A large number of definitions of knowledge have emerged over the years and only a few can be discussed. It can be seen in Table 1.3 that the authors selected provide a range of differing approaches for defining knowledge.
Table 1.3 Knowledge Definitions
Author Definition
Nonaka (1994, p. 15) Justified true belief.
Grant (1996, p. 377) Explicit knowledge, which can be written down, and tacit knowledge which cannot.
Allee (1997, p. 42) Knowledge is experience that can be communicated and shared. Darling (1997, p. 10) A validated platform for action, the combination of intellectual
intangibles needed to run an organisation.
Marshall (1997, p. 94) Information is transformed into knowledge when a person reads, understands, interprets and applies the information to a specific work function. Knowledge becomes visible when experienced persons put into practice lessons learned over time.
Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 5)
Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes, practices, and norms. Tsoukas and Vladimirou
(2001, p. 979)
Knowledge is the individual ability to draw distinctions within a collective domain of action, based on appreciation of context or theory, or both.
There are differing interpretations and perspectives in the knowledge definitions, but there are similarities in their intent. With the exception of Nonaka (1994), who stays with traditional epistemology, the definitions suggest actions taking place in some form or other. Allee (1997) and Davenport and Prusak (1998) include the word experience(s), but Allee goes further by indicating “experience that can be communicated and shared”. Experience provides understanding and know- how and is an important contributor for the effective operation of a business. Darling (1997), and Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) include action and application as key factors, implying the ability to understand and think beyond the information or situation as it occurs, and to take action for the advancement of understanding. But it is Marshall (1997) who spells out how information can move to a knowledge state that has the capacity to give value. What is common among the definitions of knowledge and those for intellectual capital is the identifying of action taking place. This is a critical aspect of knowledge from the perspective of business. Knowledge that is allowed to remain static or not encouraged as a contribution from people will negate the opportunity of adding value. People are generally willing to give their knowledge if invited/encouraged to do so.
The definition by Davenport and Prusak (1998) is criticised by Firestone and McElroy (2003) and Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001), who question the lack of distinction between information and
knowledge. However, information can be the trigger for action with knowledge being the ability to evaluate the information and to make sense of it.
There is a dilemma over the use of information and knowledge from the perspective that in common usage they are frequently used interchangeably. Data, information and knowledge are often presented in a hierarchical format suggesting that each flows from the other. The meaning of data is generally given as “raw facts”. Information is identified as data that has been put into context. Knowledge occurs when meaning is applied and conclusions can be made. From the definitions, information is something that is actionable. Information can be identified as the message, and knowledge is present when the person receiving the message has the ability to take action. As far as Machlup (1962) is concerned, the phrase “knowledge and information” is redundant, and he makes the decision to use the word „knowledge‟ wherever possible.
When two people are given the same data it may have meaning for one person but not for the other. Also different people can take different meanings from the same message. Knowledge allows people to do something as a result of receiving and processing information if they have prior knowledge of that topic on which to base their understanding of what the message means, thus allowing action to take place.
The idea of value arising from the flow of knowledge through the organisation and its conversion to create value is considered by Allee (1997). The concept of flow of knowledge suggests movement in one direction, but in reality the action of knowledge exchange generates a knowledge flow that goes in many directions. The knowledge flow in an organisation, regardless of the level at which it is occurring, has no importance if there is no recognition of it having the ability to contribute value. It requires the ability of management to be able to extract from the knowledge flows the knowledge that indeed has value from that which does not. Knowledge has to be applied in a way that provides the potential to add value. It is important to move thinking away from the traditional value chain, which is regarded by Allee (1999) as “a product of a mechanistic view closely associated with the industrial age and providing a linear view of business” (p. 129). Unfortunately knowledge does not exist linearly, thus making it difficult to capture and enable it to be used in a way that will add value.
It is from individual knowledge and the collective knowledge of people that knowledge develops within an organisation, and is at the root of what has become known as intellectual capital. Without
knowledge, an organisation is unable to function and, therefore, cannot exist. There are different types of knowledge and they will now be examined.