knowledge creation process as communication

8/12/2019 Knowledge Creation Process as Communication

1/11

Knowledge Creation Process as Communication

connecting SECI and Activity Theory via Cascading Mode

of Communication

Paul Wu Horng-Jyh1and Lorna Uden

2

1 School of Science and Technology

SIM University

461 Clementi Road, Singapore [email protected]

2 Department of Computing, Engineering and Technology,Staffordshire University,

Beaconside, Stafford, ST18 0AD, UK

[email protected]

Abstract. This paper starts with a short review of SECI knowledge creationprocess with the aim to situate it in the organizational space supported by socialmedia. By constructing a model called Cascading Modes of Communication

(CMC), we try to capture the movement towards abstraction of SECI modelover the years. We then indentify certain aspects of CMC that can help to

connect SECI to Activity Theory, which formulates the historical evolvingsystems that provide specific units of analysis for doing research. More

importantly, we demonstrate why CMC, in view of Activity Theory, canexplain the logical connection between each of the learning cycles in SECI asexpansive learning.

1 The Evolution of the SECI theory

Information-based organization theory equates optimization of rational behaviour to

business strategy where information is fixed as input to be further processed. SECI

breaks from this view to reveal the (information) knowledge creation process as the

conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge among the individuals in an

organization [1,2]. As in any theory, SECI continues to evolve since its inception [3].

The following Table 1 contrasts SECI processes as defined in the two books

published in 1995 and 2008, respectively.

As shown in Table 1, these definitions remain largely the same over the period of adecade and half. However, there is a gradual turn in the interpretation of SECI

through the foregrounding of the concept ofBa [4]. Bais a central theme in Nishidas

philosophy where acting intuition grasps the human being-in-the-world as originallyhaving the character of action; the essential mode is to act on the world, not to

recognize it [5]. One of the manifestations of such collective activated state of

consciousness is a shared space for emerging relationships so the "magic synthesis" of

contraction, such as rationality and intuition, and explicit and tacit, will produce

creativity. Thus, to participate inBameans to get involved and transcend one's own
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/11

limited perspective despite the seeming contraction that may exist. As we shall argue,

Ba has brought about the dialectic discourse, not only in explaining organizational

knowledge creation, but also in the theories of SECI that transcend and synthesize

through successive round of elaboration.

Table 1. Comparison of description of SECI models in 2008 and 1995, respectively

According to [4], the Ba space under discussion can be physical (e.g., office,

dispersed business space), virtual (e.g. e-mail, teleconference ) or mental (e.g., shared

experiences, ideas, ideals), or any combination of them. In the following, we use the

evolution of the concept of socialization in the SECI literature as an example todemonstrate the transcendence and dialect turns that produce more and more

abstraction in its interpretation. In [7], some scenarios quoted in socialization involveapprentices working with their masters or on-the-job training where physical co-

presence is crucial. In [8], the example processes of socialization have reference to

physical environment, including, walking around inside and outside the company.

Certainly, by physically co-present or moving inside and outside the company, one

will interact with the external world (presumably, including people and place) more

closely. At the same time, [3] pointed out that socialization happens in originating Ba

where individuals share feelings, emotions, experiences, and mental models. The

question becomes in what sense, physical co-presence and interaction achieves

socialization where intimate tacit knowledge is shared? We suggest this can be

answered in the following ways: (1) Actors/Participants in the world are constantly in

communication with the external world. (2) The external world consists of otheractors/participants or a space, which bears symbolic meaning to the actors. (3) If

actors/participants adopt the attitude of embracing the external world, the reality of

the external world becomes more vivid the actors/participants can see the reality as

it is. (4) With the same attitude of embrace, the actors/participants will also disclose

whats inside of them more transparently. (5) In view of (4), the other

actors/participants may also then adopt the same embracing attitude. What becomes

apparent in this series of explanation is that the communicative intentionality of the

actors is the most significant in the process of socialization. Thus, [8] explains:

Managing Flow, published

2008 [6]

The Knowledge-creating

Company, published 1995 [7]

Socialization sharing and creating tacit

knowledge through direct

experience

a process of sharing experiences

and thereby creating tacit

knowledge such as shared mental

models and technical skills.

Externalization articulating tacit knowledgethrough dialogue and

reflection

a process of articulating tacitknowledge into explicit concepts.

Combination systemizing and applying

explicit knowledge and

information

a process of systemizing concepts

into a knowledge system

Internalization learning and acquiring new

tacit knowledge in practice

a process of embodying explicit

knowledge into tacit knowledge.


3/11

Socialization processes take place when an individual sympathizes or further

emphasizes with others, removing the barrier between the self and others; and

Using epistemological metaphors, Nishidas I love there I am stands in contrast to

Descartess I think therefore I am. And from originating Ba, care, love, trust and

commitment emerge. With these descriptions of transcendental and dialectic turns insocialization, one can see the physical attribute of co-presence and interaction

becomes more just like means to embrace the reality; the communicative

intentionality of the actors that embraces the external world is the essence of the

socialization processes. Indeed, in [6], socialization is described as, Perceiving the

reality as it is, sensing and empathizing with others and the environment, and

transferring of tacit knowledge. This thus, as claimed earlier, achieves theabstraction that the introduction of Ba has achieved in socialization, which formulates

it as an act motivated by certain communicative intention, and this is taken to be the

essence of socialization in the following discussion.

2 Cascading Modes of Communication (CMC)

As shown above, the centrality of communicative intentionality is revealed in the

transcendental and dialectic turns of SECI theorizing. In fact, in the study of the

philosophy of language, Searle, following the tradition of Austin, has discovered the

same intentionality in his theory of speech acts, where a speech is taken as an act the

speaker performed with intended results, rather than a mere presentation of what s/he

means [9,10]. Such realization is consistent with Nishidas views that the essence of

existence is acting in the world rather than just perceiving it. In Philosophy of

Sociology [11], Habermas sees actions as the essence of social reality and explainedthe rationalization of the society through the theory of communicative actions

grounded on the inter-subjective rather than subjective rationality. Both theoriesuncover the structure of the speech acts: (Point 1) each speech carries certain

illocutionary force exerted by the speaker of the message on the hearer, as well as the

speaker; (Point 2) the force may be intended at effecting a change in the state-of-

affairs so the external world fits with the subjective ones or vice versa (namely, the

regulatives target includes both the speaker and the hearer), or it may be intended as

a disclosing of or a stating of facts in the internal and external worlds, respectively(namely, the expressive and constatives target includes only the speaker); (Point 3)

the degree of the satisfaction of the intended change depends on that of validity

conditions claimed by the speech. For example, when a speaker said I like rock

singing, it is an expressive speech act that discloses the senders preference. For that

speech to be valid, the sender must be sincere in committing him/her-self to suchpreference. However, if the speaker said I like rock singing because it is an art. Bysupplying the reason of the preference, the speaker intends to invoke a normative rule:

An art is to be preferred, to justify/explain why the speaker has such a preference.

Such speech is no more an expressive speech act, it is rather a regulative speech act

that intends to effect the acceptance of a preference of the speaker by the hearer.

While at the same time, the validity claim of the speech is also different and becomes


4/11

dependent on whether the hearer agrees with the implicit social norm that is being

foregrounded by the speech, namely, an art is to be preferred.

A synthesis of Searles and Habermas communication model was done by [12] as shown inFigures 1a and 1b below:

Figure 1a. A Generic Communication Mode

Figure 1b: Classification of Communication Acts

As shown in Figure 1a, unlike Searles one world (namely, the external) model for

speech acts, Habermas three world model: subjective, objective and social, worlds, is

adopted as the generic model. As shown in Figure 1b, Point 1 discussed above is


5/11

reflected in the column Pragmatic function that each speech act has an intended

effect (the pragmatic function) that is to be achieved. The Direction-of-fit and

World columns elaborate Point 2, as each speech as a direction of fit from the

message to one (or more) of the three worlds (subjective the internal, objective and

social worlds the external). The Validity claim column highlights Point 3 aswhether a speech act will obtain the intended effect depends on the rightness, truth,

sincerity or satisfaction of the fore-grounded implicit claims.

With the above generic communication model and speech acts put in place, we can

then attempt to map the SECI space with a Cascading Mode of Communication as

shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Cascading Modes of Communication

Due to the limited scope of this paper, we will only explain the following: (1) Why

Socialization process can be characterized by the expressives and constatives speechacts/patterns (2) Why Blog is a social media for Socialization process to take place in

and (3) Why the mapping can explain the SECI processes naturally; the rest of the

issues shall be covered in a future paper.

First, recall Socialization is defined as sharing and creating tacit knowledge

through direct experience in [6]. The speech patterns such as This, X, is truly what Ibelieve/feel/like achieves the intended results of socialization process because the

speakers/participants disclose their belief and desires truthfully and sincerely and vice

SECI Space Criteria of

Meaningfulness

Communication Mode

(Speech Act Pattern)

Social Media

and Reports

Mode 1 Socialization Authenticity(truth andsincerity)

This, X, is truly what Ibelieve/feel/like(The expressives and

constatives)

Blog or SocialNetwork

Mode 2 Externalization Rationality(rightness and

satisfaction)

I agree/disagree with/need to clarify about X,

because of Y(The declaratives and

imperatives, andinterrogatives)

Forum

Mode 3 Combination Normality

(rightness and

satisfaction)

Regardless of X, Z is

what most of us

believe/feel/like.(The directive-

commissives, with

concessions)

Wiki

Mode 4 Internalization Reality Given Z, how do I do

about X(This involves material

actions rather thancommunicative actions.

Reflective;

Report


6/11

versa for the hearers in response to the speakers. Such authentic exchange is indeed

the essence of the Socialization process. In fact such exchanges certainly have the

potential to lead to a situation when an individual/participant sympathizes or even

empathizes with others, removing the barrier between the self and others the very

essence of Initiating Ba that energizes the Socialization space.

Second, as shown in Appendix A, the intended use of blogs is distinct from those

of wikis and forums. Blog posts are made by the blog's author only, and posts are

usually opinion pieces and written in the authors voice. These features fit the speech

patterns This, X, is truly what I believe/feel/like nicely, where I refers to the author.

Third, we shall explain why SECI processes may proceed from Socialization to the

rest of the processes naturally from the perspective of a communication discourse.Once a speaker expresses his or her true and sincere belief and feeling, there could be,

at least, two opposite responses from the hearer. One response is the acceptance of

such belief or feeling, whereupon social bonds are then forged. The hearer may even

follow-up with a comment, or a like, on the speakers blog. However, the other,

opposite, response could be doubt, or even rejection. If it is doubt, then the hearer,

could then engage with the speaker in clarification, Why do you think this way? If

rejection, s/he could express disagreement by saying I do not agree with you (on X)

because of W. However, the proper place for clarifying doubts and bridging

disagreement will be forum, and not blog, as these speeches are no more expressive(mere belief and preference) but intended to be regulative (declaratives and

imperatives); they are intended to impose a certain norm or objective fact on the

speaker contrary to the assumption of the point expressed by it at the first place. The

discussion thread structure of a forum can be used to organize a sub-thread wheneverthere is a contention in the reasons (X i and Yi) given to support/validate the

regulatives. Note that, the various Xiand Yiare then the externalized knowledge ofthe participants in the Externalization process.

However, such argument cannot proceed indefinitely due to the constraints of

resources that can be afforded. Thus there is a need to arrive at an interim conclusion

to coordinate action and carry on with the business in the organization. At this point,

the leader should then make a statement committing all participants in the discourse

with a consensus agreed by the majority at that point, the speech pattern Regardless

of Xi (and Yi), Z is what most of us agreed, which is then to be recorded in the wiki.

Z is then the combined knowledge in the Combination process. It is also a directive-

commissive act that commits all participants in a common course of actions impliedby the combined knowledge. Certainly, Z can be further edited in the subsequent

rounds of SECI process, if the edits are duly concluded through the S and E steps.

Lastly, the Internalization process is where the reality is being transformed by the

new knowledge Z through the challenge Given Z, how about do I do about X. For

each individual participant, if Z is consistent with X (the participants belief and

preference) then the decision is easy to make. However, if Z is contrary to X, then the

decision requires drastic change of ones knowledge and belief that may not be


7/11

achievable. This in turn will be reflected in the material action carried out by the

participant: whether they are in accordance with the committed plan or not. If not,

then the knowledge fails to be internalized and the concerned actor risks being

excluded from the organization in future action. But certainly, this also gives energy

for the concerned participants to ponder carefully whether s/he can initiate a newround of SECI process by firstly expressing, and admitting, his emotion; for instance,

This Z is driving me crazy, I did not sleep for three days, in a Socialization space.

Given the authenticity of such feeling/belief is being validated in the Socialization

step, it will have the potential to initiate a new round of discourse to revise the

common goal/knowledge. Thus SECI process can be perpetuated for creating new

knowledge for the organization that would be authenticated, rationally argued,pragmatically normalized, and realistically implemented.

3 Connecting SECI with Activity Theory (AT) via CMC

In [13], Engestrm argued that the main problem with SECI model, and with many

other models of organizational learning, is the assumption that the assignment for

knowledge creation is relatively unproblematically given from above. In the SECI

model, what is to be created and learned is depicted as a management decision that is

outside the bounds of the local process [14]. This assumption leads to a model in

which the first step consists of smooth, conflict-free socializing, the creation of

sympathized knowledge [7]. Engestrms model of expansive learning in work

teams is based on a learning cycle with seven stages in its ideal form as shown in

Figure 3.

Figure 3: Expansive cycle of learning actions.


8/11

The cycle starts with individual subjects questioning and criticizing some existing

practices. This is followed by an analysis of the historical causes and empirical inner

relations of the activity system in question. After that, participants engage in

modelling a new solution to the problematic situation. Following that they examine

the new model by experimenting and examining whether it works and whatpotentialities and limitations it has. Next, the new model is implemented in order to

explore practical actions and applications, and the process is evaluated during an

activity of reflection. Finally, participants engage in consolidating this practice in its

new form. Through this expansive cycle, in which the actors focus on

reconceptualizing their own activity system in relation to their shared objects of

activity, both the objects and the existing scripts are reconceptualized. The activitysystem is transformed and new motives and objects for the activity system created.

Engestrm has criticized Nonaka and Takeuchi for not taking into account the first

two phases of the expansive cycle - questioning and analyzing the situation - and in

doing so, neglecting the importance of controversies and conflicts in knowledge

creation [15].

Such criticism can be reviewed anew through the reconceptualized SECI in CMC.

As explained in the last part of Section 2, the internalization process indeed carries a

problematic situation when combined knowledge that is considered normalized can be

embodied by the actors in carrying out the tasks. Thus, the previous exposition of

SECI perhaps has only explored one of the scenarios where the successive

communicative acts, or SECI processes, do not lead to problematic situations. But

certainly there is no guarantee this is the only scenario each communication discourse

will develop. As explained by [16], communicative actions are not the only possibleactions, when the background knowledge is not sufficient to reconcile the difference,

strategic actions or breaking off of communication or a new round of more reflective

discourse may recommence, similar to what was described in the last part of the last

section. In the case where a new round of more reflective discourse recommences,

certainly, the participants would have certainly questioned and analyzed the situation,

thus the tasks certainly are no longer given by the management and not out of reach

for local processes.

4 Concluding remarks and future research

In an earlier work [17], we have applied CMC to configure an e-learning space of a

Professional Seminar - a maters level course that consists of Blog, Forum and Wiki.This research is motivated by further exploring the theoretical underpinning of theCMC model by situating it as a bridge between SECI and Activity Theory (AT). We

gave a brief review of SECI and highlighted the foregrounding of the Ba concept has

helped to evolve SECI model to ever more abstract conceptualization as

communicative intention. With such abstraction, we can then introduce Cascading

Modes of Communication as a way to connect SECI and Activity Theory. In Section3, SECI, through the mapping with CMC, is seen to be able to resolve problematic


9/11

situations arising in a communication discourse, making it more compatible with

ATs expansive learning cycle that starts with questioning the problematic, followed

by a process to resolve that. A more comprehensive analysis is needed; for instance,

the emphasis of transformation between tacit and explicit knowledge is crucial in

SECI, and it does not seem obvious such concepts are relevant to AT. However in[18], it is stated that the object of an activity resides between the producingactivity

and the using activity. We believed here lies another way of interpreting tacit toexplicit knowledge conversion, in that the producing activity aligns along the tacit to

explicit conversion, where through Socialization and Externalization more and more

background knowledge is brought to bear in a problematic situation for constructing a

new common ground (the new tool) that can resolve the problems; and the usingactivity (of the new tool), thus align with the explicit to tacit knowledge conversion,

where the explicit knowledge (the new tool) are combined (with the old tools) and are

being internalized by the participants in carrying out the activity.

A second area that should be pursued is to consider whether the distinction

between communicative and material actions is really fruitful for a synthesized theory

of knowledge creation. Concepts such as instrumentality, comprehensibility and

sociality that are tied to different spheres of action are shown to be able to be applied

across both communicative and material actions [19]. Unifying the different spheres

of action, the analysis applied in Cascading Modes of Communication (CMC) can be

used to analyze the sociality in Activity Theory (AT), for instance, how the socialdimensions of community, division of labors and rules, of an activity system can be

systematically constructed through communicative action. While at the same time, the

notation of instrumentality in AT can be used to examine how a speech act can be

seen as a tool instrumental to material actions and thus, tools may not merely seen asmaterial but also communication tools.

Last and most importantly, we should leverage on the precision of analysis in AT

to increase the preciseness of the analysis of SECI. Through CMC, the unit of

analysis of SECI can be fixed at the level of successive speech acts. We need to carry

out the same rigor in analyzing the SECI discourse as communication enacted by the

interacting Activity Systems.

References

1 Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: accelerating informationcreation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18.

2 Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). From information processing to knowledgecreation: a paradigm shift in business management. Technology in society, 18(2), 203-218.

3 Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creationtheory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization studies,27(8), 1179-1208.

4 Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of" Ba": BUILDING A FOUNDATIONFOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION. California management review,40(3).

5 Yuasa, Y. (1987). The body: Toward an Eastern mind-body theory. Suny Press6 Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008).Managing flow: A process theory of the

knowledge-based firm(Vol. 19). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.


10/11

7 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanesecompanies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press

8 Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledgecreation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge management research & practice, 1(1), 2-10.

9 Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626).Cambridge university press.

10 Austin, J. L. (1975).How to do things with words(Vol. 1955). Oxford university press.11 Habermas J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One, Reason and the

Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press, Boston12 Eriksson, O. (1999). A generic communication model based on Habermas and Searles

versions of Speech act Theory.Listener, 1, 5.13 Engestrm, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning

work.Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974

14 Engestrm, Y. (1999a). 23 Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles ofknowledge creation in practice. Perspectives on activity theory, 377.

15 Engestrm, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoreticalperspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1-2), 63-93.

16 Habermas, J. (2000). On the pragmatics of communication. MIT press.17 Wu, H-J P (2004). Knowledge and Community Formation via Cascading Modes of

Communication with a Case Study and Research Desig. The 8th International

Conference of Knowledge Management in Organizations, 189-204

18 Virkkunen, J. (2009). Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. Learning andexpanding with activity theory, 144-159.

19 Goldkuhl, G. (2001). Communicative vs material actions instrumentality, sociality andcomprehensibility. Univ., Centrum fr studier av mnniska, teknik och organization


11/11

Appedix A: Differences between Discussion Boards, Blogs and

Wikis (retrieved, May 12th 2014,http://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differ

ences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.html)

Discussion Forums are TOPIC

centred.

discussions are organised into topicsby 'threads'

anyone in the community can start athread on a topic of their choosing

all participants have an equal voice

posts require someone to reply for adiscussion to take place

you can follow through a thread on aparticular topic

Blogs are AUTHOR centred.

posts are made by the blog's

author only (may be a group)

posts are usually opinion pieces

and written in the authors voice

readers can add comments to

the author's post

organised in reverse

chronological order so the most

recent posts show on the entry

page

reflect the authors identity in the

tone, look and feel and content

Wikis are CONTENT/DOCUMENT

centred.

wikis are for group authoring

editable website with a complete

version history kept

aim is to reach a consensus or

compromise on the content of the

page

the focus is the content produced,

not the individual authors

usually neutral and objective

discussion/comment is separated

from the wiki content

Used to DISCUSS and DEBATE

class discussion

debate

q and a

role play

help forums

social forum

online icebreakers

Used to REFLECT and REVIEW

learning reflections

journal writing

book reviews

resource reviews

software reviews

editorial style articles

personal publishing

travel diaries

news

Used to COLLABORATE andSYNTHESISE

group projects

group authoring of academic papers

collaborative writing

easy to update website

knowledge base

faq

planning events and activities
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.htmlhttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.htmlhttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.htmlhttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.htmlhttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.html

knowledge creation process as communication

Documents