1.6 Knowledge – Definitions and Types of Knowledge
1.6.2 Types of Knowledge
Although definitions of knowledge are numerous and accorded justification by virtue of the perspective of each author and how, when and where, each is determining the application of knowledge, the literature tends to focus on two forms of “knowledge” – tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge residing in the head of a person and cannot easily be expressed or codified. Explicit/codified knowledge is knowledge that is written down, for example, organisational procedures, or scientific formulae.
Polanyi (1958; 1967), a major knowledge philosopher, points out that the nature of personal knowledge makes it difficult to express. Addressing issues of tacit knowledge, he suggests that while some tacit knowledge can be expressed, there is some that is ineffable, i.e. incapable of being expressed. This is where he introduces implicit beliefs, defining them as “the beliefs held in the form of our conceptual framework” (1958, pp. 286-287). To illustrate his view Polanyi refers to the work of Levy-Bruhl, and Evans-Pritchard, saying that the implicit beliefs of primitive Africans are revealed through their use of language and their understanding of events. Those beliefs are held within the bounds of the society in which they live yet in the eyes of those foreign to that society the beliefs are incomprehensible. The introduction of implicit knowledge provides a third classification to the types of knowledge.
From an organisational perspective that there is a third category of knowledge is of importance. Providing the conditions are right to elicit the knowledge, implicit knowledge opens an avenue for organisations gaining access to some aspects of tacit knowledge. Articulation of knowledge through the implicit pathway provides the opportunity for it to become explicit. Explicit knowledge is of importance to organisations because it is knowledge that is in a format that enables intellectual capital to build.
Recognising the value of implicit knowledge Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) and Firestone and McElroy (2003) are critical of Nonaka (1991) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). They declare the latters‟ approach to be too simple because it is concerned only with tacit and explicit knowledge without taking into consideration of Polyani‟s introduction of implicit knowledge.
Nonaka (1991) uses the word articulation (externalisation) to indicate the converting of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and internalisation to illustrate using explicit knowledge as a means through which an individual‟s knowledge can be increased. Here, Nonaka is signalling his belief that tacit knowledge can be made explicit. Nonaka developed four approaches to knowledge conversion and they are (p.99):
Socialisation – sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals
Externalisation – expressing of tacit knowledge and translating it to be understood by others Combination – converting explicit knowledge into complex sets of explicit knowledge
Internalisation – referring to conversion of explicit knowledge into the organisation‟s tacit knowledge.
Nonaka, working with Takeuchi developed what is known as the SECI Model (Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) of conversion, Figure 1.2 below:
Figure 1.2 Nonaka’s Modes of Knowledge Creation
Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge To
Tacit
Knowledge Socialization Externalization From
Explicit
Knowledge Internalization Combination
Source: Nonaka (1994, Fig. 1, p.19)
The SECI Model has had a major influence, particularly at an organisational level and in literature relating to knowledge management. However, several authors (e.g. Snowden, 2002; Smart et al., 2003; Firestone and McElroy, 2003) are critical of the SECI Model for its assumption that tacit knowledge can be transferred, when in effect what has been dealt with is implicit knowledge. Hence, its critics argue, the SECI model does not take cognisance of implicit knowledge. Although Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) do not acknowledge the existence of implicit knowledge, and its association with tacit knowledge, Nonaka was au fait with the work of Polanyi. Nonaka (1994) refers to, and quotes, Polanyi, indicating familiarity with his work. The SECI Model arrived early
on the knowledge scene. It created interest and ready acceptance as being definitive by those seeking to identify ways in which knowledge can be made available
The OECD (1996) views knowledge as know-what, know-why, know-how and capable of interpretation as knowledge termed as knowing. In their research Cook and Brown (2005) examine knowledge and knowing, stating that knowledge is something possessed, and knowing is practice, and indicating that they are complementary. The importance and value of knowledge lies not just in its possession, but also in its ability to take the knowledge to an actionable state.
It is essential to utilise the know-what, the know-how, and the know-why knowledge of people in a value creating way. Know-what according to Gamble and Blackwell (2001) is knowledge that can be codified and available for use by those who need it. Know-how is the second stage relating to the ability to retrieve the knowledge and to use it at the right time. Knowing why takes knowledge to a level of greater importance because it involves changing the culture and beliefs of people in the organisation. From the perspective of an organisation, it is critically important to be able to convert the knowledge of their employees in a way that will provide benefit to both the organisation and the employees.
Research by Barth (2005) examines knowledge types and their properties and his work is useful for organisations looking to maximise their access to knowledge to build intellectual capital. Consideration is given to explicit, tacit and implicit
knowledge,
identifying respectively their value, how the knowledge can be leveraged and who has ownership of the knowledge. This approach provides organisations with an understanding of the expectations of knowledge, and how it might be managed to allow an organisation to maximise the benefits to be gained from knowledge available to it. Table 1.4 below has been designed by Barth (2005) to illustrate knowledge types and their properties.From an organisational perspective, Bahra (2001) suggests that there has been a greater focus by the Western world on explicit knowledge, and that tacit knowledge has tended to be overlooked. He believes that tacit knowledge is at the core of Japanese competitiveness. The nature of society in Japan is such that it is contextual in its associations and, therefore, bounded within its business environment. Japanese organisations stress the importance of working together, sharing of knowledge, skills and experience within the organisation, anddeveloping co-operative relationships
with external parties. This compares with the Western world where there is reliance on written expression, i.e. learning by the book.
Table 1.4 Knowledge Types and Properties Key Information and Intellectual
Assets
What is their value?
How to leverage?
Who owns the asset?
Explicit:
- transaction data - work products (docs) - research notes, etc
- e-mail and correspondence - patents and intellectual property
Valuable Collect Organisation
Tacit:
- experience - expertise - relationships - reputation
Invaluable Connect Individual
Implicit:
- conversations - trust
- values
Intangible Cultivate Community
Source: Barth (2005), Table 28.1 p. 349
Roos et al. (1998) argue that tacit and explicit knowledge should be regarded as complementary to each other, with neither being afforded greater importance. The views of Bahra (2001) and of Roos et al. (1998) point to perceptions that can arise when examining differences between cultures about how organisations perceive their future. Because explicit knowledge is codified knowledge it can be viewed as providing the definitive way for doing things. But as new knowledge becomes available and a better way to do something emerges, the question arises as to whether the existing codified knowledge is up-to-date. Frequently it is not. Tacit knowledge encompasses experience, is judgemental, and is dynamic. With acquisition of new knowledge, changes in thinking and knowing take place. The contribution made by tacit knowledge, that in the right environment and context can become implicit, has a great deal to offer.
Gamble and Blackwell (2001) promote several other kinds of knowledge and in doing so they widen the scope of understanding of knowledge and advance the realisation there are many perspectives of knowledge. The ways of viewing knowledge make people aware that some knowledge does not change while other knowledge is in a constant state of change. Also that factual knowledge provides a base on which decisions can be made to proceed in a situation while procedural knowledge lets people know what should be done. Abstract knowledge has many
applications, and that specific knowledge has only one. The kinds of knowledge suggested by Gamble and Blackwell are as follows (p. 64):
Static knowledge Dynamic knowledge
Declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts)
Procedural knowledge (knowledge of how to do things)
Knowledge that is abstract (in that it may apply to many situations) Knowledge that is specific (in that it applies only to one situation).
Although all forms of knowledge are important in the business context, there is a particular desire to try to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, with the aim of generating value and benefit to the organisation. Although it is possible to identify the mechanical processes of a job, the skill, experience, level of expertise, general background and education of the giver of the knowledge required to carry out the task will not pass from the expert to the novice. Not all the tacit knowledge that people have is valuable, nor does all tacit knowledge need to be captured. With a high degree of knowledge held by a person being identified by Polanyi (1958) as ineffable, the point is raised about the necessity of passing on all knowledge beyond the process involved. Following a recipe to make a cake may be straightforward, but identifying the correct texture of the mixture to ensure success emerges through practice and development of the appropriate skills.
The individual knowledge of people along with collective knowledge developed as a result of employee interaction can provide a „knowledge hub‟ through which the organisation is able to operate. Encapsulated in the competencies of employees is their knowledge, skills, and expertise providing the know-what, how and why so essential to the organisation. Yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to transfer such knowledge from a tacit to explicit form. For organisations to function, knowledge is the oil upon which they depend. Knowledge infiltrates every activity throughout the organisation, and to maximise its value it is necessary for management to find ways of tapping into that knowledge base and to create new knowledge for the development and expansion of their core competencies.
From an organisational perspective there is vulnerability around intellectual capital. Organisations do not own the people they employ, they rent people for a period of time (Stewart, 1997). Organisations have access to the knowledge of people while they are in their employ and the rent
paid for their services is in some form of monetary compensation. People can, and do leave an organisation at any time taking their knowledge and skills with them, thus placing organisations in the position of being susceptible to the whim of their employees. However, it is frequently the case that the contribution of an employee goes unrecognised or is not acknowledge until the person has left, and subsequently a knowledge gap is realised.