KNOWLEDGE VISION ON FORMALISATION VERSUS
TACITNESS OF SHARING KNOWLEDGE IN INNOVATIVE LARGE ORGANISATIONS
Maria
José Sousa
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal
Universidade Europeia – Laureate International
Universities, Portugal
E-mail:
maria-jose.sousa@europeia.pt
Miguel González-Loureiro
University of Vigo, Spain
E-mail: mloureiro@uvigo.es
Submission: 16/07/2014
Revision: 31/07/2014
Accept: 25/08/2014
ABSTRACT
In
the situated learning theory, we disclose the existence of some tensions that
may arise from two opposite forces within a context of communities of practice:
the need for formalisation (large enterprises) and tacitness (creativity and
innovation). Our study focuses on how these tensions are dealt with in a case
study of a Portuguese innovative large enterprise that has developed a
knowledge strategy over the last decade.
The
keys for overcoming this risky confrontation are related to a combination of
“knowledge vision” and the coordinator and culture roles. A question to be
addressed by firms in similar situation is “who-knows-what”, in order to
identify the key knowledge that must be transformed from tacit into explicit.
This would avoid wasting too many resources on making explicit the wrong tacit
knowledge. Further research is required in other firms and contexts, on a still
underestimated problem within communities of practice.
Keywords:
Formalisation, tacitness, communities of practice, knowledge sharing,
knowledge creation, action research, innovation process, case study.
Today’s competition is leading firms
to increasingly base their competitiveness on two intertwined factors connected
by learning: valuable knowledge and innovation (SWAN
et al., 2002; GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO;
FIGUEROA DORREGO, 2012).
Each has its own characteristics that make it extremely difficult to extract
the best of them (MOLLOY et al., 2011; GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO;
PITA-CASTELO, 2012).
Knowledge, as a non-scarce
intangible resource, should be managed differently compared to a tangible one:
accessibility to recognise who-knows-what in the required moment is what really
determines its value (SPENDER, 1996). Innovation, as a process,
follows a similar logic, since the higher their efficiency, the higher their
impact on competitiveness in terms of the rate of successful outcomes (BERTELS
et al., 2011).
Therefore, knowledge and learning play a critical role in boosting the
efficiency of both processes (NONAKA et al., 2006).
The main proponents of the situated
learning theory assert that learning happens within the contexts and conditions
of practical engagement. Individuals learn in their daily work (LAVE;
WENGER, 1991).
Research has gradually evolved to the communities of practices (CoP) concept.
On researching how to develop this efficiently, several antecedents and success
factors have been disclosed. Examples like identities, social ties, mutual
trust and motivation to participate have been proven to have an impact on
learning performance, in short a set of individual, organisational and
environmental factors (ZBORALSKI, 2009; LERVIK
et al., 2010).
Although innovation and learning in
a context of CoP has become a relevant research field from the situated
learning theory approach (SWAN et al., 2002; FENWICK,
2008), the
investigation is underestimated regarding the possible existence of two
opposite forces shaping learning: formalisation and tacitness.
These firms are usually forced to be
bureaucratic for the sake of efficiency (GRANT, 1996; NONAKA et al., 2006). The
problem arises from the clash between the required formalised procedures
underlying large organisations and the inherent creativity and latitude within
CoP seeking to innovate (SWAN et al., 2002; BERTELS
et al., 2011).
Our research question is whether the
forms of interaction within CoP help or hinder the knowledge creation and
sharing. We examine how those forces operate within a context of an innovative
large organisation: tacitness, which is related to creativity and innovation (SCHULZ;
JOBE, 2001; BERTELS
et al., 2011),
and formalisation which is related to managerial procedures in large
organisations (NONAKA et al., 2006; KIRKMAN et al.,
2011).
Tacitness is also related to the
concept of knowledge in action, long and wrongly assumed to require spatial
proximity, evolving to relational proximity (AMIN;
ROBERTS, 2008).
This is a kind of psychological distance, emphasising the role of sharing in
the knowledge creation.
Formalisation is implicit in the
organisational forms, energised bas[1] in the words of
Nonaka et al. (2006). Explicit, rather than tacit, knowledge is the basis for
managing within a context of organisational units (HEDLUND; NONAKA, 1993).
Our contribution seeks to provide a
better understanding of how those opposite forces act within an innovative,
large organisation. This will enable an advance in the situated learning theory
concerning the challenges that CoP face and how they overcome the tensions of
tacitness and formalisation. This understanding will make it possible to
suggest some successful trajectories to theorise in the future (NONAKA et al.,
2006).
The remainder of the paper is
organised as follows. In the next section, we introduce the theoretical
background related to CoP in the case of innovation processes management. We
also explain the tensions between those two forces. In a subsequent section, we
introduce the model and methods that guide the case study we conducted. After that,
we present the results. In the final section, we discuss findings, practitioner
implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.
Knowledge can be an enabler or a
disabler of organisational innovation success, because individual knowledge
transfer and use is a very complex, social interaction process (MCADAM;
MCCREEDY, 1999; NONAKA; TOYAMA, 2002; VON KROGH et al., 2000).
Davenport and Prusak (1998) assert
that “knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information”. Polanyi (1962) associates
knowledge to action: knowledge is the ability to act. Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) explain that knowledge is created by the flow of information associated
with the beliefs and commitments of those who possess it. Therefore, this is
the notion of knowledge we use throughout our paper.
The nature of knowledge, either
tacit or explicit, is relevant to the aim of our study. Tacit knowledge is
highly personalized, context sensitive and informal, and very hard to measure
and manage (FRAPPAOLO, 2008). It includes know-how, intuition and informal
communications that make up a large part of the organisation’s culture. On the
other hand, explicit knowledge is defined as an object that can be codified and
distributed outside of the individual who created it (NONAKA, 1994; FAHEY;
PRUSAK, 1998).
Several authors (CLARK et al., 1993;
BLACKLER, 1995; SWAN et al., 2002) suggest that implementing
organisational innovation practices requires more than simply the translation
of new knowledge from its abstract formulation into an organisational setting.
Organisational routines can be seen as learning processes involving people
doing things and solving problems, reflecting on what they are doing, and doing
different things (or doing the same things differently) as a result of the
reflection, i.e. knowledge in action (AMIN; ROBERTS,
2008).
This perspective on routines is
consistent, in several ways, with the work of Nonaka and Takeuchi on knowledge
creation (1995). They propose four modes of knowledge: socialisation,
externalisation, combination and internalisation (SECI). The interconnection of
these four modes in a continuous spiral represents the process of knowledge
creation. In the case study we present, we will discuss forms of interaction in
order to share tacit and explicit knowledge.
Nevertheless, several critiques on
the SECI model pointed out the difficulties to implement it empirically, mainly
because sharing and using knowledge can hardly be separated (EASTERBY-SMITH,
1997). Despite
the lack of scientific evidence as criticized by Gourlay (2006), the
categorisation of knowledge into tacit and explicit becomes crucial for a
better understanding of the CoP and the learning process. The key critiques (GOURLAY,
2006; SCHÜTT, 2003) are based on the intertwined concepts
of tacit and explicit knowledge following Polanyi’s (1966) work. Rather than a
discrete categorisation, Polanyi sees both distinctions as an interwoven
continuum. This continuum can be rarely split into those modes. Yet, this
distinction will help to understand the dynamic process of knowledge sharing
and creation that blends all forms of knowledge (NONAKA et al., 2006), under
the umbrella of formalisation versus tacitness tensions.
From the CoP approach, a necessary
but insufficient condition for innovation performance has been related to
sharing knowledge by the team, both tacit and explicit (BERTELS
et al., 2011).
From them, we infer that tacit, non-codified knowledge is crucial to innovation
performance. The individual is able to define a situation and solve a problem
by a proper combination of sharing tacit and explicit knowledge (NONAKA et al.,
2006).
Bertels and colleagues find that
encouragement of CoP moderate the relationship between the proficiency of
dispersed collaboration and innovation performance. It is assumed that, in the
case of dispersed collaboration seeking to innovate, tacitness of shared
knowledge is a key. Situated learning theory predicts that the more dispersed a
CoP is, the less tacit knowledge it will tend to use (legitimated peripheral
participation).
Here the source of tensions from the
tacitness side emerges in the case of innovative large organisations. Likewise,
large organisations are governed by a high degree of norms and formal
procedures, which also decreases the attractiveness of using tacit knowledge (KIRKMAN
et al., 2011).
They propose that leadership, empowerment and interdependency among tasks
matter for shaping organisational effectiveness.
Hence, two opposite forces seem to
shape the learning capacity of the CoP when conducting innovation-based
activities: tacitness-creativity and formalisation-effectiveness. There is some
overlapping between both, as leadership and empowerment are mainly tacit forms
of managing. Therefore, we propose that, theoretically, large organisations
seeking to innovate efficiently will obtain a better performance if they
realise this tension and then try to properly combine both forces.
These forces are implicit throughout
the theory of CoP. These social structures are said to arise spontaneously (LAVE;
WENGER, 1991).
On reviewing the conditions under which this happens, Souza-Silva (2009)
criticise the spontaneity assumption. The term evolves towards organisational
communities of practices (KIRKMAN et al., 2011). This means that a vehicle
to generate learning and enhance organisational performance can be groups of
employees who share a concern or even a passion about a topic. Those are
individuals who learn as they share, when masterminded by someone in an
organisational context in search of improving now or in the future. Hence
managing, in its widest sense, enters into the situated learning realm.
We must warn about the risk of all
forms of joint work being labelled as CoP (WENGER,
2000), a hazard
that has happened along with the evolving empirical research (ROBERTS,
2006). Under a
focus on the dynamics of innovation and knowledge creation, these latter
authors categorise up to four different types of varieties of knowing in
action: craft/task-based, professional, epistemic/creative and virtual. They
provide a comprehensive explanation of the characteristics of each one.
For the purpose of our paper, we may
remark that radical innovation is usually addressed from professional and epistemic/creative
communities, although virtual communities can also deal with it properly. Most
of the communities falling into one of these categories are largely based on a
mix of tacit and explicit, codified knowledge. The tool for governing the
organisational issues is a key finding: hierarchy (VON KROGH et al., 2000),
particularly in large firms.
According to Wenger (1998) and
Roberts (2006), the key dimensions of a CoP are mutual engagement, sense of
joint enterprise and a shared repertoire of communal resources. They give rise
to fourteen defining characteristics of a CoP. Among them and concerning the
binomial tacitness-formalisation, we must highlight the rapid flow of
information and propagation of innovations, the very quick setup of a problem for
discussion, and the sustained mutual relationships (harmonious or conflictual).
Nevertheless, the formalisation of the CoP is virtually missed because of its
natural rise. Virtually all the key characteristics have a high degree of
tacitness: the CoP are, in essence, structures that emerge from practice (WENGER,
1998; MUTCH,
2003). It then
follows that tacitness is critical for the speed of learning (NONAKA et al.,
2006).
The critical review of CoP versus
habitus provided by Mutch (2003) is, perhaps, one of the most fruitful views of
the tension between a structure that conditions practice –Bordieu’s (1990)
notion of habitus – and structures that emerge from practice (CoP).
Accordingly, that tension gives rise to the need of a resolution of the
agency-structure dilemma (WENGER, 1998). Mutch (2003) proposes to solve this
dilemma by recognising their mutual constitution and examining the
interrelationships between the CoP and the original structure where they are
supposed “to emerge”. Therefore, the interaction between the CoP and their
parental organisation should be more clearly developed in order to avoid the
negative effects of an excess of formalisation on innovation management
processes. Additionally, vertical and horizontal multileveled workgroups, workshops
or any other type of tool enabling overlapping of CoP seem to be relevant for
facing the challenge of formalisation while taking advantage of tacitness.
Other researchers have entered into
the field of CoP to disclose what constrains learning in these structures.
Time, pressure, deferral and centralisation within and across projects have
been found as key constraints (KEEGAN; TURNER, 2001). Not only did they affect
the speed of learning, but they also facilitate the explanation of the
adaptation and reconfiguration of practices. A CoP may also be affected by
group structure in terms of networks and competences, which are essential for
managing innovation processes (BOGENRIEDER; NOOTEBOOM, 2004).
As far as CoP is defined as
informal, horizontal groups across organisational boundaries (WENGER
et al., 2002),
the chances for developing a proper managing tool are slim. Notwithstanding
this widely diffused and accepted definition, “co-ordination” is suggested as a
plausible knowledge management tool, associated with the idea of empowerment (COX,
2005). A new
form of normative control is required when every effort and attempt fail. Then,
facilitation, technical mediation and even some type of incentives (a kind of
reward system) can help.
The problem of formality/informality
is also implicit throughout the key seminal works (LAVE;
WENGER, 1991; BROWN;
DUGUID, 1991; WENGER,
1998; WENGER
et al., 2002),
in terms of how learning is managed. The multi-membership as the key source of
conflicts is implicit in virtually all of them. Even the latter one includes an
insight on how it is assumed that the good of the organisations is the “good”;
hence, managerialism arises. The informal method gives rise to creativity and
to a kind of latitude for learning. The risk is associated with an unclear
alignment between individual/CoP and organisational goals (VON KROGH et al.,
2000).
Additionally, we must highlight the
impact that several conditioning external elements have on the attempts of
reconciling formalisation and tacitness. From the perspective of individuals,
the broader socio-cultural context in which CoP are usually embedded implies
high levels of fluidity (entailing creativity) and of heterogeneity, that must
be properly managed at organisational level (HANDLEY
et al., 2006).
Hence, multi-membership is a source of conflict, mainly due to the “sense of
agency” suggested by Mutch (2003), and the need for adaptation of different
forms of participation (either peripheral or full). The interstices among CoP
are supposed to be where there is a greater chance of higher levels of
creativity, potentially leading to innovation (BERTELS
et al., 2011).
In summary, literature on CoP seems
to highlight that organisational issues are usually constraints for a fruitful
development of these learning structures (Swan
et al., 2002),
particularly playing against the speed of creativity-innovation. Meanwhile,
managers need to win over these spontaneous formations for the sake of the
firm’s common goal. The need for aligning practices emphasises the critical
role of managers as coordinators, while, perhaps, decreasing the applicability
of organisational policies (CONTU; WILLMOTT, 2000; BROWN;
DUGUID, 2001),
in a kind of de-formalisation.
Therefore, a continuous unsolved
conflict remains elusive to the understanding of scholars and practitioners. It
calls for reviewing how this source of conflicts is dealt with from a practical
approach, in order to provide evidence on which to underpin more solid
theoretical bases in the future.
Following several authors in this
field (WESTBROOK, 1995; COGHLAN,
2001, 2003; COUGHLAN;
COGHLAN, 2002),
to accomplish the empirical work, we applied the widely used “Action Research”
(AR) methodology; the main technique to collect data was group recall sessions
with all levels of employees of the organisation. AR was applied because our
aim was not to discover generalisations, but contextual findings and rich
insights. AR allows a deeper analysis and a different understanding of complex
organisational problems (COUGHLAN; COGHLAN, 2002).
Data was collected through
interviews with top management along with group recall techniques, which were
also used for knowledge sharing among the researcher and the organisational
players (SOUSA, 2010, 2013)
The group recall technique can be
framed in social research, and the process is similar to a focus group process.
It gives the researcher the opportunity to hear detailed revelations about
people’s thoughts, ideas, and experiences. It has the potential to illuminate
workers’ contrasting opinions and experiences and to help them get to know the
organisation better, while sharing their experiences and work practices with
colleagues.
The research was conducted in one
Portuguese company and involved operators, technicians and managers in separate
group recall sessions where they shared experiences, ideas and gave suggestions
about the knowledge creation and sharing processes. Five employees participated
in each group recall session - totalling 30 persons from the company. For data
analysis we used analysis grids based on employee’s quotations, as well as a
questionnaire applied to all participants of group recall sessions. We did not
want to find percentages or values and it was not our goal to make any kind of
measures, but to understand the processes for knowledge creation and sharing in
the company.
Alpha company is a private company with
a heavy focus on innovation, implementing a system like TPS – Toyota Production
System – with a holistic approach through the optimization of not only partial
processes and departments, but all course and organisational units, especially
their teamwork. The Production System (PS) implies a systematic implementation of
a multitude of devices designed to contribute to the improvement of quality,
costs and delivery.
The implementation of the Production
System is best described through a phase model beginning with preparation, then
stabilization and finishing with reduction. It is the basis for every
PS-oriented project work, whether in the reshaping of existing production
lines, the planning of new lines or in the product creation process. The
central idea of the PS is to develop and deliver the right part at the right time
in the right amount and with the required quality.
In this context and to
operationalize the knowledge sharing process, Alpha has developed several
mechanisms for creating and sharing knowledge: workshops, workgroups with
workers from different sections and departments, suggestion boxes, and
communication corners that are spaces for exchanging ideas, opinions and
thoughts, but also presenting structured knowledge through documentation,
videos and other means.
The knowledge sharing process is
explicit in Figure 1, where the mechanisms and tools implemented to facilitate
and potentiate the process are depicted.
Workshops are exceptional vehicles
for bringing together employees from different areas to discuss an issue. The
invitation of customers for these workshops has an important role whenever
Alpha is looking for new ideas or ways to improve products.
Workgroups are created according to
the needs of the organisation. Sometimes a well-defined problem statement is
discussed, and the workgroup generates the necessary analysis and review,
formulating recommendations for going forward.
Figure 1: Tools to facilitate and
potentiate knowledge sharing
At the moment, several workgroups of
TPM (Total Production Management[2]) were created to improve the
efficiency of the machines and processes.
Another, but less standard,
mechanism for sharing knowledge is communication corners. A simple, 30-minute
weekly meeting or a random meting when some kind of situation occurs can be
invaluable. The idea is to jointly look at the operating results and discuss
them, trying to understand them and finding new processes to reduce time or
costs.
The development of competencies also
helps to create a culture of knowledge sharing, and Alpha has several training
routines. The main goal is to create a potential – they invest in their workers
so they can assume more responsibilities and become more knowledgeable.
Embedding
a culture of knowledge sharing and reuse is perhaps the most important
challenge for Alpha Managers. It is less about managing knowledge and more
about managing workers whose work depends on what they know and what they can
learn from others.
The
process of applying the Operators’ knowledge with the help of the Technicians
together with experimentation, observation and dialogue techniques allows the
adaptation of existing knowledge to new and novel situations.
This
represents an important and undervalued source of learning in the factory, and
the processes of learning by observing are crucial for the new workers. They
learn through socialization, observation and practice.
“Our instruction sheets of operating
procedures and competencies tables represent a form of explicit knowledge in
the plant, which can be used by the workers. But first they need to learn with
the older workers or even the shift Managers how to use our work routines.”
(Group recall – Production Managers)
To
share more objective knowledge like rules, procedures and routines, Alpha uses
several techniques: “We
created a procedure sheet that new workers should follow.” (Group recall –
Production Managers)
Knowledge
transference is often based on the organisation’s explicit knowledge, in this
case procedures sheets and knowledge databases for quality problems, and
solutions and others repositories.
Explicit
knowledge is expressed in formal and systematic language, and shared in the
form of data specifications and manuals. Tacit knowledge is rooted in actions,
procedures, routines and values.
In
many situations, tacit knowledge cannot be wholly converted into explicit.
Examples of this include life and work experiences and all the knowledge those
workers develop and store over the years. It seems to be easier to share
technical knowledge, because it is already explicit in manuals and it is easier
to explain, then organisational knowledge that was accumulated along the years
by the workers through work practices and routines.
Davenport and Prusak (1998)
stated that the transfer of knowledge can be made by formalized transfer
mechanisms and informal exchanges. The formalized transfer methods include
documents, databases, Intranets and GroupWare. Informal exchanges refer to the
more casual events that usually take place face to face, such as a
conversation.
ALPHA
main ways of making the knowledge explicit:
·
Written: through e-mails, documents and discussion
groups.
“All the procedures are available
through documentation and in the intranet. Workers can access computers in each
section to consult the information or ask the section’s Manager to access the
information for him, because some Operators do not know how to access the
intranet and make the search or even how to use the computer” (Group recall –
Technicians)
·
Visual: using models, illustrations or data
visualization tools.
“The information is all registered in
photographs and displayed in the sections’ placards. The same happens with
instructions, work plans, maps and tables, so that they are easier to read and
understand.” (Group recall – Technicians)
ALPHA takes photographs when they
are going to make some changes in the plant, and then they display them in the
plant showing how it was before and how it is now. This very powerful technique
helps to involve the workers in the organisation and in their work. They create
emotional liaisons with their workstations, when they analyse all the changes
that they have faced and overcome.
Production Managers also referred to other kinds of
information displayed:
“In the communication corners we place
all the important information: efficiency levels, competencies matrix,
instructions and productivity data.” (Group recall – Production Managers)
·
Spoken word: through voice mail, recordings, the
telephone or person-to-person interaction.
“Communication corners are used for
meetings. In some sections, the meetings are held weekly, with the goal to
analyse all the issues that occurred in the previous week. With this we look
forward to eliminate “Mr. Rumour” and involve the workers in all the factory
situations and problems.” (Group recall – Production Managers)
·
Video/observation: video databases, body language,
master-apprentice relationship, video conferencing.
“For instance, we have problems and
solutions databases and quality databases that are accessible to all workers,
in each section of the plant.” (Group recall – Production Managers)
·
Combination: technologies adopted that include some or
all of the previous.
“When we have problems we register them
in an internal tool together with all the information related to the problems.”
(Group recall – Technicians)
A
main reflection from group recalls is that individual knowledge, if not shared
with others, will have very little or no effect on the organisation. Therefore,
one of the important tasks for organisations is to facilitate the process of
interaction between employees promoting and encouraging the use/share as well
as using the knowledge gained and stored in the form of explicit knowledge.
Alpha
knowledge sharing routines involve not only internal players, but also external
ones such as customers. Even a specialist in a certain area can help the discussion
and create some knowledge that can help to implement a new practice, tool or
technology:
“The workshops sometimes have an
external moderator, someone with specific knowledge. This helps us to develop
ourselves in an organisational and technological way. Sometimes it is a
specialist belonging to the group (from another factory with a different line
of products); other times it is a consultant or someone from the Academy.”
(Group recall – Department Managers)
When
they have a production problem, the workshops involve only internal players
from different sections of the plant so that together they can all find a
solution or a way to minimise the consequences of a problem.
“The greatest advantage of workshops is
that people who participate in them are an integrant part of the problem or
situation. An example of a problem that we discussed in a workshop was
regarding auto-quality – we intend to reduce the incidents of line 1.” (Group recall – Department Managers)
The
workshops in Alpha can be seen as knowledge creation processes, CoP in essence,
linking workers to others with expertise. Relational competencies are a key to
the capture, use and creation of knowledge and learning within organisations.
Cross-functional workshops and
meetings are a crucial aspect of CoP to share perspectives and to facilitate
discussions that provide invaluable knowledge. Organisational players share
their opinions and insights, as well as their own questions, sharing and
creating new knowledge. For added impact, outside specialists and even
customers participate in these sessions. Their perspectives can be refreshing
and break down the thinking routines of internal workers.
Reid argued that “the most effective
way to disseminate knowledge and best practice is through systematic transfer”
(2003). Likewise, Alpha has been creating a culture of knowledge sharing by
implementing these routines and promoting collaboration in a systematic
transfer.
To show its commitment for sharing
knowledge, Alpha created a reward system taking into account workers’
contributions and their participation in the organisational life. Their
contribution is also recognized through information displayed in the plant.
Finally, we should stress the
importance of sharing during the training programs that had prepared managers
and workers to work within the new set of organisational dynamics imposed by
the Production System.
Our aim was to conduct a case study
research on how innovative large organisations are dealing with the tensions
between formalisation and tacitness, in a context of sharing and creating
knowledge in communities of practice (SWAN et al., 2002; BERTELS
et al., 2011).
The main tensions arise from two opposite forces usually disregarded when
researching CoP and the knowledge process. Tacitness boosts creativity and
innovation (SCHULZ; JOBE, 2001; BERTELS
et al., 2011)
but managing organisational units calls for explicit knowledge and
formalisation (NONAKA et al., 2006).
Coordination must be anticipatory
and proactive in terms of providing a clear pathway to achieve the goals set
previously. How these resources and capabilities are managed in CoP becomes
crucial, since these structures are said to emerge spontaneously. Hence,
translating governance and organisational procedures is a difficult task in
that context (HEDLUND; NONAKA, 1993; NONAKA et al., 2006), even more so if we
consider the main proposition of the situated learning theory (LAVE;
WENGER, 1991):
learning happens within the contexts and conditions of practical engagement.
Therefore, overly bureaucratic procedures attempting to transform tacit into
explicit knowledge may hinder this natural engagement.
Our study provides some insights to
this problematic confluence of those forces. The fact that this firm began the
whole innovation process by implementing a formalised and very structured
system (TPM) is a determinant for understanding how to conceal those forces.
Coordinators may play a key role for aligning practices of both organisation
and CoP (CONTU; WILLMOTT, 2000; BROWN;
DUGUID, 2001).
In our case, top management
involvement and the role of a culture of innovation favours the approximation
of formalisation towards tacitness. In the face of the fact that too much
formalisation may nullify the advantages of knowledge in action, this firm
responds with a combination of tacitness and formalisation such as the TPM
within a context of CoP. We could even consider this as a particular case of
the “knowledge vision” suggested by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Von Krogh et
al. (2000). This is a kind of combination of formalisation and tacitness that
includes the effectiveness of the ba —that
could be assimilated to the CoP, in our case – and the perspective of the
future represented by the knowledge visions (included in the TPM).
The above mentioned idea may fit
well within the research line suggested by Von Krogh et al. (2000), based on
the lack of a knowledge vision. As shown, the TPM, as well as the leadership
and involvement of top managers aligned with the “knowledge vision” within the
organisation, bring to the fore the economy of patience versus the economy of
speed, already suggested by Nonaka and Toyama (2002). The ba is the key, whether this is a CoP or any other form (workshops,
workgroups…). The problem of multi-membership to several CoP (MUTCH, 2003) can
be managed by the role of the middle-line managers as facilitators and
coordinators.
Situated learning theory predicts
that dispersion of a CoP and the use of tacit knowledge are related inversely
under the general principle of legitimated peripheral participation. As we have
shown, “who-knows-what” is what must be explicit and available throughout the
organisation. This implies a new way of combining the advantages of tacitness
(quickness) and formalisation (management).
Therefore, the combination of
tacitness and formalisation in a kind of “knowledge vision” can be noted as a
key for overcoming those opposite forces shaping CoP within this type of firms.
The role of “coordinators” instead of “coordination” can also be highlighted as
a contribution for future theorising on these issues. Hence, the proper
combination of tacit and explicit knowledge is required to overcome the
tensions between tacitness and formalisation.
Our study provides evidence on how
innovative large organisations may deal with CoP while avoiding some of the
risks related to the confrontation between tacitness and formalisation.
We must highlight that these
organisations must pay particular attention to finding out to what extent this
tension exists when searching for ways to seize upon the CoP.
Developing a “knowledge vision” in a
context of CoP may help to effectively combine the advantages of tacitness and
of formalisation while avoiding their confrontation. Moreover, the key lies
upon the identification of what must and must not be explicit in order to boost
performance in the learning process (“who-knows-what”). This becomes crucial
for innovative, large organisations willing to properly manage (hierarchy and
formalisation) these structures.
The involvement of top and
medium-line managers can also be fruitful for encouraging the relationship between
proficiency of dispersed collaboration (hierarchical and large organisations)
and innovation performance.
The exploratory case study conducted
in this article addressed the particular context of an innovative, large firm.
Other enterprises that are not following an innovation strategy might discover
some limitations to our findings. Tacitness may lose relevance in the latter
firms, as it is quite related to innovation. However, according to the
postulates of situated learning theory, CoP may emerge in almost whatever
context of practical engagement exists (LAVE;
WENGER, 1991).
Therefore, our discussion and findings might also be feasible for what happens
in those other firms.
Our finding concerning the
“knowledge vision” and the effect of the de-formalisation in this context calls
for further research. This emphasises the lack of a knowledge vision (NONAKA et
al., 2006), and calls for further research on the possible forms that such
vision may take.
The temporal dimension of the firm,
dynamic in essence, requires more empirical research on how those forms may be
developed over time and within different environmental contexts. How the
combination of tacitness and formalisation evolves and how the firm adapts
proactively to that combination according to the particular conditions would
help to advance the trajectories that firms can follow for efficiently seizing
CoP.
Nevertheless, we have disclosed a
still underestimated and relevant problem that requires further research from other
possible approaches.
AMIN, A.; ROBERTS, J. (2008) Knowing in action: Beyond communities of
practice, Research Policy, v. 37, n. 2, p. 353-369.
BERTELS, H. M. J.; KLEINSCHMIDT, E. J.; KOEN, P. A. (2011) Communities
of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed
Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, v. 28, n. 5,
p. 757-772.
BLACKLER, F. (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an
overview and interpretation, Organization Studies, v. 16, n. 6,
p. 1021-1046.
BOGENRIEDER, I.; NOOTEBOOM, B. (2004) Learning groups: what types are
there? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultancy firm, Organization
Studies, v. 25, n. 2, p. 287-313.
BOURDIEU, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ Press.
BROWN, J. S.; DUGUID, P. (1991) Organizational Learning and
Communities-Of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and
Innovation, Organization Science, v. 2, n. 1, p. 40-57.
BROWN, J. S.; DUGUID, P. (2001) Structure and spontaneity: knowledge and
organization, In: NONAKA, I.; TEECE, D. J. (eds) Managing Industrial Knowledge:
Creation, Transfer and Utilization. London: Sage, p. 44-67.
CLARK, P.; STAUNTON, N.; ROGERS. E, (1993) Innovation in Technology and
Organization. London, UK: Routledge.
COGHLAN, D. (2001) ‘Insider action research projects - Implications for
practising managers’, Management Learning, v. 32, n. 1,
p. 49-60.
COGHLAN, D. (2003) Practitioner research for organizational knowledge, Management
Learning, v. 34, n. 4, p. 451-463.
CONTU, A.; WILLMOTT, H. (2000) Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing in
practice: a “delicate flower” in the organizational learning field, Organization,
v. 7, n. 2, p. 269-276.
COUGHLAN, P.; COGHLAN, D. (2002) Action research for operations
management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
v. 22, n. 2, p. 220-240.
COX, A. (2005) What are communities of practice? A comparative review of
four seminal works, Journal of Information Science,
v. 31, n. 6, p. 527-540.
DAVENPORT, T. H.; PRUSAK, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they Know.
Boston: Harvard Business School.
EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (1997) Disciplines of organizational learning:
contributions and critiques, Human Relations, v. 50, n. 9, p.
1085-1113.
FAHEY, L.; PRUSAK L. (1998) The Eleven Sins of Knowledge Management, California
Management Review, v. 40, n. 3, p. 265-276.
FENWICK, T. (2008) Understanding relations of individual collective
learning in work: A review of research, Management Learning, v. 39, n. 3,
p. 227-243.
FRAPPAOLO, C. (2008) Implicit knowledge, Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, v. 6, n. 1, p. 23-25.
GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO, M.; FIGUEROA DORREGO, P. (2012) Intellectual capital
and System of Innovation: what really matters at innovative SMEs, Intangible
Capital, v. 8, n. 2, p. 239-274.
GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO, M.; PITA-CASTELO, J. (2012) A model for assessing the
contribution of innovative SMEs to economic growth: The intangible approach, Economics
Letters, v. 116, n. 3, p. 312-315.
GOURLAY, S. (2006) Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of
Nonaka's Theory, Journal of Management Studies, v. 43, n. 7, p. 1415-1436.
GRANT, R. M. (1996) Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic
Management Journal, n. 17(winter special issue), p. 109-122.
HANDLEY, K.; STURDY, A.; FINCHAM, R.; CLARK, T. (2006) Within and beyond
communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation,
identity and practice, Journal of Management Studies, v.
43, n. 3, p. 641-653.
HEDLUND, G.; NONAKA, I. (1993) Models of knowledge management in the
West and Japan, In: LORANGE, B.; CHAKRAVARTHY, B.; ROOS, J.; VAN DE VEN, H. (eds)
Implementing
Strategic Processes, Change, Learning and Cooperation. London:
Macmillan, p. 117-144.
KEEGAN, A.; TURNER, J. R. (2001) Quantity versus quality in
project-based learning practices, Management
Learning, v. 32, n. 1, p. 77-98.
KIRKMAN, B. L.; MATHIEU, J. E.; CORDERY, J. L.; ROSEN, B.; KUKENBERGER,
M. (2011) Managing a New Collaborative Entity in Business Organizations:
Understanding Organizational Communities of Practice Effectiveness, Journal
of Applied Psychology, v. 96, n. 6, p. 1234-1245.
LAVE, J.; WENGER, E. C. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
LERVIK, J. E.; FAHY, K. M.; EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (2010) Temporal dynamics
of situated learning in organizations, Management Learning, v. 41, n. 3,
p. 285-301.
MCADAM, R.; MCCREEDY, S. (1999) The process of knowledge management
within organizations: a critical assessment of both theory and practice, Knowledge
and Process Management, v. 6, n. 2, p. 101-113.
MOLLOY, J. C.; CHADWICK, C.; PLOYHART, R. E.; GOLDEN, S. J. (2011) Making
Intangibles “Tangible” in Tests of Resource-Based Theory: A Multidisciplinary
Construct Validation Approach, Journal of Management, v. 37, n. 5,
p. 1496-1518.
MUTCH, A. (2003) Communities of practice and habitus: A critique, Organization
Studies, v. 24, n. 3, p.
383-401.
NONAKA, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation,
Organisation Science, v. 5, n. 1, p.
14–37.
NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics
of Innovation. New York etc. Oxford University Press, 1995:
Oxford University Press.
NONAKA, I.; KONNO, N. (1998) The concept of "ba": Building a
foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, v. 40,
n. 3, p. 40-54.
NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R. (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a
dynamic theory of a firm, Industrial and Corporate Change,
v. 11, n. 5, p. 995-1009.
NONAKA, I.; VON KROGH, G.; VOELPEL, S. (2006) Organizational Knowledge
Creation Theory: Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances, Organization Studies,
v. 27, n. 8, p. 1179-1208.
POLANYI, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge.University
of Chicago Press Chicago.
POLANYI, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
REID, C. (2003) We’re not a part of society, we don’t have a say:
exclusion as a determinant of poor women’s health. In: M. Segal, V. Demos &
J. J. Kronenfeld, eds. Advances in
gender research: gender perspectives on health and medicine - key themes.
New York: JAI. v.7, p. 227-275.
ROBERTS, J. (2006) Limits to communities of practice, Journal
of Management Studies, v. 43, n. 3, p. 623-639.
SCHULZ, M.; JOBE, L. A. (2001) Codification and tacitness as knowledge
management strategies: An empirical exploration, Journal of High Technology
Management Research, v. 12,
n. 1, p. 139-165.
SCHÜTT, P. (2003) The post-Nonaka knowledge management, Journal
of Universal Computer Science, v. 9, n. 6, p. 451-462.
SOUSA, M. J. (2013) Knowledge Profiles
Boosting Innovation. Knowledge
Management, v. 12, n. 4, p. 35-46
SOUSA, M. J. (2010). Dynamic knowledge: An Action Research Project. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, v. 10, n. 1.
SOUZA-SILVA, J. C. (2009) Conditions and Challenges for the Rise of
Communities of Practice in Organizations, Rae-Revista De Administracao De Empresas,
v. 49, n. 2, p. 176-189.
SPENDER, J. C. (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of
the firm, Strategic Management Journal, n. 17 (Winter Special Issue),
p. 45-62.
SWAN, J.; SCARBROUGH, H.; ROBERTSON, M. (2002) ‘The construction of
'communities of practice' in the management of innovation’, Management
Learning, v. 33, n. 4, p. 477-496.
VON KROGH, G.; ICHIJŌ, K.; NONAKA I (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit
Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. New York, USA:
Oxford University Press.
WENGER, E. C. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ Pr.
WENGER, E. C. (2000) Communities of practice and social learning
systems, Organization, v. 7, n. 2, p. 225-246.
WENGER, E. C.; MCDERMOTT, R. A.; SNYDER, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of
Practice: A Guide to
Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
WESTBROOK, R. (1995) Action research: A new paradigm for research in
production and operations management, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, v. 15,
n. 12, p. 6-20.
ZBORALSKI, K. (2009) Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of
practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, n. 3, p. 90-101.
[1]ba is a Japanese concept for the context of knowledge creation (see
definition in Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Nonaka et al. (2006) summarise it as “a
shared space for emerging relationships”, be this physical, virtual or mental.
[2]TPM is a methodology used to optimize production, reducing loss and maximizing the use of equipment and machines.