Read The Research Paper: Evaluation Of The Conceptual Theory ✓ Solved

Read the research paper 'Evaluation of the Conceptual Theori

Read the research paper 'Evaluation of the Conceptual Theories, Elements, and Processes of Knowledge Management in Modern Day Organisations' and, using other materials as needed, answer the following questions:

  1. Summarize the historical overview of knowledge management in your own words. Support your answer with a minimum of two references.
  2. Why is knowledge management important? Explain the core elements of knowledge management.
  3. How is tacit knowledge different from explicit knowledge? Describe how tacit and explicit knowledge are transformed in the Nonaka and Takeuchi knowledge spiral model of KM. Use a concrete example.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper synthesizes the historical development of knowledge management (KM), explains why KM matters to contemporary organizations, identifies its core elements, and clarifies the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. It then explains Nonaka and Takeuchi’s knowledge-creation (SECI) model and illustrates the tacit–explicit transformation process with a concrete example. Sources include foundational KM literature and recent syntheses to ground the analysis (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

1. Historical overview of knowledge management

Knowledge management emerged as a formal field in the late 20th century but has intellectual roots stretching back further. Early philosophical treatment of tacit knowledge by Polanyi (1966) introduced the idea that “we know more than we can tell,” highlighting non-codified knowledge. In the 1980s and 1990s, rising interest in the knowledge-based view of the firm reframed knowledge as a strategic asset (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996). Seminal business treatments — notably Nonaka and Takeuchi’s work on organizational knowledge creation and Davenport & Prusak’s practitioner-focused text — established KM as both a scholarly and managerial agenda (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

During the 1990s, organizations began investing in knowledge repositories, best-practice databases, and knowledge-sharing initiatives to capture lessons learned and support innovation (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998). The rise of the internet and enterprise IT in the 2000s accelerated interest in knowledge management systems (KMS) and the integration of people, processes, and technology (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In the 2010s and beyond, KM scholarship expanded to include social capital, communities of practice, and inter-organizational knowledge transfer, emphasizing dynamic, social processes as much as codified artifacts (Easterby-Smith, Lyles, & Tsang, 2008). Thus KM evolved from a focus on codification and repositories to a broader emphasis on knowledge creation, sharing cultures, and socio-technical integration (Nonaka, 1994; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

2. Why knowledge management is important

Knowledge management is important because knowledge drives innovation, operational effectiveness, and competitive advantage. Firms that can create, share, and apply knowledge efficiently are better able to innovate, adapt to change, and make informed strategic decisions (Grant, 1996; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). KM helps prevent knowledge loss from employee turnover, reduces redundant work, and shortens time-to-competence for new hires (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998).

Core elements of knowledge management

Most KM frameworks identify several interlocking core elements: people, processes, technology, content, and culture.

  • People: Individuals and social networks are primary carriers of tacit knowledge; skills, incentives, and leadership commitment are critical (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
  • Processes: Methods for creating, capturing, sharing, and applying knowledge — for example communities of practice, lessons-learned protocols, and knowledge audits — operationalize KM (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
  • Technology: Knowledge management systems, intranets, and collaboration platforms enable storage, retrieval, and distribution of explicit knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
  • Content: The actual knowledge assets — documents, models, code, and intellectual capital — are the raw material of KM initiatives (Wiig, 1993).
  • Culture: Trust, openness, and incentives for sharing are essential; without supportive culture technology and processes produce limited benefits (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

Together, these elements form a socio-technical system: technology supports processes but people and culture determine whether knowledge is created and applied effectively (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

3. Tacit vs. explicit knowledge and the SECI model

Tacit knowledge is personal, context-specific, and hard to formalize (Polanyi, 1966). It includes skills, intuitions, and mental models acquired through experience. Explicit knowledge is codified, articulated, and transmissible through language, documents, or databases (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI model—Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization—describes how tacit and explicit knowledge interact to create organizational knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995):

  1. Socialization (tacit to tacit): Knowledge is shared through shared experience, observation, apprenticeship, and face-to-face interaction (e.g., job shadowing).
  2. Externalization (tacit to explicit): Tacit insights are articulated into concepts, metaphors, or documents — for instance, when experts write manuals or capture heuristics in process maps.
  3. Combination (explicit to explicit): Different explicit knowledge pieces are combined, reconfigured, and systematized (e.g., integrating reports into a knowledge base).
  4. Internalization (explicit to tacit): Individuals absorb explicit knowledge and transform it into tacit know-how through practice and reflection, thereby completing the spiral and enabling new knowledge creation.

Concrete example: Software development team

Consider a senior software engineer with deep tacit knowledge about system architecture and debugging techniques. Socialization occurs when junior developers pair-program with the senior engineer and observe problem-solving approaches (tacit to tacit). Externalization happens when the senior documents architectural patterns, writes onboarding guides, or articulates heuristics in design notes (tacit to explicit). Combination takes place as these documents are merged with coding standards, test procedures, and issue-tracking records into an organized knowledge repository (explicit to explicit). New developers then study the repository and apply the documented practices in projects; through repeated application and reflection they internalize these patterns, developing their own tacit skill (explicit to tacit). This cycle supports continuous improvement: internalized skills lead to new tacit insights that re-enter the SECI spiral (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Alavi & Leidner, 2001).

Implications for practice

Organizations should design KM programs that balance codification and socialization. Investments in KMS are valuable only when paired with people-focused initiatives: mentoring, communities of practice, and leadership that rewards knowledge sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; O'Dell & Grayson, 1998). Measuring impact requires both qualitative and quantitative metrics: adoption rates, reduced rework, and innovation outcomes alongside narrative evidence of shared understanding (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

Conclusion

Knowledge management has evolved from a focus on codified repositories to an appreciation of dynamic, social processes that create and renew organizational knowledge. Its importance lies in enabling innovation, preserving critical capabilities, and improving decision-making. The SECI model provides a practical frame for understanding how tacit and explicit knowledge interact; organizations that support each stage of the knowledge spiral — through people, processes, technology, content, and culture — are better positioned to realize the strategic benefits of KM.

References

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 677–690.
  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
  • O'Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. Free Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 45–62.
  • Wiig, K. M. (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking — How People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Schema Press.

Related Assignments