Theories and models of Nonaka’s and Polanyi’s work
Introduction
Currently, knowledge is perceived as a source for attaining competitive advantage. This form of perception has forced firms to make a difference in the business environment by utilizing knowledge and its capability. These organizations have established a competitive advantage by using market knowledge in meeting their objectives (Soursa & Houtari 2014). In this case, it is important to evaluate the existing models and theories explaining knowledge and how it can be used by organizations to compete favourably in the global market (Gourlay 2006). As such, the focus of this paper is to assess the contributions of both Nonaka and Polanyi in the world of knowledge and innovation. To complete this task, the essay will compare and contrast the work of these two individuals, support, and criticize them to offer an in-depth understanding of innovation and knowledge management.
Nonaka is a Japanese theorist prominent for his contribution to the organizational theory on knowledge management. Nonaka’s contribution on the knowledge management has a substantial role in determining the innovation and distribution of knowledge in today’s organizations (Gourlay 2006). Nonaka developed the theory of knowledge that makes it easy for the organizations to appreciate the development process of creating knowledge. Polanyi, on the other hand, was a theorist, a scientist, and a philosopher who made key contributions to the world of philosophy, economics, and physical chemistry (Mulins n.d.). His contribution to the world of knowledge and innovation emanates from his opposition to positivist where he developed the theory of personal knowledge (Mulins n.d.). In this theory, Polanyi identified the structure of tacit theory that has been expanded by other theorists such as Nonaka to benefit the organizations.
Comparison of the two Gurus
With the two authors focusing on organizational knowledge and innovation, this section compares and contrasts their contributions and perceptions by evaluating their theories and models.
| NONAKA | POLANYI |
| Berg (2013) claim that processing tacit knowledge and sharing it as explicit knowledge yields to information. Strength: encouraged organizations to establish an environment that favors the exchange of tacit to explicit knowledge. Weakness: this process is similar to information sharing. | Mullins (n.d.) claims that tacit knowledge is the only source of knowledge. Strength: confirms that tacit knowledge is superior to explicit knowledge. Weakness: Polanyi does not consider explicit knowledge in this assertion. |
| Eden, von Krogh, and Nonaka (2013) refer to knowledge as what an individual knows and what they can do with this knowledge. Strength: This perception supported the concept of tacit knowledge. Weakness: They does not consider to what someone learns as being knowledge.
| Polanyi claims that the knower who is the scientist owns tacit knowledge (Mullins n.d.). The conversion of tacit knowledge depends on the willingness of the owner to share the knowledge. Strength: Confirms that tacit knowledge is unique among people and that a few own it. Weakness: Fails to establish effective ways of sharing tacit knowledge. |
| Tammets (2013) discusses the knowledge creation model by Nonaka by claiming that knowledge creation in an organization occurs when there is a proper transition of knowledge either from explicit to tacit knowledge. Strength: The model provides the basis for knowledge creation and distribution between individuals in the organization. Weakness: This process is similar to information sharing in the organization, which is used to stimulate innovation and creativity in the firms. | Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) claim that the ability of the knower who is the scientist to share the tacit knowledge determines the way knowledge is distributed and understood by others. Strength: The model supports or provides a source of innovation in the organization. Only a few individuals in the organization have ideas that need to be taught to others for the organization to embrace innovation. Weakness: Failed to provide a model for sharing the tacit model that can be adopted by organizations to stimulate innovation in organizations. |
| Nonaka discusses the socialization is a model that facilitates transitioning of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge between different individuals (Tammets 2012). Strength: emphasizes the importance of direct collaboration with the person with tacit knowledge. Weakness: focuses on the social knowledge only and forgets other knowledge that cannot be acquired through socialization. | Grant (2007) supports Polanyi’s claims that the scientist uses his cognitive skills and experiences to share the tacit knowledge. Strength: emphasizes the need for cognitive skills to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Weakness: there is overreliance of the scientist as the source of knowledge, which limits the attempts of making innovative moves. |
| Combination model discusses the transfer of explicit knowledge to explicit. Strength: it pushes for the use technology to facilitate the sharing of what is known and what is not known especially for the novice employees during the training. Weakness: Does not consider the comprehension capability of an individual as discussed by Polanyi (Mullins n.d.). | Crane (2013) support Polanyi’s personal knowledge by claiming that personal knowledge is the fundamental factor for the appropriate actions in an organization. Strength: emphasizes the need for hiring talented employees. Weakness: does not consider learning as a way of sharing personal knowledge. |
| Gourlay (2006) challenges the knowledge creation theory by Nonaka by claiming that there is no difference between information creation and knowledge creation, especially on the externalization process. Strength: Compares knowledge to information, which is a key factor determining the level of innovation in an organization (Tammets 2012). Weakness: does not provide the distinction between the two since information creation is not similar to knowledge creation. | Grant (2007) asserts that tacit knowledge of an individual is constrained and shaped by the society that one belongs. Strength: Explains why it is easy to share knowledge for some employees and difficult for others. This is a key area of interest to the human resource manager (HRM) of the organizations in stimulating knowledge sharing using incentives. Weakness: society is not the only factor that affects knowledge sharing, as there are others such as communication. |
| Nonaka and Peltokorpi (2006) support Nonaka’s findings of converting explicit knowledge to tacit in the process of externalization. Strength: Emphasis on the important of experiments in search of actualizing the concept and methods to stimulate innovation in an organization is placed. Weakness: assumes that tacit knowledge already exists yet it is superior to tacit knowledge. | Technology is key to the conversion of the tacit knowledge through codification. Strength: Emphasizes the utilization of the capabilities of the advanced technology. Weakness: complex tacit knowledge held by an individual is hard to codify and automate it. |
| Harmaakorpi and Melkas (2005) criticize Nonaka’s SECI model, since he and his colleagues treat knowledge as a thing. Strength: They claim that knowledge is an active relational process. Weakness: Does not provide an alternative of transitioning knowledge from one form to the other. | The transfer of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge calls for different approaches (Tsoukas & Vladimirou 2001). Strength: It is important in finding the commonality between the two types of knowledge. Weakness: Did not disclose the actual process of transferring tacit to explicit or the other way round. |
| Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) criticize the SECI model by claiming that Nonaka and his peers misunderstood the prime idea of knowledge as presented by Polanyi. Strength: Recommended for the use of the source material rather than the original work. Weakness: No evidence that Nonaka and his colleagues used interpretation work instead of the source material. | Mullins (n.d.) support the urge of sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with other persons is emphasized in Polanyi’s work since it is the source of innovation in the organizations. Strength: related knowledge with business success where the possession of knowledge is associated with the increase of innovation. Weakness: The framework leaves more issues unattended; thus giving room for misinterpretation. |
| The invention of SECI model was an extension of Polanyi’s work where Nonaka derived both explicit and tacit knowledge. Strength: Extended the work of Polanyi by showing the practical conversion of knowledge in organizations. Weakness: This advancement was based on the Japanese companies; limiting the adaptation of this model to global companies. | Kimble (2013) support the findings of Polanyi by claiming the mind of an individual acts as a filter of what to retain and what to share. Strength: the sharing mode determines the level of innovation in an organization as either individual or group innovation. Weakness: Failed to offer a mode of transferring the sticky information in quest of stimulating innovation. |
SECI Model
The continued interest in the knowledge management has constituted to the integration of the concepts taught by Nonaka and Polanyi in the today’s organizations. SECI framework refers to the four processes: “socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization” (Nonaka & Peltokorpi 2006, pg. 14) involved in knowledge transitioning. Proper integration of these processes has constituted to the effective management of knowledge in the organizations. In addition, effective exploitation of SECI model has been regarded as the key source of innovation and creativity in organizations. The advent of technology has facilitated the integration of SECI model in the pursuit of innovation and creativity. Besides, Nonaka and von Krogh (2009) emphasize on the need for knowledge sharing as a major aspect for the realization of knowledge management. This involves the documentation of the findings made for future reference as well as sharing of information between the individuals in the organization.
Application of SECI Model in ICT Industry in Spain
The information and communication technology (ICT) industry in Spain is relying on the organizational learning (OL) as the mode of acquiring knowledge, disseminating, interpreting, and retaining information in the organizations. The success and effectiveness of OL are relying on the exploitation of SECI model by Nonaka as the appropriate framework for the conversion of the tacit and explicit knowledge. OL is then used to adopt the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in exploiting the ICT to promote their performance. Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta (2010) claim that the use of ICT in an organization facilitate knowledge creation, which enhances the use of OL by influencing the process of knowledge conversion used in SECI model.
In the attempt of facilitating this process, the ICT industry uses ICT orientation to synthesize SECI model and boost OL in the SMEs. The ICT workflow and communication orientations rely on the combination and internalization processes of SECI model while externalization is determined by the workflow orientation only while socialization does not depend on the use of ICT orientations (Nicolas & Soto-Acosta 2010). The new ICTs use socialization process when the practitioners meet face-to-face to discuss the new invention; thus creating new tacit knowledge. In addition, externalization is used when ICT is used to improve the business process, for instance, automating a system in the business that promotes its performance (Nicolas & Soto-Acosta 2010). Combination process promotes the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex systems (Kimble 2013). This is evident following the fact that the use of ICT tools in organizations constitutes to improved performance. The internalization process facilitates sharing of explicit knowledge within the organization to tacit knowledge (Kimble 2013). The ICT industry has utilized internalization where new systems are developed from the existing systems or when processes in the organizations are automated to provide better workflow tools (Nicolas & Soto-Acosta 2010). Internalization occurs when tacit knowledge at the individual level is used to set new knowledge for the processes and routines of the existing technology.
Reflection
As the report has indicated, knowledge management has become a key area for organization improvement through the attainment of competitive advantage. Throughout the study, I have identified the difference contributions that both Polanyi and Nonaka made in the world of knowledge management. Polanyi started the idea of tacit knowledge whereas Nonanka expanded on tacit and explicit knowledge and the transformation of one form of knowledge to the other in the SECI model. In addition, I have understood why most of the authors criticize the work of Nonaka and his colleagues in that at some instances they misinterpreted Polanyi’s work. Despite the close relation between knowledge and information, I have learned that knowledge is superior to information as proper knowledge processing yields information used by the organizations to establish competitive advantage. Lastly, I have learned that the prime role of SECI framework is to facilitate knowledge sharing either from tacit to explicit or explicit to tacit, which determines effectiveness of knowledge in an organization. However, during the study I incurred a mixture of reactions from various authors who argue for and against the SECI model, which at some point lead to confusion. This is because of various interpretations made by these authors depending on the source materials used.
Bibliography
Berg, H.A., 2013. Three Shapes of Organizational Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), pp. 159-174.
Clark, M.C., Nguyen, H.T., Bray, C., and Levine, R.E., 2008. Team-Based Learning in an Undergraduate Nursing Course. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(3), pp. 111-119.
Crane, L., 2013. A New Taxonomy of Knowledge Management Theory: The Turn to Knowledge as Constituted in Social Action. Journal of Knowledge Practice, 14(1) [Online] http://www.tlainc.com/articl332.htm [Accessed 21 Nov. 16]
Erden, Z., von Krogh, G., and Nonaka, I., 2008. The Quality of Group Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(1), pp. 4-18.
Gourlay, S., 2006. Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka’s Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), pp. 1415-1437.
Grant, K.A., 2007. Tacit Knowledge Revisited-We can Still Learn from Polanyi. The Electric Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), pp. 173-180.
Harmaakorpi, V., and Melkas, H. 2005. Knowledge management in regional innovation networks: The case of Lahti, Finland. European Planning Studies, 13(5), pp. 641-659
Hatala, J. and George Lutta, J. 2009. Managing information sharing within an organizational setting: A social network perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), pp.5-33.
Hong, J.F.L., 2012. Globalizing Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Model: Issues and Challenge. Management Learning, 43(2), pp. 199-215.
Kabir, N., 2013. Tacit Knowledge, its Codification, and Technological Advancement. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), pp. 235‐243.
Kimble, C., 2013. Knowledge Management, Codification and Tacit Knowledge. Information Research, 18(2), pp. 1-15.
Li, M., and Gao, F., 2003. Why Nonaka Highlights Tacit Knowledge: A Critical Review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), pp. 6-14.
Lopez-Nicolas, C., and Soto-Acosta, P., 2010. Analyzing ICT Adoption and Use Effects on Knowledge Creation: An Empirical Investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), pp. 521-528.
Martın-de-Castro, G., Lopez-Saez, P., and Navas-Lopez, J. E. (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain. Technovation, 28(4), pp. 222-230.
Mathew, V., and Kavitha, M., 2009. Implementing Knowledge Management Knowledge Mapping, Matrix, and Supports. Journal of Knowledge Practice, 10(1) [Online] http://www.tlainc.com/articl179.htm [Accessed 21 Nov. 16]
McCloskey, D.N., 1997. Other Things Equal. Polanyi was Right, and Wrong. Eastern Economic Journal, 23(4), pp. 483-488.
Mulins, P., n.d. Comprehension and the “Comprehensive Entity”: Polanyi’s Theory of Tacit Knowing and Its Metaphysical Implications. Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 33(3), pp. 26-44.
Nonaka, I. and Peltokorpi, V. 2006. Objectivity and subjectivity in knowledge management: a review of 20 top articles. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(2), pp.73-82.
Nonaka, I., and Peltokorpi, V., 2006. Objectivity and Subjectivity in Knowledge Management: A Review of 20 Top Articles. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(2), pp.73-82.
Nonaka, I., and von Krogh, G., 2009. Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, 20(3), pp. 635-652.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, Borucki, C.C., and Konno, N., 1994. Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: A First Comprehensive Test. International Business Review, 3(4), pp. 337-351.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2001) SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation, in: I. Nonaka & D. Teece (Eds) Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, pp. 13–43
Nonaka. I., von Krogh, and Voelpel, S., Organized Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), pp. 1179-1208.
Paulin, D., and Suneson, K. n.d. Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Barriers -Three Blurry Terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), pp. 81-91.
Razak, N., Pangil, F., Zin, M., Yunus, N. and Asnawi, N. (2016). Theories of Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Business Strategy. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, pp.545-553.
Samara, K., 2007. A Framework for Discovering KM Forces: The Fifth Element. Journal of Knowledge Practice, 8(1) [Online] http://www.tlainc.com/articl129.htm [Accessed 21 Nov. 16]
Soursa, A.,and Houtari, M., 2014. Knowledge Creation and the Concept of a Human Being: A Phenomenological Approach. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), pp. 1042-1057.
Tammets, K., 2012. Meta-Analysis of Nonaka and Tekeuchi’s Knowledge Management Model in the Context of Lifelong Learning. Journal of Knowledge Practice, 13(4) [Online] http://www.tlainc.com/articl319.htm [Accessed 21 Nov. 16]
Thompson, M., and Walsham, G. 2004. Placing knowledge management in context. Journal of Management Studies, 41, (5): pp. 725 – 747
Tsoukas, E., and Vladimirou, E. 2001. What is Organizational Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38, (7): pp. 973 – 993
Wang, S., and Noe, R. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), pp.115-131.
Widen-Wulff, G. 2004. Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), pp.448-458.
