No abstract

PurposeThis paper contrasts two perspectives on the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge: on the one hand, the perspective that categorises knowledge as belonging to either one or the other class; and, on the other hand, the perspective that views knowledge type as a graded continuum.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explores the extensive literature on the topic, and from this literature engages in conceptual development.FindingsThe paper adopts the view that the continuum perspective, in which knowledge in a particular context has both tacit and explicit characteristics, is of particular value when considering the knowledge strategy of an organisation. Whereas the former perspective presents a well‐known dilemma, the continuum perspective permits the specification of a strategy in which the advantages of both tacit and explicit knowledge can, in principle, be obtained. One such strategy might be one that renders organisational knowledge as internally explicit, but externally tacit.Originality/valueThe paper develops a view of the explicit/tacit dilemma that leads to a possible way forward in resolving the dilemma for organisations.

BackgroundPolicymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt ‘evidence-based policy-making’, with ‘evidence’ defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners’ information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions.MethodsIn case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison.ResultsThe ‘art of commissioning’ entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. ‘Evidence-based policy-making’ usually meant pragmatic selection of ‘evidence’ such as best practice guidance, clinicians’ and users’ views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research.DiscussionCommissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information.ConclusionsTo influence policymakers’ decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers’ priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1091-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A central issue in the knowledge management literature is the definition of the nature of knowledge, and particularly the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This paper reviews some of the common standpoints on this issue, but argues that, within an organisational context, a useful alternative view is one in which knowledge is viewed as a systemic property of the organisational system to which it belongs. Thus, attempts to codify knowledge, and position it on a tacitexplicit continuum, are sometimes misplaced. Instead, this paper advocates approaches that view knowledge as a holistic system property. The paper considers the practical implication of this stance, from the perspective of knowledge transfer between individuals and between organisations, and investigates the potential that this stance offers OR practitioners.

BackgroundEnglish health-care commissioners from the NHS need information to commission effectively. In the light of new legislation in 2012, new ‘external’ organisations were created such as commissioning support units (CSUs), public health departments moved into local authorities and ‘external’ provider organisations such as commercial and not-for-profit agencies and freelance consultants were encouraged. The aim of this research from 2011 to 2014 was to study knowledge exchange between these external providers and health-care commissioners to learn about knowledge acquisition and transformation, the role of external providers and the benefits of contracts between external providers and health-care commissioners.MethodsUsing a case study design, we collected data from eight cases, where commercial and not-for-profit organisations were contracted. We conducted 92 interviews with external providers (n = 36), their clients (n = 47) and others (n = 9), observed 25 training events and meetings and collected various documentation including meeting minutes, reports and websites. Using constant comparison, data were analysed thematically using a coding framework and summaries of cases.ResultsIn juggling competing agendas, commissioners pragmatically accessed and used information to build a cohesive, persuasive case to plot a course of action, convince others and justify decisions. Local data often trumped national or research-based information. Conversations and stories were fast, flexible and suited to the continually changing commissioning environment. Academic research evidence was occasionally explicitly sought, but usually came predigested via National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidance, software tools and general practitioner clinical knowledge. Negative research evidence did not trigger discussions of disinvestment opportunities. Every commissioning organisation studied had its own unique blend of three types of commissioning models: clinical commissioning, integrated health and social care and commercial provider. Different types of information were privileged in each model. Commissioners regularly accessed information through five main conduits: (1) interpersonal relationships; (2) people placement (embedded staff); (3) governance (e.g. Department of Health directives); (4) ‘copy, adapt and paste’ (e.g. best practice elsewhere); and (5) product deployment (e.g. software tools). Interpersonal relationships appeared most crucial in influencing commissioning decisions. In transforming knowledge, commissioners undertook repeated, iterative processes ofcontextualisationusing a local lens andengagementto refine the knowledge and ensure that the ‘right people’ were on board. Knowledge became transformed, reshaped and repackaged in the act of acquisition and through these processes as commissioners manoeuvred knowledge through the system. External providers were contracted for their skills and expertise in project management, forecast modelling, event management, pathway development and software tool development. Trust and usability influenced clients’ views on the usefulness of external providers, for example the motivations of Public Health and CSUs were more trusted, but the usefulness of their output was variable. Among the commercial and not-for-profit agencies in this study, one was not very successful, as the NHS clients thought that the external provider added little of extra value. With another, the benefits were largely still notional and with a third views were largely positive, with some concerns about expense. Analysts often benefited more than those making commissioning decisions.ConclusionsExternal providers who maximised their use of the different conduits and produced something of value beyond what was locally available appeared more successful. The long-standing schism between analysts and commissioners blunted the impact of some contracts on commissioners’ decision-making. To capitalise on the expertise of external providers, wherever possible, contracts should include explicit skills development and knowledge transfer components.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.