54 Corbitt
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
Since the internal search for solutions did not reveal anything helpful to the
purposes at hand, an external, more academic search was conducted. This search
revealed that “knowledge” has many contexts and it is not a simple term to define. In a
study by Croasdell, Jennex, Yu, Christianson, Chakradea, and Makum (2003), the study
of knowledge is examined from the perspectives of artifacts and processes. The authors
looked at work across the disciplines of knowledge management (KM), organizational
memory (OM), and organizational learning (OL). In addition to describing the differences
between data, information, and knowledge, the authors also examine work in the areas
of understanding and learning.
While there are many papers that address the differences in these concepts in more
detail, knowledge in general is thought to have a minimum of two components: (1)
information (“know what”) and (2) “know how” (von Hippel, 1988). Within the context
of discovering the core competencies within an organization, information is a skill or
ability that can be transferred from one person to another without loss of integrity. “Know
how,” on the other hand, is the “accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one
to do something smoothly and efficiently” (von Hippel, 1988). If this is the minimum that
knowledge entails, then the full dimension of knowledge includes the information (know
what) and “know how” components, as well as the understanding (know why) and
creative (care why) dimensions (Kogut & Zander, 1992). In the context of the Croasdell
et al. study (2003), knowledge includes artifacts of information (know what) that can be
captured in a database as well as the “meaning based on personal interpretation” (p. 3).
For purposes of cloning expertise within the corporate setting at hand, however,
knowledge also needs to include “understanding” or knowing when to use the informa-
tion in the proper context.
In other words, the first step in the HP scenario was to define what was meant by
core competency skills, knowledge, and/or abilities. At the time, one path in the literature
focused on knowledge creation where a core competency was defined as those things
that lead to innovation within the firm or organization (Nonaka, 1994). Knowledge
creation had two main components: explicit or codifiable knowledge, and tacit knowledge
that is individual and/or context based. The explicit knowledge is similar to the artifacts
and the “know what” component discussed previously. Tacit knowledge is the notion
that explicit knowledge takes on different meanings and uses depending on the person
who accesses and then uses the explicit skill, ability, or knowledge. This is similar to the
“know how” and understanding components. In fact, building core competencies within
this line of thinking acknowledges that both informal and formal sharing of knowledge
can build new tacit components. From this work, one can conclude that in order to identify
and rebuild core competencies at HP and Agilent, it is important to start with the
individual and keep individuals (experts) associated with identified skills, abilities, and
knowledge. The knowledge base is dynamic as more ways to use the information are
uncovered over time.
Another interesting path within the KM literature at the time was the notion of
“distributed cognition” discussed by Boland, Tenkasi, and Te’eni (1994), which is how
to get knowledge shared within an organizational community. This is the second part of
the HP strategic objective related to knowledge transfer. Distributed cognition is the
process of exchanging information in an autonomous environment such that those
sharing can enhance their own levels of understanding of their own situation and that
of others. At HP, once we knew what we meant by core competencies, certainly we needed