The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Abstract
This paper proposes a paradigm for managing the dynamic aspects of organizational knowledge creating processes. Its central theme is that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. The nature of this dialogue is examined and four patterns of interaction involving tacit and explicit knowledge are identified. It is argued that while new knowledge is developed by individuals, organizations play a critical role in articulating and amplifying that knowledge. A theoretical framework is developed which provides an analytical perspective on the constituent dimensions of knowledge creation. This framework is then applied in two operational models for facilitating the dynamic creation of appropriate organizational knowledge.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“We propose that the SECI model of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) provides empirically testable design principles for AI agent memory architecture.”
From From Organizational Knowledge to AI Agent Memory: Empirical Validation of the SECI Model on the LongMemEval Benchmark (2026) · cites this paper as Nonaka 1994
In the citing paper
“Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous spiral of four conversion modes.”
From From Organizational Knowledge to AI Agent Memory: Empirical Validation of the SECI Model on the LongMemEval Benchmark (2026) · cites this paper as Nonaka 1994
In the citing paper
“The organizational knowledge creation theory proposes that the new knowledge is created through processes of tacit and explicit conversion: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Erden, Von Krogh, & Nonaka, 2008;Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000;Nonaka, 1994).”
From Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and memory (2020) · cites this paper as Nonaka, 1994
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 50,387
Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · Cited by 25,466
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
The Knowledge-Creating Company
Nonaka, I. (1998) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1 · Cited by 14,668
Self-citationPolanyi, M. (1997) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,410
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,243
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. Κ. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,318
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · Cited by 8,742
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250961 · Cited by 10,176
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780 · Cited by 6,963
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669 · Cited by 6,233
Metadata
- Authors
- Nonaka, I.
- Affiliations
- Hitotsubashi University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Nonaka, Ikujiro
- ORCID
- Nonaka, Ikujiro
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1994-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-37
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2132454116
- Cited by
- 17,809
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 506 · 2025: 438 · 2024: 460 · 2023: 529 · 2022: 717 · 2021: 722 · 2020: 732 · 2019: 776 · 2018: 777 · 2017: 820 · 2016: 706 · 2015: 887 · 2014: 922 · 2013: 1016 · 2012: 944
- FWCI
- 409.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
- Keywords
- organizational knowledge creation, tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, knowledge creation process, knowledge management, knowledge articulation
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
