Technical knowledge creation: Enabling tacit knowledge use

• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1563
• Author: Atanu Chaudhuri,Peder Veng Søberg

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Technical knowledge creation: Enabling tacit knowledge use

Peder Veng Søberg

1,2

|Atanu Chaudhuri

1

1

Department for Materials and Production,

Section for Sustainable Production, Aalborg

University, Copenhagen, Denmark

2

Sino‐Danish Center for Education and

Research (SDC), Aarhus, Denmark

Correspondence

Peder Veng Søberg, Department for Materials

and Production, Section for Sustainable

Production, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers

Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Email: pvs@mp.aau.dk

Funding information

Sino‐Danish Center for Education and

Research

The paper investigates knowledge creation in nascent technical industries, a some-

what neglected empirical setting concerning knowledge creation. Frameworks on

organizational learning and knowledge creation assume that knowledge creation

depends on language creation and neglect the benefits involved by allowing elements

of new product and process ideas to mature in a tacit form, whereas cognitive neuro-

science data suggest that technical knowledge creation is largely nonlinguistic. The

four case studies point to excessive reliance on group discussion, a need for more trial

and error and that field tests and prototypes generate new learnings that save time

and lowers subsequent risks. Technical knowledge creation in nascent high‐tech

industries requires opportunities to work with and further develop knowledge in its

tacit form. The paper refines frameworks on organizational learning and knowledge

creation to better reflect the characteristics of technical knowledge creation. The

paper adds prototypes as a necessary, but currently missing outcome option from

interpreting processes in the 4I framework.

1|INTRODUCTION

Knowledge creation requires collaboration (Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014)

and interaction (Vasantha, Chakrabarti, & Corney, 2016); however, the

role of language for technical knowledge creation is unclear. For Albert

Einstein “words seemed to play no role in his mechanism of thought,

which instead relied on ‘certain signs and more less clear images’”

(Hadamard, 1996: IX). Similarly, one of the founders of Apple (the tech-

nically talented Steve Wozniak) advises vigorously for working alone,

not in teams or as part of committees when trying to create something

revolutionary (Wozniak & Smith, 2006). Thus, Steve Wozniak, as well

as Albert Einstein, seemingly support the notion that verbal group

interaction in itself is insufficient to nurture the creativity needed to

bring about new breakthroughs. Interestingly, they thereby contradict

Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) and advice against any reliance on

group dynamics and related language development. To introduce the

4I framework, Crossan et al. (1999) used another Apple founder (Steve

Jobs) to exemplify how language development is essential for knowl-

edge creation and argued that had Steve Jobs used other metaphors,

much would have been different. Knowing what we know now, we

might add that had Crossan et al. (1999) developed a case about Apple

and investigated how technical knowledge creation takes place rather

than inferring things about the company; some things might have

looked different in the field of knowledge management. The account

of Steve Wozniak is opposite to the story in Crossan et al. (1999) where

Steve Job's metaphors get a main role as driving forces of the knowl-

edge creation in Apple. At the center of this misunderstanding lies

the notion of knowledge creation as dependent on language creation.

Frameworks on knowledge creation and organizational learning

reflect the assumption that knowledge creation hinges on language

development and stress codification of tacit knowledge (Chomsky,

2006; Crossan & Berdrow, 2003; Crossan et al., 1999; Nonaka &

Konno, 1998). However, empirical evidence suggests that tacit knowl-

edge is an antecedent of innovation performance (Jisr & Maamari,

2017) and that brain processes required for technical knowledge crea-

tion are nonlinguistic (Amalric & Dehaene, 2016; Monti, Parsons, &

Osherson, 2012). It is necessary to understand the processes of tech-

nical knowledge creation and explore and revisit if they fit well with

existing knowledge creation frameworks. Given that most frameworks

on knowledge creation have neglected nascent high‐tech industries, it

is necessary to explore how technical knowledge creation occurs in

nascent technical industries?

The findings of this paper illustrate that technical knowledge cre-

ation in nascent high‐tech industries requires opportunities to work

with and further develop knowledge in its tacit form rather than only

forcing its codification. Codification and language development require

focused attention in other areas of the brain than those needed to

evolve solutions for technical problems. Codification also requires time

Received: 28 December 2017 Accepted: 25 February 2018

DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1563

88 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Knowl Process Manag. 2018;25:88–96.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm