Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools

Towards tacit knowledge sharing oversocial web tools

Sirous Panahi, Jason Watson and Helen Partridge

Abstract

Purpose – Researchers debate whether tacit knowledge sharing through information technology (IT) is

actually possible. However, with the advent of social web tools, it has been argued that most

shortcomings of tacit knowledge sharing are likely to disappear. The purpose of this paper is two-fold:

first, to demonstrate the existing debates in the literature regarding tacit knowledge sharing using IT; and

second, to identify key research gaps that lay the foundations for future research into tacit knowledge

sharing using the social web.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper reviews current literature on IT-mediated tacit knowledge

sharing and opens a discussion on tacit knowledge sharing through the use of the social web.

Findings – First, the existing schools of thought in regards to IT ability for tacit knowledge sharing are

introduced. Next, difficulties of sharing tacit knowledge through the use of IT are discussed. Then,

potentials and pitfalls of social web tools are presented. Finally, the paper concludes that whilst there are

significant theoretical arguments supporting the notion that the social web facilitates tacit knowledge

sharing there is a lack of empirical evidence to support these arguments and further work is required.

Research limitations/implications – The limitations of the review include: covering only papers that

were published in English, issues of access to full texts of some resources, and the possibility of missing

some resources due to search strings used or limited coverage of databases searched.

Originality/value – The paper contributes to the fast growing literature on the intersection of KM and IT

particularly by focusing on tacit knowledge sharing in social media space. The paper highlights the

need for further studies in this area by discussing the current situation in the literature and disclosing the

emerging questions and gaps for future studies.

Keywords Web 2.0, Information technology, Tacit knowledge, Knowledge sharing, Social web

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Facilitating tacit knowledge sharing among individuals, such as the sharing of experiences,

skills, know-how, or know-whom, and also retaining this knowledge in organisational memory

has always been of interest to organisations (Taylor, 2007). However, finding the right

conditions, incentives, and mechanisms for sharing this unstructured knowledge has long

been a major issue of organisations and knowledge management (KM) research (Allen,

2008). Prior research shows that various factors affect the tacit knowledge sharing behaviour

of individuals in the forms of enablers, motivators, inhibitors, or facilitators

(e.g. Chennamaneni and Teng, 2011; Joia and Lemos, 2010; Li et al., 2010).

Information technology (IT) has been regarded as one of the main enablers of knowledge

sharing activities. However, currently there is no consensus on whether IT can facilitate tacit

knowledge sharing. Traditionally, IT has been criticised for ignoring one of the main

components of KM which is ‘people’. It has been argued that traditional IT had been more

focused on information management rather than facilitating interaction among the

knowledge holders which is necessary for tacit knowledge sharing (Huysman and Wulf,

2005; Marwick, 2001). That is why researchers argued that for tacit knowledge sharing

DOI 10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0364 VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013, pp. 379-397, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 379

Sirous Panahi, Jason

Watson and Helen

Partridge are based in the

Department of Information

Systems, Queensland

University of Technology,

Brisbane, Australia.

Received 29 November 2012Revised 14 March 201320 March 2013Accepted 21 March 2013

technologies are needed that provide free-form, real-time, and interactive communication

and collaboration platforms (Mitri, 2003; Marwick, 2001).

With the advent of social web initiatives, several studies argued that these new emerging

technologies may provide new opportunities to facilitate tacit and experiential knowledge

sharing among experts (Hsia et al., 2006; Abidi et al., 2009; Osimo, 2008; Steininger et al.,

2010). Despite the current arguments, there is still a lack of understanding about the

potentials and pitfalls of the social web for tacit knowledge sharing, in part because of the

complexity of the concept of tacit knowledge, and also due to existing contradictory views

on ITability for tacit knowledge sharing. In fact, researchers have diverse views on what tacit

knowledge actually is and if it is possible to share via IT. Furthermore, while several studies

have examined and conceptualised the role of IT in the KM processes (Wild and Griggs,

2008; Song, 2007; Skok and Kalmanovitch, 2005; Sher and Lee, 2004; Mvungi and Jay, n.d.;

Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; Lopez et al., 2009; Hendriks, 1999; Franco and

Mariano, 2007; Ahsan et al., 2010), there is still a limited research on the viability of social

web tools to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing.

Using the literature, this paper critically analyses the role of IT, particularly social web tools,

as well as the difficulties of tacit knowledge sharing utilizing information technology. This

conceptual paper has two purposes:

1. to demonstrate the existing controversial debates in the literature regarding tacit

knowledge sharing using IT; and

2. to identify key research gaps that lay the foundations for future research into tacit

knowledge sharing using social web tools.

This study discloses a theoretical discussion in the field of social web tools and tacit

knowledge sharing, which have implications for new business models whose experts are not

always physically co-located but must exchange their critical experiential knowledge.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, definitions are provided for the

main terms used in the paper. Next, the methodology used in this paper is described. Then,

existing schools of thought in the realm of information technology for tacit knowledge sharing

are introduced. After that, difficulties of tacit knowledge sharing through the use of IT are

discussed. This is followed by presenting example studies of tacit knowledge sharing in

online environment. Next, potentials and pitfalls of different social web tools are outlined.

Finally, discussions and conclusions are made by identifying the gaps in the literature for

future studies.

2. Definitions

This section provides definitions for the two main terms used commonly in this paper, tacit

knowledge and the social web. Tacit knowledge which was first used by Michael Polanyi is the

knowledge that people usually acquire individually or as a group in the workplace as in the

process of learning by doing. It is always viewed in contrast to explicit knowledge which is

articulated, written down, or published academic knowledge found in books, manuals,

papers, etc. In contrast, tacit knowledge is more dependent on its holder, attached to a

person’s mind, difficult to communicate easily, and deeply grounded in an individual’s action

and experience. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have identified two elements of tacit knowledge:

cognitive and technical. Cognitive dimension includes beliefs, ideas, paradigms, values,

intuition, and mental models. Technical dimension is more related to ‘‘know-how’’, crafts and

‘‘informal skills’’ which are commonly accepted definition of tacit knowledge (Leonard and

Insch, 2005; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Nonaka, 1994). Figure 1 shows the potential distribution

of tacit knowledge examples within Nonaka and Takeuchi’s two dimensions.

Another term used commonly in this paper is ‘‘social web’’. Broadly, ‘‘social web’’ refers to a

new wave of worldwide web technologies that are known with characteristics such as

multiple-way communication, user-generated content, possibility for global networking,

multimedia-oriented, and user-friendly (Panahi et al., 2012). The main focus of social web

technologies is on enabling users to be more active on the internet, to produce, participate,

PAGE 380 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013

collaborate and share knowledge or communicate with other people (Lindmark, 2009).

Examples of social web technologies include blogs, wikis, social networking sites,

micro-blogging, social bookmarking, etc. The combination of those features and associated

tools have made the social web a good channel for knowledge sharing activities.

3. Methodology

The methodology used in this paper was literature review analysis. The purpose was to

review the existing literature about the viability of tacit knowledge sharing through the use of

social web tools in order to demonstrate and identify key research gaps in the field. To

achieve the goal, the topic first was searched in popular KM online databases such as

ProQuest, EBSCOhost, Emerald, Web of Science, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, and Google

Scholar/Books. The search query was carefully chosen to retrieve as far as possible all

relevant literature. Examples of search terms and combinations are provided below:

Tacit/implicit þ knowledge þ sharing/transfer/dissemination/exchange þ web2.0/social

web/social media/social networks/blogs/wikis/online/virtual communities, etc.

Two limitations were applied to the search query:

1. language, which was limited to English; and

2. year of publication, which was limited to 2000-2013, due to fact that the social web was

introduced after 2000.

After reviewing the abstracts of sources and also ensuring about their quality (i.e. that they

were published in peer-reviewed publications), the remaining articles, about 20 sources,

were finally selected for an in-depth analysis. However, to provide a detailed discussion

about the research gap there was also a need to review KM literature in the areas of ICT

Figure 1 Tacit knowledge examples in Nonaka’s two dimensions (adapted from Nonaka,

1994)

Gut feeling IntuitionMental models HunchesIntelligence EmotionsInsights OpinionsBelief PerspectiveIdeas IdealsUnderstanding ValuesCreativeness JudgmentAssumptions PerceptionsParadigms SchemataViewpoints Visions

Technical Dimension

Know-how

SkillsHands-on experience

Knowing-in-action

Problem solving

TipsTricks

Best practices

Tactical approaches

Expertise

Rules of thumb

Lessons learned

Crafts

Cognitive Dimension

Routines

Source: Adopted from Nonaka (1994)

VOL. 17 NO. 3 2013 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 381

support for tacit knowledge sharing as well as the literature about enabling conditions of tacit

knowledge sharing, which led to the review of over 100 sources. The resources were read

carefully to determine the research gap and also to develop a conceptual connection

between past KM literature in the area of ICTcontribution to tacit knowledge sharing and the

potentials of current social web tools.

4. IT and tacit knowledge sharing

There is a major debate among researchers about whether information technology (IT) can

have a role in tacit knowledge sharing among individuals. Some, particularly those who

conducted their study before introduction of social web tools, insist that tacit knowledge

sharing through using IT is too limited, if not absolutely impossible to achieve (Flanagin,

2002; Johannessen et al., 2001; Hislop, 2001; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Others argue that IT

can facilitate tacit knowledge sharing, although it may not be as rich as face-to-face

interactions (Harris and Lecturer, 2009; Hildrum, 2009; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Stenmark,

2000; Falconer, 2006; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; Marwick, 2001; Sarkiunaite

and Kriksciuniene, 2005; Chatti et al., 2007; Selamat and Choudrie, 2004; Murray and

Peyrefitte, 2007). Each school has its own reasons and explanations.

Advocates of the first school of thought implicitly/explicitly are advocates of viewing

knowledge as a category, i.e. absolutely tacit or absolutely explicit (Mohamed et al., 2006;

Johannessen et al., 2001; Hislop, 2001). They believe that the nature of tacit knowledge as a

highly personal knowledge that resides in human brains makes it impossible to be shared

not only by language but also by IT. They view tacit knowledge as that which is not

expressible and articulable by using common language, or even that which is not always

accessible to the holder of knowledge. In view of this school, this type of knowledge can only

be acquired through personal experience at the workplace and can only be shared as tacit

without even being converted to explicit. It can only be shared through active and direct

communication, mechanisms such as observing, mentoring, apprenticeship, mutual

involvement, participation, story-telling, etc. Therefore, this school observes a minimum

level for IT to have a role in tacit knowledge capturing and sharing. For example,

Johannessen et al. (2001) assert that tacit knowledge cannot be digitalized and shared by

means of the internet, e-mails, or groupware applications.

In contrast, the second school of thought admits that IT can contribute to tacit knowledge

sharing, although this may not be as rich as face-to-face tacit knowledge sharing. This

school views knowledge as being on a continuum that can have a different degrees of

tacitness (Jasimuddin et al., 2005; Chennamaneni and Teng, 2011). In their perspective, IT

can easily facilitate sharing of knowledge with a low to medium degree of tacitness and fairly

support the sharing of knowledge with a high degree of tacitness. In addition, based on

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation theory, they assert that tacit knowledge

sharing includes not only tacit-to-tacit conversion (socialisation) but also tacit-to-explicit

(externalisation) and explicit to tacit (internalisation) conversions too (Marwick, 2001;

Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; McDermott, 1999; Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene,

2005). In addition, Nonaka et al. (2000), in an update to their original model stressed, that

knowledge conversions can take place in a virtual ‘‘ba’’ (space) too. In other words, they

believed in the possibility of sharing tacit knowledge through ICT support.

Advocates of IT-mediated tacit knowledge sharing demonstrate that IT can facilitate tacit

knowledge sharing processes through supporting various conversions of tacit-explicit

‘‘ This paper critically analyses the role of IT, particularly socialweb tools, as well as the difficulties of tacit knowledgesharing utilising information technology. ’’


knowledge, although it may not be as rich as face-to-face interactions. IT can support tacit

knowledge creation and sharing by providing a field that people freely express their

personal new ideas, perspectives, and arguments; by establishing a positive dialog among

experts; by making information more available and then enabling people to arrive at new

insights, better interpretations, etc. (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). For instance, McDermott

(1999) notes that ITcan facilitate conversion of tacit-to-explicit knowledge. Stenmark (2000)

argues that tacit knowledge sharing is not outside the reach of IT support. He suggests that

instead of trying to capture and manage tacit knowledge, ITsolutions should be designed to

provide an environment in which experts can be located, communicate with each other, and

sustain social interactions. The results of this social interaction over ITwill be better flow and

exchange of tacit knowledge. By providing evidence from IT and e-leaning research

domains, Falconer (2006) also refuted previous studies asserted that tacit knowledge

sharing cannot be facilitated by IT, and strongly emphasised the significant potential of IT in

the effective communication of tacit knowledge.

The knowledge creation model (also called the SECI model) developed by Nonaka and

Takeuchi (1995) has been the theme of several research articles studying the role played by

IT in knowledge sharing (Marwick, 2001; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; Sarkiunaite

and Kriksciuniene, 2005; Chatti et al., 2007). Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI model presents

four phases for knowledge conversion:

1. socialisation (tacit to tacit);

2. externalisation (tacit to explicit);

3. combination (explicit to explicit); and

4. internalisation (explicit to tacit).

Three of these conversions – i.e. socialisation, externalisation, and internalisation – are the

main processes of tacit knowledge sharing (Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene, 2005). Some

researchers have attempted to make a link between existing IT tools and tacit knowledge

conversions using the SECI model (see Table I).

Marwick (2001) reflected that at the time he was writing, IT’s contribution to tacit knowledge

sharing was less efficient than face-to-face meetings and weaker than explicit knowledge

sharing. However, he expected that gradual progress in accommodating the human

dimension in the development of new tools such as synchronous collaboration systems,

expertise locators, discussion forums, and high-bandwidth videoconferencing would

contribute to the formation and communication of tacit knowledge much better than

previously. This is where current social web tools might be partially helpful, and the area

needs further study.

Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta (2010) also found that ICTcan influence all of the knowledge

creation processes identified in the SECI model. Their study shows that IT can affect the

socialisation of knowledge by facilitating interactions among individuals, the externalisation

process by developing community-based electronic discussions and chat rooms, the

combination process by supporting sorting, adding, combining, and categorizing existing

information, and finally the internalisation process by facilitating informal conversations and

discussions, and making the information more available. However, they found limited

evidence in support of socialisation and externalisation processes through the use of ICT.

They recommended further studies to examine the interplay of different types of ICT for tacit

knowledge sharing. Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene (2005), also using the SECI model,

generalised that a high level of IT use positively affects informal relationships between

individuals, which in turn facilitates job-related tacit knowledge sharing.

Among the existing schools of thoughts discussed above, the perspectives of the second

school (advocators of IT-mediated tacit knowledge sharing) seem more reasonable and

acceptable than those of the first school. Tacit knowledge cannot be regarded as a binary

digit (0 or 1), either purely tacit or purely explicit. The notion of the ‘‘degree of tacitness’’ or

‘‘the degree of explicitness’’ is more meaningful when examining the type of knowledge

shared in a specific context (Chua, 2001; Chilton and Bloodgood, 2010). In addition,


Table

IMechanismsandtechnologiesforknowledgecreatingandsharing

Face-t

o-f

ace

IT-a

ssis

ted

Socia

lisatio

n(t

acit

tota

cit)

Ext

ern

alis

atio

n(t

acit

toexp

licit)

Com

bin

atio

n(e

xplic

itto

exp

licit)

Inte

rnalis

atio

n(e

xplic

itto

tacit)

Socia

lisatio

n(t

acit

tota

cit)

Ext

ern

alis

atio

n(t

acit

toexp

licit)

Com

bin

atio

n(e

xplic

itto

exp

licit)

Inte

rnalis

atio

n(e

xplic

itto

tacit)

Team

meetin

gsD

iscuss

ions

Interpersonal

interactio

ns

Apprentic

esh

ipParticipatio

nObse

rvatio

n

Dialogwith

team

Answ

eringquestions

Storytelling

Metaphors/analogies

Books

Papers

Reports

Prese

ntatio

ns

Indexe

s,etc.

Learningbydoing

Learningfrom

books

,reports,

prese

ntatio

ns,

lectures,

etc.

Onlinereal-tim

emeetin

gs

Syn

chronous

communicatio

n(chat)

Onlinecommunity

of

practic

eGroupware

systems

Socialmedia

Answ

ering

questions

Annotatio

ns

Blogs/wikis

Discuss

ionforums

Collaborative

systems

Groupware

systems

Phone/video

conferencing

Allform

sof

technologies

Text

search

Document

categorisa

tion

Podcast/vodcast

Blogs/wikis

RSS

Mash

ups

Visualizatio

nVideo/audio

prese

ntatio

ns

Onlinelearning

E-m

ail

Webpage

Sources:Adaptedfrom

Marw

ick(2001),Sarkiunaite

andKriksciuniene(2005)andChattiet

al.(2007)


constraining tacit knowledge sharing to mere tacit-tacit conversion (socialisation) may not

be a good examination of the tacit knowledge sharing phenomenon through IT-assisted

communications. Every knowledge (including explicit knowledge) has components of the

tacit dimension (Polanyi, 2009; Hislop, 2001). Therefore, every tacit-tacit as well as

tacit-explicit conversion and vice versa could be regarded as a tacit knowledge sharing

phenomenon (Marwick, 2001; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; McDermott, 1999;

Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene, 2005). This is what is missed in most investigations of

IT-facilitated tacit knowledge sharing.

Another thing that could be considered in investigations of IT-assisted tacit knowledge

sharing is the differences exist between ‘‘tacit knowledge’’ and ‘‘tacit knowing’’. Oguz and

Sengun (2011) actually made a distinction between ‘‘tacit knowledge’’, the term largely used

by the organisational literature, and ‘‘tacit knowing’’, the term originated by Polanyi (see

Table II). Polanyi defines ‘‘tacit knowing’’, in the realm of ontological structure, as a process

instead of ‘‘tacit knowledge’’ as a category of knowledge (tacit versus explicit). For Polanyi,

‘‘tacit knowing’’ is procedural in nature, knowing how to do things based on the idea of

‘‘dwelling’’, ‘‘the way one dwells with the world as he/she tries to know it’’ (Polanyi, 2009).

Oguz and Sengun (2011) argue that what organisational literature means by the term ‘‘tacit

knowledge’’ is more close to Ryle’s (1949) view of ‘‘knowing-how’’ instead of Polanyi’s ‘‘tacit

knowing’’.

Considering the differences between ‘‘tacit knowing’’ and ‘‘tacit knowledge’’ outlined by

Oguz and Sengun (2011), obviously ‘‘tacit knowing’’, i.e. knowledge with a high degree of

tacitness, is not easily accessible and transferable by IT. This has been shown by a lot of

researchers from the first school of thought in the past. Therefore, the organisational

definition of ‘‘tacit knowledge’’ is more applicable and adoptable for research on IT for tacit

knowledge sharing.

Apart from the theoretical issues discussed above, there are also practical issues in tacit

knowledge sharing. For example, it is argued that face-to-face communication is no longer

the principal way of sharing tacit knowledge, particularly where experts are not always

geographically co-located, but must change their experiential tacit knowledge. Therefore,

today the use and optimisation of IT for facilitating tacit knowledge sharing is almost

inevitable (Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene, 2005). ITcan certainly enable individuals to share

their tacit knowledge by providing better mechanisms for the processing, delivery and

exchanging of their valuable knowledge as well as by building an environment that allows

experts to locate each other and interact socially about their job-related issues (Selamat and

Choudrie, 2004; Marwick, 2001; Falconer, 2006). Researchers have suggested a variety of

IT tools for facilitating tacit knowledge sharing, ranging from communication tools

(e.g. instant messaging and discussion forums) to collaborative systems, multimedia

sharing tools, video conferencing, online communities and Web 2.0 tools such as blogs,

wikis, and social networks (Song, 2009; Marwick, 2001; Lai, 2005; Wan and Zhao, 2007;

Harris and Lecturer, 2009; Hildrum, 2009; Mitri, 2003; Murray and Peyrefitte, 2007; Smith,

Table II A comparison of tacit knowing and tacit knowledge

Tacit knowing in Polanyi’s view Tacit knowledge in the organizational literature

Is not a realm of knowledgeHas an ontological and existential componentIs a processIs a primary understandingIs indwellingIs unconsciousIs inexplicableIs not amenable to well-articulatedrepresentation

Is a knowledge realmIs the opposite of explicit knowledgeCan be individual or collectiveRefers to knowing how and skillsRefers to organizational routines and capabilitiesIs contextualCan complement or substitute explicitknowledge

Source: Oguz and Sengun (2011)


2001; Khan and Jones, 2011; Yi, 2006; Nilmanat, 2009; Ardichvili et al., 2003; Parker, 2011;

Mayfield, 2010; Davidaviciene and Raudeliuniene, 2010; Murphy and Salomone, 2013).

5. Difficulties of tacit knowledge sharing through IT

Prior researchers have addressed several theoretical, individual, cultural, and technical

difficulties regarding tacit knowledge sharing. For instance, Haldin-Herrgard (2000) notes

five difficulties in sharing tacit knowledge:

1. perception (unconsciousness of holding knowledge);

2. language (and its limit in expressing hard to verbalizing forms of expertise);

3. time (long time required to process and internalize new knowledge);

4. value (immeasurableness value of some kind of tacit knowledge); and

5. distance (the need for face-to-face Interaction).

Hislop (2003) also highlights that the embodied nature of tacit knowledge and its

embeddedness in social and cultural values make it more difficult to share successfully.

However, he agrees that the degree of tacitness is the most significant factor that influences

tacit knowledge sharing mediated by IT. The inherent elusiveness of tacit knowledge, the

unawareness of individuals that they hold some kinds of tacit knowledge , unwillingness to

share, and fear of losing that valuable knowledge and eventually losing competitive

advantage are other issues mentioned by Stenmark (2000) regarding sharing tacit

knowledge.

Some of the difficulties mentioned above relate to the personal or organisational ability and

willingness to share tacit knowledge, which is not the focus of this paper. Factors that are

mainly applicable to ICT-mediated tacit knowledge sharing are more of interest in this paper,

and are discussed below.

5.1 Sharing mechanisms

Theoretically, tacit knowledge is conceptualised as personal knowledge that is deeply

embedded in the individual’s mind, her/his actions, experience, and involvement in a

particular context (Nonaka, 1994). Therefore, transferring and sharing this unstructured,

uncoded knowledge is not as simple as transferring explicit, coded knowledge (Jasimuddin

et al., 2005; Yang and Farn, 2009). For capturing and sharing this knowledge, mechanisms

other than language, such as face-to-face interaction, observing, mentoring, personal

experience and so on are more appropriate. As discussed in the previous section, this

perspective has affected most of the opposers of ICT-facilitated tacit knowledge sharing

(Hildrum, 2009). Although face-to-face contact is the ideal way to share tacit knowledge, it is

not always accessible. People simply do not have access to experts or their colleagues all

the time. In addition, face-to-face interaction is not the only important way of exchanging

tacit knowledge. There are other ways of sharing tacit knowledge that are important and

achievable using IT, such as the demonstration (or imitation) of skills through the use of

videos, storytelling and sharing practical day-to-day experiences, developing technical

discussions using ICT, and so on (Hildrum, 2009). Furthermore, as already discussed, if tacit

knowledge sharing is viewed as not only tacit-to-tacit but also tacit-to-explicit and

explicit-to-tacit conversions (Marwick, 2001; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010;

McDermott, 1999; Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene, 2005), it could be argued that each of

these conversions can be facilitated by using different mechanisms. Tacit-to-tacit

conversion (socialisation), particularly in the case of sharing knowledge with a high

degree of tacitness, may need more face-to-face communication than other phases of

tacit-explicit conversions such as externalisation or internalisation, which could be easily

facilitated through the help of ICT.


5.2 Degree of tacitness

The degree of knowledge tacitness is a controversial issue and affects individuals’ ability to

share their tacit knowledge. Researchers have argued that the tacit-explicit dichotomy of

knowledge may not be appropriate. They advocate viewing knowledge as a continuum

rather than as a category (Jasimuddin et al., 2005, Chennamaneni and Teng, 2011).

Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) proposed that tacit knowledge can be different in terms of

the degree of tacitness. As Figure 2 shows it can encompass:

B too deeply ingrained tacit skills with a highest degree of tacitness, which may be totally

unavailable to the knower;

B imperfectly articulated tacit skills that cannot be articulated through the normal use of

words and may be accessed through the use of metaphors and storytelling;

B readily articulated tacit skills that are primarily unarticulated but could be expressed

readily if individuals were simply asked the right questions; and

B explicit skills with the lowest degree of tacitness, which can easily be articulated and

transferred using any knowledge sharing mechanisms.

In addition, Chennamaneni and Teng (2011) asserted that tacit knowledge can be ranged

from low to high. They concluded that knowledge with a low to medium degree of tacitness

can be shared if appropriate knowledge sharing mechanisms are used. Furthermore, the

degree of knowledge tacitness might vary from person to person. It could be tacit for

someone while at the same time the same knowledge could be explicit for someone else.

5.3 Richness of media and issue of social cues

Social interaction is the main prerequisite for sharing tacit knowledge (Yang and Farn, 2009;

Song, 2009; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 2009). Social interaction is richer when

media supports natural language, immediate feedback, social cues, and social presence for

both source and receiver of message (Chua, 2001; Daft and Lengel, 1986). IT can support

this richer interaction by real-time synchronous communications in forms of spontaneous

chatting, commenting, video- and text-based conferencing, etc. (Marwick, 2001). However,

IT support is not yet as rich as face-to-face meetings (Marwick, 2001; Murray and Peyrefitte,

2007). Missing certain social cues such as body language, emotional feelings, eye contact

and so on are argued to be major pitfalls of most computer-aided communications (Hislop,

2001; Hooff and Weenen, 2004). There is no doubt that IT-facilitated communication is so far

not as rich as face-to-face contact. However, social cues and direct face-to-face

communication are more important when the knowledge shared contains a high degree of

tacitness (Chennamaneni and Teng, 2011). For knowledge with a low to medium degree of

tacitness, people prefer to use existing technologies to overcome geographical distance,

time, and cost barriers (Gordeyeva, 2010). In addition, with the advent of high-bandwidth

connections and video conferencing technologies that resemble face-to-face interaction,

most caveats regarding the richness of IT in sharing tacit knowledge are likely to disappear

(Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010).

Figure 2 Degree of tacitness

High A: Deeply ingrained tacit skillsB: Tacit skills that can be imperfectly

articulatedC: Tacit skills that can be articulated

Low D: Explicit skills

Source: Ambrosini and Bowman (2001)


5.4 Lack of trust

Trust is regarded as one of the essential factors for tacit knowledge sharing (Holste and

Fields, 2010; Yang and Farn, 2009; Song, 2009; Lai, 2005; Castelfranchi, 2004). The

potential lack of past or future associations and eventually a lack of trust among users is

viewed as an issue for tacit knowledge sharing in computer-mediated communications.

Building online communities and increasing communication among individuals is suggested

as one solution to increase trust among individuals (Raisanen and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2008).

On the other hand, anonymous sharing is viewed as a positive aspect of virtual knowledge

sharing where tacit knowledge is risky or when people are not confident enough (Raisanen

and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2008; Yi, 2006).

The solution to the most of these deficiencies, as proposed by some researchers, is to create

a positive online social environment for interpersonal interactions and knowledge sharing

(Sarkiunaite and Kriksciuniene, 2005). However, there are also other issues associated with

virtual tacit knowledge sharing such as separation, lack of psychological safety, lack of

social obligation to give feedback, and lack of shared language and understanding

(McKenzie and Potter, 2004).

6. Online sharing of tacit knowledge: selected studies

This section provides example studies that are mainly focused on sharing tacit knowledge in

online environments. The purpose is first to show that sharing of tacit knowledge occurs in

online environments, and then to ground the discussion for demonstrating the existing

research gap in the field, which will be discussed later in the Discussion section. The

following are examples of studies exploring the sharing of tacit knowledge in online spaces.

Hara and Hew (2007), in their case study of an online community of healthcare, discovered

that the most important activity that nurses undertake in online communities is associated

with practical tacit knowledge – including institutional practice, personal opinion, and

suggestion. Their study focuses more on the type of knowledge and the factors (individual,

social, and technological) that help to sustain knowledge sharing within community of

practice (CoP). The contribution of IT is not adequately addressed in their research, except

for the asynchronity feature of technology. They suggest further studies in other online

communities.

Yi (2006) compares the strengths and weaknesses of both face-to-face and online

externalisation of tacit knowledge. She suggests a need for further studies to investigate the

online externalisation of tacit knowledge by examining different types of online tools and

environments. Hildrum (2009) challenges the traditional arguments regarding the inability of

ICT to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing. By conducting a case study in Cisco’s network of

partner firms, he shows that interpersonal tacit knowledge sharing can happen with novel

internet-based applications such as online social networks, CoPs, and e-learning

technologies, which connect technicians from all over the world.

Curran et al. (2009) studied the seeking and sharing of practice knowledge among rural and

urban clinicians in a virtual community of emergency practice. Using content analysis of

discussion boards followed by a questionnaire, they found that the majority of clinicians in

online communities are interested in the practice of their peers in order to benchmark best

practices (basis of tacit knowledge). Curran et al. (2009) conclude that online social

networks can be an important place for sharing personal or collective experiential

knowledge as well as explicit-based knowledge types in the healthcare setting, particularly

where resources are limited (e.g. in rural and urban emergency).

Orzano et al. (2008) acknowledge that tacit knowledge sharing is better facilitated by

employing social tools that facilitate interaction and socialisation among individuals. Chatti

et al. (2007) view social media and other Web 2.0 tools as being an ideal fit with Nonaka’s

SECI knowledge creation theory, facilitating all socialisation, externalisation, combination,

and internalisation processes. Nilmanat (2009) analysed the content of discussion threads in

an online community in order to show tacit knowledge exchange through image sharing.


Finally, Chennamaneni and Teng (2011) linked communication media, particularly Web 2.0

tools, with the degree of tacitness of knowledge. They suggest that Web 2.0 tools can be

used for low to medium degrees of tacit knowledge. Knowledge with a high degree of

tacitness requires high-richness media such as video conferencing and face-to-face

communication.

More recently, Murphy and Salomone (2013) studied the relationship between revealing

personal identity and its effect on tacit knowledge sharing in online learning environments.

They invited further research on conceptualising tacit knowledge in online spaces. Jarrahi

and Sawyer (2013) also showed that social web tools, particularly public ones such as

Twitter, blogs and LinkedIn, are effective platforms for sharing informal knowledge and

innovative ideas within and across organisations through facilitating locating experts and

expertise, socialising, reaching out, and horizon broadening. However, while their findings

are not discussed directly in relation to tacit knowledge, the factors identified in the study are

highly associated with the sharing of tacit knowledge.

The aforementioned studies all indicate that sharing of tacit knowledge takes place in online

environments to some extent. Each study investigated different aspects of different online

tools by adopting different theories and acquiring different findings. However, few studies

have attempted to study tacit knowledge sharing in social web environments (Gordeyeva,

2010). The following section will discuss the main contributions of different social web tools

to the sharing of tacit knowledge.

7. Sharing tacit knowledge and potential/pitfalls of social web tools

Sharing tacit knowledge in online environments through different Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 tools

was the focus of the research studies presented in the previous section. Researchers are still

debating whether online web tools can help in the sharing of tacit knowledge. However, with

the recent development of social web tools and communities as well as the development of

new high-bandwidth connections, which allow more real-time interactions, it has been

argued that most shortcomings of tacit knowledge sharing are likely to disappear

(Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010). Indeed, the ease of use, informality, openness,

multimedia-oriented, and community based features of social media applications build an

environment in which social interactions and tacit knowledge sharing are better facilitated

(Abidi et al., 2009; Steininger et al., 2010; Hsia et al., 2006; Dave and Koskela, 2009; Zheng

et al., 2010; Gordeyeva, 2010).

The social web appears to support the sharing of tacit knowledge in many ways:

B by triggering sociality and informal communication among experts;

B by giving opportunities to harness individuals’ collective intelligence, providing a

collaborative as well as a brainstorming space for new knowledge creation;

B by making personal knowledge visible; and

B by reducing the time and effort needed for to share knowledge (Gordeyeva, 2010).

Social web tools vary in form and have different abilities to facilitate the sharing of tacit

knowledge. The tools include blogs, wikis, podcasts/vodcasts, social networking sites,

social bookmarking, multimedia sharing tools, RSS, etc. The potentials and pitfalls of each

tool in supporting tacit knowledge sharing are discussed below.

7.1 Blogs and microblogs

Blogs support tacit knowledge sharing by establishing a space that gives everyone a voice,

enabling people to have discussions, immediately annotate and document their thoughts,

and to capture or share personal knowledge and insights in a friendly environment (Chatti

et al., 2007; Gordeyeva, 2010). Allowing people to talk about their personal experiences is

one of the main mechanisms for sharing tacit knowledge (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Blogs

provide such a space for storytelling, which might be their most important benefit for the

externalisation of tacit knowledge. Immediate feedback on blog posts is also helpful for


transferring tacit knowledge (Wan and Zhao, 2007). The other potential of blogs in facilitating

tacit knowledge is that they enables users to support their ideas and stories by embedding

multimedia files (such as images and audio-video presentations) for further explanation of

something or for the demonstration of a practical skill. Microblogs such as Twitter and

Yammer also provide opportunities for broadcasting as well as keeping up-to-date with new

advancements, trends, and publications. They are also helpful in networking and

strengthening socialisation within and across organisations (Jarrahi and Sawyer, 2013),

which are essential for tacit knowledge creation and sharing.

7.2 Wikis

Wikis can affect both the externalisation (writing down personal knowledge) and the

internalisation (processing the information offered by a wiki and integrating it into the

individual’s knowledge) of tacit knowledge (Cress and Kimmerle, 2008). Wikis assist the

sharing of tacit knowledge by providing a field for collaborative knowledge capturing and

sharing accompanied with social interactions. They are one of the best examples of

harnessing collective intelligence (Chatti et al., 2007; Gordeyeva, 2010).

7.3 Social networking sites (SNS)

The main role of SNSs in sustaining tacit knowledge flow is in building voluntarily based

social communities of practice (CoPs), which is essential for sharing tacit knowledge (Chatti

et al., 2007; Parker, 2011; Hildrum, 2009). SNS’s enable experts to be located, foster

peer-to-peer relationships, promote technical discussions, and provide areas for socializing

and the sharing of personal knowledge (Raisanen and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2008; Hildrum,

2009). Embedded instant messaging and discussion forums support concurrency and the

co-presence of users in SNS environments, which helps in trading tacit practical knowledge

among participants (Raisanen and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2008). In addition, SNSs increase the

level of interpersonal trust through establishing closer and more frequent communication

among members, which are both necessary for the effective transfer of tacit knowledge

(Gordeyeva, 2010).

7.4 Multimedia sharing tools (podcasts/vodcasts)

These tools are particularly useful in the internalisation process of knowledge sharing, which

can enhance the learning and conceptualising of existing knowledge. In addition, they are

useful in demonstrating technical know-how and transferring hands-on experiences that

may not be expressible by verbalisation or through other formal documentation methods

(Chatti et al., 2007). The ability to comment, rate, and develop a meaningful discussion

about multimedia files shared via social media channels is another advantage of these

channels in facilitating the sharing of tacit knowledge.

7.5 RSS

RSS seems to be more appropriate for sharing explicit knowledge. It usually gathers and

distributes already published knowledge in different places (e.g. blogs) (Chatti et al., 2007).

However, it increases the visibility of information published in other places, which in turn

helps indirectly to disseminate tacit knowledge widely.

‘‘ There is a major debate among researchers about whetherinformation technology (IT) can have a role in tacit knowledgesharing among individuals. ’’


7.6 Social bookmarking

Although social tagging plays an indexing role in structured knowledge sharing, it can also

help tacit knowledge sharing by connecting people with common interests and harnessing

individuals’ collective intelligence as they allocate, organise, and share personalised tags

with each other (Chatti et al., 2007). In addition, it can be used as an annotation tool by

adding new tags for specific content (Raisanen and Oinas-Kukkonen, 2008). Sometimes,

tagging can resemble highlighting key ideas in a book with a marker, enabling the transfer of

underlying logic and key information (Gordeyeva, 2010). Another effect of social tagging on

the sharing of tacit knowledge is to locate experts with similar interests by following their

personalised tags (Parker, 2011).

In spite of the several positive impacts of social web tools on facilitating tacit knowledge

sharing, there are also pitfalls associated with sharing tacit knowledge in social web

environments. For example, the author’s credentials are not always assessable in the social

web. Consequently, there might be a lack of trust or a reluctance to accept what has been

shared on the social web. Some social web tools (e.g. wikis) lack personal satisfaction, such

as personal recognition or branding, since others are constantly editing the content of these

tools. The authors may not see the effects of their writing directly or may not be able to keep

up with or may not be satisfied with modifications to their own contributions. Immediate

access and feedback is one of the main factors in sharing tacit knowledge. Although social

web tools are now available anywhere and at any time, they are still not allowed in all

workplaces. In addition, their immediacy is incomparable with face-to-face communication

with colleagues, where people have physical proximity, intimacy, common understanding,

etc. Tacit knowledge is more context-dependent. Discussions on the social web may be

taken out of context, place, or date, and may eventually lose relevance and impact.

Tacit knowledge is strongly linked with personal or organisational competitive advantage.

People may be unwilling to share their cutting-edge knowledge in social web spaces as

doing so may sacrifice their position in the organisation or the market. There are also issues

with privacy and maintaining confidentiality in the social web environment, which is one of

the main barriers to sharing tacit knowledge online that holds people back from using these

tools for that purpose. Safety and security are essential for sharing tacit knowledge.

Therefore, people might be more cautious in using tools that have the potential to jeopardise

their jobs.

The richness of the media used for sharing tacit knowledge is another important factor,

particularly in the case of sharing knowledge with a high degree of tacitness. Although the

social web enables the sharing of user-created audio-video files that have the potential to

demonstrate hands-on experiences, also supported by the ability to comment, provide

feedback, and develop discussions, it is still far from face-to-face communication, which is

much richer than IT-mediated communications. As mentioned earlier, losing social cues

such as body language, emotional feelings, eye contact, and so on is argued to be a major

pitfall of most computer-aided communications (Hislop, 2001; Hooff and Weenen, 2004).

Time management is another concern in social media. It takes time to filter out good-quality

information as well as to develop relationships with highly trusted people on social media.

Social media could also be full of useless information if users do not know how to filter

information and who to follow.

8. Discussion and direction for further studies

Information and communication technology (ICT) has been regarded as one the main

enablers of knowledge sharing in this century. However, in terms of tacit knowledge, sharing

the literature analysis in this paper revealed that there are currently different perspectives

regarding the potential role of ICT in facilitating the sharing of tacit knowledge among

individuals. Indeed, there are supporting and opposing arguments on whether ICT can

facilitate tacit knowledge sharing. In other words, it can be argued that the role of ICT in tacit

knowledge sharing is currently uncertain. Despite the fact that organisations are highly

interested in facilitating experts’ in sharing tacit knowledge within organisations, little


research has been done in the area of ICT for tacit knowledge sharing (Haldin-Herrgard,

2000). This could be considered a major gap in the literature in the KM field that needs

further investigation.

Meantime, information technology is constantly changing and bringing new opportunities for

knowledge sharing. Recent social web technologies have captured the attention of

researchers. With the advent of social web technologies a group of researchers have now

asserted that the social web may facilitate the sharing if tacit knowledge. In their opinion,

these technologies may have the ability to alleviate some of the issues and challenges that

exist in the process of sharing tacit knowledge among experts. For example, Khan and

Jones (2011) suggested that, as new social web technologies emerge in forms of online

social networks, blogs and wikis, and as they used widely in organisations, these new ways

of communication and communities must be addressed in discussions of the sharing of tacit

knowledge. Hsia et al. (2006), Abidi et al. (2009) and Steininger et al. (2010) also addressed

that social web technologies are effective tools to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge

among clinicians. A few studies have also attempted to make a link between social web

technologies and the knowledge creation processes, including the conversion of tacit

knowledge (Marwick, 2001; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta, 2010; Sarkiunaite and

Kriksciuniene, 2005; Chatti et al., 2007; Murphy and Salomone, 2013).

Apart from these few theoretical arguments in the literature, there has been a lack of

academic research investigating the contributions of the social web to tacit knowledge

sharing exclusively. In addition, it was noticed that although these studies have briefly talked

about the potentials of the social web for tacit knowledge sharing, most indeed lack the

support of empirical data for the arguments stated in their paper. Furthermore, the tools

examined in relation to tacit knowledge sharing in the literature were mainly traditional

web-based technologies. The social web, which is presumed to be more appropriate for

building an environment that may facilitate tacit knowledge sharing (Abidi et al., 2009;

Steininger et al., 2010; Hsia et al., 2006; Dave and Koskela, 2009; Zheng et al., 2010) was not

the main focus of these studies. In other words, the role of the social web in sharing tacit

knowledge is currently unknown in the literature. This is while the social web is now popular

and widespread growing use of Web 2.0 tools among employees and organisations needs

further investigation (Hughes et al., 2009).

Many dimensions of tacit knowledge sharing in social web environments have not yet been

examined. Many questions are still unanswered and need to be explored across different

social web platforms and also in different organisational contexts. Examples of research

questions might be:

B How and to what extent are social web tools effective in facilitating tacit knowledge

sharing?

B What are the potentials of social web technologies in this regard?

B How do social web platforms comply with the requirements of tacit knowledge sharing?

B What is needed to improve the capacity of social web initiatives in this regard?

B What are the differences between face-to-face versus online tacit knowledge sharing via

social media?

B What are the capabilities of different social web tools?

B What are the barriers (technical, legal, motivational, etc.)?

There are definitely many other questions that need to be investigated in the context of these

technological trends regarding tacit knowledge sharing behaviour.

In order to respond to these questions, information systems (IS) research needs to evolve to

help organisations and individuals adapt to the changesmade by social web technologies in

the workplace (Guo, 2009; Manoj and Andrew, 2007). More exploration and deeper

understanding is needed to capture and share experts’ experiential knowledge, particularly

if the social web is used. There is a need to update the literature in this domain by

re-examining new emerging web solutions for tacit knowledge sharing. There is a need to


reconceptualise tacit knowledge sharing in the social web era. Also, there is a need to

support the theoretical arguments with appropriate empirical data from a variety of fields.

Investigating the potential of the social web for tacit knowledge sharing may have significant

implications for organisations whose employees are working from different geographical

locations across countries or across the globe. Teams may not always be co-located

physically, but may need to exchange critical knowledge and experiences effectively.

Studying tacit knowledge sharing in social web platforms can also reveal the challenges and

pitfalls of using these tools for tacit knowledge sharing. The findings of such studies may

then help decision makers and also designers to better approach social web platforms

considering the specific needs of professionals.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that technology itself is insufficient for the effective transfer of

tacit knowledge, as suggested by socio-technical theory (Parker, 2011). Thus, social web

tools can be regarded as complementary rather than a substitute for traditional mechanisms

of tacit knowledge sharing.

9. Conclusions

Due to globalisation and the need for faster and effective communication, currently a lot of

businesses are moving to employing web-based technologies as one of their main

communication tools. Social web technology has been viewed as one of the recent enablers

of sharing tacit knowledge in the literature. It has been argued that ease of use, informality,

openness, multimedia orientation, and the community-based features of social web platforms

may create a great ‘‘ba’’ (shared context) for social interactions and hence increase the chance

of tacit knowledge being shared among knowledge seekers. However, despite the theoretical

discussions in the literature arguing that tacit knowledge sharing takes place in social web

environments, it was noticed that there is still a lack of empirical studies supporting these

arguments. There is a need to re-examine these recent web technologies in terms of their

efficacy and capacity for sharing tacit knowledge, the most critical knowledge of people and

organisations. Reviewing the literature, this paper has shown that the use and optimisation of IT,

particularly moving to research and possibly the use of social web tools, is essential in

facilitating tacit knowledge sharing in the new business models of the information age.

This paper highlighted the need for further studies in this area by discussing the current

situation in the literature and disclosing the emerging questions and gaps for future studies.

The study has outlined a series of research questions that might be worth investigating in

different social web tools and also different organisational contexts. At this level, this paper

contributed to the fast growing literature on the intersection of KM and ICT, particularly by

opening a new discussion in the area of sharing tacit knowledge in social web environments,

which has not already been adequately discussed thus far in the literature.

Although we attempted to cover as far as possible all the literature related to the topic,

limiting the search query to the English language, issues of access to full text of some the

resources retrieved, the possibility of missing some resources due to the search strings used

in the search queries and also due to limited coverage and functions of databases might still

be considered as limitations of this review.

Finally, the authors commit to publish the findings of an empirical study the healthcare

context that has been conducted recently in this regard in the near future.

References

Abidi, S.S.R., Hussini, S., Sriraj, W., Thienthong, S. and Finley, G.A. (2009), ‘‘Knowledge sharing for

pediatric pain management via a Web 2.0 framework’’, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics,

Vol. 150, pp. 287-291.

Ahsan, K., Shah, H. and Kingston, P. (2010), ‘‘Knowledge management integration model for IT

applications with hooking RFID technology’’, Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on

Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Engineering and Data Bases, World Scientific and Engineering

Academy and Society, Stevens Point, WI, pp. 244-249.


Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), ‘‘Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management

systems: conceptual foundations and research issues’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.

Allen, J.P. (2008), ‘‘How Web 2.0 communities solve the knowledge sharing problem’’, paper presented

at the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, Fredericton. 26-28 June.

Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2001), ‘‘Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization’’,

Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 811-829.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), ‘‘Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual

knowledge-sharing communities of practice’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-77.

Castelfranchi, C. (2004), ‘‘Trust mediation in knowledge management and sharing’’, in Jensen, C.,

Poslad, S. and Dimitrakos, T. (Eds), Proceedings of Trust Management, Second International

Conference, iTrust 2004, Oxford, 29 March-1 April, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2995,

Springer, Berlin, pp. 304-318.

Chatti, M.A., Klamma, R. and Jarke, M. (2007), ‘‘The Web 2.0 driven SECI model based learning

process’’, in Klamma, R., Jarke, M. and Naeve, A. (Eds), Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International

Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007), IEEE Computer Society, Piscataway,

NJ, pp. 780-782.

Chennamaneni, A. and Teng, J.T.C. (2011), ‘‘An integrated framework for effective tacit knowledge

transfer’’, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2011),

Detroit, MI.

Chilton, M.A. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2010), ‘‘Measuring the dimensions of tacit and explicit knowledge:

enhancing knowledge management’’, in Jennex, M. (Ed.), Ubiquitous Developments in Knowledge

Management: Integrations and Trends, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

Chua, A. (2001), ‘‘Relationship between the types of knowledge shared and types of communications

channels used’’, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 2, October, available at: www.tlainc.

com/articl26.htm.

Cress, U. and Kimmerle, J. (2008), ‘‘A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building

with wikis’’, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 3 No. 2,

pp. 105-122.

Curran, J.A., Murphy, A.L., Abidi, S.S.R., Sinclair, D. and McGrath, P.J. (2009), ‘‘Bridging the gap:

knowledge seeking and sharing in a virtual community of emergency practice’’, Evaluation & the Health

Professions, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 314-327.

Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), ‘‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and

structural design’’, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571.

Dave, B. and Koskela, L. (2009), ‘‘Collaborative knowledge management – a construction case study’’,

Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 894-902.

Davidaviciene, V. and Raudeliuniene, J. (2010), ‘‘ICT in tacit knowledge preservation’’, paper presented

at the 6th International Scientific Conference on Business and Management, Vilnius, available at: http://

dspace.vgtu.lt/bitstream/1/560/1/0822-0828_Davidaviciene_Raudeliuniene.pdf.

Falconer, L. (2006), ‘‘Organizational learning, tacit information, and e-learning: a review’’, The Learning

Organization, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 140-151.

Flanagin, A.J. (2002), ‘‘The elusive benefits of the technological support of knowledge management’’,

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 242-248.

Franco, M. and Mariano, S. (2007), ‘‘Information technology repositories and knowledge management

processes’’, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 37 No. 4,

pp. 440-451.

Gordeyeva, I. (2010), ‘‘Enterprise 2.0: theoretical foundations of social media tools influence on

knowledge sharing practices in organizations’’, Master’s, thesis, University of Twente, Twente.

Guo, C. (2009), ‘‘A cross cultural validation of perceptions and use of social network service: an

exploratory study’’, PhD thesis, Mississippi State University, Oktibbeha County, MS.

Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), ‘‘Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations’’, Journal of

Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-365.


Hara, N. and Hew, K.F. (2007), ‘‘Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-care

professionals’’, Information Technology & People, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-261.

Harris, R. and Lecturer, P. (2009), ‘‘Improving tacit knowledge transfer within SMEs through

e-collaboration’’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 215-231.

Hendriks, P. (1999), ‘‘Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge

sharing’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.

Hildrum, J.M. (2009), ‘‘Sharing tacit knowledge online: a case study of e-learning in Cisco’s network of

system integrator partner firms’’, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 197-218.

Hislop, D. (2001), ‘‘Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information

technology’’, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 165-177.

Hislop, D. (2003), ‘‘Linking human resourcemanagement and knowledgemanagement via commitment:

a review and research agenda’’, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 182-202.

Holste, J.S. and Fields, D. (2010), ‘‘Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 128-140.

Hooff, B.V.D. and Weenen, F.D.L.V. (2004), ‘‘Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as

antecedents of knowledge sharing’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 13-24.

Hsia, Z.L., Lin, M.N., Wu, J.H. and Tsai, H.T. (2006), ‘‘A framework for designing nursing knowledge

management systems’’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 1,

pp. 14-21.

Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H. and Wareham, J. (2009), ‘‘Junior physician’s use of Web 2.0 for

information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study’’, International Journal of Medical

Informatics, Vol. 78 No. 10, pp. 645-655.

Huysman, M. and Wulf, V. (2005), ‘‘The role of information technology in building and sustaining the

relational base of communities’’, The Information Society, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 81-89.

Jarrahi, M.H. and Sawyer, S. (2013), ‘‘Social technologies, informal knowledge practices, and the

enterprise’’, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 110-137.

Jasimuddin, S.M., Klein, J.H. and Connell, C. (2005), ‘‘The paradox of using tacit and explicit

knowledge: strategies to face dilemmas’’, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 102-112.

Johannessen, J.A., Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B. (2001), ‘‘Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the

importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it’’,

International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Joia, L. and Lemos, B. (2010), ‘‘Relevant factors for tacit knowledge transfer within organisations’’,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 410-427.

Khan, O.J. and Jones, N.B. (2011), ‘‘Harnessing tacit knowledge for competitive advantage: an internal

social network approach’’, Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 5,

pp. 232-248.

Lai, I.L.A. (2005), ‘‘Knowledge management for Chinese medicines: a conceptual model’’, Information

Management & Computer Security, Vol. 133, pp. 244-255.

Leonard, N. and Insch, G. (2005), ‘‘Tacit knowledge in academia: a proposed model and measurement

scale’’, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 139 No. 6, pp. 495-512.

Li, Z., Zhu, T. and Wang, H. (2010), ‘‘A study on the influencing factors of the intention to share tacit

knowledge in the university research team’’, Journal of Software, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 538-545.

Lindmark, S. (2009), ‘‘Web 2.0: where does Europe stand?’’, EUR – Scientific and Technical Research

Series, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg.

Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. andOrdas, C.J.V. (2009), ‘‘Information technology as an enabler of knowledge

management: an empirical analysis’’, in King, W.R. (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational

Learning, Annals of Information Systems, Vol. 4, Springer, Berlin, pp. 111-129.

Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2010), ‘‘Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on knowledge

creation: an empirical investigation in SMEs’’, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30

No. 6, pp. 521-528.


McDermott, R. (1999), ‘‘Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge

management’’, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 103-117.

McKenzie, J. and Potter, R. (2004), ‘‘Enabling conditions for virtual tacit knowledge exchange’’, in Truch,

E. (Ed.), Leveraging Corporate Knowledge, Gower, Aldershot.

Manoj, P. and Andrew, B.W. (2007), ‘‘Research issues in social computing’’, Journal of the Association

for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 6, p. 336.

Marwick, A.D. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management technology’’, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4,

pp. 814-830.

Mayfield, M. (2010), ‘‘Tacit knowledge sharing: techniques for putting a powerful tool in practice’’,

Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 24-26.

Mitri, M. (2003), ‘‘Applying tacit knowledge management techniques for performance assessment’’,

Computers & Education, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 173-189.

Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M. and Murray, A. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge management and information

technology: can they work in perfect harmony?’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,

pp. 103-116.

Murphy, G. and Salomone, S. (2013), ‘‘Using social media to facilitate knowledge transfer in complex

engineering environments: a primer for educators’’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 38

No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Murray, S.R. and Peyrefitte, J. (2007), ‘‘Knowledge type and communication media choice in the

knowledge transfer process’’, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 111-133.

Mvungi, M. and Jay, I. (n.d.), ‘‘Knowledge management model for information technology support

service’’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 353-366.

Nilmanat, R. (2009), ‘‘Image usage and tacit knowledge sharing in online communities’’, Proceedings of

the International Conference on Computing, Engineering and Information (ICC ’09), Fullerton, CA, IEEE

Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 343-346.

Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’’, Organization Science,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New

York, NY.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), ‘‘SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic

knowledge creation’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34.

Oguz, F. and Sengun, A.E. (2011), ‘‘Mystery of the unknown: revisiting tacit knowledge in the

organizational literature’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 445-461.

Orzano, A.J., Mcinerney, C.R., Scharf, D., Tallia, A.F. and Crabtree, B.F. (2008), ‘‘A knowledge

management model: implications for enhancing quality in health care’’, Journal of the American Society

for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 489-505.

Osimo, D. (2008), ‘‘Web 2.0 in government: why and how’’, Scientific and Technical Reports, Institute for

Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Joint Research Center (JRC), European Commission, Seville.

Panahi, S., Watson, J. and Partridge, H. (2012), ‘‘Social media and tacit knowledge sharing: developing

a conceptual model’’, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 64, available at:

www.waset.org/journals/waset/v64/v64-208.pdf.

Parker, M. (2011), ‘‘Exploring tacit knowledge transfer: how community college leaders ensure

institutional memory preservation’’, PhD thesis, Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ.

Polanyi, M. (2009), The Tacit Dimension, University of Chicago Press, London, (first published 1966).

Raisanen, T. and Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2008), ‘‘A system architecture for the 7C knowledge

environment’’, in Jaakkola, H., Kiyoki, Y. and Tokuda, T. (Eds), Information Modelling and Knowledge

Bases XIX, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 217-236.

Ryle, G. (1949), The Concept of Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Sarkiunaite, I. and Kriksciuniene, D. (2005), ‘‘Impacts of information technologies to tacit knowledge

sharing: empirical approach’’, Informacijos mokslai, pp. 69-79.


Selamat, M.H. and Choudrie, J. (2004), ‘‘The diffusion of tacit knowledge and its implications on

information systems: the role of meta-abilities’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,

pp. 128-139.

Sher, P. and Lee, V. (2004), ‘‘Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities

through knowledge management’’, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 933-945.

Skok, W. and Kalmanovitch, C. (2005), ‘‘Evaluating the role and effectiveness of an intranet in facilitating

knowledge management: a case study at Surrey County Council’’, Information & Management, Vol. 42

No. 5, pp. 731-744.

Smith, E.A. (2001), ‘‘The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-321.

Song, D. (2009), ‘‘The tacit knowledge-sharing strategy analysis in the project work’’, International

Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 83-85.

Song, H. (2007), ‘‘The role of information and communication technologies in knowledge management:

from enabler to facilitator’’, PhD thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Steininger, K., Ruckel, D., Dannerer, E. and Roithmayr, F. (2010), ‘‘Healthcare knowledge transfer

through a Web 2.0 portal: an Austrian approach’’, International Journal of Healthcare Technology and

Management, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 13-30.

Stenmark, D. (2000), ‘‘Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge’’, Journal of Management Information

Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 9-24.

Taylor, H. (2007), ‘‘Tacit knowledge: conceptualizations and operationalizations’’, International Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 60-73.

Wan, L. and Zhao, C. (2007), ‘‘Construction of a knowledge management framework based on Web

2.0’’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management,

Chengdu, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 5341-5344.

Wild, R. and Griggs, K. (2008), ‘‘A model of information technology opportunities for facilitating the

practice of knowledge management’’, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management

systems, Vol. 38, pp. 490-506.

Yang, S.C. and Farn, C.K. (2009), ‘‘Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowledge sharing – a

multi-informant design’’, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 210-218.

Yi, J. (2006), ‘‘Externalization of tacit knowledge in online environments’’, International Journal on

E-learning, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 663-674.

Zheng, Y., Li, L. and Zeng, F. (2010), ‘‘Social media support for knowledge management’’, paper

presented at the International Conference on Management and Service Science (MASS), Wuhan.

About the authors

Sirous Panahi is a PhD student based at the School of Information Systems, QUT, Brisbane,Australia. He is also based at the Department of Medical Library and Information Science,TUMS, Tehran, Iran. Sirous Panahi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Jason Watson is a Course Co-ordinator based at the School of Information Systems, QUT,Brisbane, Australia.

Helen Partridge is a Course Co-ordinator based at the School of Information Systems, QUT,Brisbane, Australia.


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools