“How much I know and how much we know”

To make plans work and achieve some degree of KM facilitation within the organizations, organisations start with low hanging fruit of Explicit Knowledge and this makes sense too as organizations know where to extent their resources, human capital and technology, to capture the same.
While working on the knowledge paradigm one of the challenges posed to organizations is how to articulate the tacit knowledge of the employee and put to use.
During the start of this century few researchers like Castillo, Ambrosini and Bowman started classifying implicit knowledge in three formats. The first level of tacit knowledge, “Deeply Ingrained”, which cannot be articulated, as this nonepistle tacit knowledge is extremely difficult to be “explicitly articulated”, which was earlier said by Leonard & Sensiper. The second level of tacit, which has termed as “sagacious”, “imperfectly articulated tacit skills” or “cognitive form of tacit knowledge by various KM thought leaders. Ambrosini and Bowman acknowledge Nonaka view that this knowledge can be partially captured through “metaphor and analogy”. The third level, Semantic Knowledge by Castillo and Internalised Knowledge by Nonaka which was at one time explicit and has been turned into implicit and Ambrosini & Bowman Castillo and Nonaka, agree this can be articulated relatively easily through dialogue.
“How much we know”, has always been a matter of concern for almost all the organizations. The collective tacit knowledge has been interpreted very differently by organizations and instead of coming out with the clear description many researchers in this field has only added to the confusion.Spendor’s research says that collective knowledge is more secure and has more strategic significance than individual knowledge. Few likes of Fahey and Prusak, it is less changeable and least affected by attritionQuestions have been raised whether there is a difference between collective and total sum of knowledge being held by all individuals in the system. Thought leaders like Simon clearly stated that, organisation do not hold any knowledge but its members do. But researchers like Nelson and Winter who put forward a different perspective to collective knowledge and said “…an attribute of the organisation just like its modus operandi and culture” as referred by Alton in his paper

Comments are closed.