Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

José Manuel Cardenas and Mauro Spinola
information. It is not possible to explicit or express all information, and also by <strong>the</strong> many limitations
that IT has to store tacit information. Additionally, consider that <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> explicit knowledge
appears, by <strong>the</strong> prior existence <strong>of</strong> additional information, to be sometimes tacit, or meta-knowledge.
That is, knowledge about <strong>the</strong> knowledge that is being created (Nevo 2003). Finally, <strong>the</strong> information
that has been expressed in this paper, or by means <strong>of</strong> ideas, creates "tacit information," in parallel.
And, one part <strong>of</strong> this tacit information is explicit knowledge, in terms <strong>of</strong> KM; but, this cannot be stated
to be included within <strong>the</strong> IT tools, per se. At <strong>the</strong> same time, it is difficult to formulate a KMS that
involves a connection <strong>of</strong> people and IT, in an appropriate way.
3. Tacit knowledge
From <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> Polanyi (1966) about tacit knowledge: "'We can know more than we can tell,"
<strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge has been seen from o<strong>the</strong>r opticals and brought inside <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> KM. In <strong>the</strong>
view <strong>of</strong> Collins (2001), tacit knowledge is made up <strong>of</strong> scientific information that has not been
transferred, but only via meetings and also formulas or ma<strong>the</strong>matical models. It also appears in <strong>the</strong>
form <strong>of</strong> knowledge, used to cope with specific situations (or Practical Intelligence) (Wagner &
Sternberg 1985; Mat<strong>the</strong>w & Sternberg 2009). This allows <strong>the</strong>re to be an open discussion about what
is and what is not tacit knowledge, besides <strong>the</strong> characteristics that may be appropriate or not to this
type <strong>of</strong> knowledge (Castillo 2002; Tsoukas 2003). That means that organizations are faced with a
difficult dare to manage this dimension <strong>of</strong> knowledge in its inner (Taylor 2007).
Castillo (2002) suggests that tacit knowledge can be individual or collective, and proposes <strong>the</strong>
following typology:
a) Nonepistle tacit knowledge: This type <strong>of</strong> knowledge is that which people cannot put on
paper, referring to <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> letter that cannot be written because <strong>the</strong> individual cannot express
in words <strong>the</strong> characteristics that are intrinsic to him/her.
b) Sociocultural tacit knowledge: Part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collective tacit knowledge that <strong>the</strong> individual
shares with <strong>the</strong> organization to which he/she belongs. As a neuron that just cannot express a
concept, but needs to link itself up with o<strong>the</strong>r neurons to reflect a notion.
c) Semantic tacit knowledge: The kind <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge that can be conveyed through
gestures due <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> times that a process has been repeated; or <strong>the</strong> familiarity <strong>of</strong>
individuals with specific practice.
d) Sagacious tacit knowledge: The tacit knowledge that individuals acquire because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> skills
that he/she has developed on a personal level.
More generally, tacit knowledge - ei<strong>the</strong>r individually or collectively - demands for elicitation methods in
order to be found, which are in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> psychological models (mental models) and assessments <strong>of</strong>
individual and group behavior. But, <strong>the</strong>se methods are not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> this article.
4. Knowledge Management Systems
As mentioned, <strong>the</strong>re is a consensus on <strong>the</strong> fact that KM seeks to address <strong>the</strong> two basic types <strong>of</strong>
knowledge: tacit and explicit (Nevo, Furneaux & Wand 2007). Thus, research relating to <strong>the</strong> topic <strong>of</strong>
KM focus on <strong>the</strong> interest in <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two dimensions <strong>of</strong> knowledge and
how <strong>the</strong>y affect organizational aspects. The goal <strong>of</strong> KM, in this sense, is to manage <strong>the</strong>se two types <strong>of</strong>
knowledge that seek gains in efficiency and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> routine and non-routine processes.
Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) are considered as information systems used specifically to
assist in <strong>the</strong> processes <strong>of</strong> KM within organizations (Alavi & Leidner 2001). However, <strong>the</strong> word
“system” refers to a junction <strong>of</strong> elements that aim to achieve a goal or develop a specific process/task
and later create a continuum from <strong>the</strong> system. Then, a KMS must possess <strong>the</strong> ability to aid and
manage <strong>the</strong> production activities and knowledge sharing, i.e., joint users with <strong>the</strong> appropriate
technology to generate and use knowledge. It is possible to note two basic functionalities <strong>of</strong> a KMS: a)
store and disseminate explicit knowledge, and b) serve as a platform in order to share/transfer tacit
knowledge. But, <strong>the</strong> research on tacit knowledge, as previously seen, has presented different points
<strong>of</strong> view and has increased difficultly in <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> IT for support processes and storage <strong>of</strong> this
knowledge. For this reason, this study was conducted as an experience to observe what <strong>the</strong>
limitations <strong>of</strong> IT are, and how to deal with tacit knowledge. In <strong>the</strong> review by Alavi & Leidner (2001), IT
has three applications within <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> KM: a) coding and sharing <strong>of</strong> best practices, b) creating
corporative directories <strong>of</strong> knowledge and c) creating knowledge networks. These authors also build a
framework linking social processes with <strong>the</strong> processes <strong>of</strong> knowledge through: a) creation, b)
storage/retrieval, c) transfer and d) application. The latter more closely relates to <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong>
177