• 沒有找到結果。

Numbers of writers attempted to delineate a dichotomy between tacit and explicit knowledge. Some suggested that tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable and mutually constituted (Tsoukas, 1996; Werr & Stjernberg, 2003). Others maintained that explicit and tacit knowledge are separate and distinctive (Haas & Hansen, 2007; Seidler-de Alwis & Hartmann,

19

2008). Throughout the KM literature several fundamental differences between these two knowledge characteristics can be highlighted.

One important differentiating aspect is the difficulty or ease of codifiability and storage of knowledge. It is argued that the extent to which knowledge can be articulated or codified and stored stems from the very nature of knowledge types. For example, whereas tacit knowledge includes hard- to- communicate skills, know- how and practical knowledge that cannot be easily articulated to another person, explicit knowledge can be easily copied and communicated to others (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In addition, while explicit knowledge can be stored in a mechanical and technological way such as KMS (Reychav &

Weisberg, 2009), tacit knowledge is mostly stored in human beings and can also be effectively stored in social processes and personal face to face interactions (Zaim, 2006).

Another essential distinctive characteristic between tacit and explicit knowledge is reflected through their degree of teachability. Smith (2001) stressed that while explicit knowledge can be taught by using for example a trainer’s designed syllabus, or formats selected by the organization, tacit knowledge can mostly be taught through one- to- one basis such as mentorship, coaching, internship, on-the job training, and apprenticeships. Bercerra- Fernandez and Sabherwal (2010) indicated that while explicit knowledge is high in teachability and codifiability, tacit knowledge is low in teachability and codifiability.

Other area of comparison between tacit and explicit knowledge include the method of acquisition of knowledge. Yi (2006) suggested that explicit knowledge can be generated through logical deduction and acquired by formal study. In contrast, tacit knowledge can merely be acquired through practical experience in the relevant context. Smith (2001) also pointed that the type of thinking for tacit and explicit knowledge differs. The author maintained while explicit knowledge is logical, based on facts and proven methods facilitates convergent thinking, tacit knowledge is creative, flexible, unchartered and lead to divergent thinking.

Tacit and explicit knowledge also differ in their respective role in the organization and outcomes on organization tasks. Rhodes et al. (2008) suggested that explicit knowledge plays a prominent role in the organization’s strategy formulation process. In addition, it has a relatively less expensive economic value because it is impersonal and easy to transfer to other employees

20

through IT (Reychav & Weisberg, 2009). Although tacit knowledge is considered more expensive, it is valuable because is concerned with shared activities, observation of behavior and direct contact which are associated with more complex ways to interact and acquire knowledge from coworkers (Reychav & Weisberg, 2009, p. 286). In addition, tacit knowledge is found to be a key success in promoting new product development (Subramanian & Venkatraman, 2001) and innovation and performance (Gokman & Hamsioglu, 2011; Harlow, 2008).

Lee (2001) used a sample of 195 government offices in Korea that included city, provincial, district and county offices to analyze the influence of knowledge sharing on outsourcing success and partnership quality. The results of their study showed that both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing was positively associated with outsourcing success and partnership quality. Although the correlations of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing and outsourcing were found to be significant at p<.01, the correlation between of explicit knowledge sharing and outsourcing success was slightly higher (r=.444) than that between tacit knowledge sharing and outsourcing success (r=.408). However, the correlations between tacit knowledge sharing and partnership quality was higher (r=.578) than the correlations between explicit knowledge sharing and partnership quality (r=.515).The author concluded that the higher the degree of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing, the greater the accomplishment of the strategic, economic and technological benefits of IS outsourcing.

According to Smith (2001) explicit knowledge can be reused to solve many similar types of problems or connect people with valuable, reusable knowledge. As marketplace competition, changing customer needs, among other factor reduces stability; the author suggested that gathering and using explicit knowledge help assume a predictable, relatively stable environment.

In contrast, the author explained that opportunities to use tacit knowledge are prime factors in attracting and maintaining a talented and loyal workforce. Smith (2001) also noted that many companies use tacit knowledge to increase individuals’ academic learning and experience.

An empirical study conducted by Haas and Hansen (2007) showed that the acquisition and sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge had distinctive benefits for task productivity. For example, in relation to the task productivity measure of time saved, the use of explicit knowledge did have positive time saving benefits, but the acquisition of tacit knowledge did not. By contrast, the sharing of tacit knowledge had different benefits and impacts on task productivity, improving

21

both task quality and client’s perception of competence, with both being positively related to the quality of the tacit knowledge that was shared.

Finally, tacit and explicit knowledge requires different processes and modes for sharing knowledge. Bercerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2010) claimed that whether explicit or tacit knowledge is being shared, exchange or socialization processes are used. Socialization, as they discussed, facilitates the sharing of tacit knowledge in cases where new tacit knowledge is being created as well as when new tacit knowledge is not being created. Exchange process differs from socialization as it focuses on the sharing of explicit knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2010). It is used to communicate or transfer explicit knowledge among individuals, groups, and organizations (Grant, 1996, cited in Becerra- Fernandez-Sabherwal (2010).

Besides requiring different processes, the methods for sharing tacit and explicit knowledge also differ. Lee (2001) study suggested that explicit knowledge can be shared through business proposals and reports, business manuals and models, success and failures stories, newspapers, magazines and journals whereas tacit knowledge can be shared through education and training.

The author added that tacit knowledge sharing takes place when know- how from work experience and know-where and know-whom are shared. Similarly, an empirical study conducted by Lu, Leung and Koch (2006) has also suggested several means for sharing these two types of knowledge. For instance, Lu et al. (2006) in their research asked the participants to recall the frequency with which they shared eight types of knowledge with their co-workers.

Tacit knowledge sharing types included stories about one’s success or failure in the workplace, interpersonal skills, experience and expertise; where and from whom to obtain solutions, and uncodified job-related skills and know-how, whereas explicit knowledge sharing methods included work reports and work requirements, knowledge about archives or databases, and codifiable knowledge.