Knowledge acquisition, transfer and preservation

As explained earlier in the discussion, the main components of KM on which the current study focuses are knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, as well as knowledge preservation.

2.10.2.1 Knowledge acquisition

Pacharapha and Ractham (2012:725) opine that acquiring knowledge can be viewed at both organizational level and individual level. As a result, the definition of knowledge acquisition is best looked at from an organisational level and a personal level. At organizational level, knowledge acquisition can be defined as accepting knowledge from the external environment and transforming it so that it can be used by an organization and at individual level, knowledge acquisition can be accomplished by three activities, which include sourcing from organizational knowledge repositories, learning from others and learning from experiences (Pacharapha and Ractham 2012:726).

37

Knowledge acquisition and knowledge creation are the first steps in the process of developing knowledge (Liao, Wu, Hu and Tsui 2009). For knowledge to be acquired, willingness, attitude and the ability of a recipient to acquire and use such knowledge are crucial, and there should be a willingness to share and acquire this knowledge from both the source and the recipient (Pacharapha and Ractham 2012; Chigada and Ngulube 2015).

The review of literature suggests that organizational knowledge largely resides within individuals’ memory, which means that knowledge acquisition by learning from others plays an important role in Individual Knowledge Acquisition (Ryu, Kim, Chaudhury &Rao 2005). Furthermore, Ryu et al. (2005) opine that for this type of knowledge acquisition to take place, the two parties who are involved, that is, a knowledge source and a knowledge recipient, mostly know one another and interact over time.

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory of organisational knowledge conversion discusses knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing in the first three modes, namely socialisation, externalization and combination. It is important to note that for information to be acquired there should be willingness to share; without knowledge sharing there will not be knowledge to be acquired. According to Cyr and Choo (2010:826), knowledge sharing is a form of social exchange that is moderated by the social value orientation of the individual and it can be seen as an exchange of a valuable resource between two parties. While the assumption in the literature is that tacit knowledge would be more effortful and costly to share than explicit knowledge, there is a general lack of empirical work that tests this assumption (Cyr and Choo 2010).

Acquisition and sharing of knowledge during socialisation (where tacit knowledge is shared) are mainly done through observations, shared experiences and imitation, to name but a few. However, it is important to note that for a successful acquisition and sharing of this tacit knowledge to take place, an opportunity for participation as well as access to knowledgeable people is necessary (Koskinen, Pihlanto and Vanharanta 2003).

During externalization, tacit knowledge is externalized, made ready and made easier to share and acquire in any given situation. When the custodians of knowledge make available and share what resides in their minds, their tacit knowledge is turned in to explicit knowledge, which is easier to share and acquire. This knowledge can be externalised in the form of books, manuals, databases, emails, letters and discussions. The acquisition of knowledge between individuals (mentor and mentee) is mostly through dialog, which can happen directly between individuals. The next section discusses knowledge transfer between individuals.

38 2.10.2.2 Knowledge transfer

In the background to the current study, knowledge transfer (KT) was defined as the process by which knowledge is transmitted to, and absorbed by, a user (Garavelli, Gorgoglione and Scozzi 2002:270). However, Faust (2007:1) defines KT as that part of KM, which refers to the transmission of explicit, implicit and tacit knowledge from a person or organization to one or several people. Looking at how we explained and defined knowledge sharing (KS) above, it is important to note that there is some level of overlap on the usage of both KT and KS and some similarities on how the two concepts are defined. Paulin and Suneson (2012:82) also highlight that many scholars have failed to provide a clear-cut definition for both KT and KS and at times the two concepts have been used interchangeably.

Having said that, Argote and Ingram (2000), supported by Paulin and Suneson (2012), explain that “one common dividing line between KT and KS is related to the levels of analysis, in that KS is used more frequently by authors focusing on the individual level, while KT is used more frequently when groups, departments, organizations or even businesses are in focus”. The current study will draw the line between the two concepts through the level of analysis. Having said that, KT in organizations can be defined as the process through which one unit (e.g. group, department or division) is affected by the experience of another (Argote and Ingram 2000:151). Sharing takes place between individuals and transfer takes place between individuals, teams, units or organizations. For this discussion, we can safely say that the transfer of knowledge occurs during the externalization mode of our knowledge- conversion theory.

Szulanski, Ringov and Jensen (2016: 306) point out that: “through interaction, a knowledge source can articulate its own perspective and reveal implicit rules and assumptions, thereby externalizing hidden tacit knowledge that is otherwise hard to communicate, whereas knowledge recipients can gradually internalize it”.

Moreover, interactions between organizational members can make it possible to share such tacit expertise informally and spontaneously (Malhotra and Majchrzak 2012). According to literature {Nonaka (1994); Polanyi (1966); Szulanski, Ringov and Jensen (2016: 306)} the transfer of knowledge hinges on the effective transfer of tacit knowledge. The proper handling of tacit knowledge lies at the very heart of the creation and transfer of knowledge in organizations (Szulanski, Ringov and Jensen: 2016: 306).

Tacit knowledge may be transferred through observations, imitation and practice just as explained in the previous section. It was observed that the transfer of the tacit knowledge can be done through practice, through observing and emulating a particular action, or through

39

learning the craft by observing the mentor then imitating and practicing until the knowledge is perfectly acquired (.Szulanski, Ringov, and Jensen 2016). Moreover, the observation of the actual performance of a practice allows engagement between the mentor and the mentee on issues that are not clear. To summarise, for tacit knowledge to be transferred through observation, there should be interaction between source and recipient, communication should be very personal, the recipient should observe the knowledge in use and the recipient should keep practicing.

Although all transfers of knowledge require some degree of effort and may experience some difficulty, some transfers experience significantly more difficulties than others, whereas some of the transfer-related problems will be diagnosed easily and resolved routinely (Szulanski, Ringov and Jensen 2016). The deliberations above suggest that tacit knowledge is not easy to transfer when compared to explicit knowledge.

Explicit knowledge can be transferred through interaction between source and recipient, personalized communication and recipient observation of the knowledge in use. Recipient practice facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is contained in impersonal, standardized documents and is designed to be applicable to a wide variety of contexts and users (Nonaka 1994). As a result, the transfer methods that enable personalized communication, such as personnel transfers or informal visits, are more capable of facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge. The main aim of the knowledge transfer process is that the recipient emerges with an identical interpretation of the message to the one that the source intended to convey (Szulanski, Ringov and Jensen 2016:305). It is, however, important to note that the transfer of information may be negatively or positively affected by different factors. Reliability of the source and ability of the recipient to absorb the knowledge are the main factors that may affect the transfer of knowledge (Argote and Ingram 2000:161).

2.10.2.3 Knowledge preservation

The concept of preservation is usually used to explain a situation where one keeps something safe or protects something from harm. One can argue that it is because of preservation that the human race has survived, adapted and adjusted over generations. It is also safe to say that people acquire and transfer knowledge with preservation in mind. Faust (2007:1) draws a good picture of the importance of knowledge preservation when he says that the loss of knowledge does not only threaten the safe and economic operation of nuclear power plants, but also has negative effects on the socio-political system of a country. In Africa, there is an age-old saying “when an old person dies, the entire library burns”. This sums up and shows the importance of knowledge preservation as one of the key knowledge management

40

components. The importance of preserving knowledge in any given situation can never be overemphasized.

Knowledge preservation, therefore, can be defined as a process for maintaining knowledge that is important to an organization’s mission to store knowledge/information over time and provide the possibility of recall for future use (Mazour 2006). For this study, knowledge preservation will be defined as the process of protecting or the keeping safe knowledge (both tacit and explicit), especially indigenous knowledge, by individuals or organizations for future use.

For tacit knowledge to be preserved, it has to be acquired first. After acquisition, this knowledge is integrated to our existing knowledge base. This is what Nonaka (1994) calls combination. Knowledge obtained through training is combined with the knowledge we already have and then it is converted in to our own personal tacit knowledge. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:67), this mode of knowledge conversion involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge. After this knowledge is integrated or combined with our existing knowledge base, it now gets to be internalized.

The conversion of the acquired explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, i.e. internalization, occurs through a series of integrations in which individual concepts become concrete and ultimately absorbed as an integral belief or value (Faust 2007). This internalized knowledge is then preserved inside the human mind for future use. The preservation process is, however, a little different when it comes to explicit knowledge.

McMahon (2015) explains that explicit knowledge is readily codified into a tangible form, that is, documentary material (reports, analyses, memos, videos, email and databases.), that may be retained in a wide variety of media (paper, film and electronic.). It is possible to preserve this knowledge mostly by means of libraries, archives, museums and many other information-handling agencies. This knowledge started as personal, was shared through externalization and became public knowledge which, can be preserved forever. The next section discusses the theoretical foundations related to the KM discipline.