Editing Knowledge management (section)

===Dimensions===
Different [[Conceptual framework|frameworks]] for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.<ref name=1Sanchez /> One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes [[tacit knowledge]] and [[explicit knowledge]].<ref name=7Snowden /> Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.<ref name=10Bray /><ref name=20Alavi />

[[File:knowledge spiral.svg|thumb|right|350px|The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi]]
Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model ([[SECI model of knowledge dimensions|SECI]], for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between [[explicit knowledge]] and tacit knowledge.<ref name=38Nonaka>{{cite book|last1=Nonaka|first1=Ikujiro|last2=Takeuchi|first2=Hirotaka|title=The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation|year=1995|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-509269-1|pages=[https://archive.org/details/knowledgecreatin00nona/page/284 284]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/knowledgecreatin00nona/page/284}}</ref> In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.<ref name=38Nonaka />

Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives.<ref name=11Hayes>{{cite book|last1=Hayes|first1=M.|last2=Walsham|first2= G.|editor1-first=M.|editor1-last=Easterby-Smith|editor2-first=M.A.|editor2-last=Lyles|title=The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management|year=2003|publisher=Blackwell|location=Malden, MA|pages=54–77|chapter=Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective |isbn=978-0-631-22672-7}}</ref> The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.<ref name=11Hayes />

Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.<ref name=18Addicot /><ref name=55RST>{{cite web|title=Rhetorical Structure Theory Website|url=https://www.sfu.ca/rst/|work=RST|access-date=19 April 2013|archive-date=17 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517212818/http://www.sfu.ca/rst/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.<ref name="48Wright" /> Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., [[symbol]]s outside our heads).<ref name="48Wright" /><ref>{{Cite journal | year=2004 | title=Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings | journal=Knowledge and Process Management | volume=11 | issue=3 | pages=185–198 | doi=10.1002/kpm.203 | url=http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf | last1=Serenko | first1=Alexander | last2=Bontis | first2=Nick | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926151723/http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/mktg/nbontis//ic/publications/KPMSerenkoBontis.pdf | archive-date=2007-09-26 | hdl=11375/17698 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>  More recently, together with [[Georg von Krogh]] and [[Sven Voelpel]], Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward.<ref name=39Nonaka>{{cite journal|last=Nonaka|first=Ikujiro|author2=von Krogh, Georg|title=Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory|journal=Organization Science|year=2009|volume=20|issue=3|pages=635–652|doi=10.1287/orsc.1080.0412|s2cid=9157692}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Nonaka|first=I.|author2=von Krogh, G. & Voelpel S.|title=Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances|url=http://cmap.upb.edu.co/rid=1P7XV6Y6P-5KWVGS-RC/Art%C3%ADculo%20Org%20Knowledge%20Creation%20Theory%20by%20Nonaka.pdf|journal=Organization Studies|volume=27|issue=8|pages=1179–1208|year=2006|doi=10.1177/0170840606066312|s2cid=145111375|access-date=2018-06-17|archive-date=2018-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617092848/http://cmap.upb.edu.co/rid=1P7XV6Y6P-5KWVGS-RC/Art%C3%ADculo%20Org%20Knowledge%20Creation%20Theory%20by%20Nonaka.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a [[system]] outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from [[embodied knowledge]] representing a learned capability of a human body's [[nervous system|nervous]] and [[endocrine system]]s.<ref name="40Sensky">{{cite journal|last=Sensky|first=Tom|title=Knowledge Management|journal=Advances in Psychiatric Treatment|year=2002|volume=8|issue=5|pages=387–395|doi=10.1192/apt.8.5.387|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the [[Knowledge transfer|transfer]] or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.<ref name="11Hayes" /><ref name="12Bray">{{cite conference |title=Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence |date=December 1, 2005 |conference=North American Assoc. for Computational Social and Organizational Science (NAACSOS) Conference |ssrn=961043 |last1=Bray |first1=David A.}}</ref> Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [[social computing]] tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.<ref name="12Bray" />