Perspective—Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory

Abstract

N onaka's paper [1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1) 14-37] contributed to the concepts of "tacit knowledge" and "knowledge conversion" in organization science. We present work that shaped the development of organizational knowledge creation theory and identify two premises upon which more than 15 years of extensive academic work has been conducted: (1) tacit and explicit knowledge can be conceptually distinguished along a continuum; (2) knowledge conversion explains, theoretically and empirically, the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Recently, scholars have raised several issues regarding the understanding of tacit knowledge as well as the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge in the theory. The purpose of this article is to introduce and comment on the debate about organizational knowledge creation theory. We aim to help scholars make sense of this debate by synthesizing six fundamental questions on organizational knowledge creation theory. Next, we seek to elaborate and advance the theory by responding to questions and incorporating new research. Finally, we discuss implications of our endeavor for organization science.

Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search

“…An emerging perspective on the knowledge-based theory of the firm has argued that problemsolving effectiveness is key to superior organizational performance (Nickerson and Zenger 2004;Nonaka 1994;Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). Managers inside firms have to both select high value problems to be solved, and, depending on the decomposability of those problems, choose to have them solved through internal hierarchies or external markets (Nickerson and Zenger 2004).…”

Addressing the tacit knowledge gap in knowledge systems across agential realism

“…These two important points of inseparable yet mutually exclusive entities, would seem to be paraphrased across Nonaka, Toyama and Konno's ( [20], p.8) words of "explicit knowledge without tacit insight quickly loses its meaning". Later literature by Nonaka et al ( [21], [22]) especially stress the inseparable aspect of tacit and explicit knowledge: "tacit and explicit should not be treated as separate entities but rather mutually complementary and based on the same continuum" ( [22], p. 640). The latest literature by Nonaka et al ( [23]), again re-illustrates the inseparable aspect of tacit and explicit qualities across organizational 'fractals' consisting of triads of tacit and explicit knowing (with its synthesis forming the third 'pole').…”

“…For example, Carter et al [13, p. 62] state "short of a brain transplant, the capacity to know [(tacit knowledge)] is not a transferable commodity". Virtanen's [19] pertinent analysis of tacit knowledge argues that while Nonaka et al's ( [21], [22]) description of a knowledge continuum ranging from 'almost' wholly explicit knowledge at one end to 'almost' fully tacit knowledge on the other end, offers a useful analogy depicting both the inseparable qualities and changing degrees of tacit and explicit knowledge, the concept of 'knowledge conversion' of tacit to explicit when going along this continuum becomes highly problematic in terms of what indeed is meant and how this is interpreted. Beyond Nonaka et al's ( [21], p. 19) attempt to clarify by stating that "the term 'conversion' might be misunderstood as implying that knowledge is a substance that can be processed in the way as physical resources", one is left without much else.…”

Como Gestores Hospitalares Utilizam Indicadores De Desempenho?

“…Em serviços intensivos em conhecimento, como são os hospitais, a entrega de valor baseia-se nas estratégias de criação e compartilhamento do conhecimento. Estas ocorrem em contextos e dispositivos oferecidos pela organização (Nonaka & Krogh, 2009;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1997).…”