Although these three terms are sometimes used interchangeably, knowledge is quite distinct from data and information. Knowledge has been distinguished from data and information in two different ways (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). According to them, a more simplistic view considers knowledge to be at the highest level in a hierarchy with information at the middle level, and data to be at the lowest level. Knowledge refers to information that enables action and decisions, or information with direction. Whereas information is considered as data in context and data refers to bare facts without context. Instead of considering knowledge as richer or more detailed set of facts, they had defined knowledge in a more complete perspective: “......justified beliefs about relationships among concepts relevant to that particular area.” This definition is consistent with Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) definition of knowledge as “a justified true belief”. It is also consistent with Wiig’s (1999) that view knowledge as fundamentally different from data and information....”knowledge consists of truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how and is possessed by humans, agents, or other active entities and is used to receive information and to recognise and identify: analyse, interpret, and evaluate: synthesize and decide; plan, implement, monitor, and adapt.”
Further than that, knowledge can be viewed from a subjective or an objective stance (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). According to them, the subjective view represents knowledge using two possible perspectives: as a state of mind, or as a practice. On the other hand, the objective view represents knowledge in three possible perspectives: as an object, as an access to information, or as a capability. Knowledge as a state of mind focus on enabling individuals to enhance their personal areas of knowledge so that they can apply them to best pursue organisational goals (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). When knowledge is viewed as practice, the knowledge is held by a group and not decomposable into elements possessed by individuals. Thus, knowledge “is neither possessed by any one agent, nor contained in any one repository” (Schultze, 1999) and “is inherently indeterminate and continually emerging (Tsoukas, 1996). Knowledge is composed of beliefs, consistent with the definition earlier, but beliefs are collective instead of individual, and therefore are better reflected in organisational activities than in the minds of the organisation’s individuals.
According to objective view, knowledge is a ‘justified belief’ (an object) that can be stored, transferred, and manipulated (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). On the other hand, knowledge is viewed as enabling access and utilisation of information (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). This perspective extends the preceding view of knowledge as objects, emphasizing the accessibility of these objects. When knowledge is viewed as capability, it is consistent with the last two perspectives of knowledge as objects or as access to information. However, this perspective differs in that the focus is on the way in which knowledge can be applied to influence action. This perspective places emphasis on knowledge as a strategic capability that can be potentially be applied to seek a competitive advantage.
Knowledge has been classified and characterised in several different ways. For example, knowledge has been categorised as individual, social, causal, conditional, relational, and pragmatic (Alavi and Leidner, 2001), and also as embodied, encoded, and procedural (Venzin et al, 1998). It is important to understand the nature of these various types of knowledge because different types of knowledge should be managed differently. One of the distinctions to be highlighted is between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Singley and Anderson, 1989; Kogut and Zander, 1992). According to these authors, declarative knowledge focuses on beliefs about relationships among variables. Procedural knowledge, in contrast, focuses on beliefs relating sequences of steps or actions to desired (or undesired) outcomes. In simple words, declarative knowledge may be characterised as “know what” whereas procedural knowledge may be viewed as “know how” (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004).
Another important classification of knowledge views is a tacit or explicit (Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1966). Explicit knowledge typically refers to knowledge that has been expressed into words and numbers. Such knowledge can be shared formally and systematically in the form of data, specifications, manuals, drawings, audio and video tapes, computer programs, patents, and the like. In contrast, tacit knowledge includes insights, intuitions, and hunches. This knowledge is difficult to express and formalise, and therefore difficult to share. It is more likely to be personal and based on individual experiences and activities. Zander and Kogut (1995) argue that instead of considering explicit and tacit knowledge, we should consider two characteristics of knowledge- codifiability and teachability. Codifiability reflects the extent to which knowledge can be articulated or codified, even if it might be difficult to impart to another individual. In contrast, teachability reflects the extent to which the knowledge can be taught to other individuals, through training, apprenticeship, and so on.
Further than that, knowledge can be viewed from a subjective or an objective stance (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). According to them, the subjective view represents knowledge using two possible perspectives: as a state of mind, or as a practice. On the other hand, the objective view represents knowledge in three possible perspectives: as an object, as an access to information, or as a capability. Knowledge as a state of mind focus on enabling individuals to enhance their personal areas of knowledge so that they can apply them to best pursue organisational goals (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). When knowledge is viewed as practice, the knowledge is held by a group and not decomposable into elements possessed by individuals. Thus, knowledge “is neither possessed by any one agent, nor contained in any one repository” (Schultze, 1999) and “is inherently indeterminate and continually emerging (Tsoukas, 1996). Knowledge is composed of beliefs, consistent with the definition earlier, but beliefs are collective instead of individual, and therefore are better reflected in organisational activities than in the minds of the organisation’s individuals.
According to objective view, knowledge is a ‘justified belief’ (an object) that can be stored, transferred, and manipulated (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). On the other hand, knowledge is viewed as enabling access and utilisation of information (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). This perspective extends the preceding view of knowledge as objects, emphasizing the accessibility of these objects. When knowledge is viewed as capability, it is consistent with the last two perspectives of knowledge as objects or as access to information. However, this perspective differs in that the focus is on the way in which knowledge can be applied to influence action. This perspective places emphasis on knowledge as a strategic capability that can be potentially be applied to seek a competitive advantage.
Knowledge has been classified and characterised in several different ways. For example, knowledge has been categorised as individual, social, causal, conditional, relational, and pragmatic (Alavi and Leidner, 2001), and also as embodied, encoded, and procedural (Venzin et al, 1998). It is important to understand the nature of these various types of knowledge because different types of knowledge should be managed differently. One of the distinctions to be highlighted is between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Singley and Anderson, 1989; Kogut and Zander, 1992). According to these authors, declarative knowledge focuses on beliefs about relationships among variables. Procedural knowledge, in contrast, focuses on beliefs relating sequences of steps or actions to desired (or undesired) outcomes. In simple words, declarative knowledge may be characterised as “know what” whereas procedural knowledge may be viewed as “know how” (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004).
Another important classification of knowledge views is a tacit or explicit (Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1966). Explicit knowledge typically refers to knowledge that has been expressed into words and numbers. Such knowledge can be shared formally and systematically in the form of data, specifications, manuals, drawings, audio and video tapes, computer programs, patents, and the like. In contrast, tacit knowledge includes insights, intuitions, and hunches. This knowledge is difficult to express and formalise, and therefore difficult to share. It is more likely to be personal and based on individual experiences and activities. Zander and Kogut (1995) argue that instead of considering explicit and tacit knowledge, we should consider two characteristics of knowledge- codifiability and teachability. Codifiability reflects the extent to which knowledge can be articulated or codified, even if it might be difficult to impart to another individual. In contrast, teachability reflects the extent to which the knowledge can be taught to other individuals, through training, apprenticeship, and so on.
The next classification of knowledge focuses on whether the knowledge is possessed widely (general) or narrowly (specific) (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). General knowledge is possessed by a large number of individuals and can be transferred easily across individuals. In contrast, specific knowledge is possessed by a very limited number of individuals, and is expensive to transfer (Hayek, 1945; Jensen and Meckling, 1996; Choudhury and Sampler, 1997).
3 comments:
Thanks for sharing. Very interesting definition on tacit/explicit form of knowledge..
i had to faced this question so many time with my KM colleagues:
What the diffrent between information and knowledge? What criteria qualifies information to be get the 'justified true belief' status (knowledge). It interesting if you can share us the answer for this question. Anyway, this definition compilation is very good. Thanks again.
Just my 2 cent ..it intresting if you could share with us some investigation into knowledge epistimology.. aristotale, plato, cohen or negel. Thanks. All the best for your study.
One more things.. when i do my thing lately aboaut IBS, i got into the literature on managing innovation, it look like the same as managing knowledge.. it could be very intresting to develop destinctive & similiarity comparison between managing knowledge, inovation and information.. how about that for chapter in lit. rev. just 2 cent comment.
Post a Comment