Preface for the Third Edition - Read

80 B. Concepts and Theories
knowledge is subconsciously understood and applied, difficult to articulate, developed
from direct experience and usually shared through highly interactive conversation
and shared experience (socialization, apprenticeship, Nonaka 1991, 98f,
1994, 18f). Explicit knowledge can be formally articulated and shared through
meetings, conversations, mathematical formulas, models or even documents and
the like (combination, Nonaka 1991, 99, 1994, 19). If explicit knowledge is documented,
it is removed from its original context of creation or use. KMS can help
the receivers of explicit knowledge to reconstruct its context.
Nonaka calls the process of turning implicit into explicit knowledge externalization
123 and the reverse process of turning explicit into implicit knowledge internalization
(Nonaka 1991, 99 and 1994, 19). Not any knowledge that is explicable is
actually explicated in an organization (Zack 1999a, 47). There might also be inappropriately
explicated knowledge (explicated knowledge that is not explicable).
The distinction between tacit (or sometimes called implicit) and explicit knowledge
helps to postulate different KM activities and different systems to support
these activities (e.g., Nonaka/Takeuchi 1997,74ff).
Generalization. The level of context of knowledge defines another continuum
which extends from specific, particular, contextualized knowledge describing one
particular episode or event e.g., in a story to abstract knowledge, general, decontextualized
knowledge captured e.g., in a mathematical formula. Before knowledge
is distributed to a larger group of people, particular experiences can be generalized
to lessons learned e.g., by extracting the factors that might have influenced the outcome,
aggregating similar experiences to describe a practice (good or best practice).
The degree of generalization has to be considered when KMS are used to support
the transfer of (the documented part of) knowledge. The more specific a
knowledge element is, the more context has to be provided in order for the knowledge
seeker to be able to understand, learn and reuse the knowledge.
Medium. The medium on which knowledge resides can be an object, a person or a
social system. Person represents individual whereas social system represents collective
knowledge. A central element of most of the OL theories and approaches is
the hypothesis that organizations have an inter-personal body of knowledge that
their individual members share: collective knowledge, collective practice or organizational
knowledge (e.g., Spender 1994, 355ff). Collective knowledge is materialized
in organizational routines no matter whether explicit in e.g., bureaucratic
rules, role expectations or implicit in the norms, values and shared understanding
of the organizational culture. It is separated from individual knowledge held by
each individual member of the organization.
Many authors also make a distinction between knowledge as a product and
knowledge as a process, especially those who use the definition of the term knowledge
for a subsequent analysis of the suitability of ICT to support corresponding
123. In his earlier work, Nonaka called the process of turning implicit into explicit knowledge
articulation (Nonaka 1991, 99).