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.