What is “knowledge”? And what are its characteristics?

Knowledge is a broad and abstract concept. There are around 2500 definitions of knowledge out there. Before we publish new results of our research we would like to share our definition and elaborate two characteristics of knowledge.

One way of defining knowledge is by distinguishing it from information and data. A commonly held view among researchers is that: data consists of raw numbers and facts. Information is  a combination of data combined and analyzed from a certain perspective. Knowledge can be seen as ‘authenticated information’: information that is useful for you specifically and that what you want to achieve. Wisdom is one step further than knowledge, and the top of the pyramid. Wisdom is about having the understanding to use the right knowledge in the right way, and at the right time (Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Boer, 2005).

By combining these views, remaining practical and to view knowledge with an organizational perspective, we come to the following definition:

We consider knowledge to be information that provides guidance or initiates action focused on working towards attaining the organizational mission and strategy.

Seeking, using and sharing knowledge can make the execution of tasks more relevant, effective, efficient, and sustainable.

Knowledge Characteristics

You can view knowledge in very different ways. We would like to address two major dichotomies:  explicit vs. implicit knowledge; and internal vs. external knowledge.

Explicit and Implicit Knowledge

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been or can be articulated, codified, and stored in certain media. It can be readily transmitted to others. The information contained in encyclopedias (like wikipedia) are good examples of explicit knowledge. The most common forms of explicit knowledge are manuals, documents and procedures. Knowledge also can be audio-visual. Works of art and product design can be seen as other forms of explicit knowledge where human skills, motives and knowledge are externalized.

With tacit or implicit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Tacit knowledge is considered more valuable because it provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust.

Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. One of Polanyi’s famous statements is: “We know more than we can tell.” Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves. In the field of knowledge management the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge which is only known by an individual and that is difficult to communicate to the rest of an organization.  The process of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is called codification or articulation.

Internal vs. External Knowledge

The definition of this division is pretty simple: internal knowledge comes from inside the organization, and external from outside sources. There are however some remarks that can be made about these sources and the specific nature of non-profit sectors in which ‘knowledge’ is not a commodity which should be protected and used for commercial advantage a in the private sector.  Organizations in non profit sectors often strive for the same goals. Geoff Barnard (2003)made some interesting statements on this point of internal and external knowledge sources:

“Some of the knowledge that needs to be captured and shared by organizations in non-profit sectors is quite clearly organization specific. Details of an agency’s staff appraisal policy, guidelines on how to prepare internal budget submissions, background on the agency’s dealings with a particular partner – these are all examples of ‘internal knowledge’ that agencies need to share effectively, and which needs to stay within its walls.”

“But a great deal of the knowledge that staff would find useful in carrying out their jobs is not organization specific. Anything to do with their sector – their core business – is potentially of interest to many others as well.  If agencies go down the track of creating their own in-house systems to organize and make available this kind of knowledge there is therefore a real danger of duplication, since there is a large degree of overlap in the issues that agencies are dealing with and the problems they are addressing.”

“By concentrating on internal knowledge there is a danger of constructing barriers around the organization that can turn it into a “knowledge fortress”. This may not be deliberate, but the more elaborate KM systems are, the greater this tendency seems to be.” (This segment was adapted from: Barnard, 2003).

Sources:
- Geoff Barnard (2003) “Knowledge Sharing in Development Agencies: knowledge fortress or knowledge pool?” Information Development, Vol. 19, No. 4, 280-288 (2003)
- Davenport & Prusak ( 2000) “Working Knowledge” Harvard Business School Press; 2nd edition
- Niels-Ingvar Boer (2005) “Knowledge Sharing within Organizations: A Situated and Relational Perspective” PhD dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

We will publish some more about these so-called knowledge fortresses in the near future. Keep posted!

Davenport and Prusak are excellent researchers that wrote some great publications about knowledge management. There is also a German version of one of their best works. Especially “Working Knowledge” should be read by everyone!