Knowledge taxonomies

Knowledge can also be defined according to its taxonomy. Taxonomies of knowledge refer to its classification. An understanding of the concept of knowledge and knowledge classification is important because theoretical developments in the knowledge management area are influenced by the distinction between the different types of knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Studying the literature relating to the taxonomies of knowledge reveals that knowledge falls into several classifications. A number of examples are given in Table 2.1. However, this chapter will not discuss all the classifications below but instead briefly introduce the most common ones.

Table 2.1 : Different types of knowledge

Authors Knowledge

classifications Definitions

Alavi & Leidner (2001); DeLong & Fahey (2000)

Individual Created by and inherent in the individual

Social Created by and inherent in collective actions of a group

Hislop (2005); McKenzie & Van WinKelen (2004); Alavi & Leidner (2001); Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)

Tacit Knowledge is rooted in actions, experience, and involvement in specific context

Cognitive tacit Mental models

Technical tacit Know-how applicable to specific work Explicit Articulated, generalised knowledge Hansen et al (1999) Codified Available in written documents and

manuals, procedures

Non-codified Acquired through experience McJenzie & Van

Winkelen (2004); Alavi & Leidner (2001); Zack (1999) Declarative Know-about Procedural Know-how Causal Know-why Conditional Know-when Relational Know-with McJenzie & Van

Winkelen (2004); Blackler (1995)

Endbrain Conceptual skills and abilities Embodied Acquired by doing

Encultured Acquired through socialisation Embedded Organisational routine

Encoded Sign and symbols Source: adapted from Alavi and Leidner (2001)

Zack (1999) sees knowledge from five different classifications: knowledge as declarative (know-about or knowledge by acquaintance), procedural knowledge (know- how), causal (know-why), conditional (know-when) and relational (know-with). Blackler’s (1995) knowledge framework ingeniously avoids the paradoxical nature of knowledge (Snowden, 2003) by adapting new conventional assumptions about the location of knowledge (i.e. knowledge resides in bodies, routines, brains, dialogue and symbols). Blackler suggests that there are five different classifications of knowledge: “embrained (conceptual skills and abilities), “embodied (acquired by doing), “encultured” (acquired through socialisation), “embedded” (organisational routines) and “encoded” (sign and symbols). Hensen et al. (1999) suggest two classifications of knowledge: codified (available in written documents and manuals) and non-codified (acquired through experience).

Despite various classifications of knowledge, scholars have some common understanding of parts of these viewpoints. The classification of tacit and explicit knowledge remains the most common and practical. Seminal work done by Polanyi (1958) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) use the concept of tacit and explicit knowledge in defining knowledge dimensions in the discipline of knowledge management and has received substantive international reference and commendation. A distinction between the two categories of knowledge (i.e. tacit and explicit) is necessary in order to have a better understanding of managing knowledge in organisations.

Tacit knowledge is referred to as internalised knowledge encompassing the expertise, skills, understanding and experience within the organisation. Tacit knowledge is found embedded in actions, commitment and involvement in a specific context and it is also derived from personal experiences; it is subjective as well as difficult to formalise (Nonaka et al., 2000). Yahya and Goh (2002) view tacit knowledge as not visible, hence not easily communicated, understood or measured. Thus, the subjective and intuitive nature of tacit knowledge makes it difficult to be represented or transferred in a logical and systematic way (Nooteboom, 1992). It is therefore imperative that organisations find ways to encourage their employees to share tacit knowledge which is recognised as a strategic asset. In the context of the construction organisations, tacit knowledge is the experience and expertise kept in the construction professional’s mind, company culture,

lessons learned, know-how, and gained from successful and failed projects in the past is often perceived as very important. The major challenge is to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and vice versa, in a format that can be easily absorbed by construction organisations (Barrett and Sexton, 1999). A few examples of tacit knowledge in construction organisations include estimating and tendering skills and interaction with clients/customers and project team members.

Conversely, explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been or can be articulated, codified and stored in different formats and can be readily transmitted to others. Similarly, Pan and Scarborough (1999) believe that the explicit part of knowledge is systematic and easy to communicate in the form of hard data or codified procedures. This means that the explicit form of knowledge can be easily stored and transmitted formally between individuals. Due to these characteristics, explicit knowledge can often be reused within organisations for decision-making purposes and will remain with the organisation even after the knowledge creators have left the organisation (Choo, 2000). In the construction organisations, explicit knowledge refers to documented information such as a description of estimate procedure, contract policy manual, project information, design drawings and specifications, cost reports, risk analysis results, and other information being collected, stored, and archived in paper or electronic format.

Tacit and explicit knowledge are not totally separated, but mutually complementary entities. This organisational knowledge can be created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge (Carrillo et al., 2003). This resonates with Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) suggestion that knowledge is the product of the interaction of both explicit and tacit knowledge. However, both tacit and explicit knowledge can be easily lost unless organisations manage their knowledge resources effectively in order to sustain their competitive advantage (Aziz et al., 2013). This requires organisations to design systematic attempts to manage and organise this valuable intangible asset.

Despite the categorisations of knowledge to be managed in organisations, current discussions of knowledge emphasise two perspectives, as identified by Empson (2001): “knowledge as an asset” and “knowing as a process”. Hence, current knowledge management definitions further emphasise these dominant perspectives of knowledge (Subsection 2.2.1.3).