Tacit knowledge: philosophic roots and role in KM

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop and clarify a central concept of knowledge management, tacit knowledge.Design/methodology/approach -The paper investigates the philosophical roots of the concept of tacit knowledge and compares its core elements with current uses of the concept in contemporary knowledge management research. Different interpretations of the concept are identified, analyzed and clarified. A more explanatory and useful interpretation is developed and applied to current issues in knowledge management. A new KM implementation model is described based on a fuller understanding of the tacit/explicit distinction.Findings -The main conclusion of the paper is that the concept of tacit knowledge as it appears in the literature is vague and ambiguous. This vagueness creates confusion that, in turn, makes developing and implementing KM strategies more difficult. However, by understanding the philosophic roots of the concept of tacit knowledge it becomes possible to develop a clearer and more useful interpretation of the concept that can be used to guide KM implementations. Practical implications -A new KM implementation model is described based on the analytical findings of the paper. An implied model based on a confused understanding of the tacit/explicit distinction is identified and rejected.Originality/value -The paper clarifies and develops one of the most important concepts in KM. It provides a fuller description of its role in KM and disentangles it from related but distinct concepts. The paper reframes the tacit/explicit distinction and provides a set of guiding principles to be used by researchers and managers.

The three tiers architecture of knowledge flow and management activities

“…Since knowledge only exists within individuals, knowledge sharing represents the internal part of the creation process. In this process, individuals use their minds to bring what they know, whether from their tacit or implicit knowledge resources by means of comprehension, understanding and/or learning, to this active area in the mind when they are doing something (Mooradian, 2005). On the other hand, the external part of the process is related to information sharing, where individuals bring external resources, i.e.…”

“…Some researchers considered knowledge sharing culture as a type of knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;Popadiuk and Choo, 2006) or a type of intellectual capital (Curado, 2008;Hooff and Huysman, 2008). Moreover, the crucial role that culture plays in KM initiatives success is one of the topics that took much of the attention in KM writings (Alavi et al, 2006;Park et al, 2004).…”

“…We chose not to use the term 'explicit knowledge' as it was introduced in the literature in many cases in a way that refer to 'information' items such as codified knowledge, written procedures or manuals, and knowledge discovered in 'databases', or frequently called 'knowledge bases'. Meanwhile, the term 'implicit', which was introduced first by Polanyi (1966), may help avoid such confusion, as it refers to this subsidiary part of a person knowledge that is active in the mind while in the act of knowing something (Mooradian, 2005).…”

“…Based on this idea, many researchers have tried to identify and model such activities. Maybe the earliest and the most influential model is the knowledge flow cycle introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). This model was built on the classical description of knowledge as a construct of a tacit/explicit dichotomy, where tacit is embedded in human brain, and explicit can be easily codified.…”

“…The most widely used flow model in KM literature is the knowledge flow cycle of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), which has been briefed earlier in this section. The majority of KMA models, especially those related to the creation perspective rely on the classical SECI processes of that model to explain how knowledge flow and creation take place in organizations.…”