Business & Knowledge Ecosystems - A Reading Through The Game of Go Analogies

Business & Knowledge
Ecosystems :
A reading through the Game of Go analogies
-
Damien Boisbouvier
Specialized Master's Thesis in Strategic Intelligence & Knowledge Management
SKEMA Business School (School of Knowledge Economy & Management) – Paris
Co-directors: Anne Baraquier, Olivier Pommeret & Eva Dauphin
Board of examiners: Pascal Junghans, Olivier Pommeret & Eva Dauphin
2012 February 22th

"The world is a game of Go where the rules have been unnecessarily
complicated."
Chinese proverb
"The stone has no hope of being anything other than a stone. But to
collaborate, it assembles and becomes a temple. »
Antoine de St-Exupéry.
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank all my family, my roommates (especially "RoRo") as
well as the neighbors of the 118 for their regular support and encouragement during
the phases of trust, but especially of doubt, which punctuated the writing of this
professional thesis.
I also thank in particular Claude Revel, Anne Barraquier and Olivier Pommeret
(especially for his indulgence) for the many tips, directions and advice they have
given me. I would also like to thank Stefano Borzillo, Danièle Chauvel, Yannick Biron
and Pierre-Xavier Meschi, for having given me time for individual interviews, the
entire teaching staff of the Specialized Master for the quality of their courses and of
course all my classmates of the class of 2011 for this exciting year spent at their side.
My warmest thanks go to my tutor Eva Dauphin and Frithjof Weber, HO Competence

& Knowledge Management, for their welcome to the dedicated Airbus team. Many
thanks also to my colleagues Karine de March and Isabelle Petit-Cubas for the
excellent moments spent and their numerous advices. I would also like to thank all
the Airbus people I met, each of them having contributed in their own way to the
richness of my experience in this company.
I would also like to thank Thanh Nghiem, Michel Grundstein, Hélène Garcia, Ron
Young & Stuart French for their availability, and the inspiration that came from the
interesting exchanges we had about Knowledge Management and this professional
thesis.
Thanks finally to theine, guarana, caffeine, and gingko biloba.
Specialized Master's Degree in Business Intelligence & Knowledge Management - Promotion 2011
Business & Knowledge Ecosystems: A reading through the Game of Go analogies - Damien Boisbouvier
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Table of Contents 3
Table of Figures 5
List of abbreviations 6
Introduction 7
A pedagogical Game 13
The elements of the Game 13
A reading grid of the " Material ". 15
A matter of context 15
Business Ecosystems 18
Definitions & Features 19
Extended enterprise & core competencies 21
The example of Kalundborg 23
The dynamics of the Game 26
A reading grid of the "Immaterial". 26
The Mountain of Wisdom 27
Data 28
Information 29
Non-Sense & Noise 29
Knowledge 30
Wisdom 31
Ba & Chi 31
The typologies of knowledge 32
The typology of Nonaka & Takeushi 32
Blackler's typology 33
Knowledge Creation and Conversion Processes (SECI) 34
S for Socialization ("Socialization") 34
E for Outsourcing ("Externalization") 34
C for Combination ( Combination ) 35
I for Internalization ("Internalization") 35
The four types of Ba 35
The Ba of the Beginning ("Originating Ba") 36
The Ba of negotiation ("Dialoguing Ba") 36
The Systemizing Ba ("Systemizing Ba") 36
The Ba for the year ("Exercising Ba") 36
Towards an ecology of knowledge 37
The conditions of the Game 38
Organizational capacities 39
Knowledge Management 39
Strategic Intelligence 41
Towards a convergence of points of view 44
A strategic vision 45
Identified issues 45
Adapted communities 46
Specialized Master's Degree in Strategic Intelligence & Knowledge Management - Promotion 2011
4
A choice of stakeholders 48
A criterion of competence 48
A criterion of strategic culture 49
A capacity criterion 50
A criterion of relationship 50
A criterion of size 52
Strategy and game management 54
An inter-organizational dynamic 56
"Think Global, Act Local 59
A commented Game 60
Airbus presentation 61
Activities 61
Extended Company 65
Knowledge Management @ Airbus 69
Vision 70
Missions 71
Solutions Portfolio 71
Feedback from experience 73
Lessons from Toyota 73
Airbus State of play 77
Assessment & Development paths 80
Conclusion 84
Bibliography & References 87
Abstract 91
Specialized Master's Degree in Strategic Intelligence & Knowledge Management - Promotion 2011
5
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Cursive form of Japanese Kanji for the word Go 7

Figure 2: Comparison of Go and Chess (from Fauvet & Smia, 2007) 8
Figure 3: Western and Eastern thinking through the metaphor of the "left" and "right" brain
(Adapted from a Mercedes-Benz advertisement) 10
Figure 4: Napoleon & Sun-Tzu: Incarnations of Two Strategic Cultures 11
Figure 5: Different Goban sizes (9x9, 13x13, 19x19) 13
Figure 6: Example of geographic and symbolic projection on the Goban 14
Figure 7: Go game stones 14
Figure 8: "Cynefin" Diagram and Associated Modes of Collective Action (Adapted from Shawn
Callahan, 2008; Adapted from Dave Snowden, 2000) 17
Figure 9: The Enterprise as a Set of Communities (From Roulleaux Dugage, 2008) 19
Figure 10: Representation of a business ecosystem (From Gueguen & Torrès, 2004; Adapted from
Moore, 1996) 21
Figure 11: The Concept of the Extended Enterprise or Network (From Blecker, 1999) 23
Figure 12: The Kalundborg industrial eco-park 24
Figure 13: Evolution of the Kalundborg Ecosystem 25
Figure 14: The Mountain of Wisdom (Adapted from Prax, 2007) 27
Figure 15: Continuum of Understanding (Adapted from Clark, 2004) 28
Figure 16: Typology of Blackler's knowledge (from Chauvel, 2011) 34
Figure 17: SECI Matrix & Ba Types (From Grundstein, 2008) 35
Figure 18: The Four Fundamental Components of Knowledge Management (from Prax, 2007) 40
Figure 19: The 11 factors of the Economic Intelligence model (from AFDIE, 2004) 43
Figure 20: Changes and trends in KM and EI (From Goria, 2006) 44
Figure 21: Illustration of strong ties (blue) and weak ties (orange) (From Joshua Porter, 2007) 51
Figure 22: Illustration of the "Fuseki" phase 54
Figure 23: Illustration of the "Chuban" phase 54
Figure 24: Illustration of the "Large Yose" and "Small Yose" phases 55
Figure 25: Illustration of a completed game 55
Figure 26: Group Development Model (From Tuckman) 56
Figure 27: Illustration of "breakthrough projects," a balance between initiatives that are too "light"
and a single project that is too "heavy 59
Figure 28: Illustration of a Kifu 60
Figure 29: Illustration of Airbus aircraft families 62
Figure 30: Representation of Airbus in the world 64
Figure 31: Illustration of the logistics system for transporting aircraft components 65
Figure 32: Illustration of the Importance of PSR Involvement in the A350XWB Program 68
Figure 33: The Airbus KM Wheel 72
Figure 34: All "Extended Enterprise Services" represented according to the metaphor of an
airplane journey 78
Business & Knowledge Ecosystems: A reading following the Go Game Analogies - Damien Boisbouvier
6
List of abbreviations
AFDIE: French Association of Economic Intelligence
AIC: Airbus Integrated Company
AKC: Airbus Key Competences
BS: Business Search
CoC: Center of Competence
CoE: Center of Expertise
CTL: Customer Team Leader
EA: Business Ecosystem
EE: Extended Company
ExTra : Transfer Expertise
FAL: Final Assembly Line
GIE : Economic Interest Grouping
IE : Economic Intelligence
IM: Innovation Management
JDP: Joint Development Plan
KCP: Knowledge Capture & Publishing
KM: Knowledge Management
KMOD: Knowledge Management Overall Diagnosis
LL : Lessons Learnt
NICT: New Information and Communication Technologies
OMCD : Operations Management Consulting Division
PDA: Plan Development Activity
PN: Professional Networks
RISE: Re-use, Improve and Share Experience
TSSP: Toyota Suppliers Support Process
WPL: Work Package Leader
YP : Yellow Pages
7
Introduction
The game of Go is considered to be the oldest known and still practiced strategy
game in the world. It is said to have originated in China several millennia ago.
According to one of the legends, its paternity would be attributed to Yao, the first
emperor of ancient China (2245 to 2143 BC). The objective was then purely
pedagogical, in order to educate and develop the intelligence of his sons' princes.
Figure 1: Cursive form of Japanese Kanji for the word Go
The first written traces attesting the existence of the game of Go only appear
between -722 and -481 BC. Great thinkers and strategists of the time such as
Confucius, Lao Tseu and Sun Tzu, refer to it in their works, from "Interviews" to "The
Art of War". The game then arrived in Korea and Japan, respectively in the 5th and
7th centuries A.D., where it was quickly adopted by the aristocracy, then by warriors,
monks, merchants and peasants. It thus became over time a strong source of
political and managerial inspiration.
References to Go in Europe are late, in travelers' accounts dating back to the 16th
century. The German philosopher and scientist Leibnitz was thus the first to write an
article on the subject in 1710, when the first Chinese treatises on Go already existed
at the time of the Han dynasty (25 to 220
after JC). The development of Go in Europe only really took place a century ago, with
8
the creation of the first club in 1895 and the first dedicated magazine in 1909.
Nowadays, the game of Go now counts about 40 million players worldwide (1 million
being Europeans).
Figure 2: Comparison of Go and Chess (from Fauvet & Smia, 2007)
Go is a game whose rules are much less complicated than chess: this makes its
practice accessible to everyone, even children. However, behind this apparent
simplicity emerges in reality a complex game with infinite variations and possibilities:
The mastery of all its subtleties thus requires a whole life (even several). Like Eastern
and Western thought, the principles of the game are different from those of chess,
especially the fact that strategy always has the word on tactics.
Indeed, Western (especially European) thought is mainly influenced by Descartes'
9
reductionism. This one is based on an understanding of the things, the ideas and the
situations starting from its own constituents. It is perfectly summarized by this
passage of the Discourse of the method describing the analysis of a system: "Divide
each of the difficulties into as many plots as it is possible to solve them better".
Three great logical principles, formalized since antiquity by the philosopher Aristotle,
also condition the basis of the Western way of reasoning.
The principle of identity: One thing is identical to itself
The principle of non-contradiction: One thing is not identical to its opposite.
The principle of the excluded third party: Any proposition is either true or false.
Oriental thinking is rather oriented towards holistic thinking: the latter considers that
things, ideas and situations must be understood in a global way in order to be
understood. A system is therefore considered to have characteristics that are specific
to its totality, not deductible from the properties of its elements. It is from this form of
thinking that we derive the expression: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".
The psychologists Richard Nisbett and Kaiping Peng (1999) from the University of
California, Berkeley have also identified the following three founding logical principles
for the Orient.
The principle of permanent change : Reality is a dynamic process of transformation
The principle of contradiction: Since this change is constant, so is the contradiction.
The principle of relationship: Consequently, everything being subject to change,
consider it with its opposite.
10
Figure 3: Western and Eastern thinking through the metaphor of the "left" and "right" brain (Adapted from a
Mercedes-Benz advertisement)
The advent of cognitive sciences has made it possible to empirically confirm these
trends. Thus, Richard Nisbett and some of his colleagues (2001, 2005) have also
conducted studies on the eye movements of Westerners and East Asians in relation
to exposure to information. The results show that Westerners are more attracted to
protruding and moving objects; eye movement is more focused on looking at these
objects and the fixation time is long. Conversely, the latter are much more affected by
changes in the background than the movement of the objects; their eyes move back
and forth between the two and the fixation time is shorter.
In a context of globalization and multiple polarity, where many borders are now open,
it becomes crucial to take into account these differences in perception of the
environment by adopting a principle of strategic retreat. This is based on "this vision
of the diversity of cultures and the possibility of analysing the modes of action of
peoples and their strategic behaviour" (Nadoulek, 1992). This taking of distance thus
makes it possible to enrich each other by confronting other complementary points of
view. Above all, it also allows us to (re)become aware of our own systems of thought,
11
in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. In this respect, board games are
wonderful indirect supports for learning and improvement.
Figure 4: Napoleon & Sun-Tzu: Incarnations of Two Strategic Cultures
In the same way, globalization tends to develop increasingly complex and dynamic
interactions between economic actors, due in particular to the specialization of areas
of expertise. This is gradually leading companies to weave new types of
relationships, based on notions of alliances and lasting partnerships and trust. Faced
with this new context, new forms of (inter)organizations are emerging, inspired by
network approaches stemming from practices stemming from new information and
communication technologies (NICT). In the age of the knowledge economy, this
culture of collaboration and sharing also leads to a real paradigm shift for companies.
Indeed, these new rules of the game now tend to take into account the points of view
of a community of stakeholders in order to build a common and shared vision and
project.
Surprisingly enough, the principles of the game of Go fit wonderfully into this strategic
management register, both inclusive and constructive. It is therefore through this
12
spun metaphor that this professional thesis proposes to apply the principle of
hindsight mentioned earlier on the subject of knowledge sharing approaches
between allied or partner companies. This eclectic approach will ultimately aim to
provide answers to the problem of why and how to design such an inter-
organizational knowledge project.
A first part, or game, called pedagogical, will use Go as a grid for reading the
complexity of the context in which organizations find themselves, and will explain in
particular the notions of business ecosystems and extended enterprise. The game
will also serve as a model to represent the processes and facilitators at work in the
(co-)creation of knowledge, with in particular the concept of Ba from Japanese
theories. We will then perform a state of the art analysis of the means to implement
this game dynamic, such as Knowledge Management and Business Intelligence, as
well as the requirements. Finally, we will review the main steps to follow in order to
carry out such a project, following in particular the analogy of the three main phases
of a Go game.
Finally, a second game, a study one, will make a state of the art of the current
initiatives and practices identified within Airbus. A comparative assessment and a few
avenues for development will then be proposed in the light of the previous part, as
well as examples from Toyota's extended enterprise model.
13
A pedagogical Game
In the vocabulary of the game of Go, the term "Shidogo" refers to a didactic game
allowing a novice to learn the game through step-by-step explanations on the game
board. Following this inspiration, we will present the elements of the game, its
dynamics as well as the overall course of a game through the pregame conditions,
the strategy and the conduct of the game (and its main sequences). These different
chapters will be structured according to the different analogies used in this thesis,
which will be detailed as we go along.
The elements of the Game
The game of go is played on the intersections of a grid of rows and columns drawn
on a wooden board called "Goban". Some of these intersections are differentiated by
a point and are called "Hoshi" (meaning star). The "Hoshi" in the center of the Goban
is called "Tengen", which means Origin of Heaven.
Different board sizes are available for the practice of the game. 19x19 is the official
dimension allowing to express all the strategic (or global) dimension of the game. 9x9
is rather a dimension dedicated to the practice of tactics (more local). 13x13 is the
intermediate dimension, at the crossroads of the two levels.
Figure 5: Different Goban sizes (9x9, 13x13, 19x19)
14
In the Chinese tradition, 361, which corresponds to the number of intersections, is a
representation of infinity. Thus the Goban is a representation of the "World", which
can be interpreted both symbolically and geographically or according to other
dimensions (economic, societal, political, environmental...).
Figure 6: Example of geographic and symbolic projection on the Goban
Each player has a certain number of stones, called "Goishi", to be placed on the
Goban: 181 for Black ("Kuro") and 180 for White ("Shiro"), making a total of 361
stones needed to cover the board. They are contained in game bowls called "Goke"
and mean Men in Chinese tradition.
Figure 7: Go game stones
15
A reading grid of the " Material ".
In the field of ecology, the word ecosystem refers to a set formed by a given
environment (biological, geological, climatic), called a biotope, offering conditions of
equilibrium to a community of living beings, called a biocenosis. The creator of the
word, Arthur George Tansley (1935) defined it as "a system of interactions between
populations of different species living on the same site, and between these
populations and the physical environment".
As we will see in this chapter, these notions of biotope and biocenosis find their
respective equivalents in Goban and Goishi's concepts. Thus, the game board in this
case could be the scenic setting in which communities of actors interact. The
checkerboard will then be interpreted as the overall socio-economic environment. By
extrapolation, the memberships of the different communities can then be represented
by the different "colors" of the stones. The latter will represent the different
organizations, connected and linked, populating this environment.
A matter of context
As a result of the globalization of trade and markets, today's company is faced with a
multiplicity of relationships with which it must deal. These links are notably
established with diverse and varied external actors, which can be other companies
as well as institutional, state, associative entities, etc. The links themselves can be of
different types, both formal and informal, direct and indirect. We thus traditionally find
the vertical relations of the customer and supplier chain and the horizontal relations
of the sector of activity (or industry). However, in addition to these, there are also
transversal relationships woven with actors from other sectors (or following a
common interest) and more diffuse relationships built through shared cultures and
norms (Gueguen & Torrès, 2004).
Faced with this environment, the question arises as to whether yesterday's behaviors
are still adapted to today's situation or whether new interaction models should be
taken into consideration.
16
In order to do so, it is first necessary to be able to qualify this context and to know if it
is simple, complicated, complex or even chaotic.
A system is simple when a clear relationship can be established between cause and
effect. The end result of an activity can thus be predicted with certainty and
confidence. A problem can also be solved by following "the recipe", the best practices
identified for the case.
A system is complicated (from the Latin cum pliare, stacked with) when the
relationship between cause and effect is not directly detectable but appears after a
series of intermediate steps. It requires further investigation based on research and
experimentation. One or more rational solutions to a problem can be found through
project management and reliable expertise, as in the construction of an aircraft for
example. Another example could also be the game of chess.
A system is complex (from the Latin cum plexus, attached with) when cause and
effect are nested and intertwined because of the interactions and interconnections
between many elements. This makes its exact evolution unpredictable, despite a
knowledge of the initial rules. Thus, plan-based methods rarely become effective
here, as do problem-solving methods. Only experience (or possibly simulation)
allows us to see the outcome retrospectively and to induce certain models. Thus, a
company itself can be considered complex, as well as the human brain, a swarm of
starlings, and of course the game of Go.
A system is finally chaotic when cause and effect are indistinguishable. This gives it
an unstable character, which makes its evolution fast and moreover totally
unpredictable. Financial crises, climatic disasters or panic movements are examples
of such situations.
17
Figure 8: "Cynefin" Diagram and Associated Modes of Collective Action
(Adapted from Shawn Callahan, 2008; Adapted from Dave Snowden, 2000)
Within the above-mentioned areas, the most appropriate way of operating can then
be identified. In fact, the notions of coordination, cooperation and collaboration are
often confused, which makes it necessary to recall their definitions and the context in
which they occur.
Coordination (from the Latin co-ordinare, to arrange/to put in order together)

designates a modality of action (the most fundamental) where each person works on
a task autonomously in order to contribute synergistically to a greater common result.
The image of a puzzle solved collectively can be used in this way. It implies a
minimum of trust and harmony in relationships so that the work is done correctly,
often in a context that is simple.
Rather, cooperation (from the Latin co-operare, to act/participate together) refers to a

sequential and linear process, which refers to a set of predetermined and shared
rules, procedures and instructions for achieving a given (and also known) goal. The
18
level of trust in this case is more important because it is related to the level of trust
one has in the abilities of the other participants. It is an appropriate mode of action in
a complicated context, where the final goal is clear and requires the combined and
convergent efforts of several people to achieve it.
Collaboration (from Latin co-laborare, working together) is this time a non-linear,

parallel and divergent process, guided by a notion of mutual interest (see passion).
The latter defines a broad direction rather than a clearly specified outcome. In the
same way, actions are not really determined beforehand but are carried out as the
path is explored. It is thus a collective creation of shared representations and
understandings, where the level of trust, transparency and exchange is very high.
This is particularly adapted to a context belonging to the domain of the complex,
where consensus and consent are necessary to move forward where no model can
give an absolute answer.
Despite the sectoral aspect of the above diagram, however, it must be kept in mind
that these levels of context, like the modes of collective action, are not discretely
separated but rather are part of a continuous whole. It is also necessary to think of
each level as an evolution that includes and transcends the previous one, a bit like
Russian nesting dolls. The last level of context, chaotic, does not therefore a priori
have dedicated collective action modalities. Indeed, this one being very changeable,
only the action itself, by its result, will make it possible to know.
Business Ecosystems
As we discussed earlier, the enterprise now belongs to a complex environment that is

leading it to adopt new modes of interaction that are increasingly based on
collaboration. This gradual emergence is leading to a redefinition of the framework
for understanding and strategic analysis of organizations, by putting them in context
and taking into consideration their entire fabric of relationships.
19
Figure 9: The Enterprise as a Set of Communities
(From Roulleaux Dugage, 2008)
Definitions & Features
Taking inspiration from the notion of ecosystem mentioned in the preamble to this
chapter, and adapting it to the socio-economic world, James F. Moore developed the
concept of the Business Ecosystem (BE) in the mid-1990s.
Its full definition is: "an economic community supported by the interaction between
companies and individuals - business organizations. This economic community will
produce goods and services by bringing value to customers who will themselves be
part of this ecosystem. Member organizations will also include suppliers, producers,
competitors and other stakeholders. Over time, they will co-evolve their skills and
roles and will tend to align themselves with the management of one or more core
businesses. These companies will hold a leadership role that may evolve over time,
but the function of an ecosystem leader will be to bring value to the community by
20
engaging members to act with a shared vision to adapt their investments and find
mutually supportive roles. "(Moore, 1996)
In 2001, Olivier Torrès summarized the definition of the notion as "a heterogeneous
coalition of companies from different sectors forming a strategic community of
interests or values structured as a network around a leader that manages to impose
or share its business concept or technological standard. "
A final definition is that of David Teece in 2007, for whom a business ecosystem is " a
community of organizations, institutions, and individuals that have an impact on the
company, its suppliers, and its customers".
Like the biological world, a business ecosystem is therefore a dense and complex
network, a place of coexistence and interaction between a community of
heterogeneous actors (companies, institutions, unions, etc.) in symbiotic
relationships in order to adapt, evolve collectively and make the most of an
unpredictable economic environment following a shared strategic destination.
The balanced management of such an ecosystem is based on "effilience", a word

that combines the words efficiency and resilience. This notion stems from scientific
research on natural ecosystems and has been highlighted by economist Bernard
Lietaer and ecologists Robert Ulanowicz and Sally Goerner (2008). They show that
the viability, stability and sustainability of an ecosystem depends on the search for an
optimum in the diversity of actors in the network and in the number of connections
available between them.
Thus, an overly efficient ecosystem will have implemented a strong rationalization of

its network structure (reduction of diversity and interconnectivity) in order to increase
its processing capacity (matter, energy, information) but will at the same time be too
fragile in the face of disturbances in its environment. Conversely, an ecosystem that
is too resilient will have (too) many (too many) alternatives (actors and relationships)
on which to rely in the event of change, but at the same time will be subject to too
much stagnation.
21
Although competitive logics exist between several business ecosystems, economic
actors are not necessarily exclusive members and may belong to several of them.
This translates internally and externally into a game based on a dynamic of
"cooperation", which is also a catchword describing the inclusive association of
cooperation and competition.
Figure 10: Representation of a business ecosystem (From Gueguen & Torrès, 2004; Adapted from Moore,
1996)
Extended enterprise & core competencies
At the level of the leading companies themselves, new forms of organization are also
emerging within this context of business ecosystems. These sub (eco) systems are
called Extended Enterprises (EE). Their emergence is generally the consequence of
a growing specialization of skills and the development of NICTs. Indeed, these
network head companies, which until now were generally highly vertically integrated,
are increasingly led to outsource part of their design, manufacturing or distribution
activities.
22
They are thus refocusing on what C.K. Pralahad & Gary Hamel's (1990) theory of
management calls "core competencies". The image used is often that of a company
tree: the fruits represent the final products, the branches the different business units
and the trunk the commodity or commodities. The core competences then represent
the root system that nourishes and stabilizes the company's sustainable competitive
advantage. Their authors lend them three main characteristics: the potential for
access to a variety of markets, the significant contribution to the benefits of the final
product perceived by the customer and the difficulty of imitation by competitors.
According to Galunic and Rodan (1998), the identification of one's core competencies
allows one to differentiate oneself strategically from other companies, but also to
carry out one's own introspection and thus be able to facilitate the adaptation and
rearrangement of one's portfolio of competencies with respect to the evolution of
one's environment. Gallon, Stillman and Coates (1995) also considers that the core
competency is not defined solely on the basis of the sum of the abilities and skills of
the individuals belonging to the leading firm, but rather is intentionally constructed by
the latter in a harmonized manner. Similarly, Coyne, Hall and Clifford (1997) define
core competence as a combination of complementary skills and knowledge that,
taken together, result in a higher-level product.
The extended enterprise therefore consists of a network of alliances and

partnerships, which may be subcontractors, suppliers, service providers or joint
ventures. The latter is based on a search for complementarity and pooling of (core)
skills with a view to the collective realization of projects. It thus requires the
implementation of a collaborative dynamic of exchange of material resources (such
as the supply chain), but also and above all of sharing intangible resources (such as
certain information, knowledge, know-how) within a common value chain(s).
23
Figure 11: The Concept of the Extended Enterprise or Network (From Blecker, 1999)
These new operating modes bring many advantages in terms of flexibility, cost
control, quality improvement, reduction of development time for new products, and of
course in terms of innovation. They also bring their share of risks related to the
complexity of interactions and different flows between stakeholders. This leads in
particular to the reliability of a set of structuring elements made up of processes and
interfaces following technical, cultural and of course strategic "platforms" (Edouard &
Gratacap, 2010).
The example of Kalundborg
For a long time confined quite naturally to the information technology sector (SAP,
Linux, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco), the notion of business ecosystems (and extended
enterprise) is now gradually spreading to the world of industry (and in particular the
automotive industry, which we will discuss later). A very good illustration of this is the
industrial ecosystem of Kalundborg, a port city in northwestern Denmark.
24
Indeed, it is one of the pioneering examples of intelligent and systemic management
of material and energy flows (gas, steam, water, heat, dust, sludge and other by-
products). It consists of pooling all residual products from a community of public and
private companies, working together to achieve economic, ecological and cultural
benefits. The "waste" of one of the members is thus (re)sold and (re)used as a raw
material resource by one or more others belonging to this network. We thus find the
notion of symbiotic relationships within this business ecosystem, but also with the
natural environmental ecosystem.
Figure 12: The Kalundborg industrial eco-park
The origin of the project dates back to 1961 and only owes its genesis to the result of
a spontaneous conversation between a few local actors, around water supply needs
requiring the setting up of exchanges. Little by little, other similar projects were then
developed around other types of flows. In the 1970s, the initiative only involved half a
dozen diverse and varied participants: Kalundborg town hall, an oil refinery (Stratoil),
a gypsum producer (Gyproc), a pharmaceutical company (Novo Nordisk), a coal-fired
power plant (DONG Energy) and a soil treatment company. As a result of visible
benefits, healthy communication and good collaboration between the companies
(and especially its employees), the complex has been able to develop organically for
50 years now and gradually integrate new members.
25
Figure 13: Evolution of the Kalundborg Ecosystem
This approach of industrial ecology thus offers us a more "down-to-earth"

representation of the necessary dynamics of exchange and sharing of resources
mentioned above. In this precise case, it is carried out essentially around physical
products but constitutes however a strong analogy as for the way in which these
principles could be transposed to more immaterial "products".
Indeed, the material flows exchanged within Kalundborg are easily transposable to
the outsourced skills distributed throughout the extended enterprise. In the same
way, energy flows could be considered equivalent to the information and knowledge
flows that feed this network.
26
The dynamics of the Game
The game of Go is played between two players around an initially empty common
ground. Each player places his stones alternately on the intersections of the game
board. Once a stone is placed, it cannot be moved but can be captured by the
opponent (and a group of stones) if surrounded.
The objective of the game is to obtain as much territory as possible by forming

groups or chains of stones encompassing empty Goban intersections. However, the
stones first sketch out zones of influence, distributed in various parts of the Goban,
until they gradually form a real constellation of stones and relationships (see
illustration on the first page).
A reading grid of the "Immaterial".
As Edgar Morin (1992) puts it so well, "There is no knowledge without knowledge of

knowledge". In order to be able to carry out a full correspondence between this
"world" of matter and that of ideas, it is therefore necessary to know beforehand the
fundamental differences that may exist between the two. Indeed, contrary to a
tangible object, the reality of knowledge is difficult to apprehend without taking into
account the subject who created it and gave it meaning. The question also arises as
to how knowledge emerges from an individual to a collective level, or even from an
organizational to an inter-organizational level.
As we will see in this chapter, the dynamics of Go constitute a strong analogy of

these knowledge (co)creation processes. This construction of common knowledge
could thus be represented by the image of a part of this game between various
individuals, symbolized by the colors (White, Black, Other). The Goban would thus
represent the support, the "place" of interactions allowing these processes to express
themselves. The stones themselves would then constitute the facts or data of reality
from which the collective representations will be built.
The Mountain of Wisdom
27
The notions of data, information, knowledge and even wisdom are often the object of
various and varied amalgams. The explanations below are intended to try to shed
some light on the nuances that may exist between the different concepts.
In the literature, the classical model of distinction is called DIKW (for "Data,
Information, Knowledge, Wisdom") and is represented in a pyramidal and hierarchical
form. The concepts of Ba and Chi, specific to Japanese conceptions of knowledge,
will also be explained a little further on.
Figure 14: The Mountain of Wisdom (Adapted from Prax, 2007)
In spite of the discreet aspect of this representation, which is used for educational
purposes, a certain continuity in the passage from one to the other must be kept in
mind. The distinctions between the terms should therefore be seen more as
gradations of grey rather than contrasts of white and black.
This pyramidal perspective can be seen in part in the figure below through the
illustrations using another metaphor of the game of Go: Each of the images is thus a
representation of the context or the field of understanding of the "World" that one
obtains as one climbs to "altitude".
28
Figure 15: Continuum of Understanding (Adapted from Clark, 2004)
Data
Data are factual elements, a priori fundamental and objective. They are the result of
a process of research, collection, creation or discovery. The latter is carried out
through observation or instrumental measurement of reality, often with a view to
validating or invalidating a hypothesis. The data are at the lowest level in terms of
context and understanding, in the sense that they are not in themselves directly and
immediately significant.
Like Go stones which are not yet positioned on the board, the data are therefore
basic bricks which have as context and possible meaning only their groupings with
other stones in the game bowl.
Information
The word information originally comes from the Latin Informare, which means "to
29
shape". It is therefore data to which we have added context and given meaning by
linking them together according to a specific arrangement and/or presentation
(textual, auditory, visual). This arrangement is carried out subjectively by the sender
in order to communicate to a receiver a message about his perception of the data.
The information is therefore at a level of context that corresponds to the
understanding of the relationships between data.
Go players do exactly this "shaping" work when they take turns placing their stones
on the checkerboard. The patterns produced by the relationships between stones are
thus messages communicating a part of the intention to the other player. In this
regard, the Chinese word for the game of Go ("Weiqi") rightly means "hand
conversation".
Non-Sense & Noise
In the transition phase between data and information, a balance is often to be found
between two extreme cases.
The first is the case of nonsense, where the data are too scattered, sparse and often
too little. This then makes it more difficult to contextually link the data into a format
rich enough to provide a valuable message.
The opposite is the case for noise, where this time the data is far too dense,
agglomerated and in large quantities. It then becomes difficult to discern a significant
formatting among this very rich context, which leads to a message that is not clear.
In both cases, comprehension is not "optimal" because either the communication is

meaningless or it makes too much sense.
In the vocabulary of the game of Go, notions similar to nonsense and noise exist.
These are called "light" and "heavy" forms. They often appear during games with or
between beginners, but can also be used on purpose by experienced players.
30
Knowledge
The passage from information to knowledge is carried out through the subjective
construction of a representation of reality through a system of interpretations specific
to each person. This system has three essential components.
 A component that draws on our culture, paradigms and previous

representations (Past).
 A component that situates us in relation to the current context and the
surrounding environment (Present).
 A component that concerns our projects, our goals and our longer-term vision
(Future).
This process is called "enaction", a term proposed by the biologists and philosophers
Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana (1987). It operates in an interactive,
iterative and dynamic way with our present environment. An evolution in the latter
(re) updates our past experience in order to orient our future actions. In this
conception, the notion of knowledge is thus intimately linked to that of action.
The dynamics of the game of Go reflects this process of "enaction". Indeed, each
stone placed constitutes a new disturbance that transforms the state of the
checkerboard. Players are thus led to reconsider their board paradigm permanently,
even in impermanence. The next move will come as a reaction to this new game
situation, according to the readapted intentions and finalities of the one whose turn it
is to play. Thus, the stones of the game of Go represent both the data and the
actions of the game.
31
Wisdom
In the same way that information is produced by the arrangement of data between
them, wisdom is obtained through a process of discernment between representations
constructed over time. To be able to carry out this higher order synthesis therefore
presupposes first of all having accumulated sufficient experience. The principles
resulting from this work then make it possible to better direct one's goals, to make
wise decisions and thus to act wisely.
The same goes for Go. The accumulation of playing experience allows us to confront
new configurations of stone shapes on the checkerboard, thus enriching our base of
representations. This allows us to progressively develop a true playing wisdom and
to improve the global vision of future potentialities. This one then enlightens us in a
more efficient way on the local contribution of the stone to the building, when it is our
turn to lay it.
Ba & Chi
In his article "The Concept of Ba in the Japanese Creation of Knowledge", Pierre

Fayard (2002) explains that although the concept was introduced by Ikujiro Nonaka
and Noboru Konne in 1996, its use is attributed to the Japanese philosopher Kitaro
Nishida. The latter considers that the subject and the object do not exist separately
but are two facets of the same reality, which is in line with the conceptions of
enaction. "Ba" is a kanji ideogram, which makes a literal translation difficult. The
symbol consists of two parts that express both the idea of fertile potential and that of
movement, of goal-oriented transformation.
Pierre Fayard (2002) likens it to "an environment where the people (potential) who
invest in it (driving force) experience a qualitative evolution". It is therefore a "man-
space-time" in which the conditions are conducive to rich and creative relationships,
interactions and exchanges. A culture based on trust, empathy and respect for points
of view develops. The positive tensions between them allow the emergence of new
collective representations. These are oriented according to the "Chi": the purpose,
32
the ambition, the project shared by what Pierre Fayard (2002) calls a "strategic
community of knowledge".
The game of Go embodies very well this concept of Ba. The stones thus represent
the basis of the common language and the checkerboard the space and allowing
exchanges according to the conditions of the dynamics of the game. The outcome of
the game itself would then be Chi, the common vision that allows each player to
collectively enrich their point of view on the representation they have of reality.
The typologies of knowledge
After this conceptual hike in the high mountains, let's linger a little on the
classifications of the different forms of knowledge as proposed in the literature.
The typology of Nonaka & Takeushi
In their book, The Knowledge-Creating Company, Professors Ikujiro Nonaka and

Hirokata Takeushi (1995) distinguish between two forms of knowledge, one called
explicit and the other called tacit. Again, these are terms that should rather be seen
as the two extremes of the same spectrum.
Explicit knowledge
It is an objective knowledge that can be articulated in a formal language and
therefore processed, transmitted and stored through tangible elements (physical or
digital documents). This type of knowledge makes it possible to rationalize and
abstract elements in a generic way (out of context). For example, concepts, theories,
processes and procedures can be found in the knowledge base...
Tacit knowledge
This is a subjective knowledge that is very difficult to formalize, and can therefore be
shared informally. This type of knowledge is intimately linked to context, experience
and action. It is declined in two dimensions.
The technical dimension essentially concerns the know-how, the talents of a person
as well as everything that derives from bodily experience (gestures). The cognitive
33
dimension concerns beliefs, ideals, values, emotions and mental models built by
analogies forming our perception of reality.
Blackler's typology
In his article, "Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and

Interpretation" Frank Blackler (1995) offers a more nuanced perspective on this
knowledge classification.
Encoded knowledge" ("Encoded knowledge")

It concerns the knowledge of information conveyed through signs and symbols
(books, manuals, databases) and focuses on their transmission, storage, search and
repertory. It is out of context with respect to practice, which makes it highly explicit.
Embedded knowledge" ("Embedded knowledge")

It concerns mainly explicit knowledge about the systematic relationships between
roles, technologies, formal procedures and emerging routines in a complex
organization.
Embodied knowledge" ("Embodied knowledge")

It is action-oriented, concerns context-related practices and is therefore generally
implicit. It can be acquired through the study of the interactions and interpretations of
individuals with their environment.
Embrained knowledge" ("Connaissance encervelée")

It concerns knowledge about conceptual skills and cognitive abilities and is therefore
essentially tacit.
Encultured knowledge" ("Encultured knowledge")

It is part of the process of recognizing shared understandings through socialization
and acculturation to the organization. It is deeply tacit.
34
Figure 16: Typology of Blackler's knowledge (from Chauvel, 2011)
Knowledge Creation and Conversion Processes (SECI)
Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirokata Takeushi (1995) also discuss how these two types of
knowledge (tacit & explicit) interact with each other. They thus identify four
conversion processes constituting a cyclical dynamic, commonly called a model or
SECI matrix.
S for Socialization ("Socialization")
It is a process of exchanging tacit knowledge between individuals: language is not

necessarily used. Individuals learn by observation and imitation through shared
activities and physical proximity ("Coaching", "Mentoring", Communities of Practice).
E for Outsourcing ("Externalization")
It is a process of formalizing tacit knowledge in an understandable and explicit form.

A figurative language consisting of metaphors and analogies is often used. The
modes of expression of these ideas and concepts can be oral, written or in the form
of visual images.
C for Combination ( Combination )
35
It is a process of converting explicit knowledge into more complex sets of the same
nature. This is done through phases of capture, editing (documents, videos),
communication, dissemination (meetings, presentations, conferences) and
systematization (classification, addition, categorization).
I for Internalization ("Internalization")
It is a process of progressive and deep assimilation of explicit knowledge into tacit

knowledge. This integration takes place through concrete actions and practices,
routines and strategic initiatives. It can be manifested through training, simulations
and experiments.
The four types of Ba
Finally, Nonaka & Takeushi (1995) emphasize the dynamics between explicit and
tacit forms of knowledge and different organizational levels. They then defined four
types of Ba, "spaces" that facilitate knowledge processes and the emergence of
relationships at each level.
Figure 17: SECI Matrix & Ba Types (From Grundstein, 2008)
36
The Ba of the Beginning ("Originating Ba")
It is a space where individuals tacitly exchange feelings, emotions, experiences and

mental representations (built within the organization, or not). It is the original Ba, the
cradle of knowledge creation. It is related to the process of Socialization.
The Ba of negotiation ("Dialoguing Ba")
It is a space where tacit knowledge is made explicit, that of the outsourcing process.
Individuals exchange on their own mental representations and update them at the
same time. This collective conversation aims at converting to concepts and notions
commonly understood and shared by the peer group.
The Systemizing Ba ("Systemizing Ba")
It is a space of interactions in a "virtual" world, that of the Combination process. The

objective is to generate new and better explicit knowledge in the organization from
the combinations produced by the different groups and their members. This is
facilitated by having a common identity and language (at this level of organization),
as well as by the use of NICT tools.
The Ba for the year ("Exercising Ba")
It is a space that facilitates the appropriation of explicit knowledge into tacit

knowledge through the process of internalization. This occurs on an ongoing basis,
as the individual is exposed to (and applies) new knowledge circulating in the
organization.
37
Towards an ecology of knowledge
This concept of Ba thus shows how closely the notion of knowledge is linked to that
of context. Despite their primordial importance, the development of these "spaces" is
still struggling to develop in our Western societies. Indeed, they are culturally still too
focused on explicit knowledge, which is only the tip of the iceberg (see Figure 16).
As a result, this translates into sharing approaches usually centered on "platforms"

with technical dimensions, such as those of the Ba of "systematization". As we have
just seen, these are necessary but not sufficient because they reflect only part of the
dynamics of knowledge (co)creation. Work must therefore also be carried out further
upstream on the other pole constituted by the Original Ba and its socialization
processes.
Generally speaking, it is therefore a question of promoting and maintaining the

emergence of collaboration at all levels of actors. This consists in developing
interaction conditions that allow these flows of information and knowledge to circulate
optimally, rather than trying to control and channel them as one would do with a
physical flow.
The game is therefore about setting up new organizational structures, but also and
above all about creating an appropriate culture and environment. Thus, this comes
down to considering an "epistemological ecology" intervening in parallel with the
"socio-economic ecology" presented in the previous chapter. In other words, in the
final analysis, it is necessary to be able to bring one (concrete) business ecosystem
into coherence with another (more abstract) knowledge ecosystem, all through the
human beings that compose it.
38
The conditions of the Game
In the game of Go, "Teai" refers to a number of playing conditions that must be
defined before starting a game. One of them is the choice of the size of the Goban.
Indeed, as we discussed earlier, the game will not be played at the same strategic
height with a 9x9 size board as with a 19x19 size board.
Another protocol, called "Nigiri", is the selection of who will have the gambling
initiative. Traditionally, this is always given to Black, who will then be the one to start
the game. On the other hand, a compensation of points, called "Komi", will be given
to White in order to restore a certain harmony. This is usually worth 7.5 points.
Finally, it happens quite often that a game is played between players whose level,
called "Kyu", is unbalanced. In this situation a handicap game, called "Okigo", can be
set up to rebalance the balance. Before the handicapped game starts, the weaker
player is allowed to place a few stones on the board at specific locations.
We have seen in the previous chapters various parallels between the elements of the
game and the current socio-economic reality on the one hand; the dynamics of the
game and the processes of (co)creation of knowledge on the other. In this chapter,
we will do the same with regard to the conditions for fostering the correspondence
between these two dimensions, "material" and "immaterial". To do this, we will now
place ourselves in the situation of building an extended enterprise knowledge project
(and by extrapolation of business ecosystems) between different stakeholders,
playing a game of Go. The Goban would then represent a kind of "inter-
organizational Ba", a framework for collective action. The stones would represent the
milestones, both actions and facts of the project (as seen previously), which is called
"milestones"...
Organizational capabilities
If we refer to the etymology, the word Intelligence derives from the Latin inter-ligare
(inter-link) and thus expresses the ability to link elements together. It is in particular a
39
capacity for self-learning, adapting and repositioning in the face of situations, using
the means and resources at one's disposal for a purpose. Thus, before starting a
game, it is preferable that the players also have a certain gambling intelligence
acquired beforehand by already practicing it within the organization.
With this in mind, the so-called Knowledge Management (KM) and Business
Intelligence (BI) approaches were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. They were
then part of a context where paradigm shifts were beginning that led to the third
industrial revolution and the knowledge economy. In a manner somewhat similar to
the pyramid of wisdom seen earlier, these notions have also evolved over time by
progressively integrating the different worldviews that have followed one another over
the last few decades. In order to avoid going into these historical details, we will
introduce most of their definitions, concepts and principles in relation to the current
context.
Knowledge Management
In his book "Le manuel du knowledge management", Jean-Yves Prax (2007)

develops the term in the expression "Management of collective knowledge in the
company". Once again, the word management is seen here rather in the sense of
animating, motivating, making possible rather than in the sense of management in
the strict sense.
It is also a means to serve specific purposes that depend on those of the
organizations. Another strong element of this proposal is linked to the collective
dimension, which is reflected in professional communities of different sizes and
nature. Finally, knowledge itself must be taken into consideration in all the complexity
of its facets, both tacit and explicit.
In a similar formulation, KM can also be defined as a set of approaches (others will
say discipline); enabling individuals, teams, communities and organizations to
identify, acquire, develop, share, preserve and use their tacit and explicit knowledge;
in a more collective and systematic way; in order to achieve their goals more
effectively.
40
Thus, after a period of adolescence where approaches were essentially focused on
content and its capitalization (information and then knowledge), KM has now entered
a path of maturity that now includes the notion of context and moves towards that of
culture. This results in a more systemic vision of Knowledge Management integrating
4 dimensions that are intimately linked to each other: strategy, organizations, people
and tools.
Figure 18: The Four Fundamental Components of Knowledge Management (from Prax, 2007)
41
Strategic Intelligence
In his book "Organisational Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government and

Industry" (1967), Harold Wilensky lays the modern foundations of this concept as
"knowledge production activity serving the economic and strategic goals of an
organisation, collected and produced in a legal context and from open sources". In
particular, he highlights the need for collective strategies and collaboration between
governments and businesses in the production of common knowledge for the
defence of competitive advantage; as well as the importance of knowledge in the
economy and industry as a strategic driver of development and change.
The French Association for the Development of Economic Intelligence (AFDIE)

defines it as follows: "Economic intelligence is the set of resources which, organized
in a knowledge management system, produces information useful for decision-
making from a performance and value creation perspective for all stakeholders".
Originally, the approach was technical because it was very much inspired by the
intelligence cycle (orientation, collection, analysis and dissemination of information)
historically used by the agencies of the same name and the secret services.
Wilensky's criticism notably allowed it to evolve towards new models, such as the
AFDIE model. The AFDIE model is based on 7 action factors (Perception of the
environment, Foresight, Ethics, Knowledge & Skills, Leadership, Network
Organization, Influence) and 4 result factors (Value Creation, Quality of Information,
Decision-making Process, Image) that we will briefly develop.
Perception of the environment

"The ability of the company or territory to translate information into opportunities and
threats. This understanding of the environment and risk intelligence is based on the
coordination of a community of watchers. »
Foresight
It takes place "through the diffusion of a culture of anticipation, the ability to imagine
and build possible futures. There is no economic intelligence system without the
invention of unexpected or unanticipated questions, bringing together various
42
sources or raising new questions. »
Ethics
"Respect for ethical rules, "good practices". EI is totally and resolutely within the legal
framework and the respect of international conventions. Without transparent and
common rules of the game, there will be no shared information or knowledge. »
Sharing knowledge and skills

"Ability to innovate or increase performance by decompartmentalizing knowledge and
know-how. The company becomes a cognitive and self-learning system. It connects
men and women who were not used to talking to each other and crosses informal
information with formal information, thus promoting innovation. »
Leadership
"The ability of a leader and/or management team to mobilize the members of the
company or organization around common goals. "There is no EI process without a
change in management .
Organization of networks
"Taking into account the sociology of organizations, information technology and the
knowledge economy by identifying, energizing and creating the countless networks
that ensure the collection and transformation of information into competitive
advantages. This factor multiplies the possibilities of other factors. It constitutes the
nervous system of the economic intelligence system. »
Influence
"Ability to influence the environment by anticipating events, modifying the course or
scope. For example, the company can integrate pre-standardization networks. This
factor is declined in a multitude of lobbying actions, local or international influences,
counter influences if necessary. »
Value creation
"Allows to measure the benefits that the personnel, customers, users, citizens,
consumers, shareholders and partners of the company or territory derive from the
implementation of a business intelligence system. »
43
Quality of information
"Implementation of a true collective memory, accessible to the greatest number,
allowing the company or territory to connect validated knowledge with the multiple
networks of collection, analysis, innovation, technology transfer, performance and
influence. »
Decision-making process
"To connect the management of economic intelligence and the management of the
company or the territory by economic intelligence. Indeed, mastering strategic
information involves a series of adjustments and initiatives designed to improve the
decision-making process. »
Image
"Taking into account all the intangible aspects that constitute the value of the
company. The company perceives the constituent elements of its own image and
gives itself the means to modify or rectify it. »
Figure 19: The 11 factors of the Economic Intelligence model (from AFDIE, 2004)
44
Towards a convergence of points of view
In his article "Knowledge Management & Business Intelligence: Two notions with
close pasts and complementary futures", Stéphane Goria (2006) shows that the two
approaches mentioned above share a large number of common points. Indeed, his
analysis of fifteen years of definitions has enabled him to observe that they feed off
each other and "tend more and more to overlap and complement each other until
they perhaps form one".
Figure 20: Changes and trends in KM and EI (From Goria, 2006)
Knowledge management is then considered by the author as "a set of means and
methods intended to better use the knowledge and knowledge potentially accessible
to an organization in order to improve its capacities for Memorization, Learning,
Collaboration and Innovation through a better management of its intellectual and
informational assets".
In the same way, Business Intelligence is then seen as "a set of informational means
45
and methods aimed at improving the Identification, Collection, Circulation,
Communication, Protection and Use of information associated with the decision-
making processes of organizations".
This hypothesis of pooling and merging is particularly relevant when placed in an

inter-organizational framework. Indeed, the KM and IE no longer remain confined to
their respective fields of action, which are the company and the environment. Within
the third spaces constituted by business ecosystems and their extended enterprises,
they tend rather to join and collaborate intimately, in proportions defined beforehand
by the goals of the overall project.
A strategic vision
Before starting the implementation of these types of approaches, it is important for

the leading company taking the initiative to be consistent on the motivations
conditioning the launch of such a gaming dynamic.
It must also have a clear strategic intention on this project in order to be able to
propose an adapted part to its future partners.
Identified issues
Although the business stakes can be diverse and varied, business leaders generally
invoke four main areas of purpose motivating the launch of these KM projects (Prax,
2007) and similarly of IE.
Productivity optimization
This is achieved by improving the integration of information processes with their
related business processes. This translates into a better reuse of knowledge,
capitalization and standardization of best practices, the non-reinvention of the wheel,
the non-reproduction of errors to be avoided and the transfer of experience between
project team members.
Decision support in complex environments

The aim here is to promote the co-existence of the different points of view of the
46
stakeholders (customers, partners, suppliers) by listening to and anticipating needs.
This is done on the basis of common construction by seeking the best consensus
rather than an absolute truth, which is non-existent at this level of context.
Valuation of the company's intellectual capital,

It involves the identification of critical knowledge and skills. This "introspection"
enables the company to get to know itself better, and thus to facilitate access to its
expertise, to improve the development of its employees' motivation and recognition,
to be more stable in these relationships with its stakeholders and to be able to project
itself a little further in terms of its own evolution.
Innovation
This is the ability to detect the value of new information and to assimilate it in order to
create knowledge that will ultimately be transformed into an industrial project with a
commercial outcome. It is achieved in particular through the cross-fertilization of
ideas, information and experiences through more informal networks.
Within the overall framework of the cross-organizational knowledge project, all or

parts of these four domains can thus constitute the common vision shared by the
members of a business ecosystem or extended enterprise. However, at a more local,
and therefore more concrete, level, the implementation of each of these goals will
require approaches that may prove to be very different.
Adapted communities
Each of them will thus involve a specific professional community, to be set up

between the different organizations to meet these objectives (Prax, 2007). By
definition, a community is "a group of at least two people who influence each other
through social interactions" (Forsyth, 1990). The following typology will present four
different types of communities.
Permanent staff
It is a professional community in which function-based functioning (unit, department,
47
division) is paramount. Leadership is conditioned by hierarchical status. This mode of
organization is effective in carrying out permanent programmed activities. It
corresponds rather to a simple/complicated context, i.e. stable and predictable. It
thus fits well within the framework of goals oriented towards the optimization of
productivity.
Project group.
It is a professional community where task-based operation is paramount. The flow of
information and knowledge is only a secondary support. It is subordinated to the
accomplishment of a series of tasks in order to achieve a product or a service
according to a given quality, cost or deadline. The leader is the project manager,
guarantor of these commitments. Each actor has a precise role to play, assigned for
the duration of the project. This community corresponds rather to a
complicated/complex context and responds well to the framework of goals oriented
towards decision support.
Community of Practice
It is a professional community in which a competency-based approach is paramount,
which is a prerequisite for leadership. This mode of organization is informal,
transverse, spontaneous and based on the voluntary membership of members
belonging to a given expertise or profession. They are committed to a logic of mutual
aid, win-win exchanges, sharing of information, practices, experiences and know-
how. These flows of knowledge thus form the basis for mutual learning and the
construction of relationships of trust. This community clearly corresponds to a
complex context, and fits well within the framework of goals oriented towards the
valorization of intellectual capital.
Community of interest
This is the professional community with the most open mode of operation: there is no
leadership as such. The people who are gathered together in this community most
often share ideas, beliefs, opinions, causes, identity or a common proximity
(geographic or thematic). This community, sometimes implicitly constituted, plays an
48
important role in the dissemination of information. It thus fits particularly well within
the framework of innovation-oriented goals due to its complex nature.
Just as companies may belong to different ecosystems, individuals may also belong
to several distinct communities, in which the ways they play may also be different.
A choice of stakeholders
Another important thing to consider before starting the game is who the gambling
partners would be. Indeed, the creation and development of such a project requires a
certain investment of resources, which requires first defining the spectrum of
stakeholders beforehand.
A criterion of competence
A priori, all suppliers belonging to the value chain of the leading company are part of
the extended enterprise. However, not all of them have the same potential to create
value within this form of organization, both in terms of the flow of material and
immaterial resources.
In view of what has been defined above, it is reasonable to say that the enterprise
community that constitutes the extended enterprise knowledge ecosystem is the
inter-organizational equivalent of a community of practice.
This implies that its training is carried out on the basis of the synergies brought by the
core competencies of each of the future members. It is therefore advisable to
segmented according to the complementary nature of their know-how, in terms of
collaborative and competitive advantage.
This can only be done correctly if the leading company has first taken care to identify
the internal skills and knowledge of its own strategic core, and by induction the
criticality of its external needs in this regard.
49
A criterion of strategic culture
As we have seen above, another important principle in the formation of a community

of practice is the voluntary adherence of its members to a shared vision and identity.
This will only be possible if the players are in agreement with the type of game and
the main goals proposed by the leading company. Thus, among all the potential
participating companies, their strategic culture, i.e. both their culture and their
strategy, should also be taken into consideration.
This taking into account of points of view can be carried out upstream through
economic intelligence devices such as dedicated environmental perception and
influence devices. For example, it can thus be a question of setting up strategic
intelligence systems that integrate more societal dimensions.
It can also take place in a more natural way, during discussions between managers
or company directors, as the example of the creation of the Kalundborg industrial
ecosystem has shown us.
A capacity criterion
As we have seen above, a first project may very well be launched between
stakeholders who are not necessarily on the same playing field. In order to properly
balance this possible gap, it is therefore necessary to be able to assess the level of
the players likely to be involved in the game beforehand. In the same way, the
leading company initiating the project must take into consideration the organizational
capacities of these potential partners.
Traditionally, the evaluation of these is often linked to the structure of the company
(financial, commercial, legal, support) and to the design and production activities of
material resources (logistics, quality, technical, industrial).
50
In addition to these approaches, similar audits and benchmarking should also be
carried out on KM and IE capabilities, the game intelligence needed to achieve the
goals and issues related to the knowledge ecosystem project.
Just like the handicap stones invested on the checkerboard before the game starts,
these inventories of the intangible will allow to identify the first milestones to act in
view of the possible development of the partners concerned by the project.
A criterion of relationship
The choice of the players by the game initiator can also be conditioned by the
experiences of previous game(s) with some of them. Indeed, these may very well
have been played in the framework of other types of projects (business projects) on
global or local Goban.
This translates into what sociologist Mark Granovetter (1973) has called the strength
of social ties, a notion that can be extended to an inter-organizational level of
business ecosystems. This strengthening of links between firms is thus a function of
the amount of time, geographical proximity, mutual trust and reciprocal services that
are invested.
The strong links, and the resulting commitment, contribute greatly to accelerating the
exchange of knowledge between entities, through the collective construction of
common representations, values, language and culture.
However, a network made up of only strong links can lead in the worst case to the
emergence of a phenomenon of group thinking. Conversely, weak ties allow them to
connect to a wider variety of information, ideas and ways of thinking and to foster
innovation.
51
Figure 21: Illustration of strong ties (blue) and weak ties (orange) (From Joshua Porter, 2007)
In building up the members of a knowledge ecosystem, consideration should

therefore be given both to candidates with whom strong links have been developed
and to those with whom there is less common experience.
Indeed, the reputation effects induced by socialization in a community lead to secure

the dynamics of exchanges within it. Thus, the arrival of a new participant can be
achieved through co-optation by a trusted member, or by taking the first step in a
don-contradictory logic (Mauss, 1924) and showing his or her good will towards the
project's goals.
In order to identify potential future partners upstream, an interesting approach could

then be to analyze the (social) links of the networks of current members of the
knowledge ecosystem.
A criterion of size
One last thing to take into account regarding the choice of stakeholders by the
leading company. It is a question of questioning the number and the very nature of
the participants who can contribute to the construction of the knowledge project.
This brings us back to the notion of effilience, mentioned earlier in the first chapter,
52
and whose principle is quite similar to the criterion of relationship. It will thus be a
question of optimizing the performance of the community by finding a compromise
between the rationalization of actors and interconnections and the preservation of
their diversity.
On this last point, Nonaka and Takeushi (1995) consider the notion of redundancy as
facilitating the sharing of new knowledge, by making it possible to "enlighten a new
concept with complementary views" and thus better transfer its tacit part. This is a
very different conception from that of the West, which tends to see it as something
superfluous.
Moreover, as we have seen with the four "Ba", the processes of sharing tacit
knowledge take place between individuals in a framework of physical proximity, while
those of sharing explicit knowledge take place at the organizational level through a
virtual space based on NICTs.
Thus, at the inter-organizational level, the geographical location of members likely to

belong to the knowledge ecosystem should be taken into consideration by the
leading company. This is particularly relevant if the goals of this community involve
modes of operation based on tacit know-how.
In a more proactive way, it could even be envisaged to invest in the creation of local
physical sites dedicated to hosting the most sustainable collaborations, such as the
compensation of points awarded by the player with the initiative to play on the
Goban.
The consideration of these different criteria combined ultimately allows for a nuanced
discernment about knowledge exchange (present and future, short and long term),
among a wide range of potential stakeholders constituting its environment. It thus
contributes to the constitution of what Pierre-Xavier Meschi (2010-2011) calls a
"knowledge alliance portfolio".
53
54
Strategy and game management
A game of Go is played in several phases, traditionally identified as three.
The first of these phases is called "Fuseki" and is the beginning of the game. It is a
phase of initial distribution of stones on the checkerboard terrain in order to sketch
potential territories (or zones of influence), called "Moyo". Classical sequences,
called "Joseki", are often played here.
Figure 22: Illustration of the "Fuseki" phase
The second phase is the "Chuban", which refers to the middle game. It is a phase
characterized by the contact between the stones and the local problems of "life" and
"death" of the groups of stones. These "fights" consist mainly of invasions or
reductions of the opposing territories under construction.
Figure 23: Illustration of the "Chuban" phase
The third and last phase is finally that of the "Yose", which represents the end of the
game. It is a phase where the groups of stones stabilize and where the optimization
55
of the territories and the closing of the borders is carried out.
Figure 24: Illustration of the "Large Yose" and "Small Yose" phases
A distinction is traditionally made between the Large "Yose" and the Small "Yose".
Indeed, the first occurs directly after the end of the "Chuban" and is a matter of
negotiation, whereas the second concerns rather the finalization of the game.
The game finally ends when one of the players decides to give up, or more
commonly when both players pass their turn successively, considering that there are
no more moves to play on the board. An assessment of the territory points is then
made (by counting the captured stones and the Komi compensation points) in order
to determine the winner of the game.
Figure 25: Illustration of a completed game
An inter-organizational dynamic
Having identified the participants in the future knowledge ecosystem, it is then

necessary to understand the states in which these participants will (co)evolve over
time towards collaboration. Given the complexity of the context, the collaboration
56
around the global project is thus carried out along the way, which corresponds very
well to the dynamics of the game of Go and its major game phases.
In this regard, the group development model proposed by the psycho-sociologist

Bruce Tuckman (1965) also proves to be a strong source of inspiration and analogy.
It should be noted, however, that this model was developed for a small group size.
We will therefore assume that the same would be true for the number of initial
partners involved in our emerging knowledge community.
Figure 26: Group Development Model (From Tuckman)
Training ("Forming") or "Fuseki".
This is the stage at which members begin to "get to know" each other (if they are not
already doing so), to create initial links around their complementarities and common
interests.
Behavior is guided by the need to belong to the group, which avoids conflict and
polemics in this phase of preparation and trial and error. Stakeholders also become
aware of the challenges and opportunities and give their prior agreement on these
objectives. After this definition of direction, the first tasks and routines (organization,
roles and responsibilities) begin to be carried out independently and under the
57
leadership of the leader, with whom stronger links are created.
Turbulence ("Storming") or "Chuban".
This is a less comfortable stage because it is more hectic than the previous one,
often taking place in a setting where real collective action must be taken in the face
of a problem or critical situation. This fire of action then frees the expression of
frustrations and questions about the goals, functioning, leadership, roles and
responsibilities of each person. Behaviour is guided here by the search for
consideration and recognition of differences. This is characterized by a confrontation
of the ideas and perspectives of the members, which leads to conflicts, polarizations
and camps on these positions. The leader will thus tend to make himself more
accessible and receptive to this advice, but also to remain a guide in terms of
decision making and the attitude to follow.
Like the considerations of life and death in the game of Go, this phase of "fighting" for
coexistence can be both creative and destructive. However, when it is resolved and
overcome (which is not always the case), it allows the community to grow in
confidence and maturity, through tolerance and patience.
Standardization ("Norming") or "Grand Yose".
It is a stage of return to serenity, where the team has truly succeeded in establishing
values and a shared purpose. Thanks to an ability to agree and to let go, a
consensus was able to emerge among the different points of view. This leads to a
much more functional and motivated community, where its members are able to self-
adjust their behavior in relation to others. This collective awareness of roles,
responsibilities and missions enables them to work more harmoniously towards the
achievement of objectives. Faced with the development of this autonomy, the leader
can then adopt a more participatory style.
Performance ("Performing") or "Petit Yose".
58
This is the ultimate stage of community development, where members now form a
whole whose performance is greater than the sum of its parts. This collective
intelligence translates into high levels of competence, motivation, autonomy and
harmony. Work is thus carried out smoothly and efficiently without inappropriate
conflict or even recourse to external control. The leader can then leave decision-
making to community members and practice delegation with confidence.
Dissolution ("Adjourning") or Completed Part
This is the stage that marks the community's closing of the project, when participants
are ready to redirect themselves to other horizons. It is also a time to take stock of
the project's successes and to review good practices and lessons learned. Rather,
the focus here is on the leader's role in facilitating the grieving phase of the project
and the detachment of members. This can be done by proposing new projects to
revive the development dynamic.
In the knowledge ecosystem framework, the latter state may very well concern one
(or more) of the stakeholders. This could in some way correspond to a kind of
abandonment of part. In the same way, the gradual introduction of new players into
the game may lead the community to return to previous states (such as "storming" for
example) and the community itself had already reached a state of optimal
performance.
"Think Global, Act Local
Finally, a last important point concerns the way in which the overall project, resulting
from the interactions between the community's stakeholders, takes shape in a
concrete manner. The answer lies one last time in the dynamics of the game of go
and its game phases.
In fact, like the stones coming together over the course of the game to form different
areas of territory, each company will set up during this global project a set of local
projects (breakthrough project) that will federate coherently to help form the design,
59
the different goals of the vision of the game.
Figure 27: Illustration of "breakthrough projects," a balance between initiatives that are too "light" and a
single project that is too "heavy
As we have seen previously, these local projects will in turn involve communities, this
time human, of different types depending on the goals, which will play on boards of a
size corresponding to less strategic, and therefore more tactical heights.
Each part being unique, we do not go into the concrete details of the implementation
of these projects here. On the other hand, we are going to comment on the case of
Airbus, the company where my corporate experience took place, and where the
game is still going on.
60
A commented Game
In Go game vocabulary, the term "Kifu" refers to the diagram representing the state
of a game in progress. It is thus a Goban grid on which one can analyze the
sequences of moves already made by the different players, through the numbering of
the stones placed on the board.
Figure 28: Illustration of a Kifu
This section proposes to carry out a similar study for the case of the part already
hired by Airbus, a company in which I had the opportunity to follow the Knowledge
Management team. A slightly more concrete parallel can then be drawn between the
eastern and western approaches to KM.
We will first present the Airbus company and its context in terms of extended
enterprise and knowledge management. We will then try to give some ideas on how
the current state of affairs could evolve with regard to the models from the
Pedagogical Part, and by drawing inspiration from examples drawn from Toyota's
extended enterprise approach.
61
Airbus presentation
Airbus is a company whose origins date back to the creation of an Economic Interest
Grouping (EIG), a European consortium based on a strategic alliance between
aircraft manufacturers Aerospatiale (France) and Daimler Aerospace (Germany).
They were quickly joined by CASA (1971), one of their Spanish counterparts, and a
little later by British Aerospace (BAe) in 1979.
In 2001, the European aeronautics industry was consolidating, moving what had
been the Airbus Industrie consortium towards more vertical integration: Airbus
Integrated Company (AIC). This resulted in the merger of its three founding members
into EADS (European Aeronautic Defense & Space Company). This leading
European aeronautics group then held 80% of the capital, with British Aerospace
owning the remaining 20%. EADS then bought this share in 2006, making Airbus a
wholly-owned subsidiary of EADS.
This restructuring is the result of a European political and economic will to group
together and converge its actors towards common goals, "where each member wins
if the group wins" (Lalouette et al., 2008). Airbus is therefore now an integrated
company made up of a parent company and four "National Companies" ("NatCos"):
Airbus Central Entity (headquartered in Blagnac near Toulouse), Airbus Operations
SAS (France), Airbus Operations GmbH (Germany), Airbus Operations Ltd (UK),
Airbus Operation SL (Spain).
Activities
Airbus designs, sells, builds and supports complete aircraft families. It employs
55,000 people worldwide.
 The A300/A310 family (or "Wide Body"), the first wide-body aircraft built by the
company in 1972.
 The A320/A318/A319/A321 (or "Single Aisle") family, a small aircraft produced
in 1988.
62
 The A330/A340 (or "Long Range") family, a long-haul aircraft that entered
service in 1992.
 The A380 family (or "Double Decker"), the latest (very large) aircraft produced
in 2005.
There is also the A400M, which is the Airbus military aircraft.
Figure 29: Illustration of Airbus aircraft families
Originally, the A300 was named after its standard 300-passenger configuration.
Subsequently, each new model was given a name that increased in 10 increments:
A310, A320, A330, A340, with the shortened or lengthened versions of the A320
receiving a very similar number (A318, A319, A321). The theory would thus have
wanted that at the time of its launch, the A380 would have taken the name of A350:
but with special aircraft, special treatment. Was then proposed "A360", the figure
recalling the 360 ° of a round-the-world trip but in the end the decision makers opted
for A380. One reason was that the number 8 was reminiscent of the two rows of
superimposed windows that characterize the aircraft. Another reason, probably more
important, is that 8 is a lucky number in the Eastern tradition: Asia being the main
market targeted by the aircraft manufacturer's flagship.
63
Airbus is a company organized in a matrix fashion in several dimensions.
 The parent company and its four national companies.

 The Programs, one per aircraft family.
 The Centers of Competences (CoC), which brings together the major
Engineering professions (Structure, Systems, Landing Gear, Propulsion
Systems, Flight Physics).
 The Centers of Excellence (CoE), which bring together operations
(Manufacturing, Industrialization, etc.).
 The Support Functions, which serve the previous ones (Research,
Purchasing, Logistics, Customer Services, etc.).
Most of the design of the aircraft and their main components is done in the same
places where they are manufactured, depending on the specialties. However, there
are a few other design centers outside Europe, such as those in Wichita, Kansas,
and Mobile, Alabama, in the United States, and those in Moscow, Russia and
Bangalore, India. This geographical location is quite unique compared to the other
major multinational aircraft manufacturers, which have plants spread all over the
world and very far apart.
 The wings of the aircraft are made in Filton and Broughton (United Kingdom).
 Front and rear fuselages in Nordenham, Varel, Bremen & Hamburg (Germany)
 The nose and the central part of the fuselage in Toulouse, Saint Nazaire and
Nantes (France)
 Vertical stabilizers in Stade (Germany)
 Reactor masts and nacelles in Toulouse on the historic site of Saint Eloi
(France)
 Horizontal stabilizers and some sections of the A380 in Getafe, Illescas and
Puerto Real (Spain)
Other components also come from suppliers in other parts of the world (e.g. motors
with General Electric).
64
Figure 30: Representation of Airbus in the world
Although the final assembly represents only 5% of the total added value, the parts
manufactured by Airbus and its partners are then symbolically assembled at the
Toulouse & Hamburg sites, depending on the aircraft and its variants. An A320
assembly site was also opened in 2008 in Tianjin, China, as part of a joint venture
51%-owned by Airbus. The A400M aircraft is assembled near Seville, Spain.
Eventually, the A330/A340 families will be replaced by the more energy-efficient

A350XWBs. A new Final Assembly Line (FAL) will then be dedicated to them at the
Toulouse assembly site, in addition to the A380s. The Hamburg site will then be
responsible for assembling the entire A320/A318/A319/A321 family.
The transport of the assemblies to these final assembly sites required the
implementation of a specific logistics system. This system has been optimized for the
A380 through the development of special vehicles for the transportation of its
sections via a dedicated land, river and sea transport network. Air transport is also
carried out via the Beluga, a cargo aircraft specially designed for the occasion.
65
Figure 31: Illustration of the logistics system for transporting aircraft components
Extended Company
Despite a large number of alliances and partnerships that have historically been part
of its DNA, Airbus has not always operated as an extended enterprise.
The company carried out almost all of its activities in-house before 1988, only
subcontracting when it was temporarily unable to manufacture (Alcouffe and
Corrégé, 2004). The launch of the A340 long-haul aircraft program then led to an
initial refocusing on its business as an aircraft manufacturer, which led to the
outsourcing of activities deemed non-strategic. Workpackage work packages are
then outsourced ("worksharing") to suppliers with a view to establishing long-term
relationships. Faced with a supplier network that had become too complex and large,
a rationalization and reduction phase was undertaken from 1993 onwards. It
consisted in selecting so-called Tier 1 subcontractors ("First tier supplier"). These
subcontractors then contract directly with Airbus and are responsible for selecting
and managing their own suppliers, known as Tier 2 ("Second tier supplier"). This
strengthens the ties of trust with first-tier suppliers, uniquely "sourced", who are
involved further upstream in the design process.
After the crisis in the aeronautical sector, Airbus was forced in 1996 to find a
compromise between maintaining relations with this network and a vital recovery of
workload. An improvement initiative called "Growth and Adaptation through
Processes" (CAP) was launched. One of its goals is to reduce transaction costs,
which arise at the purchasing level when a supplier behaves in a monopolistic and/or
66
opportunistic manner with regard to its non-competitive situation. In order to reduce
the phenomena of dependency and the resulting rigidification (loss of confidence),
the paradoxical approach found then consisted in reintroducing a certain amount of
competition. The objective is to have both the regulatory benefits of the market and
those of "single-source sustainable relationships" (Alcouffe and Corrégé, 2004).
The visible appearance of the extended enterprise concept at Airbus is closely linked
to the announcement of the development of the new A350 XWB aircraft program,
where it is the subject of significant internal communication.
Indeed, the development of the previous programs (A380 & A400M) was carried out
in a context of already strained resources, which led to a search for new ones, both
in terms of funding and skills. The solution envisaged was to free up certain
resources internally, which led the company to redefine itself once again by focusing
even more on its core competencies. This time, Airbus is changing its business
model from a manufacturer to an architect-integrator of its products.
This process also led to the identification of new partners to whom to transfer part of
Airbus' internal assets in order to create new EADS subsidiaries. Airbus therefore
launched its Zephyr program in 2008 and divested some of its sites in Europe to
establish them as first-tier suppliers. The first sites concerned were Filton, which is
now largely owned by the GKN Group, and Laupheim (Germany), which was sold to
Diehl/Thales and is now called Diehl Cabin. In France, sites in Méaulte, Saint
Nazaire Ville and Toulouse were also combined to form Aerolia. Finally, four other
German sites based in Varel, Nordenham, Bremen and Hamburg were combined to
become Premium Aerotech GmbH (PAG).
In order to respond appropriately to its resource requirements, Airbus continues to

outsource increasingly large industrial batches and entrusts them to its suppliers.
This shift from a "Make" to a "Buy" logic requires the implementation of new working
methods adapted both internally and externally. With this in mind, the Extended
Enterprise project was launched, updating the working methods of previous
programs (A380 & A400M).
In the design of Airbus, its members meet the following conditions :
67
 Be a Tier 1 supplier responsible for the development and production of a
product ("Design & Build").
 This includes Airbus or EADS subsidiaries (Aerolia, Premium Aerotech,
Sogerma, etc.).
 To be suppliers of aircraft parts
Two main categories of aircraft parts are traditionally distinguished in the

aeronautical world.
 The Systems Domain, which concerns the aircraft's functional equipment (flight
control systems, mechanical and electrical actuators) and the components
used to connect them (electrical wiring, piping).
 Aerostructure, which concerns the external (wings, fuselage, tailplane, etc.) and
internal (floors, frames, ribs) structural elements of the aircraft.
It is also necessary to distinguish the notion of specialty subcontracting from the

notion of co-contracting, which is very widespread in the aeronautical industry.
At Airbus, this is a partnership in which the supplier also bears the costs related to
the development and production of a product. Unlike a "Design & Build" relationship,
this is a true Risk Sharing Partnership (RSP) whose success depends on the
success of the program. In return for these financial risks, the partner will have the
right to sell the products it has co-processed with Airbus, as long as the program is in
operation. This type of strategic alliance is particularly used in the aerostructure
sector and is becoming increasingly important.
68
Figure 32: Illustration of the Importance of PSR Involvement in the A350XWB Program
Airbus and members of the extended enterprise collaborate with common ways of
working (WoW). These are also declined according to the Aerostructure and Systems
dimensions.
These shared processes, methods and tools are supplemented by specific
requirements called General Requirements for Aerostructure and Material Suppliers
(GRAMS) and General Requirements for Equipment and Systems (GRESS).
A base of documents (procedural, product-specific technique) and tools are then

adapted according to the type of supplier. It forms the basis of the contractual
relationship. Data exchanges are made through a common computer network.
Two major design phases are then carried out, one collaborative and the other
distributed. The first is the Joint Definition Phase (JDP), where the two partners work
together in a development platform where the teams are co-located within Airbus.
This is followed by the industrialization and ramp-up phase. This time, each team
returns to its own premises with an Airbus team residing at the partner's site.
69
Finally, all the activities of its two main phases are structured in the form of
"Workpackages", which are themselves managed by managers called "Customer
Team Leader" (CTL) for the Aerostructure sphere, and "Work Package Leader"
(WPL) for the Systems sphere.
Knowledge Management @ Airbus
The beginnings of Knowledge Management were born at Airbus in the 1990s. At the
time, these were initiatives specific to each of the founding countries: France was
more focused on memorizing knowledge, Germany on exchange platforms and
collaborative intranets, and the United Kingdom on modeling knowledge and
expertise. When Airbus was integrated in 2001, these initiatives also evolved and a
transnational department was created within the Engineering branch.
In 2004, the implementation of the "Route 06" restructuring plan was, paradoxically,
the main driving force behind the launch of such an approach. Indeed, even as hiring
was declining, the company found itself faced with a massive wave of retirements.
These "papi-boomers" included a good number of "pioneering" engineers who had
worked on flagship programs such as Concorde.
At the time, no one among the managers was in a position to give a quantitative or
qualitative estimate of the loss that this knowledge could represent. The KM team
was then asked to propose an approach to secure knowledge transfer. It had to be
quick to implement, inexpensive, adaptable to a heterogeneous population, and the
return on investment had to be equally rapid.
Almost 8 years after this initiative within Engineering, the department has since
become a reference in Knowledge Management in the industrial sector. It is now part
of the Airbus HR branch, due to the progressive extension of KM demand to all
Airbus Functions on all historical entities (France, Spain, UK, Germany). At the end of
last year, the department was also given responsibility for skills management, which
is highly complementary to its initial activity.
70
Vision
The department's vision is to contribute to performance improvement by ensuring the

retention, transfer and development of knowledge, skills and competencies
throughout Airbus.
 Key knowledge and skills are identified and mastered.

 KM's activities are integrated into the business processes on a daily basis.
 Knowledge sharing is recognized and is part of the culture.
 People invest in networks and continuous learning/training.
 Good practices are identified and reused.
 Experience on products and processes is captured and appropriate feedback
solutions ("Lessons Learnt": LL) are operational.
 KM solutions are interoperable across the extended enterprise.
 Improvements are measured
71
Missions
 Define Airbus' KM policy, support and steer its implementation.

 Develop KM's solution portfolio (methods, processes and tools)
 Develop KM skills within Airbus and spread the KM culture
 Contribute to bridging gaps in knowledge, skills and talents.
 Guide and advise functions in all aspects of KM, including organization and
processes, and provide day-to-day support for the operation of the solutions.
 Enable Airbus to establish and practice KM standards in the extended
enterprise
 Develop the KM@Airbus as the reference for Knowledge Management within
EADS
 Conducting research, benchmarking and surveys on KM
Solutions Portfolio
 "Knowledge Management Overall Diagnosis" (KMOD), a generic solution for

auditing needs in terms of knowledge transfer, formalization and acquisition. It
is based, among other things, on knowledge mapping and knowledge
criticality analysis.
 "Expertise Transfer" (ExTra), a device oriented flow rather than stock, which
allows to establish a concrete action plan for knowledge transfer between
"donor" and "recipient" employees. It is based on interview techniques and
avoids the loss of knowledge when employees leave and/or move.
 "Yellow Pages" (YP), a corporate social networking platform that aims to
enable all Airbus employees around the world to find the "right" person with
the "right" knowledge more quickly before making contact.
 "Professional Networks (PN), a solution that facilitates the linking of people in
communities of practice, learning, knowledge development, research,
innovation and even interest.
72
 "Innovation Management (IM), a solution to create the environment and
conditions for innovation based on methods that support this process
throughout its lifecycle, from idea generation to concrete implementation.
 "Re-use, Improve & Share Experience" (RISE), a solution allowing the creation
and sustainable management of feedback. This is notably materialized by a
transnational platform for capturing and researching "lessons learnt".
 "Knowledge Capture & Publishing" (KCP), a flexible methodology for capturing
and publishing knowledge (product & process) in a structured and accessible
format.
 "Business Search" (BS), an information retrieval tool with access to multiple
databases and offering results classified according to the user's business
perspective.
 Figure 33: The Airbus KM Wheel
73
In parallel with these solutions, the Knowledge Management team also provides
in-house training and awareness raising on the subject. It also contributes to the
identification and proper management of Airbus Key Competencies ("Airbus Key
Competencies": AKC) within the company. Finally, she is in charge of the project
"Airbus Global Integration Process" (AGIP) which concerns the improvement of
the welcome of newcomers.
Feedback from experience
Toyota is the world leader in the automotive industry, which makes it something of an
Airbus alter ego in this market. It is also particularly recognized for its knowledge-
sharing approaches with and within its extended enterprise. Similarly, Chrysler, an
American company, has managed to rise to the top of the basket by drawing
inspiration from its elder brother's model.
In order to compare "styles of play," we will first identify a number of Toyota practices
and initiatives from J.H. Dyer's "Collaborative Advantage" (2000). Finally, we will
conclude with a proposal of some suggestions and directions to potentially consider
for the evolution of the game currently played by Airbus. This will be based in
particular on the analysis of a collection of internal documents and semi-directive
interviews carried out during my experience with the company.
Lessons from Toyota
Fifty years ago, Toyota created a supplier association ("Kyohokai") with the primary
goal of developing mutual relationships with its suppliers and providing a framework
for knowledge exchange. This is achieved through social events such as training, site
visits, conferences and case study presentations. It thus represents an important
vehicle for creating the network's identity by allowing its members to feel part of a
larger collective. Its members meet on a regular basis, with the frequency of
meetings ranging from annual meetings for the General Assembly to monthly
74
meetings for more specific committees, relating to support subjects (costs, quality,
safety) or technical subjects (parts and assemblies produced).
Toyota also established the Operations Management Consulting Division (OMCD) in

1960. The American equivalent is called "Toyota Supplier Support Process" (TSSP).
It is an organizational unit responsible for acquiring, storing, and disseminating
valuable knowledge across the extended enterprise. The consultants in this division
are accessible to all EE members and intervene on their site to help them with their
production and logistics problems. These improvement operations are carried out
free of charge by Toyota, which considers itself to be the first beneficiary through the
network effect. This service is therefore not strongly linked to that of Purchasing so
that the latter is not tempted to ask for price reductions after the fact.
Another step was to set up voluntary study groups ("Jishuken"), called Plant
Development Activity (PDA), in the United States. These are about fifty key Toyota
suppliers grouped coherently according to their activity under the aegis of the OMCD.
Their objective is to help each other on quality and productivity improvement issues.
Each group typically includes 5 to 8 suppliers of the same level who are not direct
competitors. The composition changes every 3 years in order to preserve the
freshness of these groups. Based on an annual theme defined by Toyota, each
supplier is alternately the focus of peer attention for a period of 4 months. Through
site visits, the group examines the processes and gives suggestions for
improvement. The results are later shared with everyone at an annual conference.
In addition to these "Jishuken", Toyota has also set up expert problem-solving teams
that mobilize the knowledge of the network to deal with quality issues following a
specific process. This process can lead to knowledge transfers between two
competing suppliers if the knowledge of one can help the problem of the other.
In the same spirit, visits by American suppliers to Japanese suppliers of the same
components are also organized.
Finally, a fairly common practice specific to Japanese companies is that of inter-firm

employee transfers ("Shukko"). This is a formidable mechanism for transferring tacit
knowledge through the socialization process. Toyota has 120 to 130 employees,
75
mainly sent to suppliers. Some of these transfers may be the result of a request from
a supplier with a specific skill requirement: a request is then sent to HR through
purchasing and Toyota is responsible for conducting a search within the organization.
The job rotation analysis unit is therefore in this specific case not the firm but the
extended company itself, which contributes to strengthening its identity.
In order to ensure that this networking with its suppliers ("Keiretsu") takes place in the
right way, Toyota has defined a number of operating precepts. A first condition is to
accept the sharing and mutualization of some of its tacit knowledge (not part of its
core competencies). This "entry fee" to the network is therefore based on a
willingness to open up some of this knowledge to other members, with a view to
reviewing and improving it. This is done in a logic of reciprocity, which started when
Toyota wanted to share its knowledge about its famous "Toyota Production System".
The leitmotiv "What's good for the extended company is good for me, and vice versa"
sums up the desired dynamic very well.
The intellectual property thus passes from the firm level to the extended enterprise
level according to fixed rules of delimitation. Other fields of knowledge can thus be
protected while remaining outside the network. For example, Toyota continues to
protect its explicit knowledge related to the design and technology of its products.
Similarly, suppliers have a veto right over case studies from their operations. As a
result, the dissemination of common knowledge outside the network remains very
limited due to the membership of the network.
The above examples constitute the sequence of key lessons that Dyer (2000)
considers to be the key lessons for implementing an extended enterprise correctly.
The first is to develop supplier relationships and an extended corporate identity. For
example, when Toyota set up a similar supplier association in the United States, its
initial purpose was to share explicit non-proprietary knowledge and create social ties
among its suppliers. In 10 years, it has grown from 13 to 100 members because of its
visible added value.
The second step is to strengthen the ties and trust between the leading company
76
(network head) and suppliers. For Toyota, this was achieved through its SMOCD and
TSSP, via the knowledge transfer activities of its consultants. This has made it
possible to initiate a give-and-take approach whereby Toyota exchanges its own
knowledge (Toyota Production System) in exchange for opening up some of its
suppliers' knowledge to the community.
The final step is to strengthen the links between the suppliers themselves, in order to
build a set of sub-networks. Toyota's creation of "learning teams" of suppliers has
greatly contributed to developing this strength of relationships and their autonomy
with regard to knowledge sharing.
Thus, in its initial phase, Toyota had a unique network of bilateral relationships and
weak links with its suppliers. In the final phase, it evolved its structure by adding
multiple supplier sub-networks and developed multilateral relationships based on
strong links.
Similarly, the type of knowledge exchanged has shifted from explicit knowledge to a
more balanced mix incorporating tacit knowledge. Finally, the motivation of members,
initially based on demonstrating commitment to the firm, has evolved towards the
acquisition of valuable knowledge, on a reciprocal and positive-sum (win-win) basis
where it is more a matter of making the cake bigger than dividing the pieces.
Airbus State of play
Airbus has also put in place a number of initiatives to facilitate, directly or indirectly,
the evolution of the knowledge sharing environment towards the extended enterprise.
Numerous initiatives have also been launched as part of the A350 XWB program,
which is closely linked to this form of organization. A strong internal communication
has been launched to make this organization visible within Airbus and its suppliers
and partners.
The company also created its own Supplier Councils in 2006. These councils are set
up in response to the tense relations with its Tier 1 suppliers in connection with the
77
A380 program. Added to this was the threat from Boeing, whose 787 collaboration
model had already attracted a dozen OEMs. The purpose of these councils is to
facilitate change in working methods and improve supplier performance through a
process of listening to suppliers. They mainly concern the sphere of Systems and
Aerostructure (each with around twenty key suppliers).
Bi-annual meetings are held between the CEOs of the various suppliers and the
representative members of purchasing, engineering, support and programs. They
operate as an open forum to develop rather informal network relationships, exchange
feedback and best practices and conduct program reviews. At the same time,
working sessions are organized in project mode to address concrete issues.
Another Council, the Extended Enterprise Council, was created to facilitate the
launch of this A350 XWB program. This is a cross-functional management team
made up of members representing all Airbus functions. It is in charge of the
relationship and cascades of responsibilities from Strategy to Operations (Program,
Engineering, Procurement, Manufacturing, Support), from the call for tenders to the
end of the collaboration. He is also in charge of establishing the technological
roadmap, policies, governance, synergies, risks & opportunities, improvement
processes and consolidating the performance of key suppliers. This consultancy is at
the origin of the development at EADS level of a policy for managing interactions with
suppliers and partners in the extended enterprise. This policy aims at improving risk
management, opportunity capture, cost and time reduction, while adopting a more
collaborative way of working with key suppliers.
Airbus has also set up an Extended Enterprise Services department, which is

attached to the company's Quality branch. Its objective is to facilitate the integration
of suppliers throughout the lifecycle of the work packages they are assigned. This
translates into services designed to prepare, enable, support, improve and close this
collaboration; a bit like a trip taken together on an airplane.
78
Figure 34: All "Extended Enterprise Services" represented according to the metaphor of an airplane journey
Similarly, a similar team has recently been put in place on the Purchasing side to
implement effective supplier development. This network of integrators is in charge of
centralizing information from the different functions involved in order to provide a
global picture of suppliers' strengths and weaknesses in order to define improvement
and change paths. This is done by identifying development priorities, defining action
plans, mobilizing the necessary resources and steering the measures taken in order
to achieve interesting results.
From a more technical point of view, Airbus has also evolved this collaboration in
terms of design methods, processes and tools (PMT). Wiring malfunctions and
delivery delays on the A380 were caused in particular by incompatible versions of
computer-aided design (CAD) software between the different Airbus sites. Today, a
collaborative 3D virtual product management tool (VPM: Virtual Project Management)
has enabled harmonization. Internal and external designers are connected in real
time to each other's work and see how their work is integrated within the surrounding
assemblies (DIC: Design in Context).
In the same vein, a similar approach is taking place within the Information and
Communication Technologies branch of Airbus. A team dedicated to the Extended
Enterprise, called "Worldwide Services", has been set up to meet the new
requirements in terms of information systems. Indeed, the majority of users are now
becoming more and more external to Airbus, leading to profound changes. So here
too, it is a question of providing support and meeting the needs of partners, while
collaborating on standardizing and simplifying solutions.
From a more intangible perspective, AKC is an initiative launched in 2008 to ensure
79
more systematic monitoring of Airbus' key skills ("Aircraft Architect", "Electrical
Integration", "Composite Manufacturing", "Composite Design", etc.). ). The AKC
approach consists of building, for each of the key competencies, a roadmap
integrating the necessary actions of recruitment, training and redirection of resources
that will enable Airbus to achieve its strategic and industrial objectives. The extended
enterprise and the "Make or Buy" policy are of course important factors that are taken
into account in this process.
In terms of Knowledge Management, solutions such as ExTra and RISE are among
those that are most prevalent across Airbus' extended enterprise. The former can be
deployed with suppliers, especially when transferring work packages between them
or in the example of the Zephyr program. Access to the RISE solution (which is
currently the most integrated in business processes) is also made available to a large
number of suppliers through the Airbus internal intranet. A capitalization of the
company experience heard is finally carried out and transmitted between the current
aircraft program (A350XWB) and the next one (A320NEO).
A learning organization approach was also launched in 2008 as part of a pilot project
within one of the development platforms for the A350XWB program. This consists of
the implementation of learning paths, with a "training" and an "action" dimension. The
first aims to improve individual skills and the second to improve collective skills
between Airbus and its suppliers. The latter is achieved through case studies, use
cases, the implementation of communities of practice and the involvement of
Knowledge Management services such as Professional Networks, RISE and Yellow
Pages.
In a more general way, but this time more within Airbus or EADS, it should be noted
that similar communities of practice exist, particularly through networks and thematic
groups focused on innovation issues ("Global Innovation Networks", "Research &
Technology Groups") or business intelligence ("Business Intelligence Circle",
"Intelligent network").
Assessment & Development paths
In view of the reading keys mentioned in the previous section, the context of Airbus
presented in this one, and the benchmark that the case of Toyota constitutes, a
80
certain number of observations can be established concerning the extended Airbus
company and its project, or policy, of inter-organizational knowledge.
These will be based on my personal experience and analysis, and thus could in no
way be an absolute truth, but rather a representation that I have built up on this
subject.
In terms of the business ecosystem, and following the Tuckman community

development model, the training phase of Airbus' extended enterprise can be
considered to have begun with the launch of the A340 program. The project then
went through a series of "Storming" phases, particularly during the A380 program,
and "Norming", which is the current state of affairs for the A350 XWB program.
In terms of the knowledge ecosystem, however, Airbus is rather in a formative or

even turbulent phase, due to the recent implementation of inter-organizational
initiatives on this subject. Indeed, with regard to the Toyota model, the company is
currently working only within the framework of bilateral relations and rather on the
basis of explicit knowledge. However, it has begun to strengthen its ties with some of
its suppliers, notably through its Suppliers Council. The next step would therefore
seem to be to continue along this path, on the basis of reciprocity, consideration of
points of view and consensus (particularly in the harmonization of processes,
methods, tools and ways of working), which would promote the transition to a phase
of standardization.
In the same vein, "Extended Enterprise Services" seems to be an approach similar to

the "Toyota Supplier Support Process", the second step in the sequence, which could
also evolve according to its don-contradict principles. The Learning Organization pilot
project is also an interesting first step towards the development of collaboration
between Airbus and its suppliers. In this respect, it is similar to the "Plan
Development Activity", the third stage launched by Toyota. However, the latter seems
to have focused a lot on the training aspect and its internalization processes, less on
the learning group aspect and its socialization processes around tacit knowledge,
which represents 80% of the exchanges.
In terms of strategic vision, Airbus still seems to lack perspective and clarity about
where it wants to go with these types of global projects, although the goals seem a
priori defined. This can be explained by the fact that these have been launched in
81
reaction rather than anticipation to the changing socio-economic context of the last
two decades. As a result, their development is gradually taking place through
capitalization and successive improvements from aircraft programs to aircraft
programs. However, beyond the latter, it could ultimately be interesting to make a
global discernment of the network of stakeholders concerned in one way or another
by the various exchanges of knowledge. Thus, suppliers other than those involved in
the design phases could prove to be equally relevant players.
In this sense, the AKC skills development process, currently underway, contributes to
the definition of criteria for needs and synergies in terms of knowledge and skills.
Like KMOD, it would help to distinguish between knowledge that will remain
proprietary and knowledge that can be shared with the community. Other criteria
could also be exploited, such as strategic culture and organizational capacity. These
could be achieved through the development of specific monitoring and audits carried
out upstream and in addition to those dedicated to business processes
(industrialization, technology, production).
In terms of organizational capabilities, Airbus has a fairly advanced internal maturity

in terms of Knowledge Management and Business Intelligence, the latter having
developed very well in the Purchasing division. It could therefore be interesting to
take advantage of synergies resulting from the pooling of the Extended Enterprise
consulting experience on the one hand, and on the other hand of the experience that
the KM department already has at this organizational level (RISE, ExTra) or during its
participation in the learning organization project. A representation of the latter on the
board could then be an idea to consider.
In terms of structure, the establishment of appropriate communities plays an

important role in the implementation of goals ranging from productivity optimization to
innovation. The Airbus ecosystem has a territorialized configuration that facilitates
the exchange of knowledge (especially tacit knowledge) by setting up local
communities between companies. These could be an excellent complement to the
more distant, but necessary communities made possible by Yellow Pages or
"Worlwide Services" solutions, which are more intended to link different entities and
transnational partners. In the same way, this configuration constitutes a strong
potential to promote approaches similar to Toyota's "Shukko", which are transfers of
employees between companies in line with skills needs. This could thus constitute a
superior step with respect to the migrations which already exist punctually and for a
fixed period of time within the framework of the phases of work in plateau.
82
Finally, after years of integration, the shift to an extended enterprise paradigm is
forcing Airbus to reinvent itself and review its cultural fundamentals, in order to adapt
them to its new environment. This time it would be a question of developing values
that are more focused on leadership, more consistent with its new role as an
architect-integrator in relation to its previous role as a prime contractor. This leads to
a change management approach that resonates with the one related to the
implementation of inter-organizational knowledge sharing approaches. Knowledge
Management solutions within Airbus are already well mature, but are facing cultural
and structural obstacles due to its matrix organization. In the same way that business
and knowledge ecosystems are intimately linked, knowledge processes should
therefore be integrated within business processes. In this sense, a joint work
between the Knowledge Management and Change Management departments could
prove useful. This should be supported by the general management of the extended
enterprise project and implemented through appropriate and valued experimental
approaches, as in the example of the past learning organization project.
83
Conclusion
In an eclectic approach, this professional thesis proposed to give elements of

answers to the problem of why and how to design a project of inter-organizational
knowledge sharing. In particular, it was based on a series of analogies and
correspondences with the Game of Go, a medium that allowed us to facilitate the
representation of the subject. In the context of this conclusion, we will briefly recall
the development of its structure and content, highlighting the different keys to reading
it.
The answer to why was approached through the context of the socio-economic
environment, which we have tried to qualify. This resulted in the highlighting of its
complex character and the need to operate in a collaborative mode. We thus
considered the concept of business ecosystem and its declension in extended
enterprise, notably through the notion of core competence. This led us to underline
the importance and necessity of knowledge exchanges within the network of
companies constituted by this new organizational form, in addition to the exchange of
material resources.
The question of how, which we also sought to elucidate, was then raised.
First of all, we asked ourselves how knowledge manifests itself and can be
exchanged from an individual to a collective level. During a necessary distinction
made between the notions of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, we were
able to see that knowledge should be conceived as a construction of representation
of reality by a subject, and not as an object as such. A typology of the latter was also
drawn up, in order to highlight its explicit and tacit character, and the importance of
the latter. The notion of "Ba" then enlightened us on how knowledge can emerge at a
collective level, through processes of interactions that allow for transitions between
these tacit and explicit states. The latter then act within these "spaces" dedicated to
fostering interactions between individuals at different levels of organization. Thus,
these various observations have revealed that knowledge sharing is more a matter of
the development of favourable conditions facilitating the circulation of these flows,
rather than a directive control of these flows, which is in the domain of physical flows.
84
Returning to our complex context, these previous concepts have resulted in the need
to consider a knowledge ecosystem, the inter-organizational "Ba" allowing the
emergence of collaboration between the stakeholders of a business ecosystem.
A final question then arose on how to set up such a global knowledge project. We
then tried to identify some key points concerning the constitution and evolution of this
knowledge ecosystem. First of all, the need for well-established organizational
capacities appeared, which we explained through the Knowledge Management and
Business Intelligence approaches. We have emphasized the fact that these two
approaches tend to become complementary, particularly in the context of business
and knowledge ecosystems. Secondly, we have shown the need for a clear strategic
vision, translated into business related goals, such as productivity optimization,
decision support in complex environments, the development of intangible capital, and
innovation. We have also seen that these are implemented through specific human
communities. These are respectively the permanent staff, the project group, the
community of practice or the community of interest. Another point then consisted in
defining the conditions for choosing the stakeholders in the business ecosystem
concerned by the project, which is the knowledge ecosystem. We thus identified
several factors to be taken into consideration, such as the need for (core) skills,
organizational capacities, strategic culture, types of links (strong or weak), diversity
and size of participants. Finally, we provided an overview of the different states of the
dynamics at work within this inter-organizational community of practice and how
visions and goals are being realized on a more concrete ground.
The previously defined reading grids then allowed us to carry out an application in
the case of Airbus. This application was carried out against Toyota's, a benchmark in
terms of extended enterprise and knowledge sharing. After presenting the context of
Airbus and its extended enterprise, we did the same for its Knowledge Management
department and its services. We then drew up an inventory of the initiatives carried
out within Airbus, based on experience within the company, semi-directive interviews
and the study of internal documents. Finally, we carried out an analysis and a
comparative assessment of this inventory and that of the Toyota model, in the light of
the reading keys in the previous section.
85
The main contribution of this professional thesis is to have gathered around Go game
analogies a set of models and concepts related to the design of knowledge sharing at
the inter-organizational level. These models and concepts constitute an original
reading grid allowing to apprehend the complexity of the problem.
A first limitation lies precisely in this analogical approach, which is certainly very
interesting in terms of representation but does not necessarily allow us to approach
things in a concrete way, because of its generic nature. Another limitation is also due
to the fact that this thesis was influenced by my experience at Airbus, which perhaps
does not make this reading grid applicable to SMEs, which are a completely different
context. Finally, the last analogy made between Airbus and Toyota may be
debatable, since the two companies belong to different sectors of activity, and do not
have the same product development cycle.
These limits thus lead us to consider different examples of openings concerning this
professional thesis. A first track could be to determine if the concrete practice of this
game of Go within communities has an influence on their collaboration in companies.
Another could be to deepen the visual aspect of this game in terms of decision
support. It might also be interesting to broaden the problem by integrating the little-
used dimensions of stakeholder theories and corporate social responsibility, which
resonate to some extent with the issue addressed in this work.
86
Bibliography & References
Books
DARNIL S., LE ROUX M., 80 men to change the world, Editions Jean-Claude Lattès, 2005
DESCHAMPS C., MOINET N., La boîte à outils de l'intelligence économique, Dunod, 2011
DIBIAGGIO L., MESCHI P.-X. et al, Le management dans l'économie de la connaissance, Pearson
Education France, 2010
DYER J.H., Collaborative Advantage : Winning through extended enterprise supplier networks, Oxford
University Press, 2000
FAUVET J.-C., SMIA M., Le manager joueur de Go, Groupe Eyrolles Editions d'Organisation, Edition
revue et corrigée, 2008
FORSYTH D.R., Group Dynamics, Pacific Grove, 1990
HUI F., L'âme du Go : Les formes et leur esthétique, Chiron Editeur, 2007
JOHNSON S., Who stole my cheese? Michel Lafon, 2000
LYNCH D., KORDIS P.L., La stratégie du Dauphin (The Dolphin Strategy), Editions de l'Homme,
1979.
MARIOTTI F., Who governs the networked enterprise? Sciences Po Les Presses, 2005
MOORE J.F., The Death of Competition : Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business
Ecosystems, Harper Business, 1996
MOREAU Franck, AFPLANE, L'entreprise élargie : De nouvelles formes d'organisation, INSEP

Consulting Editions, 2003
NADOULEK B., Strategic Intelligence, CPE Aditec Paris, 1992
NGHIEM T., Des abeilles et des hommes, Bayard, 2010
NOGUCHI M., Go Game: The Language of Stones, 3rd edition, Praxeo, 2010
NONAKA I., TAKEUCHI H., The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, 1995
PRAX J.-Y., Le manuel du knowledge management, Dunod, 2nd edition, 2007
RAVIX J.-T. et al, Les relations interentreprises dans l'industrie aéronautique et spatiale, La
documentation Française, 2000
ROULLEAUX DUGAGE M., Organisation 2.0 : Le Knowledge Management nouvelle génération,

Groupe Eyrolles Editions d'Organisation, 2008
TAMMET D., Embracing the immense sky, Edition des Arènes, 2009
VARELA F., MARUTANA H., The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding.
Shambhala Press, 1987
WILENSKY H. L., Organisational Intelligence : Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry,
Basics Books, 1967
87
Articles
ALBRECHT K., Organizational Intelligence & Knowledge Management : Thinking Outside the Silos
(The Executive Perspective)
ALCOUFFE C., CORREGE N., Governance Structures in the Extended Enterprise: The Example of
Airbus, 2004
BLACKLER F., Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation,
Organization Studies, 1995
BLECKER T., NEUMANN R., Interorganizational Knowledge Management : Some Perspectives or

Knowledge Oriented Strategic Management in Virtual Organization, 2000
BLOMQVISTA K., HURMELINHAB P., SEPPÄNEN R., Playing the collaboration game : Balancing
trust and contracting, Elsevier, 2005
BONDU J., Go Game Strategy, IE Strategy, French Institute of Economic Intelligence, Jérôme Bondu -
2006
CARLUER F., Réseaux d'entreprises et dynamiques territoriales : Une analyse stratégique,

Géographie, Economie, Société, 2006
CHANLAT J.F., Emotions, Organization and Management: A Critical Reflection on the Concept of
Emotional Intelligence, Martin Médias, Travailler, 2003
CHAUVEL D., DESPRES C., A Thematic Analysis of the Thinking in Knowledge Management,
Chapter in Knowledge Horizons : The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management,
Butterworth Heinemann, 2000
COYNE K.P., HALL S.J.D., CLIFFORD P.G., Is your Core Competence a Mirage ?, McKinsey
Quarterly, 1997
EDOUARD S. and GRATACAP A., Configuration of Boeing and Airbus business ecosystems: the role
of ICT in the innovative environment, Management & Avenir, 2010
FAYARD P.M., Le concept de " Ba " dans la voie japonaise de la création du savoir, ADIT, 2002
FERRARY Michel, Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation
paradigm, Elsevier, 2010
GALLON M.R., STILLMAN H.M., COATES D., Putting Core Competency Thinking into Practice,
Research Technology Management, 1995
GALUNIC D.C. & RODAN, S., Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the
potential for Schumpeterian innovation, Strategic Management Journal, 1998
GARVIN D.A., Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, 1993
GENIAUX I., MIRA-BONNARDEL S., Le réseau d'entreprises : forme d'organisation aboutie ou

transitoire, Revue française de gestion, 2003
GORIA J., Mise en évidence d'informations stratégiques à partir de l'analogie du jeu de plateau :
Exploitation des possibilités offertes par les échecs et le go, 2010
GORIA S., Knowledge Management and Business Intelligence: Two Notions with Complementary
Past and Future, 2006
GRANOVETTER S.G., The strength of weak ties, American Journal of sociology, 1973
GRUNDSTEIN M., GAMETH® : A constructivist and learning approach to identify and locate crucial
knowledge, 2009
88
GRUNDSTEIN M., Vers un Modèle Général de Knowledge Management pour l'Entreprise, 2008
GUEGUEN G. & TORRES O., La dynamique concurrentielle des écosystèmes d'affaires : l'exemple
de Linux contre Microsoft, Revue Française de Gestion, 2004
LALOUETTE C., Apprentissages et couplages dans l'entreprise complexe : Le cas de la conception

collaborative dans le domaine aéronautique, 2010
LE MOIGNE J.L., Sur " La Méthode " d'exercice de " la Pensée Complexe " pour conduire sa " Raison
dans les Affaires Humaines ", Synergies Monde n° 6, 2009
LIETAER B., ULANOWICZ R., GOERNER S., All the options for managing a systemic banking crisis,
Etopia, 2008
MARIOTTI F., Business and Government : A l'épreuve des réseaux, Revue française de sociologie,
2004
MARTINET A.-C., Stratégie & Pensée Complexe, Revue française de gestion (n° 93,), 1993
MAUSS M., Essai sur le don, Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques, Sociological
Year, 1923-1924
MERCIER Samuel, The Contribution of Stakeholder Theory to Strategic Management: A Synthesis of

the Literature, 2001
MESCHI P.-X., WASSMER U., Knowledge Intensive Alliances Portfolios : How to Use Them
Strategically and Manage Alliance Portfolio Knowledge Flows Effectively, 2011
MINTZBERG H., WESTLEY F., Decision Making : It's not what you think, Sloan Management Review,
2001
MITCHELL R.K., Agle B.R., WOOD D.J., Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience :
Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 1997
NISBETT R.E. & MASUDA T., Attending holistically versus analytically: comparing the context
sensitivity of Japanese and Americans". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001 Nov
NISBETT R.E. & MIYAMOTO Y., The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception, Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 2005
NISBETT R.E. & PENG K., Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Peng,
Kaiping;Nisbett, Richard E. American Psychologist, Vol 54(9), Sep 1999, 741-754
NONAKA I., KONNO N., The concept of Ba : Building a foundation for knowledge creation, California
Management Review, 1998
NOUBEL J.-F., Collective Intelligence: The Invisible Revolution, 2004
O'DELL C., GRAYSON J., If Only We Knew What We Know : Identification And Transfer of Internal
Best Practices, California Management Review, 1998
PELTONIEMI M., Cluster, Value Network and Business Ecosystem : Knowledge and Innovation
Approach, Organisations, Innovation and Complexity: New Perspectives on the Knowledge Economy,
2004
POR G., Nurturing Systemic Wisdom Through Knowledge Ecology, Pegasus Communications, The
System Thinker, 2000
PORTAL T., VILLAUDIERE S., Alliances with stakeholders : Une lecture stratégique selon le jeu de
Go, Publication Observatoire International des Crises, 2008
POST J.E., PRESTON L.E., SACHS S., Managing the extended enterprise : The new stakeholder
view, California Management Review, 2002
89
PRAHALAD C.K., HAMEL G., The core competencies of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,
1990
PROBST G.J.B. Practical Knowledge Management: A Model That Works, Arthur D. Little, Prism, 1998
PROBST G.J.B., BORZILLO S., Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail, Elsevier,
2008
SARRASIN N., RAMANGALAHY C., La gestion cognitive des connaissances dans les organisations,
Documentation and Library, 2007.
SAUCIN J., Go game and Japanese management, From L'aperçu trimestriel économique, 1987
SENE I., BERDUGO A., Ethics & Knowledge Management, Cahiers de Recherche, HEC Paris, 2000.
SNOWDEN D., Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and
Learning in Formal and Informal Communities, 2000
SPEKMAN R.E., DAVIS E.W., Risky Business : Expanding the discussion on risk and the extended
enterprise, International Journal of Distribution & Logistics Management, 2004
SVENDSEN A., LABERGE M., Convening Stakeholder Networks: A New Way of Thinking, Being and
Engaging, 2005, Journal of Corporate Citizenship. Issue 19
TANSLEY A.G., The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms, Ecology, 1935
TEECE D., Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: the Nature and Microfoundations of (sustainable)
Enterprise Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 2007
TORRES O., Economie d'Entreprise, Organisation et Stratégie à l'Aube de la Nouvelle Economie,

Economica, 2000
TUCKMAN B.W., Developmental sequence in small groups, Psychological Bulletin, 1965
WARNE L. HELEN M. et al., GoTeam : A new approach to developing a knowledge sharing culture,
2006
WUNRAM M., WEBER F. et al., Prerequisites and enablers for inter-organizational Knowledge
Management, 2002
ZULIANI J.-M., JALABERT Guy, L'industrie aéronautique européenne : organisation industrielle et

fonctionnement en réseaux, L'Espace géographique, 2005
Magazines
JOURNET N., L'analogie : Moteur de la pensée, Dossier spécial, Sciences Humaines, N°215, Mai
2010
90
Abstract
The objective of this professional thesis is to apprehend in a global way the

problematic of knowledge sharing at the inter-organizational level. In this sense, we
will qualify the current socio-economic context, then introduce the notions of business
ecosystem, extended enterprise and core competence. We will then focus on the
knowledge itself, its dynamics and the specific processes that concern it. Finally, we
will discuss the principles that enable the creation and evolution of a knowledge
ecosystem that promotes collaboration between its networks of actors. This will be
done through the analogies of the game of Go, a support facilitating the
representation of the subject. The reading grid that will emerge will then be used in
the study of the Airbus case on this issue, in relation to the Toyota reference case.
91

Business & Knowledge Ecosystems - A Reading Through The Game of Go Analogies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business & Knowledge Ecosystems - A Reading Through The Game of Go Analogies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business & Knowledge

Specialized Master's Thesis in Strategic Intelligence & Knowledge Management

SKEMA Business School (School of Knowledge Economy & Management) – Paris

Co-directors: Anne Baraquier, Olivier Pommeret & Eva Dauphin

Board of examiners: Pascal Junghans, Olivier Pommeret & Eva Dauphin

2012 February 22th

My warmest thanks go to my tutor Eva Dauphin and Frithjof Weber, HO Competence

Thanks finally to theine, guarana, caffeine, and gingko biloba.

Figure 1: Cursive form of Japanese Kanji for the word Go 7

AFDIE: French Association of Economic Intelligence

AIC: Airbus Integrated Company

AKC: Airbus Key Competences

BS: Business Search

CoC: Center of Competence

CoE: Center of Expertise

CTL: Customer Team Leader

EA: Business Ecosystem

EE: Extended Company

ExTra : Transfer Expertise

FAL: Final Assembly Line

GIE : Economic Interest Grouping

IM: Innovation Management

JDP: Joint Development Plan

KCP: Knowledge Capture & Publishing

KM: Knowledge Management

KMOD: Knowledge Management Overall Diagnosis

NICT: New Information and Communication Technologies

OMCD : Operations Management Consulting Division

PDA: Plan Development Activity

PN: Professional Networks

RISE: Re-use, Improve and Share Experience

TSSP: Toyota Suppliers Support Process

WPL: Work Package Leader

Figure 1: Cursive form of Japanese Kanji for the word Go

Figure 2: Comparison of Go and Chess (from Fauvet & Smia, 2007)

Indeed, Western (especially European) thought is mainly influenced by Descartes'

Figure 4: Napoleon & Sun-Tzu: Incarnations of Two Strategic Cultures

The elements of the Game

Figure 5: Different Goban sizes (9x9, 13x13, 19x19)

Figure 6: Example of geographic and symbolic projection on the Goban

Figure 7: Go game stones

Coordination (from the Latin co-ordinare, to arrange/to put in order together)

Rather, cooperation (from the Latin co-operare, to act/participate together) refers to a

Collaboration (from Latin co-laborare, working together) is this time a non-linear,

As we discussed earlier, the enterprise now belongs to a complex environment that is

Definitions & Features

The balanced management of such an ecosystem is based on "effilience", a word

Thus, an overly efficient ecosystem will have implemented a strong rationalization of

Extended enterprise & core competencies

The extended enterprise therefore consists of a network of alliances and

The example of Kalundborg

Figure 12: The Kalundborg industrial eco-park

This approach of industrial ecology thus offers us a more "down-to-earth"

The objective of the game is to obtain as much territory as possible by forming

A reading grid of the "Immaterial".

As Edgar Morin (1992) puts it so well, "There is no knowledge without knowledge of

As we will see in this chapter, the dynamics of Go constitute a strong analogy of

The Mountain of Wisdom

Figure 14: The Mountain of Wisdom (Adapted from Prax, 2007)

Non-Sense & Noise

In both cases, comprehension is not "optimal" because either the communication is

 A component that draws on our culture, paradigms and previous

In his article "The Concept of Ba in the Japanese Creation of Knowledge", Pierre