Content uploaded by Tony Feghali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tony Feghali on Jul 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Knowledge transformation among
virtually-cooperating group members
Tony Feghali and Jamal El-Den
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present how in a virtual setting a cooperating group of
individuals could transform their tacit knowledge, and what is the necessary infrastructure needed for
such transformation.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper highlights the different perspectives on knowledge as
well as its classification and perception by researcher’s to-date. It also examines current theoretical
questions of knowledge management and knowledge transformation. Opinions and ideas are
introduced as the easier parts of tacit knowledge that can be transformed into explicit form. The paper
also introduces a knowledge management definition, which presents three phases for managing
knowledge among virtually cooperating group members.
Findings – The paper has the following items as vital for knowledge transformation among virtual group
members: a definition for knowledge management among group members; adoption of classification of
knowledge as explicit, embodied, and not-yet-embodied (Scharmer); and opinions and ideas as the
parts of tacit knowledge which could be easily transformed.
Originality/value – Knowledge management and knowledge transformation have been addressed in
the literature at the organizational level. The paper addresses these issues from a group level and
introduces definition, concepts, and ideas that form the backbone of such management and
transformation. The points raised are expected to be of interest to researchers working on knowledge
management and transformation among virtually cooperating group members.
Keywords Knowledge management, Tacit knowledge, Ideas generation
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
It is not the intention of this research to be part of the current literary debate on what
knowledge is, whether or not it can be transformed onto other forms, or what are its
‘‘components’’. The literature provides many definitions and classifications of knowledge as
well as techniques on how it can be transformed (Collins, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995,
Wathne et al., 1996; Vasconcelos et al., 2000; Scharmer, 2000; Geyer, 2001; Awad and
Ghaziri, 2004; Jarvenpa and Eerikki, 2004). It is the position of this paper to approach
knowledge from its very basic definition as having both explicit and tacit components. This
duality is the base from which all other existing forms of knowledge are derived. This paper
suggests that the context under which knowledge is perceived plays an important role in the
‘‘what, why, who, and how’’ of knowledge. For the sake of clarity to the already existing
‘‘terminological ambiguity’’, this paper adopts Scharmer’s (2000) classification of knowledge
as explicit and tacit (embodied and not-yet-embodied) knowledge.
Explicit knowledge is the knowledge in books, files, databases, and others. Tacit knowledge
exists in two forms: embodied and not-yet-embodied knowledge. Embodied knowledge is
associated with an individual’s awareness of his/her know-how, his/her ability to articulate it
(verbally or textually) in an understandable form to others, and his/her ability to make others
master it in an effective way. Embodied knowledge is embedded in the consciousness of the
individual and accumulated through expertise, experiences, work practices, and learning
PAGE 92
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008, pp. 92-105, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270810852412
Tony Feghali and
Jamal El-Den are both
based at the Suliman S.
Olayan School of Business,
American University of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
by doing. The not-yet-embodied knowledge is unconscious knowledge, which lies dormant
until articulated in an understandable form because it is based on the individual’s
perception, mental analysis, instincts, design ability, innovation, and creativity. This class of
knowledge resides in the unconsciousness of the individual and in some cases, he/she may
not be aware of its existence until a trigger acts as a stimulus for the articulation of such
knowledge. Figure 1 represents the authors’ interpretation of these different types of
knowledge.
Explicit knowledge resides traditionally in easy accessible physical media such as
databases, books, files, and organizational or group memory; it can be easily interpreted
and used by individuals for a variety of purposes. Individuals may either alter the contents or
reflect on them to amplify embodied and/or not-yet-embodied knowledge that is expressed
in words or text. Consequently, it can be articulated or transformed to an object known as
codified knowledge of know-how that can be made readily available to others.
Embodied knowledge is marked by the individual’s own awareness and articulated as an
object in the form of procedures and processes. The not-yet-embodied knowledge relies on
factors, which are purely personal and requires the individual’s analytical abilities,
reflections, synthectical abilities, logical analysis, and creativity. It is articulated as an object
in forms such as solutions, design, innovation, design, opinions, and ideas.
Generally, tacit knowledge (embodied/not-yet-embodied) is acquired through interaction
with the world. It is heavily based on experiences, culture, education, and qualifications that
are developed and internalized by individuals over a long period. In addition, intelligence,
instincts, analytical as well as mental abilities play an important role in the formation of
not-yet-embodied knowledge. Tacit knowledge has been systematically investigated in the
literature (Polanyi, 1967; Reuber et al., 1990; Nonaka, 1994; Sveiby, 1997; Vasconcelos et al.,
2000). The intellectual property of an individual or organization as well as organizational
Figure 1 Knowledge interpretation
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 93
culture, project experiences, task heuristics and human competencies that are not easily
externalized are examples of such knowledge (Vasconcelos et al., 2000).
The essential logical difference between tacit and explicit knowledge lies in the fact that one
can critically reflect on something explicitly stated, in a way in which one cannot reflect on
one’s tacit awareness of an experience. An individual’s tacit knowledge, even though, he/she
may not be able to identify it accurately is the hidden driving force for all pursuit of explicit
knowledge (Polanyi, 1967). Explicit and tacit knowledge are not separate entities but
mutually complementary. It is true that without experience, knowledge cannot be
accumulated, but it is also true that this knowledge can only have meaning if it is
articulated and shared. The literature provides examples of this form of knowledge: Nonaka
& Konno (1998) as Originating Ba, Schon (1983) as reflection-in-action, Von Krogh (1998) as
notion of ‘‘care’’, Senge (1990) as personal mastery, Jaworski et al. (1997) as emergent field,
and as not-yet-embodied knowledge.
Knowledge transformation
The literature stresses that, social interaction (Lave and Wenger, 1991), physical interaction
(Lave and Wenger, 1991; Finerty, 1997; Cook and Seely, 1998), learning (Nonaka, 1991;
Hildreth and Kimble, 2002; Gamble, 2001), sharing (Nonaka, 1991; Hildreth and Kimble,
2002), and the use of technology (all of the above researchers) are imperative components
for the proper management of knowledge in face-to-face interactions. In such environment,
people share their knowledge by adopting different techniques of articulation, mainly, verbal
discussions and brainstorming. Wasko and Faraj, 2005, stated that ‘‘prior studies
consistently find that knowledge sharing is positively related to factors such as strong
ties, co-location, demographic similarities, status similarities, and a history of prior
relationship.’’
Today, globalization has imposed on businesses remote communication and interaction
which consequently necessitated different perspectives of knowledge sharing. The main
dilemma is how a group of geographically dispersed people can articulate their knowledge?
The different knowledge classifications presented earlier explain its meaning in relation to
the beliefs and perceptions of the person who is trying to either classify or define it in a given
context. Knowledge is still considered by the majority of researchers as a tangible structured
object that can be codified, hence, transformed. The research in this paper is based on both
an epistemological and an ontological analysis.
Epistemologically, the authors adopt Scharmer’s (2000) pluralistic approach to knowledge
classification. A group’s formation, interaction, and memory form the backbone of the
ontological perspective of this work. This necessitates a group support system that would
help in:
Bsystematically turning ‘‘parts’’ of the group members’ tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge through successive and consequential building of ideas and opinions in the
form of documents;
Bproviding a platform for the asynchronous cooperative capture of the parts; and
Bproviding a platform for the organized retention and later access of the saved opinions
and ideas.
‘‘ Generally, tacit knowledge (embodied/not-yet-embodied) is
acquired through interaction with the world. ’’
PAGE 94
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
Not all knowledge can be easily codified and stored in an explicit format; otherwise, there
would be no need for a new paradigm. Tacit knowledge is ‘‘there to stay’’ and it is considered
by many to be the main differentiating factor for competitiveness:
It is widely acknowledged that many things are tacitly expressed and understood. It can thus be
argued that it is the very inability of the information system to handle knowledge that has brought
about much of the current interest in KM (Stenmark, 2001).
Knowledge can be captured socially, through sharing and interactions using ‘‘a’’ technology
as a platform or using a cognitive/representational approach. Therefore, it is necessary to
provide the appropriate support for groups to capture and transform knowledge where
group members are dispersed over time and space. The authors argue that communication
and interaction is accomplished by the use of a group support system that facilitates
interaction among geographically dispersed group members by a process which simulates
face-to-face interaction.
Knowledge transformation in a virtual setting
The authors introduce the following proposition:
P1. Opinions and ideas are the parts of tacit knowledge that are easier to be
transformed into explicit knowledge by group members engaged in an
asynchronous setting.
The opinions and ideas of a person are the easier ‘‘parts’ ’ of tacit knowledge that can be
captured and transformed into explicit knowledge among geographically-distributed group
members engaged in an asynchronous setting. Transforming ‘‘all of’’ tacit knowledge based
on the existing definitions and classifications in the literature is of higher order complexity.
This paper’s approach is to transform easier types of tacit knowledge in the form of opinions
and ideas, and later generalize the findings to other types of tacit knowledge. Opinions and
ideas refer to knowledge that group members release, and then nurture in a given context,
based on the group’s predefined goals and objectives.
Table I (El-Den, 2004) presents similar characteristics between tacit knowledge and
opinions/ideas, as well as how they relate to each other. The table also shows that not all
instances of opinions and ideas have corresponding instances in tacit knowledge. Following
the common features introduced in the table, this paper proposes that the transformation of
an individual’s opinions and ideas is consequently a transformation of parts of his/her tacit
knowledge.
Opinions and ideas form the basis for the knowledge management concepts introduced in
this paper. Knowledge is what the members nurture during their interaction and cooperation.
To a group, a document that is being built progressively and consequentially forms the
infrastructure for interaction while containing explicit, tacit-embodied, and not-yet-embodied
knowledge. Personal knowledge is released into documents. It becomes the source of
knowledge for other members who nurture it by amplifying its contents and thus, creating
more knowledge. This process is helped by the transformation of knowledge from one type
to another. The table below introduces the authors’ view of transformation of knowledge in a
virtual setting and compares to Nonaka and Takeouchi’s face-to-face knowledge
transformation.
The complexity in virtual settings is the lack (and may be the impossibility) of face-to-face
interaction among the members. Consequently, this research adopts a document structure
for interaction among group members. The research also assumes that a member’s textual
articulation of the opinions and ideas correspond to the verbal articulation in face-to-face
interaction; hence, the reflection process is ‘‘reflection’’ on what has been released by
individuals.
The following points explain how knowledge is transformed from one type to another based
on Table II. Emphasis is put on the not-yet-embodied knowledge because its transformation
to explicit knowledge is the most difficult to verify.
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 95
Table I Common characteristics between tacit knowledge, opinions and ideas
Tacit knowledge Opinions Ideas How they relate
Subconsciously understood and applied Special concepts arising from empirical
knowledge and intelligence; seem to point
beyond nature
Some issues can’t be explained but are still
adopted
Difficult to articulate/document Judgment based on special knowledge
provided by experts
Experts tend to understand what other
inexperienced people take for granted
Developed from direct experiences and
actions
Judgment/sentiment, mind forms of
person/things
Thoughts/concepts in mind as products of
mental activity, opinion, conviction, principle
Impressions can only be established
through experiences
Shared through interactive conversations Belief shared by most people; Formal
decision, expression of view called upon to
consider and decide upon
Plan/suggestion, dictate what to do in
particular situation
Sharing occurs in the form of group
collaboration and consequentially decisions
will be taken/adopted
Story telling Message expressing a belief Used to encourage people, tell them that
they are doing something right
People can be encouraged through stories
about prior success
Shared experience Belief shared by most people Plan/suggestion, dictating what to do in a
particular situation
Common practice
Informal/un-codified A person belief not founded on
proof/certainty
Concepts, philosophies, images, issues,
provide psychological stimulus to solve
problem/adjust to environment
The fact that it has not been found on proof
or certainty renders it informal
Ephemeral and transitory Picture/impression in minds of
something/somebody
Some things just last forever, and may come
up again any time
Formal/embodied Belief/view of group of people Heart of message, content of piece, main
theme
Some things are taken for granted
PAGE 96
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
BTacit !tacit. Tacit to tacit conversion is a process of reflection on released knowledge by
group members in the form of opinions and ideas. In face-to-face interaction, tacit-to-tacit
is a socialization process that converts tacit knowledge through interaction between
individuals and relies on the experiences gained from the interaction. In virtual interaction,
this knowledge is transformed through a mental reflection on textually available
knowledge. The latter interaction is not only mental but also physical through documents.
The result is a nurture of the individual’s knowledge which might lead to an amplification of
this one individual’s tacit knowledge.
BTacit !explicit. Tacit knowledge is transformed into explicit knowledge through the
release and documentation of the member’s thoughts, opinions, and ideas into shared
documents. These opinions and ideas are the not-yet-embodied knowledge.
BExplicit !tacit. Explicit knowledge is transformed into tacit knowledge through a
process of accessing and comprehension of the ‘‘contents’’ of a document which holds
each member’s opinions and ideas. In this case, group members should have reliable
access to retained information or knowledge.
BExplicit !explicit. Explicit-to-explicit transformation of knowledge can be achieved
through augmenting/documenting the shared document by knowledge released by the
members. The process consists of retrieving, using, amending, and storing/documenting
any existing documents in the system.
Finally, attempting to capture the thinking of individuals with the help of audio or by
videotaping meetings will only result in the collection of a staggering volume of tale.
Furthermore, trying to preserve tacit knowledge during face-to-face interactions as reports,
meeting minutes, design documents, presentations, and memos or even with the help of a
project historian on board will fail to capture comprehensive informal knowledge
communicated between group individuals. As McInerney (2002) suggested, instead of
‘‘extract[ing] knowledge from within employees to create new explicit knowledge artifacts,’’
the focus in organizations should be on creating a ‘‘knowledge culture’’ that encourages
learning as well as the creation and sharing of knowledge. Hence, the authors adopted
Mandviwalla and Olfman’s (1994) argument that a group-authored document is a common
form of collective memory and that collaborative writing is a cognitive process in which a
portion of group memory is formalized.
Managing knowledge among virtual group members
This paper defines knowledge management among virtual group members as:
The set of activities which focus on the initiation, creation, capture, transformation, retention, and
access of opinions and ideas imbedded in a group’s memory and intellect satisfying a set of
predefined goals and objectives.
Jarvenpa and Eerikki (2004) stated, ‘‘The management of knowledge is the management of
what people know’’. Knowledge management aims at identifying the corporate knowledge in
collective memories and facilitating communication and coordination between people who
create it and people who need it (Wathne et al., 1996). Management of knowledge has to
Table II Knowledge transformation in virtual setting
Face-to-face interaction Virtual interaction
Tacit-to-tacit Socialization, interaction, verbal articulation,
Discussions, apprehension through experiences
Textual Articualtion, Reflection on textually
articulated knowledge, mental amplification,
messaging
Tacit-to-explicit Externalization, textual representation Textual representation, textual amplification
Explicit-to-tacit Internalization, comprehension Access, comprehension, concepts formation,
mental amplification
Explicit-to-explicit Combination, linking information together Access, augmentation, documentation, textual
amplification
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 97
take into consideration aspects that surpass the identification of knowledge. Knowledge has
no value if it is not captured, retained, reused, and communicated among people.
The management of explicit and tacit knowledge is different; so is the process of their
respective transformation. Knowledge management should be based on the individual’s
perception, reflection, and formation of opinions and ideas in a given context. It is also
based on the proper identification of a predefined set of goals and objectives. The context
provides the infrastructure for the individual’s contribution in this development of knowledge
within a set of goals and objectives. One’s perception of these goals and objectives dictates
one’s contribution to the progressive building of knowledge captured in documents. Given
one’s stage of involvement in the building of knowledge one would use either explicit,
tacit-embedded (implicit) or not-yet-embodied (tacit) knowledge. The authors look at
knowledge management as a process that encompasses knowledge creation (knowledge
initiation/release and knowledge nurture), knowledge filtration, and knowledge retention.
The authors propose a knowledge management cycle that includes all three steps depicted
in Figure 2.
Knowledge representation as an object
The paper introduces a second proposition:
P2. Tacit knowledge, in the form of opinions and ideas, can be created and
transformed into explicit knowledge by virtually dispersed group members through
the progressive and consequential building of shared documents.
Cooperating group of people engaged in a virtual setting can create and transform their tacit
knowledge, in the form of opinions and ideas, by progressively and consequentially building
shared documents. These opinions and ideas should be treated as objects released in
textual form by the members of the group forming the basis of representation and
manipulation of tacit knowledge. The literature supports this knowledge-as-object
approach, e.g. (Walsham, 2004).
Accordingly, the paper differentiates between two object structures: a cognitive object in the
brain of the knower (embodied and/or not-yet-embodied knowledge), and a physical object
in a textual form (embodied and/or explicit knowledge). Such representation is important
because it assumes that knowledge is a cognitive object that can be initiated or released by
individuals and then captured as a physical object in a document. This knowledge may
evolve into other text or retained as a ‘‘group memory document’’ due to interactions and
Figure 2 The knowledge management cycle
PAGE 98
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
discussions among different members of a group. It should be noted that, through
communities of practice, there are several alternative platforms to the knowledge-as-object
approach (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Brown and Duguid, 1998). These
alternatives include the practice-based theory of knowing and learning (Blackler, 1995;
Blackler et al., 2000, and the context approach in designing and implementing knowledge
management initiatives (Walsham, 2004) which involves information and communication
technologies (Walsham, 2001).
Interaction among members of a group is the basis for transforming knowledge from the
cognitive to the physical state and vice versa. This transformation is manifested in two ways:
First, through the release of each cooperating member’s individual knowledge into the
shared document. Second, it is manifested through reflection on that explicit textual
knowledge. This latter action might trigger the release of more individual knowledge due to a
process of reflection and amplification. Furthermore, the mapping between the two states
cannot be a complete transformation of the ‘‘content’’ of the cognitive to the physical. The
interaction and discussions on the content among members nurture further mapping to
maintain as much transformation of knowledge as possible.
The conceptualization of knowledge as an object is effective for building technology-based
applications since it allows for the transferability of the knowledge. Walsham (2001)
proposed a basic communication model (Figure 3) describing Polanyi’s (1967)
interpretations of tacit/explicit knowledge transformation. Polanyi argues that the
transformation of tacit into explicit is not a complete transformation of what was intended
by the originator of the message.
Person ‘‘A’’ may not have articulated all of his or her tacit knowledge in a written form; which
means that Polanyi’s argument that ‘‘we are always short in telling what we know’’ still holds
to true. This representation constitutes the first step towards the articulation, capture, and
initial transformation of tacit/explicit knowledge into a readable form. It may not be a
complete representation of its cognitive likeness in the case of the not-yet-embodied
knowledge, but it is a total mapping of embodied and explicit knowledge; it represents the
articulation of the individual’s know-how in the form of procedures and processes.
Although the transformation in Walsham’s diagram may not be complete, it is possible to
capture more of the tacit knowledge and transform it into explicit knowledge. This is
accomplished through a process of nurturing the thoughts, opinions, and ideas that are
released by group members engaged in a cooperative process; Polanyi (1967) also
supports this view. Figure 4 represents the authors’ view on knowledge formation as a
process of knowledge amplification, which is the result of reflection, release, interpretation
and discussions of existing knowledge released in textual form as opinions and ideas.
Figure 4 also shows that different types of existing knowledge support the process.
Through the access of the released knowledge captured in a document, group members
may discuss specific contents with the person who articulated that knowledge. This
discussion might awaken dormant knowledge (not-yet-embodied knowledge) within the
originator or the other members exposed to it. As mentioned earlier, the articulation of such
knowledge allows for the sharing of opinions and ideas. This ‘‘initial’’ articulation of
knowledge can subsequently be improved through discussions and interactions between
readers and people who know. This process might fuel additional opinions and ideas as it
could trigger dormant knowledge in an individual’s consciousness. Evidently, opinions and
ideas are the property of the individual’s unconsciousness as long as there is no trigger or
Figure 3 Walsham’s basic communication diagram
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 99
incentive for articulation. The moment a person starts to articulate his/her opinions and
ideas, an initial mapping of the knowledge in the brain is articulated in a textual form.
Knowledge creation
The creation of knowledge has to go through two important complementary steps; namely,
knowledge initiation and knowledge nurture. Creating knowledge is a process of an
individual’s knowledge release and nurture. This process may result in amplifying the
released knowledge due to cooperation, discussion, and message exchange among
members of a group. The success of the highly interactive knowledge creation process with
the support of constantly available external resources, is a reflection of an individual’s past
experiences, intelligence, his/her ability to nurture and amplify existing knowledge, and
his/her ability to initiate/release new knowledge.
Knowledge Initiation. Initiation is based on a member’s understanding of the context and
his/her associated group’s predefined goals and objectives. It forms the basis for the
subsequent steps in the proposed KM cycle. The initiation of an opinion or and idea can
either be an individual’s articulation of ‘‘new knowledge’’ based on his/her mental analysis of
the context or an articulation of amplified knowledge based on the individual interpretation
and understanding of existing knowledge previously released by other members. Initiation
of ‘‘new knowledge’’ is not based on the analysis of existing knowledge within the group.
This ‘‘new knowledge’’ can be explicit, tacit-embodied knowledge, or not-yet-embodied
knowledge. The initiated knowledge is based on the member’s thoughts, beliefs,
interpretations, expertise, and know-how. Once initiated, this knowledge forms the
infrastructure of discussions and interpretations among group members during the
knowledge nurture step. Hence, it becomes existing knowledge. Schon (1983) pointed the
importance of ‘‘reflection in action’’ (reflecting while experiencing), and discussed that
individual knowledge is enlarged through the interaction between experience and rationality.
This enlargement is subsequently crystallized into a unique perspective original to the
individual. Knowledge is amplified and released thanks to reflection on previously
released/accumulated group knowledge. It remains personal until articulated as a text in a
shared document. Therefore, amplified knowledge is a result of the member’s interaction
with other members of the group, accessibility to available knowledge, and the group
released perception, reflection, and interpretation of that knowledge.
Knowledge nurture. Knowledge remains within the individual until it is textually articulated.
Only then, it becomes available to group members for discussion. The nurture of knowledge
is a step where members cooperate to amplify and/or create new knowledge. During this
process, some initiated or released knowledge might be disregarded if it does not satisfy, or
at least lead to, the satisfaction to predefined goals and objectives. Members ‘‘fetch’’ this
knowledge and form ‘‘understandability of its content’’ (action/reflection). The nurture of
Figure 4 Knowledge formation through reflection/articulation
PAGE 100
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
knowledge is a process where existing knowledge is understood and new opinions/ideas
are formed based on it (reflection). This process requires a high level of interaction
(messaging and/or document augmentation) among the members in order to nurture the
knowledge initiated/amplified in the previous step. This iterative process might result in the
formation of new knowledge that contributes to the overall development process. A
member’s perspective on existing knowledge is brought upon by its availability and the ease
of its access. Knowledge nurture is a continuous process based on both the individual and
the group’s interpretation/perception of existing knowledge. The nurture of knowledge
should result in the emergence, formation, and creation of new concepts. It is regarded as a
necessary amplification of members’ previously released knowledge.
The knowledge nurture process. Knowledge nurture is an individual’s process of reflection,
concept formation, concept amplification, justification and externalization/documentation.
This knowledge is then integrated within the group’s memory (Figure 5).
The nurture of knowledge is both an iterative and cooperative process, which requires
high-level of interaction and discussion among the members; particularly during the
justification of the concepts. This interaction: the member’s awareness, and accessibility to
each other’s released knowledge, as well as the sharing of information/knowledge among
the members, exposes each member’s experiences, know-how, and opinions/ideas. This
might trigger the formation, creation, and release of new knowledge; and consequently, the
amplification and augmentation of the group’s knowledge.
The nurture of knowledge is the collective group members’ ability to form new concepts by
reflecting on existing knowledge through cognitive analysis. This process might trigger past
dormant expertise and/or knowledge in the unconsciousness of the individual. Reflection on
‘‘ It is true that without experience, knowledge cannot be
accumulated, but it is also true that this knowledge can only
have meaning if it is articulated and shared. ’’
Figure 5 The nurture process
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 101
previously released knowledge, expertise, and the understandability of each other’s mental
analysis is necessary and complementary for the individual’s creation of new knowledge. An
individual’s past experiences form the basis of his/her perception and comprehension of
existing concepts. This process is heavily based on the intellectual, analytical, and
experimental abilities of the individual.
A member’s reflection on existing/released textual knowledge is a mental process of
comprehension, conscious analysis, concepts understanding, and learning through
exposure to others’ know-how, and opinions/ideas. This mental process may trigger
knowledge imbedded in the unconsciousness of the individual resulting in the formation and
articulation of his/her dormant knowledge.
Exposure to textually available ‘‘tacit’ ’ knowledge articulated by individuals resembles
knowledge formation in face-to-face interaction. In face-to-face interaction, creative ideas
are the result of discussions and interactions at the conscious level. Interaction among
individuals is an important factor for innovation, which is a result of immediate concepts
formation within the individual’s consciousness. In this case, the individual formulates
concepts from the unconsciousness and verbally articulates them during face-to-face
interaction.
The situation is more complex among virtually interacting, geographically dispersed group
members. Virtual teams working towards delivering a product or service should be provided
with a support that facilitates the simulation of face-to-face interaction. This paper assumes
that the member’s textual articulation of knowledge in the form of opinions/ideas onto
documents, supported by a powerful message interface provided by a group support
system, forms an infrastructure that can effectively replace face-to-face interaction and
communication.
The virtually located members should be able to articulate their knowledge in any form
(explicit, tacit) and make it available so that others can access and later reflect upon it. This
knowledge, which contributes to the overall product development, could carry with it part of
the not-yet-embodied knowledge. The nurture process provides the infrastructure that
allows for more of this knowledge to be articulated by further exposing the members’
opinions/ideas. O’Reilly et al. (1998), stated, ‘‘The diversity of information that is functionally
dissimilar which individuals bring to the group improves performance in terms of creativity.’’
Knowledge filtration
The filtration step is a process where the knowledge created during the development
process is tested to conform to the predefined goals and objectives. It is an important
iterative process because any knowledge that does not fall within the boundaries of the
goals and objectives must be filtered from the document. This step requires a high level of
interaction among the members in order to mutually decide on the components of
knowledge that must be retained or removed. The availability of an interaction platform can
help in making the existing knowledge more accessible. This process is a group effort; the
group members should agree on the knowledge introduced and crystallize it into a concrete
textual form.
Knowledge retention
This step allows for the saving of the group’s knowledge in the group’s memory or the
system’s memory and makes sure that it remains accessible. In this case, knowledge
‘‘ Today, globalization has imposed on businesses remote
communication and interaction which consequently
necessitated different perspectives of knowledge sharing. ’’
PAGE 102
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
organization plays an important role because it is the retained knowledge that forms the
backbone of the group memory system.
Conclusion
This paper adopted Scharmer’s (2000) decomposition of tacit knowledge as embodied and
not-yet-embodied knowledge. It argued that not all types of tacit knowledge could be
transformed into an explicit form; opinions and ideas were identified as the easiest parts for
such transformation. The paper introduced a knowledge management cycle that shows the
management and transformation of knowledge among virtually cooperating group
members. The cycle mostly addressed the management of the not-yet-embodied
knowledge and not the more-easily articulated explicit and embodied knowledge
(know-how, processes, and procedures). The challenge in developing the cycle was to
provide a walkthrough that helps members articulate their not-yet-embodied knowledge.
This work shows that by following the knowledge management cycle, it is possible to make
‘‘parts of tacit’’ knowledge explicit. Conklin (2000) stated, ‘ ‘The senior challenge is
transparent capture that preserves relevance and meaning, in other words, capture of
informal (tacit) knowledge as well as formal (explicit) knowledge. Capture of informal
knowledge is complex and expensive. However, if one shifts the emphasis from ‘‘how to
capture all this stuff?’’ to ‘‘how to improve the process of teamwork such that capture
happens by itself?’’ one gets a surprising answer’’. Therefore, If tacit is to be used in
knowledge management it is imperative to try to ‘‘make it’’ as explicit as possible.
The paper stresses that knowledge transformation among virtually dispersed group
members is possible through the articulation of members’ opinions and ideas into a shared
document. This document provides the infrastructure for the interaction among the members
by exposing them to each other’s opinions and ideas. The setting of goals and objectives by
the cooperating members is a vital starting point for any particular group since the final
document must be filtered to conform to these goals and objectives.
This work also introduced new insight on how tacit knowledge can be transformed into
explicit knowledge through the progressive and consequential building of a shared
document. The authors argued that it is an iterative process based on member’s reflection on
textually articulated knowledge followed by opinions and ideas formation, followed by
textual articulation of new knowledge and then by interpretation and reflection on the
articulated knowledge by others and discussion among them on the newly articulated
knowledge. The authors developed these ideas in order to provide the cooperating
members with an environment, which mirror the face-to-face interaction and where ideas
and opinions formation are a result of perception of verbally articulated knowledge.
References
Awad, E.M. and Ghaziri, H. (2004), Knowledge Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
Pearson International Edition.
Blackler, F. (1995), ‘‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation’’,
Organizational Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46.
Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. (2000), ‘ ‘Organizing processes in complex activity networks’’,
Organization Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 277-300.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1998), ‘‘Organizing knowledge’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 90-111.
Collins, H.M. (1993), ‘‘The structure of knowledge’’, Social Research, Vol. 60, pp. 95-116.
Conklin, J. (2000), Designing Organizational Memory: Preserving Intellectual Assets in a Knowledge
Economy, CogNexus Institute, Glebe Creek, MD.
Cook, S.D.N. and Seely, B.J. (1998), ‘‘Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing’’, Organizational Science, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 381-400.
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 103
El-Den, J. (2004), ‘‘Capturing and transforming opinions and ideas in a cooperative setting’’,
Proceedings of the ICICKM ’04 Conference, Rayrson University, Toronto, 29-30 October, pp. 29-30.
Finerty, T. (1997), ‘‘Integrating learning and knowledge infrastructure’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 98-104.
Gamble, J. (2001), ‘‘Modeling the invisible: the pedagogy of craft apprenticeship’’, Studies in Continuing
Education, Vol. 23 No. 2.
Geyer, G. (2001), ‘‘Tacit knowledge in organizations: does anyone know who’s in charge here?’’, on
Harvard web site, available at: http://gseweb.harvard.edu/,t656_web/From_2000-2001_students/
Tacit_knowledge_in_organizations_Gessner.htm (accessed 7 April, 2006).
Hildreth, P.J. and Kimble, C. (2002), ‘‘The duality of knowledge’’, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1,
available at: http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html (accessed 7 April, 2006).
Jarvenpa, E. and Eerikki, M. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management’ ’, research report, Helsinki University of
Technology, Espoo.
Jaworski, J., Gozdz, G. and Senge, P. (1997), ‘‘Setting the field: creating the conditions for profound
institutional change’’, private research report, 12 December.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
McInerney, C. (2002), ‘‘Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge’’, Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 12.
Mandviwalla, M. and Olfman, L. (1994), ‘‘What do groups need? A proposed set of generic groupware
requirements’’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 245-68.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ‘‘The knowledge-creating company’’, Harvard Business Review, November,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’’, Organization Sciences,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), ‘‘The concept of ‘Ba’: building foundation for knowledge creation’’,
CRM, Vol. 40 No. 3.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
O’Reilly, C.A., Williams, K.Y. and Barsade, S.G. (1998), ‘‘Group demography and innovation: does
diversity help?’’, in Gruenfeld, D., Mannix, B. and Neale, M. (Eds), Research on Managing on Groups
and Teams, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 183-207.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Reuber, A.R., Lorraine, S., Dyke, E. and Fisher, M. (1990), ‘‘Using a tacit knowledge methodology to
define expertise’’, Proceedings of the ACM SIGBDP Conference on Trends and Directions in Expert
Systems, Orlando, FL, October 30-November 2, pp. 262-274.
Scharmer, C. (2000), ‘‘Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge’’, in Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I.
and Nichiguchi, T. (Eds), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke and
London, pp. 13-60.
Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Stenmark, D. (2001), ‘‘Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge’’, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 9-24.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The balanced score card (BSC) and the intangible assets monitor, available at:
www.sveiby.com.au/BSCandIAM.html (accessed 5 October, 2003).
Vasconcelos, J., Kimble, C. and Gouveia, A. (2000), ‘‘A design for a group memory system using
ontologies’’, Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the United Kingdom Academy for Information
Systems (UKAIS), University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, April, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
PAGE 104
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
Von Krogh, G. (1998), ‘‘Care in knowledge creation’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 133-53.
Walsham, G. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management: the benefits and limitations of computer systems’’,
European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.
Walsham, G. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management systems: action and representation’’, Judge Institute of
Management, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), ‘‘Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Wathne, K., Roos, J. and von Krogh, G. (1996), ‘‘Towards a theory of knowledge transfer in a cooperative
context’’, in von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. (Eds), Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and
Competition, Sage Publications, London.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
About the authors
Tony Feghali is an Assistant Professor in the Business Information and Decision Systems
track at the Olayan School of Business of Business at the American University of Beirut. Tony
Feghali is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: feghali@aub.edu.lb
Jamal El-Den is a faculty member in the Business Information and Decision Systems track at
the Olayan School of Business at the American University of Beirut.
VOL. 12 NO. 1 2008
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 105
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
