The traditional production factors in the traditional economy contained resources that were easily measured and quantified, as labour, land, or tangible capital (DiStefano et al. 2004) but after a while changes took place (Burton-Jones 1999). In spite of these changes, in Drucker’s (1992:95) opinion these traditional “factors of production” have not disappeared but have become secondary and so knowledge has become not only a new factor of production but “the primary resource for individuals and for the economy overall”. This statement results in the recognition of the fact that knowledge has become important in sustaining the competitive advantage of an organization as well. Since what an organization knows makes it possible to differentiate itself from others (Davenport, Prusak 1998). Besides organizational competitiveness where efficient creation, dissemination, and application of knowledge are essential, Roberts (2001) has also recognized that it has been significant at national levels as well.
Defining Knowledge
To understand how knowledge can become such an important element of organizational competitiveness, I find it important to define what knowledge is. Thus in this subpart my aim is to present knowledge from different approaches.
I found seven different but sometimes overlapping approaches from the literature, which according to my grouping are:
• information as a central element of knowledge;
• action also appearing as an important element of knowledge;
• appearance of rules extending the elements of knowledge;
• where knowledge can be found;
• knowledge appearing as a product;
• process point of view of knowledge;
• broad definitions of knowledge containing several features.
11 Information as a Central Element of Knowledge
Brooking (1999:5) puts knowledge as “organized information together with understanding of what it means”. Knowledge is considered by Géró (2000:106) as
“information based on structured data” that is understood and thought through by someone. Knowledge is also utilized in a surrounding that is defined by the given person’s experiences and store of learning and finally is shared with others (Géró 2000).
Knowledge is created according to Liebeskind (1996) if the validity of information is established through tests of proof. Furthermore, Hajós and Bittner (2006) view knowledge as containing not only information but ability and skills as well. According to them (Hajós, Bittner 2006:28) during ability “data can be acquired, utilized and converted into useful information” while skills, will and form of behaviour “make people able to think, interpret and act in an innovative manner”.
Action Also Appearing as an Important Element of Knowledge
Information as a significant component of knowledge is also emphasized by Davenport et al. (1999) but it is used for actions and decisions. According to their definition knowledge “is a high value form of information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions” (Davenport et al. 1999:89). Leonard-Barton and Sensiper (1998) and Demarest (1997) emphasise the actionable feature of information when determining knowledge.
Knowledge is “information that is relevant, actionable, and based at least partially on experience” by Leonard-Barton and Sensiper (1998:113) and is “the actionable information embodied in the set of work practices, theories-in-action, skills, equipment, processes and heuristic of firm’s employee” by Demarest (1997:374). The action perspective of knowledge is stressed by Sveiby (1997) as well, but by having the necessary capacity to behave so. Knowledge is defined by him (Sveiby 1997:37) as “the capacity to act”. Nooteboom (2001:3) also considers knowledge as an act but during which information is interpreted into a cognitive framework. Beside the characteristics of action, decision is also stressed by Fahey and Prusak (1998:269) and in their point of view both are inseparable from knowledge that is defined by them as “imbuing data and information with decision- and action-relevant meaning”.
Appearance of Rules Extending the Elements of Knowledge
Ruggles (1997), Den Hertog and Huizenga (2000) extended the definition of knowledge by including rules as an important element of it. While according to Ruggles (1997:2) knowledge is “a fluid mix of contextual information, values, experiences, and rules”, Den Hertog and Huizenga (2000:332) stress knowledge as being “a collection of rules and information to fulfil a specific function”.
Where Knowledge can be Found
Davenport and Prusak (1998:5), when offering their so-called “working definition” of knowledge, emphasise that knowledge “originates and is applied in the minds of knowers” and extend this statement by mentioning that “In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.”. De Long and Fahey (2000:114) also emphasise knowledge as being “a resource that is always located in an individual or a collective or embedded in a routine or process”.
12 Knowledge Appearing as a Product
De Long and Fahey (2000:114) also consider knowledge as “a product of human reflection and experience”. Opposite to them, Pentland (1995:5) notices knowledge as being “the product of an ongoing set of practices embedded in the social and physical structures of the organizations”.
Process Point of View of Knowledge
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have a unique definition of knowledge. They (Nonaka, Takeuchi 1995:58) view knowledge from a process point of view and consider it as a
“dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs toward the ‘truth’ ”.
Broad Definitions of Knowledge Containing Several Features
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998:5) knowledge is “broader, deeper, and richer than data or information” and they offer the following “working definition” of this term:
"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”. Spek and Spijervet (1997:36) also collected several features to determine knowledge which is thus “the whole set of insights, experiences, and procedures which are considered correct and true and which therefore guide the thoughts, behavior, and communication of people” and it is “always applicable in several situations and over a relatively long period of time”.
Barely any of the above mentioned scholars have emphasised the importance and use of knowledge regarding knowledge sharing, which I missed in connection with the overview of the definitions of knowledge. Thus I have found it favourable that Géró (2000) has been an exception. In my opinion knowledge can be considered important and valuable when it is used and shared. Furthermore since my research focuses on middle managers’ knowledge sharing I find it also important to have a definition of knowledge that contains the knowledge sharing aspect as well.
My definition of knowledge is inspired by those approaches that have stressed the broad definitions of knowledge containing several features (such as the definitions of Davenport, Prusak and Spek, Spijervet). Furthermore those approaches that have emphasised where knowledge can be found (such as the definitions of Davenport, Prusak and De Long, Fahey) have also helped me in creating my own knowledge definition. Therefore my research defines knowledge as the whole of information, experience, routines, practices that can be connected with people, can be found in the mind of a person or in electronic or paper documents, databases and can be broadened during sharing that occurs between the knowledge sender(s) and the knowledge receiver(s).
Classifying Knowledge
The recognition of the different types of knowledge is necessary in revealing its potential contribution to the organization’s performance and in assigning the appropriate channels to facilitate the transmission of knowledge (Pemberton, Stonehouse, 2000). Table 2 and 3 contain the different classifications of knowledge.
13
Table 2. Classification of Knowledge and its Meanings Before 2000 Classification of
knowledge Meaning
Sackmann (1992)
dictionary knowledge commonly held descriptions used in a particular organization,
"what" of situations and their content directory knowledge
commonly held practices,
chains of events and their cause-and-effect relationships,
"how" of things and events, their processes recipe knowledge
based on judgments,
prescriptions for repair and improvement strategies,
"shoulds" and recommends of certain actions
axiomatic knowledge
reasons and explanations of the final causes perceived to underlie a particular event,
"why" things and events happen, why a particular problem emerged, or why people are promoted in a given organization
Lundvall, Johnson (1994)
know-what knowledge about facts
know-why knowledge of principles and laws of motion in nature, in the human mind and in the society
know-how knowledge about skills, the capability to do something know-who
information about who knows what, and who knows to do what,
a mix of different kinds of skills
Nonaka, Takeuchi (1995)
explicit knowledge formal and systematic, easy to communicate and share
tacit knowledge
highly personal, hard to formalize, difficult to communicate to others,
deeply rooted in individual’s action, experience, ideals, values, or emotions
Blackler (1995)
embrained knowledge depends on conceptual skills and cognitive abilities embodied knowledge emphasises practical thinking,
action oriented
encultured knowledge emphasises meanings, shared understandings arising form socialisation and acculturation
embedded knowledge emphasises the work of systemic routines encoded knowledge embedded in signs and symbols
Ruggles (1997)
process knowledge how-to
(similarly generated, codified, transferred as the other two) catalog knowledge what is
(similarly generated, codified, transferred as the other two) experiential
knowledge
what was
(similarly generated, codified, transferred as the other two) Probst
(1998)
individual knowledge relies on creativity and on systematic problem solving collective knowledge involves the learning dynamics of teams
14
Table 3. Classification of Knowledge and its Meanings Since 2000 Classification of
knowledge Meaning
De Long, Fahey (2000)
human knowledge what individuals know or know how to do something structural knowledge embedded in the systems, processes, tools and routines of
an organization
social knowledge largely tacit, shared by the member of the group, developed as the result of working together
Becerra-Fernandez et al.
(2004)
general knowledge held by a large number of individuals, can easily be transferred across individuals
specific knowledge possessed by a very limited numbers of individuals, not easily transferred
Christensen (2007)
professional knowledge is created and shared within communities-of-practices either inside or across organizational barriers
coordination knowledge makes each employee knowledgeable of how and when he is supposed to apply knowledge
object-based knowledge knowledge about an object that passes along the organization’s production-line
know-who
knowledge about who knows what, or who is supposed to perform activities that influence other’s organizational activities
organization knowledge to form a complete organization it possesses own unique structure, function partition and procedure
Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2004) created a framework with which the economic value of knowledge can be clarified. Furthermore in their point of view knowledge can be grouped into general knowledge and specific knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez et al.
2004). General knowledge is held by a large number of individuals and can easily be transferred across them (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004). Example of general knowledge is the standard operation procedures. Knowledge possessed by a very limited numbers of individuals and which is not easily transferred is called specific knowledge that can be technical or contextual. While technically specific knowledge is considered as deep knowledge about a specific area and consist of knowledge of tools and techniques for addressing problems in that area, contextually specific knowledge includes knowledge of particular circumstances of place and time in which the work is performed (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004).
Reviewing knowledge it can be seen that the classification of knowledge is diverse and it is hard to find common features. There are some exceptions, since some of the levels, in the next section these levels and their features will be reviewed.
15