before process organization there was a focus either on the trees (individual tasks or activities) or the forest (the organization as a whole). The process approach is able to combine the two, thereby providing a much needed integration of the jigsaw that captures the realities of work practice. This is key to the overall effective- ness of organizational form and function.
ual and transforming it to explicit knowledge renders that knowl- edge available to a much wider range of individuals. Innovation is formulated in the mind of the individual but the social inter- action of the individual with others is often the stimulus for this creativity. Nonaka calls this the ontological dimension of knowl- edge creation. He states that social interaction creates a forum for nurturing, transforming and legitimizing new knowledge. It is a premise that organizations should amplify this process by enabling social interaction to take place, by providing mecha- nism and support for these processes to occur.
Nonaka details specific circumstances that must exist in order to propagate knowledge creation in the individual: those of inten- tion,autonomyandfluctuation. Intention is concerned with how individuals approach the world and try to make sense of their environment. Nonaka quotes Edmund Husserl (1968), who deter- mined consciousness to be only in existence when related to an object that the individual was conscious of, or directed his or her attention towards. It arises, endures and disappears with the sub- ject’s commitment to an object. For the creation of new knowl- edge an individual’s consciousness of the object in question must be very intimate.
It is interesting to note that knowledge comes about as a result of an individual’s understanding of information. This under- standing can only be attained when the information is evaluated in the light of that individual’s previous knowledge and values, i.e. the lens through which the individual views the information will ultimately affect the knowledge generated. The intention of the mind not only creates the possibility of meaning, but also limits its form. Our paradigms limit our view and our percep- tions. If the purest of truths are to be the goal of an organization’s created knowledge, then the organization must nurture a neutral atmosphere that welcomes truly free thought. This leads on to Nonaka’s second dimension: autonomy.
Increases in autonomy in an organization allow individuals to bring their own paradigms to bear on the problem in hand. It also allows the individual to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to self-actualization or attaining a sense of purpose.
An excellent stimulus to innovation is viewing a problem in a new light. Circulating the problem to a wide number of people and assimilating each view can bring this about. Alternatively, it is possible to artificially stimulate the creative process by intro- ducing a random element event. The design theorist, Victor Papanek (1972), suggests a procedure called ‘cognitive disassoci- ation’. The problem at hand is viewed in the light of a selection of random concepts, which are drawn from a dictionary. These random interventions and connections stimulate the person to
think of the problem in the light of the new concept. If the prod- uct of this conflict is useful to the individual then the process has successfully introduced stimulus; if not, the process can be repeated and/or the outcome combined with another random selection. Similarly, fluctuation has the effect of throwing a wild card into the pack. If individuals have to question their values, for whatever reason, they may gain new insight into a particular problem from the modified viewpoint they now command.
Winograd and Florres (1986) emphasize the role of periodic
‘breakdowns’ in human perception. Breakdowns refer to the interruption of an individual’s habitual, comfortable state of being. When faced with a breakdown, individuals have an oppor- tunity to reconsider their fundamental thinking and perceptions, which can be of benefit to a problem.
Nonaka (1994), having set the above parameters, goes on to examine the types of knowledge transformation that can come about between the two types of knowledge (tacit and explicit). In this analysis Nonaka develops a matrix, as show in Figure 2.1.
The matrix details the processes that take place when informa- tion flows from individuals to others. Nonaka draws the conclu- sion that while there are specific instances for the socialization, combination and internalization processes there is little research or knowledge about the process of externalization. Additionally, the process of socialization is often ignored because, being a transaction with no documentation, it is difficult to quantify or analyse.
Socialization
Externalization
Internalization Combination From
Tacit To Explicit
Tacit knowledge
Explicit knowledge
Fig. 2.1 Modes of knowledge generation. Source: Nonaka (1994)
Nonaka suggests that any combination of part of the four processes may leave an incomplete picture of the learning process and fail to cover all the available relevant opportunities for knowledge creation. Rather, a systematic use of all four processes in strict rotation serves to cover all opportunities at each stage. Additionally, the sequence is iterative rather than dis- tinct, i.e. after each full cycle of the four processes, an improve- ment is made. The process, if continuously repeated, builds knowledge. This precipitates the ‘Spiral of organizational knowl- edge creation’ (Figure 2.2).
The spiral starts with socialization when people share their internal knowledge with others, so that tacit knowledge is con- verted into tacit knowledge. Therefore, the process of knowledge sharing creates new knowledge inside the receiver. Nonaka argues that socialization is the hardest part of capturing tacit knowledge. The next stage in the spiral is externalization, when tacit knowledge is converted or made explicit through metaphors, images and analogies. The third stage Nonaka calls combination, when explicit knowledge is combined with other explicit knowledge to create databases, documents, numbers, spreadsheets and files. The final stage is known as internaliza- tion, in which explicit knowledge is converted back to tacit knowledge by operationalizing it through learning by doing and prototyping. Internalization involves knowledge creation transfer
Fig. 2.2 The spiral of knowledge creation. Source: Nonaka (1994)
Socialization
Externalization
Internalization Combination
Tacit knowledge
Explicit knowledge
Individual Group Organization Inter-organizational Epistemological
dimension
Ontological dimension
through verbalizing or diagramming into documents, manuals and stories.
Nonaka notes that there are certain conditions that propagate the required processes:
1 Creative chaos. This is effectively a motivation factor. The cre- ation of an atmosphere of creative chaos can be genuinely brought about by such things as the rapid loss of market share due to external forces, or artificially created by the setting of tight deadlines. The result is, however, the same, promoting team cohesiveness in the face of adversity.
2 Reflective action. Definition of the problem is of paramount importance but can be adversely affected by the paradigms of the definer. To achieve a true definition one must also examine one’s own preconceptions and how they effect the solution.
3 Information redundancy. Redundancy, in this instance, is the over-publication of information, i.e. the dissemination of non- essential information to all participants in a project, rather than selective distribution on a ‘need to know’ basis. In this way the problem is brought to a much wider audience than would normally examine it and, consequently, more differing perspectives can be brought to bear on the problem. Similarly, this sort of information dissemination can overcome hierarchi- cal and departmental barriers.
4 Internal rivalry. This is the division of development staff into multiple teams, each developing a particular concept. The con- cepts can then, at a later stage, be used as a basis for debate on the merits of each, in conflict with the others. This can gener- ate the social interaction required for knowledge creation.
5 Strategic rotation: The rotation of staff exposes the individual to differing perspectives but also allows him or her to commu- nicate in the language of the others in the organization. In this way organizational knowledge becomes more fluid.
Finally, Nonaka ties these concepts to a theory of organizational structure. In so doing, he joins together several theories of orga- nizational structure to a context-sensitive selection. This suggests that in particular cases it may be favourable to view the organi- zation as a hierarchy. In others, the view of a project-based col- lective may be more relevant, while in yet others the view of the organization as a collective of tacit and explicit knowledge and skills may be more useful. The point is that these selections can be made to suit the problem. This is described as the ‘hypertext organization’ because of its similarities to a page of hypertext, which can be viewed in several differing ways, each imparting a slightly differing meaning.