Project Management

INTRODUCTION

Many believe that capital, policies, human resource etc are paramount to the profitability of corporations. Various mathematical, economic, financial, quantitative and qualitative models have been developed to evaluate the performance of businesses in the aforementioned areas, a typical example being the Balanced Scorecard. It is then interesting to note that, all those factors cannot thrive without sound knowledge creation. Many writers, including Ikujiro Nonaka support the fact that knowledge is most relevant for innovation which is leads to competitive advantage and long term growth.

In seeking and managing knowledge, the key issue of concern is the meaning of knowledge itself as well as the creation of knowledge in organizations. Nonaka believes knowledge is as per one’s beliefs, thus justified in one’s own terms. Contrary to that, Polanyi and Tsoukas see knowledge as a justified fact i.e. a matter of justified truth, irrespective of the subjectivity of one’s beliefs. Furthermore, Nonaka also believes knowledge can be converted from one form to another e.g. tacit to explicit and in that light developed a knowledge conversion model (SECI). Tsoukas (2002), citing the work of Polanyi (1962) and, Gourlay and Nurse (2005) explained that the SECI model is impractical since explicit knowledge is just a glimpse of tacit i.e. explicit knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge. Glisby and Holden (2003) wrote extensively to show that the SECI model was embedded in Japanese culture, throwing caution to any attempt to apply it universally. Finally, Gourlay (2003) provided analyses on the empirical evidence of SECI model to conclude that it was weak.

This document goes further to give more detail on these issues and throw more light on the realities on knowledge and its management, the SECI model , its implications as well as various criticisms that have been meted out to it, though it is a widely accepted model deemed by some managers as a classic.

THE CONTROVERSY ON THE MEANING ON KNOWLEDGE AND ITS CONVERSION

Nonaka et al. (2000) defines knowledge as a justified belief. By justified belief then, it can be different for different people. Hence, no matter how factual knowledge is, people will always subject it to what they believe in. Nonaka et al. (2000, p. 7) states “fails to address the relative, dynamic and humanistic dimensions of knowledge” in reference to a big flaw in including truth in the definition of knowledge. Thus by example, a Muslim will likely accept that a man should marry several wives based on their faith from the life of the Holy Prophet. They augment this stand by making reference to the possible incapacitation of the wife, the need to avoid adultery and the relevance of marrying several wives in times of war or misfortune where many men die and population dwindles. On the other hand, Christians believe one wife is enough i.e. one can keep it so by the help of the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to treat the wives equally.

In contrast Tsoukas (2002) citing Polanyi (1962) refers to knowledge as a justified true belief. This essentially means that knowledge is about truth which is objective. Whether one wife or not the truth cannot be both interpretations but one true element must exist therein. The focus here is on facts, which are justified for e.g. that the cost of debt borrowing is less than cost of capital in floating shares before financial distress occurs or the fact that the earth rotates. These may be deemed true or untrue by different cultures but then the reality is that these are proven as facts and should underline the concept of knowledge else what remains is just information.

On this debate, Nonaka has a point that realistically everyone subjects information to their beliefs before accepting it as knowledge or not, essentially truth or not. Nonaka thus in summary focuses knowledge on one’s beliefs. Polanyi on the other hand makes a more practical point and insists it is the justified truth that is of essence not what people believe. It is detrimental to call what is false knowledge. Truth is what underlines knowledge and it is the only definition of knowledge that can be of essence and of productivity.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Polanyi (1966) both agree that two forms of knowledge exist i.e. tacit knowledge which is stored in the heads of people and obtained and embedded in experience while explicit knowledge comes in the form of documents, manuals, electronic files and databases. The battle on the types of knowledge is mainly on tacit knowledge which as Tsoukas (2002) and, Ray and Clegg (2007) put it, is widely misunderstood. Nonaka and Takeuchi believe tacit knowledge mainly exists as technical know-how but then in another form being the cognitive dimension.

These are mental models and perspectives gathered through experiences which combined can create new knowledge or lead to innovation. An e.g. is the idea that a bird has peculiar shape, design and way of flying, landing and taking off, and thus in the experience of observing birds, an airplane was born. Nonaka explains that, the years of experience in a job helps people to summarize their thoughts into concepts and principles that basically define the experience and if properly explained and articulated by specialists gives birth to new knowledge that can be shared by words, essentially, explicit knowledge. In short then, for Nonaka, tacit knowledge is of two forms and convertible to explicit knowledge.

Polanyi (1962) cited in Tsoukas (2002) strongly defends the point that tacit knowledge is of one form and is born out of experience. Both agree that explicit knowledge is embedded in tacit knowledge. Furthermore, all that is not experienced is information and it is in the experience that knowledge is born. For e.g. to experience Australia and the kangaroos there, one has to be there to get the full and true picture. An attempt to put it into words and concepts cannot equal the experience. In riding a bicycle, body movements need to be balanced automatically. How that is done is inbuilt and cannot be put in words to fully explain to one’s full understanding. Ray and Clegg (2007) also agree that knowledge is essentially in the knowing (in the experience) and whatever is put into explicit is subject to the flaws of one’s own power of articulation, in that, one experience can be completely described differently by two different individuals. Therefore real knowledge is in the experience.

In similarly terms, swimming cannot be put into concepts and words so that just a simple explanation would enable all to swim. Ray (2005) citing Malcolm Gladwell (2005) summarizes that, we know more than we can tell. He makes the case more interesting by explaining that some parts of an experience are subconscious.

...