I discovered Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 book (See References) almost by accident.  I have been conducting intermittent literature searches to help me develop my model of Knowledges Interchange.  A key area of research is the application of KI in the business world, and I have begun a category called Beyond Knowledge Management which has attracted more visits to my blog than any other thread. 

As I explored Knowledge Management, I found Nonaka and Takeuchi. Referred to by many authorities as the originators of Knowledge Management (KM), they have written a text that is a wonderfully rich source of ideas, frameworks and explanations of the way Japanese corporations view the creation of knowledge in their organizations, as compared with western corporations.  But the book is also a thorough documentation of their own research into what knowledge means, particulatly in the context of corporations.

As I read, I will capture some of their arguments in this blog.  It helps me to write about it and perhaps it will help others too.  My main critique, of course, is that the focus is knowledge in the singular.  As I read their description of the development of ideas about knowledge creation from Plato forward, I can’t help reflecting on the numbers of truly remarkable people who have spent their lives defining “knowledge”.  Isn’t it more productive siimply to recognize that the definitions of knowledges are as numerous and diverse as there are ways of knowing.?

Continuing my exploration of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) text, I come next to their theories about explicit and tacit knowledge.  Apart from the fact that they use knowledge in the singular, I agree with many others that these concepts are very plausible.  They say:

In this book, we classify human knowledge into two kinds. One is explicit knowledge, which can be articulated in formal knowledge including grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, manuals, and so forth. This kind of knowledge thus can be transmitted across individuals formally and easily. This has been the dominant mode of knowledge in the Western philosophical tradition. However, we shall argue, a more important kind of knowledge is tacit knowledge, which is hard to articulate with formal language. It is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspectives, and the value system. Tacit knowledge has been overlooked as a critical component of collective human behaviour (Preface, p.viii).

This passage is an acknowledgement that there is more than one form of knowledge. In addition, the recognition that not all forms of knowledge can be quantifiable fits well with many of the arguments in this blog.  Many scientists, in particular, have relied almost exclusively on what they might call “hard facts”. Data that were not quantifiable have often been dismissed by them. It is gratifying, then, to read an acknowledgement of the importance of alternative ways of knowing.

A critique of the authors is that they do not go far enough in identifying only two forms of knowledge. For example, elsewhere in this blog, I introduced the work of Tony Ward, who points to body knowledge, and this is neither explicit nor tacit, according to the definition given. Here, I am committed to continuing the search for other ways of knowing, and resisting the idea that there is only one form of knowledge which can be managed.

 This post signals the first of a series of occasional posts that will explore Knowledges Interchange as a positive step beyond Knowledge Management (KM).  I’ll explore the proposition that the theory and practice of KM are based on a weak paradigm  In the first place, I’m arguing throughout this blog that the idea that there is one Knowledge makes no sense in this world of complexities. Secondly, the notion that there is one Knowledge that can be managed is a curious idea that is easily challenged.

I want to frame my challenges to KM with some of the literature of the field. Many would agree that Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 book entitled The Knowledge Creating Company  (See References) formed the foundation of the KM “movement”.  As the authors explain in their Preface, they first began to study the Japanese product development process in 1983, and published an article about their findings in 1986. They used a rugby ball metaphor to underscore their conclusions:

o   Speed and flexibility characterize the way the rugby ball is passed within the team and up the field

o  The ball contains a shared understanding of the company ideals, values and emotions

o  The ball does not move in a predictably, linear way, but rather in response to the direction of the game

o  Intensive and labour-intensive efforts are required of team members

o  Knowledge creation, dissemination and application are all a factor of human knowledge

So if I want to discuss Knowledges Interchange, I’ll have to come up with a sports metaphor of my own.  I’ll go think about that for a while,  and get back to you.