evidence / stable release
[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_management&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Dimensions")] Different [frameworks](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework "Conceptual framework") for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[[5]](#cite_note-1Sanchez-5) One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes [tacit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge "Tacit knowledge") and [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge "Explicit knowledge").[[30]](#cite_note-7Snowden-30) Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[[12]](#cite_note-10Bray-12)[[35]](#cite_note-20Alavi-35) [](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_spiral.svg) The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model ([SECI](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECI_model_of_knowledge_dimensions "SECI model of knowledge dimensions"), for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge "Explicit knowledge") and tacit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36) In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36) Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37) The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37) Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.[[22]](#cite_note-18Addicot-22)[[38]](#cite_note-55RST-38) Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6) Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., [symbols](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol "Symbol") outside our heads).[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6)[[39]](#cite_note-39) More recently, together with [Georg von Krogh](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Krogh "Georg von Krogh") and [Sven Voelpel](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Voelpel "Sven Voelpel"), Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward.[[40]](#cite_note-39Nonaka-40)[[41]](#cite_note-41) A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a [system](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System "System") outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from [embodied knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_knowledge "Embodied knowledge") representing a learned capability of a human body's [nervous](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system "Nervous system") and [endocrine systems](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system "Endocrine system").[[42]](#cite_note-40Sensky-42) A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the [transfer](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer "Knowledge transfer") or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37)[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43) Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [social computing](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_computing "Social computing") tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43)
unit:74fe76b4f93a464895a7:70b27deb2ba84ace5eb4:1:86544c48c35d0e247e65 ยท release release:edition:knowledge-systems:7aaba55a11d29659
Canonical record
[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_management&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Dimensions")] Different [frameworks](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework "Conceptual framework") for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[[5]](#cite_note-1Sanchez-5) One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes [tacit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge "Tacit knowledge") and [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge "Explicit knowledge").[[30]](#cite_note-7Snowden-30) Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[[12]](#cite_note-10Bray-12)[[35]](#cite_note-20Alavi-35) [](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_spiral.svg) The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model ([SECI](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECI_model_of_knowledge_dimensions "SECI model of knowledge dimensions"), for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge "Explicit knowledge") and tacit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36) In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36) Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37) The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37) Early research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.[[22]](#cite_note-18Addicot-22)[[38]](#cite_note-55RST-38) Subsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6) Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., [symbols](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol "Symbol") outside our heads).[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6)[[39]](#cite_note-39) More recently, together with [Georg von Krogh](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Krogh "Georg von Krogh") and [Sven Voelpel](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Voelpel "Sven Voelpel"), Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward.[[40]](#cite_note-39Nonaka-40)[[41]](#cite_note-41) A second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a [system](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System "System") outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from [embodied knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_knowledge "Embodied knowledge") representing a learned capability of a human body's [nervous](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system "Nervous system") and [endocrine systems](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system "Endocrine system").[[42]](#cite_note-40Sensky-42) A third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the [transfer](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer "Knowledge transfer") or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37)[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43) Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [social computing](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_computing "Social computing") tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43)
Structured record
{
"evidence_unit_id": "unit:74fe76b4f93a464895a7:70b27deb2ba84ace5eb4:1:86544c48c35d0e247e65",
"artifact_id": "artifact:74fe76b4f93a464895a7:8ebff0c7afc2ccc23d55",
"text": "[[edit](/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_management&action=edit§ion=3 \"Edit section: Dimensions\")]\n\nDifferent [frameworks](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework \"Conceptual framework\") for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[[5]](#cite_note-1Sanchez-5) One proposed framework for categorising the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes [tacit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge \"Tacit knowledge\") and [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge \"Explicit knowledge\").[[30]](#cite_note-7Snowden-30) Tacit knowledge represents internalised knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as to accomplish particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[[12]](#cite_note-10Bray-12)[[35]](#cite_note-20Alavi-35)\n\n[](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_spiral.svg)\n\nThe Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi\n\nIkujiro Nonaka proposed a model ([SECI](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECI_model_of_knowledge_dimensions \"SECI model of knowledge dimensions\"), for Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation) which considers a spiraling interaction between [explicit knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_knowledge \"Explicit knowledge\") and tacit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36) In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalised' into implicit knowledge.[[36]](#cite_note-38Nonaka-36)\n\nHayes and Walsham (2003) describe knowledge and knowledge management as two different perspectives.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37) The content perspective suggests that knowledge is easily stored; because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognises the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside the specific context in which it is developed.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37)\n\nEarly research suggested that KM needs to convert internalised tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to share it, and the same effort must permit individuals to internalise and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.[[22]](#cite_note-18Addicot-22)[[38]](#cite_note-55RST-38)\n\nSubsequent research suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6) Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., [symbols](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol \"Symbol\") outside our heads).[[6]](#cite_note-48Wright-6)[[39]](#cite_note-39) More recently, together with [Georg von Krogh](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Krogh \"Georg von Krogh\") and [Sven Voelpel](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Voelpel \"Sven Voelpel\"), Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forward.[[40]](#cite_note-39Nonaka-40)[[41]](#cite_note-41)\n\nA second proposed framework for categorising knowledge dimensions distinguishes embedded knowledge of a [system](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System \"System\") outside a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) from [embodied knowledge](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_knowledge \"Embodied knowledge\") representing a learned capability of a human body's [nervous](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system \"Nervous system\") and [endocrine systems](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system \"Endocrine system\").[[42]](#cite_note-40Sensky-42)\n\nA third proposed framework distinguishes between the exploratory creation of \"new knowledge\" (i.e., innovation) vs. the [transfer](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer \"Knowledge transfer\") or exploitation of \"established knowledge\" within a group, organisation, or community.[[37]](#cite_note-11Hayes-37)[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43) Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of [social computing](//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_computing \"Social computing\") tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.[[43]](#cite_note-12Bray-43)",
"access_class": "public",
"heading": "Dimensions",
"observed_at": "2026-07-18T21:40:59.214Z",
"state": "active"
}