Cited by 1,939Knowledge Management and SharingInnovation and Knowledge ManagementInnovative Education and Learning Practices

Perspective-tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory

Nonaka, Ikujiro, von Krogh, Georg·2009·Organization Science

Abstract

Nonaka's paper [1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1) 14–37] contributed to the concepts of “tacit knowledge” and “knowledge conversion” in organization science. We present work that shaped the development of organizational knowledge creation theory and identify two premises upon which more than 15 years of extensive academic work has been conducted: (1) tacit and explicit knowledge can be conceptually distinguished along a continuum; (2) knowledge conversion explains, theoretically and empirically, the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Recently, scholars have raised several issues regarding the understanding of tacit knowledge as well as the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge in the theory. The purpose of this article is to introduce and comment on the debate about organizational knowledge creation theory. We aim to help scholars make sense of this debate by synthesizing six fundamental questions on organizational knowledge creation theory. Next, we seek to elaborate and advance the theory by responding to questions and incorporating new research. Finally, we discuss implications of our endeavor for organization science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.1080.0412

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Knowledge can be characterized along various dimensions, from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge.

    “Knowledge can be characterized along various dimensions (Windhager et al., 2013), from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge (Kogut & Zander, 1992;Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009;Nonaka, 1994;Polanyi, 1962).”

    From Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and memory (2020) · cites this paper as Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 183 · Cited by 1,939

Authors
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G.
Affiliations
  • Hitotsubashi University (JP)
  • Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich
Venue
Organization Science
Published
2009-06
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
635-652
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2165040403
Cited by
1,939
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 140 · 2017: 133 · 2016: 134 · 2015: 132 · 2014: 147 · 2013: 142 · 2012: 124
FWCI
279.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
Keywords
tacit knowledge, knowledge transformation, organizational knowledge creation, tacit and explicit knowledge, knowledge creation theory, Nonaka, knowledge management, theory development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review