The SECI model and its development

The most prominent concept of the process of knowledge creation is provided by Nonaka and Takeuchi. Their ‘SECI’ model (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) has achieved ‘paradigmatic status’ (Gourlay, 2006, p.1415). In their ‘SECI’

model the creation of organisational knowledge is illustrated as a spiralling process of social interactions among individuals who hold explicit and tacit knowledge

(Nonaka et al., 1998, p.147). Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) claim that the creation of knowledge takes place in four different conversion processes:

from tacit to tacit (socialisation), from tacit to explicit (externalisation), from explicit to

explicit (combination), and from explicit to tacit (internalising). Figure 2.2 illustrates these conversion processes.

Figure 2.2: SECI model

(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

If these processes are combined with the dimension of time, spirals of knowledge are created. Inherent to these spirals are first of all the contents of knowledge which present both the inputs and outputs of knowledge spirals and the five phases in which the knowledge creation process is divided. These phases are the sharing of tacit knowledge, the generation of concepts and their justification, the set-up of a prototype and the dispersal of knowledge. Finally, the knowledge spirals also encompass the five enabling conditions necessary for a knowledge spiral to be commenced: intention, self-sufficiency, creative turmoil, redundancy of existing knowledge, and diversity (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Jakubik, 2011). Further, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) differentiate between different types of knowledge assets occurring in the four conversion processes of the SECI model: sympathised (assigned to the socialisation process), conceptual (assigned to the externalisation process), systemic (assigned to the combination process), and operational

(assigned to the internalisation process) knowledge.

Nonaka et al. (2000) emphasise that the four conversion processes of knowledge creation are not a circle but a spiral to illustrate that organisational knowledge creation is continuously ongoing and prompting new spirals of knowledge creation.

This dynamic process starts at the individual level but can expand over organisational boundaries.

Following this model, organisations have to create an environment which facilitates the necessary steps of knowledge retrieval, knowledge combination and knowledge sharing in order to enable individuals to create new knowledge (Newell et al., 2009).

From an epistemological standpoint this model implies that knowledge creation can take place on the following levels: individuals, groups, organisations and

collaborating organisations. However, the basis of organisational knowledge creation is the individual’s tacit knowledge (Nonaka et al., 1998).

According to Jakubik (2011) this first phase of the development of knowledge creation theory provided the basis for all further development of theory on knowledge creation which is introduced below.

In a next step the SECI model was enhanced and slightly altered by adding the concept of ba and leadership to the SECI approach. According to Nonaka et al.

(2000, p.8) ba is a “shared context in motion for knowledge creation”. The SECI process was further enriched by Nonaka et al. (2000) by adding four factors which constitute the different phases in the SECI process (see Figure 2.2): empathising enables socialisation, articulating enables externalisation, combining enables combination, and embodying enables internalisation. Nonaka et al. (2000) named this enhanced model a ‘Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation’.

According to Nonaka et al. (2000) ba provides a context in which knowledge can be shared, generated and used. It offers individuals the dynamism, quality and place to carry out the necessary steps of the knowledge spiral (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).

Ba encompasses aspects such as a physical space, time, personal and mental space and shared ideals. These aspects allow individuals to act and to interact which is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge creation according to Nonaka et al.

(2000).

Nonaka et al. (2000) summarise their dynamic model of the organisational knowledge creation process by illustrating that an organisation generates new knowledge by utilising its members’ tacit knowledge in the SECI process which takes place in ba. The new knowledge is then integrated into the organisation’s existing knowledge assets and feeds into a new spiral of knowledge creation.

The introduction of ba redirects the focus from the knowledge creation process to the necessary context for knowledge creation processes and the role of leadership in this process (Jakubik, 2011). Management is not supposed to control or direct this

process of knowledge creation but to enable and foster the creation of knowledge by providing certain conditions (Nonaka et al., 2006). Middle management is supposed to actively engage in knowledge creation processes by participating in them as well as by leading ba. Top management is supposed to provide and disperse the

knowledge vision and to create and maintain ba (Nonaka et al., 2000).

Building upon the ‘Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation’ (Nonaka et al., 2000), von Krogh et al. (2000a) further develop the theory on dynamic knowledge creation by highlighting the importance of the context in the knowledge creation process (Jakubik, 2011). In their research, von Krogh et al. (2000a, p.260) observed an ‘evolution of knowledge initiatives’ which many of the organisations explored in their research went through. Von Krogh et al. (2000a, p.261) summarise that at the beginning of their ‘knowledge-enabling path’ the organisation’s focus was mainly on detecting and capturing existing knowledge within the organisation to, in a second step, then transfer it and to store it in an adequate form to make it available to the entire organisation and find new areas of use for this existing knowledge. During this stage, management often became aware that beside the efficient use of technology it was even more important that people were motivated to share their knowledge and use others’ knowledge. At this stage, awareness rose that more emphasis needed to be placed on the knowledge transfer process and how employees could be motivated by their context to engage in these processes. To address this and in order to become ‘innovators’ organisations then had to take the next step which involved a shift away from the focus on knowledge assets to a focus on the

processes and contexts of new knowledge creation. Von Krogh et al. (2000a, p.262) suggest a number of ‘knowledge enabling tools’ to be utilised by organisations’

management in order to provide conditions which enable the organisations’

members to create new knowledge:

 introduce a knowledge vision and remove knowledge barriers;

 develop a strong culture of conversations;

 activate knowledge activists who constantly engage and encourage people;

 create and manage the right context (ba);

 globalise local knowledge.

Next, von Krogh et al. (2000b) shifted their focus to the exploration of the justification of knowledge which, from their point of view, enabled a full understanding of the knowledge creation process. According to Nonaka and

Takeuchi (1995) corporate knowledge is about beliefs and intentions and cannot be judged by its truthfulness since there is no objective position it can be judged from.

“It is rather a question of justified true beliefs, emphasising the need for permanent implicit and explicit justification” (von Krogh et al. 2000b, p.14). From their point of view, the process of knowledge creation can also be understood as the

development of justified true beliefs and cannot be separated from the dominant logic within an organisation. Hence, the process of knowledge creation cannot be fully understood without exploring the dynamic process of justification and the dominant logic since these significantly contribute to the decision of whether new knowledge is accepted or rejected by an organisation (von Krogh et al., 2000b).

Von Krogh et al.’s. (2000b) exploration of the justification of knowledge is included here in order to illustrate all development phases of dynamic knowledge creation theory discussed by Jakubik (2011). Since the justification of knowledge is beyond the scope of this work, this approach is not discussed in further detail.

Finally, Nonaka et al. (2008) contribute to the further development of dynamic knowledge creation theory by promoting a shift in relation to how knowledge and management are generally viewed. Based on the previously existing theory on knowledge creation they call for a replacement of ‘conventional knowledge

management’ to ‘knowledge-based management’ (Nonaka et al., 2008, p.2). What Nonaka et al. (2008) aim to achieve by this replacement is to provide an approach to how organisations can create their future by changing both themselves and their immediate environment through the process of knowledge creation. In order to accomplish this, organisations need creative capacity without which the

organisational knowledge would not be able to survive in an interconnected global economy. Nonaka et al. (2008, p.14) call this creative capacity ‘Phronesis’ which they understand as the context-sensitive practical wisdom which enables individuals to comprehend specific situations and to determine and undertake the most suitable action necessary to create change. At the heart of their theory lies the assumption that knowledge is not objective, because then it would only be information, but subjective, depending on the human subjectivity and its context. Leadership in the context of Phronesis is understood as flexible, distributed and determined by the context and not as fixed administrative control.

To Jakubik (2011) this most current development of the dynamic knowledge creation theory through its focus on the subjective- and process-oriented aspects of

knowledge creation demonstrates the need for a paradigm shift in relation to knowledge and the focus on philosophical standpoints and concepts in connection to the advancement of knowledge creation theory. Before the thesis moves on to

explore Jakubik’s work in more detail the different theories on dynamic knowledge creation introduced so far are evaluated.