Examining ‘Knowledge’ in Knowledge Management
Literature in the West and Its Relationships to
Nonaka’s SECI Model
ADACHI Yoshimichi
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the trans-nationality and applicability of Nonaka’s theory and his SECI modelin particular to the Knowledge Management (KM) context in the West, by looking closely at a body ofexisting literature that has knowledge per se as a central concern in the West. The examination has doneby using the typologies of knowledge in the organization developed by researchers in the West. This has
also been examined in terms of the integrated framework presented in the previous issue by the author andrelated to the types of knowledge treated in Nonaka’s SECI model.
The analysis clearly revealed that Nonaka’s SECI model offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing
and integrating the different types of knowledge in the KM context, even in the West. Moreover, in spite ofthe dynamic nature of organizational knowledge activities, the existing literature related to KM in the West,tended to be quite static in their explanations. The examination suggests that Nonaka’s SECI model would
compensate for the weakness of these arguments by presenting the perspective of a dynamic process ofknowledge creation in an organization, combining different types of knowledge in sequential activities.
Key words: Knowledge, Nonaka's SECI model, Typology

1. Introduction

Blackler (1995) and Lam (2000). This will be relatedThis paper aims to examine the trans-nationality
and applicability of Nonaka’s theory and his SECI

to the types of knowledge treated in Nonaka’s SECI
model.

1model in particular to the Knowledge Management(KM) context in the West, by looking closely at a2. Introducing typologies of knowledge inbody of existing literature that has knowledge perknowledge management literature

se as a central concern in the West. This will be

2.1 Blackler’s typology and organizations

examined in terms of the integrated framework,
presented in the previous issue by the author.

2

By reviewing substantial literature of organization
theor y and adapted from a categorization of

Such literature that has knowledge per se as aknowledge types presented by Collins (1993),

central concern has identified the multifaceted andBlackler (Blackler, 1995; Blackler, Crump andmultilayered nature of knowledge, including not

McDonald, 1998) identifies five types of knowledge

only the tacit/explicit (epistemological) dimension,that play an important role in organizations. Thesebut also the individual/collective (ontological)

are, embodied, encultured, embedded, encoded

dimension. The examination will be done by using

and embrained knowledge. By using four of thethe typologies of knowledge in the organization

types identified above, Blackler (1995) further

developed by researchers in the West such as

differentiated four models of organizations according

山梨県立大学 国際政策学部 総合政策学科
Department of Policy Management, Faculty of Glocal Policy Management and Communications, Yamanashi Prefectural
University−1−

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 8（2013）

̿emphasis on̿emphasis onembedded knowledge
Emphasis oncollective behaviour

encultured knowledge

Knowledge-routinised

Communication-intensive

organizationsorganizations

̿emphasis on̿emphasis on

Emphasis on
contributions of key
individuals

embodied knowledge

Expert-dependent organizations

embrained knowledge

Symbolic analyst-dependent
organizations

Focus on familiar problems

Focus on unfamiliar Problems

Figure1: Different types of knowledge and organizations (adapted from Blackler, 1995)

to their focus on problems (familiar issues (a routine

two matrix, premised on a clear classification ofkind) vs. unfamiliar issues) and ontology (individual

the epistemological dimension (explicit vs. tacitvs. collective effort)(see Figure 1).

knowledge) and the ontological dimension (individual
vs. collective). Lam (2000) also presents four

2.2 Lam’s typology and organizations

types of organization models that are classified by

In building on Blackler’ four knowledge

dominant types of knowledge, and these are: (1)types, L am (2000) also developed a two-by-Professional bureaucracy (embrained knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Professional bureaucracy

Machine bureaucracy

Embrained knowledge

Encoded knowledge

Narrowlearning

inhibits Superficial

innovation

Tacit knowledge

learning,

limitedinnovation

Operating Adhocracy

J-form organization

Embodied knowledge

Embedded knowledge

Dynamic

Learning,

radical Cumulative learning, incremental

innovation

innovation

IndividualCollective

Figure2: Different types of knowledge and organizations (Adapted from Lam, 2000)−2−

Examining ‘Knowledge’ in Knowledge Management Literature in the West and Its Relationships to Nonaka’s SECI Model

dominant), (2) Machine Bureaucracy (encoded◦ J-firm, predominantly exploiting embedded

knowledge dominant), (3) Operating Adhocracy

knowledge, derives its capability from knowledge(embodied knowledge dominant), (4) ‘ J-form’that is embedded in its operating routines andorganization (embedded knowledge dominant) (seeshared culture.

Figure 2).
3. Examining the five different knowledge types inrelation to Nonaka’s theory

Cooley et al, (2001) summarized Lam’s four ‘ideal’organizations in relation to their dominant types ofknowledge as follows:

Whilst there are, as argued in the previous
section, certain differences in focus, both Blackler(1995) and Lam (2000) pay attention to similar◦ Professional Bureaucracy relies on the skills andconcerns, namely, the relationship between tacitknowledge of its (professional) employees whoand explicit and individual and collective knowledge.

predominantly exploit embrained knowledge

The following closely examines the five types of◦ Operating Adhocracy, in which there is little
formalization of behaviour, a tendency to form

knowledge propounded by Blackler and Lam andtheir relationships to Nonaka’s theory.

project teams and which predominantly exploits
Embodied knowledge and Nonaka’s theory

embodied knowledge◦ Machine Bureaucracy in which most work is

Embodied knowledge is characterized by individual/

simple and repetitive, predominantly exploits

tacit knowledge (L am, 2000) and is action-

encoded knowledgeoriented (Blackler, 1995; Lam, 2000). For example,

Explicitness(Externality)

Embrained
Knowledge

EncodedKnowledge

Identity(Space)Embedded
Knowledge

Individuality
Absence
Externalization mode
(Systemic knowledge) (Conceptual knowledge)
Combination mode

Transmissive Expressive
Money Power
Measuring Accumulative
Technical
Value Role
dimension
Internalization mode
(Operational knowledge)

Socialization mode
(Sympathized knowledge)

Collectivity

Cognitive
dimension

Implicitness(Internality)

Difference(Time)

Embodied
Knowledge

Encultured
Knowledge

Figure3: Relationships between typologies of knowledge in the West and Nonaka’s SECI model(Source: Author)−3−

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 8（2013）

Alvesson and Kärreman (2001) claim that embodied

knowledge through the externalization mode ofknowledge can be re-labeled as practical skill, whileknowledge conversion and combined with existing

Blackler (1995) points out that the knowledge of

explicit (embrained or encoded) knowledge. Given

the expert craftsman provides a proper example

this, it can be concluded that embodied knowledge isof embodied knowledge, assuming that embodied

only part of knowledge as represented in Nonaka’s

knowledge is rooted in specific rather than universal

theory (again, see Figure3).

contexts and acquired through obser vation,
imitation, and practice, rather than language or

Encultured knowledge

written documents. Lam (2000) asserts that the

Encultured knowledge refers to the process ofgeneration and application of embodied knowledge

achieving shared understandings (Blackler, 1995),

does not need to be fitted into, or processed

beliefs and norms (Alvesson and Kärrenman, 2001),

through, a conscious decision-making schema. In

based on an assumption that this type of knowledge

this sense, it is apparent that embodied knowledge isis produced and shared through social and collective

equated with the technical (individual) dimension ofprocesses, rather than computer processing or

sympathized (or tacit) knowledge in Nonaka’s terms,

individual cognition. Blackler (1995) also assumes

which is produced through the socialization modethat ‘community-intensive organization’ is dependentof knowledge conversion (tacit to tacit knowledge

on this knowledge, emphasizing the importanceconversion) (see Figure 3).

of the roles of language in such an organization(see Figure 3). Alvesson and Kärrenman (2001)

Limitations of an embodied knowledge-orientedorganizationand Starbuck (1992) stress that knowledge in an
organization must be fine-tuned depending on social

Lam (2000) recognises the organization model ofpractice and cultures, rather than by horizontal

Operating Adhocracy, which is a project, team-based

behavioural control. Robertson and Swan (2003), in

organization that has little formalization of behaviour

their literature review of KIFs, also point out that(see Cooley et al, 2001), is an organization thatfunctionalists, such as Schein (1983), assume thetypically relies heavily on embodied knowledge (seedevelopment of an organizational culture mediates

Figure 2) and assumes that such an organization

the inherent tensions such as between autonomy

is capable of divergent thinking, innovation andand control and efficiency and uncertainty, aroundcreative problem solving. Although the indication

knowledge work. What all the researchers seem toof the importance of a project team as an agent

imply is the importance of (encultured) knowledgeof knowledge creation is in line with Nonaka’s

which is created through social interaction, whichnotion of a ‘micro-community of knowledge’ (orin turn builds mental organizational foundations,a cross-functional team) (see von Krogh et al,

mediating inherent tensions and generating social

2000), according to Nonaka, this type of knowledge

norms.

(sympathized/tacit) cannot by itself deal with novel
problems in an organization, even though thisEncultured knowledge and Nonaka’s theory

knowledge plays an important role in the processes

Although encultured knowledge is similar inof organizational knowledge creation. In order toits emphasis on social interaction to the cognitive

create and amplify new knowledge, Nonaka assumes(collective) dimension of sympathized (tacit) knowledge

that sympathized knowledge (therefore embodied

in Nonaka’s terms (see Figure 3), the author does

knowledge) should be conver ted to explicit

not emphasize the role of language itself in the−4−

Examining ‘Knowledge’ in Knowledge Management Literature in the West and Its Relationships to Nonaka’s SECI Modelmode as Blackler did. Alvesson and Kärrenman

it does not explain how to actually create this(2001) claim that many versions of KM, including

embedded unique resource in a firm. Zollo andapproaches which focus on the social nature of

Winter (1999) label these kinds of static routines

knowledge and social relations, come close toas operational routines and claim that in a context

an approach to organizational culture focused onwhere technological, regulatory and competitive

encultured knowledge. However, when viewed fromconditions are subject to rapid change, there is

Nonaka’s perspective, it seems clear that, althougha need for a shift from operational routines toencultured knowledge (or the cognitive dimension

learning routines, which involve the mechanismsof sympathized knowledge) serves as a foundationof knowledge evolution. Nonaka argues learningof knowledge creation in an organization and isroutines (operational knowledge) are constructedusually created at the first stage of the knowledge

through a series of knowledge creation processes

creation process, the above is again only one typesuch as the knowledge conversion modes. In thisof knowledge from the four modes of knowledge

sense, Nonaka’s theory supplements the theoreticalconversion in Nonaka’s SECI model.

weakness of the KM approach as it focuses on
embedded knowledge.

Embedded knowledge and Nonaka’s theory
Embedded knowledge is the collective form of tacit

Encoded knowledge and Nonaka’s theory

knowledge (Lam, 2000) and resides in ‘systemic

Encoded knowledge is ‘information conveyed byroutines in the relationships between, for example,

signs and symbols’ (Blackler, 1995), and exemplified

technologies, roles, for mal procedures, andby books, manuals, recipes, written rules andemergent routine’ (Blackler, 1995) and is, therefore,

procedures and easy to transmit, for example,

often referred to as organizational routines. For

electronically. This type of knowledge is in line

example, Nelson and Winter (1982) argued thatwith collective systemic knowledge in Nonaka’s(embedded) knowledge is retained as ‘routines’ intheoretical framework, which is created through thea firm, which are ‘regular and predictable behavior

combination mode of knowledge conversion (seepatterns’. Strategic management researchers

Figure 3). Lam (2000) assumes that an organization

regard internal embedded knowledge as unique andmodel of Machine Bureaucracy, in which most work

inimitable resources in a firm and as a sustainable

is simple and repetitive, depends heavily on encodedcompetitive advantage for the organization (see e.g.

knowledge (see Figure 3) and the author suggests

3

Prahaled and Hamel, 1990). Embedded knowledge

that although it shares many common characteristics

corresponds to operational knowledge in Nonaka’s

with the Professional Bureaucracy model, it relies

terms and is created through the internalizationon ‘collective standardized (explicit) knowledge’mode of knowledge conversion (see Figure 3).

which contributes to the efficiency and stability ofan organization. As argued in the previous section,

Limitations of embedded knowledge-orientedorganizationan IT driven-approach to KM is exemplified as thismodel because of its reliance on encoded knowledge.

Pentland and Rueter (1994) argue that thenotion of routines as embedded knowledge isstatic and executed without explicit deliberation

Limitations of encoded knowledge-orientedorganizationor choice. This is the limitation of the literature

Whilst advocates of this approach believe that IT

which focuses on embedded knowledge because

contributes to KM, from the viewpoint of Nonaka’s−5−

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 8（2013）

theory, the model, as already argued, plays a limited

Limitations of emphasising embrained knowledgerole in the process of organizational knowledge

Lam (2000) points out the limitation of embrained

creation. In short, this is partly because a large area

knowledge acquired through external educationalof knowledge, such as tacit knowledge, is lost in

institutions and professional bodies. 4 According

the processes of translation to encoded knowledge

to Lam, Professional Bureaucracy, which is reliant

through IT/IS tools and partly because the model ison embrained knowledge, plays a limited role

unable to cope with novelty or change since this isin addressing novel problems in an organization

a structure designed to address routine problems

because in such an organization the use of tacit

because it utilizes only existing knowledge.

(experience-based) knowledge and acquired
judgmental skills tend to be restricted within

Embrained knowledge and Nonaka’s theory

the boundaries of educational institutions or

Embrained knowledge is characterized byprofessional bodies. In other words, professional

individual/explicit knowledge and by abstract

experts tend to interpret specific situations in terms

theoretical reasoning (Lam, 2000) and is dependentof general concepts and place new problems in old

on the individual’s cognitive ability (Blackler,

categories. This insight into embrained knowledge1995). This abstract embrained knowledge enjoys

is in line with Nonaka’s theoretical assumption.

a privileged social status within Western culture

Nonaka assumes that novel problems can mainly(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Blackler, 1995; Lam,be addressed through the socialization and2000). In the early stages of the emergence of theexternalization modes, rather than the combination

knowledge society, many commentators concernedmode of knowledge conversion. Moreover, thethemselves with embrained knowledge. For

authors who emphasize embrained knowledge

example, Drucker (1993) argues that a knowledge

did not connect it to organizational activities

worker who has systemic knowledge and specialist

and therefore did not acknowledge the need forskills (therefore embrained knowledge) can‘collective action’ (such as social interaction among

contribute to enhancing productivity in a firm. This

workers in an organization). On the contrary,is, according to Drucker, because highly specialist

Nonaka assumes that ‘new conceptual knowledge’knowledge plays a crucial role in addressing

tends to be created through social interaction amongnovel problems. Reich (1991), another influential

members of a group triggered by metaphor and/or

c o m m e n t a t o r i n t h e We s t , e m p h a s i z e d t h eanalogy.

emergence and expansion of symbolic analysts in a
new era, who solve, identify and broker problems by

4. Conclusions

manipulating symbols with specialized (embrained)

In this paper, Blackler and Lam’s five types ofknowledge. Both Ducker and Reich assumed

knowledge and the related existing literature in(embrained) knowledge is developed mainly

the West were considered in relation to Nonaka’s

through a high level of formal education, which is

SECI. The paper, as a conclusion, incorporates

characterized by the abstract stance of pedagogy.

those typologies of knowledge into the integrated

Embrained knowledge corresponds to (individual)

framework of the TEAM linguistic framework andsystemic knowledge in Nonaka’s terms, which is

SECI model (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 clearly reveals that Nonaka’s SECI

created through the combination mode of knowledge
conversion (see Figure 3).

model offers a comprehensive framework foranalyzing and integrating the different types of−6−

Examining ‘Knowledge’ in Knowledge Management Literature in the West and Its Relationships to Nonaka’s SECI Model

knowledge in the KM context, even in the West.

References

The figure also suggests that few written sources

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. (1999), ‘Knowledge

mention conceptual knowledge (created throughmanagement systems: issues, challenges, andthe externalization mode of knowledge creation)

benefits’, Communications of the Association forin Nonaka’s terms in the KM context in the

Information Systems, 1 (Article 7)West. Moreover, in spite of the dynamic nature of

Alvesson, M. (1995), Management of Knowledge-

organizational knowledge activities, the arguments

Intensive Companies, Berlin/New York: De

presented by Blackler (1995) and Lam (2000) and

Gruyterthe existing literature related to KM tend to be

Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2001), ‘Odd

quite static in their explanations. In other words,

couple: Making sense of the curious concept

their arguments fail to address the way in whichof knowledge and management’, Journal ofthe different types of knowledge are sequentiallyManagement Studies, 38, 7, 995-1017

created and related in an organization in a dynamic

Blackler, F. (1995), ‘Knowledge, knowledge work andway, as Nonaka did, using the concept of theorganization: An overview and interpretation’,

5

Organization Studies, 16, 6, 1021

‘knowledge spiral’. This suggests that Nonaka’s
SECI model would compensate for the weakness

Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. (1998),

of these arguments by presenting the perspective‘Knowledge, organizations and competition’ inof a dynamic process of knowledge creation in an

von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (eds.)

organization, combining different types of knowledge(1998), Knowing in Firms, London: Sagein sequential activities.

Collins, H (1993), ‘The structure of knowledge’,
Social Research, 60, 95-116

Notes１）Nonaka’s theory, and his SECI model in particular, was

Cooley, R.E, Helbling, C. and Fuller, U.D. (2001),

introduced and analysed in the previous paper (see‘Knowledge, organization and suggestion

Yamanashi Global Studies No.6).

schemes’, Proceedings of the 8th International

２）In the previous paper (see Yamanashi Global Studies

Symposium on the Management of Industrial

No.6), in addition to the examination of the relationships

and Corporate knowledgeof various concepts between Nonaka’s theory andorganization studies in the West, it also created an

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C.

integrated framework from the TEAM structure and(1998), ‘Successful knowledge management

Nonaka’s SECI model (see p31, Figure 4-1). This paper

projects’, Sloan Management Review, 39, 2, 43-will be examined in terms of the integrated framework.

57３）Prahaled and Hamel (1990) define core competence(embedded knowledge), which is the key notion of

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working

their analytical framework, as the collective learning

Knowledge, Boston: Harvard Business Schoolin the organization, especially for coordinating diverse

Press

production skills and integrating multiple streams oftechnologies. Interestingly, they use many case studies

Drucker, P. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, Oxford:of Japanese firms such as Honda, Sony, NEC and Canon,
regarding such Japanese firms as successful examples
of companies which have led disparate businesses to

Butterworth-Heinemann
Grant, R. M. (1996b), ‘Prospering in dynamicallycompetitive environments: Organizational

coherent embedded competence.
４）Lam regards an organization that derives its capability

capability as knowledge integration’,from the formal ‘embrained knowledge’ of its highly
trained individual experts as the Professional Bureaucracy(see Figure 2).

Organization Science, 7, 4, 375-387
L am, A. (1997), ‘Embedded firms, embedded

５）See Nonaka (1991)

knowledge: problems of collaboration and−7−山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 8（2013）

knowledge transfer in global cooperative

Management Tools, Oxford, Butterworth-ventures’, Organization Studies, 18, 6

HeinemannLam, A. (2000), ‘Tacit knowledge, organizational

Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999),

learning and social institutions: integrated

Knowledge Management: A Review of theframework’, Organization Studies, 21, 3

Literature, London: Institute of Personnel andN e l s o n , R . R . a n d Wi n t e r, S . G . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , A n
Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change,

Development
Schein, E. (1983), ‘the role of the founder in creatingorganizational culture, Organizational Dynamics,

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Nishibe, S. (1996), Structure of Intelligence, Tokyo:
Kadokawa Haruki jimusyo

Summer, 13-28
Starbuck, W. H. (1992), ‘Learning by knowledgeintensive firms’, Journal of Management Studies,

Nonaka, I. (1991), ‘The knowledge-creatingcompany’ Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember, 96-104

29, 6, 713-740
Taylor, M. J., Gresty, D. and Askwith, R. (2001),‘Knowledge for network support’ Information

N o n a k a , I . ( 1 9 9 4 ) , ‘A d y n a m i c t h e o r y o forganizational knowledge creation’ Organization
Science, 5, 1, 14-37

and Software Technology, 43, 469-475
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000),

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge

Enabling Knowledge Creation, New York: Oxford

Creating Company, Oxford: Oxford University
Press

University Press
Z o l l o , M . a n d . Wi n t e r, S . G . ( 1 9 9 9 ) , ‘ Fro m

Pe n t l a n d , B . T. a n d R u e t e r, H . H . ( 1 9 9 4 ) ,organizational routine to dynamic capabilities’‘Organizational routines as grammars of action’,systems’, A Working Paper of the Reginald H.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 3, 484-510

Jones Center, The Wharton School, University

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), ‘The corecompetence of the corporation,’ Harvard
Business Review, May-June, 79-91
Pe n t l a n d , B . T. a n d R u e t e r, H . H . ( 1 9 9 4 ) ,‘Organizational routines as grammars of action’,Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 3, 484-510
Reich, R. (1991), The Work of Nations: Preparing
Ourselves for 21st-century Capitalism, London:
Simon and Schuster
Robertson, M. and Swan, J. (2003), ‘Control ?
what control? : Culture and ambiguity within
a k n owledge in ten s ive f ir m’, Jo urnal o f
Management Studies, 40,4,831-858
Robey, D., Boudreau, M-C. and Rose, G.M. (2000),‘Information technology and organizational
learning: A review and assessment of research’
Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies, 10, 2, 125-155
Ru g g l e s I I I , R . L . ( e d . ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) , K n o w l e d g e−8−of Pennsylvania