Tacit vs explicit knowledge as antecedents for organizational change

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore the dichotomous role of knowledge through an examination of tacit and explicit knowledge in organizational change contexts.Design/methodology/approachThe study's aim is achieved by an analytical review of the seminal and contemporary knowledge management literature.FindingsThe paper contributes to the current body of knowledge management literature by analyzing a wide range of key literature and presenting a contemporary overview that compares the role of tacit and explicit knowledge within organizational change contexts.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings contribute toward theoretical development in the knowledge management field by providing researchers with future research directions to build upon previous theoretical understandings and advance our collective knowledge of the research domain.Practical implicationsThe paper offers practical and pragmatic insights that will help firm managers to use tacit and/or explicit knowledge to manage organizational change.Originality/valueThis article presents an original comparative table that summarizes and compares the key understandings and insights from across the literature sources on a range of important aspects, and then presents implications for the two knowledge typologies. The paper also presents an original research framework containing a structured database of related calls for research by the latest academic publications. Furthermore, it provides specific and informed managerial recommendations for best practice in the integration of these knowledge typologies into organizational change management.

Understanding and acceptance of systems engineering in automotive product development

“…As initiating a fundamental organizational change, it is essential to consider the role of stakeholders, and identify which one of them will influence this transformation the most profoundly. (Laur & Danilovic, 2020;Gamble, 2020) FSAE is an environment where team identity plays a prominent role and definitely counts as an internal stakeholder. (Tjandra et al, 2021;Kolossváry et al, 2021) Therefore, we decided to involve team representatives as promptly as possible, as in the early stages success relies mainly on building support for the vision and gaining leaders' dedication to foster the change (Young et al, 2020).…”

Towards a Democratization of Data in the Context of Industry 4.0

“…Thus, this capability describes to what extent "tacit knowledge" or "explicit knowledge" guide the course of actions of the employees. "Tacit knowledge" solely exists in the minds of individuals and, thus, is not shareable and available to the rest of the organization [44]. For the idea of data democratization, the willingness to share knowledge is crucial.…”

A Digital Collaborative Platform for the Silver Economy: Functionalities Required by Stakeholders in a Multinational Baltic Sea Region Project

“…There are two types of knowledge in an organization; tacit and explicit knowledge [33]. Tacit knowledge is highly human-sensitive and refers to the knowledge and experience carried by an individual's mind [17] whereas explicit knowledge can be codified and is transferable through formal language [30]. In an organization, tacit knowledge has to be described and made explicit to create a shared understanding and, according to Sarayreh et al, externalization makes tacit knowledge accessible and develop into explicit knowledge which eventually translates to a well-structured collective intelligence system [60].…”