Knowledge Creation in Organizations: A Social-Cognitive View

Uninterrupted Knowledge Creation, 2020

Knowledge Creation From a mainstream perspective, knowledge creation is basically a process of transmission between individuals in which data are converted into information through the medium of knowledge, which may be explicit but, far more importantly, may be tacit. The transmission of knowledge between people is a process of conversion between tacit and explicit forms based on mimicry in tacit-tacit transfers, group dialogue and discussion in metaphorical and analogical language in tacit-explicit transfers, formalization and codification in explicit-explicit transfers and internalization in explicit-tacit transfers. Knowledge is understood to move in this way through the interplay of individual and group/systemic/social levels (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Stacey 2001). Knowledge and knowledge creation are both constructs in that they are abstract theoretical variables that are invented to explain phenomena. Among the key concerns about construct measurement is that of validity. To be judged as adequate, a measure must reflect the theoretical content domain of the construct (content validity). To assess content validity, the construct is theoretically defined, incorporating a clear specification of the total content universe that is relevant, and a representative measure is drawn from the content domain, which is operationalized to reflect the meaning of each chosen dimension. Therefore, the initial step towards establishing the content validity of knowledge creation measures is to review the theoretical definitions of knowledge creation used in current research and to undertake an assessment of their success in clearly specifying relevant content. Boisot (1998) adopts the mainstream definition of knowledge as the capacity to act and states that it is built on information that is extracted from data. Effective action is dependent on representations that connect with the real world, and those representations are formed into mental models to make sense of the world. This means that knowledge creation is a process of generating insight by extracting information from data and the application of knowledge is the testing of these insights. Knowledge constitutes an asset that yields a stream of useful services. Its distinctive feature is that it can be shared with others and retained at the same time. In

2006

Knowledge management (KM) has been an increasing focus for both researchers and practitioners for more than a decade. The discussions generally have viewed the goal of KM as the application of technical and organizational capabilities to improve the processes of creating, storing, retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge. This paper examines two important philosophical relationships that are at the foundation knowledge management: the relationship between tacit and explicit aspects of knowledge and the relationship between information and knowledge. The paper demonstrates that most papers that discuss knowledge management systems discuss these relationships as though there are two types of knowledge and that it is important to distinguish between knowledge and information. This paper challenges these two popular assumptions and suggests alternative viewpoints that may improve our philosophical foundation for the study of knowledge management systems.

British Journal of Management, 2004

While adopting a knowledge-based perspective on organizations has been valuable, since, among other things, it enables us to see links between organizational learning and a firm's competitive advantage through the development of idiosyncratic capabilities, it has nonetheless tended to treat organizational knowledge as 'given', exploring how it is related to other 'given' variables. The focus of this special issue is to unpack the notion of organizational knowledge by exploring the processes and practices through which knowledge is constructed and created in organizations. A constructivist perspective assumes that 'knowledge' presupposes work and seeks to explore how what comes to be considered as organizational knowledge is established and validated (or fails to do so). By seeing organizational knowledge as work we can further probe into how knowledge is shaped by organizational strategies and incentives and, more radically, how power and politics influence the struggle between competing bodies of knowledge in organizations.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2013

Knowledge creating theory has become one of the major frameworks used widely in the fields of knowledge management and other management studies. However, the knowledge creating theory was not just simply a made-in-Japan theory. It has emerged from a series of English and Japanese publications. Therefore, research questions and arguments in this study are identified and reviewed to portray the development of knowledge creating theory and to synthesise their arguments with organisational and managerial studies. This article reviews the content and process of the knowledge creating theory along with discussions from different streams in management and organisation studies. The result of this study sheds light on how the knowledge creating theory developed as well as perceiving its future development.

Kybernetes, 2017

This paper aims to explain and discuss the complex nature and value of knowledge as an exploitable resource for business. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose a conceptual explanation of knowledge based on three pillars: the plurality of its nature, understood to be conservative, multipliable and generative, its contextual value and the duality of carrier incorporating business knowledge, objects or processes. After conceptualizing the nature of knowledge, the authors offer a metaphor based on the classic transformation from "potential" to "kinetic" energy in an inclined plane assuming that the conservative nature of knowledge makes it act as energy. Findings The metaphor uses the concept of potential and kinetic energy: if energy is only potential, it has a potential value not yet effective, whereas if the potential energy (knowledge) becomes kinetic energy (products and/or services), it generates business value. In addition, business value is a function of the speed acquired and caused by the angle of inclined plan, namely, the company's business model. Knowledge is the source of the value and can be maintained and regenerated only through continuous investments. Several years later the value extraction reaches a null value of the company (potential energy) which will cease to act (kinetic energy) for triggering both the value generated and the value extracted. Originality/value The paper proposes an initial attempt to explain the meaning of the transformation of knowledge using a metaphor derived from physics. The metaphor of the energy of knowledge clearly depicts the managerial dilemma of balancing a company's resources for both the generating and extracting value. Similarly, future study should try to associate other knowledge peculiarities to physical phenomena.

The Knowledge-Creating Company from Nonakay Takeuchi and their following papers became a essential reference for practitioners and academics interested in understanding how knowledge is shaped and how can this knowledge be applied to the firm. Time has told us that the capability to create and apply new knowledge successfully constitutes the true source of competitive advantage of the firm. In our study about the knowledge creation process we must pursue three main issues-a. the nature and typology of knowledge based on relevant and generally accepted criteria. b. the determination of the different entities, levels, systems or agents that are able to create knowledge and c. how this entities can develop knowledge within them and capture and transfer knowledge related to lower to higher levels. Firstly, the issues of classifying knowledge by means of a relevant and generally accepted criterion must be addressed. We can consider this issue as already solved through the consideration of the named knowledge epistemological dimension. The extensive use of Polany's (1996) distinction between tacit or implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge has proved that knowledge tacitness can establish a two-extreme continuous typology for knowledge, by which one extreme shows characteristics quite different from the opposite. Distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit can be considered generally accepted if we examine the knolwedge creation and knowledge management literature.

Knowledge and Process Management, 1997

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2019

Reading comprehension research of the 1970s established that prior world knowledge is a determiner of the acquisition of new knowledge, mainly by providing schemas into which new information may be entered. This should clearly apply to students creating knowledge by building on their existing knowledge and on knowledge gained from other sources. In addition, researchers on Knowledge Building have identified other kinds of knowledge useful in knowledge building, including knowledge of promisingness, knowledge about knowledge (epistemology), principled procedural knowledge, and knowledge about external expectations (such as curriculum standards and tests). This symposium brings together researchers who have studied various roles of knowledge in knowledge building, with the goal of at least organizing the distinct views but if possible producing an integrative framework for treating knowledge in creative work with ideas.

This term paper explores the relationship between the concept of knowledge (epistemology), with emphasis on two major theories of epistemology -Rationalism and Empiricism.

There are different types of knowledge that are at work in the universe, through epistemological studies that is concerned with the study of knowledge, its sources, nature and even the limits of knowledge, different knowledge's in the world have different applications. A person with know-how of the different type of knowledge that exists will be in a better position to correlate the different knowledge and indeed come up with a sound decision on any afflicting situation of life. There is need to also recognize the fact that there exist different sources of knowledge in the world and each source dictates the use of knowledge. In fully recognition of different forms of knowledge, there are a number of theories that have been developed by scholars that stipulates the different type of knowledge and even their limits and to great depth their limits and applications. Having the know-how of different types of knowledge is of great importance especially in terms of solving different kinds of conflicts. We live in a world of conflicts, conflicts that requires different solutions to mitigate escalation. We should therefore learn the fact that there are a number of solutions that can be available for a situation and having the different knowledge will aid in coming up with the best possible solution. It is with this regard that the current paper stipulates facts that proves the notion that; " no knowledge can be developed by a single mode of knowledge ". There are different ways that can be used capture the different types of knowledge that exists. An individual can learn of a certain type of knowledge through either studying, this can either take place in a number of ways; through reading different scholarly articles or through observation. Another way that one can learn of knowledge is through being told, in essence, this can either be categorized as a form of studying of scholarly material because it involves exploring of new knowledge. Another way that one can learn of new knowledge will be through interviewing experts who specializes in different areas (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001, pg. 86). Henri Safdie 1IB 15/02/16 Je m'excuse de ne pas avoir utiliser harvard generator, il ne marchais pas.