Knowledge Management Model

SECI Model(Nonaka and Takuchi)

Knowledge Management has been one of the more often used concepts and it has been defined in many different ways. Here I give some brief ideas about well-know SECI (Nonaka and Takeuchi) model. Although, this model does not present the same concepts, its terminology is similar and it depends on the context of each one.

Figure 1.1 The SECI Model (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)
(Source: http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html)

According to above model, the organizational knowledge creation process is based on a basic structure that contains two dimensions: epistemological and ontological. The epistemological dimension shows that only individuals create knowledge. Therefore, organizational knowledge creation should be understood as a process that organizationally amplifies the knowledge created by individuals and gives a proper form to it. The ontological dimension relates to the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge.

This model consists of 3 elements: SECI, Ba, and Knowledge Assets. These elements interact with each other organically and dynamically. Knowledge assets are transferred and shared in Ba whereas tacit knowledge of individuals is converted and becomes more powerful by the spiral of knowledge through: Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization.
Socialization is the process that transfers tacit knowledge from one person to tacit knowledge in another person face-to-face or through sharing their experience. Externalization is the process for making tacit knowledge explicit among individuals within a group. Combination refers to the knowledge transfer once knowledge is explicit. Internalization is the process of understanding and absorbing explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge held by the individual.

Critical Analysis
According to my point of view,Nonaka and Takeuchi model (1995) is criticized, firstly because it is based too much on informal and tacit knowledge in their KM framework rather than take into account the importance of controversies and conflicts in knowledge creation. Secondly, in their model knowledge is possessed by individuals and shared between individuals instead of seeing knowledge as participative and as emerging out. Finally, their process-based view suggests that knowledge is transferred from tacit to explicit directly, it's too deterministic.
Adler (1995) also argued that this model suffered from too static a contrast between tacit and explicit knowledge which he felt was inadequate for a dynamic model of tacit-explicit knowledge inter-relatedness (Adler 1995: 110-111). Engeström noted Nonaka and Takeuchi’s accounts suggest teams took as given the problem 2 to be worked on. His research, however, led him to conclude that formulating, analyzing and systematically locating the problem are key innovation processes (Engeström, 1999: 380, 388-90).

For example, I worked as an IT consultant in PC-CLINIC, INDIA. So as IT Consultant, I had to monitor all processes which were going in my company, even daily talked to every department about their work progress. And when meeting was arranged for improving the performance of our company business, we came to the main decision after listen each and every persons' opinion and chose best solution from them by gathering all information and store them then refining them and out of them chose best one for improve business productivity. So for this Nonaka and Takeuchi model in which they mentioned knowledge would be transfered from tacit-to-tacit and storage is not needed, not sufficient.Yes that is true for individuals like if I have to share my ideas with my friend there storage is not required but for proper management of organization it should be there.

According to my other colleagues, Nonaka and Takeuchi model is based on Japanese organizations,which is rely on tacit knowledge.and Employees are often with a company for life.So from my point of view from above discussion, for proper management of your organization, there should be storage to merge information,and then refining them and after that make usable for organization.

References

http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html

http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Knowledge_Processes-An_Overview%20_of_Principal_Models.pdf

http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/texts/paavola_et_al_2002.pdf

Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L-. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory, (pp. 377-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.

Innovation in the Making By Lotte Darsø 2001

Challenges And Issues in Knowledge Management By Anthony F. Buono, Flemming Poulfelt 2005

http://www.uku.fi/tike/actad/ecscw2003-at/hyotylainen/

Adler, P.S. (1995). ‘Comment on I. Nonaka. Managing innovation as an organizational
knowledge creation process’. In Allouche, J. and Pogorel, G. (Eds), Technology management
and corporate strategies: a tricontinental perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp 110-124.