m sc thesis for work & organisational behaviour 2014 ul - gr

Is Reflection, the Bridge between Tacit Knowledge and Explicit

Knowing and Sharing?

A study of the role of reflection in capturing the Tacit Knowledge of subject matter expert’s (SME’s) in a

managerial role

Author: Ger Ryan

Student I.D: 0566454

Learning Institution: University of Limerick

School: Kemmy Business School

Award: M. Sc.

Programme: Work and Organisational Behaviour

Author: Ger Ryan

Student ID 0566454

Supervisor: Dr. Ronan Carbery

Year: 2014

Word Count: 21,322

This thesis is solely the work of the author and is submitted to the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, September 2014, in

Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of M. Sc. in Work and Organisational Behaviour

_______________________

GER RYAN

1 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

The purpose for this study is to research the relationship between the process of reflection and the

process of accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge. Literature presents tacit knowledge as complex

and hard to communicate and it presents reflection as a tool that can be used to learn and develop

from but is not as widely used as it possibly can, especially not in the context of knowledge sharing,

new knowledge creation and in accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge.

This research contributes two models to academia and business. Firstly the conceptual model for tacit

knowledge (CMTK). This was designed and created partly because, there is not an abundance of

models in literature that shows the reader and/or researcher what tacit knowledge looks like from a

conceptual perspective and the influence it has on an individual’s every day experiences, decisions

and actions . And partly because of the many experts and academics, present in literature what it is,

and where it can be found and much has been repeated throughout academic literature. So I wanted to

create a model based on some of the influential contributions of experts and scholars commenting on

the areas of tacit knowledge and reflection.

The second model is a representation of the important and significant role which reflection has in the

process of accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge. This model is being tested in this research for

validity and reliability as it reflects on the contributions of the experts. In the absence of empirical

evidence pertaining to the cumulative contributions by the experts, this research is asking does what

they say in respect to tacit knowledge and reflection actually hold water?

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………2

LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES/CHARTS .......................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 4

1.0 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 5

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 7

1.3 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY .......................................................................................... 7

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 7

1.5 THESIS STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 8

1.5.1 Chapter 1 – Introduction .................................................................................................. 8

1.5.2 Chapter 2 – Literature Review ......................................................................................... 8

1.5.3 Chapter 3 – Research Methodology ................................................................................. 8

1.5.4 Chapter 4 - Findings......................................................................................................... 8

1.5.5 Chapter 5 – Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusions .......................................... 9

2.0 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 10

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... .10

2.2 Knowledge…………………………………………………………………………………..11

2.3 Organisational Knowledge………………………………………………………………….11

2.4 Knowledge Management……………………………………………………………………12

2.5 Types of Knowledge………………………………………………………………………...12

2.5.1 Explicit Knowledge ………………………………………………………………........12

2.5.2 Implicit Knowledge ……………………………………………………………………13

2.5.3 Tacit Knowledge ……………………………………………………………………….13

2.5.3.1 The Duality of Tacit Knowledge………………………………………………….14

2.5.3.2 Sharing Tacit Knowledge…………………………………………………………15

2.6 Organisational Culture………………………………………………………………………16

2.6.1 Organisational Culture and Tacit Knowledge Sharing……………………………...17

3 | P a g e

2.6.2 New Knowledge Creation…………………………………………………………...17

2.6.3 Attitudes towards Tacit Knowledge Sharing………………………………………..17

2.6.4 Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Sharing……………………………………………….18

2.7 Reflection……………………………………………………………………………………19

2.7.1 Triple Loop Learning Strategy……………………………………………………...19

2.7.2 Competitive Advantage and Tacit Knowledge……………………………………...19

2.8 Subject Matter Experts (SME'S) in a Managerial Role and Reflection……………………..19

2.9 Individual and Organisational Theories and Perspectives…………………………………..20

2.9.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)…………………………………………….20

2.9.2 The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)…………………………………………..20

2.9.3 Social Exchange Theory……………………………………………………….……21

2.9.4 Self Efficacy Theory…………………………………………………………..…….21

2.10 Organisational Theories and Perspectives…………………………………………...…….22

2.10.1 The Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV)…………………………………....22

2.10.2 The Knowledge Based View of the Firm (KBV)………………………….………22

2.10.3 The Knowledge Creating View of the Firm (KCV)………………………………22

2.10.4 Evolution Theory of the Firm (EFT)………………………………………………23

2.10.5 Sustainable Competitive Advantage..………………………………………..…….23

2.11 Developing a Model of Tacit Knowledge…………………………………………….…...24

2.11.1 Cognitive Dimension………………………………………………………………26

2.11.2 Technical Skills and Experience Dimension………………………………………26

2.11.3 Ideals and Emotions Dimensions…………………………………………………..26

2.11.4 Senses Dimension……………………………………………………………..…..27

2.11.5 Internalisation………………………………………………………………..……27

2.12 The importance of Reflection in Acquiring Tacit Knowledge……………………………27

2.12.1 Types of Reflection………………………………………………………………..28

2.12.2 New Knowledge Creation…………………………………………………………28

2.13 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……..29

4 | P a g e

3.0 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOHLOOGY………………………………………………30

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………31

3.2 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………...32

3.2.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses……………………………………………..…32

3.3 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………...32

3.4 Research and Design………………………………………………………………………..32

3.5 Original Strategy……………………………………………………………………………33

3.5.1 Limitations………………………………………………………………………….34

3.6 The participating Organisation………………………………………………………….…..34

3.6.1 The Sample Study…………………………………………………………………..35

3.6.2 The Sample Study Selection Process…………………………………………….…35

3.6.3 Participant Break down………………………………………………………….….36

3.6.4 The Scheduled Interviews……………………………………………………….….37

3.6.5 Prior to the Interview……………………………………………………………….37

3.6.6 The Interview Schedule…………………………………………………………….37

3.6.7 Sub-Dimensions of Tacit Knowledge………………………………………………38

3.7 The Reflection Bridge…………………………………………………………………..…..38

3.8 Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………..…39

3.9 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….…40

3.10 Validity………………………………………………………………………………….…40

3.10.1 External Validity……………………………………………………………….….40

3.10.2 Ecological Validity…………………………………………………………….….41

3.10.3 Reliability and Replication…………………………………………………….….41

3.11 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….…..41

3.12 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..…41

4.0 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS………………………………………………………43

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..………43

4.2 Testing a Model………………………………………………………………………43

5 | P a g e

4.2.1 Quantitative Breakdown………………………………………………..…..43

4.2.2 Hypotheses Breakdown…………………………………………………….43

4.2.3 Tacit Dimension Breakdown…………………………………………….…44

4.2.4 Tacit Sub-Dimension Breakdown……………………………………….…45

4.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………………………………….47

4.3.1 H1…………………………………………………………………………..47

4.3.2 H2………………………………………………………………………..…48

4.3.3 H3……………………………………………………………………….….49

4.3.4 H4……………………………………………………………………….….50

4.3.5 H4b……………………………………………………………………..…..50

4.3.6 H5……………………………………………………………………….….51

4.3.7 H6……………………………………………………………………….….51

4.3.8 H7……………………………………………………………………….….53

4.3.9 H8……………………………………………………………………….….54

4.3.10 H9…………………………………………………………………………54

4.4 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….54

4.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………...55

5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS………………………….…....56

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………,,….56

5.2 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..…57

5.3 Research Questions……………………………………………………………….…..58

5.4 Analysis of Findings……………………………………………………………….….58

5.4.1 Is Reflection an effective way to access and acquire an SME's Tacit

Knowledge? ……………………………………………………………………...58

5.4.2 Do SME's Reflect on their decisions and/or actions regularly? ...................58

5.4.3 How do SME's Share their newly acquired Knowledge? ………..………..58

5.4.4 Is Tacit Knowledge accessed from Specific Tacit Dimensions as presented by

authors and academics? …………………………………………….……………59

5.4.5 Does the Context of a situation determine the Tacit Dimension from which to

access and acquire intangible knowledge? ............................................................59

6 | P a g e

5.4.6 Do SME's reflect on Knowledge which they rely on to do their Jobs? …....59

5.4.7 Is shared Tacit Knowledge added to existing Organisational Knowledge? .60

5.4.8 Does effectively shared Tacit Knowledge have the potential to add to the

existing competitive advantage of the individual, team and/or Organisation? …60

5.4.9 Do SME's implement solutions acquired through Reflection; immediately or

retrospectively? ……………………………………………………………….…60

5.4.10 Do SME's create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their Tacit

Knowledge with others? …………………………………………………………61

5.5 Researcher Bias………………………………………………………………………..61

5.6 External Validity………………………………………………………………………61

5.7 Ecological Validity……………………………………………………………………61

5.8 Reliability…………………………………………………………………………..…62

5.9 Implications for Practice and Theory………………………………………………….62

5.9.1 The Context and Influence of Original Experience………………….…….62

5.9.2 The Reflection Bridge…………………………………………………..….62

5.10 Limitations to the Research………………………………………………………….63

5.11 Future Research…………………………………………………………………..….63

5.12 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..….64

BIBLIOGRAPHY and other Sources of information……………………………………………….5

APPENDIX 1: The SECI Model……………………………………………………………….…..75

APPENDIX 2: Letter of invitation th Participants…………………………………………………76

APPENDIX 3 Guidelines and Expectations for the Interviews……………………………………77

APPENDIX 4 Overview for Participants……………………………………………………..……79

APPENDIX 5 Hypotheses and Associated Interview questions…………………………………..80

APPENDIX 6 Tacit Sub-Dimensions…………………………………………………..………….82

APPENDIX 7 Letter of Application for Ethical Approval………………………………………...83

3 | P a g e

List of Figures:

Figure 1:

Conceptual Model of Tacit Knowledge

Pg. 25

Figure 2:

Research Process Flow

Pg. 30

Figure 3:

SME Departments

Pg. 35

Figure 4:

The Reflection Bridge Model

Pg. 39

List of Tables:

Table 1:

Knowledge Sharing Practices

Pg. 15

Table 2:

Participant Breakdown

Pg. 36

Table 3: Tacit Dimensions and Tacit Sub-Dimensions Pg. 39

List of Charts

Chart 1:

Sources Vs. References

Pg. 44

Chart 2:

Tacit Dimension Breakdown

Pg. 45

Chart 3: Tacit Sub-Dimensions Pg. 46

4 | P a g e

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the help, support, guidance and sacrifice of the following

influential individuals along this journey;

First and foremost I would like to thank Dr, Ronan Carbery, for his support and guidance

during this thesis, and also for getting me interested in the area of the research topic a couple

of years ago while doing my degree in HRM, the journey was worth it.

I would like to thank my wife Kate and my son’s Josh and Logan for their massive support,

understanding and immense sacrifice, while being at my side during this journey. Boys I have

raised the bar again, oops! But I will be there to lift you both just as you have lifted me.

Thank you! Kate, Josh and Logan.

I would like to thank Mary and Brendan for their continued support.

I would like to thank the participating organisation and the participating employees within.

The organisation came on board with no fuss when no one else would, and they graciously

allowed their employees to participate in the research and the employees enthusiastically

obliged. Thank You.

Finally I would like to thank the lecturers of the Kemmy Business School in the University of

Limerick for their help and support during my time there and during my time on this

program.

5 | P a g e

1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

'I shall reconsider human knowledge by starting from the fact that we can know

More than we can tell'

(Polanyi, 1966, p. 4)

The advent of globalization and the current global economic climate has led to tougher market

conditions to trade both locally and globally and as a result many leaders and managers in firms are

faced with meeting the demands of continuous unpredictable challenges (Bennet and Bennet, 2008)

on a daily basis. To add to this changing landscape firms now operate in what is considered to be a

knowledge based economy, where knowledge holds the most leverage (Cross and Dublin, 2002) and

is the primary influential factor to the firm’s success through sustainable competitive advantage

(Grant, 1996; De Geus, 1998; Krishnaveni and Sujatha, 2012). This highly competitive business

environment therefore demands that organisations are more creative in addressing the challenges

which they face in order for them to ensure that they are more innovative and competitive (Roberts,

2000; Nonaka and Toyama, 2005; Subashini, 2010).

Literature on how to gain competitive advantage over a competitor is not new to academia or business

related studies. And in recent years there is a growing trend in books and journal articles focusing on

the merits of effectively acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge as a tool for gaining a sustainable

competitive edge as well as the role of reflection in the learning process. Knowledge is reported to be

one of the most important sources of competitive advantage for firms (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003;

Erden et al., 2008). And a number of authors and experts (Chen and Edgington, 2005; Jashapara,

2003; Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Bennet and Bennet, 2008; Lo´pez, 2005 and Kasper et al., 2010;

Shih et al., 2010; Wang and Noe, 2010) recognise tacit knowledge as an invaluable source of

sustainable competitive advantage. Goldberg (2005) observes that deep knowledge, which comes

primarily from tacit knowledge is key to creating new knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;

Kakabadse et al., 2001; Nonaka et al., 2006 and Harlow, 2008).

It is widely acknowledged by academics, professionals and experts in the field that knowledge has

two separate but complimentary dimensions. On the one hand there is knowledge that is easily

communicated which individual’s regularly pull from their consciousness when engaging with others

(Koskinen, 2003; Cho et al., 2009). This knowledge is easily shared and transferred, it is known as

explicit knowledge. And on the other hand we have knowledge which the individual has in their

heads, primarily in their unconscious, which they find hard to access, communicate and ultimately

6 | P a g e

share, because the individual for the most part is unaware of its presence; this is called tacit

knowledge.

In order for today’s professionals to succeed in environments driven by change they must rely heavily

on their capacity to learn from their own experiences as well as the experiences of others and in doing

so they will adapt their modes of practice accordingly (Mathew and Sternberg, 2009) to facilitate such

continuous change. They do this by tapping into their reservoirs of tacit knowledge through reflection

of their experiences. This process then facilitates triple-loop-learning as they ask; what did I learn

from this? And how can I do it better?

Reflection contributes to learning by way of the individual generating inquiry and a search for

meaning in their previous experiences, thoughts, behaviours and actions (Scott, 2010). As Haldin-

Herrgard, (2000) observes, tacit knowledge is acquired through inner individual processes such as

experience, reflection, internalisation and individual talent. Where Kember et al., (2000) also explains

that if we view learning on a continuum where habit is at one end and critical reflection is at the other,

personal reflection would represent one point on the same continuum. Bennet and Bennett, (2008)

stipulate that effective leaders and managers access their tacit knowledge by observing and discussing

the actions and behaviours of themselves and others. They also practice reflection and self-

questioning when they are aware of using feelings, intuition, or intuition as guides for their own

decisions and/or actions. By doing this they promote the generation of sustainable competitive

advantage, because reflection generates inquiry and a search for meaning, and it provides the potential

to see things in a way they have not been understood before (Scott, 2010).

This research acknowledges the many authors across numerous disciplines in relation to their

contributions to the topics of tacit knowledge and reflection. The purpose of this research is the study

of the methodology of reflection of subject matter experts (SME’s) in a managerial role in acquiring

their tacit knowledge. Asking how do they acquire the knowledge? Where does it reside? What

influence does reflection have on the process, if at all? How do they share it and what influence does

the newly acquired and shared knowledge have on the competitive advantage of the individuals and

teams?

The research methodology is qualitative. The research presents a conceptual model of tacit knowledge

to be tested by the SME’s to identify what is tacit knowledge. The contribution of this research is to

present an operational model of tacit knowledge identifying the value of both acquiring tacit

knowledge and the process of reflection as key influential factors in generating and maintaining

sustainable competitive advantage amongst SME’s in managerial roles.

7 | P a g e

1.2 Background to the Study

The study was conducted amongst a number of subject matter experts (SME’s) in managerial roles

within a US multinational company (MNC) with a manufacturing plant in Ireland. The company

employs over ten thousand personnel globally in the manufacture, sales and distribution of high value

products and services to approximately one hundred and thirty five countries worldwide. The sample

study is concentrated to the Irish plant, where a sample of twelve SME’s were interviewed in respect

to identifying the role of reflection in their process of acquiring and sharing their tacit knowledge.

1.3 Rationale for the Study

The rationale for the study came about in response to the growing trend of research being published in

journal articles in respect to both tacit knowledge and reflection. Literature presents that accessing and

sharing tacit knowledge is a key resource in achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Literature

also presents that reflection is integral to acquiring an individual’s tacit knowledge, as it is built into

the individual’s triple-loop-learning strategy. However there is a scarcity of empirical evidence in

relation to reflection being used as an effective tool to access and acquire the tacit knowledge of

SME’s in managerial roles, and how do they share it. This research intends to address this gap by

testing a conceptual model of tacit knowledge complied from the writings and comments of scholars

and experts in the fields of knowledge theory and knowledge management.

1.4 Research Questions

The overarching question is do SME’s tap into and acquire their tacit knowledge through reflection?

However in answering this question there are a number of subsequent questions to be answered at the

core of this research, for example;

1) Is reflection an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge?

2) Do SME’s reflect on their decisions and/or actions regularly?

3) How do SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge?

4) Is tacit knowledge accessed from specific tacit dimensions as presented by authors and

academics?

5) Does the context of a situation determine the tacit dimension from which to access and

acquire intangible knowledge?

6) Do SME’s reflect on knowledge which they rely on to do their job?

7) Is shared tacit knowledge added to existing organisational knowledge?

8) Does effectively shared tacit knowledge have the potential to add to the existing competitive

advantage of an individual, team and /or organisation?

9) Do SME’s implement solutions acquired through reflection, immediately or retrospectively?

8 | P a g e

10) Do SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit knowledge with

others?

1.5 Thesis Structure

A brief overview of the chapters of the research thesis follows;

1.5.1 Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter one introduces the topic of study. It sets the groundwork for the context of the research. This

chapter also outlines the objectives of the study as well as the rationale for choosing this research

topic and identifies the current gap in the literature. A brief overview of the participating organisation

is introduced and participants are defined. The relevant research approaches are also presented.

1.5.2 Chapter 2 Literature Review

Chapter two introduces relevant academic referencing in the fields of human resource development,

knowledge management, psychology and sociology pertaining to the relevance and understanding of

the area of tacit knowledge and reflection. Various methods of acquiring, transferring and sharing

tacit knowledge are also presented and explained. A conceptual model of tacit knowledge which is

based on the writings, understandings and insights of renowned academics and experts from

numerous disciplines is presented for critical analysis and testing.

1.5.3 Chapter 3 Research Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to detail the research methodology employed to conduct the case study

of a) identifying if tacit knowledge is effectively acquired by subject matter experts (SME’s) in a

managerial role through the process of reflection and b) is such knowledge shared effectively?. The

chapter will go into detail regarding the rationale to go down the route of a qualitative approach,

highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of this method. The participating organisation and the

participants within will introduced with a brief background of each. The conceptual model of tacit

knowledge (CMTK) is further addressed and explored.

Limitations of the concepts and methodology in relation to validity and reliability will also be

discussed.

1.5.4 Chapter 4 Research Findings

This chapter presents the findings of the analysis of the data collected during the course of the

research.

9 | P a g e

This chapter reflects the findings of the model being tested by reporting on the hypotheses associated

with testing the model and other areas of interest associated with the model and contributions to

academia. Limitations will be presented to highlight areas of current opportunities for improvement in

the design and application of such a study.

1.5.5 Chapter 5 Discussion Recommendations and Conclusions

This chapter discusses further analysis on the findings in chapter 4 taking into consideration the

research to dat. As a result of the literature and the subsequent research the chapter also highlights the

limitation of the research, identifies potential areas for future research. It also gives the researchers

recommendations for the implications of their research and findings for current and future research

and practice.

10 | P a g e

2.0 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at the existing literature in relation to tacit knowledge.

More specifically this chapter will be exploring the role of reflection in capturing and sharing tacit

knowledge. This following pages will take the reader on an inquisitive journey through a number of

linked concepts in respect to the research topic, for example; knowledge, what is it? How does

individual knowledge feed into organisational knowledge and what is the rationale for the

management of such knowledge?

Much is evidenced in literature regarding the validity of acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge,

however there is little empirical research pertaining to the use of reflection as an effective tool to

capture such knowledge. And even less so in respect to the reflective practices of subject matter

experts (SME’s) in managerial roles, when attempting to maintain sustainable competitive advantage

amongst their respective teams.

The chapter will engage in explaining a number of relevant concepts in respect to the research topic,

for example; knowledge types, tacit knowledge, acquiring tacit knowledge, reflection and reflective

practices, tacit knowledge sharing, methods and barriers to effective tacit knowledge sharing and

competitive advantage, to mention but a few. In addressing the question of acquiring the tacit

knowledge of SME’s through reflection, it is important to first understand the concept of

knowledge, specifically tacit knowledge how it has a vital role to both the individual and

organisation. The second section of this chapter seeks to understand the theoretical perspectives

that are applied to explain the rationale of individuals to acquire and share their tacit knowledge

and the importance of reflection in this process. The third section of the chapter builds a model of

tacit knowledge in respect to the writings of scholars and experts in the field and presents a

number of hypotheses to test the reliability and validity of the model.

11 | P a g e

2.2 Knowledge

“Knowledge and related concepts, such as expertise and intelligence, increasingly define our

activity in the knowledge-based society”

(Paavola and Hakkarainen, 2005: p. 536)

Knowledge is created and enhanced when we as humans either individually or collectively,

consciously or unconsciously, absorb information from our surroundings and experiences through our

senses. With our thoughts and intelligence we attempt to decipher and understand the information

received. Though the area of philosophy which focuses on knowledge, epistemology, presents

knowledge as a justified true belief, it is the remit of each individual to decide if their understanding

and ultimately their belief and understanding of the content and context of the experience is truly

justified.

Exposure to continuous multiple experience’s allows us to increase our awareness and understanding

while enhancing our knowledge stocks through familiarity or learning (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000) and

ultimately sharing. From an organisational perspective Ardichvili, (2014, forthcoming) presents that

knowledge resides in individuals or in groups within the firm. It also said to reside in the policies and

procedures of the organisation (De Long and Fahey, 2000) these in turn are considered to be key

resources in planning and implementing strategic decisions.

However; knowledge, specifically that of an individual is considered to be the most valuable asset of

modern organizations as it is viewed as the main source of the individuals and the firm’s competitive

advantage (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; DeNisi et al., 2003). Within the firm individual knowledge,

group knowledge and the knowledge which make up the policies and procedures of the organisation

are three knowledge categories which make up organisational knowledge of which is discussed in the

following section.

2.3 Organisational Knowledge

Bollinger and Smith, (2001) have argued that organizations that wish to remain competitive need to

develop mechanisms for capturing relevant knowledge, and disseminating it accurately, consistently,

concisely and in a timely manner to all who need it. Chiva and Alegre (2005) identify organisational

knowledge as individual knowledge shared by all the members of an organization. Whereby, Spender

(1996a) presents a second approach, which suggests that organizational knowledge is embedded in the

organizational rules and routines and processes (De Long and Fahey, 2000).

The cumulative approaches of Chiva and Alegre (2005) and Spender (1996a) therefore identifies that

every organisation consists of organisational knowledge and that the organisational knowledge can be

12 | P a g e

found in the firms policies, procedures, records, expectations and daily processes and that

organisational knowledge is also found within the human capital of the firm, both individually and in

groups. However, the success of knowledge is dependent on how it is shared and managed. As Cho et

al., (2009) argue; the success of tomorrow’s most effective organizations will lie in their capacity to

learn; hence, there is a critical need for effective knowledge management.

2.4 Knowledge Management (KM)

Bhatt, (2001) describe KM as a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution,

and application. Rowley (2000) also presents that the primary scope of KM is to aid and build on

existing organisational learning (OL) through identifying, sharing, creating and storing knowledge.

Given that the majority of knowledge within a firm resides in the firm’s human capital; the effective

management of this knowledge is considered to be the key component to the success of the firm

(Ndlela and du Toit 2001). Fugate et al., (2008) argue that the KM process has a positive effect on

operational and organizational performance when knowledge is managed effectively as it has a

positive impact on the firm’s competitive advantage and as such it becomes an enterprise value

because it contributes positively to the objectives pursued by the company itself (Giju et al., 2010).

On closer inspection of the suggestion by Giju et al., (2010) the following question is raised; in the

context of the management of knowledge, what specifically constitutes knowledge?

2.5 Types of Knowledge

“The moment we admit that all knowing is rooted in an act of personal judgment, knowledge seems to

lose all claim to objectivity”

(Polanyi 1962: pp.615- 616)

It is widely acknowledged in academic circles (Polanyi 1962, 1966; Nonaka and Umemoto, 1996; Ipe,

2003; Smith et al., 2007; Nonaka and Von Krogh, 2009; Subashini 2010) that in respect to the

individual there are primarily two types of knowledge; explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Tacit

knowledge and explicit knowledge are considered to be complementary of each other; in that through

the dynamic interaction between the two types of knowledge, an individual’s personal knowledge has

the potential of becoming organizational knowledge (Cho et al., 2009). However some commentators

also recognise a third type of knowledge known as implicit knowledge (Reber, 1989; Spender, 1994;

Nonaka, 1994; Broaders et al., 2007).

2.5.1 Explicit Knowledge

Nonaka (1996) describes explicit knowledge as that which can be embodied in a code or a language

and as a consequence it can be communicated, processed, transmitted and stored relatively easily.

13 | P a g e

Explicit knowledge is transmittable in formal, systematic language (Cho et al., 2009). From

this explanation it would be accurate to suggest that explicit knowledge would be considered tangible

in that it can be expressed and shared and stored easily between individuals, groups and the firm.

Though a caveat to this explanation is also presented by Polanyi (1962; 1966) whom originally

studied and coined the term tacit knowledge suggests that all knowledge derives from tacit knowledge

and as such explicit knowledge cannot exist without being first rooted in tacit knowledge.

2.5.2 Implicit Knowledge

From an organisational perspective implicit knowledge is recognised as a type of tacit understanding

of processes and procedures within organisations which are accumulated over time and are embedded

in the firms routines (Harlow, 2008; Johnson, 2007; Nonaka, 1994). However; many commentators

and scholars use the terms implicit and tacit interchangeably (Bennet and Bennet, 2008). For the

purposes of this research both types of knowledge are viewed as separate entities, as implicit

knowledge is not considered to be truly tacit.

2.5.3 Tacit Knowledge Tacit knowledge differs from knowledge which we consider to be explicit; in that tacit knowledge is

the knowledge which we have in our heads of things which we know how to do and yet we find it

hard to formulize and difficult to express. And as a result we find it difficult to share such knowledge.

Polanyi (1966) presents that it is based on the subjective insights, intuitions and hunches which we

have and it is deeply rooted in our actions, experiences, ideals, values and emotions. Where other

authors (Riesenberger, 1998; and Cho et al., 2009) add that not only is it is developed by an individual

it is also engrained in the organization's insights, beliefs, values, and perspectives which are

developed over time.

Individuals amass reservoirs’ of tacit knowledge on an on-going basis. The knowledge which every

individual possesses is said to be made up of both technical skills as well as cognitive elements such

as; mental models (Gore and Gore, 1999) and beliefs along with ingrained perspectives based on the

individuals cumulative experiences (Nonaka, 1991). We create mental models to help us to filter

information, interpret and understand reality as we perceive it to be as a result of our experiences and

the environment. Mental models allows individual’s to increase their knowledge and the quality of

such knowledge continuously. Koskinen (2003) observes that an individual’s mental models are more

than a collection of ideas memories and experiences. He suggests that they are akin to the source code

of a computer’s operating system and that the individual is the programmer and content manager,

designing the specific models based on ‘know-how’ (tacit) and exercising the ‘know-why’ (explicit)

when choosing a model relevant to the context of the situation which they are faced with.

14 | P a g e

Tacit knowledge is known to be acquired through inner individual processes such as experience,

reflection, internalisation and individual talent (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). The characteristics attributed

to such knowledge allows for tacit knowledge to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage

(Ambrosini and Bowman, 2008). Where, tacit knowledge is considered to be a key element in

leveraging the overall quality of an individual’s knowledge (Goffee and Jones, 2007), by converting

both explicit and tacit knowledge into an enterprise value-add commodity it is widely accepted to be a

key source of competitive advantage for organisations (Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Shih et al., 2010).

Though for an organisation to successfully convert tacit knowledge into a value add commodity the

firm first needs to understand what operational factors constitute tacit knowledge; what are the types

of knowledge that are considered to be tacit?

2.5.3.1 The Duality of Tacit Knowledge

In and of itself the term tacit knowledge is a descriptive label identifying two separate phenomena

which are at work intertwining with each other to produce a knowledge which becomes tacit over

time. Polanyi (1966) identified these two phenomena as being; distal and proximal, of them he

explains:

“…if I speak of the clues or parts that are subsidiarily known as the proximal term of

tacit knowing and of that which is focally known as the distal term of tacit knowing” (p.

3).

The proximal term identifies the steps of the experience(s) as seen in isolation, whereby the distal

term refers to the same steps of the experience(s) linked together as a whole which is easily

identifiable as such. Where distal identifies the experience; proximal identifies the theory of the

science behind each step to make up the experience as a whole, for example;

“I can say that I know how to ride a bicycle or how to swim, but this does not mean that I

can tell how I manage to keep my balance on a bicycle or keep afloat when swimming. I

may not have the slightest idea of how I do this, or even an entirely wrong or grossly

imperfect idea of it, and yet go on cycling or swimming merrily. Yet, it cannot be said

that I know how to bicycle or swim and not know how to coordinate the complex pattern

of muscular acts by which I do my cycling or swimming. It follows that I know how to

carry out these performances as a whole and that I also know how to carry out the

elementary acts which constitute them, but that, though I know these acts, I cannot tell

what they are” (Polanyi, 1962:p. 601)

O’Toole (2011) presents an example of the proximal and distal functions to that of the experience of

driving a car. Where the whole experience of driving is considered distal, the sum of the parts (the

steps) of the act of driving is considered to be proximal. These proximal steps are carried out

15 | P a g e

unconsciously. And it is only through reflection of our own experiences, in this example the act of

driving, with the view to sharing such knowledge or indeed learning from it that we can begin to

appreciate the value and impact of tacit knowledge in our lives. Polanyi (1966) also described an

individual’s ability to identify a face in the crowd as being tacit; Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) identified

a baker’s ability to make bread as tacit; Collins (2001a) the ability to ride a bike; Herbig et al., (2001)

a nurses intuition in respect to patient’s conditions and André et al., (2002) suggest a doctors’

perceived rules of thumb in relation to an individual’s psychosocial problems.

The way forward for organisations to effectively learn how to acquire, share and transfer tacit

knowledge between their employees, teams and departments; is for the firms to intensify their search

for better ways to do so and implement the best way for the organisation (Sheehan et al., 2014).

Because individuals are considered to be the fundamental repositories of tacit knowledge, they then

become the key to the success of any KM initiative within the firm (Tohidinia and Mosakhani, 2010).

And one of the more increasingly important functions of an effective KM initiative is to successfully

extract tacit knowledge from the repositories of subject matter experts (SME’s); ready for sharing

effectively and bolstering the organisational knowledge and the competitive advantage of the firm.

2.5.3.2 Sharing Tacit Knowledge

As tacit knowledge is not coded, it is not communicated in a 'language', and it is acquired by sharing

experiences, by observation and imitation (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka et al., 1996), storytelling (Denning,

2001; Linde, 2001), modelling (Dilts, 1998; Bandura, 1977), observation (Nonaka, 1991; Bartol and

Srivasta, 2002) and learning by doing (Subashini, 2010). Table 1, highlights the numerous ways in

which scholars have commented on the ways in which tacit knowledge is acquired and embedded in

an individual’s psyche through knowledge sharing practices from an individual perspective as well as

that of an organisational perspective.

16 | P a g e

Table 1: Knowledge Sharing Practices

However, it is worth noting that there are a number of factors that impact on the effectiveness of

sharing knowledge for example; perception, language, time, value and distance (Haldin-Herrgard,

2000) as well as the organisational culture (Kakabadse et al., 2001).

2.6 Organizational Culture

Organisational culture serves as a sense-making mechanism that guides and shapes the

values, behaviours and attitudes of employees (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). It is reported that

many contemporary organizations have established higher levels of information sharing within their

day to day activities, this in turn lays the ground work for the creation of a knowledge culture

17 | P a g e

(Kakabadse et al., 2001). And as a result shaping a knowledge culture within the organisation is

central in a firm's ability to manage its knowledge more effectively (Davenport and Prusak, 1998),

which in turn will encourage the development of a more proactive knowledge sharing environment

and culture.

2.6.1 Organisational Culture and Tacit Knowledge Sharing

The corporate vision and the organizational culture provide the knowledge base from which to ‘tap’

into tacit knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2006). However for tacit knowledge to be shared successfully it

needs to be transferred into explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Van Krogh, 2009; Polanyi, 1966). This

process is made all the more easier when firms successfully promote a knowledge sharing culture by

directly incorporating knowledge sharing activities into their business strategy. This then allows for

employee’s through their attitudes and behaviours, to engage in and promote collaborative and

consistent knowledge sharing (Lin, 2007).

The importance of this suggests that more enterprises therefore need to mould and shape their culture

so that they create opportunities for tacit knowledge to be made explicit (Ndlela and du Toit, 2001)

and new knowledge to be created. By capturing and sharing tacit knowledge effectively the firm can

positively impact their own potential for achieving and maintaining sustainable competitive

advantage, and through the effective sharing of such knowledge there is the potential for new

knowledge being created which adds to the existing organisational knowledge and learning.

2.6.2 New Knowledge Creation

The creation of new knowledge is an innovative process within the firm and amongst its employees.

Such communication between individuals and/or groups are often seen as the catalyst for the creation

of new ideas and are viewed as having the potential for creating new knowledge (Nonaka, 1991; Gold

et al., 2001). This type of interaction and collaboration is important when attempting to transmit tacit

knowledge between individuals or convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, thereby

transforming it from the individual level to the organizational level (Nonaka, 1994; 1995; Nonaka and

Konno, 1998). Nonaka and Toyama (2005) observe that subjective tacit knowledge held by an

individual is externalized into objective explicit knowledge which can be shared and replicated. The

newly created knowledge is then used and personalised by individuals to enrich their own subjective

tacit knowledge. The sharing of existing tacit knowledge and the creation of new knowledge does not

happen automatically and in part depends on the attitudes to sharing from the relevant stakeholders.

18 | P a g e

2.6.3 Attitudes towards Tacit Knowledge Sharing

Employees' attitudes to sharing knowledge are central to the sharing of existing and the creation of

new knowledge for competitive advantage (Kakabadse et al., 2001; Ryan, 2013; Hislop, 2003; Yang,

2007; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Nonaka and Van Krogh, 2009). Many of the modern day

organizations are said to have established higher levels of information sharing which in turn forms the

basis for a knowledge culture within the firm (Kakabadse et al., 2001). However; individual attitudes

have the potential to either help or indeed hinder the tacit knowledge sharing process (Ryan, 2013).

It is the employee’s attitudes towards knowledge and the sharing of such knowledge which is seen as

the most important factor in the tacit knowledge sharing process, even eclipsing the individual’s

motivation to share (Hislop, 2003). While positive individual attitudes towards tacit knowledge

sharing can influence attitudes towards learning, negative attitudes towards the process can equally

impede both tacit knowledge sharing and also individual and organisational attitudes towards the

learning process (Ryan, 2013).

2.6.4 Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Sharing

An organisations culture has the ability to promote tacit knowledge sharing when the appropriate

conditions to facilitate the tacit knowledge sharing process are present and encouraged; equally if the

culture within the firm does not acknowledge knowledge sharing then positive substantial benefits are

lost to all (Ryan, 2013). The main challenge for companies sharing practices is to protect and

maximize the value derived from tacit knowledge held by employees, customers and stakeholders

(Reige, 2005). Bratianu and Orzea, (2010) agree with Reige (2005) when they suggest that knowledge

sharing is thought to be influenced by factors both at the individual and at the organizational level.

Reige (2005) identifies multiple barriers to effective knowledge sharing both explicit and tacit. From

an individual perspective he identifies seventeen barriers ranging from a general lack of time share

knowledge to differences in cultures and ethnic differences. He also includes; age differences, gender

differences and trust as other relevant barriers to sharing knowledge. From an organisational

perspective Reige (2005) identifies a list of fourteen barriers ranging from ill-defined and unclear

knowledge management strategies to the size of the business unit which negatively impact sharing. He

also highlights corporate and organisational cultures as barriers along with a lack of resources and

effective channels of communication.

19 | P a g e

2.7 Reflection

“Knowledge is information put to productive use, it implies action and through action

and reflection one gains wisdom”

(Kakabadse et al., 2001: p. 149)

The practice of reflection is the process which an individual engages in when rethinking their prior

thoughts and actions in context (Schön, 1983) to surface assumptions (Argyris, 1992) and make

meaning of their perceived understanding (Scott, 2010). The process of reflecting is also said to aid

and improve work practices (Schön, 1983) and improve employee performance (Roberts, 2000).

Kember et al., (2000) observe that; if learning was to be viewed as a continuum then habit would

reside at one end and the process of reflection and the opposite end.

2.7.1 Triple-Loop-Learning Strategy and Reflection

Triple-loop-learning involves learning how to learn by reflecting on how organisations learn in the

first place (Carbery, 2014, forthcoming) and questioning existing assumptions through the process of

reflection. In doing so the firm has the potential for new knowledge creation.

From an individual perspective; triple-loop learning relies on the assumption that individuals within

the firm produce outputs that contribute to operational efficiency and strategic effectiveness (Yeo,

2006). This is further demonstrated through their adaptiveness to learning and problem-solving

approaches with an emphasis in reflective action (Romme and van Witteloostuijn, 1999).

2.7.2 Competitive Advantage and Tacit Knowledge

The pursuit of knowledge for competitive advantage has become increasingly central to organisational

strategies (Kakabadse, et al., 2001). Literature (Chen and Edgington, 2005; Jashapara, 2003; Lo´pez,

2005 and Endres et al., 2007) observes that though tacit knowledge is considered to be highly

complex, it is increasingly being recognised as a source of sustainable competitive advantage within

organisations.

2.8 Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) in a Managerial Role and Reflection

Reflection is concerned with more than what a manager does; it is also concerned with his/her

thoughts about what he/she did (Raelin, 2007). Managers should be practitioners of reflection

and be able to “conceptualize what is going on, identify new insights, and take the time to

communicate with others the lessons learned” (Klimoski, 2007: p. 495). Gosling and

Mintzberg (2003) present the importance of reflection for every effective manager and leader in

the following statement;

20 | P a g e

“Everything that every effective manager does is sandwiched between action on the

ground and reflection in the abstract. Action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection

without action is passive. Every manager has to find a way to combine these two mind-

sets-to function at the point where reflective thinking meets practical doing” (p. 56)

This should hold true also SME’s in managerial roles, as reflecting on their actions and decision

processes should pave the way for identifying, understanding and sharing their tacit knowledge. It is

presented in literature that effective managers and leaders do indeed reflect on their previous actions.

They do this in order to acquire and share their tacit knowledge with the intention of maintaining

sustainable competitive advantage amongst their teams. And also adding to the existing organisational

knowledge.

2.9 Individual and Organisational Theories and Perspectives

The following are a number of theories from both an individual as well as an organisational

perspective in relation to acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge, beginning with the individual

perspectives.

2.9.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

From an individual perspective, the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)

presents that the best predictor of a behaviour is the intention to perform the specific behaviour (Ho

and Kuo, 2009). In respect to reflective practices the theory suggests that an individual will willingly

and knowingly reflect on their thoughts and actions with the intention to learn from them as part of

their triple-loop-learning strategy (Bateson, 1979; Hawkins, 1991). So, for an individual to want to

learn from their actions and/or behaviours, their reasoned action would be to reflect on their actions

and/or behaviours and asking; why?

2.9.2 The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Also from an individual perspective the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Azjen, 1987) is an

extension of the TRA. And adds a dimension of perceived control to the TRA model by the

individual.

The TPB identifies three independent determinants of intention to perform a behaviour (Ho and Kuo,

2009); the individual’s attitude towards the behaviour (either positive or negative) and also the

individual’s attitude towards an object and/or event (Klobas and Clyde, 2000), these attitudes are

influenced by the subjective norm, which refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to

perform the behaviour. (Ho and Kuo, 2009).

21 | P a g e

And the third aspect refers to an individual’s perceived behavioural control. This factor refers to the

individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest, it is also

assumed to reflect past experiences, resources and opportunities (Ho and Kuo, 2009). An individuals

perceived behavioural control may be influenced by the person’s own self-efficacy in their ability to

go against the perceived subjective norms of their peers and/or organisation.

Both the TRA and the TCB have been and are commonly used to predict and explain behavioural

intentions and actual or self-reported behaviour (Hergenrather et al., 2005; Higgins and Marcum,

2005; Liaw, 2004).

2.9.3 Social Exchange Theory

Comprised of the workings of Homans (1958), Blau (1964), Ekeh (1974), Emerson (1976) and

Cook and Emerson (1978) social exchange theory presents that human relationships are formed and

based on peoples investment in the relationship be it emotional or otherwise as well as their expected

return on that investment which can be extrinsic (external) by way of monetary exchange and/or

rewards or it can be intrinsic (internal) by way of feelings of pride, happiness or other internal

emotions.

Not unlike economic exchange theory or rational action theory, with social exchange theory the

individual invests in a task and/or relationship with specific expectations of their return on investment

or indeed their return on expectations. By investing in acquiring tacit knowledge through reflection

with the intention to share that knowledge, the individual’s minimum expectation could be that they

are verbally recognised for their contribution by their peers or managers or equally their minimum

expectation could be a reward for their participation to the process by way of a monetary exchange.

2.9.4 Self-Efficacy Theory

Self-Efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) presents that an individual’s beliefs in their own level of

confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform a particular task or behaviour will determine

their level of participation in the task and/or behaviour. With respect to effectively acquiring and

sharing tacit knowledge and indeed reflection; an individual will be more willing to participate in the

tacit knowledge sharing process and effective reflective practices, depending on their own belief in

their ability to do so.

22 | P a g e

2.10 Organisational Theories and Perspectives

The following are a number of organisational theories and perspectives.

2.10.1 The Resource-Based View of the Firm (RBV)

From an organisational perspective the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm presents that sources

of sustainable advantage for firms are considered to be valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable

resources (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991), specific related sets of operational routines and

technological skills (Pralahad and Hamel, 1990; Stalk et al., 1992). It also acknowledges socially

complex resources, such as interpersonal relationships through social interaction of the employee’s

within the firm as well as the firm’s organisational culture (Barney, 1991; Makhija, 2003; Ryan,

2013) as necessary, effectively contributed resources.

2.10.2 The Knowledge Based View of the Firm (RBV)

Grant (1996a) present’s a knowledge based theory of strategy through his knowledge based view

(KBV) of the firm, which observes that tacit knowledge within the firm is the main source of

sustained competitive advantage. In the theory he suggests that because the knowledge which belongs

to a firm becomes redundant due to becoming obsolete as well as imitated widely; sustained

competitive advantage can be achieved through the acquiring and sharing the tacit knowledge of the

individuals within the firm.

From an organisational perspective the KBV of the firm considers knowledge to be the most

important strategic resource (De Carolis, 2002). In this context, intangible assets such as tacit

knowledge are considered to be highly valued (Bontis et al., 1999; Petrick et al., 1999; Eustace, 2000;

Barney, 2001b; Hitt et al., 2001a; Grant, 2002; Mathews, 2003). As such shared knowledge can also

lead to new knowledge creation.

2.10.3 The Knowledge Creating View (KCV) of the firm

The knowledge creating view (KCV) of the firm is a relatively recent organisational perspective

which is grounded in the view that a human is a dynamic being and the firm as a dynamic entity that

actively interacts with others and the environment (Nonaka et al., 2000). On another level Nonaka and

Takeuchi (1995) argue that knowledge is created only by individuals and that an organization cannot

create knowledge without individuals. The authors recognise that; individual tacit knowledge is the

basis of organizational knowledge creation and they introduce the SECI model (Appendix 1).

Knowledge and skills give a firm a competitive advantage because it is through this set of knowledge

and skills that a firm is able to innovate new products/processes/services, or improve the existing ones

23 | P a g e

more efficiently and/or more effectively. As Nonaka et al., (2000) observes; the raison d’être of a

firm is to continuously create new knowledge. They do this through effective knowledge sharing, and

in the process the firm has the potential to positively influence the generation of sustainable

competitive advantage.

2.10.4 Evolutionary Theory of the Firm (ETF)

The evolutionary theory of the firm (Nelson and Winter, 1982) presents that a firm’s performance can

be greatly enhanced by the special dynamic interactions created within the organisation between

related modes of explicit and tacit knowledge which are exposed to external economic realities,

whereby new knowledge is introduced into the firm and shared with others.

2.10.5 Sustainable Competitive Advantage

In its most basic format competitive advantage is any advantage that a firm has over its competitors

which leads to an increase in profits. The best way to do this is for the firm to work to ensure that

sustainable competitive advantage is achieved. Sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996) is

competitive advantage which is sustained over the long term and is consistent and easily replicated. In

today’s highly competitive global business environment it is not enough to be just be competitive,

organisations need that extra edge and have an advantage over their competitors. In the past

competitive advantage meant that a firm could have the best technology, make a product cheaper,

make it better, and be first to the market, make the most profits and/or have the most negotiation

leverage through strong capital resources.

However; in today’s markets, the modern organisation has, or has access to modern state of the art

technology, raw materials are cheaper, cost effective products and labour have become more widely

accessible with the emergence of globalization and open trading markets. Being first to the market is

not always the best strategy because many of a firms competitors are just waiting to ignore copyright

laws to replicate and imitate what is on the market, and sell to consumers at a cheaper price at a cost

to the innovator in lost revenue. And in today’s global markets which operates on a twenty four/seven

schedule, organisations are only recently beginning to realise the value of what was in front of them

all along, that the key to any competitive advantage, sustainable or otherwise is indeed knowledge, as

knowledge provides more leverage than capital (Cross and Dublin, 2002).

2.11 Developing a Model of Tacit Knowledge

There is much written about tacit knowledge; the acquiring and sharing of such knowledge, the

importance of it to the organisation, its role as a vital resource in gaining sustainable competitive

advantage and its role in new knowledge creation. However when you compare it to the quantity of

24 | P a g e

other business related subjects in books, journals and academic articles, there is a dearth of

information pertaining to it. This is not considered unusual given that the subject of tacit knowledge

though introduced by Polanyi in 1966, has only in recent years began to gain traction and has become

a source of exploration and further investigation. And with this newly found importance, emphasis

has also been given to the area of reflection and reflective practices and its influence in acquiring tacit

knowledge.

Literature presents tacit knowledge as a complex field of study, in that many authors and scholars

have argued that tacit knowledge ‘can be found in’ an individual’s knowledge base which resides in

their unconscious minds and it has the potential to influence a person’s behaviours, thought processes

and actions, it can be found in the routines and procedures of an organisation as well in the implicit

understandings of the organisations culture. Even though the spotlight is currently shining on the areas

of tacit knowledge and reflection respectively, there is a gap in the literature pertaining to empirical

evidence in relation to; a) an effective conceptual model of tacit knowledge and b) the role of

reflection in acquiring tacit knowledge with specific attention to SME’s in a managerial role.

Abu-Nahleh et al., (2010) present an approach for looking at tacit knowledge and all it entails in

relation to an apprentice style of learning. The true complexity to which this model falls short on is

that not all individuals use an apprentice style of learning and therefore it negates possible approaches

for which individuals use to acquire tacit knowledge.

Figure 1, represents a conceptual model for tacit knowledge adapted and compiled from writings in

literature. The model highlights specific categories in respect to an individual’s reservoir of

knowledge which are deemed to be tacit as a result of the cumulative knowledge which they have

gained from experiences of learning throughout their lives. Individual approaches to reflection make

tacit knowledge explicit and available by stimulating introspective examination through a questioning

process that directs attention to various aspects of experience (Mathew and Sternberg, 2009).

25 | P a g e

Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Tacit Knowledge (CMTK)

Note: The Conceptual Model for Tacit Knowledge (CMTK) is adapted from the writings of Polanyi, (1966); Nonaka et al., (1996);

Riesenberger, (1998); Gore and Gore, (1999), Cho et al., (2009); Nonaka, (1991); Haldin-Herrgard, (2000); Nonaka and Von Krogh, (2009);

Gosling and Mintzberg, (2003) and Abu-Nahleh et al., (2010).

In its current format the conceptual model for tacit knowledge shown in Figure 1, highlights the main

dimensions and the sub-dimensions of tacit knowledge as a conceptualization of the contributions of a

leading number of published experts and scholars in books and academic journals over the years. As

this research is exploring the relationship between reflection and the process of accessing and

acquiring tacit knowledge, the model needs to reflect this.

In exploring the relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge, the CMTK recognises the

positioning of the internalisation (reflection) process as a bridge from where an individual accesses

and acquires their tacit knowledge, and in doing so the individual is in a position to freely share it

explicitly with others should they choose to do so.

H1: Reflection is an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge

H2: SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly

H3: SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge explicitly

Tacit Knowlwdge

Cognitive

Observations

Hunches

Imitations

Mental Models

Intuition

Technical Skills

Know-How

Actions

Inherent Talent

Experience

Repitition

Shared Experiences

Ingrained Experiences

Practice

Internalisation

Reflection

Insights

Ideals

Values

Beliefs

Senses

Visual

Auditory

Kinaesthetic

Taste

Smell

Emotions

Feelings

26 | P a g e

H4: Tacit Knowledge is accessed and acquired from one or more of the tacit dimensions

e.g. cognitive, technical skills, experience, ideals, senses or emotions

H4b: The particular tacit dimension which the SME pulls from is dependent on the

context of the situation which the SME is facing at the time

However the CMTK in its present form does not accurately reflect this and it will need to be

replicated as a model for testing. This testing model (Figure 4) will be presented and explored further

in chapter three.

2.11.1 Cognitive Dimension

The cognitive aspect of the model identifies the factors which an individual looks to and relies on

when attempting to access and identify specific knowledge which they know they have but find it

hard to verbalise and communicate. With the aid of their mental models and observations the resulting

knowledge is expressed as hunches and intuition. They know, but they do not know how they know

(Polanyi, 1966).

H5: When SME’s think about the knowledge which they rely on to do their job, they do so

reflectively

2.11.2 Technical Skills and Experience Dimensions

Technical skills and experience are closely linked in the model as they reflect a person’s ability to

perform every single step of a task seemingly without much or any thought. Because the individual

has become so adept at the task through practice and repeated action either by themselves or as part of

a group, the task becomes that of a second nature event in that the steps of the task become automatic

both consciously and unconsciously and the individual in the process becomes an expert in doing the

task. As a result of developing such expertise the individual unconsciously does not recognise or

acknowledges many of the steps which they perform to do the task while physically doing them.

These steps then become tacit and difficult to consciously share.

2.11.3 Ideals and Emotions Dimensions

Ideals and emotions are also closely linked in the model as the individual’s ideals reflect a person’s

values and beliefs which in turn can impact directly on the individual’s emotions when recalling

knowledge or experiencing feelings which they forgot they knew or once thought was lost forever.

Hockenbury and Hockenbury, (2007) describe emotions as complex psychological states which are

made up of three distinct components: subjective experience, physiological response, and a

behavioural or expressive responses. Such emotions represent the external expression of some

27 | P a g e

feelings (Bennet and Bennet, 2008). And as feelings expressed as emotions are shared they

automatically become explicit (Damasio, 1994). Feelings that are not expressed and perhaps not even

recognized by the individual are considered to be affective tacit knowledge (Bennet and Bennet,

2008). That is to say that these feelings remain dormant and tacit until they are brought to the surface

by way of a strong emotional response in respect to a stimuli which may reinforce or threaten the

individuals beliefs/values or existing knowledge and understanding of a subject.

2.11.4 Senses Dimension

Empiricism suggests that people acquire knowledge through their senses. In that the knowledge which

an individual gains of and from experiences is acquired through their sense of seeing, hearing, feeling,

tasting and smelling. Through the use of one or more of the senses a person absorbs massive chunks

information and filters out the information which they deem irrelevant and they store the rest, and all

of this happens without the individual realising it. Because people have multiple experiences within

every waking hour of every day it stands to reason that much information is stored and forgotten

about. However; through activating certain stimuli i.e. sounds, pictures, odours, tastes and physical

touch can trigger specific long forgotten knowledge or memories containing pertinent knowledge.

2.12 Internalisation

Internalisation refers to the process of reflection in acquiring tacit knowledge. As this is the focus of

the research the subject will be explored in greater detail now.

2.12.1 The importance of Reflection in acquiring Tacit Knowledge

People acquire tacit knowledge by actively creating and organizing their own experience by what

Polanyi (1966) calls 'indwelling' and Kakabadse (1991) calls 'reflection' and, as such, knowledge-

creating activity is under- pinned by the 'commitment' (Polanyi, 1958) and 'willingness' to reflect

(Kakabadse, 1991) as cited in Kakabadse et al., (2001).

Miller et al., (2002) argues that learning requires both an initial activity which is action and then

reflecting on the impact of that action. And it is through this process of action or repetition by which

knowledge can be stored tacitly. And by reflecting on the action individuals can access and acquire

their tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Von Krogh, 2009) with the potential of sharing it. When tacit

knowledge is shared effectively it has the potential to add to the existing organisational knowledge as

well as being instrumental in sustaining competitive advantage for the team and organisation.

H6: Shared tacit knowledge is added to existing organisational knowledge

28 | P a g e

H7: Effectively shared tacit knowledge has the potential to add to the existing competitive

advantage

Individuals are said to improve their work practices and ability to do tasks when they reflect on the

way they work weather alone or as part of a team; because they learn how to adapt their new learning

to existing and new situations as they arise (Ing et al., 2003).

2.12.2 Types of Reflection

There are commonly two types of action orientated reflective processes identified by Schön (1983).

Reflection-in-action, which occurs on the spot. This is when an individual is able to consciously

evaluate and make changes on the spot during an event. This type of reflection would appear to

incorporate specific aspects of the tacit knowledge model i.e. Senses, Cognitive, Ideals, Emotions,

Technical skills and Experience. And such reflective practices has the potential to acquire deep rooted

tacit knowledge (Schön, 1983; LA Trobe University, 2014).

Reflection-on-action, occurs retrospectively. Acting on the knowledge after the fact. This type of

reflection would also incorporate specific aspects of the tacit knowledge model i.e. Cognitive,

Technical skills and Experience (Schön, 1983; LA Trobe University, 2014).

H8: When SME’s reflect on their decisions and/or actions the context and urgency of the

challenge which they are faced with will determine if they respond immediately

(reflection-in-action) or retrospectively (reflection-on-action) with a tacit rooted explicit

solution

Each reflective type allows for the SME to tap into a number of varying reservoirs of tacit knowledge

to effectively initiate the particular type of result from the reflective practice which is warranted at the

time.

2.12.3 New Knowledge Creation

Knowledge sharing is the process of mutually exchanging knowledge and jointly creating new

knowledge (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). When an SME acquires tacit knowledge through

reflection they have the potential to create new knowledge by sharing their knowledge with others.

H9: SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit knowledge with others

Christensen (2007) also suggests that through the mutual exchanging of knowledge an individual can

also become better at exploiting existing knowledge.

29 | P a g e

2.13 Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview pertaining to tacit knowledge, explaining what it is, how it can

be accessed through reflection and how it can add value to the organisation through the effective

acquiring and sharing of such knowledge by SME’s. The chapter looked at a number of other related

and linked concepts as well as highlighting some individual and organisational theoretical concepts

and perspectives in order to present a logical rationale as to the necessity for this research. The

chapter presents a conceptual model of tacit knowledge based on the writings in books and academic

journals.

The following chapter will present the overall research design and methodology applied in identifying

the function of reflection in acquiring tacit knowledge by SME’s in a managerial role in managerial

roles in a highly effective, knowledge based medical manufacturing company. It will also present the

rationale for testing the conceptual model for tacit knowledge.

30 | P a g e

3.0 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methodology used in this study to explore the function of

reflection by subject matter experts (SME’s) in managerial roles in acquiring their tacit knowledge

and ultimately sharing it. Figure 2, shows the typical approach of an inductive process of research.

Whereby the researcher is going into the research with an open mind and with no preconceived ideas

of the potential outcome and generate a theory(s) in response to the findings of the research.

This chapter will expand on the research objectives. It will consider the philosophical perspective of

the research approach, and it will introduce the data collection instrument used and discuss the

rationale for choosing it. The perceived limitations of the research will also be outlined.

Figure 2: Research Process Flow

Figure 1: Adapted from Yin (2003)

The research is qualitative, in that a number of participants were interviewed in order to gain an

insight into their experiences of the research topic. In order to get to the point of interviewing

participant’s invitations were sent out to a number of non-competing organisations across different

sectors to participate in the research. However only one firm was willing to participate. As my focus

Step 1• Design ~ Identify the research topic & identify related research questions

Step 2• Design a conceptual model of tacit knowledge (CMTK) from sources in academia

Step 3

• Prepare ~ Extend invitation to organisations willing to participate in research and extend invitation also to participants (SME's) willing to be interviewed for research

Step 4• Collect ~ Organise and conduct interviews to gather data

Step 5• Analyse ~ Analyse and interperate the data received during the interviews

Step 6• Based on the data analysis re-look at the CMTK and rework if necessary

Step 7• Report ~ Report on the Case Study

Step 8

• Develop a theory based on new model and/or existing model and/or data recieved from interview analysis

31 | P a g e

was on interviewing SME’s in managerial roles a request was sent out by the HR department to

approximately sixty SME’s at various managerial levels. The minimum expected response rate was

ten participants, with sixteen being the maximum expected responses. The actual number of responses

was twelve. However one potential respondent could not commit to a scheduled time slot. So the

actual number of respondents interviewed was eleven.


The overarching question in this research is; do SME’s in managerial roles tap into and acquire their

tacit knowledge through reflection? However to build up a more representative picture, the following

questions were to be asked of the research;


2) Do SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly?



academics?









others?

3.2.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The research questions are closely linked to the hypotheses within the research. As already

mentioned the contributions of a number of reputable scholars and academics across a number of

fields of study and expertise commenting in the area of tacit knowledge, were brought together

to create a conceptual model of tacit knowledge (CMTK). This model is tested through the

qualitative process by introducing hypotheses as a way of submitting the views of the experts in

the field as informed speculation about the possible relationship between two or more variables

(Bryman and Bell, 2011: p. 715), in this case tacit knowledge and reflection. The research

questions reflect the hypotheses through a probing format in an attempt to test the hypotheses as

well as the model itself.

32 | P a g e

3.3 Research Methodology

The research methodology used is that of a qualitative case study. A case study focuses on a single

case, which requires detailed and intensive analysis (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This method is used to

identify the function of reflection in acquiring the tacit knowledge of SME’s in a managerial role

within the participating organisation. In doing so the method also tests the CMTK for validity and

reliability.

Bryman and Bell (2011) offer that the case study approach is widely used in business research,

besides the single organisation as this research is presenting it also lends itself to; a single location, a

single person or a single event.

This particular case study is considered to be Instrumental (Bryman and Bell, 2011) in that it is using

the case as a means of understanding a broader issue, in this instance; the relationship between

reflection and tacit knowledge, by allowing the sweeping statements of the experts to be tested.

A case study can generate a lot of data which in and of itself can present a sizeable task for the

researcher to interpret and analyse the data from; in this instance a relatively small sample size. This

might pose a concern in attempting to be consider the findings to be representative of the wider

population. Any concerns relating to the possibility of the same study given to the same sample size at

a future date returning different results is currently undetermined as it is argued that the research is

exploring two intangible variables of which the meaning and understanding of each is uniquely

intrinsic to every individual.

This case study provided is seen as a conduit to use one qualitative research method and one

qualitative method. The qualitative method by way of a semi-structured interview and the quantitative

by way of a measurement in respect to a particular question/hypotheses.

3.4 Research and design

As the design of this research is primarily qualitative, the main focus is on the explicit communication

of the sample study through the verbalisation of the participant’s experiences and understandings in

their own words during the course of; in this instance, a semi-structured interview. Bryman and Bell,

2011) present that as a research strategy the case study approach is considered to be inductivist, by

way of theory building through empirical evidence, constructivist, by way of viewing social

phenomena as social constructions and interpretivist, by way of interpreting social meaning

subjectively.

This research is looking to the contributions of academia in relation to the research topic and is asking

“is this true?” from this perspective the research strategy is inductivist, as the approach is to

33 | P a g e

investigate existing theories and perspectives with no preconceived ideas. And from the resulting

findings build a theory based on the evidence from the empirical research. It is also interpretivist in

that the approach accepts the subjectivity of the data and interprets the experiences of the social actors

included in the study. Because the research is also testing a model the participants interpretation and

perceived understanding will allow for rich, albeit subjective data to validate or invalidate existing

perceptions of the topic of research.

As the strategy involves creating knowledge from the evidence presented, through examining the

relationship between two variables, this instrumental case study approach has been selected as the best

option to inductively approach this research thesis.

The model presents a number tacit dimensions being fed into by specific variables or sub-dimensions.

Through quantitative analysis of a specific question, the research highlights a pattern or trend within

the sample study in respect to the individual’s perceived preference of each dimension and sub-

dimension when accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge through reflection.

3.5 The Original Strategy

It was the intention of this research to do a mixed method research approach in a cross comparative

study of various industries and companies in respect to the research topic. That is to say that the

primary objective was to get qualitative data by way of semi-structured interviews and quantitative

data by way of online surveys from participating non-competing companies and individuals. It was

the intention to restrict the semi-structured interviews to SME’s in managerial roles in the

participating organisations and restrict the online surveys to those within the participating companies

considered to be non-SME’s in managerial roles.

The rationale for this approach was the opportunity to get a wider perspective of the research topic

matter which would enhance the level of data and give a more rounded picture of the validity of the

contributions of the experts which has led to the creation of the model and the reliability of the model

itself.

On foot of this strategy, research proposals and invitations were sent out to five non-competing

companies in five non-competing industries to participate in the research. Of the five, three of the

companies showed little or no interest in participating in the research. One of the remaining two

companies were only interested in the quantitative aspect and only if they had control over the content

of the survey and they could choose who should participate. This position was not acceptable as it

would not have been considered to be unbiased. One of the main objectives of any research by the

researcher is to minimise and eliminate all bias where possible, as a result the invitation was revoked.

34 | P a g e

The fifth company responded the most favourably. As they were enthusiastic and happy to participate

in whatever capacity that they could.

As a result of these developments the scope of the research had shifted. On consultation with the

research supervisor it was decided that it would be more prudent to primarily focus on one research

design and strategy given the delays in time to get to this point. As a result of this meeting the scope

further shifted to a primarily qualitative research method of a single case, in this instance the

participating organisation.

3.5.1 Limitations

The change in strategy limits the amount of data to be collected and analysed and as a result the

findings of the new strategy, though rich in data for the case, is not incorporating the potential

findings of a wider sample study.

3.6 The Participating Organisation

The participating company is a US multinational company (MNC). In the last fifty years it has grown

from a small start-up with the dream of manufacturing and supplying better quality products to

enhance patient care, to a global leader in the innovation and manufacture of minimally invasive

medical solutions. The culture within the company and amongst the employees reflects the company’s

mission and values, to enhance patient care globally in everything that they do.

The organisation has a number of manufacturing plants worldwide, one of which is situated in Ireland.

The firm employs between five and ten thousand valued personnel globally in support and the support

of the manufacture, sales and distribution of approximately sixteen thousand high value quality

medical products. The company sells its products in approximately one hundred and thirty five

countries worldwide.

35 | P a g e

3.6.1 The Sample Study

The sample study is concentrated to the Irish plant, where a sample of eleven SME’s at varying levels

of management were interviewed in respect to identifying the role of reflection in their process of

acquiring and sharing their tacit knowledge. The SME’s work across a variety of functions (Figure 3)

and the average tenure within the company is ten years with the organisation, however not necessarily

ten years in the same role.

Figure 3: SME Departments

Each of the participants are highly qualified within their respective roles. As the organisation operates

in a highly regulated industry the collective foci of each member of the sample study extends globally

as part of their day to day commitment to their field of expertise, their teams, their organisation, their

business partners and to their customers.

3.6.2 Sample Study Selection Process

As part of the process to gain buy-in from the organisation, the human resource (HR) department

requested a copy of the proposed questions to be asked in the interviews.

On receipt of the final list of questions the HR department gave approval and sent out a general

request via email to its managers (Approximately 60) at various levels. The email reiterated the

approval of the company in participating in the research. The email also asked for the cooperation of

those who were interested in the research to participate, though they were not obliged to do so, stating

that the researcher would contact them directly.

Research

Finance

Corporate Travel

OperationsCustomer

Service

Field Support Services

Regulatory Affairs

Marketting

HR

36 | P a g e

On foot of the email from the HR department, an invitation was extended to those on the mailing list

by the researcher for volunteers to participate in the research. As a result twelve responded favourably

to the request.

It is worth noting that a number of responses were received by individuals extending their apologies

and regret for not being in a position to participate owing to their unavailability for interview during

the time period.

From the twelve favourable responses, one of the respondents was unavailable to commit to the

scheduled interview time due to an unexpected engagement and no alternative time would suit. This

then left me with eleven participants to make up the sample study.

3.6.3 Participant Breakdown

The breakdown of the participants by gender, management title and department is in the following

table;

Table 2: Participant Breakdown

Gender Management Title Department

Female Manager Regulatory Affairs

Male Manager Finance

Female Supervisor Corporate Travel

Female Supervisor Operations

Female Manager Customer Service

Female Manager

Field Support Services

Female Manager Human Resources

Female Co-ordinator Field Support Services

Male Manager Finance (Projects)

Male Manager

Global Brand Marketing

Female Manager Finance (Operations)

37 | P a g e

Each participant is considered to be a SME in their roles by both their peers and the organisation.

There was no deliberate intention by the researcher to have more of one gender over the other as part

of the sample study. The above table highlights the volunteers willing and able to participate in the

research.

3.6.4 The Scheduled Interviews

Bryman and Bell (2011) argue that it is essential that the researcher knows the interview inside and

out and that and that they should be fully familiar with it. The interviews were carried out over three

days. In order to minimise the impact on the participants work schedule, the researcher scheduled

interviews at the participants workplace (where viable) at a time of the participants choosing. Though

the majority of the interviews were conducted on-site; owing to the locations of two of the

participants (off-site in Europe and off-site in Ireland) their interviews were conducted over Skype.

Each interview was allotted one hour per interview with the expectation that each one would take

between thirty and forty minutes as it turns out the average time was thirty three minutes per

interview.

3.6.5 Prior to the Interview

Each interviewee was given a broad outline of the research when the invitation to participate was

forwarded (Appendix 2) along with a document outlining the conditions for participating (Appendix

3). On the morning of the interviews an email was sent to each of the interviewees (Appendix 4)

giving a bit more non-specific detail about the research topic, so each interviewee would have a better

understanding or the area of research.

3.6.6 The Interview Schedule

The interview took the form of a semi-structured interview. That is to say that each interviewee was

asked the same ten generic questions. As the research is testing a model which explores the

relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge; the research questions within the interview

schedule were designed to provide answers to validate or invalidate the contributions within academia

in respect to the topic. The hypotheses and the associated questions can be found in Appendix 5.

Depending on the answers form the interviewee’s each structured question was followed up with at

least one other question, to help the researcher to have a clearer understanding of the information

received.

All of the interviews were recorded and later transcribed so that they could be analysed.

38 | P a g e

3.6.7 Sub-Dimensions of Tacit knowledge

As part of the interview each interviewee was shown a list of variables or sub-dimensions (Appendix

6) associated with the main dimensions of tacit knowledge. Each interviewee was asked if there was

anything on the list that they would rely on when reflecting internally when making a decision or

taking an action in light of the explicit facts and information which they have to hand at the time. The

interviewees were also asked was there anything that was not on the list that they would rely on.

3.7 The Reflection Bridge

As discussed the CMTK is a conceptualization of a number of the contributions in relation to tacit

knowledge and its relationship to reflection to academia, however in its current form it encompasses

reflection as a sub-dimension of tacit knowledge.

The research presented in chapter two denotes that tacit knowledge is primarily accessed and acquired

by an individual as a result of a process of conscious reflection. That is to say that; when an individual

is looking for the how? Or why? of their decisions and/or actions they reflect on them consciously. As

this research is primarily exploring the relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge of SME’s

in a managerial role the CMTK needed to reflect this.

Figure 4, presents the CMTK as a suitable model for testing as it positions Reflection as a bridge or

gateway for tacit knowledge to be accessed and similarly for newly acquired tacit knowledge to be

processed for the intention of being either stored consciously and/or shared explicitly.

39 | P a g e

Figure 4: Reflection Bridge Model

The Reflection Bridge Model (Testing Model of the Conceptual Model for Tacit Knowledge) is adapted from the writings of Polanyi,

(1966); Nonaka et al., (1996); Riesenberger, (1998); Gore and Gore, (1999), Cho et al., (2009); Nonaka, (1991); Haldin-Herrgard, (2000);

Nonaka and Von Krogh, (2009) Gosling and Mintzberg, (2003) and Abu-Nahleh et al., (2010).

The reflection bridge therefore is representative of a central process for accessing and acquiring tacit

knowledge with the possibility of conveying it explicitly. It is suggested that the reflection bridge

model then accurately represents the findings in literature in respect to the relationship between

reflection and tacit knowledge. And this is the model being tested by means of the semi-structured

interview process as part of this case study.

3.8 Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the data from the interviewees. Each

interviewee was given the same interview schedule in the same order. Each answer to the questions on

the schedule was further explored with a follow-up question. All of the interviews were recorded via

Dictaphone and later transcribed. Each transcription was then transferred into a research software

package for coding and analysis. In the case of question 4 on the interview schedule, the data received

was also transferred into its numerical equivalent and applied to an excel spreadsheet to identify a

quantifiable trend.

Expli

cit

Know

led

ge

Shar

ing

and/o

r K

now

led

ge

Sto

ring

Internalisation

(Reflection)

Emotions

Senses

Ideals

Experience

Technical Skills

Cognitive

Tacit Knowledge

Dimensions

40 | P a g e

3.9 Data Analysis

The transcribed data was imported into a research analysis software package. The software, QSR

NVivo10 is used for the analysis of both qualitative and quantitative research. NVivo 10 allowed for

the research to be analysed through its coding processes. By coding the data the researcher was able to

identify themes of significant relevance. An analysis of the data was implemented by the researcher

and each or the tacit dimensions were coded as was the sub-dimensions in respect to the Reflection

Bridge Model. Each of the codes were then further coded (nodes) which identified the position of

each interviewee through the responses which they shared in relation to each question on the schedule

and follow-up questions regarding the tacit dimensions, tacit sub-dimensions and reflection as well as

organisational knowledge and competitive advantage. The results of which will be presented in the

next chapter.

3.10 Validity

Validity refers to the integrity of the conclusions generated from the research (Bryman and Bell,

2011: p. 42). A primary concern of this research, indeed any research either qualitative or quantitative

is the question of validity, in that the research process and topic should encourage the researcher to

reflect on the activity, asking; is this research valid? Are my findings valid? Are they credible? And

can the findings be applied to other environments and cases? If not, why not? And if so how?

On reflection of the process the researcher was prompted to ask these questions, the conclusion was

determined that the research of this case is valid. The research is exploring the relationship between

reflection and acquiring tacit knowledge via a model created from the contributions of experts in the

respective fields from this perspective the research and the subsequent findings are valid internally but

more importantly they meet with the criterion of external validity.

3.10.1 External Validity

The findings from this case can be applied to another case in another organisation or indeed be

generalized beyond the specific research context (Bryman and Bell, 2011:p. 43). Given the nature of

the research topics the possibility of rolling out the same research with the same model with the

intention of exploring the relationship between the process of reflection and acquiring tacit knowledge

amongst SME’s in managerial roles is real. It is suggested that that the model does not need to be

restricted to SME’s in managerial roles, it can be extended to non-SME’s also. The question then is

that of ecological validity.

41 | P a g e

3.10.2 Ecological Validity

This is concerned with the question of whether or not social scientific findings are applicable to

people’s everyday natural social settings (Bryman and Bell, 2011:p. 43). It is suggested that the model

can be applied in an individual’s natural social settings within the personal or professional

environment. As reflection and tacit knowledge are both perceived to be part of the conscious and

unconscious processes of the majority of humans it is reasonable to present the findings meet with the

criterion of external validity. The question then is can the findings and/or results be repeated and

replicated?

3.10.3 Reliability and Replication

Reliability is concerned with the question of whether the results of a study are repeatable (Bryman

and Bell, 2011:p. 41) where replication asks the question; can the study be replicated. It is presented

that the study can be replicated as it is exploring the relationship between valid concepts through the

testing of a model created from academic literature. Reliability and replicability are closely linked

Bryman and Bell, 2011) and as such the reliability of the study should reflect that of replicability.

3.11 Limitations

Though the number of participants was satisfactory the research could have benefitted greatly from a

bigger sample size for a clearer representation of the relationship between reflection and acquiring

tacit knowledge. The researcher is confident of the validity and reliability of the findings, however the

concern is that the size of the sample study may not reflect accurately the relationship between the

research topics.

Though the model which was tested was generated as a result of contributions found in academic

literature of which many of those not included reflected and mirrored the contributions of those for

whom were. There is a concern that the model is not extensive enough given that not all contributions

and/or viewpoints in literature were included in the model.

3.12 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the research methodology, design and rationale for choosing a primarily

qualitative research approach. Though the research is primarily qualitative a small aspect of it is

quantitative and the rationale for introducing such an approach, albeit a small part of the overall

research was outlined. An overview of both the participating organisation and also the participating

interviewees and their roles as SME’s within the organisation.

42 | P a g e

The chapter also presented each step of the methodology and it introduced a model to be tested; the

reflection bridge. A synopsis of the data collection and analysis methods allowed for a clearer

understanding of the rationale for those processes.

The following chapter will highlight the findings of the data analysis and the research.

43 | P a g e

4.0 Chapter 4: Research Findings

4.1 Introduction

This chapter highlights the findings of the research study. The sample study consisted of eleven

SME’s in managerial roles across various departments integral to the ongoing success of the

participating organisation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted over a three day time period.

The interview questions were designed to primarily test a model exploring the relationship between

the processes of reflection and acquiring tacit knowledge and also the participant’s experience of their

shared tacit knowledge influencing organisational knowledge and competitive advantage.

4.2 Testing of a Model

The model which was tested in this thesis had various tacit dimensions; cognitive, experiences,

technical skills, ideals, senses and emotions. The interviewee was asked questions in relation to these

variables as well as organisational knowledge, competitive advantage and the interviewees experience

when using reflection to access and acquire tacit knowledge. A quantitative breakdown of the tested

model will be presented in an attempt to capture visual trends, clues or patterns from testing the

model.

4.2.1 Quantitative Breakdown

The following is a quantitative breakdown of the analysis of the hypotheses, tacit dimensions and tacit

sub-dimensions gathered from the responses of the interviewees.

4.2.2 Hypotheses Breakdown

The following chart (Chart 1) highlights the quantity of responses from the interviewee’s within the

context of each hypotheses and related question.

44 | P a g e

Chart 1: Sources Vs References

The significance of this chart is that it identifies the amount of references elicited from the sources

(interviewee’s) in respect to the hypotheses. For example H2 generates a lot more interest via

responses with 100% participation than H9 and H4b which in turn generate significantly less

responses (71.5% less) with a participation rate of 73% in the case of H9 and in the case of H4b there

was 64% less responses generated from a participation rate of 73% also.

The chart provides a visual representation of the responses and reference’s by the sources

(interviewee’s) in respect to the interview questions and hypotheses, even though collective

preferences in accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge from the different tacit dimensions cannot at

this point be identified.

4.2.3 Tacit Dimension Breakdown

Each interviewee was asked ten primary questions each one with at least one follow-up question. All

of the ten primary questions were designed and associated with a specific hypotheses with the

intention of testing the relevant hypotheses. As part of this process the interviews identified which

tacit dimension which they are more favourable to when accessing and acquiring their own tacit

knowledge. Chart 2, is a representation of the collective preferred tacit dimensions from which to pull

from.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

H1 H2 H3 H4 H4b H5 H6 H7 H8 H9

Qu

anti

ty

Hypotheses

The number of interviewee (sources) references in relation to the hypotheses

Sources References

45 | P a g e

Chart 2: Tacit Dimension Breakdown

This chart is significant as it identifies the cumulative percentage of the individual preferences of the

interviewee’s when accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge. Literature presents that tacit knowledge

can be found or stored in as well as being accessed and acquired from a number of tacit dimensions as

above. The chart clearly shows that the Cognitive at 28.8% dimension and the Emotions at 7.4%

dimensions are poles apart in respect to individual preferences. As the chart shows that 28.8% or the

interviewee’s rely on the cognitive dimension where only 7.4% rely on the emotions dimension.

Though 26.8% seems low it reflects the number instances of accounts where the interviewee’s have

identified cognitive related sub-dimension which the interviewees rely from an internal perspective. In

this instance 26.8% (18 instances) is the equivalent of anywhere between 1 and 11 individuals making

it known that they rely on one or more of 5 tacit sub-dimensions feeding into the cognitive tacit

dimension. As opposed to 5 instances (7.4%) in the case of the emotions dimension.

4.2.4 Tacit Sub-Dimension Breakdown

Table 3, provides an insight into the sub-dimensions which feed into the tacit dimensions. Each tacit

dimension is made up of anywhere from 1 up to 5 sub-dimensions. Each interviewee was asked to

point out from a list of the sub-dimensions the ones which they themselves would most rely on most

when accessing and acquiring their tacit knowledge, during reflection; in order to make a decision or

take an action.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Cognitive 26.8% Experiences 22.4% Ideals 19.5% Senses 14.9% Tech Skills 9% Emotions 7.4%No

. of

pre

ferr

ed t

acit

su

b-d

imen

sio

n a

s re

laye

d b

y so

urc

es

Cumulative percentage of interviewee tacit dimension preference

Tacit Dimension Breakdown

46 | P a g e

Table 3: Tacit Dimensions and Tacit Sub-Dimensions

Tacit Dimensions Tacit Sub-Dimensions

Cognitive Observation, Hunches, Imitations, Mental Models, Intuition

Experiences Shared & Ingrained, Practice, Repetition

Ideals Values, Beliefs

Senses Visual, Sound, Feelings (physical), Smell, Taste

Tech Skills Know-How, Actions, Inherent Talent

Emotions Feelings (emotional)

Chart 3, represents the breakdown of the individual interviewee responses which came out of the

analysis of the interviews transcriptions in relation to the tacit sub-dimensions.

Chart 3: Tacit sub-dimensions

None of the interviewees were aware that these sub-dimensions went to make up any specific

dimensions of tacit knowledge. Chart 3, identifies that ten of the interviewee’s relied on their

experiences to date, both shared and ingrained when accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge to make

a decision or take an action. This only happens when the individuals have all of the relevant explicit

facts and information at hand, but they still need to rely on something internally which they trust for

them to make the decision or take the action.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nu

mb

er o

f In

terv

iew

ee's

pre

fere

nce

s

Tacit Sub-Dimensions

47 | P a g e

It is interesting to note that taste and smell do not register any occurrences, which suggest that

individual perceptions and experiences is dependant of the context of the individual’s original

experience. For example it is suggested that if the research was implemented amongst 11 chefs,

cooks, bakers, tasting experts or indeed horticulturists these sub-dimensions would indeed be

populated

4.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following are the research questions being asked in this thesis. Each question presented is

associated with a corresponding hypotheses.

1) Is reflection an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge? ~ H1

2) Do SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly? ~ H2

3) How do SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge? ~ H3


academics? ~ H4

4b) Does the context of a situation determine the tacit dimension from which to access and

acquire intangible knowledge? ~ H4b

5) Do SME’s reflect on knowledge which they rely on to do their job? ~ H5

6) Is shared tacit knowledge added to existing organisational knowledge? ~ H6


advantage of an individual, team and /or organisation? ~ H7

8) Do SME’s implement solutions acquired through reflection, immediately or retrospectively? ~ H8

9) Do SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit knowledge with others? ~

H9

The following will present the findings from the data analysis in relation to the hypotheses. Each

hypotheses had a question specifically designed and associated with (Appendix 5). The interviewee’s

would be asked each question so that the hypotheses could be validated or invalidated and in the

process the model could be tested also.

4.3.1 H1:

Reflection is an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge

When asked by the researcher to recall a time when the interviewee remembered something

which they thought they had forgotten and how did they remember it; the following responses

were forthcoming from the main question and the follow-up questions. The following are also

just a sample of the responses provided by the interviewee’s in relation to the hypotheses.

48 | P a g e

Interviewee # 10: “you are not necessarily sure how you came up with the process or

where you came across the information but you know you did, you examine it, and you see

yourself walking along and some word will trigger a memory from maybe 12, 13, 14 years

ago”

Interviewee # 4: “Through reflection, yes I it would be through reflection probably something

in what is happening around you would remind you of something else, something then would

trigger the memory”

Interviewee # 5: “Absolutely because you will be reflecting on probably experiences you have

outside the organisation previous jobs and positions so yes it will be quite reflective”

Interviewee # 7: “so some of the language that you might have forgotten it pops back

into your memory and when you're back is against the wall you have to use the

language and it pops back it was in the mind at some stage and it just pops back, I

suppose it sort of happens on a regular basis in my case, as I do not know how the

memory works. I consider that I have a good memory so I do not know how I remember

all these things but I do”

Interviewee # 9: “I would have taken the word elastic in a different context, so I

suppose that is part of the knowledge that I would have assumed I would have

completely and utterly forgotten but as soon as I read back it just made sense and I had

a deeper understanding of what the author was writing about”

The findings in this section suggests that 90% of the sample study do access and acquire their tacit

knowledge reflectively. 30% of the interviewees report that that they would not be consciously aware

that they were reflecting when something relevant to their current situation just ‘pops’ into their

heads. 30% of the interviewee’s report that they would actively be reflecting on previous experiences

and 40% of the interviewee’s report that a trigger by way of a word, sound, or event would drive them

to reflect on a relevant topic or situation. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates to

H1.

4.3.2 H2:

SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly

When asked by the researcher how often do they reflect on their actions and or decisions; the

following responses were forthcoming. The following are also just a sample of the responses

provided by the interviewee’s in relation to the hypotheses:

Interviewee # 1: “Absolutely, I would always do that I would always think back on my,

you know have we ever had have I ever had in a similar kind of scenario before? What

quite kind of decision did I make then? And what were the outcomes of that what were

the knock on effects of that showed we have done something different before and you

know take that into consideration when making the decision now”

49 | P a g e

Interviewee # 10: “Gosh, yes I would do that quite a lot just to see we've decided to go

this direction in this instance and see how that pans out and then reflect back to think to

say that okay was that the right direction to take was that the right course of action to

take by looking at what the consequences and the outcomes were and then kind of

thinking right maybe making a mental note for the next time”

Interviewee # 11: “I need people to improve, but I have to remain firm and still

approachable so yes a lot of reflection happens during those times”

Interviewee # 3: “It depends if, you would probably think back over it if another issue

occurred and have made a decision and completed the action and it all worked out fine

you probably wouldn't go back and think about it if something bad came out of it and

that affected your work or someone else's work that is probably the only time you will

go back and reflect on it I suppose it just depends on the consequences of the action”

The findings here reflect the position of the interviewee’s. 90% of the sample study report that

they reflect on their decisions and actions. 10.1% of the sample study report that they do not

reflect in any capacity at any stage. Of the 90%; 40.4% report that they reflect on their decisions

and actions daily, 20.2% report weekly and 30.3% report that their reflective practice is context

driven, in that they would reflect where they feel they have to or feel they need to as opposed to

freely wanting to. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates to H2.

4.3.3 H3:

SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge explicitly

When asked how the interviewee’s compare the knowledge which they have learnt over the

years with the knowledge which they are currently sharing with their teams: a sample of the

responses were:

Interviewee # 1: “I suppose I try and impart whatever I've learnt and true mistakes that

I have made it through things that I may be could have done better than differently in

the past I try and direct the team to try and avoid those pitfalls”

Interviewee # 11: “so now at least 20% of my work will be globally and see where we

are going dealing with operations in the organisation or another regions actually only

60% of my role now is to impart my knowledge and I would share as much of my

knowledge from past experiences where I can”

Interviewee # 4: “I would think that I would be very good at sharing okay, and I find

that they really receive it well and I find that as I am doing it and they are doing it as

well and saying I just found this out this and everyone listened to this and this is a good

tip of whatever and so I think it's a good way it is kind of informal but it's a good way to

get everybody up to speed and make them interested”

Interviewee # 5: “I would if I thought they were relevant and if I think it's a good

learning thing I would throw out a little anecdote or whatever sometimes rather from

50 | P a g e

my experience, my preference would be even try and get a group on board, would be to

reflect and lead by experience”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study the responses from

two (20.2%) of the interviewee’s was undetermined. Of the remaining sample study; 20.2%

report that they do not share their knowledge with their team and 60.6% report that they do share

their tacit knowledge with their team in a variety of ways i.e. storytelling, introducing relevant

scenarios and imparting their knowledge generally relying their ability to reflect and pull from

their previous experiences and expertise. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates

to H3.

4.3.4 H4:

Tacit Knowledge is accessed and acquired from one or more tacit dimensions e.g. cognitive

skills, technical skills, experience, ideals, senses or emotions

When the interviewee was asked to pick from a list which sub-dimensions they would rely on

outside of explicit information, a sample of the responses were:

Interviewee # 10: “I would say experience definitely tops the list's amazing how much

you rely your experience and it will automatically happen, hunches now and again

sometimes you will literally get that feeling in your gut”

Interviewee # 11: “Experience and intuition stand out for me as I tend to draw from

what has happened in the past and how it has gone…………..experiences and intuition

a lot of times especially when you're hiring you have to use your instinct values, values

and beliefs”

Interviewee # 3: “Am, it will kind of go back to your experience and practice, practice

will be the one main thing that would stand out yeah you might have a decision made

but you have to you have to remember what you practiced or what people or the

company practiced, which is a big thing in this industry and practice will be the main

thing actually there now”

Interviewee # 5: “Well I have to say I would be good to observe, observation would be

kind of a very much feelings person definitely and that is why I'm trying to teach

somebody something try to get them to open up to me and get ideas I would try do it on

an emotional level because that is how I am”

Please refer to the findings on 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 respectively for further information regarding 4.3.4 and

4.3.5. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates to H4.

4.3.5 H4b:

The particular tacit dimensions which the SME pulls from is dependent on the context of the

situation which the SME is facing at the time

When asked if these were the ones which they relied on the most when they need to rely on

something internal, a sample of the responses are:

51 | P a g e

Interviewee # 1: I think that they are the main ones that would stand out in general

Interviewee # 3: “Yes, I would but it would be contextual and you would have a

practical aspect outside the intangible side”

Interviewee # 6: “Yes they are pretty much every day if I make a decision I do a mental

check and see how I feel about it”

Please refer to the findings on 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 respectively for further information regarding 4.3.4 and

4.3.5. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates to H4b.

4.3.6 H5:

When SME’s think about the knowledge they rely on to do their job they do so reflectively

When asked have you ever had a ‘Eureka’ moment when reflecting on past work related experiences

that has helped you overcome a current challenge, a sample of the responses are as follows;

Interviewee # 10: “They are rare an actual real eureka moment, but sometimes it's

generally been in the field of IT,”

Interviewee # 11: “Yes I think I have I definitely have, but not every day, I find that they

surface during a new project, those are the best times”

Interviewee # 3: “Yeah, yeah it would come out of thinking and thinking of old things

and if it is something that has re-occurred and you might be thinking about it and then

all of a sudden you would remember something from a couple of years it mightn’t

necessarily be in place in the same place but it might be in an even half related to it”

Interviewee # 4: “Yes that has definitely happened, am, it’s like everything working

through a problem you do a lot of looking back as well on your past experience to try

and sort it out and then you look at your contacts and other peoples experiences in that

area”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study, the response of one

(10.1%) of the interviewee’s was undetermined. The response of another 20.2% present that they were

unsure if they actually had a ‘eureka’ moment when reflecting on their knowledge or past

experiences. However; H5 posits that: When SME’s think about the knowledge they rely on to do

their job they do so reflectively. By their own admission the interviewees do reflect on the knowledge

which they rely on to do their job knowledge. 70.7% also report reflecting on their past work related

experiences to do their job. It is suggested then that this therefore positively relates to H6.

4.3.7 H6:

Shared tacit knowledge is added to existing organisational knowledge

52 | P a g e

When asked; how do they know that their shared knowledge becomes part of the organisational

knowledge, the interviewee’s gave the following sample of responses:

Interviewee # 1: “I think it does become part of the organisation knowledge because

then you know I would expect the team, they will in turn make a mental note of that in

and to either right we should definitely consider this in future and we would document

it and take it to the right people”

Interviewee # 10: “Well it depends on the eureka moment the first thing I would do with

a eureka moment, you're trying to get it down on paper before it disappears you're

trying to communicate with someone”

Interviewee # 11: “Would I share a Eureka moment my team? I would but I do not

think it would become part of the organisational knowledge, if it leads to a change in

policy then absolutely it is documented and it is shared and we consult with others, so

those eureka moments absolutely do smaller one have the same impact? Not so much

smaller ones that have minimum impact”

Interviewee # 8: “Some of the a lot of things that I say will go in one ear and out the

other, and they will come back to me with things that we had talked about ages ago, has

it become part of the organisational knowledge, we are really not very good at

documentation so documentation is not really a great thing around here,”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study 20.2% of the

interviewee’s report that they are unsure if the knowledge which they have shared is embedded

into the organisational knowledge. 20.2% report that their shared knowledge does not become

part of the organisational knowledge. 60.6% report that their knowledge has become part of the

organisational knowledge especially when their knowledge affects policy change. It is suggested

then that this therefore positively relates to H6 though not on a regular basis.

4.3.8 H7:

Effectively shared tacit knowledge has the potential to add to the existing competitive advantage

When asked how does sharing their tacit knowledge impact or influence their team, the interviewee’s

responded with the following, here is a sample of the responses:

Interviewee # 1: “I would say that they would just try their best to documented it

somewhere, try to remember it and mentally and also some of my team members and

are very good that when I kind of impact information to them some of them will not just

take on board the specific information that I have given them that they will immediately

kind of take a broader view and they will kind of think what else does this impact?”

Interviewee # 3: “I suppose we have shared one or two of them and they have

reoccurred, the best thing is if you are not there they are able to remember it and fix it

without your presence so that will be a defining part of it really is that people can

remember it without your presence so it is then it is in their memory”

53 | P a g e

Interviewee # 4: “So there is a certain element of us wanted to be the best because we

are part of the organisation and part of the whole company, we are not an external

agency, we want to provide the best service to colleagues as well and so we do have

pride in a job”

Interviewee # 8: “No, we don't compare ourselves very much like that there is very little

competition ………… and we have different structures internally of course there might

be friendly competition between people but there is not team competition as such”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study; 70.7% report that

from their experience their shared knowledge adds to the competitive advantage of the team.

And 30.3% suggest that they are unsure if it does or not at but are confident that it does not. It is

suggested then that this therefore positively relates to H7.

4.3.9 H8:

Do SME’s implement solutions acquired through reflection, immediately or retrospectively?

The interviewees were asked if they implemented a solution found in their tacit knowledge to a

current problem immediately or retrospectively, the following are a sample of their responses:

Interviewee # 1: “It depends on if you know the solution if I reflect and I know the

solution is may be something quick and easy that can be implemented straight away I

will in all likelihood I'll do it in Straight away….. I'm probably more of retrospect

because I don't have the time to do it immediately I wish I could be more of an

immediate solution and putting in place person but am, typically I don’t have the time”

Interviewee # 10: “It depends totally on the culture here we have eureka moments of

beyond a minor eureka moment it can impact on other departments are other regions

so you have to get you have to get buy in from the other stakeholders”

Interviewee # 11: “Immediate would be from the time you come up with the solution,

through consultation and then putting the process in place, it could be a week,”

Interviewee # 5: “When everyone agrees on it then you start the process, otherwise

what you said could be open to many interpretations, so usually I wouldn’t make a

decision there and then because there are other people that I would like to consult with

beforehand”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study, 30.3% of the

interviewee’s cite that they would implement a solution immediately. Where 70.7% report that they

would do it retrospectively. The majority of the 70.7% cite that because they work in a highly

regulated industry a consultation and documentation process has to happen prior to any solution being

54 | P a g e

implemented. Whereby the 30.3% of the sample study can implement solutions immediately because

their role and job does not directly impact patient health or the manufacturing process. It is suggested

then that this therefore positively relates to H8.

4.3.10 H9:

SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit knowledge with others

The interviewees were asked if they could recall a time when their tacit knowledge was shared with

others and it led to new knowledge being created, a sample of their responses are as follows:

Interviewee # 10: “I get you a guess that happens every day however I would view the

outcome as more of an efficiency of the solution rather than a creation of new

knowledge”

Interviewee # 4: “Yeah, actually like pretty often this would lead to new knowledge and

this ------ office is only open ------- years and when it started off in it was a huge

learning curve”

Interviewee # 7: “New knowledge being created right now I cannot just think of it”

Interviewee # 8: “It is called brainstorming it works like collecting specific information

I know we do have enough of brainstorming we call them workshops …………what

happens if we do it this way? What can we do to improve it? And new knowledge is

eventually created”

The findings here reflect the views of the interviewee’s. Of the sample study, 20.2% of the interviews

were unsure if new knowledge was created as a result of them sharing their knowledge with others.

20.2% were confident that new knowledge was created and gave examples. 20.2% are confident that

new knowledge was not created as a result of them sharing their tacit knowledge and 40.4% were

uncertain about their shared knowledge leading to new knowledge being created, but they were

certain that new knowledge was created amongst other teams during projects. This then therefore is an

inconclusive result.

4.4 Limitations Three responses were reported as undetermined. The researcher should have been aware at the time of

the interview that the question was not answered satisfactorily. There may be a number of reasons for

this. 1) The interviewee’s may not have understood the questions, 2 ) The researcher may not have

been paying attention to the response of the interviewee and 3) the interviewer was not adequately

skilled to keep the interviewee’s on track within the scope of the questions being asked.

H9 came back as inconclusive, on reflection an understanding of the concept of new knowledge

creation and other concepts could have been forwarded to the participants in advance of the

55 | P a g e

interviews. The result of which could have yielded (in the case of H9) a conclusive result.

4.5 Conclusion

The key findings in this research thesis, reflect and demonstrate that the CMTK is a valid model for

conceptualizing tacit knowledge. The findings also demonstrate that the Reflection Bridge Model is

an effective model for conceptualizing the relationship between the process of reflection and the

processes of accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge as well as being a conduit for expressing such

knowledge explicitly. Though H9 is reported as inconclusive it is not part of the model and therefore

the result does not impact on the model negatively. However further research is deemed necessary in

this area as it is well documented in literature that when tacit knowledge is shared with others it has

the potential to create new knowledge.

The results of all of the hypotheses associated with the both the CMTK and the Reflection Bridge

Models have yielded positive results and it is suggested that these results support the validity of such

models.

H6 and H7 yielded positive results. H6 focused on the potential of shared tacit knowledge having the

potential of becoming part of the organisational knowledge. This result supports the findings in

literature (Chapter, 2); that shared tacit knowledge can and does become part of the organisational

knowledge, perhaps not every day in the instance of this case, but it can and does happen.

Similarly H7 focused on the potential for shared tacit knowledge adding to the competitive advantage

of the team and the organisation. The results also supports the findings in literature (Chapter 2); that

shared tacit knowledge can and does add to the competitive advantage of the team and the

organisation. Further research needs to determine what the level of sustainability for the competitive

advantage is in the instance of this case and organisation.

The following chapter will present further analysis and insights into the findings.

56 | P a g e

5.0 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents all of the various elements of the research. The chapter will present a summary

of the findings as discussed in chapter 4. It will highlight the contribution to the topic, literature and

any perceived implications for theory and/or practice. The chapter will also present a synopsis of the

limitations of this study and present recommendations for future research. All of the conclusions that

are reached are supported by academic literature and by the empirical evidence of this research.

5.2 Discussion

During the course of researching the relationship between reflection and the process of accessing and

acquiring tacit knowledge it became apparent that there was a sizeable amount written in literature

about the importance of tacit knowledge, the part it has to play in adding to the organisational

knowledge, adding to and maintaining sustainable competitive advantage, helping to create new

knowledge and personal development. Reflection on the other hand was lacking the substantive

contributions that were lauded on the field of tacit knowledge by scholars and academics. Though the

articles which did include references to reflection did provide insights there would appear to be a gap

in the literature in respect to the relationship between tacit knowledge and reflection. Even in the

literature referring to tacit knowledge there also appeared to be a gap or two.

Much is written about tacit knowledge by way of identifying what it is, how complex it is, where it

can be found, how it can be absorbed, how it can be shared, the barriers that exist to the sharing

process, how it can be transferred and barriers that exist to the transfer process.

The first gap encountered is solely in the realm of tacit knowledge; what does tacit knowledge look

like? Admittedly the research for this thesis did not cover every word written or every drawn line to

emphasise what tacit knowledge is or is not associated with. However at no point did the research

encounter a substantially significant conceptualization of what tacit knowledge looks like. There is

much about what tacit knowledge is being associated with i.e. The SECI Model (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995 found in Appendix 1) and Koskinen, (2003) or incorporated into other models (Insch et al.,

2008) but nothing to highlight its unique complexity.

The second gap concerns both tacit knowledge and reflection. The literature on tacit knowledge posits

that reflection is connected to it, and the reflection literature proclaims that they are both connected.

But how? What is the relationship? And what does that look like?

To this end the research has brought together a number of the contributions to literature by experts

pertaining to areas of tacit knowledge and reflection, and joined them to create a conceptual model of

57 | P a g e

tacit knowledge (CMTK; Chapter 2: Figure 1). It is worth noting at this stage that much of what is

contributed to literature pertaining to tacit knowledge and reflection is repeated by many scholars so

not all contributions were included directly.

The CMTK identifies both the tacit dimensions as well as the tacit sub-dimensions that make up the

main tacit dimensions. However in and of itself the CMTK does not give a true representation of the

relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge. Literature presents that tacit knowledge can be

accessed by reflection, but how? What has to happen for an individual to access and acquire tacit

knowledge and what happens when they do?

It became apparent through the literature that reflection could be used as a bridge to access and

acquire tacit knowledge, and this knowledge can then go back across the bridge to be stored in the

conscious mind or shared explicitly with others. But again what does that look like? Chapter 3, Figure

4 is a conceptualisation of the relationship between reflection and accessing and acquiring tacit

knowledge and it also highlights the possibility of storing or sharing the tacit knowledge explicitly.

The main aims of this research thesis then is, a) explore the relationship between reflection and tacit

knowledge and b) to test the Reflection Bridge model.


This thesis presented the following question for investigation; do SME’s tap into and acquire their

tacit knowledge through reflection? However in answering this question there are a number of

subsequent questions to be answered at the core of this research, for example;


2) Do SME’s reflect on their decisions and/or actions regularly?



academics?









others?

58 | P a g e

5.4 Analysis of the Findings

The research tested a conceptualized model of the relationship between reflection and the process of

accessing and acquiring tacit knowledge. The Reflection Bridge Model also highlights the role that

reflection has in transferring tacit knowledge into an individual’s consciousness for storage and/or

sharing explicitly.

The following is an analysis of the findings pertaining to the testing of the model and the associated

hypotheses.

5.4.1 Is reflection an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge?

The findings in this section suggests that individuals do use reflection to effectively access and

acquire their tacit knowledge. Though 30% of the study posit that they are not consciously aware

that they are reflecting on something, they also remark that something of relevance to their

current or near recent situation ‘pops’ into their heads and the remaining 40% report that their

reflection is triggered by a number word, sound or event. With this in mind the results of this

question supports the hypotheses that: Reflection is an effective way to access and acquire an

SME’s tacit knowledge

5.4.2 Do SME’s reflect on their decisions and/or actions regularly?

90% of the sample study report that they reflect on their decisions and actions. The majority of

the sample study report that they do reflect on their decisions and actions regularly; 40.4% report

that they reflect on their decisions and actions daily, 20.2% report weekly and 30.3% report that

their reflective practice is context driven. It is interesting to note that many 70.7% of the study

suggest that in some instances that they lean towards reflecting on the potential outcome prior to

the decision or action. Though this could be an instance where individuals misunderstand the

question or indeed the concept of reflection. It is suggested that the very same individuals

consciously or unconsciously put themselves in their mind in a position where they have already

made the decision or taken the action and are then reflecting on the process and possible

outcomes. Regardless of this development and with this in mind the results of this question

supports the hypotheses that: SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly

5.4.3 How do SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge?

Of the sample study; 20.2% report that they do not share their knowledge with their team and

60.6% report that they do share their tacit knowledge with their team in a variety of ways. All

59 | P a g e

sharing of newly acquired tacit knowledge was shared explicitly, be it storytelling, introducing

scenarios or just imparting their own experience. All the interviewees reported that they used

verbal communication when sharing their knowledge. With this in mind the results of this

question supports the hypotheses that: SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge

explicitly.

5.4.4 Is tacit knowledge accessed from specific tacit dimensions as presented by

authors and academics? Chapter 5, Chart 2 presents the breakdown of the participant’s preferences when accessing and

acquiring tacit knowledge. This data was collected by asking the interviewee’s to pick from a list

of 19 sub-dimensions of tacit knowledge. Each tacit dimension has a number of sub-dimensions

feeding into it (Chapter 4, table 3). The participants were not aware of this prior to the question

being asked or answered. With this in mind the results of this question supports the hypotheses

that: Tacit Knowledge is accessed and acquired from one or more tacit dimensions e.g. cognitive

skills, technical skills, experience, ideals, senses or emotions

5.4.5 Does the context of a situation determine the tacit dimension from which to

access and acquire intangible knowledge?

Chapter 4, chart 3 represents a breakdown of the preferred tacit sub-dimensions as chosen by the

participants, which they rely on when they need and make a decision based on some intangible

which they find inside of each of them. All of the participants reported that the sub-dimensions

which they picked is context specific but there is little movement between the sub dimensions

and effectively the tacit dimensions when they need to be relied upon. The response of 20.2%

present that they were unsure if they actually had a ‘eureka’ moment when reflecting on their

knowledge or past experiences. With this in mind the results of this question supports the

hypotheses that: The particular tacit dimensions which the SME pulls from is dependent on the

context of the situation which the SME is facing at the time

5.4.6 Do SME’s reflect on knowledge which they rely on to do their job?

H5 posits that: When SME’s think about the knowledge they rely on to do their job they do so

reflectively. The response of 20.2% present that they were unsure if they actually had a ‘eureka’

moment when reflecting on their knowledge or past experiences. By their own admission the

interviewees do reflect on the knowledge which they rely on to do their job. 70.7% also report

reflecting on their past work related experiences to do their job. This result therefore suggests that the

success of an individual to access and acquire a past work experience through reflection is largely

dependent on the context and influence of the original experience on them. With this in mind the

60 | P a g e

results of this question supports the hypotheses that: When SME’s think about the knowledge they rely

on to do their job they do so reflectively

5.4.7 Is shared tacit knowledge added to existing organisational knowledge?

20.2% of the interviewee’s reported that they were unsure if the knowledge which they have

shared is embedded into the organisational knowledge. A further 20.2% report that their shared

knowledge does not become part of the organisational knowledge. 60.6% report that their

knowledge has become part of the organisational knowledge especially when their knowledge

affects policy change. It is apparent that for shared tacit knowledge to become embedded in the

organisational knowledge, it has to happen in the context of a change in policy or procedure. But

it does happen in this case. With this in mind the results of this question supports the hypotheses

that: Shared tacit knowledge is added to existing organisational knowledge

5.4.8 Does effectively shared tacit knowledge have the potential to add to the existing

competitive advantage of an individual, team and /or organisation?

70.7% reported that from their experience their shared knowledge adds to the competitive

advantage of the team and in some instances the organisation. And 30.3% suggest that they are

unsure if it does or not at but are confident that it does not. There was a concern on the part of

the researcher that some of the interviewee’s were not completely aware of the concept of

competitive advantage. And some of the interviewee’s reported that they were not in teams

where competitive advantage was relevant as they were not in competition with others, though

they did want to be the best team that they could be. With this in mind the results of this question

supports the hypotheses that: Effectively shared tacit knowledge has the potential to add to the

existing competitive advantage

5.4.9 Do SME’s implement solutions acquired through reflection, immediately or

retrospectively?

30.3% of the interviewee’s cite that they would implement a solution immediately. Where 70.7%

report that they would do it retrospectively. The majority of the 70.7% cite that because they work in

a highly regulated industry a consultation and documentation process has to happen prior to any

solution being implemented. Whereby the 30.3% of the sample study can implement solutions

immediately because their role and job does not directly impact patient health or the manufacturing

process. It was reported in the interview’s that the concept of immediate in a number of the cases was

not real-time. And that because of the regulations associated with the industry, immediate could be

from a week to six weeks depending on the potential impact to others, the organisation and patients.

61 | P a g e

With this in mind the results of this question supports the hypotheses that: When SME’s reflect on

their decisions and/or actions the context and urgency of the challenge which they are faced with will

determine if they respond immediately (reflection-in-action) or retrospectively (reflection-on-action)

with a tacit rooted explicit solution.

5.4.10 Do SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit

knowledge with others?

Of the sample study, 20.2% of the interviews were unsure if new knowledge was created as a result of

them sharing their knowledge with others. 20.2% were confident that new knowledge was created and

gave examples. 20.2% are confident that new knowledge was not created as a result of them sharing

their tacit knowledge and 40.4% were uncertain about their shared knowledge leading to new

knowledge being created, but they were certain that new knowledge was created amongst other teams

during projects. This then therefore is an inconclusive result. With this in mind the results of this

question do not support the hypotheses that: SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and

exchanging their tacit knowledge with others.

5.5 Researcher Bias

The researcher has attempted to ensure that any bias on behalf of the researcher is minimised or

eliminated where possible. However, there is no guarantee that bias was eliminated completely. The

researcher does not now or has ever worked for the participating organisation. The researcher does

however have a sister and a sister-in-law working within the organisation. At no point was any of the

details of the interviews discussed with them. The researcher’s sister-in-law did participate in the

interviews. At no point did the researcher discuss the interviews and or viewpoints of other

participants with her.

5.6 External Validity

This study and research can be generalised (Bryman and Bell, 2011) to a wider population across the

organisation and other business units, and the suggestion therefore is that it is considered to be

externally valid. Consideration should be given research topic and questions. It is reasonable to

present that the study can be representative of the wider organisation population.

The study and the research and the models are robust enough to be replicated across the organisation.

5.7 Ecological Validity

The models presented in this research can be applied and rolled out in other organisations and

industries and business schools.

62 | P a g e

5.8 Reliability

The study and more specifically the results of the study are fully repeatable. Given the nature of the

topics and the research, it is suggested that this study can be repeated within many departments and

organisations.

5.9 Implications for Practice and Theory

The models can be used in a number of settings; businesses, business schools and training

organisations to highlight the relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge. The study can also

be used by industry to further explore the importance of both reflection and tacit knowledge in adding

to the organisational knowledge of the firm and to maintaining sustainable competitive advantage.

The area of tacit knowledge is a widely researched area because of its potential for such knowledge to

be accessed and shared so that people, teams, departments and organisations can gain that competitive

edge. Being able to tap into the reservoirs of such knowledge has gotten scholars and professionals

excited at the prospect. The area of reflection is swiftly gaining traction from the very same scholars

and professionals as it has a lot to offer in the area of triple loop learning and now accessing and

acquiring tacit knowledge. This research hopefully adds to the current contributions in the fields of

study. As it can be used across a number of business and business related settings as a template, a

guide, as a learning strategy and as a model for which future research is based. In the course of the

research, when analysing the transcriptions and in designing the Reflection Bridge Model I have been

able to generate the following theories from my learnings, observations and understandings of my

findings.

5.9.1 The context and Influence of Original Experience

The success of an individual to access and acquire a past work experience through reflection; is

largely dependent on the context of the original experience and the influence which it had on them.

5.9.2 The Reflection Bridge

Reflection is a bridge from which an individual can access and acquire their tacit knowledge, and the

bridge can then be used to transfer tacit knowledge to the conscious mind for storing and/or sharing

explicitly. In the event that the tacit knowledge neither explicitly shared nor consciously stored it will

revert back across the bridge back into tacit knowledge again.

Hopefully they will have the same impact on future research as they have had upon the researcher.

63 | P a g e

5.10 Limitations to the research

One of the main limitations of this research is the size of the sample study, had there been a sizeably

bigger sample the results of the analysis and research would have yielded much more accurate and

precise results.

Another main limitation in this research, is the lack of skill and training which the researcher had to

control the interviews. Three of the participants yielded undetermined results in three questions.

Though this did not impact the overall findings either positively or negatively, had the researcher

could have avoided this from happening.

5.11 Future Research

Literature presents that everybody accumulates knowledge all through their lives. Some of the

knowledge remains in our consciousness, implicitly engrained so it can be easily accessed

and shared if the need arises. However; research tell us that a lot of our knowledge stays with

us in a tacit format, and that it can be accessed and acquired by an individual through

reflection. In order to build on this research presented in this thesis; a mixed method research

design on the same topic across multiple organisations in noncompeting industries would refine the

CMTK and The Reflection Bridge Model. It would give a stronger more enriching and detailed

picture of the relationship between reflection and tacit knowledge, unlike the weak causal link which

the relationship endures currently. The results of such research would return more questions for future

researchers to research and answer.

The Reflection Bridge Model and this research may not be suited to highlighting the possibility of

new knowledge being created from the sharing of tacit knowledge. This research identified that a

small percentage if the interviewees were unaware if they were responsible for new knowledge

creation or if it even happened at all. Future research should be considered to study and identify the

distinguishing features and elements of new knowledge creation and answer the following; what does

it look like? At what point is agreed upon that new knowledge has been created. In the context of the

team as well as the organisation. Perhaps the reflection bridge model has a part to play in that

research. But the results of this research indicate that the model needs to be refined in order to

facilitate the concept of new knowledge creation.

64 | P a g e

5.12 Conclusion

It quickly became apparent while doing the interviews of the sample study, the irony of asking the

person sitting across from me “could you tell me about a time when they remembered something

which you thought you had forgotten?” I sat there quietly, patiently observing, as they are trying to get

to grips with what had just been asked of them, in some cases searching deeply, and all were

reflecting back on a time when they were reflecting on something which they thought they had

forgotten and then remembered.

In asking that opening question of the interviewees, it triggered a situation where all of the sample

study were in a reflective mode for all of the time we were talking. This in and of itself was a unique

experience, by way of listening to their responses and observing their reactions, as you knew that as

we were talking they had been thinking back and becoming more relaxed and enthusiastic about the

concept of reflection. In a number of instances the participants recalled lost memories as we spoke

and their faces lit up as they shared the moment. That experience may or may not have enriched their

lives a small little bit.

When this research started the idea was to learn more about tacit knowledge, reflection was not in the

plan. As the research evolved the concept of reflection and its potential relationship with tacit

knowledge became a central theme. As it gave me and the sample study participants a better

understanding of the complexity of tacit knowledge, it highlighted the need for a standardised

conceptual model that people could look at and join the dots. The future of this current knowledge

based economy is now and the more tools that we as researchers and professionals can give those

following on behind, whether they are future leaders or future academics and everyone in between,

the better the chance that they will in turn pass on the baton to those coming behind them.

The research, the models and the theories which I have presented, hopefully help me to play my part

in that bigger picture.

65 | P a g e

Bibliography

Abu-Nahleh, I., Mohammad, A.H., Hamdeh, M.A. and Sabri, A.T. (2010), “Developing a Theoretical

Framework for Knowledge Acquisition” European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on

Information Systems 2010 April 12-13 2010, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2008), “Surfacing tacit sources of success”, International Small

Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 403-31.

André, M., Borgquist, L., Foldevi, M. and Mölstad, S. (2002) Asking for 'rules of thumb' a way to

discover tacit knowledge in general practice. Family Practice 6, 617-622.

Ardichvili, S. (2014) Managing Knowledge and IHRD (chap. forthcoming)

Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behaviour in personally and

social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York:

Academic.

Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading,

Mass: Addison Wesley.

Ajzen, I., and Driver, B.L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to leisure choice.

Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207-224.

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. New

York: Spring.

Bandura, A. (1977), “Social Learning Theory” General Learning Press, Ney York

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman.

Badaracco. J.L. (1991), “The Knowledge Link”. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Barney, J. (1991). “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management

17(1): 99-120.

Barney, J. (2001b). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year

retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27, 643-650.

Bartol, K.M. and Srivasta, A. (2002), “Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational

Reward Systems, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Summer 2002 vol. 9 no. 1 64-76

Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Bennet, D. and Bennet, A. (2008) Engaging tacit knowledge in support of organizational learning The

Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems Vol. 38 No. 1, 2008 pp. 72-94

66 | P a g e

Berry, D. C. and Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Interactive tasks and the implicit–explicit distinction.

British Journal of Psychology, 79, 251–272

Bhatt, G.D. (2001) Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction

between technologies, techniques, and people Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss: 1

pp. 68 – 75

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and

Interpretation. Organization Studies 16(6): 1021-1046.

Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001) Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset

Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5. Number 1. 2001. pp. 8-18

Bontis, N., Dragonetti, C. N., Jacobsen, K. & Roos., G. (1999) The Knowledge Toolbox: A Review of

the Tools Available To Measure and Manage Intangible Resources European Management Journal,

Vol. 17, No. 4

Bratianu, C. and Orzea, I. (2010) Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Organizational Knowledge Dynamics

Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 2010

Broaders, S.C., Wagner Cook, S., Mitchell, Z. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007) Making Children

Gesture Brings Out Implicit Knowledge and Leads to Learning Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General 2007, Vol. 136, No. 4, 539–550

Burgoyne, J. and Pedler, M. (1994) Learning companies: their significance and characteristics

Readings from The Learning Company Conference.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) 3rd Ed, Business Research Methods, New York: Oxford University

Press

Chen, A.N.K. and Edgington, T.M. (2005), ‘‘Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation:

considerations for knowledge workers’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 279-99.

Cho, Y. Cho, E. & McLean, N. G. (2009): HRD’s Role in Knowledge Management Advances in

Developing Human Resources Vol. 11, No. 3 June 2009 263-272

Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005) Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge: Towards the

Integration of Two Approaches Management Learning 2005 36: 49

Christensen, P.H. (2007) Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices

Journal of Knowledge Management VOL. 11 NO 1 2007, pp. 36-47

Collins, H.M. (2001a) Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social studies of science 31, 71-

85.

Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999) Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between

Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science 10(4): 381-400.

Cook, K.S. and Emerson. R.M. (1978). "Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks."

American Sociological Review 43:721-739.

Cross, J. and Dublin, L. (2002) Implementing e-learning, ASTD, USA.

67 | P a g e

Damasio, A.R. (1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain , G.P. Putman’s

Sons, New York, NY

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) ‘Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they

know.’ Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

De Carolis, D.M. and Deeds, D.L. (1999). “The Impact of Stocks and Flows of Organizational

Knowledge on Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the Biotechnology Industry.”

Strategic Management Journal (20): 953-968.

De Carolis, D. (2002) The Role of Social Capital and Organizational Knowledge in Enhancing

Entrepreneurial Opportunities in High-Technology Environments In Choo and Bontis (Eds.) The

Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York: Oxford

University Press, 699-709.

De Geus, A. (1998) Planning as learning Harvard Business Review 66(2) pp. 70-74

Denning, S. (2001), “The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era

Organizations, Butterworth Heinemann; Oxford

DeNisi, A., Hitt, M.A. and Jackson, S.E. (2003) ‘‘The knowledge-based approach to sustaining

competitive advantage’’, in Jackson, S.E., Hitt, M.A. and DeNisi, A. (Eds), Managing Knowledge for

Sustained Competitive Advantage, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-33.

Dilts, R. (1998), “Modeling with NLP” META Publications, CA

Ekeh, P.P. (1974). Social exchange theory: the two traditions. London: Heinemann Educational

Emerson, Richard (1976) Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 335-362.

Endres, L. M., Endres, P. S., Chowdhury, K. S., and Alam, I. (2007),"Tacit knowledge sharing, self-

efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community", Journal of Knowledge Management,

Vol. 11 Iss: 3 pp. 92 – 103

Erden, Z., Von Krogh, G. and Nonaka, N. (2008) The Quality of Group Tacit knowledge Journal of

Strategic Information Systems 17 (2008) 4–18

Eustace, C. (2000). The intangible economy, impact and policy issues Report of the European High

Level Expert Group on the Intangible Economy, European Commission, October 2000. Luxembourg:

Eur-Op.

Fugate, M. Kinicki, A.J. Prussia, G.E. (2008) Employee coping with or organizational change: An

examination of alternative theoretic al perspectives and models. In: Personnel Psychology, 61: 1-36.

Galunic, D.C. and Rodan, S. (1998) Resources Re-combinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures

and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation. Strategic Management Journal 19: 1193-1201.

Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2007), “Leading clever people”, Harvard Business Review, March, pp. 1-

16.

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge Management: An Organizational

Capabilities Perspective” Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2001 Vol 18, No. l,

pp. 185-214

68 | P a g e

Gore, C. and Gore, E. (1999) Knowledge management: the way forward, Total Quality Management,

Vol. 10 No. 4-5, pp. 554-60.

Giju, C. G, Badea. L, López Ruiz. R. V & Peña. N. D., (2010), “Knowledge Management – the Key

Resource in the Knowledge Economy” Theoretical and Applied Economics Volume XVII (2010), No.

6 (547), pp. 27-36

Goldberg, E. (2005), The Wisdom Paradox: How Your Mind Can Grow Stronger as Your Brain

Grows Older, Gotham Books, New York, NY.

Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003), “The Five Minds of a Manager” Harvard Business Review

November 2003

Grant, R.M. (1996). “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm.” Strategic Management

Journal 17(Winter Special Issue): 109-122.

Grant, R. (2002).The Knowledge-Based View of the Firm In Choo and Bontis (Eds.) The Strategic

Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University

Press, 133-148

Gupta, A. K. and V. Govindarajan (2000). “Knowledge Flow within Multinational Corporations.”

Strategic Management Journal 21: 473-496.

Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), “Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations”, Journal of

Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-65.

Harlow, H. (2008), The effect of tacit knowledge on firm performance, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 148-63.

Hawkins, P (1991), “The spiritual dimension of the learning organisation”. Management Education

and Development 22(3): 166-181

Herbig, B., Büssing, A. and Ewert, T. (2001) The role of tacit knowledge in the work context of

nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 34, 687-695.

Hergenrather, K.C., Rhodes, S.D. and McDaniel, R.S. (2005). Correlates of job placement practice:

Public rehabilitation counsellors and consumers living with AIDS. Rehabilitation Counseling

Bulletin, 48(3), 157-167.

Higgins, G.E., & Marcum, C.D. (2005). Can the theory of planned behaviour mediate the effects of

low self-control on alcohol use? College Student Journal, 39(1), 90-103.

Hill, C.W. and Rothaermel, F.T. (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical

technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28(2): 257–274.

Hislop, D. (2003) Linking human resource management and knowledge management via

commitment: A review and research agenda Employee Relations, 25(2), 182–202

Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kockhar, R. (2001) Direct and moderate effects of human

capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective

Academy of Management Review, 44 (1), 13-28.

Hockenbury, D.H. and Hockenbury, S.E. (2007). Discovering psychology. New York: Worth

Publishers

69 | P a g e

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) The manual of learning styles (Maidenhead: Peter Honey)

Ho, L-A and Kuo, T-H. (2009), “Alternative Organisational Learning Therapy: An Empirical Case

Study Using Behaviour and U Theory” The Australian Educational Researcher, Volume 36, Number

3, December 2009

Ing, D., Takala, M. and Simmonds, I. (2003), "Anticipating Organizational Competences for

Development through the Disclosing of Ignorance", Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the

International Society for the System Sciences at Hersonissos, Crete, July 7-11, 2003

Insch, G.S., McIntyre, N. and Dawley, D. (2008) Tacit Knowledge: A Refinement and Empirical Test

of the Academic Tacit Knowledge Scale The Journal of Psychology, 2008, 142(6), 561–579

Ipe, M. (2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework, Human Resource

Development Review, 2(4), 337-59

Jashapara, A. (2003), ‘‘Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning

organization’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-50.

Jashapara, A. (2003), ‘‘Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning

organization’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-50.

Johnson, W. (2007) Mechanisms of tacit knowing: pattern recognition and synthesis, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 123-39

Kakabadse, N.K., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2001), “From Tacit Knowledge to Knowledge

Management: Leveraging Invisible Assets” Knowledge and Process Management Volume 8 Number

3 pp 137-154

Kankanhalli, A., Pee, L.G. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2007), “Evaluation of knowledge management: a review

and agenda for future research”, in Jennex, M.E. (Ed.), Knowledge Management in Modern

Organisations, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children’s

metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition, 23, 95–147

Keen, M. and Mahanty, S. (2006) Learning in sustainable natural resource management:

Challenges and opportunities in the Pacific. Society and Natural Resources: An International

Journal 19, no. 6: 497–513.

Kember, D., Leung, D. W. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K. (2000). Development of

a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 25, 382-395.

Klimoski, R.J. (1992). Revitalizing the interface between science and practice. Presidential address

presented at the 7th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Klimoski, R.J. (2007). Introduction: Promoting the “practice” of learning from practice. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 6, 493-494.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

70 | P a g e

Koskinen, K.U. (2003) Evaluation of Tacit Knowledge Utilization in Work Units Journal of

Knowledge Management Vol. 7, No. 5 2003 pp.67 – 81

Krishnaveni, R. and Sujatha, R. (2012) ‘Communities of Practice: An influencing Factor for Effective

Knowledge Transfer in Organizations’, The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 26-40.

LA Trobe University (2014) Reflective Practice in Health Sciences; Reflective Practices

http://latrobe.libguides.com/content.php?pid=177292&sid=1498201 [accessed on 18/08/2014 @ 8pm]

Liaw, S.S. (2004). The theory of planned behaviour applied to search engines as a learning tool.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 283-292

Lin, C-P. (2007), “To Share or Not to Share: Modelling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Its Mediators and

Antecedents” Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70:411–428

Linde, C. (2001), “Narrative and Social Tacit Knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management,

Special Issue on Tacit Knowledge Exchange and Active Learning, Vol. 5 No.2, pp. 160-171

Löf, A. (2010) Exploring adaptability through learning layers and learning loops, Environmental

Education Research, 16:5-6, 529-543,

Lo´pez, S.V. (2005), ‘‘Competitive advantage and strategy formation: the key role of dynamic

capabilities’’, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 5/6, pp. 661-9.

Makhija, M. (2003), “Comparing the resource-based and the market-based views of the firm:

empirical evidence from the Czech privatisation” Strategic Management Journal, 24, 433-451.

Mathews, J. (2003). Competitive dynamics and economic learning: an extended resource-based view.

Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (1), 115-145

Mathew, C.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (2009) Developing experience-based (tacit) knowledge through

reflection, Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 530–540

Marquardt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1994) The global learning organization New York: Irwin

Professional Publishing

Miller, D., Eisenstat, R. and Foote, N. (2002) ‘Strategy from the inside out: Building Capability-

Creating Organizations’, California Management Review, 44(3), 37–54.

Morgan, R.E. (2004) Market-Based Organisational Learning: Theoretical Reflections and Conceptual

Insights Journal of Marketing Management 2004 20, 67-103

Ndlela, L.T. and du Toit, A.S.A. (2001) Establishing a knowledge management programme for

competitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 21 (2001)

151-165

Nelson, R.R. (1991) Why Do Firms Differ, and How Does it Matter? Strategic Management journal

12 (Winter Special), 61-74

Nelson, R.R and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA.

The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

http://latrobe.libguides.com/content.php?pid=177292&sid=1498201

71 | P a g e

Nonaka, I. (1990) Chishiki-Souzou no Keiei [A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation] Nihon

Keizai Shinbun-sha: Tokyo (In Japanese)

Nonaka, I. (1991) “The knowledge-creating company’’, Harvard Business Review, November-

December, pp. 96-104

Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation Organisation Science 5

14-37

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “The Knowledge Creating Company” Oxford University Press;

New York

Nonaka, T. H. & Umemoto K., (1996) "A Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation",

International Journal of Technology Management, 11 (7/8), 833- 845 (1996)

Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006), “Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory:

Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances” Organization Studies 2006 27: 1179

Nonaka, I. and Von Krogh, G. (2009) ‘Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy

and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory’, Organization Science, 20(3), 635-

52.

Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N. (1994), “Organizational Knowledge Creation

Theory: A First Comprehensive Test” International Business Review Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 337-351

Nonaka. I., and Konno. N. (1998), “The concept of "ba": building a foundation of knowledge

Creation”. California Management Review. 40. 3 (1998). 40-54

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000), “A Firm as a Knowledge-creating Entity: A New

Perspective on the Theory of the Firm” Industrial and Corporate Change Volume 9, Number 1

Nonaka, I. Toyama, R. (2003) The knowledge creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a

synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1, 2–10

O’Toole, P. (2011) ‘How Organizations Remember: Retaining Knowledge through Organizational

Action, Change and Innovation’,

http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_Zx2pzE44zsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=related:cOAWB

FZcGBgJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=arVY1yY5Aa&sig=yt8brWgJCMOWpZ5JjswDFvOD_8Y&redi

r_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 22/05/2014]

Petrick, J., Scherer, R., Brodzinski, J. Quinn, J. and Ainina, M. (1999) Global leadership skills and

reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of

Management Executive, 13 (1), 58-69.

Polanyi, M. (1962) Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy Reviews of Modern

Physics, 34 (4) Oct. 1962, 601-616.

http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Polanyi%20Tacit%20Knowlng%20R

MP%201962.htm [Accessed on the 27/04/2014]

Polanyi, M. (1966) The logic of Tacit Inference Philosophy, Vol. 41, No. 155 (Jan., 1966), pp. 1-18

The Royal Institute of Philosophy

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New

York, Free Press.

http://books.google.ie/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_Zx2pzE44zsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=related:cOAWBFZcGBgJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=arVY1yY5Aa&sig=yt8brWgJCMOWpZ5JjswDFvOD_8Y&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false



http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Polanyi%20Tacit%20Knowlng%20RMP%201962.htm

http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Polanyi%20Tacit%20Knowlng%20RMP%201962.htm

72 | P a g e

Pralahad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The Core Competence of the Corporation” Harvard Business

Review 68 79-91

Raelin, J.A. (1997) A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563–578.

Raelin, J.A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning and

Education, 6, 495-519.

Reber, S.A. (1989) Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General 1989 Vol. 118, N0. 3 219-235

Reige, A. (2005) Three-dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider, Journal of

Knowledge Management, 9(3), pp. 18-35

Riesenherger, R. J. (1998) Executive Insights: Knowledge—The Source of Sustainable Competitive

Advantage Journal of International Marketing Vol. 6. No. 3. 1998. pp. 94-107

Romme, A.G.L. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999), “Circular organizing and triple loop learning”,

Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 439-54.

Roberts, J. (2000) ‘From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and

Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer’ Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, 12(4), 429-443.

Roth, J. (2003), “Enabling knowledge creation: Learning from an R&D organisation”. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 7(1), 32–48.

Rowley, J. (2000) From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 4(1), 7–15.

Ryan, G. (2013) Within the Firm: what are the factors which influence Tacit Knowledge Sharing?

Final Year Project: Unpublished, BA (Hon) HRM, University of Limerick 2013.

Paavola, S. and Hakkarainen, K. (2005), “The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent

Epistemological Approach to Learning Science & Education (2005) 14: 535–557

Scott, S.G. (2010) Enhancing Reflection Skills through Learning Portfolios: An Empirical Test

Journal of Management Education 2010 34: 430

Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation New York:

Doubleday.

Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1998) Knowledge management: a literature review London:

Institute of Personnel and Development

Scott, S.G. (2010), “Enhancing Reflection Skills: Through Learning Portfolios: An Empirical Test”

Journal of Management Education 2010 34: 430 (originally published online 2 November 2009)

Schön, D. (1983), “The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action”. New York: Basic

Books.

Sheehan, M., Garavan, T.N. and Carbery, R. (2014), “Innovation and human resource development

(HRD)” European Journal of Training and Development Vol. 38 No.1/2 2014

73 | P a g e

Shih, K., Chang, C. and Lin, B. (2010), “Assessing knowledge creation and intellectual capital in

banking industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 74-89.

Smith, H.A., McKeen, J.D., Singh, S. (2007) Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Making it Happen, Journal

of Information Science and Technology, 3(3), 50-72

Spender, J.C. (1994) 'Organizational knowledge, collective practice and Pemrose rents'.

International Business Review, 3 - 4, 1 - 5

Spender, J.C. (1996a) ‘Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm’, Strategic

Management Journal 17: 45–62.

Stalk, G., Evans, P. and Shulman, L.E. (1992). “Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of

Corporate Strategy.” Harvard Business Review (March-April): 57-69.

Sternberg, R J. (1996) Successful intelligence. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sternberg, R J. (1997), “Tacit knowledge and job success” In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.),

International Handbook of Selection and Assessment (pp. 201–213). New York: Wiley.

Sternberg, R.J., & Horvath, J.A. (Eds.). (1999a). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R.J., & Horvath, J.A. (1999b). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Subashini, R. (2010) Tacit Knowledge -The Ultimate Essence of an Organization: Advances in

Management Vol. 3 (8) Aug. (2010: pp. 36-39)

Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”.

Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-534.

Tohidinia, Z. and Mosakhani, M. (2010) "Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors", Industrial

Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 Iss: 4, pp.611 - 631

Tsoukas, H. (2001), “Where does new organizational knowledge come from?” Keynote address at the

International Conference Managing Knowledge: Conversations and Critiques, Leicester University,

10-11 April 2001

Tsoukas, H. (2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In: Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A., (Eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge

Management, pp. 410-427. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J.A. (2004) Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of

organizational commitment, communication climate, and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.

Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40 (3), 133-153.

Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2002) A Review of the Concept of Organisational Learning: Working

Paper Series 2002, Management Research Centre University of Wolverhampton 2002

Wang, S. and Noe, R.S. (2010) ‘Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research’,

Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-31.

74 | P a g e

Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993) Collective Minds in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on

Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 357-381

Weick, K. (1995), “Sense making in Organizations”, Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). “A Resource-based View of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5: 171-

180.

Yang, J-T. (2008) Individual attitudes and organisational knowledge sharing Tourism Management 29

(2008) 345–353

Yeo, R.K. (2006) Learning institution to learning organization: Kudos to reflective practitioners

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 30 No. 5, 2006 pp. 396-419

Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research – Design and Methods, 3rd Ed., Sage Publications, Newbury

Pk., CA.

75 | P a g e

Appendix 1

Figure 1: The SECI Model

The SECI Process adapted from Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/teacherknowledgeexchange/

“Through the knowledge conversion process [the Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and

Internalization (SECI) process], personal subjective knowledge is validated socially and synthesized with

others’ knowledge so that knowledge keeps expanding (Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)”

as cited in Nonaka and Toyama (2005: p. 422).

https://sites.google.com/site/teacherknowledgeexchange/

76 | P a g e

Appendix 2

Invitation Letter to participants:

Hi All,

As ------------ mentioned, my name is Ger Ryan and I am currently doing my Masters in

Work and Organisational Behaviour in UL

For my Thesis I am researching how subject matter experts (SME’s) in managerial roles

access their knowledge and subsequently share it with their team and others.

The research is qualitative in nature in that I am looking to interview SME’s about the topic

and gain an insight into their experience. The interview is a primarily structured interview, in

that I will be asking ten specific questions around the topic and depending on a person’s

answer I will ask a follow-up question to help get a better understanding of their initial

answer.

The interview should take between 30 – 40 minutes, it may take less time. I am hopeful that it

will take less time as I want to minimise the impact on the participants work schedule.

I am looking for 12 volunteers (SME’s in managerial roles) for the research, and I would

appreciate it if you could be in a position to help me in my endeavour.

I will be recording each interview and transcribing them later.

Please pay special attention (especially those considering participating in the research) to

the attached document as it outlines guidelines for the protection of the organisation, the

participants and the researcher.

I must reiterate what Carla mentioned, although I would love for you to support my request if

possible, you are under no obligation to do so.

Those whom are interested in being interviewed for the research can mail me back directly

and I can contact you to organise a time that suits you for the interview. I need to conduct all

12 interviews this week.

I would like to thank you for your time in reading and hopefully considering my request. And

I would also like to thank Cook Medical for permitting me to avail of this opportunity.

Thank you in advance,

With Kind Regards

Ger Ryan

77 | P a g e

Appendix 3

Guidelines and expectations for Interviews

I need to make it clear that by participating in this research the organisation gives permission to the

researcher to conduct interviews compile the information gathered, and report on it in the finished

thesis, however:

The organisation has a right to withdraw from participating in the research at a moment’s

notice for whatever reason they deem reasonable.

In the event that the organisation withdraws from participation in the research all information

gathered via Interviews shall be handed over by the researcher to the organisation or

destroyed at the request of the organisation by the researcher.

The organisation has the right (through a representative) to request transcripts of the

interviews, however the identity of the individual participant and their roles within the

organisation will be removed from the transcripts as well as any information which may

inadvertently identify the individuals concerned.

All of the interviews of the participants will be recorded for transcription and held/stored

securely in the strictest of confidence

In order to minimise disruption to the participants work schedule interviews will be held

within the grounds/building of the organisation

At no point will the researcher contact any participant of the research for any purposes as all

required information will be acquired during the interview

In the event that a participant needs to be re-interviewed then permission must be sought by

the researcher in advance of any follow-up interview from a) the participant and b) the

participant’s immediate manager. Should one of the these decline permission then the follow-

up interview will not proceed

At no time will questions be asked of the participants by the researcher that would in any

way infringe on any and all confidentiality agreements and or expectations between the

participant and their employer.

The individual participants have the right to withdraw from participating in the research at a

moment’s notice for whatever reason they deem reasonable without questioning or

recrimination by the researcher or the organisation

Any and all information gathered will be held and treated in the strictest of confidence by the

researcher and comply with any reasonable ethical requests presented by the organisation

The identity of the participants in relation to the responses given by them in the interviews

will at all times remain confidential.

78 | P a g e

On reporting of the findings and conclusions in the finished research thesis the identity of

both the organisation and the participants will at all times remain anonymous and

confidential unless otherwise requested by the organisation regarding the organisation.

On conclusion of the research project all information gathered and compiled will remain on

an isolated media device for a duration of 1 year (in the interests of data protection) after

which time all of the information will be destroyed. If during this time any of the participants

in the research wish to view a transcript of their interview one will be provided to them by

the researcher.

Thank you for your time

Ger Ryan

79 | P a g e

Appendix 4

Overview for Participants

Hi ----------

Just to give you a better understanding of the interview today scheduled for 12 noon.

I am researching how subject matter experts (SME’s) access their knowledge and share it.

The knowledge of which I am talking about is not the tangible knowledge we use every day,

like information we get from manuals, records, or communications expressed in language. I

am researching intangible knowledge, the knowledge which you have in your heads which

you find hard to access and communicate, knowledge which you have but may have

forgotten.

The Interview will consist of ten structured questions and a follow up question for each

answer.

I look forward to meeting you later

Regards

Ger

80 | P a g e

Appendix 5

Hypotheses and associated Interview Questions:

H1: Reflection is an effective way to access and acquire an SME’s tacit knowledge

Can you tell me about a time when you remembered something which you thought that you had forgotten, what was

that like?

H2: SME’s reflect on their decisions and actions regularly

How often do you reflect on your decisions and actions?

H3: SME’s share their newly acquired tacit knowledge explicitly

How does what you have learnt over the years to become an expert compare to what you are sharing with your team

at the moment?

H4: Tacit Knowledge is accessed and acquired from one or more tacit dimensions e.g. cognitive skills, technical

skills, experience, ideals, senses or emotions

When you find yourself needing to depend on external information other than what you know to be the facts, which of

these do you find yourself relying on the most? [Give List] ~ [sub-structure of CMTK (conceptual model of tacit

knowledge)] and ask to choose what works best for them?

H4b: The particular tacit dimensions which the SME pulls from is dependent on the context of the situation

which the SME is facing at the time

Would this (these) be the one(s) that you would use/rely on in every situation?

H5: When SME’s think about the knowledge they rely on to do their job they do so reflectively

Have you ever had a ‘Eureka’ moment when reflecting on past work related experiences that has helped you overcome a

current challenge?

H6: Shared tacit knowledge is added to existing organisational knowledge

When you share your ‘Eureka’ moments with your team how do you know that it become’s part of the organisational

knowledge, or does it?

H7: Effectively shared tacit knowledge has the potential to add to the existing competitive advantage

Again, when you share your ‘Eureka’ moments with your team, from your experience, how would you say it has impacted or

influenced them?

81 | P a g e

H8: When SME’s reflect on their decisions and/or actions the context and urgency of the challenge which they are

faced with will determine if they respond immediately (reflection-in-action) or retrospectively (reflection-on-action)

with a tacit rooted explicit solution

What action do you take when you become aware of a more effective solution to a problem, as a result of reflection?

H9: SME’s create new knowledge by sharing and exchanging their tacit knowledge with others

Can you recall a time when you shared your new found knowledge with others and it led to new knowledge being created?

82 | P a g e

Appendix 6

Figure 1: Tacit Sub-Dimensions

Experiences

Visual Beliefs

Practice Hunches Feelings

(emotional) Imitations

Taste

Observations Mental Model’s

Repetition

Talent

Sound (internal)

Smell

Intuition

Feelings (Physical)

Know-How

Values

Actions

83 | P a g e

Appendix 7

Letter of Application for Ethical Approval

UNIVERSITY of LIMERICK

O L L S C O I L L U I M I N I G H

Kemmy Business School Research Ethics Committee

Application Form

Final Year Projects, Taught Masters Dissertations and other Projects involving Research with Human

Subjects (please note that your answers must be typed)

Name of Student: Ger Ryan

ID Number: 0566454

Email Address: [email protected]

Date: 28/05/2014

Programme of Study: M. Sc. Work and Organisational Behaviour

Project (e.g. FYP, Masters Dissertation): Master’s Thesis

Working Title of Project (please do not use acronyms):

mailto:[email protected]

84 | P a g e

Does reflection have a positive impact on effective tacit knowledge sharing? A study of the

reflective practices of Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) in a managerial role (proposed title only)

Supervisor: Dr. Ronan Carbery

Course Leader: Dr. Michelle Hammond

Does the proposed research involve working with human subjects1? Yes

If not, please proceed to sign and date the form and attach it to your project.

PART A

Research Purpose: (50-100 words)

The purpose of this research is to investigate the reflective practices of subject matter experts in a

managerial role. With the intention of identifying how such practices help the subject matter

experts; capture, understand, learn from and share their tacit knowledge within their work

environments. Literature suggests that the sharing of tacit knowledge is a rich source of sustainable

competitive advantage, and that reflective practices is a main source of acquiring it. With this in

mind it is expected that the research will identify links, if any, between reflection, sharing tacit

knowledge and sustainable competitive advantage.

Research Methodology: (100-150 words)

The research will be qualitative, in that I will be looking to interview between 16 and 20 subject

matter experts within one organisation or across a number of non-competing organisations (in the

event that I cannot secure interviews with 16-20 subject matter experts in a managerial role within

one organisation). The interviews will be semi-structured in design with a focus on reflective

practices in capturing and sharing tacit knowledge. The semi-structured interviews will have a

number of set structured questions in respect to the research topic and each answer will be

followed up with a another open/probing question (s) in an attempt to explore the managers

answers further and deeper in order to obtain richer data where relevant. These interview sessions

will be recorded and transcribed. The process will be inductive, in that I am not going in testing

theories but rather looking to see if reflective practices help capture tacit knowledge and develop a

theory from the results.

1 Examples of research involving human subjects include (but are not limited to): carrying out interviews;

conducting a survey; distributing a questionnaire; using focus groups; and the observation of individuals or

groups.

85 | P a g e

1. Human Subjects

Does the research proposal involve:

(a) Any person under the age of 18? No

(b) Adult patients? No

(c) Adults with psychological impairments? No

(d) Adults with learning difficulties? No

(e) Adults under the protection/

control/influence of others (e.g., in care/in prison)? No

(f) Relatives of ill people

(e.g., parents of sick children)? No (not intentionally)

(g) People who may only have a basic knowledge

of English? No

2. Subject Matter

Does the research proposal involve:

(a) Sensitive personal issues? (e.g., suicide, bereavement,

gender identity, sexuality, fertility, abortion,

gambling)? No

(b) Illegal activities, illicit drug taking, substance abuse

or the self reporting of criminal behaviour? No

(c) Any act that might diminish self-respect or cause

shame, embarrassment or regret? No

(d) Research into politically and/or racially/ethically

sensitive areas? No

3. Procedures

Does the proposal involve:

(a) Use of personal or company records without consent? No

86 | P a g e

(b) Deception of participants? No

(c) The offer of disproportionately large inducements

to participate? No

(d) Audio or visual recording without consent? No

(e) Invasive physical interventions or treatments? No

(f) Research which might put researchers or

participants at risk? No

Who will your informants be?

Subject matter experts in a managerial role within Industry

(b) Do you have a pre-existing relationship with the informants and, if so, what is the

nature of that relationship? No

(c) How do you plan to gain access to /contact/approach potential

informants?

With the express permission of the informants managers and directors

(d) What arrangements have you made for anonymity and

confidentiality? Currently none as I have not contacted any organisation and or

informants in relation to the research, however I will be assuring the informants and

the organisation that anonymity and confidentiality will be my highest priority in

respect to the research, and I will not proceed until the Senior managers and

proposed informants are completely comfortable with any agreed upon anonymity

and confidentiality processes and procedures

(e) What, if any, is the particular vulnerability of your informants?

At the moment I do not foresee any, however should any concerns arise I will ensure

that they are treated respectfully and in accordance with the agreed upon

confidentiality processes.

(f) What arrangements are in place to ensure that informants know the

purpose of the research and what they are going to inform about?

The organisation will be informed by Email (and by any other means which the

organisation desires) as to the purpose of the research, the primary questions which

87 | P a g e

will be asked of the participants and they will have the opportunity to stop the

interviews and their participation at any time

(g) How will you ensure that informants are aware of their right to refuse

to participate or withdraw at any time?

As per the previous answer, both the organisation and the participants will be made

aware both verbally and in writing of their right to refuse to participate and/or

withdraw from the research at any time and I as a researcher will purposefully

respect their wishes.

(h) How would you handle any unforeseen safety issues should they arise?

Currently I do not foresee any issues of safety, however in the event of such

happening I will ensure that they are dealt with, with the utmost importance

(i) How do you propose to store the information? The Information will be stored on a password protected laptop and a separate

external hard drive for the duration of the research, when the research is complete

and my thesis is handed in for grading I will then remove the research from my

laptop. I will keep the data collected on the separate external for a duration of 6-12

months or until such time that it is deemed that the data collected is no longer

necessary to be stored at which point (whichever comes first) the data will be deleted

and destroyed. At all times it will be my job to ensure that that the information and

data is secure throughout.

If you have answered YES to any of the questions in PART A, sections 1-3, you will also need to

comply with the requirements of PART B of this form.

If you have answered NO to all of the questions in PART A, sections 1-3 above, please ignore PART B

of the form.

You should return 8 hard copies of this form to Michelle Cunningham, Research Administrator,

Room SG-09, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick or leave them in the drop box marked

KBS Research Ethics Applications located on level 3 of the Kemmy Business School. This form must

be submitted before the research begins.

Student Signature: __Ger Ryan______________________ Date: __June -14____________

Supervisor Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________

m sc thesis for work & organisational behaviour 2014 ul - gr

Leadership & Management

areas of tacit knowledge

tacit knowledge cmtk

context of knowledge

role of reflection

process of reflection

new knowledge creation

conceptual model

academic literature