Mobilising Tacit Knowledge
As
a practitioner in the area of organisational learning, I’m intrigued by the
related but newer, sexier, ‘knowledge management’ (KM) arena. Motivated by
curiosity into what insights I might gain by adopting a knowledge management
perspective, I recently embarked on a period of research and reflection. This
article sprang from this activity. It uses a knowledge management perspective
based on a published model of dynamic knowledge creation to describe four
very different practical case studies. In very different ways these initiatives
all mobilised tacit knowledge in their organisations, though only one of these
cases was deliberately initiated as part of a knowledge management strategy.
A Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation
The
model that I found most useful as a way of making sense of the overlap between
organisational learning and knowledge management, as well as providing a context
for re-evaluating past experience, was developed by Nonaka et al (2000). Their
work gave me a coherent framework within which I could place concepts like
tacit and explicit knowledge, organisational learning cycles (Dixon, 1994),
the role of IT and organisation culture. The composite diagram below barely
does justice to their model.
Figure 1 - Model of Dynamic Knowledge
Creation (Dixon,1994)
The
model suggests four categories of knowledge assets:
· Experiential knowledge comprises the judgement, know-how and commitment of individuals. It is an understanding of the organisation’s capabilities, services, products, marketplace, etc. acquired through hands-on experience shared with colleagues and with customers, suppliers, and affiliated firms. The knowledge is tacit: wisdom that is difficult to grasp, articulate or evaluate. (Polanyi (1966), who coined the term tacit knowledge, said: “we know more than we can tell”.) Experiential knowledge assets are firm-specific and difficult to imitate. These are resources that can provide a sustainable competitive advantage – but if specialised experiential knowledge is held by just a few people then the firm is vulnerable to their loss.
· Conceptual knowledge assets are explicit articulations - using images, symbols and language - of concepts held by the organisation’s members and customers. (Eg. Brand equity, framework for managing customer relationships).
· Systemic knowledge assets comprise packages of explicit knowledge such as product specifications, procedure manuals, operational plans and budgets, patents and licenses. IT-enabled knowledge management efforts often focus on this category which is the most visible in the organisation and the most amenable to being captured, stored, accessed and disseminated through IT.
· Routine knowledge assets consist of the patterns of thinking embedded in the organisation’s daily operations, routine practices and culture. Individuals who carry out the organisation’s operations assimilate this practical tacit knowledge through their activity (learning by doing). Staff turnover reduces the stock of routine knowledge, but high turnover can accelerate the establishment of new habits in times of change.
The model also
envisages four processes through which these assets are mobilised and shared;
socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation, and specifies
the characteristics of an enabling context for each of the processes of knowledge
creation and for an organisation embracing a coherent knowledge management
strategy (indicated on the diagram by the terms in italics).
These knowledge-creating processes will occur in combination but I’ve selected four quite different case studies (two from my own experience and two in the public domain) that each illustrate a distinct process particularly well. The processes are described in turn below.
1) Socialisation: converting tacit routine knowledge to tacit experiential
knowledge assets
Apprenticeships, where the less experienced work alongside a ‘master’, are
a structured way of catalysing the development of experiential knowledge.
Experiential knowledge is normally built slowly and unpredictably through
face-to-face interaction that has a ‘feeling’ as well as a ‘thinking’ dimension.
Where such empathy exists then individuals can build their experiential knowledge
through shared work and other life experiences. Managers with established
routine knowledge accelerate their accumulation of experiential knowledge
by moving between production sites, visiting suppliers and customers, and
interacting with competitors. Groups of specialists who exchange information
and share experiences across the areas of their common interest are now being
termed ‘communities of practice’ (CoP). Intranets, e-mail, and other collaboration
technologies can help members of such a community to maintain relationships
even though they might be based in different regions, countries or continents.
However, face-to-face meetings remain the most likely medium for this tacit
knowledge to be shared.
‘Socialisation’ within knowledge management at Shell
Shell
provides both the intranet technology that sustains a number of CoPs (eg.
safety and reliability engineers based at different refineries), and the opportunities
for CoP members to have the face-to-face meetings that enable the development
of mutual trust. Thus, the company
encourages the formation of social relationships through which tacit experiential
knowledge can be shared.
Shell’s
strategy making process provides a further illustration of the socialisation
knowledge-creating process in action. For many years the company has used
scenarios – alternative, challenging descriptions of futures that could develop
from the current business environment – to stimulate managers to become more
flexible and robust in their forward thinking. Generating these scenarios
is a process that draws upon the experience and insight not only of key senior
managers within the company, but also of respected external commentators through
whom the company seeks to ensure that scenarios transcend any corporate ‘blind-spots’.
Each
scenario is based on trends and uncertainties perceived by this mixed group.
Thus the first stage of scenario creation is a process of creating conceptual
knowledge: an articulation of alternative challenging, feasible, credible,
internally consistent inter-woven sets of factors within a picture of the
future. Once the experts have articulated the ‘bare bones’ of the scenarios,
the stories are ‘fleshed out’ by integrating additional real-world information
– becoming packages of systemic knowledge.
Van
der Heijden (1996) suggests that each story must compellingly transfer to
the user the important discoveries the scenario team has made. The stories,
he says, need to be provocative, memorable, eliciting a rich imagery and given
evocative names. If written, the stories can be enlivened with graphics and
colour. If recorded to audiotapes, actors can relate the stories against a
musical background. When these stories are disseminated to operational managers
there may be some immediate impact on their routine activity – for example,
a need to develop the resources to handle a particular contingency – and thus
the scenarios can be converted into routine knowledge assets.
However,
the prime focus is the impact the scenarios can have on experiential knowledge.
A good scenario is analogous to a face-to-face meeting with a colleague who
had experienced one of the unknown futures.
Shell has found that well-crafted stories have the power to engage
the imagination of the user, leading to key scenario factors becoming assimilated
into the experiential knowledge that informs thinking and decision-making.
2) Externalisation: converting
tacit experiential knowledge to explicit conceptual knowledge assets
Experienced
people can start to articulate some of the concepts that express their tacit
understanding by use of metaphor, analogy and model. This enables them to
reflect upon, and deepen their understanding, and to exchange ideas with others.
Such a dialogue requires that the ‘experts’ have sufficient common ground
for tentative concepts to be shared and developed together - becoming explicit
conceptual knowledge. The process, therefore, depends upon having the right
mix of individuals according to their experience and skills, and appropriate
facilities / facilitation for a creative dialogue between them.
Creating new conceptual knowledge to resource strategy-making
in Dutch Telecom
In
1992, the Dutch combined post and telecommunications organisation (KPN) was
preparing its strategy for operating post-privatisation. Managers would face
a competitive environment for the first time and needed a whole new strategy
and strategic development process. This was tackled in two stages.
First,
around 50 key staff who embodied a wide range of experience in the industry
were identified and interviewed for their distinctive insights to the key
business development issues over the next 10 years. The interview process
was designed to convert tacit experiential knowledge to explicit concepts
expressing insights to the industry. Interviews incorporated mapping techniques
that originated in systems thinking (Hodgson, 1992) and science education
(Novak, 1990) and were conducted with good-humoured playfulness.
Each
interview started with the same open-ended question that elicited information
perceived to be relevant to the strategic challenge. Responses to this ‘trigger’
question provided the starting point for the interviewee to cluster their
ideas, placing them in groups that seemed meaningful in the context of the
imminent privatisation. The interviewees were encouraged to reflect on the
meanings that emerged, experimenting with alternative groupings before the
emergent concepts were labelled.
The
map was then completed by the addition of arrows and linking words to connect
related concepts. The process unearthed some hypotheses about the organisation
and the changes taking place. Finally, the interviewee was asked to comment
on the process and their map. Many of those interviewed reported that the
session had been rewarding, providing new insights to the challenges and changes
that lay ahead.
Figure 2 - Illustration showing form of map generated through interview
The second stage comprised a number of group workshops. The interviews prepared prospective participants for these, as well as generating information (captured in visual thinking software) that guided design of the workshop agenda. Through facilitated dialogue and further mapping exercises the workshops generated the framework for the organisation’s strategic direction. In other words, the workshops converted the experiential knowledge of the assembled participants into the conceptual knowledge needed for more detailed strategic planning. Of course, in parallel with the formal agenda, the workshops provided an environment that stimulated the informal exchange of ideas and experiences relevant to the strategic challenge faced by the organisation. Therefore, the workshops were also a catalyst for the enhancement of experiential knowledge in KPN.
3) Combination: converting explicit conceptual knowledge to explicit systemic knowledge assets
Systemic knowledge assets are generated by integrating concepts and information from around the company, perhaps bringing together information from internal and external sources, or actual performance with projections. By applying conceptual knowledge to assembled information - using it to create structured packages of information, or as the basis of analysis or synthesis - new systemic knowledge is created. Packaging information in a meaningful way transforms it into explicit systemic knowledge. Systemic knowledge assets are explicit, visible and amenable to being captured, stored, accessed and disseminated through IT-supported knowledge repositories.
Many knowledge management initiatives focus on establishing such repositories, but the task for IT is not trivial: in a paper published on the web Zack & Serino (1999) say, “A critical issue influencing success across all of our experiences is the ability of the organisation to define a repository structure that reflects the structure of contextual knowledge tacitly held by the organisation. In most organisations, those structures are neither well-defined nor widely shared and resolving this issue is essential for implementing technologies that explicitly encode organisational knowledge’.
Creating systemic knowledge in core business
areas in Unilever
In Unilever, as in many large organisations, expertise is fragmented and can be scattered between specialists who are individually isolated. The organisation has been using knowledge workshops to make explicit ‘what Unilever knows’ and ‘what Unilever does not know’ so that the collective knowledge can be captured in a structured way, shared, developed and applied globally. Their initiative illustrates the creation of systemic knowledge through processes of combination.
A knowledge map plays a key part in the workshop process as described by Speel et al. (1999). The map comprised a matrix cross-referencing a customer’s requirements for a product (the what) against the distinct technology options to make the product (the how). This is based on the Quality Function Deployment framework, a respected quality improvement approach used to translate customer requirements into product or service characteristics.
Each session focused on a specific product and brought together 10 to 15 people explicitly recognised as the best Unilever experts available. The first step for these experts was to agree and specify the technology options relevant to their product, enabling the knowledge map to be tailored to their needs. The map was then used both to provide structure and to capture information as the experts conducted their dialogue about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of their product. (For example, the impact of free range eggs on the taste of a mayonnaise.)
During each session it would be found that some cells of the matrix pointed to areas where participants already had comprehensive shared understanding – a conceptual knowledge asset that could be exploited in the marketplace. Other cells were found to indicate areas where the specialists needed to share raw bits and pieces of knowledge, creating new understanding (conceptual knowledge) through this process during the workshop. In some cases a session identified cells where little was known, and these became candidates for research activity that was prioritised later.
Figure 3 - Knowledge map used to structure the workshop process and the knowledge elicited
The
maps and the business development and research agendas provided tangible outputs
of the series of workshops – explicit systemic knowledge assets. These could
be captured, stored, and disseminated through knowledge management software.
However, there were other outputs. As the specialists were guided through
the map they were enacting a customer-led review process, thus the workshop
was also a way of encouraging the routine take-up of a customer-led perspective.
Moreover,
Speel et al (1999) describe an immediate payback for some participants who
found that others had experience relevant to their current problems. They
also say that participants were left with a common language, new relationships
and energy for continuing the dialogue. Thus the workshops also added to tacit,
experiential knowledge and have catalysed the emergence of communities of
practice that can continue to build these assets.
4) Internalisation: converting explicit systemic knowledge to tacit routine knowledge assets
Explicit knowledge communicated through procedural manuals becomes internalised by individuals who enact the routines. This is ‘learning by doing’. The embedded knowledge encompasses the values evident in organisational behaviours and includes the organisation’s culture. The process of creating routine knowledge assets is slow and will depend on the consistency and coherence of the organisation’s operational procedures. Cross-functional development teams or overlapping product development efforts help to communicate values and build coherence. Simulation and experimentation processes, prototyping, piloting … these are mechanisms for catalysing the internalisation of routine knowledge. Information and communication technology can help to ensure that updated procedures are reliably disseminated as well as providing enabling technologies to support collaboration.
Embedding cross-functional working in routine
knowledge in an RHM business
In parallel with many other organisations in the early 90s, businesses within Rank Hovis McDougall were changing their way of working: from inflexible job specialisations within functional groupings towards multi-skilled people responding to customer needs across business processes. One business used a variety of initiatives to modify the patterns of thinking embodied in the organisation’s routines and to accelerate the take-up of the new ways of working.
At
an operating site the management team redefined the way they wanted their
site to work. They reviewed designated responsibilities and changed their
own and others’ job titles, publishing a revised organisation chart (systemic
knowledge). They introduced new performance indicators (systemic knowledge),
and established cross-functional teams (provided with support for their collaboration)
to address other necessary changes (catalysing internalisation and creation
of routine knowledge). This coherent package of changes to routine was rapidly
assimilated, with marked effects on working habits (routine knowledge) and
overall site performance within one year.
A small group of managers with wide experience of the business articulated the key business-wide processes (converting experiential knowledge to conceptual knowledge) and used this view of the business to revisit documented issues raised by, and lessons learned from, a range of earlier change and improvement initiatives. This qualitative information was organised according to its relevance to business processes and stored in a database (converting to systemic knowledge). The process view was represented in graphical form (see Figure 4) and used as a site map and access gateway to the stored knowledge. All users of this information were therefore exposed to the business process view of the company each time they accessed the knowledge base, reinforcing the changed orientation. Over time the map, and the process view of the company that it represented, became assimilated into the way people understood their business – influencing information flows and appreciation of the knock-on effects of local actions (creating routine knowledge).
Figure 4 - Process map and site map for accessing the information provided
New opportunities
and challenges?
I
found my foray into the world of knowledge management very rewarding. My processes
of research and reflection were greatly enabled by use of IT so that the exercise
became an instructive analogy for the subject itself. Through connections
made on the web, I was surprised and pleased to discover people in very different
fields who share some of my interests. For example, I found corporate strategists,
mentors, IT specialists, educators and architects all similarly concerned
about the effective use of images and drawing to elicit and convey conceptual
information. Untapped potential for joining new communities of practice?
I
also observed that IT now has the capability to contribute to all of the knowledge-creating
processes described here. There has been a lot of hype but I’m no longer concerned
that knowledge management may be ‘just a fad’. Re-perceiving these case studies
as knowledge management initiatives has added to my appreciation of what was
going on at the time. Knowledge management is said to depend on a coalition
of business, IT and people perspectives, that is, it has content, computing,
and community dimensions. Current interest in KM could lead to new conversations
about work focused on learning communities. New collaborations with IT-based
knowledge management specialists could bring greater momentum to organisational
learning initiatives.
However,
investments in IT need to be justified in terms of added value for the business.
We need even wider collaboration to engage in the valuation of our (potential)
knowledge assets. If it’s easier to define the business focus and justifiable
level of investment for creating explicit knowledge then this is where the
effort will go. (see Johanesson et al., 2000) We need to demonstrate the business
value of tacit knowledge; the extent to which tacit knowledge is an integral
part of the total knowledge assets, its role in maintaining effective relationships
within and beyond the firm and in enabling innovation and improvement. If
we fail, then mobilising tacit knowledge will be ‘just’ a desirable by-product
of IT-based knowledge management and other business initiatives.
REFERENCES
Dixon, N. (1994) The Organisational Learning Cycle: how we can learn collectively, McGraw-Hill
Hodgson, A. (1992) Hexagons for
Systems Thinking, in ‘Modeling for Learning Organizations’ ed. by Morecroft
& Sterman, Productivity Press
Johannessen, J., Olaisen, J., Olsen, B. (2000) Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: Knowledge
management, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it
Paper for Norwegian research programme on Social and Cultural Preconditions
for ICT (SKIKT) find article here
Nonaka, I., Toyama R., Noboru, K.
(Feb 2000) SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation;
Long Range Planning Journal
Novak,
J.
(1990) Concept Mapping, a useful tool for science education, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 27(10): 937-949
Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension,
Routledge & Keegan Paul
Speel, P., Shadbolt, N., de Vries, W., van Dam, P.,
O’Hara, K. (Oct 99) Knowledge mapping
for industrial purposes, Paper to Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management
Workshop, Alberta, Canada find article here
Van der Heijden, K. (1996)
Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation, Wiley
Zack, M., Serino, M. (1996), Knowledge Management & Collaboration Technologies, Lotus Research
Paper
In addition, these websites have good information on knowledge management: BRINT and Karl Sveiby's site.