ABSTRACT
In the field of knowledge management there is a classic distinction, introduced by Polanyi (1967), between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is formal, and can be recorded and expressed directly in discourse. Tacit knowledge is more implicit and intuitive. It is fragmentary, held internally, and is not expressed directly in discourse: “We know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1967, p. 4). The distinction introduced by Polanyi is itself an example of explicit knowledge; understanding how the tacit/explicit distinction fits into the universe of discourse about knowledge management is an example of tacit knowledge. Many researchers and practitioners believe that tacit knowledge is the most valuable kind, since it is least imitable and typically more complex than explicit knowledge. Thus, much effort has been allocated to determining how to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, which can be readily managed and exploited. Polanyi believed that this transformation is at work when scientists propose a new explanation or theory. In a more practical example, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) tell a story about a group of engineers tasked with making a bread machine, who studied a master baker to unravel the secrets of dough manipulation. Through a laborious process of observation they determined that a special kind of twisting motion seemed to be the key to good bread-making. In another applied domain, Bogue (2006) explains why it is worth the effort for software developers to battle through the tacit-to-explicit conversion process:
If expert food testers can quantify the differences in jams with no real difference in the outcome, so too can we convert tacit knowledge of how software can and should be developed into the explicit knowledge that we need to be able to communicate with the entire development team – or the entire organization.
