All Posts By


Collect or Connect Knowledge?

By | Immaterial capital

Socrates taught his most famous disciple, Plato, that: “Admitting that we do not know everything is the first step on our journey to knowledge.” Ironically enough, the Hellenist left no writing to translate his thought, and his philosophy was only transcribed orally. Yet, even today, the philosopher remains universally recognized as an iconic thinker. In a knowledge management issue, it is interesting to look for reasons in the early stages of human memory: How does this knowledge still exist? Shouldn’t knowledge have fallen into oblivion after the various “updates” brought about by later trends of thought? Paradoxically, why is it that the thought of an ancient master is still accessible and usable today?

These considerations may seem too distant to be really implemented nowadays. Especially in a professional context. And yet, these questions illustrate the true binarity of knowledge conservation and reappropriation, leading to the emergence of two approaches: “pushed” knowledge and “pulled” knowledge.

Access to “pushed” knowledge: Sharing is done without a precise purpose, but conservation takes place because it must be assumed that this data WILL SERVE one day. This was the purpose of the construction of the Library of Alexandria, for example, built to preserve a copy of any work that had ever been written, in order to perpetuate and capitalize on the knowledge of Humanity. However, this idea of “forecasting” knowledge comes up against the reality that the compilation of all existing knowledge is sprawling and endless. Indeed, it is unrealistic to think that the infinite possibilities of a situation can be exhaustively covered in advance.

Access to “pulled” knowledge: Sharing knowledge becomes necessary because there is a need, more or less imminent, to know the procedures to be applied. This approach praises the case in hand and uses a very particular situation to illustrate the knowledge learned in that case.  Democritus, another Greek philosopher, said: “A lot of thought and not a lot of knowledge, that is what we must strive for.’’ “Pulled” knowledge is a reaction, rather than a forecast. On a purely financial level, this method is the most effective method. Yet, while it makes a company more capital efficient, it also makes it more fragile. Indeed, the search for information in an emergency context often does not allow the entire context to be taken into account. Therefore, the solution provided is limited compared to the prevailing characteristics.


In short, therefore, while the knowledge pulled is certainly more efficient, the pushed knowledge is more effective. And this without mentioning the daily developments we are witnessing. Pierre Boulez, explained to the Ecole Normale supérieure: “I think we are in a century[…] where we have absolutely frightening capacities for accumulating documentation. The more documentation capacities grow (thanks to the technological means that are now at our disposal), the more we are moving towards an accumulation for which the Alexandria library was supposed to be a child’s play…” This reveals that dematerialization is, therefore, a formidable tool at the service of advanced and pulled knowledge, depending on its use. Indeed, who has never done an incongruous search on a search engine? And yet, knowledge is proving to be accessible.

However, a new problem arises, and beyond pro-action against reaction, in knowledge management: collecting or connecting, what is the best solution?

To learn more about this subject, attend our webinar:

WEBINAR VEDALIS : Knowledge management: Collect or connect, what is the best solution? (In french)

TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2019 FROM 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM

The intelligent directory key of a learning organization

By | Immaterial capital

An intelligent directory makes it possible to go beyond the stage of administrative identification (“Who does what?“) and facilitates the identification of people with relevant skills and knowledge (“Who knows what?“).

These topics are particularly important in the context of large groups or projects where employees have the greatest difficulty in getting to know each other well.

RoK’IT™ Smart Directory is an intelligent, flexible, customizable and fast implementation directory. It is an effective and economical solution to put people at the centre of the system, empower them and give them autonomy. It is also a key asset in talent management by providing dynamic maps of available skills and knowledge.


For more information, please contact us

The benefit of working collaboratively with online tools

By | Immaterial capital

“Homo homini lupus est” from this Latin adage, perfectly illustrates the secular concern of the Human towards the Unknown. Literally, “Man is a wolf for Man”, this three-thousand-year-old expression has travelled through time and writings to try to find its own meaning. However, neither Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, Erasmus in the 15th century, nor Schopenhauer in the 19th century, have provided any more than a philosophical definition, sometimes metaphysical, of this “a priori”, preceding the interaction between two members of the same environment.


Nevertheless, the current scientific consensus, based on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, demonstrates the evolutionary compromise of stable equilibrium: Nature (ergo Evolution) estimates that the human environment is 10% competitive, and 90% collaborative. Prosaically explained, the share of left-handed people in the population, regardless of the period in history, is 10% left-handed, against 90% right-handed. And to evolve as a species, but above all in its environment, is mainly to know how to share knowledge (know-how) and use the same tools (interpersonal skills)! Man makes his tools in such a way that they are easily prehensive and correspond to the needs of the greatest number of people.

This vision, therefore, provides a first plausible explanation for the mistrust of one individual towards another. The inequality in the use of tools, inherent in the nature of human beings, tends to demonstrate that collaboration is not innate for all.


In a perfect world, Evolution would have naturally led to ambidextrousness, so that everyone would be equal with the tools. But the reality is quite different. In an age of dematerialization, technology is changing the way we interact and transform tools, but not the inequity between actors.

The use of “collaborative spaces” in companies is becoming increasingly important, but requires a change in practices in order to be successful. To understand this criticality, a survey recently published by Arctus in November 2018, dealing with “Working collaboratively with online tools”, illustrates the use of these new tools, here are some important data to remember:

  • Only 1 person out of 2 is trained to use collaborative spaces. (Average number of training modules per person = 1.7)
  • For respondents, these tools are primarily used to create links between members of the organization (65%), compared to only 28% for putting them in contact with “knowers” to share good practices, in particular (experts…).
  • For more than half of the users, collaborative spaces correspond above all to a document sharing application, far ahead of collaborative project management applications. It should be noted that, on average, organizations deploy two or more collaborative devices internally.

In essence, users use the collaborative space at least several times a week, where value is built through collective intelligence. But this space for the exchange of skills is still underdeveloped and/or poorly exploited today. In fact, there is, for example, an overlay of layers, which only makes the process even more complex. It is, therefore, because the use of an online collaborative tool is considered too nebulous, and sometimes sprawling, that refractories to these practices appear.

So, the best practice to set up as regards the installation of collaborative online work tool is above all to train employees to use the proposed tools. So that the information channel is clear and can best benefit. That the “knowing” transmits it to the “learner”, who in turn will share it with the next generation. All this in order to put an end to bad practices and ensure the transition to “coopetition.”

The failure of the implementation of Corporate Social Networks facing the development of collaborative platforms

By | Immaterial capital

In her article published in La Croix, Anaïs Brosseau distinguishes, by comparing the advantages and disadvantages, collaborative platforms within organizations and company social networks (CSN). On this occasion, VEDALIS proposes to review the benefits of using platforms between employees, based on examples of the functional components of our solution: RoK’IT.

Indeed, the growing popularity of online communities, social networks and organized content are challenging organizations about the evolution of formal knowledge management in their development plans. While social content has provided strong added value in the customer-supplier relationship, formal knowledge management remains essential by providing benefits beyond the informal content in a structure’s internal relationships.

Therefore, the accuracy of information, its traceability and the reliability of sources are elements that distinguish formal knowledge from informal social content. Even if there is no lack of an online subject, the quality of responses can be very uneven. The content of knowledge bases established by an expert, «guarantor of knowledge», naturally creates a relationship of trust, and ensures credibility with regard to the answers given to the questions.

The rapid implementation of CSNs in a few years can be explained in two ways:

  • Low cost of fees, per month and per user.
  • The supposed user-friendliness of a sharing tool.

Nevertheless, these relative advantages clash with the reality of users.
First, despite the enthusiasm of large companies for corporate social networks (58% of large companies use a CSN, source: IGS-RH) only 17% of employees are users.
This low interest among users is explained by the superposition of «CSN […] to the company’s hierarchies when the initial objective was to go beyond them» explains Professor Jean Pralong. The tool is designed for everyone and supposed to be with little hierarchy so that each user is equal before the exposure of his ideas. But in reality, there is a real fear of judgment, often linked to an impression of a lack of legitimacy.
Especially since by contributing to an external group, the user also fears to be disloyal to his manager, or his department and thus finding himself in difficulty. As proof, employees are eight times more involved in groups created by their managers than in external groups.

« CSNs were created to encourage people without hierarchical links to collaborate. But the real question is rather why they do not do it more naturally when they would clearly benefit from it. »

Considering that CSNs do not correspond to the reality of most employees in a same environment, communities of practice can be set up. These connect services through the transmission of knowledge. As a result, exchanges are no longer made in fear of error, but with the objective of learning and understanding. Most often in respect to the hierarchy, important to managers.
So, with this relationship of trust, legitimacy and relevance, collaboration is strengthened, and common practices are more readable, more secure and optimized.

To learn more, join our Webinar «Innovations for Knowledge and Talent Management» on October 30th at 11 am.
Or visit our website.

Valuing immaterial capital: WHY? HOW?

By | Immaterial capital

Leader on the Social Knowledge Management market, VEDALIS is a subsidiary of the BASSETTI group which offers software solutions, diagnostic and consulting services to support companies in the management of their knowledge networks. Its mission: « To transform talent and knowledge into sustainable competitive advantages».

For more than 1 out of 2 business leaders (source: DELOITTE barometer), the human factor is the main lever for improving competitiveness. And this large part linked to the human element raises the challenge of bringing together, at best, all the immaterial capital of employees. Beyond individual knowledge or organisational practices, the structuring of this immaterial capital makes it possible to: :

  • Reducing the risk of “organizational memory loss”, affecting companies with high turnover;
  • Improving productivity, considering that knowledge workers spend almost half of their time looking for relevant information;

« If HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive.” Lew Platt – HP Chief Executive


So, in order to assess access to information among collaborators, it is important to estimate immaterial capital by dissociating human resources and good practices. Then by mapping the “connoisseurs”, it will be easier to ensure the traceability of information and share its distribution.

That is why VEDALIS offers its software and support services, to enhance companies’ knowledge capital and create value by improving productivity through the implementation of a simple, dynamic and structured method.

To this end, come and discover our webinar: “Valuing immaterial capital: Why and how? “on Thursday, September 20, 2018, at 11 am: :

The company’s primary capital will no longer be its technology, machines or procedures alone, but its employees with their individual and collective ability to develop the organization and better satisfy customers.” Francis Mer – President of the Condorcet Foundation

Is your organization T-Shaped?

By | Immaterial capital

VEDALIS proposes an innovative approach to T-Shaped* diagnosis and presents its new Social Knowledge Management (SKM) pilot…

*The T-shaped management is a management model that promotes cross sharing and knowledge transfer at all levels of the organization (the horizontal bar of the T), while promoting individual expertise (the vertical bar of the T).

T-shaped management promotes improved competitiveness and performance as it enables organizations to capitalize on the expertise, knowledge and ideas to create value and open up silos.

The more the management system is T-Shaped, the more a company is able to:

  • Make fast and reliable decision making through the exchange of experiences and perspectives
  • Increase operational efficiency through sharing of expertise
  • Improve productivity through the transfer of expertise and best practices
  • Develop new opportunities through the dissemination of ideas and solutions

For Didier PLEGAT, VEDALIS CEO,Social Knowledge Management, three words that challenge companies. On the one hand, they refer to concepts and intangible benefits: knowledge capital development, innovation management, organization and collaborative networks. Far from the short term, tangible and measurable benefits. On the other side, they reflect what analysts confirm through their studies and their recommendations: knowledge networks created between sites, departments… are key factors for progress and competitiveness. In other words, on one side, uncertainties and risks relating to changes, on the other, promises of success and encouragement to action. In this context, the role of VEDALIS is to create bridges between strategy and operations, principles and applications, willingness and ability to do things. We are working tirelessly as shown in the availability of our new tools for the diagnosis and T-Shaped Social KM pilot. Both effective and easy to handle, they provide practical solutions to company problems in the study phase, design and framing of their Social Knowledge Management projects