The paper systematizes organizational knowledge, starting from the classical dichotomy of tacit and explicit, and outlining the importance of these taxonomies, which may seem reductive, in properly understanding the nature of organizational knowledge and operating with it in business.organizational knowledge, classifications, knowledge transfer

Alina Mihaela DIMA

Vitalie STANCOV

English

Research Papers in Economics

Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4(48)/2008 
 
74
Taxonomies of Organizational Knowledge 
 
Alina Mihaela DIMA, Vitalie STANCOV 
Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest 
alinamihaeladima@yahoo.com, vitalie.stancov@gmail.com 
 
The paper systematizes organizational knowledge, starting from the classical dichot-
omy of tacit and explicit, and outlining the importance of these taxonomies, which may seem 
reductive, in properly understanding the nature of organizational knowledge and operating 
with it in business. 
Keywords: organizational knowledge, classifications, knowledge transfer. 
 
Introduction 
In any organization, there may be identi-
fied two distinct levels of knowledge. The 
individual level of knowledge, which belongs 
to each member of the organization, can be 
released only by the individual. Individual 
knowledge may be also of tacit, explicit or 
combination of the two type of knowledge. 
Due to its nature, explicit individual know-
ledge can be detached from its owner and 
processed at the group or organizational level 
(Bratianu, Jianu et al, 2006, pp.169-172), be-
cause it is systemized in a certain form and 
can be transferred to and perceived by others. 
Organizational knowledge means all the 
knowledge which can be integrated at the or-
ganization level from individual knowledge 
of its members and from incoming know-
ledge fluxes from the external environment 
(Bratianu, Jianu et al, 2006, pp.169-172). Or-
ganizational knowledge is embedded know-
ledge and comprises belief systems, collec-
tive memories, references and values. It “re-
sides in the relations between individuals, 
and is therefore more than the sum of indi-
vidual knowledge bases” (Kriwet, 1997; in 
Chini, 2004, pp.8-10). 
The tension between individual and organiza-
tional knowledge is especially critical to the 
company as a knowledge integrating institu-
tion. Knowledge has to be managed as a re-
source (Chini, 2004, pp.8-10). A company’s 
competitive advantage is not only dependent 
on its distinctive intangible resources but also 
on its capability to exploit those resources ef-
fectively (Nelson and Winter, 1982, in Riege, 
2007).  
 
2. Knowledge transfer processes 
A relevant working definition of knowledge 
transfer is provided by William R. King: 
knowledge transfer is “the focused, unidirec-
tional communication of knowledge between 
individuals, groups, or organizations such 
that the recipient of knowledge has a cogni-
tive understanding, has the ability to apply 
the knowledge, or applies the knowledge” 
(Schwartz, 2006). Knowledge transfer is the 
application of prior knowledge to new learn-
ing situations (McKeough, 1995, in Riege, 
2007, p.48). 
Two general theoretical approaches can be 
mentioned related to the knowledge transfer 
processes: the communication model and the 
knowledge spiral model (Inkpen and Dinur, 
1998; in Chini, 2004). 
According to the Szulanski’s (1996; in Chini, 
2004) theory of knowledge transfer as a 
communication model, the process of 
knowledge transfer can be viewed as a mes-
sage transmission from a source to a recipient 
in a given context. In this respect, the basic 
elements of a transfer should be: source, 
message, recipient and context.  
Inkpen and Dinur (1998; in Chini, 2004, 
Minbaeva, 2007) extended this model and 
mention four groups of related factors, de-
picted in Figure 1. 
Also, Szulanski (2003, in Minbaeva, 2007) 
defines knowledge transfer as a process of 
dyadic exchanges of knowledge just between 
the sender and the receiver, where the effec-
tiveness of transfer depends to some extent 
on the disposition and ability of the source 
and recipient, on the strength of the tie be-
tween them, and on the characteristics of the 
1 Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4(48)/2008   
 
75
object that is being created. 
It is important to mention here that a critical 
feature of modern knowledge management is 
the time-lag between sender and recipient 
(Chini, 2004, p.16). Thus, the knowledge 
transfer process may be interrupted, post-
poned and restored. 
 
 
Fig.1. Schematic diagram of knowledge transfer processes 
Source: Adapted from Minbaeva (2007, p.569) 
 
It was referred before to the fact that the de-
cision to transfer knowledge is largely indi-
vidual and is driven by at least two behavior-
al factors: the ability and the willingness of 
knowledge senders to share knowledge. Ac-
cording to Husted and Michailova (2002, in 
Minbaeva, 2007) the decision not to share is 
also individual, and is often rational and well 
justified from the perspective of the know-
ledge.  
The other main model of knowledge transfer 
is the so called spiral of knowledge, pro-
posed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), who 
attribute the success of Japanese companies 
to their effectiveness in creating knowledge. 
This model is built on the dimension of ex-
plicit and tacit types of knowledge. The core 
assumption of this model is that tacit know-
ledge has to be mobilized and converted. 
This means that the model does not only ex-
plain knowledge creation, but also describes 
processes of transferring knowledge, specifi-
cally the so-called conversion process. Non-
aka and Takeuchi (1995) identify four specif-
ic conversion processes: 
-  Socialization (tacit to tacit) occurs when 
individuals exchange tacit knowledge with-
out codifying it during the transfer phase, e.g. 
shared mental models, technical skills. 
-  Externalization (tacit to explicit) happens 
when tacit knowledge is made explicit by co-
difying it in the form of metaphors, analo-
gies, hypotheses, models etc. In this way in-
dividual knowledge can be made available on 
a corporate-wide level. Externalization is 
thus the most important process for know-
ledge creation. 
 
 
Fig.2. The knowledge spiral, source: Nonaka 
and Takeuchi (1995, p.62) 
 
-  Through Combination (explicit to explicit) 
concepts are systematized within a know-
ledge system. Existing elements of know-
ledge are combined in order to create new 
explicit knowledge. Several media, e.g. doc-
uments, meetings, phone calls, support com-
bination. 
-  Internalization (explicit to tacit) means 
that incoming knowledge is integrated into 
an individual’s knowledge base. 
The relation between these conversion 
processes is presented in Figure 2. 
This knowledge spiral is double-looped and 
may indicate the type of learning which the Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4(48)/2008 
 
76
conversion processes imply. Argyris and 
Schön (1978) distinguish between single-
loop and double-loop learning. In single-loop 
learning the entities (individuals or organiza-
tions) modify their actions just according to 
the difference between expected and obtained 
outcomes. In double-loop learning, they 
question the values, assumptions and policies 
that led to the actions in the first place. 
Double loop learning implies a profound re-
troactive analysis of the outcomes. It is not 
just an adaptation in the process to the unfo-
reseen changes, like in the case with single 
loop learning. The double-looped knowledge 
spiral is used in this representation, because 
the process of transforming tacit knowledge 
into explicit one supposes a deep analysis 
and high understanding of the roots of tacit 
knowledge, covert in routines, skills, know-
ing-how of the individuals or organizations. 
At the same time, there is a continuum of the 
transformation process and a direction of the 
spiral arrow, as tacit knowledge once con-
verted into explicit one is internalized further 
into an individual’s knowledge base. 
 
3. Conclusions 
The knowledge transfer processes in organi-
zations are a continuous interplay of individ-
ual and organizational knowledge. Given that 
these types of knowledge are interrelated, 
and thus difficult to dissociate, the impor-
tance of reliable taxonomies becomes ob-
vious.  
Although some taxonomies are impractica-
ble, because they advance too many classes 
of knowledge, or go into details which are 
not useful from the point of view of the se-
quence of activities actually taking place at 
the organizational level, some other, which 
are simple, without being simplistic, prove to 
be trustworthy instruments in conceptualiz-
ing and explaining knowledge, and trans-
forming it from something which sticks and 
flows independently of our management, into 
a “substance” which can be managed with 
good effects on the performance of the mod-
ern organization.  
References 
Argote, L., Ingram, P. (2000) Knowledge 
Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage 
in Firms, Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 82(1):150-169 
Argyris, C., Schon, D. (1978) Organizational 
Learning: A theory of action perspective, 
Reading: Addison-Wesley 
Bratianu, C., Jianu, I, Vasilache, S. (2006) 
Business Management, Bucharest: ASE 
Chini T. C. (2004) Effective Knowledge 
Transfer in Multinational Corporations, New 
York: Palgrave Macmillan 
Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L. (1998) Working 
Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness School Press 
Galbraith, C. S. (1990) Transferring core 
manufacturing technologies in high technol-
ogy firms, California Management Review, 
32(4):56–70 
Kriwet, C. K. (1997) Inter- and Intra-
organizational Knowledge Transfer, Bam-
berg: Universität St. Gallen 
Minbaeva, D. B. (2007) Knowledge Transfer 
in Multinational Corporations, Management 
International Review, 47(4):567-593 
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolu-
tionary Theory of Economic Change, Boston: 
Harvard Business School Press 
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Know-
ledge Creating Company: How Japanese 
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innova-
tion, New York: Oxford University Press 
Riege, A., (2007) Actions to overcome 
knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs, Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management, 11(1):48-67 
Schwartz, D. G. (2006) Encyclopedia of 
Knowledge Management, London: Idea 
Group Reference 
Szulanski, G. (1996) Exploring internal stick-
iness: impediments to the transfer of best 
practice within the firm, Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 17:27–43 
Szulanski, G. (2003) Sticky Knowledge: Bar-
riers to Knowing in the Firm, London: SAGE 
Publications 
 

Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm,

Taxonomies of Organizational Knowledge

http://www.revistaie.ase.ro/content/48/DIMA%20Alina%20Mihaela%20&%20STANCOV%20Vitalie.pdf

Taxonomies of Organizational Knowledge

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics