An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory
in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework
ADACHI Yoshimichi
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the SECI model in Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation
in a theoretical context of organization studies in the West. In so doing, TEAM linguistic theory has beenutilized as a framework. In addition, the SECI model has been examined and compared with the literature oforganization studies in the West.
The analysis has revealed that the four linguistic meaning functions of the TEAM linguistic framework
have been found in Nonaka’s SECI model and the finding suggests that the theoretical premises of Nonaka’s
theory have been given a theoretical rationale by the TEAM linguistic theory. In addition, no literature deals
with all the four modes of knowledge conversion in the West. It can be concluded that Nonaka’s theory,and his SECI model in particular, may provide a comprehensive and integrative conceptual framework fororganizational knowledge theory, even in the theoretical context of organization studies in the West.
Key words: Knowledge, Nonaka’s theory, SECI model, TEAM linguistic theory

1．Introduction

as organizational knowledge activities; namely,（1）This paper aims to examine the SECI model

the Socialization mode,（2）the Externalizationin Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledgemode,（3）the Combination mode and（4）thecreation in a theoretical context of organization

Internalization mode (see Figure 2-1), which hestudies in the West. In so doing, TEAM linguistic

called the SECI model.

theory devepled by Nishibe (1996) has been utilized

The following introduces and examines Nonaka’s

as a framework. The TEAM linguistic theory and its

four modes of knowledge conversion respectively

notions have been introduced in the previous issue

in terms of the TEAM linguistic framework and inof Yamanashi Global Studies.

relation to the theoretical arguments in organization

In addition, the SECI model has been examinedstudies in the West.

and compared with the literature of organization
2.1

studies in the West.

The socialization mode ofknowledge conversion

2．Introduction of the SECI model

According to Nonaka, the socialization mode of1）knowledge conversion is ‘the knowledge-creating mode

Nonaka（1991, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995）

of converting tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge’ (seeplaces emphasis on the creative interaction of

Figure 2-1). The assumption that two dimensions

explicit and tacit knowledge as a social process andof tacit knowledge; namely, cognitive and technical,

identifies the four modes of knowledge conversion

exist, gives rise to two types of socialization

Premised on his epistemology and ontology,

山梨県立大学 国際政策学部 国際コミュニケーション学科
Department of International Studies and Communications, Faculty of Glocal Policy Management and Communications,
Yamanashi Prefectural University− 21 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

Explicit
knowledge

Explicit
knowledge

No. 6（2011）

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Combination

Externalization

Internalization

Socialization

Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

Tacitknowledge

Tacitknowledge

Figure2-1: Nonaka’s SECI model: Four modes of knowledge conversion(Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, modified by author)

modes of knowledge conversion. In the former,

narration, experimentation, and joint execution in an

the socialization mode of knowledge conversion

organization or beyond organizations (e.g. customers

is a process of sharing experience and thereby

and suppliers) (von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000).

creating common tacit knowledge (such as shared

As Nonaka argues, a traditional apprenticeship

mental models, including schemata, paradigms,

is exemplified as this type of socialization mode

perspectives, beliefs, and viewpoints). Informal

because apprentices work with their masters and canactivities (such as having a cup of tea or lunch withlearn craftsmanship not through language (or writtencolleagues outside the workplace) are exemplified as

documents) but through observation, imitation,

this type of socialization mode because it promotes

and practice. Nonaka calls knowledge created by acommon understanding (such as perspectives andsocialization process sympathized knowledge.

viewpoints or feelings), shares systems of meaning,

It is interesting to link the socialization modeteaches own roles and builds mutual trust in anof knowledge conversion to the TEAM linguisticorganization through the sharing of experience.

framework (see Figure 2-2).2） It is apparent thatOn these occasions, although language or dialogue

the socialization mode of knowledge conversion

is of ten effectively used, Nonaka pays more

approximately corresponds to the function of

attention to physical proximity, rather than verbal

accumulating (A) language meaning (or the social

communication of transmitting its language.

language of Role) in the TEAM linguistic framework

I n t h e l a t t e r, t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n m o d e o f(see Figure 2-2). This is because it can be anknowledge conversion is a process of transferring

implicit (tacit) activity, accumulating differentiatedor accumulating tacit knowledge such as technicalexperience from others while sharing feelings. It isskills (e.g. how to ride a bicycle) from one toalso because it can create order from chaos throughanother through a mixture of observation, imitation,

repeated interactions, participants recognizing their− 22 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

Explicitness(Externality)
Individuality

Identity(Space)Transmissive Expressive
Money Power
Measuring Accumulative
Value Role

Difference(Time)

Socialization mode
(Sympathizedknowledge)

Technical
dimension

Collectivity
Implicitness(Internality)

Cognitive
dimension

Figure2-2: Socialization mode within TEAM linguistic framework (Source: Author)

roles in a group (or an organization). Figure 2-2 also

lose opportunities to share crucial knowledge. Thesesuggests that while the technical dimension of the

discussions presented by western researcherssocialization mode of knowledge conversion tends toimplicitly or explicitly highlight the significance of

be at the individual level, the cognitive dimension of

the socialization mode of knowledge conversion in

the mode tends to be at the collective level because

the form of face-to-face communication.

of its ontological nature, which is consistent with

Interestingly enough, the emerging research topic

Nonaka’ assumption (see Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

of social capital in the West also seems consistentWhilst Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

with the cognitive dimension of the socialization

claims that socialization as the mode of knowledge

mode of knowledge conversion. For example,

conversion is strongly practised by Japanese

Fukuyama (1997, p4), defining social capital as ‘thefirms, recognition of the importance of sharing

existence of a certain set of informal values or norms

experience in the face-to-face environment inshared among members of a group that permit

business settings can be found in the literature

cooperation among them’ suggests that social capitalon organization theory in the West. For example,

can be generated through the repeated interactions ofPenrose (1959) in her classic work argued that theindividual agents (as well as exogenously throughonly way teamwork can be developed is through athe introduction of a new set of moral norms). In

collection of individuals who have had experience

their review on social capital in an organizationalof working together. More recently, Swan et al.

context, Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) also claim(1999) assert that without physical proximity, wherethat norms of cooperation can establish a strong

people can have an opportunity to engage in face-foundation for the creation of knowledge, regarding

to-face interaction, firms that focus on the use of

it as a degree of consensus in the social system.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

From these theoretical arguments, it is obvious that− 23 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

No. 6（2011）

the assertions made by western theorists related

example, for making a new product or service.

to social capital and knowledge in the theoretical

Nonaka claims that it is a quintessential processcontext of organization studies are consistent withbecause it ultimately results in the advancement of athe socialization mode of knowledge conversion inbusiness through a new product, process, or service

Nonaka’s terms.

(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; von Krogh, Ichijo &Taking into consideration the recent increase

Nonaka, 2000). Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

in interest in social capital and the growing

calls the knowledge created by an externalization

acknowledgement of the importance of the sharing

process conceptual knowledge.

of experience (therefore tacit knowledge) based on

It is apparent that the externalization mode ofphysical proximity and face-to-face communication

knowledge conversion, which is an activity to makeenvironments within and between organizations,individuals explicitly express the desire or needit can be concluded that the socialization mode of

to create concepts, approximately corresponds toknowledge conversion has now become increasingly

the function of expressing language meaning (or the

crucial in the theoretical context of organizationsocial language of Power) in the TEAM linguistic

studies in the West.

framework (see Figure 2-3). This is because it canbe an explicit activity, expressing something based

2.2

The externalization mode ofon ones own differentiated experience from thoseknowledge conversionof others. It is also because it can create order

Nonaka argues that the externalization mode offrom chaos in the name of ‘future’ using individual

knowledge conversion is ‘a process of making tacit

imagination. Indeed, Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

knowledge explicit’ (see Figure 2-1). This is typically1995) argues that when people try to conceptualize

characterized by the concept creation, which is an

an image, that is, to make tacit knowledge explicit,

activity that generates an abstract principle, forthey express its essence mostly in imaginative,

Explicitness(Externality)
Individuality
ParoleExternalization mode
(Conceptual
knowledge)
Identity(Space)Transmissive Expressive
Money Power
Measuring Accumulative
Value Role

Difference(Time)

LangueCollectivity
Implicitness(Internality)
Figure2-3: Externalization mode within TEAM linguistic framework (Source: Author)− 24 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

Table2-1: Metaphor and analogy for concept creation in product development(Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

Product(Company)

City (Honda)

Metaphor/Analogy

Influence on Concept
Hint of maximizing passenger space as ultimate auto
development, ‘Man-maximum, machine-minimum’
concept created

Automobile evolution(metaphor)Hint of achieving maximum passenger space throughminimizing surface area, ‘Tall and short car (TallBoy)’ concept created

The sphere (analogy)

Mini-Copier(Canon)Aluminum beer can(analogy)

Hint of similarities between inexpensive aluminumbeer can and photosensitive drum manufacture,‘Low-cost manufacturing process’ concept createdHome
Bakery(Matsushita)

Hotel bread (metaphor)
Osaka International Hotelhead baker (analogy)

Hint of more delicious bread, ‘Twist dough’ concept
createdrhetorical language such as metaphors and analogy.

ongoing relationships in social collectivities andTable 2-1 shows cases in which linguistic rhetoricregard language and discourse as a mediator ofis used when creating concepts for new products inindividual actions, which may fit into the category (ofJapanese companies.

the cognitive dimension) of the socialization mode

Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) looks notor the combination mode of knowledge conversion

only at an imaginative but also at a communicativein Nonaka’s terms. Blackler, Crump & McDonald

aspect in the externalization mode of knowledge(1998) stress that organizationally systemized

conversion. He assumes that this mode is triggered

language enables organizational members to operate

by a dialogue intended to create concepts fromwithin interpretive or discourse communities, whichtacit knowledge, regarding dialogue as a collective,

may fit into the category of the internalization mode.

as opposed to individual, action. The aspect,

However, while the above suggests that Western

however, should by nature be incorporated into thetheorists, such as Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) andcombination mode of knowledge conversion, which

Blackler, Crump & McDonald (1998), only pay

will be examined in the next sub-section.

attention to the collective and identified dimensions

Whilst the externalization mode of knowledgeof language in relation to knowledge creation

conversion leads an organization to the biggest ‘bang’in an organization, what they fail to adequately

in organizational knowledge creation (Takeuchi,

acknowledge is another significant dimension2001), very little existing literature on organizationof the expressive, individualistic, differentiated,studies related to knowledge in the West hascreative dimensions of language. Therefore, theaddressed this dimension (see e.g. Blackler, 1995;

authors’ theoretical frameworks cannot include theBlackler, Crump & McDonald, 1998; Nahapiet &externalization mode of knowledge conversion in

Ghoshal, 1998; Swan et al., 1999). For example,

Nonaka’s terms. This appears to be partly because

Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) set great store by athey fail to carefully examine the multifacetedshared language within an organization, considering

linguistic meaning functions in relation to knowledge

knowledge to be created and sustained throughin an organization, and partly because they pay scant− 25 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

No. 6（2011）attention to the practical processes of knowledge

the social language of Money) in the TEAM linguistic

creation in organizations.

framework (see Figure 2-4). This is simply because
combining various types of explicit knowledge

2.3 The combination mode of knowledge
conversion

does not occur without the transmissive nature ofknowledge in the explicit form, which enables people

According to Nonaka, the combination mode ofto share and identify with others.

knowledge conversion is ‘a process of assembling newWith reference to Nonaka’s combination mode ofand existing explicit knowledge held by individuals

knowledge conversion and apart from the emphasis

into a knowledge system’ (see Figure 2-1 and also

on the communicative aspect of language, which has

see Nonaka et al., 1996, p207). It is also a process

already been mentioned, a thread can be identifiedof exchanging, sorting, adding, disseminating,which focuses on the concept of combination in the

sharing and therefore reconfiguring different bodies

theoretical context of organization studies in theof explicit knowledge among the organizationalWest. This emphasis seems rooted in Schumpeter

members through documents, meetings, telephone(1951) who developed a dynamic theory of economic

conversations, computerized communication

change and viewed ‘new combination’ as themethods and the like. Nonaka terms the knowledge

foundation for economic development. The author

created through a combination process systemic

indicated that the new combination of knowledge

knowledge.

leads to creating new products, production

It is apparent that the combination mode ofmethods, markets, materials, and organizations.

knowledge conversion approximately corresponds

More recently, this argument has been taken up by

to the function of transmitting language meaning (orNahapiet & Ghoshal (1998), who regard combination

Explicitness(Externality)
Individuality
ParoleCombination mode
(Systemic knowledge)
Transmissive Expressive
Money Power
Measuring Accumulative
Value Role

Identity(Space)Difference(Time)

LangueCollectivity
Implicitness(Internality)
Figure2-4: Combination mode within TEAM linguistic framework (Source: Author)− 26 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

as a starting point for research on organizational

knowledge’ (see Figure 2-1 and Nonaka et al., 1996,

knowledge, and assume that combination, as wellp208) and will include know-how and technical skills.

as exchange, of knowledge is the key mechanism

Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) suggests thatfor creating social knowledge. Whilst Nahapiet &the quintessential tool of the internalization mode

Ghoshal clearly identify two combinations thatis through documentation and manuals that enablegenerate knowledge in an organization; namely, theother people to indirectly embody what the members

3）incremental and the radical ways , seen from theof a project experienced. Any other kinds of explicit

TEAM linguistic framework (or Nonaka’s theory),knowledge such as text, sound, video formats,the combination mode is related only to a linguisticor oral stories can facilitate the internalization

meaning function (or only one mode of knowledge

process. Training programmes also help trainees

creation). In other words, compared with Nonaka’s

to understand the organization and themselves.

theory, Western researchers such as Schumpeter

Moreover, in relation to other modes of knowledge

and Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) seem to have narrow

conversion, Nonaka assumes that the internalizationand limited perspectives of knowledge activities inmode comprises the new and (probably) creative

the organizational context.

experience assembled by members who have been

Because of the explicit nature of knowledge inengaged in a project through other knowledge

the combination mode of knowledge conversion,

conversion modes of socialization, externalization

which allows information to be processed easily,and combination, which in turn are embodied as

Information Technology (IT) can play a crucial role.

organizationally internalized latent value systems

Many researchers in Europe including Scarbroughor knowledge bases. Nonaka calls the knowledge

et al. (1999) and Swan et al. (2001) draw attention tocreated by an internalization process operational

substantial research that claims that computerizedknowledge.

communication networks and large-scale databases

The internalization mode of knowledge conversion(such as digging, mining and extracting) can facilitateis approximately consistent with the function of

the combination of knowledge in an organization.

measuring (M) language meaning (maintaining

Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) also point out that recent

latent value) (or the social language of Value) inadvances of technology, such as Lotus Notes and thethe TEAM linguistic framework (see Figure 2-5).

Intranet, have vastly increased the opportunities

This is because the process enables the members

for knowledge combination. It can be noted fromin an organization to internalize shared knowledge

the perspective of linguistic theory, that IT canin an implicit (tacit) form, which has a horizon ofcontribute only to the speed-up of transmitting

identification, maintaining and developing the latent(combining) explicit knowledge (information). In

value of the organization.

other words, too much emphasis on IT leads one to

When Nonaka argues that operational knowledge

ignore the importance of other meaning functions ofembodied through the internalization mode oflanguage (other types of knowledge activities) in an

knowledge conversion takes the form of sharedorganization.

mental models or technical know-how, it appears
that there is confusion in his conceptualization

2.4 The internalization mode of knowledge
conversion

and this can be seen between the internalizationand socialization modes. However, if the axis of

The internalization mode of knowledge conversion

identity (the internalization mode) / differenceis ‘a process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit(the socialization mode) propounded in the TEAM

− 27 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

No. 6（2011）

Explicitness(Externality)
 Individuality

Transmissive Expressive
Money Power
Measuring Accumulative
Value Role

Identity(Space)Difference(Time)

Internalization mode
(Operational
knowledge)
Collectivity
Implicitness(Internality)
Figure2-5: Internalization mode within TEAM linguistic framework (Source: Author)

linguistic framework is recognized, they can be

new information into an organization may not only beconceptually differentiated.

enhanced through formal activities such as training

Nonaka’s internalization mode of knowledge

and action research, but also through activities

conversion has been clearly identified in thethat are closely related to informal work practices.

existing literature of organization studies and in

These arguments are obviously consistent withthe theoretical context in the West and it seems

the claim made by Nonaka for the internalization

primarily rooted in the concept of organizationalmode of knowledge conversion that highlights

learning, which was propounded by Argyris andthe importance of the linkage of internalization

Schön (1978). Their pioneering work on the subject

processes and the other processes needed in orderviewed an organization as continuous learning

to develop and expand the knowledge base of anprocesses that internalize knowledge and adapt toorganization.

changing environments. This assertion is followed
by Cohen & Levinthal (1990) who in their research

3. Examining the knowledge spiralon innovation and organizational learning emphasize

in terms of the TEAM linguistic

the importance of (organizational) absorptive

framework

capacity, which is the ability of a firm to internalize

3.1 The knowledge spiral

new knowledge (and information), as well as clearly

Whilst Nonaka’s four modes of knowledge

recognizing knowledge value and its utilization.

conversion have already been outlined andMore recently, in an attempt to integrate bothconsidered in terms of the TEAM linguisticorganizational learning and information technology,

framework and then examined in the theoretical

Robey et al. (2000) suggest that the internalization ofcontext of organization studies in the West, Nonaka− 28 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

DialogueSocialization

Externalization

Linking
Explicit
Konwledge

Field
Building

Internalization

Combination

Learning by Doing
Figure3-1: Knowledge spiral (Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

also assumes that these four modes of knowledge

as well as organizational internalization andconversion should be linked as sequential processes

enhancement of individuals’ tacit knowledge at

in a spiral. This regards knowledge activities indifferent levels or entities (such as individual, group,

an organization epistemologically as a continuous

organization and inter-organization) (see Figure 3-2).

and dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit

For example, Nonaka (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;

knowledge (see Figure 3-1) and ontologically as a

von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000) argues that,

communicative amplification and crystallization,

because of the contextual, situated nature of tacit

Epistemologicaldemension
Explicit
knowledge

Externalization

Combination

Tacit
knowledge

Socialization
Socialization
IndividualGroup

Organization

Inter-organization

Ontologicaldemension

Knowledge level

Figure3-2: Spiral of organizational knowledge creation (Source: Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)− 29 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

No. 6（2011）

knowledge, the socialization mode of knowledge

should be also noted that the limited data available

conversion, without the exter nalization andin the theoretical context of organization studies ininternalization modes of knowledge conversion,

the West reinforces the idea that a spiral perspective

remains limited up to the point when it expands as a

includes the four types of knowledge conversion.

form of organizational knowledge. In the same way,

In practice however, the focus of attention given by

the combination mode of knowledge conversion,

western researchers in organization studies is on

without the externalization mode, is restricted toonly one or two aspects which utilize the concepts ofexpand the organizational knowledge base because

social capital, combination activity, absorptive capacity

there is the danger of only gathering ‘existing’and organizational learning.

explicit knowledge in the organization. In short,knowledge creation in an organization does not

4. Conclusions

emerge with any degree of success if only one of the

In this paper, the SECI model in Nonaka’s

four modes of knowledge conversion arises at one

theory of organizational knowledge creationof the ontological levels, but emerges by interacting

has been examined using the TEAM linguistic

across the four modes of knowledge conversion inframework as criteria. One of the major findingsa spiral way and if amplified at higher ontologicalin the preceding analysis is that the four linguistic

levels.

meaning functions have been found in Nonaka’s
SECI model. That is, the linguistic functions of

3.2 Examining the knowledge spiral(1) transmitting, (2) expressing, (3) accumulatingin term of the TEAM linguisticand (4) measuring meaning correspond to the four

framework

knowledge conversion modes of (1) combination,

Such assumptions of the knowledge spiral made(2) externalization, (3) socialization and (4)by Nonaka seem valid if the TEAM linguistic

internalization in Nonaka’s SECI model (see Figure

framework is applied. According to Nishibe (1996),

4-1).

when the four meaning functions of language are

There are some significant implications ofsustained in a balanced way, language is sustained.

this finding. Firstly, the finding suggests that theIf this assumption about Nishibe’s TEAM theory istheoretical premises of Nonaka’s theory in his SECI

applied, a successful organization should constitutemodel have been given a theoretical rationale by the

all Nonaka’s four modes of knowledge conversion

TEAM linguistic theory. In other words, Nonaka’sin a balanced way, which corresponds to the four

theory is based on the firm and comprehensive

linguistic meaning functions. This, however, leads

ground of the social sciences, which may enable one

to the assertion that it is not always the case thatto transcend the problems that are attributed to thethe four modes of knowledge conversion simply

different premises, if the TEAM linguistic approachoccur in a separate form because the four linguistic

provides the common theoretical base of the social

meaning functions might be found in one action.

sciences. Secondly, the linguistic rationale of the

Therefore, seen from the TEAM linguistic theory, it

premises of Nonaka’s theory suggests that Nonaka’s

could be claimed that in the actual context, the four

SECI model itself can be utilized as criteria bymodes of knowledge conversion can be found, in thewhich knowledge activities in an organization canform of, say, the socialization-‘dominated’ activity or

be examined and give a reasonable framework forthe mixture of the socialization and externalization

finding relationships between theories which posit

modes, rather than the pure socialization mode. It

different premises in the organizational context.

− 30 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

Explicitness(Externality)
Individuality
ParoleCombination mode
(Systemic knowledge)
Transmissive
Money
Measuring
Value

Identity(Space)Internalization mode
(Operational
knowledge)

Externalization mode
(Conceptual
knowledge)
Expressive
Power
Accumulative
Role

Difference(Time)

Socialization mode
(Sympathizedknowledge)

LangueCollectivity
Implicitness(Internality)
Figure4-1: Relationship between Nonaka’s SECI model and the TEAM linguistic structure (Source:
Author)

Explicitness(Externality)

Combination activity
IT -based KM(Combination mode)

Identity(Space)Transmissive
Money
Measuring
Value
Absorptive capacity
Organizational
Learning(Internalization mode)
LangueCollectivity

Individuality
ParoleAbsence(Externalization mode)

Expressive
Power
Accumulative
Role

Difference(Time)

Social Capital
Physical proximity(Socialization mode)

Implicitness(Internality)
Figure4-2: Relationship between Nonaka’s SECI model and arguments related to Nonaka’s theory in
the West (Source: Author)− 31 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策部紀要

No. 6（2011）

Thirdly, because of the comprehensiveness of thethe West. It can be concluded that Nonaka’s theory

premises, which look at multifaceted dimensions of

may provide a comprehensive and integrativeknowledge activity in an organization involving allconceptual framework for organizational knowledge

four linguistic meaning functions, Nonaka’s theory

creation, even in the theoretical context of

may reduce the gap between the theory and practiceorganization studies in the West.

in its theoretical hypothesis. Fourthly, it can be
deduced that Nonaka’s theory may be trans-nationaland highly applicable to the theory of knowledge andknowledge creation in any organizational context(including business management in the West) in its
hypotheses because of its perfect correspondence toNotes１）See Adachi (2010) pp103-106.
２）Regarding the TEAM linguistic framework, see Nishibe(1996) p87. Also see Adachi (2010) p99-101.
３）The incremental way is achieved by combining elements
previously unconnected, while the radical way is achieved

the TEAM linguistic theory.

by developing novel ways of combining elements not

The preceding sections have also examinedpreviously associated.

the literature associated with knowledge in thetheoretical context of organization studies in the

References

West in relation to Nonaka’s theory, using the

Adachi, Y. (2010), ‘An Examination of Knowledge in Nonaka’s

TEAM framework as criteria. Figure 4-2 provides atheory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Frameworkand in relation to Organization Studies in the West’,summary finding of the research.
Although the socialization mode of knowledge

Yamanashi Global Studies, 5, 99-108.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978), Organizational Learning,

conversion advocated by Nonaka is characterized in

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

the context of Japan, the emergent interest of theBlackler, F. (1995), ‘Knowledge, knowledge work andconcepts of social capital and physical proximity ino rg a n i z a t i o n : A n o v e r v i e w a n d i n t e r p re t a t i o n ’ ,the theoretical context of organization studies in
the West has been identified, and this is consistent

Organization Studies, 16, 6, 1021.
Blackler, F., Crump, N. & McDonald, S. (1998), ‘Knowledge,
organizations and competition’ in von Krogh, G., Roos, J.

with the socialization mode presented by Nonaka.

& Kleine, D. (eds.) (1998), Knowing in Firms, London:

The preceding analysis has also identified a gap inthe existing literature of organization studies related

Sage.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative

to knowledge in the West, and this is that there isno consideration of the externalization mode. This

Science Quarterly, 35, 1, 128-152.
Fukuyama, F. (1997), The End of Order, London: Social Market

may reflect the influence of Western (Cartesian-like)Foundation.

rationalist epistemology because the externalization

Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998), ‘Social capital, intellectualmode is highly related to non-logical dimensions

capital and the organizational advantage’, Academy ofsuch as imagination, expression and metaphor as
opposed to a rationalist perspective. Identification
has been made of the recent literature which

Management Review, 23, 2, 242-266.
Nishibe, S. (1996), Structure of Intelligence, Tokyo: Kadokawa
Haruki jimusyo.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ‘The knowledge-creating company’ Harvard

focuses on the combination mode in the West. Theinternalization mode of knowledge conversion has
become popular in the West, especially in relation
to the argument on implementation of IT in an

Business Review, November-December, 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation’ Organization Science, 5, 1, 14-37.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating
Company, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

organizational context. No literature, however, deals

Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. & Senoo, D. (1996), ‘Fromwith all the four modes of knowledge conversion in

information processing to knowledge creation: A− 32 −

An Examination of the SECI Model in Nonaka’s Theory in terms of the TEAM Linguistic Framework

paradigm shift in business management’, Technology inSociety, 18, 2, 203-218.
Penrose, E. T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Robey, D., Boudreau, M-C. & Rose, G.M. (2000), ‘Information
technology and organizational learning: A review andassessment of research’ Accounting, Management andInformation Technologies, 10, 2, 125-155.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. & Preston, J. (1999), Knowledge
Management: A Review of the Literature, London: Instituteof Personnel and Development.
Schön, D. A. (1995), The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action, Hants: Arena (orig. 1983).
Schumpeter, J. A. (1951), The Theory of Economic Development,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spender, J-C. (1996), ‘Making knowledge the basis of a
dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic Management
Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), 45-62.
Spender, J-C. (1998), ‘Pluralist epistemology and theknowledge-based theory of the firm’, Organization, 5, 2,
233-256.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. & Hislop, D. (1999),‘Knowledge management and innovation: Networks andnetworking’ Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 4, 262275.
Swan, J., Robertson, M. & Bresnen, M. (2001), ‘Knowledge
management and colonization of knowledge’, Electronic
Journal of Radical Organization Theory, 7, 2.
Takeuchi, H. (2001), ‘Towards a universal management
concept of knowledge’ in Nonaka, I. & Teece, D. (eds.)(2001), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation,
Transfer and Utilization, London: Sage.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling
Knowledge Creation, New York: Oxford University Press.

− 33 −