THE

DISTINCTIVE ROLES OF KNOWLEDGE

ASSETS IN FACILITATING KNOWLEDGE
CREATION
BASIC RATIONALE
• “To specify which kind of knowledge asset is
appropriate for which type of knowledge
creation process”
DEPENDENT VARIABLES/KNOWLEDGE
CREATION
SOCIALIZATION
• Process of creating new tacit knowledge
through shared experiences.
• Tacit knowledge is difficult to grasp, it can only
be acquired face to face interactions or shared
experiences.
• Can be achieved by cooperation and
interaction among members in same project.
EXTERNALIZATION
• Process of transferring tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge.
• Involves transferring the tacit knowledge of
customers or experts into easily understandable
formats.
• When firms wanted to extract knowledge,
employees for a repository, they chose some sort
of community based electronic discussion or chat
group. In order to achieve externalization they
adopt groupware.
COMBINATION
• Firms collect explicit knowledge and then
combine, edit, and process it to form new
systemized and packaged explicit knowledge.
• Reconfiguration of existing information
through sorting, adding, combining, and
categorizing explicit knowledge can also
create new knowledge.
• Example-Databases and Repositories
INTERNALIZATION
• This is the process of embodying explicit
knowledge into tacit knowledge.
• Through internalization, explicit knowledge
becomes the individual’s new tacit knowledge
• Focused training with senior mentors and
colleagues consists primarily of continuous
exercises that stress certain patterns and the
working out of such patterns.
 INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES/KNOWLEDGE ASSETS
Experiential KA
• This type of KA consists of the shared tacit
knowledge that is built through shared hands-on
experience among the members of the
organization. In order to establish experiential
KAs, employees are encouraged to share their
hands-on experience, to express their emotional
knowledge such as care, love, and trust.
Employees are also encouraged to acquire and
accumulate know-how through experience at
work.
CONCEPTUAL KA
• This type of KA consists of explicit knowledge
articulated through images, symbols, and
language. Conceptual KA try to convert concepts
or designs into explicit knowledge with the help
of easily articulated methods, such as model,
analogy, and metaphor.
• For example, firms demonstrate the design
criteria, characteristics of product, and brand
equity by adopting images, symbols, and
language.
SYSTEMATIC KA
• This type of KA consists of systematized and
packaged explicit knowledge, such as explicitly
stated technologies, product specifications,
manuals, and organized documents and
information. In order to establish systemic
KAs, firms usually create an information
repository that contains well-organized and
well protected information.
ROUTINE KA
• Consist of the tacit knowledge that is routinized and
embedded in the actions and practices of the
organization. The main purpose of routine KAs is to
provide a clear vision and organizational culture that
facilitate the dynamic evolving of knowledge creation.
• Employees are encouraged to discuss and share their
work with people in other workgroups. Interaction and
transfer of new knowledge across organizational
boundaries also help members to form routine KAs
CONCEPTUAL KA

ROUTINE KA

KNOWLEDGE
CREATION

EXPERIENTIAL KA

SYSTEMATIC KA
 RESULTS
• Compared to other knowledge assets, experiential
knowledge assets have a greater effect on
internalization.
• Compared to other knowledge assets, conceptual
knowledge assets have a greater effect on
externalization.
• Compared to other knowledge assets, systematic
knowledge assets have a greater effect on
combination.
• Compared to other knowledge assets, routine
knowledge assets have a greater effect on socialization.
 REFRENCES
• I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, and N. Konno, SECI, ba,
and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation, Long Range Planning (33)
(2000) 5–34.
• I. Becerra-Fernandez and R. Sabherwal,
Organizational knowledge management: a
contingency perspective, Journal of
Management Information Systems 18(1)
(2001) 23–35.
THANK

YOU