Page 23 -

12 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

innovative firms, like Hewlett Packard, will rely on either encultured knowledge,
if they are communication-intensive, or embrained knowledge, if they are mostly
dependent on the knowledge and expertise of the individual’s employed. The latter
scenario is typical in ‘knowledge-intensive firms’ which are described in Chapter 2.
Blackler’s framework is therefore a useful starting point when considering the prob-
lems of managing knowledge because it relates the major purpose of the firm (e.g.
whether they are trying to produce innovative or standardized products and ser-
vices) to the type of knowledge that dominates and, therefore, to the processes and
enabling context that need to be in place to manage knowledge. The case studies
presented in the following chapters in this book will illustrate this important idea.

Critique of structural perspectives
The frameworks outlined above assume, in the main, a ‘knowledge as possession’
view (Cook and Brown, 1999) and because of this have been challenged for failing
to take sufficient account of the more subjective, highly equivocal and dynamic
nature of knowledge (Bijker et al., 1987; Weick, 1990). Other critics of structural
approaches claim that the separation between tacit and explicit knowledge has
been overstated and is not, in fact, a very accurate reflection of Polanyi’s original
idea (Gourlay, 2006). Indeed Polanyi argued that all knowledge has an indispens-
able personal component but that, depending on the circumstances, we are only
aware of certain aspects at particular points in time. Explicit knowledge, then, is
merely that which we are aware of at any given moment, in much the same way
as shining a spotlight highlights particular features of a landscape at that point in
time. These explicit features are always connected, though, to the things that lie
behind in the dark and that can come into view at any moment as the spotlight,
and our focus, shifts. Taking this view we can see, in fact, that tacit and explicit
knowledge are mutually ‘constituted’ (Boisot, 1995; Gourlay, 2006; Tsoukas,
1996). In other words they define each other. By attending to something, and
making it explicit, we automatically push other things into the background, or
into tacitness, so to speak. Gourlay (2006) points out, then, that tacit knowledge
may be better considered as a continuum where the degree of ‘tacitness’ and
‘explicitness’ is a function of the extent to which knowledge is communicated.
If we consider the example of riding a bicycle, we can see that it may be useful
for the novice to be told to hold lightly onto the handlebars. This brings knowl-
edge about how to hold the handlebars into focus, making it explicit. But, at the
same time, it pushes other knowledge (e.g. on how to balance weight onto the
pedals) further into the background. This is not a trivial point when it comes to
managing knowledge because it means that any explicit, codified knowledge will
always be incomplete or partial. It is only by combining this explicit knowledge
with tacit ‘know-how’ developed through experience (e.g. about balance and
hand–eye coordination) that tasks can be accomplished.
By focusing on what knowledge is, structural approaches also tend to adopt
what has been termed an ‘entitative’ view of knowledge (Hosking and Morley,
1991). Hence knowledge is seen as ‘thing-like’ – an object or resource that can

6/5/09 6:56:37 AM
9780230_522015_02_cha01.indd 12 6/5/09 6:56:37 AM
9780230_522015_02_cha01.indd 12