I have chosen Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory, as developed in the mid-1990s (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The authors describe the Japanese concept of ba, which they translate as phenomenal, shared space made up of knowledge plus information from where an organization’s knowledge creation comes. They go on to describe that if knowledge is decoupled from the shared space (virtual or otherwise), it becomes information. Information can then be codified and recorded for others’ use. The organization becomes a learning entity that is more than the sum of its members as described in Figure 1.
Nonaka and Konno have taken the ba concept and their definitions of tacit (experiential) and explicit (data) knowledge and used those to develop the SECI model of knowledge creation (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). SECI stands for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. These four concepts work in a spiral relationship where Socialization (tacit:tacit) moves through the framework into Internalization (tacit:explicit) to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in organizations. My research will investigate how semantic technologies can be used by distributed technical nuclear expert teams can use to transfer tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge as workers approach retirement.
In my initial readings, the framework makes a lot of intuitive sense, which is ironically a criticism of the model by some (Martin & Root, 2009). My concerns and questions revolve around whether it is too much associated with management for a MALAT Applied Research Project (ARP) and whether it might be too cultural, having been developed as a response to Japanese organizational needs, as well as why the model needs to start at Socialization (Kahrens & Früauff, 2018). Kahrens and Früauff also discuss how Ba can be amended in the future, taking into account new technologies. My literature review will clarify some of these issues.
References:
Kahrens, M., & Früauff, D. H. (2018). Critical evaluation of Nonaka’s SECI model. In The Palgrave Handbook of Knowledge Management (pp. 53–83). Springer.
Martin, L., & Root, D. (2009). Knowledge creation in construction: The SECI model.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.
Hi Corie,
I am really intrigued by both your research topic and choice of theoretical framework. The nuclear industry is facing unique challenges in terms of transferring knowledge from the outgoing to incoming workforce, and there is potential for global impact should this knowledge transfer prove to be problematic. Given this, I love the idea of viewing your research through a theoretical lens that may view organizational change from a different cultural perspective. Perhaps a paradigm shift is exactly what is needed in this context.
Amber
As a person who works with students, employers and faculty to develop students’ industrial knowledge on co-op work terms, I found this topic fascinating. Similar to my theoretical framework of Experiential Learning Theory, I see tacit learning (linked very closely to the observation aspect of Kolb’s theory; as how one applies the learned skill or observed skill (job shadowing) in a practical setting.
I would be eager to learn if your theoretical framework will explain how tacit learning could be formed into a more explicit knowledge base (more concrete/documented, etc.) and whether this could aid with the training and knowledge transfer you identified is needed in your industry. I can’t wait to read more!