Definition of Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management is now one of the major driving forces of organizational change and wealth creation. In its simplest form Knowledge Management is about encouraging people to share knowledge and ideas to create value-adding products and services in order to enhance the organization’s competitiveness.

There are many definitions of Knowledge Management. Among them few definitions have been mentioned below.

Some definitions of knowledge management (Source: Templeton & Snyder 1997)

KM definition from my perspective

Knowledge Management is a systematic process of creating, organizing, disseminating, embedding knowledge and developing an organization to make the best use of its individual and collective knowledge with the goal of enhancing the organization’s competitiveness.

References:
Gary Templeton and Charles Snyder, Retrieved February 20, 2008, from:http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~aabecker/Freiburg/Final/ Templeton/ ontpaper. html

"A Critique of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory" – Reply to Prof. Mark Woodman’s comment.

Point 01- explanation on the word “digital” and how it helps to Knowledge Management

Nowadays global economy move to a more knowledge base one with advance in Digital Techonology and Telecommunication and this advancement in new technologies (networking, storage, and processor) has increased the amount of ‘digitalization of organizational knowledge’ at an unprecedented rate.

“Digitalization of organizational knowledge” comes into picture in the Nonaka SECI Model Theory. As I explain in my Blog knowledge creation is a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge. The interactions between the explicit and tacit knowledge lead to the creation of new knowledge.

The foundation of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory of organizational knowledge is the notion of ‘knowledge conversion’ and it has four modes of knowledge conversion.

Now I would like to discuss how some of these modes interrelated to digitalization concept.

As we know ‘Externalization’ is a process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit concepts. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi, externalization holds the key to knowledge creation, because it creates new, explicit concepts from tacit knowledge and this explicit knowledge can be in the form tangible (material) or intangible (non-material – digital) forms.

Best example for intangible form is a Blog. This support the externalization process by giving voice to everyone and providing a space to capture personal knowledge and distributed discussions across blogs, immediately documents their opinions, and annotates information.

Following are some of the best examples for digitalized methods for helping knowledge creation are,

Chat VoIP Mobile Technologies Wikis Email Video/Phone Conferencing


VoIP and phone/video-conferencing for example are powerful tools to trigger externalization via open participation, dialogue, and discussion.
Wikis are good examples of the collective intelligence at work. They provide an opportunity for social interaction and collaborative knowledge capturing.


Combination is the process of systematizing concepts into a knowledge system, and it integrates different bodies of explicit knowledge. Once knowledge is captured, it becomes explicit knowledge i.e. information that can be stored and accessed.

Following are some of the best examples for digitalized methods for the Combination process are,

Blogs and wikis build distributed community information stores with up-to-date, context-rich, and searchable learning assets. The captured information can then be transferred within a social context.

Pod/vodcasting is growing in popularity as a powerful tool to share audio and video recordings.

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is a successful technology that makes it easy to share resources across networks, as it brings content from different sources (e.g. new blog posts, podcasts) to a learner’s personal space.

Therefore the ‘Digitalization’ can be a one of the tool which facilitate knowledge creation, storage and transfer in the Knowledge Management.


Point 02- clarify my own viewpoint for some of the criticisms made by others.

“Doyle (1985) and Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the model rests on Japanese management cultural practices, and is thus not transferable to other environment.”


I will strongly believe in this argument and I would like to convince this by adding more comments, based on the research carried out by the Geert Hofstede.

What is culture?

Culture can be briefly stated as “mental programs or software of the mind” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005: 3).
Culture can be defined as “Culture consists of the unwritten rules of the social game. It is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of the people from others.” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005: 4)


According to the research carried out by the Geert Hofstede for a large multinational corporation (IBM) by using their pool of data from fifty different countries around the world, He finds out employees in different countries exposes common problems, but with solutions differing from country to country, in the following areas:

a) Social inequality, including the relationship with authority
b) Ways of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity
c) Concept of masculinity and femininity
d) The relationship between the individual and the group

After identifying these basic problems Geert Hofstede has categories the problems in to four dimensions. They have been named as,

a) Distance (from small to large)
b) Uncertainty Avoidance (from weak to strong)
c) femininity versus Masculinity
d) Collectivism versus Individualism

Based on these four dimensions of culture I will explain how the Japanese organizational culture differs from the cultures of other countries/regions. (Eg. Europe).

It is generally said that Japanese culture supports norms of collectivism and Western/European culture supports norms of independence, self-reliance and individual responsibility. As a result, it is frequently implied that, the process of knowledge creation in the Japanese organization are more collective; by contrast. Therefore this can be easily achieved trough the socialization process. But it cannot be done in Western/European cultural environment. (This part concern on Collectivism versus Individualism)

As we know in the Socialization process the tacit knowledge is exchanged through join activities – such as being together, spending time, living in the same environment – rather than through written or verbal instructions and this largely supported through direct interaction with people.

Therefore, In Japanese organization this can be done easily, because they have a collectively oriented society and encourage affective interpersonal relationships between leaders and subordinates or among the subordinates through informal communication. Not only that in Japanese organization leaders act as coordinators to achieve group goals through maintaining harmony among group members. It is a common practice in Japan that leaders take out their subordinates rather regularly for after-work drinking sessions, during which a wide range of ideas, and personal problems related to or not related to work are identified. Many Japanese companies use more informal channels of communication and off-hours drinking sessions, to achieve a free flow of information.

In this kind of environment trust between the subordinates are more dominant. Therefore exchange of ides or knowledge between subordinates easily can be done without reluctant. (This part concern on Power Distance)


But in Western/European cultural environment this is quite different from the Japanese. Since the Western/European countries have an individualists oriented society they are not social-minded (unlike the Japanese); and teamwork is almost unknown. Here interpersonal relationships between leaders and subordinates through formal communication and leaders attempt to maintain considerable distance in their relations with subordinates. And also in this cultural environment leaders attempt to achieve goals through encouraging competition among subordinates. Therefore this will create reluctant to express ideas and to share their knowledge explicitly within the team. Therefore there will be a lack of trust between the leaders and subordinates or among the subordinates. Since there is no teamwork and trust this leads to barriers for the socialization process.


In comparison with the Japanese organization, the Western/European companies seem to rely much more heavily on the formal channels of communication for the exchange of information. Many managers tend to keep much information to themselves, and they are generally reluctant to reveal any matters. Therefore Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Framework not practicable for the Western/European cultural organizations.


To conclude my argument, Nonaka’s SEKI Model Knowledge transfer effect by cultural context and culture is totally different from one country to another. Hence Japanese and the European cultural backgrounds are totally different from each other.

References:

• Juan Chamero, CEO Intag, December 20th 2003,Retrieved February 10, 2008, from: www.intag.org/downloads/new_paradigm_en.htm
• The Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York, McGraw-Hill.
• Edgar H. Schenin (1997) Organizational Culture And Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

A Critique of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory

An introduction to Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Framework

In the field of knowledge in organizations, probably the most widely cited approach to knowledge creation is Nonaka’s SECI model (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). According to Professor Ikujiro Nonaka, knowledge creation is a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge. The interactions between the explicit and tacit knowledge lead to the creation of new knowledge. The combination of the two categories makes it possible to conceptualize four conversion patterns.

Tacit vs Explicit K n o w l e d g e

" We can know more that we can tell " -Michael Polanyi (1966) and He classified human knowledge into two categories.

1. Tacit Knowledge

It is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate of share with others. Subjective insights, intuitions and feelings fall into this category of knowledge. It is deeply rooted in and individuals’ actions and experience as well as in the ideals, values, or emotions he or she embraces. Personal quality which makes it hard to formalize and communicate. It ‘indwells’ in a comprehensive cognizance of the human mind and body. (Michael Polanyi, 1966)

2. Explicit Knowledge

Codified knowledge that can be transmitted in formal, systematic language. It is discrete or ‘digital’. It is captured in records of the past such as libraries, archives and databases and is assessed on a sequential basis. It can be expressed in words and numbers and shared in the form of data, scientific formulate, specifications, manuals and the like. This kind of knowledge can be readily transmitted between individuals formally and systematically. In the west, in general, this form of knowledge has been emphasized. (Michael Polanyi, 1966)

The four conversion patterns of knowledge are illustrated in diagram below:

	Tacit K	Tacit K
T	Socialization	Externalization	E
T	Internalization	Combination	E
	Explicit K	Explicit K

Nonaka's SECI Model

The foundation of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory of organizational knowledge is the notion of ‘knowledge conversion’— how tacit knowledge is ‘converted’ to explicit knowledge, and vice versa. As the authors argue, ‘our dynamic model of knowledge creation is attached to a critical assumption that human knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. We shall call this interaction ‘‘knowledge conversion’’ ’. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

Nonaka and Takeuchi distinguish four modes of knowledge conversion: from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge ("socialization"); from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge ("externalization"); from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge ("combination"); and from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge ("internalization"). (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

1. socialization

This mode enables the conversion of tacit knowledge through interaction between individuals. One important point to note here is that an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices work with their master and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation and practice. In a business setting, on job training (OJT) uses the same principle. The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share each other’ thinking process.

The tacit knowledge is exchanged through join activities – such as being together, spending time, living in the same environment – rather than through written or verbal instructions. In practice, socialization involves capturing knowledge through physical proximity. The process of acquiring knowledge is largely supported through "direct interaction with people". (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

2. Externalization

Externalization requires the expression of tacit knowledge and its translation into comprehensible forms that can be understood by others. During the externalization stage of the knowledge-creation process, and individual commits to the group and thus becomes one with the group. The sum of the individuals' intentions and ideas combine and become integrated with the group's mental world.

3. combination

Combination involves the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit knowledge. In this stage, the key issues are communication and diffusion processes and the systemization of knowledge. Here, new knowledge generate in the externalization stage transcends the ground in analogues or digital signals.

4. Internalization

The internalization of newly created knowledge is the "conversion of explicit knowledge into the organization's tacit knowledge" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . This requires the individual to identify the knowledge relevant for one’s self within the organizational knowledge. That again requires finding one’s self in a larger entity. Learning by doing, training and exercises allow the individual to access the knowledge realm of the group and the entire organization.

Some Criticism of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory

As I mentioned earlier Nonaka’s SECI Model of organizational knowledge creation has recently been describe as a “ Highly Respected” theory within the Society. Although it is highly respected, this theory appears to have attracted some systematic criticisms. Before stepping in to my own criticism on this, I would like to share some criticism, which are expressed by some expertise within this field. (Extracted from the FLAWS IN THE “ENGINE” OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION by Stephen Gourlay and Andrew Nurse)

Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001), for example, show that each of the SECI modes is dependent on the presence of appropriate task characteristics and these characteristic unknown.

Doyle (1985) and Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the model rests on Japanese management cultural practices, and is thus not transferable to other environment.

Engestrom’s (1999) discovery that problem finding is an important part of innovation missing from the SECI model,

Poell and van der Krogt (2003), treat the mode as forms of learning, and the type of work involved influences how workers learn. But Nonaka apparently assumes workers only learn within parameters set by managers. Their research points to the importance of self-organized learning, particularly in professional organizations.

Adler (1995) suggested that Nonaka’s discussion of externalization may not be generalizable, and pointed out that although the other modes had been previously studied, Nonaka and his colleagues neglected that research.

(Adler, 1995; Stacey, 2001; Tsoukas, 2003) Nonaka treats tacit and explicit knowledge as separable, other theorists regard tacit knowledge as always necessary for explicit knowledge to be understood.

Finally, recent research done by Bereiter (2002) has identified four important shortcomings in Nonaka’s approach. Those are as follows.

1. Echoing Stacey (2001), he argues that Nonaka’s theory cannot explain how minds produce (or fail to produce) ideas.
2. It overlooks the important question of understanding—in order to learn by doing, one has to know what to observe.
3. While the theory recognizes knowledge abstracted from context, it says little about how it can be managed.
4. The view that knowledge originates in individual minds prevents Nonaka from conceptualizing knowledge that arises from collective actions, for example, as a product of teamwork.

Overall, Bereiter (2002) argues that the theory is rooted in a folk epistemology that regards individual minds as full of unformed knowledge that must be projected into an external world, an approach that hinder any attempt to provide a theory of knowledge creation. As such, he suggests that Nonaka’s theory fails both as a theory and as a practical tool for business.

Now I would like to share my own viewpoint toward this subject matter. In 1st step in the Nonaka’s SECI model Nonaka proposed that knowledge conversion begins with socialization, the tacit acquisition of tacit knowledge by people who do not have it from people who do (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . But in practical situation the knowledge that people have in an organization is so practical and it’s deeply rooted with their body and involved to a specific environment. Therefore it’s very difficult to express when people are asked to describe how they do what they do. They often find it hard to express it in words

Further more in some industries people are not willing to disclose their knowledge because it’s their trade secret of the business and /or lawful to the company. (Eg: Gem Merchant).

Another important drawback in the SECI model is lack of cultural issues. Professor Ikujiro Nonaka hasn’t adequately discussed how knowledge conversion can be done in a culturaly diversified team or organization. In our society there are very few teams/organization that have homogeneity. Today most of the organizations are comprised of people from different backgrounds and experience according to his/her education, occupation/profession.

Now I would like to focus this research towards my organization (J Sainsbury’s).

In Socialization process the knowledge is acquired by "direct interaction with people" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . Therefore in a culturaly diversified organization (e.g. J Sainsbury’s) it should be problematic because of the followings.

• Individuals in multinational organizations come with different backgrounds. They are from with different countries speaking different native languages and speaking in ascent which unique to there region. Language is a tool for communication. The challenges to Socialization process is how the listener interprets or understands these information (knowledge) when they doesn’t know the language of the speaker or the intention of his/her.

Further, even though if both people are speaking a common language, such as English in a team, but there are people in different educational levels, age, professions and experience and how they communicate is differing from others. Technical people use to communicate with their technical term and jargons, other management people use their management term, etc. Therefore most communication breakdown between people that leads to lack of awareness and misunderstanding of knowledge.

• Another most challenging problem to Socialization Process is lack of trust between the staff members, due to lack of communication, different cultural backgrounds and different social class levels. Firstly, in this kind of situation, people are much less willing to share their knowledge and ideas. Secondly, it is more difficult to detect problems if people’s work is isolated.

Therefore conversion of tacit knowledge through interaction between individuals can be problematic in culturaly-diversified organization.

References:

(1) Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University, Retrieved January 31, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books

(2) Stephen Gourlay and Andrew Nurse, February 01,2008, from Myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sngourlay/PDFs/Chap%2013%20GourlayNurse.pdf

(3) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966.