Page 81 -

64 Chapter 3

perceive knowledge to be a crucial competence of the fi rm, then the organization will
have trouble developing knowledge-based competencies. If there is no legitimate lan-
guage to express new knowledge in the individual, then contributions will fail. If the
organizational structure does not facilitate innovation, then KM will fail. If individual
members are not eager to share their experiences with their colleagues on the basis of
mutual trust and respect, then there will be no generation of social, collective knowl-
edge within that organization. Finally, if those contributing knowledge are not evalu-
ated highly and acknowledged by top management, they will lose their motivation
to innovate and develop new knowledge for the fi rm.
Organizations need to put knowledge enablers in place who serve to stimulate
individual knowledge development, group sharing of knowledge, and organizational
retention of valuable knowledge-based content. This approach was further refi ned
( von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka 2000 ) to propose a model of knowledge enabling,
rather than knowledge management. Knowledge enabling refers to the “ overall set of
organizational activities that positively affect knowledge creation ” (p. 4). This typically
involves facilitating relationships and conversations as well as sharing local knowledge
across an organization and across geographical and cultural borders.
The connectionist approach appears to be the more appropriate one to underpin a
theoretical model of knowledge management, especially due to the fact that the
linkage between knowledge and those who absorb and make use of the knowledge is
viewed as an unbreakable bond. The connectionist approach provides a solid theoreti-
cal cornerstone for a knowledge model and is a component of the models discussed
in this chapter.

The Nonaka and Takeuchi Knowledge Spiral Model
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) studied how Japanese companies were successful in
achieving creativity and innovation. They quickly found that it was far from a mecha-
nistic processing of objective knowledge. Instead, they found that organizational
innovation often stemmed from highly subjective insights that can best be described
in the form of metaphors, slogans, or symbols. The Nonaka and Takeuchi model of
KM has its roots in a holistic model of knowledge creation and the management of
“ serendipity. ” The tacit/explicit spectrum of knowledge forms (the epistemological
dimension) and the individual/group/organizational or three-tier model of knowledge
sharing and diffusion (the ontological dimension) are both needed in order to create
knowledge and produce innovation.
Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that a key factor behind the successful track record in
innovation of Japanese enterprises stems from the more tacit-driven approach to