Blog 2: How is Knowledge Created?

Aside · · 8 Comments ·

In my first blog last week, I discussed three approaches to understanding tacit knowledge. These approaches apprehended the nature of tacit knowledge and its applications in individuals and organizations. The next question, then, is how is this knowledge created?

Nonaka (1994) focuses on how knowledge is created within and by organizations. Nonaka argues against the dominant view of organizations as passive processers, instead providing evidence for organizations as “amplifiers” of individual knowledge that is then “crystallized” in to the organization’s knowledge base. This process occurs through the conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge, which has four modes: socialization, combination, externalization, and internalization. Effective organizational knowledge creation, according to Nonaka, is dependent on the interplay between these four modes.

Nonaka then proposes two management models that aim to maximize organizational knowledge creation. The first is the “middle-up-down” model, which proposes that top management sets a company’s vision, middle management serves as leaders of self-organizing teams, and frontline employees work in these teams to create new knowledge through working on meaningful projects and engaging in dialogue with each other. The second is the “hypertext” model, which maintains some element of hierarchy, while still allowing for flexibility and purpose.

I am amazed in reviewing this article again just how much there is to review. This article is densely packed with relevant information, offering not only the modes of knowledge conversion, but also suggesting not one, but two different organizational structures! Nonaka’s theoretical contributions in knowledge management and organizational knowledge are immense, as can be seen by the other two articles I read this week.

Suorsa (2015) builds upon Nonaka’s conceptualization of modes of knowledge conversion, arguing that “this conceptualization has been seen to oversimplify the process of KC (knowledge creation) and a need for optional and more profound explications has been acknowledged” (p. 505). Suorsa takes a more phenomenological approach, arguing for a greater understanding of the “event of knowing”, rather than just how knowledge is converted. Suorsa begins by reviewing literature in knowledge creation, noting that modes of being are implicitly constructed in definitions of knowledge creation and the factors that enhance knowledge creation. These implicit modes line up with Gadamer’s notion of play, which “describes an experience of authenticity and being present in a course of actions in general” (p. 514). Suorsa believes that this concept of play serves as a useful starting point in the knowledge creation process, and it is moderated by the structural dimensions of play (such as rules and collaboration) and the organizational circumstances of play, such as organization trust and diversity of opinions.

I’m very much intrigued by Suorsa’s phenomenological approach, and their use of Kierkegaard’s concepts of everydayness and authentic modes of being. I agree that there needs to be a greater emphasis on the individual and on modes of being in the understanding of how knowledge is created. I think the idea of play advocated for here is interesting too. But like the author, I wonder how willing corporations would be to adopt structures that allow for more “play”.

The final article I read this week was Lam & Chua’s (2009) case study on knowledge outsourcing. Knowledge outsourcing refers to hiring experts outside of an organization to create knowledge for the organization. This is in contrast to most of the literature which focuses on the creation and maintenance of internal organizational knowledge. Lam & Chua use the example of Fenton University, a global, for-profit university that creates online educational content for MBA and Information Systems Management graduate programs. The university itself hires a project manager and a design team, but the content is authored, reviewed, and assessed for quality by expert outsiders. Based on this case study, Lam & Chua developed a model of the knowledge outsourcing process, beginning with identifying knowledge needs, finding outside sources to fill those needs, negotiating contracts, monitoring services, delivering knowledge, and utilizing knowledge. The authors also pointed out some of the risks of knowledge outsourcing, such as poor quality from outside experts and the time and effort required to maintain outsourcing relationships. Overall, the authors found that outsourcing knowledge was useful for Fenton University, but it may not be for other organizations, depending on their knowledge needs and organizational structure.

This article was by far the easiest of the three this week to digest. It is not as interested in theory-building or philosophical discussion, instead focusing on an applied example. For an initial exploration of a new idea like knowledge outsourcing, the case study approach works well to clearly articulate and understand the concept. However, the methodology is also limiting, as the results may not be generalizable, and they do not offer predictions. Overall, however, this is an important demonstration of a not previously studied type of knowledge creation.

Understanding knowledge creation is a very important part of effective knowledge management. These three articles detail three different approaches to creating knowledge, from focusing on organizational management structures, to highly personal states of being and the experience of play, to having external experts create knowledge for organizations. Each idea explored is important in its own right, but together give an idea of the diversity of ways knowledge can be created, and the variety of ways to study knowledge creation.

 

References:

Lam, W., & Chua, A. Y. (2009). Knowledge outsourcing: An alternative strategy for

knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 28-43.

doi:10.1108/13673270910962851

 

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization

              Science, 5(1), 14-37. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2635068

 

Suorsa, A. R. (2015). Knowledge creation and play – a phenomenological approach.

              Journal of Documentation, 71, 503-525.

doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JD-11-2013-0152