Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

Information vs. Knowledge:

The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management

Dick Stenmark
Volvo Information Technology, Knowledge Management Group,
Dept. 9634, HD3N, Viktoria Institute, P. O. Box 620,
SE-40508 Gothenburg, Sweden SE-40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract knowledge, and if so, what sort of knowledge? What sorts

Knowledge has widely been acknowledged as one of the of knowledge are there? What is knowledge?
most important factors for corporate competitiveness, It seems we have little choice but to return to these
and we have witnessed an explosion of IS/IT solutions eternal questions, but belonging to the IS/IT community,
claiming to provide support for knowledge management we should not approach knowledge from a philosophical
(KM). A relevant question to ask, though, is how systems perspective. As observed by Alavi and Leidner, the
and technology intended for information such as the knowledge-based theory of the firm was never built on a
intranet can be able to assist in the managing of universal truth of what knowledge really is but on a
knowledge. To understand this, we must examine the pragmatic interest in being able to manage organisational
relationship between information and knowledge. knowledge [2]. The discussion in this paper shall therefore
Building on Polanyis theories, I argue that all be aimed at addressing knowledge from an IS/IT
knowledge is tacit, and what can be articulated and perspective, trying to answer two overarching questions:
made tangible outside the human mind is merely What does the relationship between information and
information. However, information and knowledge affect knowledge look like? and What role does an intranet
one another. By adopting a multi-perspective of the have in this relationship? The purpose is to critically
intranet where information, awareness, and review the contemporary KM literature in order to clarify
communication are all considered, this interaction can the relationships between information and knowledge that
best be supported and the intranet can become a useful commonly and implicitly are assumed within the IS/IT
and people-inclusive KM environment. community.
Epistemologically, this paper shall address the
difference between tacit and explicit knowledge by
accounting for some of the views more commonly found in
1. From philosophy to IT
the KM literature. Some of these views shall also be
questioned, and the prevailing assump tion that tacit and
Ever since the ancient Greek period, philosophers have
explicit are two forms of knowledge shall be criticised by
discussed what knowledge is. Early thinkers such as Plato
returning to Polanyis original work. My interest in the
and Aristotle where followed by Hobbes and Locke, Kant
tacit side of knowledge, i.e. the aspects of knowledge that
and Hegel, and into the 20th century by the likes of
is omnipresent, taken for granted, and affecting our
Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn, to name but a few of the
understanding without us being aware of it, has strongly
more prominent western philosophers. In recent years, we
influenced the content of this paper.
have witnessed a booming interest in knowledge also from
Ontologywise, knowledge may be seen to exist on
other disciplines; organisation theorists, information
different levels, i.e. individual, group, organisation and
system developers, and economists have all been swept
inter-organisational [23]. Here, my primary interest is on
away by the knowledge management avalanche. It seems,
the group and organisational levels. However, these two
though, that the interest is particularly strong within the
levels are obviously made up of individuals and we are
IS/IT community, where new opportunities to develop
thus bound to examine the personal aspects of knowledge
computer systems are welcomed. A plausible question to
as well, though be it from a macro perspective.
ask then is how knowledge relates to information
technology (IT). Can IT at all be used to handle

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 1

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

2. Opposite traditions and a middle way? of both. A concerto pianist has the knowledge i.e. the
ability to play the piano, something the Metropolitan
When examining the knowledge literature, two separate opera audience is able to appreciate. This pianist, given a
tracks can be identified: the commodity view and the suitable instrument, would be able to express his or her
community view [35]. The commodity view of or the knowledge equally well in some other location with a
objective approach to knowledge as some absolute and completely new audience. Thus, knowing how to play
universal truth has since long been the dominating view resides within the pianist and is, in this sense, context -
within science. Rooted in the positivism of the mid-19th independent. However, should the same pianist be
century, the commodity view is still especially strong in stranded in the middle of the Amazon jungle and picked
the natural sciences. Disciples of this tradition understand up by some unknown Indian tribe, her knowledge cannot
knowledge as an artefact that can be handled in discrete be manifested. Even if a piano would be available, the
units and that people may possess. Knowledge is a thing Indians would not be able to recognise (and possibly not
for which we can gain evidence, and knowledge as such is even appreciate) a classic masterpiece. To make sense, the
separated from the knower [33]. Metaphors such as piano-playing knowledge of the pianist requires the
drilling, mining, and harvesting are used to describe how context of a knowledgeable audience. Thus, knowing how
knowledge is being managed. to play is meaningless in the wrong tradition or
There is also another tradition that can be labelled the environment. There are thus aspects of knowledge that are
community view or the constructivist approach. This held by the individual and others that are more socially
tradition can be traced back to Locke and Hume but is in constructed. This inter-relationship between individual
its modern form rooted in the critique of the established knowledge and tradition is dealt with by Polanyi when he
quantitative approach to science that emerged primarily speaks of personal knowledge as something not entirely
amongst social scientists during the 1960s, and resulted subjective and yet not fully objective [26]. We shall return
in the publication of books by Garfinkel, Bourdieu, to this topic in section six, but first, let us deal with some
Habermas, Berger and Luckmann, and Glaser and Strauss. definitions.
These authors argued that reality (and hence also
knowledge) should be understood as socially constructed. 3. Data, information, and knowledge
According to this tradition, it is impossible to define
knowledge universally; it can only be defined in practice, Not many would question the fact that information can
in the activities of and interactions between individuals. be made tangible and represented as objects outside of
Thus, some understand knowledge to be universal and the human mind. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a much
context-independent while others conceive it as situated more elusive entity. Add data, and we have a both
and based on individual experiences. Maybe it is a little bit intricate and challenging situation of intertwined and
Table 1: Definitions of data, information, and knowledge

Author(s) Data Information Knowledge

Wiig [41] - Facts organised to describe a T ruths and beliefs, perspectives

situation or condition and concepts, judgements and
expectations, methodologies and
know.how

Nonaka and Takeuchi [23] - A flow of meaningful messages Commitments and beliefs
created from these messages

Spek and Spijkervet [32] Not yet interpreted symbols Data with meaning The ability to asing meaning

Davenport [15] Simple observations Data with relevance and purpose Valuable information from the
human mind

Davenport and Prusak [16] A set of descrete facts A message meant to change the Experiences, values, insights,
receivers perception and contextual information

Quigley and Debons [28] Text that does not answer Text that answers the questions T ext that answers the questions
questions to a particular problem who, when, what, or where why and how

Choo et al. [12] Facts and messages Data vested with meaning Justified, true beliefs

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 2

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

interrelated concepts. It has often been pointed out that knowledge to derive information, and to create data out of
data, information, and knowledge are not the same, but information. Thirdly, it connotes the appraisement that
despite efforts to define them, many researchers use the knowledge is more valuable than information, which in
terms very casually, as is evident from Table 1. In turn is superior to data. This, too, has been challenged.
particular, the terms knowledge and information are often Tuomi [38] argues that data emerges as a result of adding
used interchangeably. Kogut and Zander, for example, value to information, which in turn is knowledge that has
define information as knowledge which can be been structured and verbalised. According to his view,
transmitted without loss of integrity [19: 20], thus there is no raw data, since every measurable or
implying that information is a form of knowledge. This is collectable piece of fact has already been affected by the
typical of early texts on knowledge management, which very knowledge process that made it measurable and
did not sufficiently separate information from knowledge. collectable in the first place. Knowledge, embedded in our
Nonaka, who is widely quoted in the KM discourse, has minds, is thus a prerequisite. We can instantiate some of
too been criticised for such carelessness (cf. [3:133-134]). this knowledge as information, which is explicit and
However, as Nonaka correctly argues, knowledge and processable. By examining the structure of this
information are similar in some aspects, but different in information, we may finally codify it into pure data. Since
some: while information is more factual, knowledge is only data can effectively be processed by computers, data
about beliefs and commitment. is from an IS/IT perspective the most valuable of the three,
Not only are the definitions of the three entities vague and the value hierarchy in Figure 1 should thus be turned
and imprecise: the relationships between them, although upside-down [38].
non-trivial, are not sufficiently dealt with. It is unwise Although Tuomi makes an interesting and iconoclastic
trying to define these entities in terms of each other since argument, he is not right he merely errs in the opposite
such definitions seem to further confuse the picture. direction. It is not the one way or the other. Instead, data,
Figure 1 depicts a view that is commonly found, in information, and knowledge are interwoven and
variants, in the literature; see e.g. [1, 4, 12, 16]. The interrelated in more complicated ways than any of these
problem with the oversimplified figure is that it holds three two models suggest. The three entities influence each
tacitly understood assumptions, which all can be other and the value of any of them depends on the
questioned. purpose for which it is to be used. Both data and
information require knowledge in order to be interpretable,
Knowledge but at the same time, data and information are useful
building block for constructing new knowledge [23].
Information
When the information is used, i.e. interpreted in the light
of the users previous knowledge and experiences, or, as
Kidd puts it, when new facts inform us, the information
Data does not become knowledge but it alters the existing
knowledge by increasing or shifting the individuals
Figure 1. An oversimplified image of the relationship knowledge state, thereby opening new possibilities to act
between data, information, and knowledge. [11, 18]. As we shall see in section eight, this coupling
between knowledge and acting is a reoccurring theme in
Firstly, the image suggests that the relationship the KM literature
between data, information, and knowledge is linear. The In my understanding, data and information are only two
distance between data and information is the same as the opposite ends on a continuum. We can concentrate our
distance between information and knowledge, implying attention to certain aspects of knowledge, making it focal.
that the effort required moving from one entity to another The focal knowledge can, sometimes and partially, be
is the same. Though it may not be possible to correctly articulated and furnished with words. I refer to this as
state the true relationship between these entities, there is information. If the information becomes too de-
nothing that indicates that is should be linear. Secondly, contextualised, i.e. too distant from the knowledge
the image implies that the relationship is asymmetrical, required to interpret it, I shall call it data. Since a piece of
suggesting that data may be transformed into information, text itself is not sufficient to exhaustively describe the
which may be transformed into knowledge, but it does not knowledge to which it refers, the readers tacit knowledge
seem to be possible to go the other way. This assumption must be compatible with that of the writer in order to
can be noticed also in Table 1, where several interpret and fully comprehend the implications of the
commentators define information in terms of data and information. Hence, what one conceives as information
knowledge in terms of information. Obviously, this is another sees as data.
incorrect, since we all on several occasions have used our

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 3

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

4. Adding an IS/IT perspective business strategies, and IT, where the objective is to
leverage and advance the knowledge of those people [17].
When analysing the data/information/knowledge Advocators of the commodity view may think of KM
relationship discussed above from an IS/IT perspective, it systems as computer applications used by knowledgeable
is obvious that computers are very good at handling and humans. Hence, regardless of knowledge perspective, IT
processing data. The transformation of data management may successfully be used to facilitate KM as long as the
into information management also went rather smoothly user perspective is included.
since computers lend themselves well also to information
systems. However, when we now try to cross the border 5. Different aspects of knowledge
and go into knowledge management things become more
complicated. Whereas most people agree that data and The division of philosophy that investigates the origin
information may exist outside humans, supporters of the and nature of knowledge is called epistemology, and its
community view of knowledge would argue that objective is to establish the foundations upon which
knowledge can never be separated from the knower and human knowledge rests. By examining and justifying
thus never stored digitally [17]. Computer support for different aspects of knowledge and make explicit the
knowledge management is thus, in a sense, impossible. relationships and interactions between them, we can
Those who subscribe to the commodity view of develop knowledge systems or schemata capable of
knowledge would claim that knowledge can be explicated answering to questions about the outcome of such
and turned into information, which can be handled by interactions [33]. Following a constructivist approach,
computer. Since we already have information systems, there will be several such knowledge schemata. Spender
computer support for knowledge management would thus speaks in favour of a pluralist epistemology,
not be necessary. However, Alavi and Leidner [2] suggest acknowledging that no single reference system is capable
that although information systems and knowledge of establishing the universal truth [33]. Referring to
systems are not radically different, there is a subtle but Rescher, Spender further argues that in a world of
important difference in the attitude towards and the bounded rationality and imperfect knowledge, where
purpose of the systems. Whereas an information system personal experiences is our principal source of learning,
processes information without engaging the users, a dissensus is a natural state. Attempts to arrive at a view
system for KM must be geared towards helping the users shared by all humans are bound to fail. What we can do is
to understand and assign meaning to the information, to reflect upon our own beliefs and state these so that
thereby including the user perspective. others may appreciate from where our different
By taking an interest in the user perspective, we understandings stem. It also seems plausible that different
acknowledge that though a document may be seen to knowledge schemata are applicable in different situations
carry its own information representation, the user wraps and it is therefore important to ask how a certain
this content in an interpretative envelope, thereby giving perspective is useful in a specific situation. A pluralist
the information a subjective meaning. It is argued that this epistemology is thus inherently pragmatic and situated
combination of content and interpretation is what the user [33].
finds valuable [11]. The value of any given piece of Indeed, a variety of knowledge systems have been
information does thus reside in the relationship between presented: Nonaka [21] distinguishes between tacit and
the information and the users knowledge. On its own, the explicit knowledge; Boisot [6] advocates a typology
information is useless. Consequently, the same objective consisting of proprietary, public, personal, and
information may result in different subjective meanings commonsense knowledge; Choo [11, 12], building on
and values. An IS researcher with a user perspective Boisot, suggest a differentiation between tacit, explicit,
would thus not only examine the information itself but also and cultural knowledge; Blackler [5], elaborating on
the users cognitive and psychological needs and Collins [13], speaks of embodied, embedded, embrained,
preferences [11]. This means that design of KM-systems encultured, and encoded knowledge; Spender [33]
must be based on an understanding not only of separates knowledge into explicit, implicit, individual, and
information architecture and structure, but also of the collective. However, these views are all based on the
situation where the user develops the information need, assumption that some knowledge is difficult to articulate
and analysis of the usage of the same information once it through language and only exist in form of experiences of
has been obtained and interpreted by the user. which we are not always aware. This form of knowledge
Supporters of the community view of knowledge may was first discussed by Polanyi, who coined the phrase
thus understand KM systems not as an IT artefact but tacit knowledge [26]. Another assumption implicitly
as an environment of people, organisational processes, present in much of the KM literature is that some

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 4

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

knowledge can be expressed verbally, collected in books distinct forms of knowledge (i.e., neither is a variant of the
and manuals, and distributed electronically. This is other) //, and that one form cannot be made out of or
referred to as explicit knowledge. I shall in section seven changed into the other [14: 384]. In contrast, Tsoukas,
question the phrase explicit knowledge and claim that all also building on Polanyi, claims that tacit and explicit
knowledge is tacit and explicit knowledge is in fact knowledge are mutually constituted and should not be
information. viewed at two separate types of knowledge [37]. In a
Tsoukas [37] acknowledges that the dichotomy critique of Nonaka, Tsoukas further argues that tacit
between tacit and explicit knowledge and the taxonomies knowledge is not explicit knowledge internalised. In fact,
derived from this duality by several authors have tacit knowledge is inseparable from explicit knowledge
advanced our understanding of organisational knowledge since [t]acit knowledge is the necessary component of all
by showing its multifaceted nature. However, such knowledge [37: 14]. Tsoukas believes that the two are so
typologies also limit our understanding by the inherent inseparately related that to even try to separate the two is
formalism that accompanies them. Building on Pepper, to miss the point. All articulated knowledge is based on
Tsoukas observes that [t]he conceptual categories along an unarticulated and tacitly accepted background of social
which the phenomena are classified must be assumed to practices. We come to know the unarticulated background
be discrete, separate, and stable. The problem is that they by being socialised into a practice and thereby
hardly ever are [37: 14]. Latterly, the discourse within the internalising an understanding that is not only cognitive
European Knowledge Management field seem to move but also embodied [37]. It seems that most scholars share
away from the tacit-explicit distinction, possibly because it the opinion of Tsoukas that it is useful to treat tacit
is not perceived to add to the debate anymore. The KM knowledge separate from explicit knowledge only as long
community seems to think that the topic has been as the two are seen as two separate aspects of knowledge
exhausted and that it is time to move on. However, giving and not as different sorts of knowledge.
up the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is In Polanyis understanding of tacit knowledge, it is
maybe not the best option, especially so since mo st related both to the society in with we act and to our
analytic work on KM has been organisational theory personal interests and commitments [26]. We have been
informed research and not IT related studies. The point socialised into a knowledge tradition that forms what
made here is that some things in organisations are tacitly Tsoukas calls an unarticulated background [37: 14] for
expressed, but therefore not outside the reach of IT our understanding. Our experiences in this environment
support [34]. We should therefore look deeper into the are interpreted in the light of our tradition. When tradition
tacit side of knowledge. is merged with personal interests and experiences, Polanyi
refers to this tacit understanding as personal knowledge
6. Knowledge as a tacit background [26]. The cultural inheritance we carry is transferred from
generation to generation through a social interplay that
The notion of tacit knowledge was introduced by both utilises and transcends language. Via socio-semiotic
Polanyi, a philosopher made known to a larger audience cues and verbal manifestations, we learn not only from the
by being quoted in the writings of Kuhn in 1962 [20] and individuals we interact with directly, but also from
which since has had a renaissance due to the writing of generations before them. Although experiences cannot be
Nonaka [21] and Nonaka and Takeuchi [23]. As Polanyi accumulated in a strict sense, our language enables us to
observed, we can know more than we can tell [27: 136]. be part of a process where individuals and tradition
Unfortunately, Nonaka uses Polanyis term somewhat interact. Individuals and tradition shape each other.
differently from what did Polanyi himself. Due to the Without being aware of or able to express the knowledge
strong influence of Nonakas writings on the knowledge that is tacitly embedded in our tradition and culture, we
management discourse, this misconception has been use it as an unarticulated background against which we
widely adopted. While Polanyi speaks of tacit knowledge distinguish the particulars to which we currently attend.
as a backdrop against which all actions are understood, Therefore, although the statement mass equals
Nonaka uses the term to denote particular knowledge that energy is not difficult to say, it does not imply that it is
is difficult to express. There had perhaps been less of easy to understand, since there is no knowledge in the
confusion had Nonaka used the term implicit knowledge words per se. There is a difference between the
instead of tacit knowledge. description and the object being described. When one
Whilst referring to and building on the arguments of says, I cannot describe how to do it, one often means
Polanyi, different scholars come to contradictory that one cannot describe it sufficiently for someone else to
conclusions. Cook and Brown argue, in what they claim is fully understand it or be able to do it, since understanding
in agreement with Polanyi, that explicit and tacit are two requires familiarity with both the concepts themselves and
the context to which they normally belong. Hence,

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 5

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

knowledge is always tacit. The question, then, is what the always various means to describe and express feelings
phrase explicit knowledge is supposed to mean. and actions. In support of this view, Tsoukas [37] argues
that a practitioners ability to follow rules is grounded on
7. What is explicit knowledge? such unarticulated background knowledge, which results
in that the rules postulated by an observer differs from the
Is there any explicit knowledge? If so, what is the rules actually operating [37:17].
difference between explicit knowledge and information? In general, people from the same tradition and culture
These seem to be important questions and fundamental to have more tacit knowledge in common than have people
our understanding of knowledge management from an from different traditions. Likewise, groups within the same
IS/IT perspective. It is therefore surprising to see that they profession or company have more tacit knowledge in
remain unanswered. common than have mixed groups. Tuomi, building on the
Returning to literature, we learn that Nonaka and work of Fleck, refers to communities of thought to
Takeuchi [23] define explicit knowledge or codified describe the required shared understanding and pragmatic
knowledge as knowledge that can be articulated and in nature of professional knowledge [39]. Only individuals
formal language including grammatical statements, who have a requisite level of shared background can
mathematical expressions, specifications, and manuals. therefore truly exchange knowledge [2]. Tradition,
Such explicit knowledge, they conclude, can be profession, and organisational belonging all carry their
transmitted easily and formally across individuals. Choo own assumptions, and the more overlapping these tacit
[11] suggests that explicit knowledge is knowledge that is assumptions and experiences i.e. the personal
made manifest through language, symbols, objects, and knowledge are, the better from a knowledge sharing
artefacts. Explicit knowledge can further be object based, perspective. If all three realms overlap, the likelihood that
i.e., found as patents, software code, databases, technical two persons (e.g., two North American software
drawings and blueprints, chemical and mathematical developers working for Microsoft) will be able to
formulas, business plans, and statistical reports, or rule understand each other increases, and the discrepancy
based, i.e., expressed as rules, routines, and procedures. between the information providers intended meaning and
Organisations tend to depend primarily on this sort of the recipients interpretation will be small.
explicit and articulated knowledge, written down in memos In contrast, a Scandinavian microwave expert working
and illustrated with graphs and used in decision-making for Ericsson might not understand the text, since she,
processes, or institutionalised as operating procedures, being from another culture, having a different profession,
Choo observes. and working for another company, would not have the
Blackler [5], elaborating on the categories defined by required common knowledge base [2]. In her case,
Collins [13] describes various forms of explicit knowledge. additional information would have to be provided or she
One is referred to as embedded knowledge, i.e. knowledge would have to spend time with software developers and
that resides in systemic routines such as organisational Microsoft employees to acquire the relevant knowledge
procedures, rules, and regulations. Another form is through socialisation [21].
encoded knowledge, which contains anything that uses Information therefore requires knowledge both to be
signs and symbols to convey meaning. created and to be understood. Although information and
All the examples of explicit knowledge given above are knowledge are related, the information per se contains no
such that they easily can be disseminated within and knowledge. Alavi and Leidner posit that information is
across organisational borders. However, Choo admits that converted to knowledge once it is processed in the mind
it does not follow that the receiving party immediately can of individuals and knowledge becomes information once it
comprehend and correctly value the knowledge due to is articulated [2: 109]. The fact that routines, procedures,
different language, different level of maturity, or lack of rules, manuals, books, blueprints, and all the other
required capabilities [12]. How, then, can it be knowledge? examples given above are useful does not make it
My conclusion is that is not knowledge but information. knowledge. They all need knowledge to be decoded and
Although we may not be able to fully describe the face of are therefore not knowledge but information, albeit
someone with whom we are familiar, and also unable able interwoven with the knowledge required to create it.
to give more than a mediocre description of what really Knowledge, which remains tacit, is also needed to
happens when we ride a bike from a scientific perspective, interpret the information. Although some argue that
the information provided may still be helpful. Words are knowledge may be embedded in a text (e.g., a balance
thus often needed, even if they cannot fully transfer sheet where columns and totals have predefined
knowledge. The narrative in itself is not enough for the meanings), the reader cannot appreciate it without
other part to gain a complete understanding, but there are bringing the required personal knowledge. Figure 2
illustrates the separation between knowledge and

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 6

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

information, between the tacit and the articulated. organisation it becomes far more contextual than a search
Knowledge is understood as the tacit part of our traditions for some absolute or universal truth. In organisations,
and experiences while information is the small part we are knowledge is generated by those beliefs to which the
able to articulate. members are most committed [3: 53]. Commitment and
beliefs vary from organisation to organisation, and even
Articulated Information within the same tradition, organisations have their own
Tacit Traditions and Knowledge culture, their own vocabulary, and their own (tacit)
experiences of assumptions. As we have seen, this means that
a person organisational members in general can share knowledge
more easily among themselves than with people outside
the organisation. However, in large organisations where it
Figure 2. Our tacit knowledge can be articulated into is impossible to know every fellow employee, people tend
information if made focal. to gravitate towards those who are similar in a
professional sense.
8. Knowledge in action Such groupings may occur on two levels. One level is
the loosely coupled network of employees sharing a
When Schn elaborates on the relationship between practice but yet being unknown to each other. These
the tacitly implied and the reflected, he admits that we networks of practice may reach far but have little
often cannot say what we know [31]. When we try, we end reciprocity, since the members do not interact to any
up with descriptions that are obviously inappropriate, and significant degree [9]. Within these networks of practice,
there must always be such a gap between the description there is also a second level of tighter clusters, referred to
and the reality to which it refers. A practitioners tacit as communities of practice [8, 24, 25, 40]. In these latter
knowledge is always richer in information than any subgroups, people typically know each other and work
description of it, and her knowledge is implicitly found in together, at least occasionally. When reciprocity
the patterns of his actions. According to Schn, our dominates reach, as it does in communities of practice, an
knowledge is in our actions [31: 49]. environment with enough coherence to allow perspective
Although actions in themselves are rather ephemeral in making emerges [7, 9], and by sharing war stories, i.e.
character, they often leave a tangible result, such as when narratives that to an outsider might seem commonplace
building a house, making a sculpture, or imp lementing a and banal, these members exchange knowledge tacitly
software system. There are also actions that do not result understood only within the community. Members
in new artefacts but yet change the state of things, such sometimes bond more strongly to their community than to
as driving a car from A to B, and actions that are totally their company, which makes it possible for communities to
ephemeral, such as the playing of an instrument. transcend the boundaries of the organisation as in the
Regardless of which, actions are the only way through case of the open source movement.
which knowledge can manifest itself. This does not mean, Schn [31] claims that new understanding comes from
however, that knowledge must result in action in order to reflection. Reflection can occur in action, but this requires
exist. The ability to take action is sufficient, but as long as the practitioner to mentally step back while observing
the knowledge remains inactive, it is of no organisational ones own actions. Such reflection, however, can only
value [12]. take place when the practitioner is not fully preoccupied
One action often seen in offices is the creation of by the action itself. Reflection in action thus requires a
information artefacts such as text, for example in the form certain level of experience that enables the practitioner to
of documents, email, or web pages. In a corporate setting, shift attention from doing the action to how the action is
not only information creation but also information seeking done. Reflection can benefit greatly from being done in
and information interpretation are actions that describe the dialogue, either with colleagues within a community of
interaction between knowledge and information. By practice or with one self, but dialogue means articulating
monitoring these actions, the organisation can learn where and making tacit understanding explicit. Reflection in
certain kinds of knowledge reside and thereby leveraging dialogue with others thus requires an arena that allows a
the tacit knowledge of its members. Individuals benefit multitude of formats and interactions. This is best
both by being able to find knowledgeable colleagues and achieved in face-to-face situation but when physical
by being themselves identified as knowledgeable [34]. meetings are impossible or impractical, virtual meetings on
As discussed above, texts are not understood equally an intranet may provide a viable substitute.
by all. Baumard comments that when the search for
knowledge takes place in the territorial waters of the

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 7

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

9. Intranets in KM work diverse sets of information is important for organisational

knowledge creation since it provides rich stimuli and
Though an intranet can be conceived as many things, requisite variety [23]. The intranet thus affects the
the prevailing image is that of an information silo or a interaction between information and knowledge in todays
repository of unstructured information. This illustrates the organisations by increasing the consumers access to
often-used information-centric perspective of intranets. information and the opportunities for producers to reach a
As argued above, for KM systems to be successful they larger audience. To merely read the text is not enough,
must include users and provide mechanisms for these though. The reader must also reflect upon her
users to locate and interact with each other. One important assumptions, her actions, her experiences, and what
objective for an intranet would be to provide a context consequences changing the rules will have on her future
where dialogue, reflection, and perspective making could actions. Reflection therefore enables us to learn how to
occur. Nonaka and Konno [22] use the Japanese word ba learn. Information plays an important role as a catalyst for
to describe a shared space of physical, virtual, and/or reflection and an information perspective on the intranet is
mental nature, which could be seen as an example of such thus highly relevant for work that requires knowledge. On
an environment. However, Nonaka and Konno primarily top of the infrastructure, applications must be built to
see IS/IT as a facilitator of the Cyber ba, i.e. an complement the information perspective by providing
environment for supporting the combinational phase of awareness and facilitating communication.
knowledge creation where old explicit knowledge is mixed The awareness perspective suggests that not only
and merged to form new explicit knowledge [21, 23]. explicit information links but als o tacitly expressed
Though such support would facilitate the access to and connections should be exploited to hook up
the interaction with information, the remaining knowledge organisational members with information and people they
creation phases that deal also with tacit knowledge, i.e., might otherwise have missed. The large amount of
humans, are not covered. information available can result in information overload,
One suggestion is to view the intranet as a shared and to avoid such a situation and maintain the awareness
information space for content, communication, and perspective, tools to assist the organisational member by
collaboration [12]. The merit of such a model is that it prompting when new and relevant information is added
acknowledges that the information-centric view of the must be developed. By making users aware of peers who
intranet is not sufficient. However, the distinction between not only share an official job description but also have
communication and collaboration has been criticised by accessed the same information or authored similar
the CSCW community, where it has been convincingly documents, the networks of practice discussed earlier can
argued that though there is a clear pragmatic difference be established. Such a network is a prerequisite for
between the two, the distinction is useless from an community building, and increases the likelihood for
theoretical/analytical perspective [10, 29, 30]. Based on successful communication and collaboration.
this critique, I instead suggest a model where the intranet The communication perspective, finally, enables the
as a KM environment is seen from three different organisational members to collectively interpret the
perspectives; the information perspective, the awareness available information by supporting various forms of
perspective, and the communication perspective. This is channels for conversations and negotiations. The intranet
illustrated in figure 3. communication perspective promotes reflection by making
salient different interpretations and viewpoints. By
offering workflows and co-ordinating routines as well as
Information Awareness support for more informal collaboration such as shared
whiteboards and project areas, the intranet provides
means for organisational members to work together. When
Communication engaged in collaborative work with peers that share your
objectives and understand your vocabulary, the common
Figure 3. A multi-perspective view of the intranet context necessary for knowledge sharing exists. From a
communication perspective, we can act upon our new
The information perspective is the most obvious view understanding, thereby transforming our knowledge to
of the intranet, since information provision is a organisational benefit. A major objective for the intranet
fundamental part of the infrastructure. Seen from this must therefore be to enable people to actively work
perspective the intranet gives the organisational members together based on the information available to them, and
access to both structured and unstructured information in facilitate the documentation of their experiences. The
form of databases and documents. Access to rich and intranet would thereby leverage the knowledge of the
organisational members. The communication perspective

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 8

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

must not be isolated from the information and the Viktoria Institute, members of my working group at IRIS,
awareness perspectives. Only as a holistic whole are the and three anonymous HICSS reviewers for their valuable
potentials for successful knowledge management fully comments.
utilised.
12. References
10. Conclusions
[1] Ackoff, R. L., Transformational consulting,
Management Consulting Times, Vol. 28, No. 6., 1997
When trying to manage organisational knowledge
various types of IT-based systems have been devised, [2] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E., Knowledge Management
seemingly without much concern for the nature of and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual
knowledge or how knowledge is different from Foundations and Research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
information. In this argumentative paper, I have examined 25, No. 1, 2001, pp. 107-136.
a broad range of relevant literature and pointed to the
[3] Baumard, P., Tacit Knowledge in Organizations
differences in perspective that exist. I have looked into the
(Organisations Dconcertes: La gestion stratgique de la
relationship between information and knowledge and
connaissance), SAGE, London, UK, 1996/1999.
presented examples from the literature and from my own
understanding. Furthermore, I have tried to position IT in [4] Bellinger, G., Castro, D. and Mills, A., Data,
relation to this discussion and in particular argued for a Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom, Available at
multi-perspective view of the intranet. http://www.outsights. com/systems/dikw/dikw.htm, 1997
Based on Polanyi, I claim that knowledge is based on
[5] Blackler, F., Knowledge, Knowledge Work and
personal experiences and cultural inheritance and
Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation,
fundamentally tacit. We use our knowledge to perform
Organization Studies, Vol. 16, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1021-1046.
actions such as creating information. Although the
knowledge required to create the information is [6] Boisot, M. H., Information Space: A Framework for
interwoven with the information, the reader must still have Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture,
knowledge similar to that of the creator to be able to Routledge, London, UK., 1995.
interpret the information. The more overlapping the
[7] Boland, R. J. and Tenkasi, R. V., Perspective Making
cultural background is between the two, the easier the
and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing,
information is understood. Information is thus a vehicle
Organizational Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1995, pp. 350-372.
for reflection that may, by informing the reader, expand or
relocate his or her knowledge state. Information and [8] Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P., Org anizational Learning
knowledge are different but they affect one another. and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of
When facilitating KM initiatives, information Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organization
technology environments such as intranets may be Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1991, pp. 40-57.
utilised to establish a virtual meeting place where
[9] Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P., The Social Life of
communities of practice can engage in dialogue and
Information, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
collaboration. Actions such as information creation,
MA., 2000.
information seeking, and information interpretation can
successfully be performed in these environments. To [10] Carstensen, P. H. and Srensen, C., From the Social to
facilitate this, intranets must be design to support not only the Systematic: Mechanisms Supporting Coordination in
the informational aspects but also include people by Design, Computer Supported Collaborative Work , Vol.
making salient networks of users with similar interests and 6, 1996, pp. 387-413.
allow these to communicate and collaborate. I therefore
[11] Choo, C. W., The Knowing Organization, Oxford
argue the intranet must be viewed from both an
University Press, New York, NY., 1998.
information perspective, an awareness perspective, and a
communication perspective. [12] Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., and Turnbull, D., Web Work:
Information Seeking and Knowledge Work on the World
11. Acknowledgement Wide Web, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.

[13] Collins, H., The Structure of Kn owledge, Social

This work was funded by the Swedish National Board Research, Vol. 60, 1993, pp. 95-116.
for Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK)
through the Competitive KIFs project within the AIS- [14] Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S., Bridging
programme. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 9

 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing, [29] Schmidt, K. and Bannon, L., Taking CSCW seriously:
Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1999, pp. 381-400. Supporting Articulation Work, Computer Supported
Collaborative Work , Vol. 1, 1992, pp. 7-40.
[15] Davenport, T. H., Information Ecology, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY, 1997. [30] Schmidt, K. and Simone, C., Coordination
Mechanisms: Toward a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW
[16] Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L., Working Knowledge,
Systems Design, Computer Supported Collaborative
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998.
Work , Vol. 5, 1996, pp. 155-200.
[17] Galliers, R. D. and Newell, S., Back to the Future:
[31] Schn, D. A., The Reflective Pra ctitioner, Basic
From Knowledge Management to Data Management, in
Books, 1983.
Proceedings of ECIS 2001, Bled, Slovenia, 2001, pp. 609-
615. [32] Spek, R. v.d. and Spijkervet, A., Knowledge
Management: Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge,
[18] Kidd, A., The Marks are on the Knowledge Worker,
CIBIT, Utrecht, 1997.
In Proceedings of CHI 94, ACM Press, Boston, MA.,
1994, pp. 186-191. [33] Spender, J.-C., Pluralist Epistemology and the
Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Organization, Vol.
[19] Kogut, B. and Zander, U., Knowledge of the Firm.
5, No. 2, 1998, pp. 233-256.
Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of
Technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1992, [34] Stenmark, D., Leverage Tacit Organizational
pp. 383-397. Knowledge, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 9-24.
[20] Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962. [35] Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., and Hislop, D.,
Knowledge Management and Innovation: Networks and
[21] Nonaka, I., A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Networking, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3,
Knowledge Creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1,
No. 4, 1999, pp. 262-275.
1994, pp. 14-37.
[36] Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., and Preston, J., Knowledge
[22] Nonaka, I. and Konno, N., The Concept of Ba:
Management - The Next Fad to Forget People? In
Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation,
Proceedings of ECIS 99, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999,
California Management Review, Vol. 40, Issue 3, 1998, pp.
pp. 668-678.
40-55.
[37] Tsoukas, H., The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge
[23] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., The knowledge-creating
System: A Constructionist Approach, Strategic
company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY., 1995.
Management Journal, 17, Winter Special Issue, 1996, pp.
[24] Orr, J., Sharing Knowledge, Celebrating Identity: War 11-25.
Stories and Community Memory in a Service Culture, in
[38] Tuomi, I., Data is More Than Knowledge:
Middleton and Edwards (Eds.) Collective Remembering:
Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for
Memory in Society, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.,
Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory,
1990.
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No.
[25] Orr, J., Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of 3, 1999, pp. 107-121.
a Modern Job, Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY., 1996.
[39] Tuomi, I., Corporate Knowledge, Metaxis, Helsinki,
[26] Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge, Corrected edition, Finland, 1999.
Routledge, London, 1958/1962.
[40] Wenger, E., Communities of Practice: Learning,
[27] Polanyi, M., The Tacit Dimension, in Prusak, L. (Ed.) Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press,
Knowledge in Organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, Cambridge, UK, 1998.
Newton, MA., 1966/1997, pp. 135-146.
[41] Wiig, K. M., Knowledge Management Foundations:
[28] Quigley, E. J. and Debons, A., Interrogative Theory Thinking About Thinking How People and
of Information and Knowledge, in Proceedings of Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge,
SIGCPR 99, ACM Press, New Orleans, LA., 1999, pp. 4- Schema Press, Arlington, TX., 1993.
10.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 10