Jul 30, 2009
Knowledge Taxonomy (notes)
Knowledge Taxonomy (notes)
“Knowledge is a multifaceted concept with multilayered meanings” (Nonaka, 1994: 15). It can take on many different forms, each with its own characteristics. Understanding the structure and components of knowledge is essential for successful knowledge management (refer to Section 2.1.2). This section presents a knowledge taxonomy (summarised in Figure 5).
Knowledge exists within individual and collective spheres. Individual knowledge is the aggregation of an individual’s experiences, skills, information, knowledge, values and beliefs (Matusik and Hill, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). On the other hand collective knowledge is more than just the sum of the individual knowledge of group members. According to Matusik and Hill (199 and Kogut and Zander (1995) it consists of and is influenced by routines, processes and practices, consensus on goals, the business environment and past experiences as well as relationships throughout the organisation.
The literature also stresses the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Toyama, 2005; Chong et al., 2000; Hedlund, 1994, Matusik and Hill, 1998). The concepts are described in the literature as follows: (1) explicit knowledge; tangible, articulated in textbooks, protocols and the like which is easily transferable and appropriable, (2) tacit knowledge; intangible concepts, ideas, intuition and know-how located in the minds of individuals, the cooperative actions of a group or the culture of an organisation (DeTienne and Jackson, 2001; Gurteen, 1998; Hedlund, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Osterloh and Frey, 2000).
Tacit knowledge is regarded as being the larger of the two broad knowledge groups due to the difficulties involved in articulating all that is contained within the human mind (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1966: cited in Nonaka, 1994). Furthermore, it can be described as either (1) Technical (encompassing concrete ‘know-how’, skills etc) or (2) Cognitive (ideals, values and emotions) (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Explicit knowledge on the other hand, (both individual and collective) often takes on the properties of a public good (a positive externality – Romer, 1986) unless protected (by patent or copyright, for example) (Matusik and Hill, 1998). Tacit knowledge can be viewed as being in a constant state of flux, affected by interactions, learning and other actions, while explicit knowledge is recorded, staying static until reviewed (Nonaka, 1994).
The above can be expressed as a number of fluid dichotomies – knowledge is rarely at one extreme or the other of a classification (Leonard and Sensiper, 199 (illustrated in Figure 5). Accordingly, knowledge can be classified as residing in a number of the following categories:
- Individual – Collective (Matusik and Hill, 1998; Kogut and Zander, 1995).
- Tacit – Explicit (Hedlund, 1994; Gurteen, 1998; DeTienne and Jackson, 2001; Osterloh and Frey, 2000, Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
- Cognitive – Technical (if tacit) (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka, 1994).
- Protected/Private – Public (if explicit) (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Matusik and Hill, 1998).
Figure 5: Knowledge Dichotomies
References:
Chong, C.W., Holden, T., Wilhelmij, P. and Schmidt, R.A. (2000). Where does knowledge management add value? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 366-
DeTienne, K.B. and Jackson, L.A. (2001). Knowledge management: understanding theory and developing strategy. Competitiveness Review, 11(1), 1-11.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 5-13.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73-90
Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.
Matusik S.F. and Hill, C.W.L. (199 The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 680-697.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 419-436.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-550.
Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
