Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ADOxx metamodeling platform [online], www.adoxx.org, last checked: 28.11.2016.

  2. The Open Models Laboratory [online], www.omilab.org, last checked: 22.11.2016.

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonious G, van Harmelen F (2004) Web ontology Language: OWL. In: Staab S et al (eds) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairó O, Guardati S (2012) The KAMET II methodology: knowledge acquisition, knowledge modeling and knowledge generation. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):8108–8114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druker P (2001) The next society: a survey of the near future. Economist 3(1):2–20

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freud S (1922) Introductory lectures on Psychology. George Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Garshol L (2004) Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all. J Inf Sci 30(4):378–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendler J, McGuinness D (2000) The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intell Syst 15(6):67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herschel R, Nemati H, Steiger D (2001) Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: knowledge exchange protocols. J Knowl Manag 5(1):107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky L (1986) Thought and language. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y (2008) On concept algebra: a denotational mathematical structure for knowledge and software modeling. J Cognit Inf Nat Intell 2(2):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (2000) Communities ODF practice and social learning systems. Organization 7:2225–2246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was partially funded by Asociación Mexicana de Cultura A.C.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico, Mexico City, DF, Mexico

    Osvaldo Cairó Battistutti

  2. University of Vienna, Faculty of Computer Science, Research Group Knowledge Engineering, Waehringer Street 29, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Dominik Bork

Authors
  1. Osvaldo Cairó Battistutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominik Bork
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osvaldo Cairó Battistutti.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0825-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation