IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/125311.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Repenser la Gestion des Connaissances à l’ère de l’IA Limites cognitives, tensions éthiques et enjeux organisationnels
[Rethinking Knowledge Management in the AI Era: Cognitive Boundaries, Ethical Frictions, and Organizational Challenges]

Author

Listed:
  • Achy, Lahcen

Abstract

In an era shaped by artificial intelligence, massive data flows, and growing organizational uncertainty, classical models of knowledge management (KM) are facing increasing limitations. Initially developed in relatively stable environments, these frameworks struggle to account for hybrid knowledge ecosystems, algorithmic mediation, and new cognitive tensions. This paper offers a critical and integrative reassessment of the main KM model families. It highlights key contemporary tensions, including knowledge reification, fragmentation of cognitive processes, and human deskilling. To address these challenges, the paper relies on the concept of composite cognitive ecology, which offers a new lens to understand the interplay between human and algorithmic agents in the production, transmission, and use of knowledge. The paper thus aims to open new avenues for research and action, fostering the emergence of organizations that are more learning-oriented, critical, and adaptive.

Suggested Citation

  • Achy, Lahcen, 2025. "Repenser la Gestion des Connaissances à l’ère de l’IA Limites cognitives, tensions éthiques et enjeux organisationnels [Rethinking Knowledge Management in the AI Era: Cognitive Boundaries, Ethical ," MPRA Paper 125311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:125311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/125311/1/MPRA_paper_125311.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein, 2018. "Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 577-586.
    2. Scott D. N. Cook & John Seely Brown, 1999. "Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 381-400, August.
    3. Patrick Cohendet & Laurent Simon, 2007. "Playing across the playground : paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm," Post-Print hal-00279260, HAL.
    4. Diogo E. Moreira da Silva & Eduardo J. Solteiro Pires & Arsénio Reis & Paulo B. de Moura Oliveira & João Barroso, 2022. "Forecasting Students Dropout: A UTAD University Study," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    6. Stephen Gourlay, 2006. "Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1415-1436, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Geiger & Jochen Koch, 2008. "Von der individuellen Routine zur organisationalen Praktik — Ein neues Paradigma für die Organisationsforschung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 60(7), pages 693-712, November.
    2. Liubertė Irina, 2019. "On Social Knowledge and Its Empirical Investigation in Contemporary Organisations," Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Sciendo, vol. 81(1), pages 21-37, June.
    3. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Aslam, Muhammad Mahmood & Gantert, Till Marius & Kallmuenzer, Andreas, 2023. "New work design for knowledge creation and sustainability: An empirical study of coworking-spaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. repec:isv:jouijm:v:7:y:2018:i:2:p:199-216 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Chris Kimble, 2013. "Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00826911, HAL.
    6. Sunday Bolade & Stavros Sindakis, 2020. "Micro-Foundation of Knowledge Creation Theory: Development of a Conceptual Framework Theory," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1556-1572, December.
    7. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    8. Maria Jakubik, 2018. "Practice Ecosystem of Knowledge Co-Creation," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, ToKnowPress, vol. 7(2), pages 199-216.
    9. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    10. Grimaud, Andre & Rouge, Luc, 2003. "Non-renewable resources and growth with vertical innovations: optimum, equilibrium and economic policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 433-453, March.
    11. Pierre Marie Stassart & Maarten Crivits & Julie Hermesse & Louis Tessier & Julie Van Damme & Joost Dessein, 2018. "The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Robertson, Jeandri & Ferreira, Caitlin & Botha, Elsamari & Oosthuizen, Kim, 2024. "Game changers: A generative AI prompt protocol to enhance human-AI knowledge co-construction," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 499-510.
    13. Luis Garicano & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2016. "The Returns to Knowledge Hierarchies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 653-684.
    14. Jati Sengupta, 2002. "Economics of efficiency measurement by the DEA approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(9), pages 1133-1139.
    15. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    16. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Vigilant Interaction in Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 773-784, December.
    17. Grimaud, Andre & Rouge, Luc, 2005. "Polluting non-renewable resources, innovation and growth: welfare and environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 109-129, June.
    18. B. Bhaskara Rao & Arusha Cooray, 2012. "How useful is growth literature for policies in the developing countries?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 671-681, February.
    19. Alessandro STERLACCHINI, 2006. "Innovation, Knowledge and Regional Economic Performances: Regularities and Differences in the EU," Working Papers 260, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    20. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    21. Galiani, Sebastian & Jaitman, Laura & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2020. "Crime and durable goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 146-163.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:125311. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.