University of Bucharest [620044]

University of Bucharest
Faculty of Philosophy/UNESCO Chair
Intercultural Management

The concept of Ba and its application
in modern -day multicultural organizations

Coordinator: Prof. univ. Dr. Stoenescu Constantin

Student: [anonimizat]

2

CONTENTS

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter 1 – Knowledge management…………………………………………………5
● The history of knowledge management
● The implementation process
Chapter 2 – The concep t of Ba………………………………………………………..30
● The concept and its creation
● Structure and different models for knowledge creation
Chapter 3 – Company A – An international compa ny ……………………………….46
● Communication and information dynamics between the different countries
● Knowledge management on a local level
● Relations throughout the hierarchy
● The SECI model
Chapter 4 – Company B – A recently internationalized company…………………… 52
● Communication and information dynamics between the different countries
● Knowledge management on a local level
● Relations throughout the hierarchy
● The SECI model
Conclusions… …………………………………………………………………………..58
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………… …..60

3
INTRODUCTION

The attention that has been directed towards the process of knowledge creation has
been increasing dramatically over the decades. It is a fundamental element that keeps us
moving forward and constantly improving. Specialists are still trying to uncover the inner
workings of this process in order to be able to identify and formulate the conditions and the
factors necessary for successful knowledge creation and its management.
Taking into consideration the concept of Ba, it the present research paper will be
presented the manner in which the theory is applied in real life, modern day, multicultural
companies and their perspective towards the knowledge creation process within their
subsidiaries and towards knowledge management.
For a better presentation of the applications of the theory, there will be presented two
study cases from different international companies, in order to have a more clearer image of
the applicability of the concept in modern day organizations.
The option t o research two organizations of distinct size and experience on the market
is a good way to avoid having a result based on a narrow view of the problem. The two chosen
companies will be analysed and compared, following the structure and guidelines provide d by
the concept of Ba, in order to make it possible to draw a conclusion regarding the way in which
it is applied in those firms and be able to formulate results from a knowledge management
perspective.
Another aspect taken into consideration when choosin g the companies was the various
cultures and how divers is the cultural background of their employees. This aspect can play a
major role when we are talking about knowledge management and more specifically the
concept of Ba. The socialization, the combinin g, the internalization/externalization among the
colleagues are to be observed and carefully compared in order to end up with results as
objective and as true to reality as much as possible.
The major difference between them, disregarding the different fie lds of work they
represent, is the amount of experience they have on their individual markets and how that has
an impact of their way of conduct regarding knowledge management.
Before we start to analyze the processes of knowledge sharing and creating insi de the
two chosen companies, it is necessary to first familiarise with the concept of knowledge,
knowledge management, the concept of Ba and Basho. Discovering if such concepts can
actually be influenced and controlled or will they remain just theoretical guidelines. The
potential of the concept will be explored and see when is it applied right and how can

4
companies better implement the models presented here in order to boost their companies
forward and achieve their organizational goals.
The dynamics of kn owledge inside the companies will be presented, as well as
establishing on what levels of the hierarchies and in what amount/with what precision is
knowledge management practiced in everyday activities of the employees of the companies.
The manner in which each company informs their employees about the company strategy and
the amount of importance they lay on the importance of the principles promoted by the concept
of Ba will be observed as well.
The main method I will use for the elaboration of this thesis will be a systemic analysis.
The needed data will be gathered and carefully analysed following the guidelines traced by
the theory chose – the concept of Ba.
Every individual is different and unique and instead of fighting this, the concept of Ba
comes to our aid and guides us in a more productive direction. In order to have a better grasp
of the current modern -day life inside an intercultural company, an in -depth study is proposed,
analyzing two different, already existing such companies which will be gen erically named
Company A and Company B.
The presence or lack of concern regarding the already existing knowledge within the
company, how do they promote the creation of new knowledge, the sharing or the storing of
the current knowledge and how are they app lying the knowledge management strategies in
order to achieve their goals and organizational targets, will be the main focus points of this
research paper.
The present research paper is structured in a pyramid or funnel style in an attempt to
make its read ing more clear and understandable. Starting with the general concepts,
presenting how they came into existence and how they are intended to be applied in day to
day activity, especially inside multicultural organizations. Further on will be presented some of
the various knowledge management models, present their particularities and their potential in
boosting of knowledge creation and its management, afterward moving forward towards a
more particular environment and observe two distinct companies and what i s their approach
towards knowledge management, towards the concept of Ba and then pointing out the
characteristics of the two chosen companies. Afterwards, a more in depth analysis will follow
of knowledge management inside the organizations following the model and the principles
provided by the Ba concept and the SECI model of knowledge creation.
The approach will be a more qualitative based one, rather than quantitative based. The
particular companies chosen to be analysed in this thesis are eloquent fo r present a realist
approach to Knowledge management.

5
CHAPTER 1:

The concept and the terminology of knowledge management sprouted within the
management consulting community. When the Internet arose, those organizations quickly
realized that an intran et, an in -house subset of the Internet, was a wonderful tool with which
to make information accessible and to share it among the geographically dispersed units of
their organizations. Not surprisingly, they quickly realized that in building tools and techn iques
such as dashboards, expertise locators, and best practice (lessons learned) databases, they
had acquired an expertise which was in effect a new product that they could market to other
organizations, particularly to organizations which were large, com plex, and dispersed.
However, a new product needs a name, and the name that emerged was Knowledge
Management. The term apparently was first used in its current context at McKinsey in 1987
for an internal study on their information handling and utilization (McInerney and Koenig,
2011). Knowledge management went public, as it were, at a conference in Boston in 1993
organized by Ernst and Young (Prusak 1999).
Those consulting organizations quickly disseminated the principles and the techniques
of knowledge management to other organizations, to professional associations, and to
disciplines. The timing was propitious, as the enthusiasm for intellectual capital (see below)
in the 1980s, had primed the pump for the recognition of information and knowledge as
essential assets for any organization.
Knowledge management strives to accomplish rich, deep, and open communication:
First, knowledge management can very fruitfully be seen as the undertaking to replicate,
indeed to create, the information environment known to be conducive to successful rich, deep,
and open communication and information access and to deploy it broadly across the firm. It is
almost trite now to observe that we are in the post -industrial information age and that we are
all information workers. Furthermore, the researcher is, after all, the quintessential information
worker. Peter Drucker once commented that the product of the pharmaceutical industry wasn’t
pills, it was information. The research domain, and in particular the pharmaceutical indu stry,
has been studied in depth with a focus on identifying the organizational and cultural
environmental aspects that lead to successful research (Koenig, 1990, 1992). The salient
aspect that emerges with overwhelming importance is that of rich, deep, and open
communications, not only within the firm, but also with the outside world. The logical
conclusion, then, is to attempt to apply those same successful environmental aspects to
knowledge workers at large, and that is precisely what knowledge management attempts to
do.

6
Second, knowledge management wants to achieve situational awareness. It is a term
only recently, beginning in 2015, used in the context of knowledge management. The term,
however, long precedes knowledge management. It first gained some p rominence in the cold
war era when studies were commissioned by all of the major potential belligerents to try to
identify what characteristics made a good fighter pilot. The costs of training a fighter pilot were
huge, and if the appropriate characteristi cs leading to success could be identified, that training
could be directed to the most appropriate candidates, and of those trained the most
appropriate could be selected for front -line assignment. However, the only solid conclusion of
those studies was th at the salient characteristic of a good fighter pilot was excellent “situational
awareness.” The problem was that no good predictive test for situational awareness could be
developed.
The phrase then retreated into relative obscurity until it was resuscit ated by Jeff
Cooper, a firearms guru, and others in the context of self -defense. How do you defend and
protect yourself? The first step is to be alert and to establish good situational awareness. From
there the phrase entered the knowledge management vocab ulary. The role of knowledge
management is to create the capability for the organization to establish excellent situational
awareness and consequently to make the right decisions.
Efforts to formally manage knowledge have been in place for most of the past half
century. In the late 20th century, however, with the evolution of computers, organizations
began implementing more reliable storage systems. In the 1990s, the Swedish financial
service provider Skandia created the first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) position, which
paved the way for other companies to treat knowledge management as an integral part of their
structure.
In fact, several academics have formalized the topic, and knowledge management is
now regarded as a scientific discipline. In the mid -1990s, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka
Takeuchi published the first academic research on knowledge management, and coined the
SECI model (socialization, externalization, combination, internalization) as a path of
knowledge transfer. Since then, Nonaka and Takeuc hi have studied several other aspects of
knowledge within a company, as have other academics. The knowledge management life
cycle, which details how to store and disseminate knowledge throughout an organization, was
also set forth by business academics in the l990s and early 2000s; the four most popular
models are Wiig (1993), Zack (1996), Bukowitz and Williams (2000), and McElroy (2003).
In general, knowledge management has evolved from a loose tendency to accumulate,
store, and teach (and therefore increa se) knowledge within a team or organization into a
prioritized method of building a knowledgeable workforce – all with the goal of gaining a
competitive advantage. As we will discuss later on, there are several theories of how to best

7
store knowledge and s timulate knowledge transfer within an organization. Skeptics say that
today’s knowledge management is simply a “fad,” while others argue that its principles are
here to stay: its strategies, methods, and implementation systems will simply continue to
evolv e as technology and business does, too.
What is the relationship between data information and knowledge? I will try to discuss
this in the context of knowledge management program. A basic understanding of data,
information and knowledge helps in understand ing of knowledge management system.
Data in its own way known as a collection of discrete objects, facts or events out of
context. Data has no reference to space or time. In some advance way we can say collection
of some objects or results of some process are known as data. It is also known as unprocessed
information. Inside the spread sheet of excel in each cell we store data, on its own it does not
give any information. When we store the sells figure of the company in a spreadsheet we call
it as data. We may do some categorization on the data to get meaningful output from it.
Information is the processed data is known as information. From a collection of data
we can derive meaningful information (conclusion). We can't call it information if we are not
getting any result (conclusion) out of our data. The sells figure stored in a spreadsheet on its
own can't give any conclusion but on observation or by statistical tools we can see that north
region the sells are better than southern region. This is the info rmation we get out of the sells
data.
After data and information, knowledge is in the next stage of evolution. When we apply
our experience, jurisdiction or judgment to the information we get knowledge. Knowledge is
the result of learning. Knowledge is the internalization of information, data, and experience. In
our sells data we can conclude that more marketing efforts or promotions are required in south
than in north to improve the sells in southern region. Knowledge is divided into two types, tacit
knowledge and explicit knowledge .
For a more thorough understanding and differentiation between the three terms, here
are some examples of data, information and knowledge are: blood pressure of a medical
patient is known as data. By checking the blood pressure of the patient we can say that the
patient is having high blood pressure and this is information (because we are able to conclude
or get a meaningful conclusion from the blood pressure readings, we interpret this as
information. The patient is having high blood pressure because of his family history. This
conclusion is of reason of high blood pressure given by a doc tor based on his experience and
learning and thus falls in the range of knowledge.
Organization learning depends on knowledge creation process which is explained in
SECI ( Socializatio n, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) cycle, which will be
discussed in the next chapter.

8
The following section discuss several models and frameworks as well as knowledge
management initiatives, strategies, and systems, before finally presentin g an overview of
various tools and techniques.
The full scope of knowledge management is not something that is universally
accepted. However, before one looks at the differences in the definiti ons, let's see the
similarities.
Knowledge management is about making the right knowledge available to the right
people. It is about making sure that an organization can learn, and that it will be able to retrieve
and use its knowledge assets in current ap plications as they are needed. In the words of Peter
Drucker it is "the coordination and exploitation of organizational knowledge resources, in order
to create benefit and competitive advantage" (Drucker 1999).
Where the disagreement sometimes occurs is in conjunction with the creation of new
knowledge. Wellman (2009) limits the scope of knowledge management to lessons learned
and the techniques employed fo r the management of what is already known. He argues that
knowledge creation is often perceived as a separate discipline and generally falls under
innovation management.
Bukowitz and Williams (1999) link knowledge management directly to tactical and
strategic requirements. Its focus is on the use and enhancement of knowledge based assets
to enable the firm to respond to these issues. According to this view, the answer to the question
"what is knowledge management" would be significantly broader.
A similarly broad definition is presented by Davenport & Prusak (2000), which states
that knowledge management "is managing the corporation's knowledge through a
systematically and or ganizationally explicit process for acquiring, organizing, sustaining,
applying, sharing and renewing both the tacit and explicit knowledge of employees to enhance
organizational performance and create value."
I will also present the answer to the question "what is knowledge management" in the
broader perspective, encompas sing not just the exploitation and management of existing
knowledge assets, but the also the initiatives involved in the creation and acquisition of new
knowledge. In the next article, I will arrive at a specific knowledge management definition.
Another kn owledge management definition may be as follows: Knowledge
management is the systematic management of an organization's knowledge assets for the
purpose of creating value and meeting tactical & strategic requirements; it consists of the
initiatives, processes, strategies, and systems that sustain and enhance the storage,
assessment, sharing, refinement, and creation of knowledge.

9
Knowledge management therefore implies a strong tie to organization al goals and
strategy, and it involves the management of knowledge that is useful for some purpose and
which creates value for the organization.
Expanding upon the previous knowledge management definition, knowledge
management involves the understanding of :
Where and in what forms knowledge exists; what the organization needs to know; how
to promote a culture conducive to learning, sharing, and knowledge creation ; how to mak e the
right knowledge available to the right people at the right time; how to best generate or acquire
new relevant knowledge; how to manage all of these factors so as to enhance performance in
light of the organization's strategic goals and short term opp ortunities and threats.
Knowledge management must therefore create/provide the right tools, people,
knowledge, structures (teams, etc.), culture, etc. so as to enhance learning; it must understand
the value and applications of the new knowledge created; it must store this knowledge and
make it readily available for the right people at the right time; and it must continuously assess,
apply, refine, and remove organizational knowledge in conjunction with concrete long and
short term factors.
From this knowled ge management definition we can see that it depends upon the
management of the organization's knowledge creation and conversion mechanisms;
organizational m emory and retrieval facilities; organizational learning; and organizational
culture .
Lately, there has been a fast growing interest towards the development of knowled ge
and using knowledge management as a valuable source, that has been able to deliver
significant results and ultimately contribute to the development of organizations. Knowledge
creation and knowledge management have gained more and more attention and res earch
have been conducted increasingly in this field of expertise.
Over the decades, knowledge management has evolved from a mere natural and
instinctive tendency to accumulate as much information as possible and pass it on to future
generations, each gen eration in turn adding to it and making its mark, contributing to the
evolution of society (or on a smaller scale, to the improvement of the company or even a
certain team working together on a project), to nowadays, when it is regarded as a well known,
elaborated and somewhat complex strategy that plays a big part in the organizational
activities, goals and progression. The strategies and methods developed in order to more
efficiently manage knowledge and how one might go about implementing those methods a nd
strategies will be presented in this first chapter.
On a theoretical level, it is a well structured concept and the result can be spectacular,
only that in real life situations and practice, knowledge creation, sharing and usage are not so

10
easy to manag e. This may be the cause that led some people to be quite skeptical when it
comes to knowledge management and regard it as a passing fad.
Knowledge and consequently the creation of knowledge and its management are key
elements to innovation and the consta nt improvement of our society.
Knowledge management is used by organizations and businesses that are taking a
syncretic approach to goal reaching. In order to achieve their objectives successfully, the
company personnel is fully involved in the processes of knowledge creation. They pays more
attention to information sharing and the way in which knowledge is used and managed in order
to further their progress towards the organisational objective. 1
Knowledge management does not stand on its own as a sole tool of goal achieving.
As mentioned in an article, knowledge management ‘implies a strong tie to corporate strategy,
understanding of where and in what forms knowledge exists, creating processes that span
organizational functions, and ensuring that initia tives are accepted and supported by
organizational members’2. When a certain company has decided to make use of knowledge
management and structures its strategies along with its principles, it does not automatically
entails that it will involve all the asp ects regarding knowledge management. An organization
may choose to focus on only one or two aspects from its multiple steps ― for example it may
opt to concentrate its energy and resources solely on knowledge sharing , storage, and
refinement of the shared information, place its attention on the creation of new knowledge or
the actual use and implementation of the already existing knowledge in order to further their
progress.
An important factor is to point out the fact that knowledge management is more so a
tool to elevate the company’s value and help in achieving the organizational goals. It is
paramount, in order to make full use of this tool, to keep in mind the end goal and not focus
so much on the knowledge itself but more on the various ways it can help and add value. It is
a powerful tool, but only if the users keep a wider, global perspective on the situation and use
it in congruence with other managerial and strategi c tools.
As previously stated, knowledge management is a complex and difficult process to
control. It involves a deep understanding of not just the theoretical part of the concept but also
the actual implementation of the concept in real life situations. It also cannot be successfully
implemented without taking into consideration the actual individuals working on the project.
The human resource is a crucial part of this whole process and it needs to be carefully
observed and analyzed before and during the implementation of knowledge management

1 Introduction to Knowledge Management . University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved 11 September 2014, www.unc.edu ;
2 http://www.knowledge -management -tools.net

11
strategies. Their intrinsic knowledge, their known or hidden talents, any particular skills that
are related or unrelated to their particular current field of expertise, their background (ethnical,
religious, educati onal, financial, social or on any other level) needs to be taken into
consideration, as it will eventually play a role and influence the knowledge processes. This
implies that in order to make full use of this process and actually be aware of all the knowl edge
that is present within an organizational community, a solid understanding of knowledge is
required.
Knowledge management enables organizational learning, a concept where companies
are invested not only in the reliable, expert production of a product o r service, but in the
knowledge that underlies these production processes. Companies devoted to organizational
learning are interested in maintaining and building upon internal knowledge at an
organizational level — not just helping individuals accrue spe cial skills, but ensuring that this
knowledge is available to and dispersed throughout the workforce.
Knowledge management can be implemented enterprise -wide across a number of
industries. However, the way you implement knowledge management might change
depending on factors such as industry and company size.
Knowledge management is often used differently for organizations, depending on
whether they are small or large companies. Small companies or start -ups must carve out a
competitive market advantage early on, and therefore benefit from knowledge management
by codifying and storing internal knowledge from the get -go. Large organizations — even
those with unwavering strength in their market — use knowledge management to act quickly
in the digital age, wher e business changes constantly and often without warning. Without a
reliable system to store existing knowledge and accumulate new knowledge, it would be
difficult to react to these market changes. However, both large and small companies can
benefit from kn owledge management because it treats the knowledge that every individual
brings as an asset, so employees feel respected for their skills in the workplace.
For those looking to implement knowledge management in a specific department, you
can also tailor th e practice to sub -fields. Other than enterprise, knowledge management is
most commonly implemented in IT/information systems and science, organizational
management, business administration, human resources management, content management,
or for personal us e.
Knowledge management, stripped to its core, is a way to make information dynamics
a smoother more productive process. Knowledge management is strongly tied to ‘corporate
strategy, understanding of where and in what forms knowledge exists, creating proce sses that
span organizational functions, and ensuring that initiatives are accepted and supported by

12
organizational members. Knowledge management may also include new knowledge creation,
or it may solely focus on knowledge sharing , storage, and refinement’.3
Ultimately, knowledge management is an integrated system of accumulating, storing,
and sharing knowledge within a team or organization. Knowledge management consists of
several components, as well as strategies to implement it successfully.
The field of knowledge management identifies three main types of knowledge —
explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, implicit knowledge. The three of them will be further
explained for a better understanding of the topic.
Explicit knowledge is knowledge or skills that can be easily articulated and understood,
and therefore easily transferred to others (this is also called formal or codified knowledge).
Anything that can be written down in a manual — instructions, mathematical equations, etc.
— qualify as explicit knowledge.
Tacit knowledge, by contrast, is knowledge that is difficult to neatly articulate, package,
and transfer to others. These are usually intuitive skill sets that are chal lenging to teach, such
as body language, aesthetic sense, or innovative thinking.
A third knowledge type is implicit knowledge, which is information that has not yet been
codified or transferred, but that would be possible to teach. Implicit knowledge is different from
tacit knowledge, which is unlikely to be able to be codified.
You can break these knowledge types down further into four categories — factual
knowledge is measurable, observable, and verifiable data; conceptual knowledge relates to
perspec tives and systems; expectational knowledge is knowledge rooted in expectations,
hypotheses, or judgments; methodological knowledge deals with decision -making and
problem -solving.
Knowledge management is the process(es) used to handle and oversee all the
knowledge that exists within a company. Knowledge management relies on an understanding
of knowledge, which consists of discrete or intangible skills that a person possesses.
The field of knowledge management identifies two main types of knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is knowledge or skills that can be easily articulated and understood, and therefore
easily transferred to others (this is also called formal or codified knowledge). Anything that can
be written down in a manual – instructions, mathematical equati ons, etc. – qualify as explicit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge , by contrast, is knowledge that is difficult to neatly articulate,
package, and transfer to others. These are usually intuitive skillsets that are challenging to
teach, such as body language, aesth etic sense, or innovative thinking. (A third knowledge type
is implicit knowledge , which is information that has not yet been codified or transferred, but

3 http://www.knowledge -management -tools.net/

13
that would be possible to teach. Implicit knowledge is different from tacit knowledge, which is
unlikely to be able to be codified. For this article, however, we will primarily discuss explicit
and tacit knowledge.)
You can break these knowledge types down further into four categories:
● Factual Knowledge is measurable, observable, and verifiable data.
● Conc eptual Knowledge relates to perspectives and systems.
● Expectational Knowledge is knowledge rooted in expectations, hypotheses, or
judgments.
● Methodological Knowledge deals with decision -making and problem -solving.
Knowledge management enables organizationa l learning, a concept where companies
are invested not only in the reliable, expert production of a product or service, but in the
knowledge that underlies these production processes. Companies devoted to organizational
learning are interested in maintaini ng and building upon internal knowledge at an
organizational level – not just helping individuals accrue special skills, but ensuring that this
knowledge is available to and dispersed throughout the workforce.
As one Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) paper states, the core goal of
knowledge management is to connect “knowledge nodes” – those with knowledge and those
seeking knowledge – to ultimately increase the kno wledge within an organization. Within that
goal, the authors identify four objectives of knowledge management: to capture knowledge, to
increase knowledge access, to enhance the knowledge environment, and to manage
knowledge as an asset.
Ultimately, knowle dge management is an integrated system of accumulating, storing,
and sharing knowledge within a team or organization. Knowledge management consists of
several components, as well as strategies to implement it successfully – we’ll delve deeper
into these la ter in the article.
Knowledge management can be implemented enterprise -wide across a number of
industries. However, the way you implement knowledge management might change
depending on factors such as industry and company size.
Knowledge management is ofte n used differently for small vs. large organizations,
however. Small (and/or young) companies must carve out a competitive market advantage
early on, and therefore benefit from knowledge management by codifying and storing internal
knowledge from the get -go. Large organizations – even those with unwavering strength in their
market – use knowledge management to act quickly in the digital age, where business changes
constantly and often without warning. Without a reliable system to store existing knowledge
and accumulate new knowledge, it would be difficult to react to these market changes.

14
However, both large and small companies can benefit from knowledge management because
it treats the knowledge that every individual brings as an asset, so employees feel re spected
for their skills in the workplace.
For those looking to implement knowledge management in a specific department, you
can also tailor the practice to sub -fields. Other than enterprise knowledge management,
knowledge management is most commonly imple mented in IT/information systems and
science, organizational management, business administration, human resources
management, content management, or for personal use.
While it may not seem directly related to the tactics of knowledge management, the
primar y goal is to increase company efficiency to improve business decision -making. The idea
is that building expertise into your organization – and dispersing it amongst employees –
empowers you to make more informed, faster, and ultimately more profitable deci sions.
Of course, there are several secondary benefits. Successful knowledge management
will enable you to:
● Increase collaboration and idea generation
● Optimize a culture of knowledge sharing
● Protect intellectual capital
● Treat human capital as an asset (whi ch makes employees feel respected for their
knowledge)
● Capture and store knowledge for the future workforce
Kevin D. Murray, CPP, CISM is a technical surveillance countermeasures (TSCM)
specialist with an extensive career in information security and counte respionage consulting
for business and government. He breaks the benefits of knowledge management into four
value areas:
o Control: Not knowing where your information is is the first step to losing it.
o Security: ‘You gotta keep the bait in the bucket, not in the pond.’
o Access: When you need your information, you will get it faster.
o Responsibility: With all the eggs in one basket, one is forced to carry the basket more
carefully, meaning you provide better protection for your information.
There are many challe nges that businesses face when implementing knowledge
management. Here is a list of some of the most common ones:
● Creating a culture of flexibility and collaboration: This is one of the most
significant and enduring challenges of knowledge management. Comp anies
already struggle to implement new policies, because people naturally tend to

15
resist change. However, knowledge management can be especially difficult
because employees might want to protect their skills and knowledge, or be
reluctant to learn from th eir peers.
● Security: You have to design a knowledge transfer system that makes it easy for
the appropriate people to access information, while protecting sensitive or private
intelligence from outsiders.
● Measuring knowledge: It can be difficult to define metrics to measure the
knowledge within your organization, especially for tacit knowledge that cannot be
easily quantified. To overcome this, some experts recommend focusing on the
purpose of knowledge, rather than the efforts or results (which are often a lso
unquantifiable).
● Identifying an expert: There won’t always be a single “keeper” of every knowledge
type, but you will still have to identify who within the company possesses certain
knowledge, and use them as the base level of knowledge from which you want
to build. This process is difficult tactically, but can also be delicate among
employees who might feel competitive about their skill levels.
● Document storage and management: While not all knowledge makes for
straightforward documentation, it will hav e to be stored and organized in some
form. Document management is a challenge for many companies, but
organization is a vital aspect of knowledge management – otherwise, it will be
impossible to locate and use the knowledge you have stored. Consider using a
dedicated document management system to keep everything organized.
● Disseminating knowledge throughout an organization: You’ll need to devise a
process where, once you store the knowledge, other team members can access
it. This is complicated both theoret ically and tactically, so many organizations opt
for a software system designed specifically for this purpose. We’ll take a closer
look at knowledge management systems later on.
● Continual improvement: Like most process -driven strategies, you should
continu ally improve upon the knowledge management system you implement.
Stage periodic reviews or, if possible, dedicate resources to continually optimize
your process.
● Determining where knowledge management is housed: If knowledge
management serves your entire o rganization, decide which department will “own”
the strategy. Companies most commonly house knowledge management in HR
or IT. Remember, this department is not only responsible for effectively managing

16
the knowledge itself, but also for maintaining the comm unity of knowledge
sharing and organizational learning.
As we’ve discussed, the theory behind knowledge management is that in order to make
the best business decisions, the workforce must be as educated and skillful as possible. One
way to ensure an educat ed – and continually learning – workforce is to stimulate organizational
learning, which companies can do by implementing knowledge management. This practice
ensures not only that existing knowledge (both explicit and tacit forms) is codified and stored,
but that it can be dispersed among other employees so that people can continue to amass
skills. Another benefit is that knowledge management evenly distributes knowledge so no one
is contributing in silos.
As Nonaka and Takeuchi first stated in their semina l academic papers, there are three
main ways that people approach knowledge management:
1. People -centric: Centered on people, relationships, and how people form learning
communities and other informal ways of knowledge sharing. This idea is also
known as ecological knowledge management theory .
2. Tech -centric: Focused on the technology that facilitates knowledge storage and
transfer, and aims to create technology systems that encourage knowledge
sharing.
3. Process -centric: Interested in how the organizational stru cture and processes
accommodate and encourage knowledge sharing and organizational learning.
This concept includes the production processes, the organizational hierarchy,
and the cultural framework.
The approach you take will depend on how your company cur rently functions.
Organizational structure, politics, management style, and existing processes all create
parameters around what kind of knowledge management implementation is workable.
Regardless of the approach you choose, however, implementing knowledge management will
inevitably affect your organization’s people, technology, and processes. therefore, it’s best to
keep all three in mind when enacting a knowledge management strategy.
Theoretical approaches aside, there are some common tactical ways of han dling
knowledge. The common strategies include:
● Storing knowledge vs. sharing knowledge: Storing knowledge involves
accumulating, codifying, and maintaining knowledge in a reliable storage system.
This is a good first step, but successful knowledge managem ent also requires a
system to disperse that stored knowledge.

17
● Codification vs. personalization: The difference between these strategies are
similar to the previous example. Codification is any activity where you are
collecting knowledge (creating and maint aining databases, content architecture,
training to support software storage systems), and creating awareness of these
collection systems. Personalization, is connecting people to this codified
knowledge by forming learning communities, promoting active di scussion and
knowledge transfer, and facilitating group interaction.
● Push vs. pull: These represent two opposing strategies. In a push strategy,
individuals actively encode their knowledge to make it available for others. In a
pull strategy, team members s eek out experts to request knowledge sharing, so
you only transfer knowledge on an as -needed basis.
● SECI model: This is the knowledge transfer and strategy model first proposed by
Nonaka and Takeuchi in 1996, and is considered the cornerstone of knowledge
management theory. It outlines the four different types of knowledge transfer:
● Socialization: Tacit to tacit, where knowledge is transferred
intuitively through observation, guidance, and practice.
● Externalization: Tacit to explicit, which codifies intuiti ve, intangible
knowledge in order to be taught. This type of knowledge transfer is
the most difficult because tacit knowledge is extremely difficult to
break down into digestible directives.
● Combination: Explicit to explicit, where codified knowledge is
transferred or combined with other codified knowledge. This type
of knowledge transfer is the simplest.
● Internalization: Explicit to tacit, where an organization follows and
practices codified knowledge so that it becomes intuitive.
Data mining is a process of discovering data patterns based on algorithms, and is
another common element of sophisticated knowledge management programs. Because
codifying all of your internal knowledge will result in a huge knowledge library, data mining can
help identify patterns and extract data. It still uses qualitative methods of data analysis, but
automated programs will likely rely on algorithmic work.
As we’ve discussed, the process of knowledge management follows general steps.
Today, this progression has been formalized b y several scholars, along with how knowledge
should be stored and disseminated throughout an organization. This how includes the
processes, tools, and technologies that make up the knowledge management life cycle.

18
4
While each life cycle differs in specif ic steps, this infographic shows the basic steps.
‘There are multiple, semi -competing theories of the knowledge management life cycle.
However, despite the nuanced theoretical and syntactical differences, the top four all follow a
similar pattern. Here are the top four knowledge management life cycle models:
1. Wiig Model (1993): This model relies on the principle that in order for information
to be useful, it must be organized. Therefore, this model is primarily concerned
with organizing all data once it is c odified, but also outlines how knowledge is
built, stored, pooled (with other stored knowledge), and then extended into the
organization. The phases of the Wiig model are creation, sourcing, compilation,
transformation, and application.
2. Zack Model (1996): While the phases here are similar to the Wiig model, the Zack
model prioritizes a logical, standardized process when advancing to each new

4 https://www.smartsheet.com/knowledge -management -101

19
stage. The phases of the Zack model are acquisition, refinement,
storage/retrieval, distribution, and presentation.
3. Bukowitz and William Model (2000): This model builds upon the previous two by
expanding the definition of knowledge storage to include the infrastructure that
supports this learning community (such as communication, hierarchy, and
working relationships). Bu kowitz and William also emphasize the need for not
only maintaining your knowledge repository, but also building it over time. The
phases here are: get, use, learn, contribute, and assess.
4. McElroy Model (2003): Building upon the process focus of the Bukowi tz and
William model, McElroy is concerned with knowledge production and integration.
It creates ways for team members to submit “claims” when they fail to receive or
understand knowledge, all in an effort to improve group learning. The phases in
the McElr oy model are learning, validation, acquisition, integration, and
completion.’5
Here’s how all the different phases of these model relate to each other:

5 https://www.smartsheet.com/knowledge -management -101

20
The integrated knowledge management cycle, proposed by Kimiz Dalkir, Ph.D.,
combines several of the co ncepts we’ve discussed into one general framework. Dalkir
identifies three key stages in her model: knowledge capture and/or creation, knowledge
sharing and dissemination, and knowledge acquisition and application. In this model, Dalkir
emphasizes the cycl e aspect in order to ensure continual improvement – not only in the amount
and quality of knowledge stored, but of the underlying processes, as well
The graph below shows the results of a recent IDC study in which corporations cited
various objectives for knowledge management efforts:
6

In 2001, market intelligence firm IDC issued a landmark study on the impacts of
information access in the workplace, commenting that:
“Timely access to critical information separates the winners from the losers in today’s
information economy. Yet all too often knowledge workers fail in their quest to obtain the
information they need. There are many reasons for this failure — some technical, some
cultural, and some personal. N o matter the cause, the amount of time wasted in futile
searching for vital information is enormous, leading to staggering costs to the enterprise.”
The report, titled “The High Cost of Not Finding Information,” made clear that
“information disasters” cont inued to burden organizations across industries, citing not a lack

6 http://providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/IDC_KM_Study_April_2002.pdf

21
of information but rather not connecting the right information to the right people at the right
time as the root of the issue.
More than a decade has passed since that initial research, and knowledge
management challenges continue to plague organizations, if not more so. Factors include
increasing mobile device use, the rise of social media and the BYOD movement, as well as
the fact that many employees are simply adopting their own preferred tools and applications
for sharing information and collaborating at work.
‘New research from IDC confirms the growing urgency of this issue, evidenced by the
fact that over 90% of the information today’s typical organization possesses is unstructured,
and the amount of information that knowledge workers must navigate daily is increasing
dramatically. Yet while knowledge management challenges in the era of big data grow,
organizations often under -invest in the technologies that can unlock the value residing within
this data.
The latest report , “The Knowledge Quotient: Unlocking the Hidden Val ue of Information
Using Search & Content Analytics,”offers compelling insights regarding how modern
organizations are helping their employees access the information they need:
● 61% of knowledge workers regularly access four or more systems to do their jobs, and
13% access eleven or more systems.
● Knowledge workers find the information they need only half of the time; such
inefficiencies amount to more than $5.7 million per year lost in wasted productivity, a
figure that’s doubled since IDC’s 2003 report.
● Work ers spend nearly 36% of their time looking for and consolidating information
spread across a variety of systems, including network files shares, content
management systems, intranets, legacy systems, and data repositories.’7
The IDC report suggests intelli gent search and text analytics technologies are uniquely
positioned to help organizations upgrade knowledge access in order to innovate faster, make
better decisions, optimize customer interactions, and improve employee productivity.
By adopting these tec hnologies, organizations across a range of industries can benefit.
Take for example a global manufacturer cited in the report. A multinational company with
70,000 internal users is saving over $50M/year by securely unifying access to intranet, content
mana gement, customer support, and ERP sources for all users.8
Other companies see new revenue opportunities. For instance, a global investment
bank referenced in the report is generating millions in new revenue using unified search and

7 https://blog.coveo.com/idc -report -unified -searc h-text-analytics -are-proven -drivers -of-km-success/
8 https://blog.coveo.com/idc -report -unified -search -text-analytics -are-proven -drivers -of-km-success/

22
text analytics technolog y as the underlying engine for a knowledge management system that
collects, locates, shares, and analyzes the bank’s diverse knowledge streams and makes it
available via a single interface —with real -time security trimming —to its thousands of
knowledge work ers.
Yet the report notes these examples remain the exception and not the rule, as most
organizations must still overcome several technical and organizational challenges. Nearly
63% of survey respondents identified challenges associated to lack of process, discipline, and
technology to incorporate a new strategy for knowledge management.
Coveo and Lexalytics together help organizations unlock the full value of their
structured and unstructured data and diverse k nowledge assets by making them findable and
actionable by employees. Because Lexalytics’ text analytics engine is fully integrated within
Coveo’s Search & Relevance technology , organizations can adopt a single solution that
identifies the “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” and “how” of diverse knowledge streams, unifies
searchability, and automatically recommends content and experts based upon the unique
context and role of the u ser.
These concepts will be explored in more detail in the following section where I will
present more clearly how to best implement and successfully apply the theory , methods and
strategies presented previously.
The theoretical side of knowledge manageme nt is only one step. It is imperial to note
that once someone has fully grasped the concept, in order to see the results he seeks, he
must be able to successfully implement them in real -life situations. For this to take place, there
are some steps and aspe cts that have to be taken into consideration.
One of the previous mentioned aspects that are pivotal in the successful
implementation of knowledge management is the corporate strategy of that particular
company. The objective is to manage, share, and creat e relevant knowledge assets that will
help meet tactical and strategic requirements. The organizational culture influences the way
people interact — the context within which knowledge is created — the resistance they will
have towards certain changes and u ltimately the way they share (or the way they do not share)
knowledge, the right processes, environments and systems that enable knowledge
management to be implemented in the organization, are other important factors for obtaining
the wanted results.
Knowledge management requires competent and experienced leadership at all
levels. There are a wide variety of knowledge management -related roles that an

23
organization may or may not need to implement, including a Chief Knowledge Officer,
Knowledge Managers, Kn owledge Brokers and so on9.
On the list of pivotal various aspects that one has to consider when moving forward
with implementing knowledge management strategies in a particular company, among the
ones previously mentioned, are also the systems, tools, and technologies that fit the
organization's requirements – properly designed and implemented as well as the long -term
support to implement and sustain initiatives that involve virtually all organizational
functions, which may be costly to implement (both fro m the perspective of time and money),
and which often do not have a directly visible return on investment.
Some examples of knowledge management strategies can be as follows — to
invest in the support of existing structures, competencies, knowledge retenti on
mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge management systems; to invest in
the Implementation of changes to structures, competencies, knowledge retention
mechanisms, culture, external network, and knowledge management systems; or to
remove ob solete knowledge.
Strategic investments represent the company’s choices/options so as to enable and
enhance the processes outlined earlier (e.g. knowledge sharing) and to offer help define which
knowledge is relevant (in line with strategic objectives) and which is not10.
There is an extensive list of knowledge management concepts. Some of them are
knowledge mapping & audits, exploration vs. exploitation, codification vs. personalization,
knowledge diffusion & sharing, CRM – customer relationship management , SCM – supply
chain management , knowledge ecosystems , knowledge representation .
At this stage we have had a look at the components and definit ions that related to
knowledge management. This section deals with knowledge management frameworks and
models. The old saying that a picture paints a thousand words is very much applicable in this
case. A good model can integrate various elements and show relationships in a way that is
much harder to do in writing.
But first, what are the components of a knowledge management framework? At the
most basic level, knowledge management consists of the following steps:
● Identification of needs
● Identification of kn owledge resources

9 http://www.knowledge -management -tools.net/
10 http://www.knowledge -management -tools.ne t/knowledge -management –
strategy.php

24
● Acquisition, creation, or elimination of knowledge related
resources/processes/environments
● Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
● Storage of knowledge
It is important to note that none of these processes are independent and all of them are
affected by countless factors. This is why knowledge management frameworks are typically
very different and can be presented in a wide variety of ways.
For instance, some models are sequential (as above), and seek to provide a better
overview a t the expense of "realism". Other models display overlapping processes in an
attempt to simulate what actually occurs inside an organization. The problem with the latter is
that they are often hard to grasp and can only convey limited information so as not to become
incomprehensible.
Since knowledge management is closely related or dependant on other disciplines
(such as strategy, information management, project man agement, etc.) and it is enabled by a
wide range of processes and systems, a model can become very complex indeed.
This is why there is no such thing as an integrated and fully detailed knowledge
management framework, i.e. one that captures all relevant as pects with appropriate detail.
Each model must choose its focus and origin, as well as its limitations.
There are essentially three questions that a knowledge management framework may
choose to answer: What/How, Why, When.
"What/how" refers to the actual p rocesses of knowledge management.
"Why" refers to an indication of the reasons behind using one method or the other.
"When" refers to the timing for using one method or another, and is very closely related
to "why".
The latter two questions are usually tac kled in more strategic oriented models that take
a broader perspective. What/how is usually dealt with in process oriented models that focus
on an understanding of the tools available to the manager. These kinds of models are
generally more common particul arly since the role of knowledge management can be defined
far more narrowly than I have chosen to do on this site.
In the following section I will a few solid knowledge manage ment models dealing with
all the aspects I have discussed above. However, before I conclude, I will present a very useful
framework outlined by Botha et al (2008) titled the "knowledge management broad
categories".

25
You don't know Knowledge Discovery Explore, Research, Create
You know Knowledge Repository
(Knowledge Base) Know ledge Sharing and Transfer
Knowledge you have Knowledge you don't have
Here, one can see the role of knowledge management from a broad perspective (very
similar to the one adopted on this site), i.e. which includes more than just knowledge
sharing/acce ss/etc, but also new knowledge creation . These categories provide a solid
overview of the components of any knowledge management framework focusing on the
what/how question .
Implementing knowledge management thus has several dimensions including:
● Strategy: Knowledge management strategy must be dependent on corporate
strategy. The objective is to manage, share, and create relevant knowledge
assets that will help meet tactical and strategic requirements.
● Organizational Culture: The organizational culture influences the way people
interact, the context within which knowledge is created, the resistance they will
have towards certain changes, and ultimately the way they share (or the way
they do not share) knowledge.
● Organizational Processes: The right processes, environments, and systems that
enable knowledge management to be implemented in the organization.
● Management & Leadership: knowledge management requires competent and
expe rienced leadership at all levels. There are a wide variety of knowledge
management -related roles that an organization may or may not need to
implement, including a CKO, knowledge managers, knowledge brokers and so
on. More on this in the section on knowledge management positions and roles .
● Technology: The systems, tools, and technologies that fit the organization's
requirements – properly designed and implemented.
● Politics: The long -term support to implement and sustain initiatives that involve
virtually all organizational functions, which may be costly to implement (both from
the perspective of time and money), and which often do not have a directly
visible return on investment.
In the p ast, failed initiatives were often due to an excessive focus on primitive
knowledge management tools and systems, at the expense of other areas. While it is still true

26
that knowledge management is about people and human interaction, knowledge management
systems have come a long way and have evolved from being an optional part of knowledge
management to a critical component. Today, such systems can allow for the capture of
unstructured thoughts and ideas, can create virtual conferencing allowing close contac t
between people from different parts of the world, and so on.
In this section and the preceding ones, I have looked at various knowledge
management models and presented versions of an integrated knowledge management model.
Although not intended to repres ent all possible areas, the integrated knowledge
management model does cover the major requirements of a model as defined earlier. To
recap, these are:
● Identification of needs
● Identification of knowledge resources
● Acquisition, creation, or elimination of k nowledge related
resources/processes/environments
● Retrieval, application and sharing of knowledge
● Storage of knowledge
It also addresses (at least to some degree) the 3 main approaches to knowledge
management, also outlined in earlier sections, namely: wha t/how, why, when. Finally, the
model ties in information, strategy, and organizational memory, building on the work of past
authors.
Even with an understanding of the knowledge management life cycle, knowledge
management can be difficult to implement. Belo w are a few tips on how to improve knowledge
management:
● Understand the flow of knowledge in your organization: While the various
knowledge management life cycle models list phases to follow, they are merely
a blueprint. Knowledge management will only be s uccessful if you understand
how your organization already naturally gains, stores, and shares knowledge, so
use the existing flow of information to structure your formal knowledge
management process.
● Clearly define your goals and how you will measure them: Just like any project,
you won’t be able to judge your success without clearly defined goals. Choose
objectives and how you will measure them before you implement knowledge
management.
● Encourage socialization: One way to foster an environment of knowledge transfer
is to let it happen naturally, by talking and casually sharing. Allow team members

27
to talk and form relationships in -office, which will make them more likely to turn
to each other for information or advice, or to learn new skills.
● Generate new kn owledge: Remember that knowledge management is not only
concerned with storing existing knowledge; rather, you need to create processes
to manage the ongoing stream of new information. Actively generate new
knowledge within your organization not only to cr eate a robust knowledge stream,
but also to show your employees that you treat new knowledge – and their
knowledge – as an asset. This will make workers more apt to adopt knowledge
management.
● Employ technology: Technology can play a huge role in standardi zing and
organizing the knowledge management process. However, remember that
technology itself is not knowledge management, but simply a tool to enhance
your processes. We’ll discuss knowledge management technology in depth in
the next section.
A knowledge management system is any technology that is used to store and manage
knowledge – essentially, a tool to oversee knowledge management. However, a successful
knowledge management system also taps into the underlying goals of knowledge
management: codifying knowledge, retrieving knowledge, improving collaboration, and
stimulating overall organizational learning.
Knowledge management systems have evolved from a useful tool to optimize
knowledge management processes to an integral component of knowledge managem ent
itself. Today, organizations rely on knowledge management systems to perform many of the
functions of knowledge management – data storage is an obvious example, but technology
systems can also help foster collaboration and group learning, among other o bjectives.
There are several emerging features in contemporary knowledge management
systems. Here’s a look at some of the most prominent ones:
● Content and document management: This is a critical component because
codifying knowledge almost always results i n documentation (or another form of
created content). When choosing a knowledge management system, make sure
the platform can support the file size, type(s), and volume that you need. This is
especially important for enterprise companies who will need to s tore massive
amounts of data, and scale regularly. (For this functionality, look for enterprise
portals.)
● Lessons learned databases: These are systems that aim to make intangible
(often tacit) knowledge clear and available to other users. The focus with le ssons

28
learned databases is as the name implies: on lessons learned by experts that
others should follow (think of it as best practices). The key here is to find a
database that can house this kind of qualitative information and make it
accessible.
● Groupwar e: As we’ve discussed, collaboration is a key component of knowledge
management. Groupware refers to any collaborative work platform, and is usually
intended for workers who need to communicate remotely. Groupware is broken
down into two categories: synchr onous groupware (collaborate and update in
real time) and asynchronous groupware.
● Artificial Intelligence (AI): The adoption of AI (as telepresence) into knowledge
management systems replaces the human consultants that had been analyzing
the data and monit oring the knowledge management processes. Today,
cognitive computing, adaptive technology, and intelligent filtering tools, in
particular, have huge implications for codifying knowledge, and will likely be
adopted by more knowledge management systems. Howe ver, the importance of
human quality assurance (QA) in much of today’s data work has raised concerns
about AI’s ability to fully take over this space.
Although knowledge management systems can help automate and standardize knowledge
management, there are s everal challenges when implementing a system. Security, data
accuracy, and changes in technology (cost, implementation, usability) are focused difficulties
that you should keep in mind from the get -go. A much more pervasive and ongoing challenge,
however, is creating a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing via technology. People
may already be reluctant to share information with their peers, and technology can create even
more barriers for doing so. Therefore, you’ll need to build in processes that support and
stimulate this type of knowledge transfer.
Kevin Murray offers four key things to look for when choosing a knowledge management
system:
1. Security: Information is valuable. Like any other valuable, there are people who
will steal it.
2. Accountabil ity: Information is valuable only when it is accurate. Limit access. Log
intensively. Test for accuracy.
3. Backup: Everyone knows the value of backing up. Not everyone knows how to
do it. Hiding a backup drive in the CEO's desk won't help if the building flo ods or
burns. Creating, maintaining, and correctly storing back -ups should be an
automatic functionality.

29
4. Ease of Use: If the system is too difficult or demanding to use, people will take
shortcuts. Shortcuts usually reduce security and the integrity of th e information
you're managing.
When discussing the future of knowledge management systems, many critics claim that
knowledge management itself is a fad. However, others think that knowledge management
and knowledge management systems will simply evolve to meet the demands of today’s
business world – likely incorporating more AI -driven systems. Murray agrees with the latter
camp. ‘It's no fad. It's an imperative. The amount of information being created grows each
year. It has to be managed, if you want it to be useful,’ he says. knowledge management
systems will continue to increase in popularity, functionality, and ease -of-use, just like the
evolution of typewriters and word processing software. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will blend into
the mix even more.

30
CHAPTER 2

According to Nonaka Ikujiro and Konno Noboru in a study titled 'The concept of Ba –
Building a foundation for knowledge creation', the term 'ba' roughly translates to 'place or
space' and it mainly refers to the space in which human social re lationships are formed and
thrive. In broad terms, fom such a medium knowledge is created. “Ba can be thought of as a
shared space for emerging relationships.” This is a quote from Nonaka’s paper called “The
concept of ‘Ba.'”
Takeuchi and Nonaka worked at a famous business school in Japan. They have been
working on New Product Development to understand how and why some firms have such
market success with new products. One of their lines of thinking is that new products are
developed by the creation of new k nowledge. This is related to the conversion of someone’s
tacit knowledge (e.g., the tacit knowledge a customer has of his or her own needs) into the
explicit knowledge of a small team. This small team is then able to convert that created
knowledge into the creation of a new product.
According to the theory of existentialism, Ba is a context, which harbours meaning.
Thus, ba can be considered as a shared space that serves as a foundation for knowledge
creation.
There are four types of ‘ba’ that correspond to the four stages of the SECI model. Each
category describes a ba especially suited to each of the four knowledge conversion modes.
These ba offer platforms for specific steps in the knowledge spiral process. Each ba supports
a particular conversion process and there by each ba speeds up the process of knowledge
creation.
Please, in trying to understand this concept, you have to accept the fact that although
we read these books in English and want to know exactly what Ba means, the concept has
been defined f irst in Japanese, a language that is by its own nature fuzzy. That means that
you have to be active in interpreting the meaning of that concept while you are using it.
Also, it is important to know that according to George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999)
Philosophy in the flash, our mind works metaphorically, That means that knowledge is always
understood in a given context, i.e. Ba in the Nonaka's model.
The initial foundations of the concept of ba regarding the process of knowledge
creation were first esta blished by a Japanese philosopher named Kitaro Nishida and
afterwards the research was further carried out by Shimizu.
Among the first academics who attempted to officialize Knowledge management as a
scientific discipline were Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka T akeuchi, by publishing the first

31
academic research study based on this topic. In their paper they outlined the now famous
SECI model of knowledge dimensions for knowledge creation. The term SECI is an acronym
formed as an abbreviation from the initials of the four main knowledge dimensions and how
tacit and explicit knowledge may be converted for the benefit of an organization (socialization,
externalization, combination, internalization). After this wonderful endeavour to promote and
develop the knowledge management in business and organizational contexts, further research
has been successfully done on the topic. Some of the following studies have had as a focus
point other issues involving and r evolving around knowledge and knowledge management
within an organization, such as the knowledge management life cycle, how to better store
knowledge and how to better share knowledge within the community within the company.
Alongside the SECI model of kn owledge dimensions, there have been developed other
models in order to facilitate the best results regarding knowledge creation process and its
management. The four most popular models are Wiig (1993), Zack (1996), Bukowitz and
Williams (2000), and McElroy (2003)11.
Explicit knowledge resides in an organization in terms of reports, documents, manuals,
procedures etc. They are easy to communicate and share in comparison to tacit knowledge.
Explicit knowledge can be stored in way of data or best practices and can easily be transmitted
or shared using IT tools. Here IT plays an important role to maintain explicit knowledge. Explicit
knowledge alone can't create a learning organization.
Explicit knowledge has to interact with tacit knowledge with various knowled ge creation
processes and drive the knowledge management program. Explicit knowledge without tacit
insight finally loses its meanings. Research document is created by means of interactions
between tacit and explicit knowledge rather than from tacit or expl icit alone.
A simple definition can be the knowledge that resides in our brain. But it is not only
that, we must know what we know. We can't measure tacit knowledge with a standard scale
and identify it as and when required.
Tacit knowledge is highly per sonal and hard to formalize. Subjective insight, intuitions,
and hunches are examples of tacit knowledge. Such type of knowledge gets reflected in ones
confidence, actions, commitments, values and ideas. It is difficult to communicate tacit
knowledge.
Organizational knowledge is the collective knowledge of its intellectual capitals. By just
having a group of intelligent and knowledgeable employees one organization can't became a
learning or innovative organization. The organization needs to facilitate the collective

11 https://www.smartsheet.com/knowledge -management -101

32
knowledge of its employees and this collective knowledge of the organization brings innovation
to the organization.
So tacit knowledge needs supporting platform like culture, social networking, trust
among employees, motivation levels to flouri sh. It is the collective tacit knowledge of the
organization, which can't be copied by any competitor. As defined by Peter Ducker 'It is the
only competitive advantage of any organization'.
Study says 80% of organization knowledge is tacit and rest 20% of the knowledge is
explicit knowledge. So tacit knowledge and its handling process plays an important role in
creating a learning organization.
‘The SECI model comes out of research in knowledge management, which is related
to organizational learning, busi ness administration, and information systems. SECI stands for
socialization, externalization, combination, internalization —a model of knowledge creation
proposed by Ikujiro Nonaka. (It’s interesting to note that Nonaka received his MBA (1968) and
Ph.D. (19 72) from UC Berkeley, when West Churchman was teaching in the business school
and offering seminars that included design -methods pioneers Horst Rittel and Christopher
Alexander, who were on the faculty of the UCB College of Environmental Design. The proble m
of managing knowledge created in the design process is described by Horst Rittel in his work
on Issues Based Information Systems (IBIS), which helped spawn an area of research in
computer science known as design rationale).’12
Nonaka sees ongoing knowledg e creation as the source of continuous innovation and
continuous innovation as the source of sustained competitive advantage. When organizations
innovate, they do not simply process information, from the outside in, in order to solve existing
problems and adapt to a changing environment. They actually create new knowledge and
information, from the inside out, in order to redefine both problems and solutions and, in the
process, to re -create their environment.13
Nonaka considers knowledge as a dynamic human p rocess of justifying personal belief
toward the ‘truth.’…This understanding emphasizes that knowledge is essentially related to
human action….As a fundamental basis for the theory of organizational knowledge creation,
we focus attention on the active, subj ective nature of knowledge represented by such terms

12 Shelley Evenson, Hugh Dubberly, Design as learning — or “knowledge creation” — the
SECI mode l, ACM — Interactions — Volume XVIII — January and February 2011 — On
Modeling Forum, http://www.dubberly.com/wp -content/uploads/2013/06/Dubberly_Design –
as-learning.pdf ;
13 Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru, The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge
Creation , California Management Review, 1998, Vol. 40, No. 3,
http://home. business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf ;

33
as commitment and belief that are deeply rooted in individuals’ value systems. The basic
argument is that knowledge creation is a synthesizing process through which an organization
interacts with individ uals and the environment to transcend emerging contradictions that the
organization faces. The process moves from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and back.
Tacit knowledge is personal, context -specific, and therefore hard to formalize and
communicate . Explicit or codified knowledge, on the other hand, refers to knowledge that is
transmittable in formal, systematic language. Tacit knowledge tends to be specific to a context
(available in a particular time and place), practical, routine, and procedural. Explicit knowledge
can transcend a specific context (and is transferable to other times and places) and tends to
be rationalizing, theoretical, and declarative. Nonaka postulates four modes of knowledge
conversion that are created when tacit and explicit knowledge interact.14
● Socialization (tacit to tacit) “is the process of converting new tacit
knowledge through shared experiences in day -to-day social interaction.”
● Externalization (tacit to explicit) is a process whereby “tacit knowledge is
articulated int o explicit knowledge…so that it can be shared by others to
become the basis of new knowledge.”
● Combination (explicit to explicit) is a process whereby “explicit knowledge
is collected from inside or outside the organization and then combined,
edited, or pr ocessed to form more complex and systematic explicit
knowledge…The new explicit knowledge is then disseminated among the
members of the organization.”
● Internalization (explicit to tacit) is a process whereby “explicit knowledge
created and shared throughou t an organization is then converted into tacit
knowledge by individuals…This stage can be understood as praxis, where
knowledge is applied and used in practical situations and becomes the
base for new routines.”15
Successive iterations of the process form a spiral, with each loop amplifying the knowledge to
a higher -level knowledge -creating entity; the process moves from individual to group to
organization to community of organizations.

14 Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru, The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge
Creation , California Management Review, 1998, Vol. 40, No. 3,
http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf ;

15 Ibidem.

34

This paper aims to present the SECI model and the analysis -synthesis bridge model
are not just similar but also isomorphic. That is, they use different terms to describe essentially
the same process. More precisely, the analysis -synthesis bridge model and related models
(Robinson model, Kumar innovation model, Kaiser/IDEO model, and Suri/IDEO model) are
specific instances of the more general SECI model. (The Beer model and Alexander model
are slightly different, though still roughly analogous. The 1966 Beer model is interesting in
relation to SECI, as it describes the proce ss of applying scientific models to managerial
situations, a special form of knowledge creation.)
The analysis -synthesis bridge model describes a four -step design process. It begins with 1.
directly observing a current situation, 2. reflecting on observati ons of the current situation to
create a model representing essential elements, 3. reflecting on the model of the current
situation to create a second model representing essential elements of an improved situation,
and 4. instantiating the second model in a physical form or prototype. The process described
by the analysis -synthesis bridge abstracts essential characteristics of both current and
improved situations as a “scaffold” for moving from researching to making in the design
process; using models as a bridge may be especially useful in complex areas of practice, such
as software design, service design, and systems design, where the path from researching to
making may often be unclear.

35

16
The four steps of the analysis -synthesis bridge model correspond to the four steps of
the SECI model:
Step 1 – Observing the current situation is a form of socialization. Insight -gathering
methods or problem -finding methods, such as ethnography, often rely on acquiring tacit
knowledge through inhabiting a specific conte xt and interacting with others in that context.
Nonaka writes, “The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of
shared experience, it is extremely difficult for one person to project her – or himself into another
individual’s thinki ng process.”
Step 2 – Modeling the current situation is a form of externalization. Sharing one’s
experience and insights with others, for example, writing an ethnography, requires abstracting
and generalizing. Nonaka writes, “Externalization…is the quintes sential knowledge -creation
process in that tacit knowledge becomes explicit, taking the shapes of metaphors, analogies,

16 Shelley Evenson, Hugh Dubberly, Design as learning — or “knowledge creation” — the SECI model ,
ACM — Interactions — Volume XVIII — January and February 2011 — On Modeling Forum,
http://www.dubberly.com/wp -content/uploads/2013/06/Dubberly_Design -as-learning.pdf

36
concepts, hypotheses, or models.” He adds, “To make a hidden concept or mechanism explicit
out of accumulated tacit knowledge, abduction , or retroduction is effective rather than
induction or deduction.”
Step 3 – Modeling a better situation is a form of combination. A designer looks at
aspects of what is and imagines combining them with other things that he or she has
experienced or imagin ed. Nonaka writes that combination “synthesizes knowledge from many
different sources in one context. The combination mode of knowledge conversion can also
include the ‘breakdown’ of concepts. Breaking down a concept…also creates systemic, explicit
knowled ge.”
Step 4 – Instantiating a model is a form of internalization. Prototyping requires working
out many details and determining many relationships, creating a new level of knowledge of
the model on which the prototype was based. Nonaka writes, “Explicit kn owledge, such as
product concepts or manufacturing procedures, has to be actualized through action, practice,
and reflection so that it can really become knowledge of one’s own.” 17

The bridge model is a specific instance of the SECI model.

17 Shelley Evenson, Hugh Dubber ly, Design as learning — or “knowledge creation” — the SECI model ,
ACM — Interactions — Volume XVIII — January and February 2011 — On Modeling Forum,
http:/ /www.dubberly.com/wp -content/uploads/2013/06/Dubberly_Design -as-learning.pdf

37
By rotating the SECI model, we can see that Socialize and Externalize tend to look
backward at more known situations, and Combine and Internalize tend to look forward to less
known situations.
Like the SECI model, the analysis -synthesis bridge model comprises four qua drants
of a two -by-two matrix. In the SECI model, step 1 is in the upper left corner. In the analysis –
synthesis bridge model, step 1 is in the lower left corner. Rotating the SECI model 90 degrees
counter -clockwise aligns the two models. Nonaka does not la bel columns or rows in the SECI
model. However, the analysis -synthesis bridge model labels the bottom row
“descriptive/concrete” and the top row “interpretive/abstract.” The left column is “researching
a current situation,” while the right column is “proto typing a future situation.” It’s not much of a
stretch to apply these labels to the rows and columns of the SECI model.
The SECI model explicitly describes the iterative nature of the knowledge creation
process by including a spiral. The analysis -synthesis bridge model does not refer to iteration
directly, though the authors assume readers understand the design process as iterative.
However, the Kaiser/IDEO model, which is isomorphic to the analysis -synthesis bridge model,
includes a loop. And Kumar’s innov ation model, which is also isomorphic, does explicitly
include a spiral!

38
18
The SECI model is just one part of Nonaka’s theory of knowledge creation, which also
comprises Ba and dialectic. Ba is a shared “place” or context —loosely bounded and
evolving —that “enables a dialectic process among the actors.”
‘A firm can be viewed as an organic configuration of various Ba, where people interact
with each other and the environment based on the knowledge they have and the meaning
they create. This notion is simila r to the Geogeghan and Pangaro notion that a firm is a
collection of conversations for understanding, agreeing, acting, and learning. Nonoka argues
that “knowledge is created through the synthesis of the contradictions between the
organization’s internal r esources and the environment.” His notion of the dialectic spiral of
synthesis of contradictions is similar to Rittel’s notion of designing as a process of reframing
and argumentation.’19
While outside the scope of this article, Nonaka’s notion of Ba and hi s insistence on Ba
and dialectic as parts of the knowledge -creation process suggest further opportunities for
applying his work on the two chosen organizations.

18 Idem.
19 Esmonde, P., Notes on the Role of Leadership and Language in Regenerating
Organizations , Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, CA, 2002.

39
Arguably the most important contributor to this subject has been Ikujiro Nonaka. He
worked exte nsively with the concepts of explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge , and drew
attention to the way Western firms tend to focus too much on the former (Nonaka & Takeuchi
1996). This sentiment has since been echoed throughout organisational learning and
knowledge management (knowledge management) literature (e.g. Cook & Brow n 1999,
Kreiner 1999, Tsoukas & Valdimirou 2001, etc.).
Nonaka and Takeuchi introduced the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1996) which
has become the cornerstone of knowledge creation and transfer theory. They proposed four
ways that knowledge types can be combined and converted, showing how knowledge is
shared and created in the organization. The model is based on the two types of knowledge
outlined above.
Socialization: Taci t to tacit. This dimension explains Social interaction as tacit to tacit
knowledge transfer, sharing tacit knowledge through face -to-face or share knowledge through
experiences. For example, meetings and brainstorm can support this kind of interaction. Thi s
dimension explains Social interaction as tacit to tacit knowledge transfer, sharing tacit
knowledge face -to-face or through experiences. For example, meetings and brainstorm can
support this kind o f interaction. Since tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and often time
and space specific, tacit knowledge can be acquired only through shared experience, such as
spending time together or living in the same environment. Socialization typically occu rs in a
traditional apprenticeship, where apprentices learn the tacit knowledge needed in their craft
through hands -on experience, rather than from written manuals or textbooks. Socialization is
the process of sharing tacit knowledge through observation, i mitation, practice, and
participation in formal and informal communities. The socialization process is usually
preempted by the creation of a physical or virtual space where a given community can interact
on a social level.
Externalization: Tacit to explic it. This is deemed as a particularly difficult and often
particularly important conversion mechanism. Tacit knowledge is codified into documents,
manuals, etc. so that it can spread more easily through the organization. Since tacit knowledge
can be virtual ly impossible to codify, the extent of this knowledge conversion mechanism is
debatable. The use of metaphor is cited as an important externalization mechanism. Between
tacit and explicit knowledge by Externalization (publishing, articulating knowledge), d eveloping
factors, which embed the combined tacit knowledge which enable its communication. For
example, concepts, images, and written documents can support this kind of interaction. When
tacit knowledge is made explicit, knowledge is crystallized, thus al lowing it to be shared by
others, and it becomes the basis of new knowledge. Concept creation in new product
development is an example of this conversion process.

40
Combination: Explicit to explicit. This is the simplest form. Codified knowledge sources
(e.g. documents) are combined to create new knowledge. Explicit to explicit by Combination
(organizing, integrating knowledge), combining different types of explicit knowledge, for
example building prototypes. The creative use of computerized communication ne tworks and
large -scale databases can support this mode of knowledge conversion. Explicit knowledge is
collected from inside or outside the organisation and then combined, edited or processed to
form new knowledge. The new explicit knowledge is then dissemi nated among the members
of the organization.
Internalization: Explicit to tacit. As explicit sources are used and learned, the
knowledge is internalized, modifying the user's existing tacit knowledge. Explicit to tacit by
Internalization (knowledge receiv ing and application by an individual), enclosed by learning by
doing; on the other hand, explicit knowledge becomes part of an individual's knowledge and
will be assets for an organization. It is the world where individuals share feelings, emotions,
experi ences and mental model. *An individual sympathises or further empathises with others,
removing the barriers between the self and others. *It is the primary ba from which the
knowledge creation process begins and represents the socialization phase. Physical and face
to face experiences are the key to conversion and transfer of tacit knowledge.
In this model, knowledge is continuously converted and created as users practice,
collaborate, interact, and learn. The process should be seen as a continuous, dynami c, swirl
of knowledge rather than a static model. It is basically a visual representation of overlapping,
continuous processes that take place – or should take place – in an organization.
Below I have included a graphical representation of this concept as presented in the
SECI model:
A great deal of effort has been put into investigating its practical applicability (with
mixed results), but in recent years the applicability of the model has been linked strongly to
culture, both organizational and national. The issue is whether culture is more than just an
element in a knowledge management model, i.e. culture -in-the-model, but rather acts as a
limiting factor for a model, i.e. culture -of-the-model (Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011). The issue of
culture as a limitin g factor for knowledge management models is an issue I will incorporate
into the site in the future and provide a link from this article to the new sections.
Nonetheless, the SECI model remains at the core of knowledge conversion theory
within knowledge ma nagement, and this almost universal attraction to the model may in itself
be an indication that some aspects of it appeal to virtually all cultures (Andreeva & Ikhilchik
2011).

41
Ba exists at many levels, which may be connected to form a greater ba (known as
Basho). Selecting people with the right mix of specific knowledge and capabilities for a project
team, taskforce, or cross – functional team is critical.
Through dialogue, individual’s mental models and skills are converted into common
terms and concepts. Two processes operate in concert: individuals share the mental model of
others, but also reflect and analyse their own. This is the place where tacit knowledge is made
explicit, thus it represents the externalization process. Dialogue is key for such conv ersions;
and the extensive use of metaphors is one of the conversion skills required.
It is a place of interaction in a virtual world instead of real space and time. It represents
the combination phase. Here, the combining of new explicit knowledge with ex isting
information and knowledge generates and systematises explicit knowledge throughout the
organisation. The use of online networks, group -ware, documentation and database has been
growing rapidly over the last decade, enhancing this conversion process.
Exercising ba supports the internalisation phase. *It facilitates the conversion of explicit
knowledge to tacit knowledge. Focused training with senior mentors and colleagues consists
primarily of continued exercises that stress certain patterns and worki ng out of such pattern.
Rather than teaching based on analysis, learning by continuous self -refinement through on
job training or peripheral and active participation is stressed.
After interna lization the process continues at a new level, hence the metaphor of a
spiral of knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 71 -2, 89) often referred to as the SECI
model. Nonaka subsequently developed the SECI model by introducing the Japanese word
Ba, interpreted as a shared space for emerging relationships.
Advantages –
1. Appreciates the dynamic nature of knowledge and knowledge creation.
2. Provides a framework for management of the relevant processes.
Disadvantages –
1. It is based on a study of Japanese o rganizations, which heavily rely on tacit
knowledge: employees are often with a company for life.
2. The linearity of the concept: can the spiral jump steps? Can it go counter –
clockwise? Since the model is bi -directional with only two nodes, the answer is
yes, but so what? An example would be an elevator in a two -story building.
While it may have numbers for the floor to push to go to, it could just as easily
function with only a "go" button.

fig. 1 Pg 4 – Spiral Evolution of Knowledge Conversion and Self -transcending Process

42
20

This paper has examined the empirical data on which the SECI model, central to
Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation, is based . Three points stand out. First,
much if not all the data for the survey and case studies actually came from earlier studies of
information creation. Nonaka has made much of the difference between information and
knowledge (Nonaka 1991b; 1994, pp. 15 -16; N onaka & Takeuchi 1995, pp. 57 -9), and while
his earlier studies were of semantic (as distinct from syntactic) information creation (see
Nonaka 1991b), he has not produced an argument to show the equivalence of knowledge and
semantic information. His theory might therefore at best be regarded as a theory of semantic
information creation rather than of knowledge creation. Second, the claim that the model
(whether of knowledge or information creation) was validated by a survey cannot be sustained.
The survey o nly found support for two of the four modes (socialization, and combination) one
of which is conceptually incoherent. Indeed, the fact that such an incoherent notion was
validated by the survey raises further concerns about the measures used in that study. Even

20 Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru, The con cept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation ,
California Management Review, 1998, Vol. 40, No. 3,
http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf ;

43
if they were to be justified, the survey concerned the “content” of the processes, and not the
processes themselves.
The SECI model is a process model, and its validation must therefore require validation
of processes, not simply 'content'. Third, t he detailed case materials reveal that the notions of
combination and internalization have not been clearly described, and are multi -activity
processes involving activities between which no common features have been demonstrated.
There is no convincing evi dence for either of these modes, nor for socialization. There is
however some evidence for the production of descriptions of processes or activities that
people could previously do but not describe – which Nonaka and his colleagues call
‘externalization’. The SECI model has thus never had a sound empirical grounding, which
must call its status into question. Consideration of its theoretical soundness is beyond the
scope of this paper, but we can note, for example, that Nonaka’s key distinction between tacit
and explicit knowledge, and his conceptualization of tacit knowledge, have been called into
question (McAdam & McCreedy 1999; Tsoukas 2003) suggesting that there may also be
important theoretical shortcomings.
The SECI model is a well known conceptual mo del that was first proposed by Nonaka
(1991 and expanded by Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It describes how explicit and tacit
knowledge is generated, transferred, and recreated in organizations. While it was first
proposed within the context of business orga nizations, the model can easily be applied to
education, as explored by Lin, Lin, and Huang (2008) and Yeh, Huang, and Yeh (2011).
The interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge is illustrated below.

44
The SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Ba is an integral concept in the SECI model. While the term is hard to translate from
its original Japanese since such a word does not exist in the English vocabulary, it is often
described as a context within which knowledge is shared, created, and utilized ( Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). This teacher virtual community could, for example, be considered a ba. As
with the modes of knowledge conversion delineated by Nonaka (1991), there are four
categories of ba. Originating ba can be described using this website as a place (whether
physical or virtual) where individuals interact with one another (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Again, this website could be considered an originating ba. Dialoguing ba can be described as
the sharing of tacit knowledge among professionals to create knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). For example, as professors dialogue on this forum, their tacit knowledge can be used
to inform individual and collective classroom practices. Systemizing ba can be described as
the analysis and measure of create d knowledge once it is applied in practice (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). Exercising ba based on the findings delineated above, best practices can be
improved (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The interplay between the four categories of ba is illustrated below.

Four categories of ba (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

45
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also delineated four knowledge assets that are
considered indispensable to enhance the value of a firm. While again delineated to address
the knowledge needs of a business organiz ation, these four knowledge assets can be easily
applied to educational institutions (Ozmen, 2010).
As in any organization, knowledge creation and exploitation in education must be
effectively managed. The figure below helps to create an inventory of an in stitution’s
knowledge assets. Since knowledge assets are inherently dynamic, cataloging is not enough
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). New and existing knowledge assets must be effectively
delineated and integrated to create a knowledge system.

Four categori es of knowledge assets (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

46
CHAPTER 3

In this chapter will be presented an overview of the organisation, from their beginnings
until now. It will be observed and analysed the manner of communication and information
dynamics between the different countries and the various international subsidiaries of the
company. Afterwards the focus will be on the general attitude towards knowledge, knowledge
management and the care that the company invests in the creation of new know ledge, and
subsequently how knowledge management is applied and implemented on a national level in
the Romanian subsidiary. At the end of the chapter the power dynamics and the
communication will be presented, as well as the relations throughout the hierar chy within the
company and a brief breakdown of the four dimensions of the SECI model and how are the
dimensions represented in everyday practice.
The first organization chosen for this research paper was Company A, which first
opened in 2006 in Slovakia. Year after year, the company was interested in its development
and opened each year a subsidiary in another country. The following year after the company’s
opening, it entered other three foreign markets – Romania, Ukraine and Czech Republic and
in 2008 th ey branched out in Hungary and the year after that in Poland. In the year 2010 they
expanded their business with the opening of a second subsidiary in the Czech Republic and
entered the German market in 2013. The year 2016 was the year in which a third sub sidiary
was established in the Czech Republic and the following year the organization expanded their
business even further through strategic partnerships and managed to take their business in
six more countries — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia
and Serbia.
One of the first pieces of information provided by Company A to their public and
customers is their vast knowledge and understanding of the differences between certain
counties of the region they are conducting their bus iness in. They want their customers to
know that they have a deep understanding of the importance of cultural differences and are
able to look at a problem from various perspectives. Being able to see from the perspective of
the client as well as from that of their competitor and take into account many other factors,
they want to assure their clients that they are able to help them with minimizing the risks.
This approach is extremely beneficial for the company since it allows for a better
understanding of the client and further on leads to a better communication between the two
parties and thus to a stronger partnership. Helping the clients and making them happy and
content, in turn helps the company to grow and prosper.

47
In 2018 they introduced their va lues as a company and their vision and mission. They
are presenting their mission as supporting their clients and their partners to achieve their
dreams, leaving a positive imprint on the planet.
In 2014 they managed to develop a special program that would be use internally by all
their employees from every country. It was developed in order to facilitate their staff’s jobs and
carry out their tasks easier and faster. Another aspect the platform was intended to cover was
the social aspect of the office life and improving the communication among colleagues from
various international subsidiaries.
Being a partner with Microsoft, it is only natural that among the many ways of
communication between employees, the most common one being Office Outlook 365, o ne of
them is Yammer. It is a social network and a collaboration tool use exclusively among the
employees of an organization, given that the access requires a certified and registered
company e -mail address.
Business Skype is another frequently used applic ation, used by the staff to facilitate
the communication among colleagues. It is mainly used as an alternative to the e -mail.
Colleagues may want to enquire something or remind a colleague of an appointment or to
make a quick remark, without disturbing the other person or develop the subject into a longer
conversation and they feel that the structure of an e -mail is too complex for the ideas they
want to get across. Another frequent reason for use is due to the rapidity of the communication
it provides and the ability to multitask while exchanging ideas with someone else.
Frequent monthly meetings are being held in order to better assess the progress and
any problems that may occur along the way during projects. One -on-one meetings,
department meetings, cros s-department meetings and even whole staff meetings to formally
present the current status of the company at a subsidiary level and what is happening in other
subsidiaries. In these meetings everyone is encouraged to speak, express their opinions ,
good or bad, and come up with ideas for improvement. Every employee is made to feel like
their opinion matters and they are a valuable component of the team. This manner of frequent
meetings in order to reassess the current status and where is the team and the c ompany
situated on the market, and have an overview of the progress they have made towards their
goals. From a goal setting and goal reaching perspective it is a good habit to reevaluate your
goals and your progress and more accurately establish what is working, what is not, how can
you eliminate the bad practices, improve the good aspects or introduce and implement new
innovative ideas.
In the previous two chapters, it has been presented at large the theory models
available when it comes to knowledge creation and its management as well as the history
behind them and how to better implement them in a multicultural organization.

48
The sharing of knowledge among co -workers inside the organization is a very
important element to take into account when discus sing about knowledge creation and
knowledge management. Through engaging in this process and fully committing to
wholeheartedly share the knowledge you possess with a colleague, order to further their
progress and move closer to achieving their common goal s, the organizational goals and all
the while improving themselves and bonding as a team can only lead to a good and
prosperous path, for all parties involved.
Inside this particular company, the general attitude is the one indicated by the
specialists and aforementioned. The Romanian subsidiary is largely sectioned in two — the
employees who are working internally, for the company and all its employees from that
particular subsidiary — and the employees whom are hired to provide consulting and services
for the company’s clients. The employees who provide the services for clients, are in turn
specialized in different areas of expertise and thus further separated into departments. This
system however does not impede the employees to cooperate and openly comm unicate with
each other, regardless of their department — if one can help his/her colleague, it is more than
happy to do so.
In order to encourage this kind of behaviour and facilitate such conduct, employees
have various means of communicating with each other, being it off or online. The most
common, personal and even old -fashioned way is to go to the person in question that may
help you in the matter at hand and talk to them face to face. Another more traditional way of
getting information is to search t hrough the company’s archive and retrieve the
documents/files/information that may clear the way to your solution. This can lead to a more
modern course of action, given that nowadays more and more information is archived in digital
format, you may search the digital archive of the company, and consequently, if you do not
have access to a certain type of information, you may as well turn to a colleague that has and
retrieve just the information you need without breaking protocol. Other means of
communicatio n are mainly involving technology and they range from giving a call to that
person, sending them an email or messaging them on business messaging platforms such as
Business Skype.
Communication is highly valued and not just among colleagues inside the subs idiary.
The company uses a special platform developed by their partner Microsoft, called Yammer,
where every employee has access and has the means necessary to communicate with
colleagues from all over the world, as the company has many subsidiaries in div ers countries.
The platform allows the creation of various subject matters and topics and those interested
can join in and have a conversation about common interests or commonalities and differences
in their work or various special cases they have encounte red and would like to share with the

49
group. More informal topics are addressed as well, such as healthy lunch solutions or
birthdays and celebrations. One interesting topping that was created recently came as an
initiative from a colleague in Slovakia whom , as the weather conditions got hotter and hotter,
he became distressed that as a male, in order to obey the dress code of the office, he had to
come into work with long pants that did not suit the current climatic conditions, or so he
thought, because aft er he asked for the help of the HR representant, they discovered that he
had only a misconception and male employees were allowed short pants during the warm
seasons. Communication and cooperation solved a real, physical problem that caused
distress for a colleague of ours and he thought it best to share, in turn, the good news. Other
frequently debated subjects are regarding green alternatives to waste or our daily consumption
of diverse campaigns and endeavours to saving the planet and reduce pollution — for example
planting trees campaigns, partnerships with recycling companies, swapping the polluting
products we usually use with green ones or actively trying to not be wasteful and avoid pre –
packaged products.
It is worth mentioning that for enduring the personal development of their employees
and inorder to facilitate the international and intercultural communication among colleagues
from different subsidiaries, the company has partnered with an english professor and any
employee who desires to attend is more than welcome. The professor has a clear schedule
— every Thursday at 10 am — thus anyone who wants to come to class, knows when and
where to come and can make his/her schedule accordingly, meaning they will know how to
make their program for the day w ithout inconvenience.
Collegiality and communication and does not stop however inside the company and
the employees take these good habits and spread it as much as possible. Getting involved in
charity projects and contributing to the wellbeing of the comm unity we are living in, even more
so, the world we are living in. Volunteering programs are constantly in their mind and on their
to do lists. Just some of the work done in the past months include collecting clothes, books
and goods for children in hospita ls, planting trees in the fields outside the capital city and
donating blood.
Following the structure provided by the SECI model (Socialization, Externalization,
Combination, Internalization) and the Ba concept, taking each different element of the concept
in turn, they will be observed to see how each one is represented and applied in everyday
practice by the employees of the company on each power level of the hierarchy.
Regarding the socialization dimension of the model, when it comes to tacit to tacit
transfer of knowledge, it is a rather well established model of training for newcomers. This type
of knowledge transfer it is done intuitively, through observation, guidance and practice. When
a new employee is hired, depending on the project he will be ass igned to, someone is to be

50
their trainer. They will have written material to instruct them and pay close attention to what
the trainer does as well. If they have any questions about the process or the procedures, the
trainer will be at his/her side and pro vide them with the support needed. Moreover, when the
time comes for the new employee to perform the tasks on their own, the trainer will be at their
side or help them if the situation requires it. This shadowing technique resembles very much
the traditio nal apprenticeship and instead of learning from textbooks or written -down
procedures, the new employee can see first hand what is required and how the tasks should
be managed, and communication is made a lot more accessible since the trainer is in their
proximity most of the time, any questions or unclarities can be rapidly explained in a
comprehensive and adapted to the needs of each individual. Face -to-face interactions are
most common within the colleagues from the same subsidiary but this is not to say that there
are no means of such form of communication with those who are not physically near us.
Technology comes to the aid of human interactions and the company provides the employees
with various methods and platforms which enable even crossborder direc t communication
(and with this I am referring to various platforms and applications to video call or voice call).
Meetings are being held regularly on different levels — all subsidiary employees, all
members of a department, cross -department meetings, one -on-one meetings, brainstorming
sessions. In all meetings everyone is welcome to share their experiences and propose ideas.
In the meetings where members of more areas of expertise are present, the employees are
encouraged to share news of their work, prob lems they have encountered lately and how they
have managed to solve them or barriers they are still battling with at the moment. Even news
on the more personal level are shared with the group, such as weddings, pregnancies,
birthdays, social upcoming even ts (such as team buildings or community charity and
volunteering programs). This helps tighten the bond between the members of the group, and
as a result can work and interact with more ease, creating an atmosphere that you are among
friends.
The transfer or the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, is being
pursued by almost every employee of the company, most often by means of creating, writing
and publishing articles regarding their particular area of expertise. The externalization
dime nsion is a difficult conversion process but at the same time it is a valuable one. The
publishing of articles does not only help the writer to have a better grasp on the subject he is
writing about, but it provides the opportunity for both the writer and t he reader, with the
information from the article, to internalise the written data and further down the line, eventually
make connections with already existing/known information and create new knowledge.
The combination dimension is a much simpler dimension when compared to the other
ones. The conversion of explicit knowledge into explicit knowledge is a much more simpler,

51
clear cut process than the other three. The most relevant example from within the everyday
activities of the company entails the gatherin g of information, explicit in nature from texts of
the legislation and simultaneously collecting data from the clients and establishing the next
legal steps that need to be taken for each client. The gathering of knowledge, organizing that
knowledge and in tegrating that knowledge it into a system is what the combination dimension
is all about. and what the majority of formal work of the employees entails. The sources of the
information collected are of various proveniences. Data may be collected from the pe rsonal
archive of the company or the public information available on the internet, from the data directly
provided to the company by the authorized institutions or from the data provided by the client
directly (upon special request or per contract clauses) .
All the employees of Company A are encouraged to never stop learning and constantly
improve their knowledge not only regarding their particular area of work but in other domains
as well. A well rounded person is much more valuable than someone who only k nows one
subject (regardless if that person is an expert in that particular subject). A Jack of all trades,
as they say, someone with a wide horizon can have a global view on a problem and can draw
ideas from those various domains and divers information ga thered over the years.
A concrete example of conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge that is
common to many organizations is reading the procedures provided by the company for the
data processing and services required for specific clients an d through retaining that
information and internalizing the knowledge, over time, there is no time limit to the process,
this tacit knowledge interacts with other pieces of information and creates connections that
lead to the birth of new knowledge. In thi s way, explicit knowledge is absorbed into the
knowledge of an individual and is converted into tacit knowledge. This is but one example of
the many ways in which a person can use explicit knowledge available to him during his
working hours and generate ne w knowledge and innovate.

52
CHAPTER 4

Following the model presented in the previous chapter, this second company will be
presented in a similar manner. I will begin with a general presentation of the company, from
the moment it came into bei ng until the present day. I will be observing and analysing the
manner of communication and information dynamics between the two countries where it is
currently carrying out their activities and conducts business. Afterwards I will be focusing on
the gener al attitude towards knowledge, knowledge management and the care that the
company invests in the creation of new knowledge, and subsequently how knowledge
management is applied and implemented on a national level in the Romanian subsidiary. For
the closing of the chapter I will be presenting the power dynamics and the communication
and relations throughout the hierarchy within the company and a brief breakdown of the four
dimensions of the SECI model and how are the dimensions applied in everyday activitie s.
The second company chosen for this analysis will be known futheron as Company B.
It is a recently developed one. It was originally opened in the 90’s, in Bulgaria by a bulgarian
couple in the capital city. The firm slowly but surely grew and expanded in other bulgarian
cities. After over 20 years of doing business domestically, the couple decided it is time to
expand the activity across the border and enter the Romanian market.
Three years after entering the foreign neighbouring market, the company has not yet
been able to develop a proper strategy that can suits the newly entered market and is the
subtleties and inner workings of the Romanian customer, its behaviour and motivations are
still unknown by the company.
Judging from the struggle to connect with both the local staff or the customers they are
addressing when it comes to the Romanian subsidiary, I believe we can state that the firm did
not acquired a very healthy relationship with knowledge and its management. The company’s
longevity and succe ss in its country of origin however, prove that they have an inherent and
instinctual understanding of their own nationality. They have been able to make strong
connections and maintain long -lasting relationships with the Bulgarian employees and their
customers.
The public opinion towards Company B in Bulgaria is a very positive one and being
their employee carries a certain respect and pride. They are seen as a trustworthy firm who
provides good quality products at an affordable and fair price. On the ot her hand, across the
border the public opinion is almost the exact opposite. For the Romanian customers they are
a foreign firm that has entered the market with foreign products for which they practice very

53
high prices. Despite the multiple surveys the com pany has conducted with the Romanian
public, they did not modify their practices according to the customers requests and complaints.
Still, we have to take into consideration the difference in proportion and development
that the company has managed to ma ke in the two countries. Over the decades, the business
had time to expand and gain the public trust and adapt to their tastes and preferences. In the
country of origin the company has expanded its business all over the country and not only in
all major ci ties, whereas in the new market, they are conducting their business in only one city.
It may be that the hard work that has resulted in the outstanding reputation they are enjoying
now in Bulgaria led them to believe they do not need to make major changes in their approach
or the manner of manufacturing the product, regardless of the market or the country in which
they are conducting their business.
The upper management in the Romanian subsidiary is of Bulgarian nationality.
Therefore, they are inclined to hire people that speak either Bulgarian or english language in
order to be able to communicate. For the employees that speak only Romanian, it is impossible
to directly communicate with the upper management and must receive indirect or second –
hand informat ion though someone else.
As already established, knowledge sharing among employees is a good practice to
implement inside the organization and a very important element to take into account when
discussing about knowledge creation and knowledge management. Through engaging in this
process and fully committing to wholeheartedly share the knowledge you possess or have
access to with a colleague, in order to help them with their progress, inspire them or boost
their creativity and thus leading to new knowledge creation. This in turn can move the company
closer to achieving the organizational goals and in the meantime improving the collaboration
and atmosphere in the office, which can only lead to a good and prosperous path, for all parties
involved.
The Romanian subsidiary is structured in three major parts — the logistics sector, the
headquarter sector and the stores. Communication between all the colleagues is available
through four mediums — face to face, phone calls, whatsapp messaging or via e -mail. The
most often than not, the employees resort to messaging when needing to communicate
something or are in need of help and support from their colleagues.
The company does not put a great value on communication and the majority of
communication is done in order t o extend some guidelines of conduct regarding the services
provided for the client or reports from the employees about daily stats and results regarding
the guidelines received. The communication has a tendency to have only one direction — from
the managem ent in Bulgaria, coming to the management in Romania, then spreading the
news and new instructions to all the employees and then making sure the standards are being

54
kept and the result is the one desired. The biggest mistake is that the management does not
pay very much attention and does not spend much time to break does the tasks that need to
be fulfilled in order to reach the desired goal. Those who receive the most explanations and
help with understanding their tasks are those who work in the stores and have the most contact
with the client.
In this company, communication is not so much about knowledge sharing a it is about
passing some targets, goals and respecting a certain standard conduct when interacting with
the clients. As previously mentioned, t hose who receive the most detailed instructions about
how to do their activity are those who interact with the client and thus, any activity that does
not happen in the sight of the public, is left to the judgement of the employee regarding the
manner in w hich the task is completed, as long as the goal is reached.
As knowledge sharing involves communication, so does communication requires a
common medium for it to take place. This is a common barrier that occurs within this company,
as not all the employees share a common language. This entails that some of the employees
that do no know either english or bulgarian, will receive second or third hand information
through another colleague. Thus, clearly communicating those goals and instructions from the
manage ment of the company to all the employees at the same time, in order for them to be
on the same page and quickly understand and mobilize for a common goal is rather hard to
obtain.
This in turn makes it harder for the personnel to form bond with everyone a nd feel a
part of the team when they are constantly facing difficulties communicating with their bosses.
A telling example is if an employee who does not speak other languages aside of Romanian
would have a problem with their manager, but the next person, according to hierarchy is
Bulgarian, his only choice would be to go to the Human Resources representant and explain
the situation, but even then, the employee would never be able to directly express the problem
to the Bulgarian manager and thus the informa tion would inevitably be distorted in some
degree.
The lack of a common language may cause someone such distress as to determine
them to leave a job they may enjoy, just to avoid the frustration and inability to directly express
themselves. This, in turn m ay be a loss for the company as well, given that they are now prived
of a good employee. All this loss and frustration is the opposite of what we are trying to
achieve. The concept of Ba and the model of SECI are aiming and striving to avoid such
situation s and help in the creation of new knowledge providing different strategies. If this was
a concern of the company, they may have wanted to invest in their employees and create an
environment in which they could improve and strive to constantly perfect their craft. Regarding
the particular case of language barriers between employees, the solution may be a simple

55
program of enrolling those willing to learn a new language to special courses. This way, the
employees would have gained the skill and the confidence express themselves, the company
would have avoided the loss of a valuable employee and the team would be more
consolidated. This kind of behaviour could boost the loyalty of the personnel as well, and this
would be just through showing them they are value d and considered an important part of the
company.
In order to better compare the two chosen companies, I will be applying the same
strategy to this second organization. I will take the structure presented in the previous chapters
— SECI model (Socializat ion, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) and the Ba
concept — and I will observe how each different element of the concept is represented and
applied in everyday practice by the employees of the company on each power level of the
hierarchy.
When it comes to the socialization element of the model, the company does not
engage very much in this part. The classic model of shadowing or training system is practiced
but no one is involved to improve or add something new to the system in order to better adapt
to the multitude of personalities, background experiences, education level or anything
particular to the new individual that is the new addition to the team. The training is done
focusing on the physical part of the process and how to get things done but disregarding or
not having the end goal in mind. The employees have to conform to a strict set of rules that
are established and passed on from the head management in Bulgaria and all the way to the
newest member of the Romanian team. The problem with this kind of approach is that the
person/persons responsible for creating this set of standard keeping rules, could never be able
to prepare and make those rules having in mind all the various perspectives, possibilities and
situations that may occur when on the job. In those cases the employee is left to fend for
himself and manage the situation in whatever way she/he can. This in turn can lead to cases
when the approach of the employee turns out to be a detrimental one for the company and
the management, from afar, not knowing the whole story and receiving the information from
secondary parties, thus causing that information to be prone to disstorsion, may take a not so
good decision to sanction that employee and causing other internal problems as a resul t.
The socialization dimension involves direct interactions, time spent together in
meeting, team buildings, brainstorming or other forms of physical interaction, regardless if they
are more on the formal or informal side and observation of one another. A s previously
mentioned, the head management of the company is much more focused on the numerical
and pragmatic side of the business and tend to turn a blind eye to the human, interpersonal
part of the business. most of the interactions and communications a mong the different
departments or the different levels of the hierarchy are brief and to the point. They do not make

56
it a point to get to know very much the person they are working with, as long as the end result
is the one required of them. This approach is a rather wasteful one, and the simple reason is
that people are not single task performing robots. Every person is unique and has many talents
and capabilities, which may be hidden or discovered and already cultivated.
The externalization dimension, as already established, is a very complex conversion
process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. In this company, this kind of
knowledge creation may be encountered solely in the marketing department. The most
common practice is to provide the customers a glimpse of the feelings that may lead them to
indulge in the purchasing of their products, the feelings they may have as a result of consuming
the products or kinds of social events, life events or stepping stones/ milestones achieved
when they may want to profit from their services. This is most often than not done by an image
depicting the the event where the product would be suitable to be present or a short description
regarding the atmosphere or the thoughts that may come into one’s he ad in such and such
situations.
For the combination dimension, the type of knowledge involved is exclusively explicit
in nature. It implies taking all the explicit knowledge available and using it in various
combinations and permutations and as a result, obtaining new knowledge. This is but a
simplistic presentation of kow this dimension can be applied in real -life practice.
In the vast majority of cases, the employees from the Romanian subsidiary are kept
idle and encouraged to continue to do the usual wo rk without implicating in any sort of
brainstorming for innovation and improvement. All the data and information collected either
from internal sources or from outside, external sources, are run through a filter towards the
head quarter and from there, aft er deliberating and analysing the knowledge gathered, the
new strategy is passed and spread among the employees from every department. This
approach, based on the knowledge gathered from the previous chapters, is a faulty one to say
the least. The lack of involvement from the employees, the members of the company
community that should be formed within an organisation, is detrimental for the company. There
is a famous saying that speaks for this particular situation that says ‘a chain is only as strong
as its weakest link’. Every individual as per mentioned before, has something to offer to the
team, every person has particular experiences or information she/he has gathered over the
years and that piece of information can in turn lead to a new one and thus ne w knowledge can
be created. Everything can be used if given the chance to show its value and even if not
directly, at least indirectly can influence others and further on become a significant asset.
The process of integrating information gathered into a kn owledge system is a rather
linear one. The flow of information and knowledge within the company has a very well
established and rigid course. Any other route is disregarded and only the pre -approved course

57
is acknowledged and thus limiting at a very high l evel the amount of input information at the
starting point of the organizing and analyzing of data gathered.
The internalization dimension implies the conversion of knowledge from an explicit
nature to tacit knowledge. It refers to the process of encounte ring explicit knowledge and
internalizing that piece of information, interacting and processing it and reflecting on it until
one can identify patterns, create new connections between the freshly learned and internalized
knowledge and other knowledge (bein g it older or newer information) and being able to apply
that new acquired knowledge alongside long -term memories and knowledge and place each
piece of data in their specific category, domain, theme, structure, field or subfield.
Such kind of knowledge cre ation can be encountered on a rather small scale in this
company. New explicit knowledge consumption on the other hand is at the opposite end of
the scale. The focus should be the creation of new, hopefully innovative knowledge that
provides the people and the company to move forward and evolve, improve and adapt to the
ever changing world around us. It seems like a pattern is shaping up and taking form — the
head of the company disregards the creative power of the human resources that it has at its
disposa l, collectively, and focuses only on some individuals that he deems capable. This self
imposed limitation can only be in the company's detriment, ignoring a well known business
advice that suggests never to put all your eggs into one basket — meaning never go into
something without having at least one back -up plan that you can rely on and fall back onto if
things are ever to go awry.
When the instructions passed on from the head management representatives to all the
members of the staff, sometimes those in structions are being passed on in the form of explicit
knowledge, regardless if it is being passed directly or indirectly, in various degrees and
consequently, the employees gave to assimilate that information and convert it into implicit
knowledge. The po ssible weakness in this context is that even though new knowledge may
be created as a result of the conversion from explicit into implicit knowledge, the company
does not have the opportunity to benefit from that new data, even though it may be innovative
and may come into the organisation’s aid towards progress and towards achieving the
organisational goals.

58
CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge transfer is a necessary ability in our lives. The ability to apply knowledge
to new to new situations and regarding different domains is a much valued asset for a person
to have. Generalists, who are cognitively flexible, self -directed problem solvers and are
experienced in non -repetitive tasks and frequently face challenges and enjoy being stimulated
by their daily act ivities perform much better, even though there is a tendency nowadays
towards highly specialising and narrowing the area of expertise in an attempt to fight these
daily intellectual stimuli and move towards certainty and assurance. The fault with that, as we
came to find out, is that the way forward is by constantly striving for answers and for innovation
and without a wide horizon ahead, one cannot know what the best direction could be. Knowing
only one path, leaves one with no alternative.
Knowledge crea tion is a product of many kind of processes. Information is gathered,
converted, systematized, combined, thansfered, influenced, and many other just so at the end
we end up with a marvellous new idea giving us more information to continue the cycle.
If som eone wants to develop something in a controlled environment or desires its
further innovation and growth, it is necessary to know the process or processes through which
it needs to go and which are inevitable if it is to reach the desired end goal. The und erstanding
of the process of knowledge creation is paramount in order to be able to provide a better
medium and conditions for that to happen.
When analysing Company A and B, the third and the fourth chapter started with a
general presentation of each comp any, from the moment it was set up until now. It was
identified, observed and analysed the manner of communication and information dynamics
between the countries where they are currently carrying out their activities and conduct their
business. Afterwards the focus moved on the general attitude towards knowledge, knowledge
management and the care that the company invests in the creation of new knowledge, and
subsequently how knowledge management is applied and implemented on a national level in
the Romanian subsidiaries of each of the companies. At the and of the respective chapters,
there was a presentation of the power dynamics, the communication and relations throughout
the hierarchy within the company and a brief breakdown of the four dimensions of the S ECI
model and how are the dimensions represented in everyday practice.
The goal setting and the process of establishing the next necessary steps in order to
move forward towards the objective that was set is a collective process in the first organization
– Company A – with a piramidal interconnected structure, whereas in the second company –
Company B – it was identified a more linear approach in these matters (from the top
management towards those in executing jobs).

59
It has been demonstrated that the prin ciples explored and analysed in the present
paper are good models to apply in everyday practice in any organization and can be quite
beneficial when properly implemented. Even though Company B opened much earlier than
Company A, the informed business decis ions they took over the years have had a dramatic
impact on the development of each organization. The first company, presented in chapter
three, proved to be open to applying the principles within their subsidiaries and as a result, the
organization manage d to prosper immensely over a short span of time and expand their
business all over Europe, thus diversifying their organisational community and gaining a better
understanding and tolerance and being able to better relate to their clients and their needs.
On the other hand, the second company, analysed in the fourth chapter, through their
disregard for these principles, was not able to match the business success of the first one.
With a thirteen year head start, the company did not manage to reach the ampli tude and the
prosperity of Company A. This is but another demonstration in action of the effectiveness of
the concept of Ba and the importance of the four dimensions of knowledge management.
For further analysis, it would be a suggestion to do a study on a larger scale in order
to gather more concrete and more accurate data related to the subject at hand. Continuing
the research opting to do a study based more on a quantitative research style would be a valid
choice. This option seems to be the most advanta geous, given the current state of the
information previously presented in this present research paper. Particulars of the theory have
been observed and how they apply in practice by actual individuals, working in two different
environments, in two distinct companies who are at contrasting stages of development, with
unrelated areas of activity and different approaches to doing business.

60
BIBLIOGRAFIE

1. Cesar Bandera, Fazel Keshtkar, Michael R. Bartolacci, Shiromani
Neerudu, Katia Passerini, Knowledge management and the entrepreneur: Insights
from Ikujiro Nonaka's Dynamic Knowledge Creation model (SECI) , International
Journal of Innovation Studies, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2017, pp. 163 -174;
2. Delio Ignacio Castaneda , Luisa Fernanda Manrique , Sergio Cuellar ,
(2018 ), Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management? A
systematic review , Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 Issue: 2, pp.299 –
325, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM -01-2017 -0041
3. Esmonde, P., Notes on the Role of Leadership and Language in
Regenerating Organizations , Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, CA, 2002.
4. Introduction to Knowledge Management . University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Archived from the original on March 19, 2007. Retrieved 11
September 2014, www.unc.edu ;
5. Jacob Brix, Exploring knowledge cr eation processes as a source of
organizational learning: A longitudinal case study of a public innovation project ,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Volume 33, Issue 2, 2017, pp. 113 -127;
6. João Ferreira, Jens Mueller, Armando Papa, (2018) "Strategic
knowledge management: theory, practice and future challenges" , Journal of
Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.110 8/JKM -07-2018 -0461 ;
7. Kolb, Alice Y., and David A. Kolb. "Learning Styles and Learning Spaces:
Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education." Academy of Management
Learning & Education 4, no. 2 (2005): 193 -212.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214287 ;
8. Mohammad Sh. Al -Qdah, Juhana Salim, A Conceptual Framework for
Managing Tacit Knowledge through ICT Perspective , Procedia Technology,
Volume 11, 2013, pp. 1188 -1194;
9. Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru, The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a
Foundation for Knowledge Creation , California Management Review, 1998, Vol.
40, No. 3, http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf ;
10. Shelley Evenson, Hugh Dubberly, Design as learning — or “knowledge
creation” — the SECI model , ACM — Interactions — Volume XVIII — January

61
and February 2011 — On Modeling Forum, http://www.dubberly.com/wp –
content/uploads/2013/06/Dubberly_Design -as-learning.pdf
11. Stoenescu Constantin, O perspectiva epistemologica asupra
managementului cunoasterii, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti, 2011, Bucuresti;
12. Stoenescu C onstantin, Mangementul cunosterii – teme actuale, Editura
Universitatii din Bucuresti, 2011, Bucuresti;
13. Tingwei Gao , Yueting Chai , Yi Liu , (2018), A review of knowledge
management about theoretical conception and designing approaches ,
International Journal of Crowd Science, Vol. 2 Issue: 1, pp.42 -51,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCS -08-2017 -0023;
14. ttp://www.knowledge -management -tools.net
15. https://www.smartsheet.com/knowledge -management -101
16. http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/What -Is/What -is-KM-
Knowledge -Management -Explained -122649.aspx
17. http://providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/IDC_KM_Study_April_2002.
pdf
18. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/january -february -2011/design –
as-learning -or-knowledge -creation -the-seci-model1
19. https://blog.coveo.com/idc -report -unified -search -text-analytics -are-
proven -drivers -of-km-success/