innovative environ-

ments, characterised by informal learning processes and based on individual memory. Theproject developed a next generation KM solution to support professional and creative work

9. Thus, for example, there is a stake for the new EUstates to limit the influence of the work of American univer-sities, US consultants, etc.

ANN. l'ELECOMMUN., 62, n° 7-8, 2007 7/8

INFORMATION NOTICE ON RESEARCH IN EUROPE 945

within design and innovation processes. The Klee&Co solution was designed as a collabora-tive environment based on a set of integrated KM tools to allow work practices and knowledgecoming from experience to be co-present and easily available to all people involved in workprocesses of creative production in organisations. klee&co@irso-bep.it

REFERENCES

HEARN (P), BRADIER (A), JUBERT (A), "Building communities. Organisational Knowledge management within theEuropean Commission's Information Society Technologies Programme", in Knowledge Management. Concepts

and Best practices, 2nd Edition, K. Mertins, P. Heisig, J. Vorbeck editors, Springer, 383 p., Chapter V, 2003.

8/8 ANN. TELECOMMUN., 62, n° 7-8, 2007