Types of Knowledge

The review of the literature has identified a plethora of knowledge classifications. For example, Hansen et al. (1999) suggested two classifications of knowledge; codified knowledge which is available in written documents and manuals, procedures, whereas non- codified knowledge that is acquired through experience. A similar view is that of Conklin (1997), who has divided knowledge into formal knowledge, which is gained from books and, manuals and is easily shared, while informal knowledge is obtained through social interaction among employees at workplace. However, others, such as Nonaka, (1994); Nonaka and Takeushi (1995); DeLong and Fahey (2000); Alavi and Leidner (2001); Popadiuk and Choo, (2006) distinguished between individual knowledge which is created by and exists in the individual according to her beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and the factors that influence her personality formation, and social knowledge which is created by and resides in the collective actions of a group. It involves the norms that guide intra-group communication and coordination. Considering a particular context, collective knowledge could be related to cultural knowledge.

Further categorisation of knowledge was provided by Grant, 1996; Zack, 1999; Carayannis, 1999; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Fernandez et al. 2004; Anand et al., 2010), who identified a number of different categories, including Declarative (Know-about),Procedural (Know-how), Causal (Know-why), Conditional (Know-when) and Relational (Know-with). Whereas, Zack (1999) and Blackler (1995), among others, saw knowledge from five different classifications: knowledge as Endbrain (conceptual skills and abilities), Embodied (acquired by doing), Encultured (acquired through socialisation), Embedded (organisational routines) and Encoded (sign and symbols). Christensen (2007), on the other hand, suggested four types of knowledge: professional, coordinating, object-based knowledge, and know-how knowledge.

51

In addition, Yahiya and Goh (2002) viewed knowledge as composed of two dimensions: individual knowledge, and organisational knowledge. Whereas the former category of knowledge relates to cognitive understanding, the latter pertains to knowledge which is formed by means of interaction with technology, techniques, and people. The individual knowledge, which is sometimes referred to as personalised knowledge, is problematic, due to its tacit nature, whereas that of organisational knowledge is relatively easy, due to its being explicit. Mathew’s (2008) divided knowledge into three types; factual knowledge (It is based on knowing the facts), situational knowledge (It acquired about a particular situation) and social knowledge (It emphases on social issues for example social networks and relationships). From Lundvall and Johnson’s (1994) point of view, knowledge can be classified into know what (about fact), know why (About the principles and laws), know how (about the skills and actions needed for task) and know who (about who knows what and how).

Other studies explored further properties of knowledge. For example, Uzzi and Lancaster (2003) and Marouf (2007) argued that knowledge can classified into public and private knowledge: Public knowledge defined as the knowledge reported through standard instruments such as company reports, audited financial statements, regulatory filings, advertised bid and ask prices, price quotes, and other forms of prepared information accessible in the public domain. Private knowledge, on the other hand, defined as knowledge that is not publicly available or guaranteed by third parties. Rather, it is ‘‘soft’’ information that deals with idiosyncratic and non-standard information about the firm, such as unpublished aspects of a firm’s strategy, distinctive competencies, undocumented product capabilities, inside management conflict, etc.

Despite the different perspectives on the types of knowledge given above, there is a common agreement among scholars and researchers that the distinctions of tacit and explicit

52

knowledge remain the most common and practical (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995 and Fernie et al., 2003), which are of particular interest to this research. The origin of this classifications stems from Polanyi (1967), and later used in organisational context by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Tacit knowledge can be characterised as subjective, intuitive and difficult to be passed and communicated with others (Yahya and Goh 2002; Hislop, 2005).Tacit knowledge is a highly personal, intangible and embedded in the minds of people (Polanyi, 1967 cited in Nonaka, 1994). It is obtainable through learning and experience, social interaction among individuals and practical application and work practices, and can be also transferred and demonstrated by observing (Polanyi, 1967; Nonaka, 1991; Sanderson, 2001, Gibbert et al., 2002; von Krogh et al., 2012). The tacit dimension is based on experience, thinking, and feelings in a specific context, and is comprised of both cognitive and technical components. The cognitive component refers to an individual's mental models, maps, beliefs, paradigms, and viewpoints. The technical component refers to concrete know-how and skills that apply to a specific context (Nonaka et al 2000; Nonaka et al 2006; Popadiuk and Choo, 2006). Tacit knowledge is dynamic and internalized within its holders; it is embedded within actions, values, ideals and commitments (Nonaka et al., 2000). Tacit knowledge can be constituted great value to the organisations (Koulopoulos and Frappaolo, 1999; Marwick, 2001; Minbaeva and Michailova, 2004). It can be an essential source of sustainable competitive advantage in companies (Teece, 1996; Jashapara, 2003; Chen and Edgington, 2005). It is believed to be a product of learning from experience that leads to intellectual capital and performance (Sternberg and Wagner, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Armstrong and Mahmud, 2008). It acknowledged that tacit knowledge is vital to getting things done and is the key to organisational tasks, for example generating new knowledge, creating new products, and improving procedures, which in turn leads to innovation at workplace (Seidler- de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008).

53

The explicit dimension of knowledge, on the other hand, is the type of knowledge that can be formally and systematically stored, articulated, and easily disseminated among individuals within the workplace through certain codified forms and records such as protocols, checklists, guidelines, reports, files, or other tangible forms (Polanyi, 1967 cited in Nonaka, 1994; Choi and Lee, 2003; Uriarte, 2008; Von Krogh et al., 2012). Scholars believed that this type of knowledge is that it is easy to share and can be reused to solve similar problems (i.e. Kumar et al., 2013).

Tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary, which means both types of knowledge are essential to knowledge creation (Alwis and Hartmann, 2008; Kamasak and Bulutlar, 2010). According to Nonaka’s knowledge creation (SECI) model, an enterprise creates knowledge through the interactions between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Richtner and Ahlsrom, 2010). Explicit and tacit knowledge grow in both quality and quantity during this process of knowledge conversion (Esterhuizen et al., 2012). The conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge is a social interaction and communication between those individuals who would like to use and employ expertise and those individuals who have it (Jackson and Erhardt, 2004; Popadiuk and Choo, 2006). Knowledge conversion occurs in four modes: socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Richtner and Ahlsrom, 2010). Figure (2.2) illustrates SECI model adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi.

54

Figure 2.2: The SECI Model

Source: Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995;p, 62)

 Tacit to tacit (socialisation) is the process by which individuals acquire tacit

knowledge by sharing experiences through observation, imitation and practice thereby creating tacit knowledge such as shared mental models and technical skills. Socialization is required for individuals to interact with one another (Richtner and Ahlstom, 2010). On-the-job training, seminars, discussions, informal meeting are a common example of socialisation.

 The process of articulating tacit knowledge to explicit concepts is called

externalisation. This is triggered by a dialogue among employees in an organisation where concepts or models are created to generate an understanding of what is going to be developed (Richtner and Ahlstom, 2010). One example of externalisation is the use of metaphors in dialogues and concept creation.

 Explicit to explicit (combination) is the process of combining different kinds of

explicit knowledge. The processes of adding, sorting and re-categorising explicit knowledge to create new knowledge. The creation of manuals, documents, and databases are examples of combination (Richtner and Ahlstom, 2010).

 Explicit to tacit (internalisation) is the process of embodying explicit knowledge as

tacit knowledge. Internalisation occurs as different employees share mental models and technical know-how. For explicit knowledge to be turned into tacit it is often

55

helpful if the knowledge is verbalised in manuals, oral stories or documents. Internalisation is often referred to as the process of “learning-by-doing”.

Based on above discussion, it should be noted that knowledge sharing is most important for all knowledge conversion to succeed (Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka (1994) further explained that the key to success of knowledge sharing was ultimately organisational context support (Section 2.3.8, below details the importance of organisational context for knowledge sharing).