Most knowledge management enthusiasts have heard of NONAKA, one of the pioneers and leaders in knowledge management. Less known is his Swedish colleague, GUNNAR HEDLUND. Both of them wrote articles on knowledge management as early as 1987.
A joint article they co-authored in 1993 - "Models of KM in the West and Japan" - included the foundational principles upon which NONAKA and Takeuchi wrote their 1995 book "The Knowledge-Creating Company."
The article we are currently discussing was written in 1994 by HEDLUND and includes several interesting and revolutionary ideas about knowledge management and a supporting organizational structure. The article relies (like NONAKA's book) on the shared model they developed.
Types of Knowledge
There are different types of knowledge: the epistemological axis, which includes tacit and explicit knowledge, and the ontological axis, which includes knowledge of the individual, group, organization, and inter-organizational. Combining these axes creates eight (8) knowledge prototypes.
The article reviews the movement of knowledge (transitions) between different types of knowledge.
Through these transitions, knowledge is developed.
Would you like me to provide more details about the types of knowledge or the knowledge transition model described in the article? I can elaborate on the epistemological and ontological axes or explain Hedlund’s eight knowledge prototypes.
This way, we can also understand some of the differences in knowledge management between Japan and the West:
In the West, innovation is often seen as significant and revolutionary steps; in Japan, it's about gradual steps.
For years, explaining the need for large leaps, the revolution in Western innovation was convenient due to organizational size and bureaucracy. However, HEDLUND offers a different explanation, noting that Japan also has large organizations, yet their development remains gradual.
HEDLUND attributes this to Western company's need to work with explicit knowledge - a "plan for every action." These organizations invest heavily in the articulation process that transforms tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. In Japan, by contrast, there is significant reliance on tacit knowledge.
The Japanese are comfortable living with the inconsistencies that arise because the knowledge has not been articulated, and there are many combinations, not all of which are "logical."
These create small, simple, and gradual innovations.
The Japanese work inductively, with lists and combinations; Western organizations are structured for deduction, hierarchical classification, and redistribution.
Therefore, the need for revolutionary change to realize innovation exists in the West and less so in Japan.
Another expression of the difference in disseminating tacit versus explicit knowledge is how mergers and global projects are approached.
In the West, we observe massive transfer of work procedures.
In Japan, there's a massive transfer of engineers who join the new location for a period to transfer the knowledge (embedded in their owners).
A drawback of the Japanese method is the difficulty in integration within large systems. Against this background, HEDLUND explains where this difficulty originates.
HEDLUND takes this analysis further and proposes a new model for an organization's optimal existence and development of knowledge. The "N-FORM" model.
The meaning of N is Novelty (innovation) or new. The name "M-FORM" has also already been taken (representing the multidivisional form).
Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this text, such as the differences between Japanese and Western knowledge management approaches or the proposed N-FORM model?
The innovation in this model, compared to the traditional M-FORM model, is expressed in six key components:
Integration: Putting things together and integrating them (in N-FORM) instead of separating them into different organizational departments (in M-FORM).
Temporary constellations of people and units (in N-FORM) instead of fixed and stable organizational structures (in M-FORM).
Importance of human capital at the "lower" levels and the significance of developing dialogue between different functions, departments, and groups at this level (in N-FORM), as opposed to coordinating management at higher management levels (in M-FORM).
Horizontal communication (in N-FORM) instead of vertical communication (in M-FORM).
Senior management's role is to be catalysts and architects of communication infrastructure (technical and human), protecting knowledge investment (in N-FORM) instead of guiding, controlling, monitoring, and allocating resources (in M-FORM).
A heterarchical organizational structure (in N-FORM) instead of a hierarchical one (in M-FORM).
HEDLUND admits that this structure is better for knowledge development but more challenging when an organization focuses on exploiting and preserving existing knowledge. Therefore, not every organization should be built this way.
N-FORM organizations have much to offer. This structure should be adapted for companies in competitive environments and organizations seeking growth and knowledge development. In recent years, it has been applied to many companies and organizations.
Comments