Exploring Knowledge Emergence: From Chaos to Organizational Knowledge

Abstract

This paper explores the emergent nature of organizational knowledge, which has not been addressed suflciently in the current Knowledge Management (KM) research.For the task, we reconsider the concept of knowledge by looking at four distinct discourses on knowledge; namely, knowledge as object, knowledge as interpretation, knowledge as process, and knowledge as relatiomhip. Then the fitndamental nature of the emergence of knowledge will be discussed where we will argue that human interaction is the soume of knowledge emergence. Based on the theoretical discussions, we examine a case study of a fire crisis threatening the supply chain between Aisin Seiki and Toyota in Japan. It demonstrates sign@cant self-organizing, emergent k34 practices that eflectively coordinated various human and physical resources and contextual information in this chaotic situation. Finally we discuss the implications for fithrre KM practices, by considering in particularly the institutional aspects of inforrnation and communication technologies in KMpractices.

Boundary constructions as knowledge flows within and between work groups

“…The term 'action' implies not only physical movement but also more reflexive components such as language and dialogue (Suchman, 2009). Such an anti-representational view sees knowledge as interpretation, as relationship and as process (Kakihara & Sørensen, 2002):…”

Dealing with customer misbehaviour

“…Much current thinking in relation to crisis management, learning from failure and practice-based studies, reveals the significant role of implicit knowledge-a specific mode of knowing-in explaining actions such as in service encounters. Implicit knowledge is traditionally discussed in terms of tacit knowledge Polyani, 1967), and more recently in terms of processual knowledge (Kakihara and Sørensen, 2002), or knowledge-how (Gourley, 2006), necessary for practical judgement. This notion is originally based on the idea of separating knowledge into explicit and tacit, first introduced by Polanyi (1958), where 'tacit knowledge' is believed to escape representations and measurement but still matters when undertaking specific operations and activities.…”

Affording Mechanisms: An Integrated View of Coordination and Knowledge Management

“…A similar analytical distinction seems at the basis of other proposals in the Knowledge Management field according to which "something" (i.e., knowledge) must be externalized in some form to be then internalized and acquired, e.g., the SECI model proposed by (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), or the codification/personalization phases mentioned in other influential works in the KM field (Davenport and Prusak 1998;Hansen et al 1999). From then on, as pointed by ((Huysman and de Wit 2003), p. 27), authors in the specialist literature have oscillated between positions that adopt a 'stock' approach to knowledge management, and a 'flow' (or social process) approach (Kakihara and Soerensen 2002). Although advocates of the flow-oriented perspective would subscribe to the position that knowledge can not be transferred, but only transformed in the processes of codification and interpretation (Clases and Wehner 2002), advocates of both approaches see codification of knowledge possible and conceive knowledge as something that can be codified and stored (even temporarily) in a plethora of means and forms (Blackler 1995).…”

“…(Weizenbaum 1984;Akrich 1992)). In fact, these metaphors back conceptualizations of information, memory, expertise and knowledge according to which, respectively, communication is seen as something akin to a mere transmittance of discreet messages from a sender to a receiver (Winthereik and Vikkelso 2005); memory is depicted as a repository of experience "objects" that are reusable and retrievable with more or less sophisticated algorithms (Ackerman and Halverson 1999;Draaisma and Vincent 2000); information is seen as a commodity that can be managed and is transferable independently of its vehicle (Berg and Goorman 1999); and knowledge is objectified in something that can be acquired, represented and transferred between inference systems (be they either human workers or computer programs) (Blackler 1995; Kakihara and Soerensen 2002).…”