Main theoretical models of Knowledge Management

A theory has only alternatives of being wrong or right. A model has a third possibility: it may be right but irrelevant - Manfred Eigen Chemist (1972)

---

The increased interest in knowledge management has caused the need for theoretical models in understanding the complexity of knowledge management process. We will be focus on 3 models: Nonaka´s, Boisot´s and Wigg´s model. These methods and models, among others, have been developed in the literature to enhance the management of knowledge and reduce the effect of knowledge management barriers.

A) Nonaka´s Model

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1994) define an original model to create new knowledge by firms, where 4 stages take place. First, socialization is the process that enables to transfer tacit knowledge between people. The second one is the process in which tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge (externalization). In this phase the communication is an important factor, through face to- face interaction, share beliefs or simultaneous exchange of ideas. When explicit knowledge has been achieved, it can be transferred by another process called combination, where information technology is most helpful (explicit knowledge can be “transported” in documents, e-mails, data bases, or meetings). In other words, content management systems enable to create, manage, update, search and exchange knowledge between groups across the firm.

Finally, explicit knowledge is turned into tacit knowledge, through a diffusion process, called internalization. We associate internalization with the process of learning by practice, in which organizational explicit knowledge is transferred to the individual.

B) Boisot´s Model

This model focuses on the generation of knowledge to diverse situations, allowing its flow and transformation. The I-Space is based on the following premise by which structured knowledge flows more readily and extensively than unstructured knowledge. “scanning”, is referred to the stage where knowledge is obtained from generally available (diffused) data. Once obtained, knowledge is codified, it means the problems are solved giving structure and coherence to these insights (“Problem-Solving”). ​​​​

The newly codified insights are generalized to a wide range of situations, knowledge becomes more abstract (“abstraction”). By the “diffusion”, the new knowledge is shared with a target population in a codified and abstract form the newly codified knowledge is applied to a variety of situations producing new learning experiences whose process is named “absorption” (knowledge is absorbed and produces learnt behavior and so becomes “un-codified” or “tacit”). After this process, abstract knowledge becomes embedded in concrete practices, as technical rules, organizational practices or behavior patterns.

The I-Space is considered a vital tool that shows the dynamics of information at different organizational levels. Haggie and Kingston (2003) obtain through this model that innovation is achieved as a result of the flow and transformation of knowledge.

C) Wiig´s Model

Four dimensions can be identified in Wiig´s Model. Fist at all, regarding the importance of the knowledge sources, human minds –tacit- and knowledge bases -explicit- and how much of the knowledge is relevant and available. If the knowledge is not known it could not be used. This first perspective is named completeness.

Secondly, Wiig (1993) gives significant value to the relations between different knowledge objects, it is denominate connectedness. Knowledge is interconnected by different ways: communications, training or IT systems.

The third dimension is congruency, through these relations (connections) are reduced no logical inconsistencies or misunderstandings. The more connected a knowledge base is then the more coherent the content and the greater its value (Dalkir 2005).

Perspective or purpose is the last dimension, which means we know something using a dual perspective: from our limited perspective and a point of view from another source (with experience).

The three former models have been widely studied during years, but these are not the unique models using for classifying knowledge management.

Taking every model into account, Nonaka´s model has been generally accepted and extensively used model by most part of the literature. It has been considerate the most complete approach to describe the way knowledge is generated, transferred or conserved in an organization.

Despite Nonaka´s model importance all these models offer a way of managing knowledge in the organizations and an opportunity to promote the development by increasing the organizational impact of individuals