Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Knowledge Dynamics in a Chaotic Environment
Andrei Stefan Nestian
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania
nestian@uaic.ro
Abstract: The aim <strong>of</strong> this explorative and conceptual paper is to contribute to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SECI
knowledge dynamics model by analyzing it when confronted with a chaotic environment. Useful prescriptions for
<strong>the</strong> practical use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model in organizations confronted with such environments are proposed. The paper is
based on a <strong>the</strong>oretical research in which analysis and comparison <strong>of</strong> relevant literature sources was used. The
way <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics model is presented by Ikujiro Nonaka and his co-workers suggests that <strong>the</strong>
evolving spiral is possible mainly because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inputs <strong>of</strong> knowledge generation from within. Still, <strong>the</strong> necessary
existence <strong>of</strong> a Ba in order to generate <strong>the</strong> spiral demonstrates that <strong>the</strong> spiral is influenced by inputs form <strong>the</strong> Ba.
This implies <strong>the</strong> acceptance <strong>of</strong> a relationship between <strong>the</strong> environment and <strong>the</strong> knowledge conversion process, in
which <strong>the</strong> environment influences <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation. The article is based on <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis that a chaotic
environment, characterized by unpredictability, non-linearity and crisis will lead to specific ways <strong>of</strong> functioning <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> knowledge conversion process. Chaos is <strong>the</strong> science <strong>of</strong> complex, dynamical, non-linear, far from equilibrium
systems. It is a fitting model to use in today’s unpredictable business environment. Dynamic chaotic systems are
built around “strange attractors” which define <strong>the</strong>ir boundaries and guide <strong>the</strong>ir evolution and growth. Similarities <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong>se systems with <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics system comprising <strong>the</strong> SECI cycle and <strong>the</strong> platform for knowledge
creation (Ba) are analyzed. A crisis is seen as a low-probability, high-impact event that threatens <strong>the</strong> viability <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> organization and is characterized by ambiguity <strong>of</strong> cause, effect, and means <strong>of</strong> resolution, as well as by a
belief that decisions must be made swiftly. Starting from <strong>the</strong> general concept <strong>of</strong> resilience as <strong>the</strong> property <strong>of</strong> a
material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically, <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> resilience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics
system is proposed and explained. The reactions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics system at <strong>the</strong> unpredictable and
non-linear evolutions are investigated starting from <strong>the</strong> possibilities <strong>of</strong> using and producing tacit and explicit
knowledge in <strong>the</strong>se contexts. The <strong>the</strong>oretical and practical implications are analyzed and discussed.
Keywords: knowledge dynamics, chaos, environment, resilience
1. The influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment upon <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation
The way <strong>the</strong> knowledge dynamics model is presented by Ikujiro Nonaka and his co-workers suggests
that <strong>the</strong> evolving spiral is possible mainly because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inputs <strong>of</strong> knowledge generation from within.
Still, <strong>the</strong> necessary existence <strong>of</strong> a Ba in order to generate <strong>the</strong> spiral demonstrates that <strong>the</strong> spiral is
influenced by inputs form <strong>the</strong> Ba. This implies <strong>the</strong> acceptance <strong>of</strong> a relationship between <strong>the</strong>
environment and <strong>the</strong> knowledge conversion process, in which <strong>the</strong> environment influences <strong>the</strong>
knowledge creation.
In order to justify this idea, we start from <strong>the</strong> definition given by Nonaka: Ba is a shared space for
emergent relations. It can be physical (desks, workspaces), virtual (e-mail, teleconferences), mental
(ideas, ideals, shared experiences), or a combination <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>se. This definition certifies that Ba has
a physical component, <strong>of</strong> space in which <strong>the</strong> knowledge conversion process takes place, as well as a
mental component, which supports <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> ideas, ideals and shared experiences, within <strong>the</strong>
limits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> physical component <strong>of</strong> Ba.
Nonaka & Konno describe very clearly <strong>the</strong> physical aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relation between Ba and <strong>the</strong> entities
participating to <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> knowledge conversion. Therefore, <strong>the</strong>y consider that Ba is <strong>the</strong> world in
which <strong>the</strong> individual is self-conscious as part <strong>of</strong> an environment on which his life depends. The
individual is surrounded by <strong>the</strong> social group that he belongs to, being a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> this group. In
<strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual is <strong>the</strong> group, <strong>the</strong> organization is <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group. Finally,
<strong>the</strong> market is <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization. It is on her that <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization’s life depends.(Nonaka
and Konno, 1998: 40-41)
The favorite perspective from which <strong>the</strong> Ba is regarded more <strong>of</strong>ten in <strong>the</strong> articles and research studies
is that <strong>of</strong> organization as Ba <strong>of</strong> groups. The undeclared logic <strong>of</strong> this perspective is <strong>the</strong> “consultancy”
view <strong>of</strong> focusing <strong>the</strong> discourse on <strong>the</strong> practical aspects <strong>of</strong> managerial intervention at <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong>
organization.(Chen, 2002: 59-279) The main perspective used in <strong>the</strong> argumentation in <strong>the</strong> present
article is somewhat different: <strong>the</strong> market is <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> organization.
Starting from <strong>the</strong> idea that <strong>the</strong> market is <strong>the</strong> Ba <strong>of</strong> organizations, <strong>the</strong> interactions which need to be
analyzed will be based on o<strong>the</strong>r rules than in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relation between groups and <strong>the</strong> main
295