ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AFTER YOU PAPER BELOWQUESTIONS.docx
tacit knowledge-nikita
1. In this era of discontinuity where a firm to achieve a sustainable competitive
advantage develops new products in a more effective and efficient manner and for
achieving the efficiency firms need to adapt its growth processes because of the
ever-changing situations. In short firms have to improve continuously which is not
only based on individual learning but organizational learning (OL) too. (Schulze et
al., 2013) With learning comes the knowledge which is defines as summation of all
aspects which has a potential to influence human thinking and their behaviour which
is then enables in explaining, predicting & controlling of physical phenomena. This
definition is quite wide which comprises of factors such as talent, intuition,
company’s reputation, culture and codified language. It is a gamut of knowledge
loping from tacit knowledge (uncodified) at one end to explicit knowledge
(codified) on the other end. The difference between tacit and explicit knowledge is
that tacit is attained through experience which is exemplified by casual ambiguity
while explicit is illustrated through language or codes that helps in communicating.
(Hall & Andriani, 2003) This essay will be focusing on externalization of knowledge
mainly tacit knowledge through 3 types of frameworks supported with examples to
obtain an in-depth learning.
As tacit knowledge is impossible to externalize without converting into code or
language Nonaka (1994) suggested a knowledge creation model where he divides
knowledge in two dimensions. First being epistemological relating to conversion of
tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and second is ontological dimension relating to
translation of learning from individuals to the organization. These two when
combined forms a spiral framework for knowledge creation also known as SECI
model which includes four ways of knowledge translation. The first step is
2. socialization which is an exchange of tacit to tacit knowledge and purely based on
experience which is shared like board meetings.
Second is externalization which converts tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. It
is possible through the usage of models, metaphors and analogy. Using these tools
knowledge is successfully articulated and communicated.
Then comes combination where social interaction is done through language usage
as it is very well known that tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and represent
through language. It is knowledge gained from explicit to explicit which is attained
from imitating and observing for example- prototypes.
The last one is internalization which is the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge. This sole factor represents a traditional way of acquiring knowledge i.e.
‘learning by doing’. The above three factors are based from organization’s point of
view but the last factor is focused on individual learning.
Nonaka concluded this model by stating that to gain a continuous externalization of
knowledge the existing knowledge should be restructured by using these four modes
of knowledge transformation. (Appendix 1)
(Bratianu, 2010; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000)
An example to quote with is the company Honda where the top management decide
to design a new concept of car with a slogan given “Let’s gamble”. They did it due to
the realization that their previous models i.e. Civic and Accord quiet familiarised with
the market and they needed to make a next move as they were very well aware of
the competition and also sense the young generation with extraordinary car concepts
are entering the market. The agenda for “Let’s gamble” slogan was to construct a
3. fresh team with new ideas and young engineers. The top management instructed
them with only two things, first being to develop a car concept which has never been
thought of before and second to create the car inexpensive yet not cheap. The nw
mission was quiet unclear to the team and so they decided to form a smaller version
of civic which when was presented to the top management was rejected immediately
with the change in slogan as well. This time it was named “Theory of Automobile
Evolution” to which the team questioned that what the slogan actually meant which
then was answered by another slogan which was “man-maximum, machine-
minimum” which changed the team’s thinking and change the old human-machine
relationship. This time they bought a concept of short and tall car which broke the
traditional patterns of car being long and low that gave birth to new car i.e. “tall boy”
or Honda City as this was a revolutionary innovation in the Japanese car industry
and in that particular city.
This example demonstrates that the Japanese companies were more reluctant on
figurative language to express their ideas at all levels. Especially the usage of
metaphors led them to think in their own way trough imaginations of designs or
symbols.
(Nonaka, 2007)
The second model is the knowledge asset model which is developed through the
existing knowledge to engender fresh knowledge for the firm via SECI process. This
brought a new theory of knowledge asset model illustrating another spiral of learning
creation. The key theme for the formation of knowledge asset model was to enhance
sustainable competitive advantage for firms. Foundation of knowledge creation
process is possible through knowledge assets only and then knowledge creation
4. acts as a mediator between the current and new knowledge development. These are
the in and out knowledge of firms which keeps evolving continuously. This model is
divided in four assets to make the organization completely worthy. First is
Experiential knowledge asset which states sharing of tacit knowledge with
employees and external links via experience. It involves growth in skills & emotions
like gestures relates to trust and love which are complex to imitate.
Next is conceptual knowledge asset where explicit knowledge is communicated
through pictures, language or symbols.
Third one is systematic knowledge asset which means explicit knowledge in a
systemized form like manuals, patents, written or printed documents, etc.
Lastly, routine knowledge asset it is an awareness of day to day routines and firm’s
culture with practicality being its main features. After completion of four stages it is
essential that the stock of knowledge assets to be mapped. Also creation of
knowledge assets should be done continuously due to its dynamic nature. (Appendix
2)
An example to quote with for this framework is Telsa Motors where the CEO shared
its patents so that it could cover electric vehicles free of cost. They won’t have to pay
their licence fee. People were actually shocked and doubted the company doing its
biggest mistake but no one realized that it didn’t give away its engineers and
knowledge. The company was still aware of what their mission was and what they
need to develop next, they reduced their cost by sharing their patents which was
actually said to be a smart move. The knowledge they shared with their competitors
were actually of a minimal use to them as the other knowledge asset was still with
Telsa. (Wharton, 2015)
5. The last framework is the 4 ‘I’ model which is meant for organizational learning. This
model also consists of 4 factors. First is intuiting it is an instinct that can be felt but
has no logical reasoning mainly recognised through images and when the thought is
shred with other person with that person getting influenced by the self idea leads to
interpreting. It happens when the individual starts picking on conscious elements
developing a cognitive map where language plays a key role in explaining of what he
is feeling and sensing. With that comes the third step integrating which is form of
collective action and for the coherence to develop a shared understanding is needed
between group members and the individual and when coordinated formally the
process reaches upto last level which is institutionalizing. A formal process of
defining the task and putting it into a systematic routine, this steps leads to a transfer
of knowledge from individual or group to the organization. (Appendix 3)
(Crossan, Lane & White, 1999)
To support with an example Toyota follows a continuous organizational learning
where it has 3 elements: first they identify the root cause if any problem by using five
“whys” concept. They keep asking why five times for the problem occurred through
which the person’s thinking and feeling is shared at the end. Second step is the self-
reflection and learning. It is reflection of self –mistakes and to rectify them activities
are conducted which brings the improvements and then these improvements are fed
back in the firm and is circulated. The third and last step is sharing the goals with
everyone. Toyota believes in sharing the goals planned by to management with the
group levels and attain support from them but in a very systemised manner. It is
PDCA process i.e. (plan-do-check-act). (Dolcemascolo, 2016)
6. This example illustrates the way Toyota develops its organizational learning with first
finding a root cause of the problem in an informal manner and then formalizing
everything in an institutionalized manner.
Though tacit knowledge and its frameworks has proved to be advantageous to the
industrial sector but critiques reveal that tacit knowledge cannot be completely
converted into explicit knowledge because the thinking of human can never be
articulated perfectly in any form, whether written or symbolized. Also explicit
knowledge isn’t an alternative for tacit knowledge but it needs codified language to
imply itself. Other than that it is still unclear that tacit knowledge geographically has
the same effect as other countries may not prefer frameworks like this and one of the
most important critiques is the time and money to be invested to convert the tacit
knowledge into codified language as people may avoid doing so. (Perraton &
Tarrant, 2007) Still tacit knowledge remains a much needed tool for revolutionary
ideas and changes that can change the industries or may be the whole world as
knowledge and ideas are never ending.
(Word Count: 1610)
7. Reference List
1. Bratianu, C. (2010). A Critical Analysis of Nonaka’s Model of Knowledge
Dynamics. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 8 (2) (pp193 --200).
Available at:
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=
0ahUKEwik0LuTnJbMAhXDkJQKHcp-
AdgQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ejkm.com%2Fissue%2Fdownload.
html%3FidArticle%3D267&usg=AFQjCNEgUKhdDeEORqNCtwPip3b6pKqZH
Q&sig2=1gomm4-WxwrrFsqzS4CVhA&bvm=bv.119745492,d.dGo&cad=rja
Accessed [4 Apr. 2016]
2. Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999). An Organizational Learning
Framework: From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), p.522. Available at:
https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/courses/1/ENTE3506_2016_Y/content/_3220733_1/4_Is
_of_Orgl_Learning_Crossan__Lane_and_White_1999.pdf [Accessed 10 Apr.
2016]
3. Dolcemascolo, D. (2016). A look into Toyota's learning organization. [online]
Reliableplant.com. Available at:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/13439/toyota-learning-organization
[Accessed 14 Apr. 2016].
4. Hall, R. and Andriani, P. (2003). Managing knowledge associated with
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 56(2), pp.145-152. Available at:
http://zr7av6yc4v.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&isbn=&issn=014
82963&title=Journal%20of%20Business%20Research&volume=56&issue=2&
date=20030201&atitle=Managing%20knowledge%20associated%20with%20i
nnovation&aulast=Hall,%20Richard&spage=145&sid=EBSCO:Business%20S
ource%20Complete&pid= [Accessed 10 Apr.2016]
5. Nonaka, I. (2007). The Knowledge-Creating Company. [online] Harvard
Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-knowledge-
creating-company [Accessed 8 Apr. 2016].
6. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a
Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1),
pp.5-34. Available at:
http://zr7av6yc4v.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&isbn=&issn=002
46301&title=Long%20Range%20Planning&volume=33&issue=1&date=20000
201&atitle=SECI%2C%20Ba%20and%20Leadership%3A%20a%20Unified%2
0Model%20of%20Dynamic%20Knowledge%20Creation.&aulast=Nonaka,%2
0Ikujiro&spage=5&sid=EBSCO:Business%20Source%20Complete&pid=
[Accessed 7 Apr. 2016]
7. Perraton, J. and Tarrant, I. (2007). What does tacit knowledge actually
explain?. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(3), pp.353-370. Available at:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=295d60c8-
8. 2a30-49d0-abb6-a0ad22fd8544%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4104 [Accessed 13
Apr. 2016]
8. Schulze, A., Schmitt, P., Heinzen, M., Mayrl, P., Heller, D. and Boutellier, R.
(2013). Exploring the 4I framework of organisational learning in product
development: value stream mapping as a facilitator. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26(12), pp.1136-1150. Available at:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=a3397943-
f27f-4c2f-9a35-942c8f0d517a%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4104 [Accessed 9
Apr.2016]
9. Wharton, (2015). How to Think Strategically about Knowledge Management.
[online] Knowledge@Wharton. Available at:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-firms-need-to-think-
strategically-about-knowledge-management/ [Accessed 7 Apr. 2016].
10.Wu, W., Lee, Y. and Shu, H. (2013) Knowledge Management in Educational
Organizations: A Perspective of Knowledge Spiral. International Journal of
Organizational Innovation, 5 (4), pp. 7-13. Available at:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=171ebad9
-6f90-4870-89ba-0c3ac98c2a27%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4212. [Accessed
15 Apr. 2016]
