Comparative Study: The Nonaka Model of Knowledge Management
Bashar Sarayreh1, Ammar Mardawi2, Rakan Dmour3
1Prof. Bashar Sarayreh, Management Information Systems, Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences/ Information Technology College, Amman, Jordan.
2Ammar Mardawi, Management Information Systems, Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences/ Information Technology College, Amman, Jordan.
3Rakan Dmor , Management Information Systems, Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences/ Information Technology College, Amman, Jordan.
Manuscript received on July 17, 2012. | Revised Manuscript received on August 25, 2012. | Manuscript published on August 30, 2012. | PP: 45-48 | Volume-1 Issue-6, August 2012. | Retrieval Number: F0631081612/2012©BEIESP
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: Knowledge Management went through a major transition from straightforward models which focused on the dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge to sophisticated frameworks which included specific processes. In this paper we outline the emergence of knowledge management as a distinct academic discipline to locate Nonaka’s work. Our immediate objective is to provide a comprehensive comparison of the most noteworthy discussions and criticism of the Nonaka model for Knowledge Management before and after the year 2000. Finally, we close by considering a series of key examples of the Nonaka model as deployed in industry. Up to the year 2000 or thereabouts, it was augured the model was rather simplistic and the desire to codify everything was not possible. Much of the critique of Nonaka following 2000 focused on the seeming subjectiveness of his vision of knowledge and the inadequacy of the SECI structure in a time of radically different communication technologies [5][6][11]. Finally, we show that most of published case studies on the idea of converting tacit knowledge to explicit in the ICT sector are out of date[1][3]. We conclude that knowledge management, conversion, and codifying requires further research and development to take in consideration the tacit origins of knowledge and the rapidly changing methods of communication.
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Nonaka’s Model, knowledge codifying, SECI model.