%% apa:: Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. _Organization Science_, _5_(1), 14–37. %% # A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation ## Metadata title: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation author:: Ikujiro Nonaka cite-key:: nonaka1994DynamicTheoryOrganizational date_published:: 1994 keywords:: [[Knowledge, explicit]], [[Knowledge, tacit]], [[Mental models]] --- Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. _Organization Science_, _5_(1), 14–37. ^apa --- ## Abstract This paper proposes a paradigm for managing the dynamic aspects of organizational knowledge creating processes. Its central theme is that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. The nature of this dialogue is examined and four patterns of interaction involving tacit and explicit knowledge are identified. It is argued that while new knowledge is developed by individuals, organizations play a critical role in articulating and amplifying that knowledge. A theoretical framework is developed which provides an analytical perspective on the constituent dimensions of knowledge creation. This framework is then applied in two operational models for facilitating the dynamic creation of appropriate organizational knowledge. --- ## Notes - > The theory of organization has long been dominated by a paradigm that conceptualizes the organization as a system that 'processes' information or 'solves' problems. Central to this paradigm is the assumption that a fundamental task for the organization is how efficiently it can deal with information and decisions in an uncertain environment. This paradigm suggests that the solution lies in the 'input-process-output' sequence of hierarchical information processing. Yet a critical problem with this paradigm follows from its passive and static view of the organization. Information processing is viewed as a problem-solving activity which centers on what is given to the organization-without due consideration of what is created by it. ([Nonaka 1994:15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=2)) > … > Yet a critical problem with this paradigm follows from its passive and static view of the organization. ([Nonaka 1994:15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=2)) - [[Innovation]] is a form of knowledge creation, and a process in which problems are created and defined, and new knowledge is developed in order to problem solve. > Innovation can be better understood as a process in which the organization creates and defines problems and then actively develops new knowledge to solve them. ([Nonaka 1994:15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=2)) - > They begin by discussing the nature of information and knowledge and then draw a distinction between "tacit" and "explicit" knowledge. This distinction represents what could be described as the epistemological dimension to organizational knowledge creation. It embraces a continual dialogue between explicit and tacit knowledge which drives the creation of new ideas and concepts. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - > …"communities of interaction" contribute to the amplification and development of new knowledge. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - > …they define a further dimension to organizational knowledge creation, which is associated with the extent of social interaction between individuals that share and develop knowledge. This is referred to as the "ontological" dimension of knowledge creation. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - The relationship between epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge creation. > …a "spiral" model of knowledge creation is proposed which shows the relationship between the epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge creation. This spiral illustrates the creation of a new concept in terms of a continual dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. As the concept resonates around an expanding community of individuals, it is developed and clarified. Gradually, concepts which are thought to be of value obtain a wider currency and become crystalized. This description of the spiral model is followed by some observations about how to support the practical management of organizational knowledge creation. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - > This paper follows traditional epistemology and adopts a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief." It s hould be noted, however, that while the arguments of traditional epistemology focus on "truthfulness" as the essential attribute of knowledge, for present purposes it is important to consider knowledge as a personal "belief," and emphasize the importance of the "justification" of knowledge. This difference introduces another critical distinction between the view of knowledge of traditional epistemology and that of the theory of knowledge creation. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - > According to Machlup (1983), information is a flow of messages or meanings which might add to, restructure or change knowledge. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) > … > In short, information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder. ([Nonaka 1994:16](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=3)) - Tacit knowledge involves both: - Cognitive elements = [[Mental models]] - A mental model is how a person creates a working model of the world around them in their mind based on personal perspective (schemata, paradigms, beliefs, viewpoints). This allows the individual to perceive and define their world. - Technical elements - Concrete know-how, crafts, and skills-based knowledge - > One dimension of this knowledge creation process can be drawn from a distinction between two types of knowledge — *"tacit knowledge"* and *“explicit knowledge."* ([Nonaka 1994:17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=4)) > … > Polanyi classified human knowledge into two categories. "Explicit" or codified knowledge refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language. On the other hand, "tacit” knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate. Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context. ([Nonaka 1994:17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=4)) - > While Polanyi articulates the contents of tacit knowledge in a philosophical context, it is also possible to expand his idea in a more practical direction. Tacit knowledge involves both cognitive and technical elements. The cognitive elements center on what Johnson-Laird (1983) called "mental models" in which human beings form working models of the world by creating and manipulating analogies in their minds. These working models include schemata, paradigms, beliefs, and viewpoints that provide "perspectives" that help individuals to perceive and define their world. By contrast, the technical element of tacit knowledge covers concrete know-how, crafts, and skills that apply to specific contexts. ([Nonaka 1994:17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=4)) - Bateson - Bateson, G. (1973), Steps to an Ecology of Mind, London: Paladin. > Tacit knowledge is a continuous activity of knowing and embodies what Bateson (1973) has referred to as an "analogue" quality. In this context, communication between individuals may be seen as an analogue process that aims to share tacit knowledge to build mutual understanding. This understanding involves a kind of "parallel processing" of the complexities of current issues, as the different dimensions of a problem are processed simultaneously. By contrast, explicit knowledge is discrete or "digital." It is captured in records of the past such as libraries, archives, and databases and is assessed on a sequential basis." ([Nonaka 1994:18](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=5)) - > It is now possible to bring together the epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge creation to form a "spiral" model for the processes involved. This involves identifying four different patterns of interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. These patterns represent ways in which existing knowledge can be "converted" into new knowledge. Social interaction between individuals then provides an ontological dimension to the expansion of knowledge." ([Nonaka 1994:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=6)) - Anderson’s ACT model (Anderson 1983) - related to “knowledge conversion” » the processes involved in converting existing knowledge into new knowledge > In the ACT model, knowledge is divided into “declarative knowledge” (actual knowledge) that is expressed in the form of propositions and “procedural knowledge” (methodological knowledge) which is used in such activities as remembering how to right a bicycle or play the piano. - ==Question: How does methodological knowledge relate to spatial navigation?== > Anderson’s model hypothesizes that declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop. - Nonaka considers Anderson’s categorization system to be a more sophisticated version of Ryle’s 1949 classification method, in which knowledge is categorized between awareness (knowing something “exists”) vs applied (knowing “how” it works). - Limitation of ACT model: knowledge conversion is one-way (declarative → procedural), while Nonaka argues knowledge transformation goes both ways - Suggests that the model is based on knowledge maturation, whereas Nonaka is focused on knowledge creation. > In the ACT model, knowledge is divided into "declarative knowledge" (actual knowledge) that is expressed in the form of propositions and "procedural knowledge" (methodological knowledge) which is used in such activities as remembering how to ride a bicycle or play the piano. ([Nonaka 1994:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=6)) > Anderson's model hypothesizes that declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop. ([Nonaka 1994:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=6)) >Anderson's categorization can be regarded as a more sophisticated version of Ryle's classification. ([Nonaka 1994:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=6)) > One limitation of the ACT model is the hypothesis that transformation of knowledge is unidirectional and only involves transformations from declarative to procedural knowledge, while it can be argued that transformation is bidirectional. This may be because the ACT model is more concerned with maturation than with the creation of knowledge." ([Nonaka 1994:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=6)) --- #### Followup / Future Research - **Note: I’d like to revisit this article in the future since this was read specifically to look at [[Knowledge, tacit|tacit knowledge]] and knowledge conversion.** - Future research jumping point on [[Knowledge society]] - Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New York: Basic Books - Drucker, P. (1968), The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society, New York: Harper & Row. - Toffler, A. (1990), Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of 21st Century, New York: Bantam Books. > It is widely observed that the society we live in has been gradually turning into a "knowledge society" (Drucker 1968; Bell 1973; Toffler 1990). ([Nonaka 1994:15](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=2)) - [[Jean Piaget]] - Piaget, J. (1974), Recherches sur la Contradiction, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ([Nonaka 1994:37](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PHUWTJ8X?page=24))