2.1 Introduction
2.3.4 How is knowledge created?
The explanation of how Japanese companies create new knowledge relates to the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Having an insight or a “hunch” is highly personal and is of little value to the company unless the individual can convert it into explicit knowledge - thus allowing knowledge to be shared with others in the company. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:11) argue that in order for knowledge to be created it needs to be expressed. They say “express the inexpressible”. While the authors point out that all new knowledge starts with an individual, knowledge can be amplified or crystallized at a group level through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing and observation. The creation of new knowledge is not the prerogative of knowledge leaders; but can and should be encouraged at all levels of the organizational hierarchy.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995: 13-14) suggest the following strategy in the creation of knowledge, that is, the use of:
• Metaphors – they argue that when one uses a metaphor it helps people to visualize an idea, thus giving a better clarity and understanding of it.
• Analogies – offer a choice between two or more options, thus making the decision more authentic.
• Ambiguities – are a source of new sense of direction, but also a source of alternate meanings and a fresh way of thinking about things. In this respect new knowledge is born from chaos.
25
• Redundancy (refers to repetition) – is thought of as a waster in the west. However, it is important because it encourages frequent dialogue and communication. This helps to create a common cognitive ground among employees and thus facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge.
According to Perez-Araos (2007), Nonaka and Takeuchi established a dynamic model of knowledge creation, with the key assumption that knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction or knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge. The authors suggest that explicit and tacit knowledge are not totally different, as they interact with and change into each other in the creative activities. They identify four modes of knowledge conversion:
1. Tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge (socialization) is a process of sharing experiences in a direct face-to-face approach to create tacit knowledge, often done through shared mental models, technical skills, observation, imitation, and practice.
2. Tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (externalization) is a knowledge creation process where part of tacit knowledge is articulated and somehow turned into explicit form, through analogies, concepts, hypotheses, models and reports.
3. Explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge (combination) is a process of combining different bodies of explicit knowledge.
4. Explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge (internalization) is a process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge by experiencing knowledge through the explicit source (learning-by-doing approach).
Knowledge can be shared once there is trust and an open relationship between management and workers and among workers themselves. It requires the full participation of workers in the innovation process so that they do not keep their tacit knowledge solely for their own benefit.
Furthermore, the thinking of workers and management must be aligned: both should understand
26
what the organization stands for and its purpose. The onus is upon the management of the organization in consultation with the workers to imbue the organization with a spirit of openness, trust and dialogue. This forms the cultural basis for knowledge-sharing (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi and Mohammed 2007). The topic of the research relates to knowledge management and knowledge-sharing practices at the LAB of South Africa. Knowledge-sharing will be explored in-depth in the following chapter.
Knowledge is the feature that informs knowledge management and it is to the management of knowledge that the discussion now turns.
2.4 Knowledge management
The essence of this research was to investigate the management of knowledge and the sharing thereof within the LAB – to enable the organization to become more effective and more efficient.
Thomas Davenport (in Rowley 1999) argues that knowledge management involves the exploitation and development of an organization’s knowledge assets with a view to furthering the organization’s objectives. With specific regard to law, Rusanow (in White 2002) states that knowledge management must be closely tied to lawyers’ business objectives. In most business- oriented organizations, this is a means to increase the organization’s competitiveness, efficiency and effectiveness.
The following discussion will briefly consider what knowledge management is and the need for knowledge management. It will also argue that in order for knowledge management to be translated into action, it has to be informed by a strategy to guide its implementation.
27 2.4.1 What is knowledge management?
There are as many approaches and perspectives to knowledge management as there are people working in the field (Moerdyk and van der Westhuizen 2003; Firestone and McElroy 2005).
Although the management of knowledge is as old as the existence of humankind (Lytras and Pouloudi 2003; Lundvall and Nielsen 2007), the science of knowledge management is a more recent management discipline. Wiig (2007: 141) writes that in 1945 Hayek “outlined the importance of knowledge for societal guidance and governance”. Wiig (2007) continues by stating that in 1986 and 1990 Romer provided the economic understanding that knowledge is the underlying factor that fuels performance, progress and economic growth, locally, nationally and globally. Wiig (2007) credits Drucker for providing an understanding of knowledge workers and the mode of work in the modern knowledge economy.
As indicated, there is no one common definition of knowledge management. Skyrme (2003a) argues that knowledge management is the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and exploitation.
It requires turning personal knowledge into corporate knowledge that can be widely shared throughout the organization and appropriately applied. Quintas, Lefere and Jones (1997) contend that knowledge management is a process of critically managing knowledge to meet existing needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities. Uit Beijerse (2000) defines knowledge management as the achievement of the organization’s goals by making knowledge central to the productive process. This is done primarily by facilitating and motivating people to tap into and develop their capacities (their core competencies) and to stimulate their attitude to intrapreneurship. [Intrapreneurship is defined by referring to emergent behavioural intentions and behaviours that are related to departures from customary ways of doing business in existing organizations (Antoncic and Hisrich 2003)].
Besides this, knowledge management includes the entirety of systems with which the information within an organization can be managed and opened up. Walczak (2005) argues that
28
knowledge management is not really about managing knowledge, but rather about managing and creating a corporate culture that facilitates and encourages the sharing, appropriate utilization and creation of knowledge so as to allow corporate competitive advantage.
Wiig (1997: 4) believes that knowledge management aims to understand, focus on, and manage systemic, explicit and deliberate knowledge building, renewal and application – that is, the management of effective knowledge processes. Davenport (in Rowley 1999) points out that knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation and development of these knowledge assets of an organization with a view to furthering the organization’s objectives. The knowledge to be managed includes both explicit (documented) knowledge and tacit (subjective) knowledge.
Management entails all of those processes associated with the identification, sharing and creation of knowledge. This requires systems for the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories, and to cultivate and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and organizational learning.
Organizations that succeed in knowledge management are likely to view knowledge as an asset and to develop organizational norms and values, which support the creation and sharing of knowledge. Firestone and McElroy (2005: 191) believe that knowledge management is the “set of processes that seeks to change the organization’s present pattern of knowledge process to enhance both it and its outcomes”.
The common message in all these definitions is that it is important for knowledge to be managed in order to meet companies’ objectives and needs. Implied in the definitions is the high value placed on knowledge. This research adopts the view of Davenport while adding the views of Nonaka and Takeuchi. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) emphasize tacit knowledge which takes a person’s complete experience into consideration. The proliferation of knowledge necessitates that knowledge be managed.
29