Ikujurio Nonaka, a professor at Hitotusbashi University and the University of California at Berkeley along with his colleagues (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka et. al. 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka et. al. 2000; 2001a; Nonaka & Toyama 2003), proposed a model for “Knowledge Management” for the very first time. This proposed model has undergone two phases of development since 1991. This model attained recognition as a useful and rigorous approach to describing the ways knowledge is generated, transferred and re-created in organizations. Nonaka referred this Knowledge Management Model as “SECI Model”
In brief, the model incorporates the following:
- Two forms of knowledge (tacit and explicit)
- An interaction dynamic (transfer)
- Three levels of social aggregation (individual, group, context)
- Four “knowledge-creating” processes (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization).
2.1.2 Externalization: the expression of tacit knowledge in publicly comprehensible forms.
Therefore, the transforming processes are assumed to be socialisation (everyday comradeship), externalisation (formalising a body of knowledge), internalisation (translating theory into practice) and combination (combining existing theories). However, perhaps knowledge transfer in organisations is much more complicated and convoluted than this simple matrix suggests.
2.1.5 Strengths
- Appreciates the dynamic nature of knowledge and knowledge creation.
- Provides a framework for management of the relevant processes.
2.1.6 Limitations or Drawbacks
- It is based on a study of Japanese organizations, which heavily rely on tacit knowledge.
- Employees are often with a company for life.
2.2 Critiques on Nonaka Model
Though, Nonaka’s Model is the most accepted theory in Knowledge Management. But, I argue on certain wrong assumptions made by Nonaka (1999) in SECI Model like
- Learning is within parameters of Managers
- SECI Model is applicable without any cultural influence
2.2.1 Learning is not only under management control
The technology enhancements had thrown open doors for unlimited knowledge depositories to acquire the tacit knowledge. This tactic knowledge can be gained by an individual without any restrictions and boundaries laid by the managers and management. The best example for knowledge depositories is internet. The learning process is incorporated into many of the modern company’s in-order to provide and enhance the technical aspects of the employee rather than setting parameters. The learning process is incorporated into many of the modern company’s in-order to provide and enhance the technical aspects of the employee rather than setting parameters.
This argument is supported by Poell and van der Krogt’s (2003) commenting that Nonaka apparently assumes workers only learn within parameters set by managers.
2.2.2 Culture as an Import factor
Japanese organization relies mostly on tacit knowledge of the employee. And employees are often happy working in one organization for the life-time. This scenario is totally reverse in most of the countries, the employees keep changing the company for various reasons like career growth, financial incentives or environmental change. Therefore implementing Nonaka Model in various countries is really not possible. This argument is further supported by Doyle (1985) and Glisby et. al (2003) that the Nonaka’s SECI model rests on Japanese management cultural practices, and is thus not transferable to other contexts.
The above mentioned critiques were emphasized based on the personal experience working with various organisations. This argument were further evaluated and compared with the critiques confirmed by other Knowledge Guru’s.
2.3 REFLECTION OF PRACTICE
Here is the practical example in support of first and second argument, that learning is not controlled by managers within the company and culture plays pivotal role in proposed SECI Model.
Firstly, I have started my IT career as a Junior Programmer and scaled as Senior Technical Consultant. This transformation of my designation from Junior Programmer to Senior Technical Consultant involved in changing companies every 12 - 18 months. Every IT company wouldn’t operate similarly to another company using similar kind of applications and software. Therefore, every move of changing the company involved a learning process. All the companies in the modern era focus on providing partial training for the new employees within the line of operation and job profile and the same was experienced by myself working for different organizations. The opportunity for an employee is to explorer more beyond the provided training to enhance skills and stand competitive in the job market. Therefore, I would like to support Poell and van der Krogt’s (2003) and criticize Nonaka’s statement that “Workers learn within the parameters set by Managers”.
Secondly, I had experienced working for a client like Citibank. The person who was in-charge of the Citibank operation moved to the new company without leaving any documentation on functional operation of Citibank. The knowledge was still in tacit form and was not converted to explicit form. This culture difference in the mindset of people becomes a barrier for implementations of Nonaka’s Model in countries other than Japan were spending most of the life working for the same company. Therefore, I would like to support Doyle (1985) and Glisby et. al (2003) and criticize Nonaka’s Model which rests on Japanese cultural and practices.
2.4 REFLECTIONS FROM GROUP LEARNING
After participating in seminars and lectures organised by Knowledge Management Strategies facilitators like (Aboubakr A. Moteleb and Prof. Mark Woodman) and accessing literature reviews from various authors formed a clear understanding about Nonaka’s SECI Model. This understanding further became explicit after discussing with other colleagues and visiting their blogs.
Based on the above facts here are my learning outcomes are
- Culture is an important issue in implementing Nonaka’s SECI Model
- Learning is not under the control of managers or management
2.4.1 Culture is an important issue in implementing Nonaka’s SECI Model
An organisation cannot plan to implement Nonaka’s SECI model without considering its merits and demerits. Though, Nonaka’s SECI model is widely accepted model in Knowledge Management.
Explanation: Based on fair understanding of Nonaka Model we discussed further about implementing Nonaka’s Model into our respective organisations. According to Shaikh S (2008), Nonaka Model neglected cultural influence taking into consideration of Indian employee changeovers to other organisations. Furthermore, Chaba A (2008) emphasized on the cultural influence in implementing Nonaka’s SECI Model.
These factors influenced my thinking ability by integrate my professional experience working with organisations in India and Asia-Pacific Countries like Malaysia. In these countries culture played a pivotal rule in implementing Nonaka’s Model where the employee changeover is very common phenomenon because of mind set of the people.
Hence, I would conclude my first learning outcome in support of Doyle (1985), Glisby et. al (2003), Shaikh S (2008) and Chaba A (2008) that the Nonaka’s SECI model rests on Japanese cultural and therefore it’s not easy to implement in other countries.
2.4.2 Learning is not under the control of managers or management
In today technology-driven world, every individual is aware of retrieving information from various resources. Thus, it has become an easy process to gain knowledge from those resources.
Explanation: According to Kasala P (2008), Knowledge need not only acquired from organizations during the time of employment, it can also be obtained from interactions between colleagues or people from outside the organisation like Internet Chatrooms, Journals and etc,. According to Shaikh S (2008), socialization plays a considerable role in terms of exchanging Knowledge between people. This clear explains that learning cannot be restricted or confined by managers or management.
Henceforth, I would conclude my second learning outcome in support of Poell and van der Krogt’s (2003) that learning is not under the control of managers or management.
2.5 REFERENCES
Doyle, J. L. (1985). Commentary: Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn. In K. B. Clark, R. H. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity-technology dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
McAdam, R and S. McCreedy (1999a) “A Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models”, Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York:Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html
Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2003). Learning strategies of workers in the knowledge-creating company. Human Resource Development International 6(3), 387–403. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
Shaikh, Samir (2008), Blog: Samir Shaikh- Knowledge Management. Retrieved January 29, 2008 from http://m00188617.blogspot.com
Chaba, Ahmed (2008), Blog: Ahmed Chaba - Knowledge Management Strategy. Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://m00188617.blogspot.com
Kasala, Pavan Kumar (2008), Blog: Pavan Kumar K: Knowledge Resources. Retrieved on January 29, 2008 from http://www.knowledgetechno.blogspot.com/
