Definitions of Knowledge, Information, Explicit and Tacit Knowledge, and Knowledge Sharing.
It is suggested that these are the key concepts that underpin any knowledge management programme.
Knowledge can be defined as the personal insight, with which one can interpret and apply data and information; it is closely related to the stage of decision making. It can also be seen as an invisible or intangible asset, that is, it is not something that can be touched or felt. Some knowledge exists outside the individual in text format as explicit knowledge, but the majority of knowledge resides within people, making it highly relative, and context dependent.
Plato in his great work on knowledge, the Theaetetus, which probably dates from about 369 BC, provides us with one of the oldest discussions on the underlying principles of knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009). His view that knowledge can be seen as "justified true belief" has been a topic for debate starting with his student Aristotle views and continuing throughout the ages to present-day philosophers’ view on the topic.
It is often stated that there is a continuum of knowledge flow that can be represented as
University
of Cape
Town
40
Data-information-realization-action [knowledge]-reflection-wisdom.
Data represents observations or facts out of context that are, therefore, not directly meaningful (Zack, 1999). Information results from placing data within some meaningful content, often in the form of a message (Zack, 1999). Knowledge, as a "justified true belief", is that which people believe and value and this is generally based on the meaningful and organized accumulation of information (messages) gathered from experience, communication or inference. To obtain information that one needs and to assess the value of information, one has, or needs, to acquire both theoretical and practical knowledge (Kakabadse et al., 2003). An individual only knows what he/she needs to know at the time they need to know it (Snowden, 2002:3).
Information can thus be defined as “facts that have been organized so that they have structure and relationship to the task currently at hand”. It is also presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and which leads to increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty. The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior. Information can also be looked at as a quality of a message from a sender to one or more receivers. In information there should be the existence of a common language understood by the sender and at least one of the receivers. (Wilson and Snyder, 1999).
A further examination of the concept of knowledge has indicated that four types of knowledge can generally be distinguished:
Know-of or Know-about, otherwise known as the operational level of knowledge and it is used as part of an individual’s day-to-day work. This type of knowledge is more readily accessible through intranet systems or transmitted through mass communication techniques such as email. (Austin et al, 2008).
Know-how:- can also be described as operational level knowledge but within the tacit knowledge domain. In other words it is the accumulated experience of how things work and how things get done in an organization. (Austin et al, 2008).
University
of Cape
Town
41
Know-why: - With know-why the strategic awareness has to be known by employees of an organization in the ever-changing environment, i.e. where the organization is going and why; and lastly,
Know-who: - as a lot of the organization’s knowledge resides within individual heads, it is imperative to know who has what knowledge in the organization and this can be unlocked through networking. (Dağli et al, 2009)
A further important distinction is that between explicit and tacit knowledge:
Explicit knowledge: This is generally the term used in knowledge management where knowledge has been externalized, encoded and recorded. It also includes data, information, reports and procedures contained within an information technology system and which is accessible and communicable. This data can be retrieved and explained clearly to others in the organization. (Smith, 2001). Explicit knowledge can also be absorbed through experimentation if the individual remains consciously aware of his/her activities and the resulting outcomes. As long as an individual is consciously aware of the knowledge, its details can be expressed to others and it is therefore considered explicit. Explicit knowledge and information have often, for operational purposes, been equated to each other.
Tacit knowledge, in knowledge management, is a deeper experience - it is the expertise and know- how of individuals and the organization. This knowledge is undocumented and exists in the minds of the employees and in the unrecorded processes of the organization. As it is people who act on knowledge not machines, this reinforces the need to focus on mobilizing, energizing, supporting and enabling all individuals in organizations to combine their know-about and know-how to develop existing services more efficiently as well as creating new services. It seems to be overlooked that knowledge does not always flow because formal structures or systems have been created but instead by means of day-to-day interaction.
(Smith, 2001)
University
of Cape
Town
42
Most researchers and practitioners (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) agree that a major part of knowledge in an organization is in tacit form. Smith (2001:311) reports that 90 percent of the knowledge in any organization is embedded and synthesized in people’s heads. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific, and difficult to formalize and communicate (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It is an ability or skill to do something or solve a problem, which is partly based on one’s own experience and learning. Polanyi (1966: 4) concisely sums up tacit knowledge with the phrase ‘‘we know more than we can tell’’. Tacit knowledge, unlike explicit knowledge is not easily shared through conventional instruments, such as documents, databases, systems, and processes (Polanyi, 1966). . However, as long as one uses appropriate language, a good deal of knowledge can be shared among people but not all knowledge.
Although, for many persons, tacit knowledge is a new domain about which little is known there is now the beginning of a realization that tacit knowledge is critical to the key organizational tasks of creating new knowledge, generating new products and improving new organizational procedures that lead to innovation. Every organization that seeks to be successful has to create the conditions enabling everyone in the organization to verbalize their tacit knowledge. Each employee should maximize his/her contribution to the pool of ideas that provide a competitive edge for the organization (Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004). A prerequisite for the evolution of tacit knowledge is an open culture in an organization which supports innovation. A culture that supports tacit knowledge enables idea generation, stimulates creativity and has a positive effect on work activities.
Knowledge Sharing: Organizations could foster innovation by encouraging knowledge sharing and the free flow of ideas (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). This would also help organizations understand external demands and the needs of users and or customers. In addition, knowledge sharing brings benefit to organizations in terms of stimulating the development of products and services as well as the development of both vision and strategies (Sanchez and Palacios, 2007).
Additionally, knowledge sharing could enhance employee retention rates and minimize the negative effects of brain drain whenever employees leave the organization. This could be done
University
of Cape
Town
43
by recognizing the value of employees’ knowledge and thus, rewarding them accordingly (Swart and Kinnie, 2003). When Knowledge is shared effectively, operations could be streamlined and costs reduced by eliminating redundant or unnecessary processes.
Parirokh et al. (2008) have noted that effective knowledge sharing requires adequate technological and cultural facilitation. In many organizations the focus has been on the former aspect neglecting the importance of cultural factors in knowledge-sharing activities. It is, however, argued that one of the most important factors that could influence the success of knowledge sharing is the social trust or mutual trust among members or employees (Chow and Chan, 2008). The social trust in an organization is the foundation that fosters interaction between colleagues and which then results in the sharing of knowledge. A further factor that affects knowledge sharing is whether an environment of honesty exists in the organization, for if this does not occur, competition could be rife among employees and trust would be eroded and knowledge sharing would not occur.