Explicit Knowledge – Tacit Knowledge (A Descriptive Overview of the

There is a famous division of knowledge types, proposed by various authors (for instance Polanyi, 1967, 1969; Collins, 1991; Blackler, 1995; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, Grant, 1996; Boisot, 1998; Howells & Roberts, 2000).

Blackler gives five classifications of knowledge: embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded, encoded. Embrained knowledge is the knowledge “that is dependent on conceptual skills and cognitive abilities” (Blackler, 1995, p.1023), in other words, „know-what‟. Embodied knowledge is “an action oriented and is likely to be only partly explicit” (Blackler, 1995, p.1024), which can be called „know-how‟. Encultured knowledge is “the process of achieving shared understandings” (Blackler, 1995, p.1024). Organisational culture can be considered under this classification. Embedded knowledge is “resides in systematic routine”, which “explores the significance of relationships and material resources” (Blackler, 1995, p.1024). Embedded knowledge can be analysed in system terms, in the relationships between IT, roles, formal procedures and emergent routines. Finally Blackler (1995) classifies encoded knowledge, which is “information conveyed by signs and symbols” (Blackler, 1995, p.1025). Books and manuals are examples of encoded knowledge, or explicit knowledge.

In this thesis, however, we will concentrate mainly on tacit and explicit knowledge, particularly the individual tacit knowledge of OSS developers shared in OSS communities in order to create innovative products and gain a competitive advantage. In management literature there is an epistemological distinction between knowing how and knowing about that is captured by distinctions between subjective versus objective knowledge, implicit or tacit versus explicit knowledge, personal versus prepositional knowledge, and procedural versus declarative knowledge (Grant 1996). This thesis will not make distinctions between all these different terms of knowledge. It will associate knowing how with tacit knowledge, and knowing about facts and theories with explicit knowledge.

The distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge lies in transferability and the mechanisms for transfer across individuals, across space, and across time (Grant, 1996).

Chapter 2: Literature Review 1

Knowledge

Explicit knowledge is made known by its communication, whereas tacit knowledge is made known through its application, where knowledge sharing involves both transmission and receipt (Grant, 1996). According to Polanyi (1969), “tacit knowing” is the act of integration of the visual perception of objects and the discovery of scientific theories. Gourlay (2000, 2002, 2006 (a, b)) studied tacit-explicit knowledge issues, where he combined a wide range of studies and showed different terms used for tacit and explicit knowledge. In different disciplines, tacit knowledge is synonymous with secret, practical, know-how knowledge; whereas explicit knowledge is synonymous with open, propositional, documented, know-what knowledge.

Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) find that explicit knowledge is objective; it is the knowledge of rationality, concerned with order and theory, while tacit knowledge is subjective, the knowledge of experience, which can come in real-time, is understood as practice. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, hard to formalise and communicate. Tacit knowledge is know-how. Explicit knowledge is contagious in form and it is in formal systematic language. Tacit knowledge can be discovered without being able to recognise what it is what it has to come to know (Polanyi, 1969). According to Howells & Roberts (2000), codified (or explicit) knowledge can be defined as knowledge that can be documented in printed or electronic version, whereas tacit knowledge is intangible know-how, which is collected / shared / discussed through informal ways between individuals or inside companies. Gourlay (2002) notes that explicit knowledge lies within designation and symbol; whereas, tacit knowledge is „pre-linguistic modes of human knowing‟, tacit knowledge may have difficulties being expressed in words, it is a „non-verbal sign-process‟. Tacit knowledge is know-how, which is people‟s experience and is in people‟s minds. Explicit knowledge can be codified.

To summarise, explicit knowledge is codifiable, objective, impersonal, context independent, and easy to share; whereas tacit knowledge is inexpressible in a codifiable form, subjective, personal, context specific, and difficult to share (Hislop, 2009, p.23). However, the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge is not sharply divided (Polanyi, 1969). Tacit knowledge can be possessed by itself, whereas explicit knowledge should “rely on being tacitly understood and applied” (Polanyi, 1969, p.144). This means that all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge

Chapter 2: Literature Review 1

Knowledge

(Polanyi, 1969, p.144). A wholly explicit knowledge is not thinkable (Polanyi, 1969, p.144), because “tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable” (Hislop, 2009, p.34). Collins (2001) gives an overview of tacit knowledge to those “artificial intelligentsia”, who believe that all human skills can be documented. Collins (2001) gives three routes in explaining tacit knowledge: the motor-skills metaphor, the rules-regress model and the forms of life. According to this division, in the first route: the motor-skills metaphor, tacit knowledge is knowing without ability to formulate the rules. In this route Collins gives Polanyi's example of riding a bike, where the skill of riding a bike cannot be formulated in a way, which might satisfy a physicist. In the second route: the rules- regress model, experimental skills are not possible to formulate. Finally, the third route: the forms of life approach, where people from different social groups take different things different according to their social basis.

Boisot (1998) divides tacit knowledge into three different variants. Tacit knowledge, which can be articulated, can be understood and people can “take them for granted” (Boisot, 1998, p.57), knowledge which has been internalised over the years. Another variant of tacit knowledge is the one, which can be fully understood by nobody, which cannot be articulated (Polanyi, 1962). The third variant of tacit knowledge is the one which can be understood by some people, but they cannot “costlessly articulate” (Boisot, 1998, p.57) them (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Table 2.2 gives a summary of knowledge types and names used in different disciplines.

Table 2.2: Knowledge Types and Names

N Discipline Knowledge-how Knowledge -that

1 Philosophy Knowledge-how, procedural knowledge, abilities

Knowledge-that, propositional knowledge 2 Philosophy (Polanyi) Tacit knowing Explicit knowledge 3 Psychology Implicit knowledge,

tacit abilities, skills

Explicit knowledge, declarative knowledge 4 Management, Education Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge

5 IT studies Knowledge as process Knowledge as object

6 KM Know-how Know-what

7 Sociology of science Tacit Explicit/symbolic

Chapter 2: Literature Review 1

Knowledge

The above table leads us to another perspective in knowledge issues. Two broad alternative perceptions on knowledge in organisations have emerged; „knowledge as an asset‟ and „knowing as a process‟ (Empson, 2001, p.813).

Research, which adopts the „knowledge as an asset‟ perspective, seeks to discover valuable knowledge within organisations and to develop mechanisms for managing it effectively. Organisational knowledge is an important source of competitive advantage. Empson (2001) continues that resource-based theorists have conceptualised organisations as mechanisms for creating and utilising knowledge (for example, Grant, 1996). In this context knowledge is often viewed as “an objectively definable commodity, with exchanges of knowledge between individuals being governed by the functioning of an internal market” (for instance, Szulanski, 1996) (Empson, 2001, p.812). The literature on KM is full with literature on organisations transferring knowledge capabilities, renewing knowledge bases, and measuring knowledge assets (e.g. Hansen, Nitin & Tierney, 1999). The „knowledge as an asset‟ perspective adopts the firm as a unit of analysis, or more specifically the knowledge base and the KM systems of the firm (Empson, 2001).

By contrast, researchers who adopt the „knowing as a process‟ perspective argue that “knowledge cannot be analysed and understood as an objective reality” (Empson, 2001, p. 813). From this perspective, knowledge is viewed as a “social construct, developed, transmitted and maintained in social situations” (for example Blackler, 1995), (Empson, 2001, p.813). In this situation, “alternative concepts of legitimate knowledge can co- exist within organisations and individuals seek to establish their claims to legitimacy by demonstrating the pre-eminence of their expertise”, where the aim of this research stream is “to understand how knowledge is created, articulated, disseminated and legitimated within organisations” (Empson, 2001, 813).

What does all this mean for this thesis? What is tacit and explicit knowledge? Is knowledge in „an asset‟ or „a process‟?

This thesis uses the „knowledge as a process‟ perspective, individual tacit knowledge of OSS developers in OSS communities, which cannot be understood “as an objective reality” (Empson, 2001, p. 813), that is a “social construct, developed, transmitted and

Chapter 2: Literature Review 1

Knowledge

maintained in social situations” (Empson, 2001, p.813), because such individual tacit knowledge of OSS developers is shared via sharing their know-how by writing beautiful codes and by social interactions. This thesis aims to understand how knowledge is shared within individuals inside VO, OSS communities, so that these communities can produce innovative products as the result of successful individual knowledge sharing processes. Therefore, the thesis will consider tacit knowledge in OSS communities as the personal knowledge; know-how of the software developers in writing the codes beautifully. It is the first step in understanding and investigating knowledge sharing in individual level in OSS communities.

„Knowledge as an asset‟ can be investigated further at a later stage (Chapter 7) in future research, in order to develop mechanisms for managing valuable knowledge within organisations effectively. The documented version of that process, the documented version of the beautifully written software code can be considered as explicit knowledge, where tacit knowledge in its written/documented format via explicit knowledge becomes as asset of a particular organisation, OSS communities in the case of this thesis.

This is a very short introduction to tacit and explicit knowledge in OSS communities, but this issue will be investigated in more detail later in the Chapter, when a definition of knowledge sharing in this thesis will be given, and also in the next Chapter, where OSS communities will be analysed in detail.