Abstract
The ability to create, use and transfer knowledge may allow the creation or improvement of new products or services. But knowledge is often tacit: It lives in the minds of individuals, and therefore, it is difficult to transfer it to another person by means of the written word or verbal expression. This paper addresses this important problem by introducing a methodology, consisting of a four-step process that facilitates tacit to explicit knowledge conversion. The methodology utilizes conceptual modeling, thus enabling understanding and reasoning through visual knowledge representation. This implies the possibility of understanding concepts and ideas, visualized through conceptual models, without using linguistic or algebraic means. The proposed methodology is conducted in a metamodel-based tool environment whose aim is efficient application and ease of use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
The ADOxx metamodeling platform [online], www.adoxx.org, last checked: 28.11.2016.
The Open Models Laboratory [online], www.omilab.org, last checked: 22.11.2016.
Tool download [online], http://austria.omilab.org/psm/content/kamet/download?view=download, last checked: 29.11.2016.
References
Al-Alawi A, Al-Marzooqi N, Mohammed Y (2007) Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. J Knowl Manag 11(2):22–42
Antonious G, van Harmelen F (2004) Web ontology Language: OWL. In: Staab S et al (eds) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–92
Bork D, Fill H-G (2014) Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’2014), pp 3400–3409
Bork D, Buchmann RA, Karagiannis D (2015) Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on knowledge science, engineering and management, KSEM 2015, pp 177–182
Breuker J (1987) Model driven knowledge acquisition: interpretation models. In: Breuker J (ed) Deliverable A1, Esprit Project 1098, memo 87, VF project knowledge acquisition in formal domains. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Cairó O, Guardati S (2012) The KAMET II methodology: knowledge acquisition, knowledge modeling and knowledge generation. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):8108–8114
Cairó O, Poblete K (2015) KAMET II Conceptual Modeling Language, a visual and consistent language proved using Concept Algebra. Proc Comput Sci 60:45–54
Cañas AJ, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Gómez G, Eskridge T, Arroyo M, Carvajal R (2004) CmapTools: a knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In: Cañas AJ, Novak JD, González FM, (eds) Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, Spain
Cyert R, March A (1994) A behavioral theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 15:45–62
Druker P (2001) The next society: a survey of the near future. Economist 3(1):2–20
Fensel D, van Harmelen F, Horrocks I, McGuinness D, Patel-Schneider P (2001) OIL: an ontology infrastructure for the Semantic Web. Intell Syst 16(2):38–45
Fill H-G, Karagiannis D (2013) On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp Modell Inf Syst Archit Int J 8(1):4–25
Ford K, Can̄as A, Jones J, Stahl H, Novak J, Adams-Webber J (1991) ICONKAT: an integrated constructivist knowledge acquisition tool. Knowl Acquis 3(2):215–236
Freud S (1922) Introductory lectures on Psychology. George Allen & Unwin, London
Garshol L (2004) Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all. J Inf Sci 30(4):378–391
Gatignon H, Tushman M, Smith W, Anderson P (2002) A structural approach to assessing innovation: construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Manag Sci 48(9):1103–1122
Hendler J, McGuinness D (2000) The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intell Syst 15(6):67–73
Herschel R, Nemati H, Steiger D (2001) Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: knowledge exchange protocols. J Knowl Manag 5(1):107–116
Johannsen F, Leist S (2012) Wand and Weber’s decomposition model in the context of business process modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4(5):271–286
Karagiannis D, Kühn H (2002), Metamodeling platforms. In: Proceedings of the third international EC-Web 2002—Dexa, Aix-en-Provence, Springer, p 182
Karagiannis D, Mayr HC, Mylopoulos J (2016a) Domain-specific conceptual modeling: concepts, methods and tools. Springer, Berlin
Karagiannis D, Buchmann RA, Bork D (2016b) Managing consistency in multi-view enterprise models: an approach based on semantic queries. ECIS 2016: research paper 53
Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntac/
Leidner D, Kayworth Y (2006) A review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q 30(2):357–399
Motta E, Stutt A, Zdrahal Z, O’Hara K, Shadbolt N (1996) Solving VT in VITAL: a study in model construction and knowledge reuse. Int J Hum Comput Stud 44(3/4):333–371
Mylopoulos J (2008) Conceptual modelling and Telos. Conceptual modeling, databases, and CASE, pp 363–376
Nonaka I, von Krogh G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ Sci 20(3):635–652
Nonaka I, Toyama R, Konno N (2000a) SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan 33(1):5–34
Nonaka I, Toyama R, Nagata A (2000b) A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Ind Corp Change 9(1):1–20
Pepper S (2000) The TAO of topic maps. http://badame.vse.cz/2005/tao/TheNewTAO.pdf
Reddy M (1979) The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 284–310
Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer L (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1
Schreiber G, Wielinga B, de Hoog R, Akkermans H, Van de Velde W (1994) CommonKADS: a comprehensive methodology for KBS development. IEEE Expert 9(6):28–37
Von Krogh G, Ichijo K, Nonaka I (2000) Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vygotsky L (1986) Thought and language. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Wang Y (2008) On concept algebra: a denotational mathematical structure for knowledge and software modeling. J Cognit Inf Nat Intell 2(2):1–19
Wenger E (2000) Communities ODF practice and social learning systems. Organization 7:2225–2246
Yli-renko H, Autio E, Sapienza H (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge explotation in young technologies-based firms. Strateg Manag J 22:587–613
Acknowledgments
This paper was partially funded by Asociación Mexicana de Cultura A.C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling editor: Marta OLivetti Belardinelli (Sapienza University of Rome).
Reviewers: Paolo Bottoni (Sapienza University of Rome), Dimitris Karagiannis (University of Vienna).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cairó Battistutti, O., Bork, D. Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion. Cogn Process 18, 461–477 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0825-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0825-6