What is Knowledge?

Knowledge can be divided into individual and organisational components. Individual knowledge is anchored within individuals, whereas organisational knowledge is embedded in different elements of organisations such as the structure of technology, and the systems or routines used by the organisation (Argote & Ingram, 2000).

Defining the term knowledge generates a pool of arguments among philosophers in the field of epistemology. Epistemology refers to knowledge theory concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and its relationship with the notion of truth, belief, and justification. For instance, one may see knowledge from an objective point of view, which interprets knowledge in terms of formal logic and facts. Others may see it from the subjective point of view that considers and accepts a variety of interpretations, based on people’s feelings or perceptions.

Traditional epistemology defines knowledge as a true belief that is justifiable and acknowledges “truthfulness” as an essential attribute of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka suggests that epistemologists see knowledge as absolute, static, and nonhuman, and that it is expressed in propositional forms of formal logic. According to this theory, in order to accept the beliefs that are held true cognitively as knowledge, one must not only believe that knowledge is true but also be able to justify it.

The difficulty that exists in defining this important organisational resource is that knowledge is considered a self-evident concept (Hertog & Huizenga, 2000). The meaning of ‘knowledge’ can be clarified and easily understood if one manages to distinguish the difference between the concept of ‘data’ and ‘information’. Some people tend to confuse the word ‘knowledge’ with ‘information’ and ‘data’; therefore, consequently these terms are often used

17 | P a g e interchangeably in the literature (Kakabadse, Kakabadse, & Kouzmin, 2003). They are not interchangeable as they are not synonymous. Instead, a pertinent relationship exists among these concepts, which can be observed from understanding how each concept builds upon each other.

For example, De Long and Fahey (2000) suggest the importance of distinguishing the interrelated concepts of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom in order to gain a better understanding of managing knowledge. They refer the term “data” to unprocessed descriptions about past, present, or future words. Similarly, Awad and Ghaziri (2004), define ‘data’ as unorganised and unprocessed facts that are static in nature. As such data carry no meaning unless one understands the context in which they were collected. Information explains the patterns that individuals search for in data (De Long & Fahey, 2000) or recognise as a flow of messages (Nonaka, 1994). Awad and Ghaziri (2004) suggest that information shapes and forms the data to arrive at a meaning in the eyes of the receiver, and involves an aggregation, reformatting, and processing of data that permits an easy way for an individual to make decisions (Misra et al., 2003). Misra et al. (2003) also suggest that the combination of past experiences, insights, beliefs and values creates knowledge. As such, information extends the concept of data in a broader context, which has meaning, purpose, and relevance to the individuals’ contexts.

De Long and Fahey (2000) define knowledge as a product of human reflection and experience. In addition, Alavi and Leidner (2001) refer to knowledge as the inflow of new stimuli that is initiated by human cognitive processes. Nonaka (1994), however, defines knowledge as information that has been created and arranged by its flow, and anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder. Turban, Aronson and Liang (2005) define knowledge has both strong experiential and reflective elements that clearly distinguish it from information.

However, since there are unclear boundaries around explanations surrounding the definition of knowledge, Allee (1997) suggests that

18 | P a g e knowledge may be pictured as either an object, a process, a complex system, or a combination of all three, depending on how individuals think about the usefulness of the knowledge. The author defines knowledge as communicated and shared experiences. Davenport and Prusak (2000, p.5), provide a clearer and more distinctive explanation on the definition of knowledge, suggesting that:

“....knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knower. In organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes, practices and norms.”

The literature of knowledge management shows further definitions of knowledge and has resulted in two important definitions of knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Martensson, 2000). These are perspectives of knowledge and taxonomies of knowledge or properties of knowledge (Argote, McEvily & Reagans, 2003). Several perspectives of knowledge outlined by Alavi and Leidner (2001) show that these different perspectives of knowledge will lead to the emergence of various strategies for managing organisational knowledge. For example, viewing knowledge from the perspective of distinguishing between information and data establishes the foundation of research in information technology. Other researchers may define knowledge from the perspective of a state of mind, an object, a process, a condition of having access to information, or a capability which leads to different perceptions of managing knowledge within organisations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Knowledge can also be defined according to its taxonomy. Taxonomies of knowledge refer to the classification of knowledge as being either tacit or explicit, and exists in either individual or collective forms (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). A distinction between the two categories of knowledge (i.e. tacit and

19 | P a g e explicit knowledge) is necessary to have a better understanding of managing knowledge in organisations.

Tacit knowledge is difficult to express, formalise or share and exists in an intangible format (Sveiby, 1997). Tacit knowledge tends to be deeply rooted in personal insights, values and feelings that are not readily communicated or shared with others (Nonaka, 1994; Sveiby, 1997). It has both cognitive and technical elements, and possesses a personal quality that is difficult to communicate. It is also reflected in human actions and their interaction with the socially constructed environment (Argote & Ingram, 2000; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Nonaka, 1994; Sveiby, 1997; Yahya & Goh, 2002). The cognitive element refers to an individual’s mental models comprising of mental maps, beliefs, paradigms, and viewpoints like individuals’ beliefs on cause-effect relationships (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Nonaka, 1994). The technical element refers to crafts and skills of know-how applicable to specific contexts such as engineering skills. Examples of tacit knowledge are knowledge of the best means of approaching clients (Alavi & Leidner, 2001), intuitions, insights, beliefs, hunches and values (Gore & Gore, 1999; Guth, 1996 cited in Yahya & Goh, 2002).

Explicit knowledge is knowledge expressed in a tangible format by words, numbers, or sounds. It can be codified and readily transmitted and it can be embedded in formal rules, tools, and processes such as databases, handbooks of instruction, and stored in firm’s standard operating procedures (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; De Long & Fahey, 2000). Choo (2000) suggests that explicit knowledge may be either object-based or rule-based. Object- based knowledge is embodied in physical entities or represented using strings of symbols such those found in artifacts like products, patents, software codes, computer databases, technical drawings, tools, prototypes, films, and voice recordings. Knowledge is rule-based when it is codified into rules, routines and procedures (Choo, 2000). So explicit knowledge can be more easily identified, distributed, and measured in an organisation, compared to intangible knowledge, which resides in human minds. Due to these characteristics, explicit knowledge can often be reused within

20 | P a g e organisations for decision making purposes, and will remain with the organisation after the knowledge creators have left the organisation (Choo, 2000).

Therefore, despite the confusion in the use of the terms data, information, and knowledge, it is suggested that data is the source of information within which the combination of data and information create knowledge. Knowledge provides a higher level of understanding and comprehension about data and information (Turban et al., 2005). So, knowledge can be seen as a series of both tangible and intangible elements, which are regarded as an essential part in the knowledge management domain (Alavi & Leidner, 2001); one which generates a central theme of discussion in the knowledge management literature. Knowledge conveys meaning, which makes it more valuable because it contains a series of elements that bring added value to products or services. It may be regarded as a bundle of experiences, values, insights, and expertise, and involves cognitive processes. It is embodied in individual language, stories, concepts, rules, tools, perceptions, beliefs, understandings, and value judgements that enable organisations to increase capacity for better decision making and action (Allee, 1997; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Nooteboom, 2000). Understanding the various perspectives of knowledge and their taxonomies gives insights for researchers to frame assumptions about knowledge that underlie the concept of knowledge management. Argote et al. (2003) suggest the nature of knowledge affects how it is stored and how it flows within and across the organisation, and the ability of an individual to share the knowledge as a consequence.

Despite various definitions and explanations of knowledge in the literature, the definition of knowledge which is adopted in this research is that suggested by Davenport and Prusak (2000). Their definition outlines three important characteristics of knowledge. Firstly, their definition offers a foundation for effective responses to a new situation through combining the concept of data and information. Secondly, the knowledge holder can be both sender and receiver of knowledge. Finally, knowledge not only tacit, it is also explicitly embedded in codified forms such as files, databases, organisational

21 | P a g e standard operating procedures (SOPs) or organisational manuals. Both tacit and explicit knowledge can be easily lost unless organisations manage their knowledge resources effectively to sustain their competitive advantage. This requires organisations to design systematic pressures to manage and organise this valuable intangible asset.