It's tacit knowledge but not as we know it: redirecting the search for knowledge

Abstract

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.

Studenti učitelství mezi tacitními a explicitními znalostmi

“…V tomto smyslu lze vztah tacitních a explicitních znalostí chápat jako kontinuum mezi tacitní a explicitní dimenzí znalosti (srov. Connell, Klein, & Powell, 2003;Švec, 2011).…”

Knowledge Management and Collaboration Effects: South-South Ngo Collaboration: A Case Study on the Brazilian Interdisciplinary Aids Association

“…Explicit knowledge is "knowing about," which can be easily expressed and shared through manuals, data, etc. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is "knowing how," which is difficult to share since its scope includes hunches, insights and intuitions (Connell et al, 2003). Tacit knowledge needs to be translated into explicit knowledge in order for knowledge transfer and interchange to occur (Connell et al, 2003).…”

“…Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is "knowing how," which is difficult to share since its scope includes hunches, insights and intuitions (Connell et al, 2003). Tacit knowledge needs to be translated into explicit knowledge in order for knowledge transfer and interchange to occur (Connell et al, 2003). The translation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge within the individual and the transfer of explicit knowledge between individuals or organizations are the two fundamental actions of knowledge management theory (Hurley, 2005).…”

Changement technologique et transfert de compétences : une réflexion à partir du cas des équipages de transport de l’armée de l’air

“…Le transfert est ici perçu comme un processus de communication interindividuel ou interorganisationnel directement inspiré de la théorie classique de l'information (Shannon et Weaver, 1949 Szulanski (1996, p. 30-32) évoque d'autres limites comme les problèmes de coût, de pertinence du besoin (eventfulness), et de rigidité (stickiness) de l'objet transféré. Plus largement, les facteurs exerçant une influence sur le transfert intègrent -la liste n'est pas exhaustive-le savoir-faire collaboratif et les capacités d'apprentissage des acteurs (Kang et Kim, 2010), la pérennité et la réciprocité attendue de leurs relations (Kachra et White 2008), leur degré de mobilité intra et inter organisationnelle (Mathew et Kavitha, 2008), leur degré de proximité cognitive, culturelle et institutionnelle (Eskerod et Skriver 2007), la nature de la connaissance transférée (Kachra et White, 2008;, leur capacité d'absorption (Cohen et Levinthal, 1990), ainsi que le degré d'incorporation de l'objet transféré sur des supports matériels et des artefacts technologiques (Connell et al, 2003). …”