Knowledge Creation Process as Communication

connecting SECI and Activity Theory via Cascading Mode

of Communication

Paul Wu Horng-J yh
1
and Lorna Uden
2
1
School of Science and Technology
SIM University
461 Clementi Road, Singapore 599491
paulhjwu@unisim.edu.sg
2
Department of Computing, Engineering and Technology,
Staffordshire University,
Beaconside, Stafford, ST18 0AD, UK
L.Uden@staffs.ac.uk
Abstract. This paper starts with a short review of SECI knowledge creation
process with the aimto situate it in the organizational space supported by social
media. By constructing a model called Cascading Modes of Communication
(CMC), we try to capture the movement towards abstraction of SECI model
over the years. We then indentify certain aspects of CMC that can help to
connect SECI to Activity Theory, which formulates the historical evolving
systems that provide specific units of analysis for doing research. More
importantly, we demonstrate why CMC, in view of Activity Theory, can
explain the logical connection between each of the learning cycles in SECI as
expansive learning.
1 The Evolution of the SECI theory
Information-based organization theory equates optimization of rational behaviour to
business strategy where information is fixed as input to be further processed. SECI
breaks from this view to reveal the (information) knowledge creation process as the
conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge among the individuals in an
organization [1,2]. As in any theory, SECI continues to evolve since its inception [3].
The following Table 1 contrasts SECI processes as defined in the two books
published in 1995 and 2008, respectively.

As shown in Table 1, these definitions remain largely the same over the period of a
decade and half. However, there is a gradual turn in the interpretation of SECI
through the foregrounding of the concept of Ba [4]. Ba is a central theme in Nishidas
philosophy where acting intuition grasps the human being-in-the-world as originally
having the character of action; the essential mode is to act on the world, not to
recognize it [5]. One of the manifestations of such collective activated state of
consciousness is a shared space for emerging relationships so the "magic synthesis" of
contraction, such as rationality and intuition, and explicit and tacit, will produce
creativity. Thus, to participate in Ba means to get involved and transcend one's own
limited perspective despite the seeming contraction that may exist. As we shall argue,
Ba has brought about the dialectic discourse, not only in explaining organizational
knowledge creation, but also in the theories of SECI that transcend and synthesize
through successive round of elaboration.

Table 1. Comparison of description of SECI models in 2008 and 1995, respectively


According to [4], the Ba space under discussion can be physical (e.g., office,
dispersed business space), virtual (e.g. e-mail, teleconference ) or mental (e.g., shared
experiences, ideas, ideals), or any combination of them. In the following, we use the
evolution of the concept of socialization in the SECI literature as an example to
demonstrate the transcendence and dialect turns that produce more and more
abstraction in its interpretation. In [7], some scenarios quoted in socialization involve
apprentices working with their masters or on-the-job training where physical co-
presence is crucial. In [8], the example processes of socialization have reference to
physical environment, including, walking around inside and outside the company.
Certainly, by physically co-present or moving inside and outside the company, one
will interact with the external world (presumably, including people and place) more
closely. At the same time, [3] pointed out that socialization happens in originating Ba
where individuals share feelings, emotions, experiences, and mental models. The
question becomes in what sense, physical co-presence and interaction achieves
socialization where intimate tacit knowledge is shared? We suggest this can be
answered in the following ways: (1) Actors/Participants in the world are constantly in
communication with the external world. (2) The external world consists of other
actors/participants or a space, which bears symbolic meaning to the actors. (3) If
actors/participants adopt the attitude of embracing the external world, the reality of
the external world becomes more vivid the actors/participants can see the reality as
it is. (4) With the same attitude of embrace, the actors/participants will also disclose
whats inside of them more transparently. (5) In view of (4), the other
actors/participants may also then adopt the same embracing attitude. What becomes
apparent in this series of explanation is that the communicative intentionality of the
actors is the most significant in the process of socialization. Thus, [8] explains:
Managing Flow, published
2008 [6]
The Knowledge-creating
Company, published 1995 [7]
Socialization sharing and creating tacit
knowledge through direct
experience
a process of sharing experiences
and thereby creating tacit
knowledge such as shared mental
models and technical skills.
Externalization articulating tacit knowledge
through dialogue and
reflection
a process of articulating tacit
knowledge into explicit concepts.
Combination systemizing and applying
explicit knowledge and
information
a process of systemizing concepts
into a knowledge system
Internalization learning and acquiring new
tacit knowledge in practice
a process of embodying explicit
knowledge into tacit knowledge.
Socialization processes take place when an individual sympathizes or further
emphasizes with others, removing the barrier between the self and others; and
Using epistemological metaphors, Nishidas I love there I am stands in contrast to
Descartess I think therefore I am. And from originating Ba, care, love, trust and
commitment emerge. With these descriptions of transcendental and dialectic turns in
socialization, one can see the physical attribute of co-presence and interaction
becomes more just like means to embrace the reality; the communicative
intentionality of the actors that embraces the external world is the essence of the
socialization processes. Indeed, in [6], socialization is described as, Perceiving the
reality as it is, sensing and empathizing with others and the environment, and
transferring of tacit knowledge. This thus, as claimed earlier, achieves the
abstraction that the introduction of Ba has achieved in socialization, which formulates
it as an act motivated by certain communicative intention, and this is taken to be the
essence of socialization in the following discussion.
2 Cascading Modes of Communication (CMC)
As shown above, the centrality of communicative intentionality is revealed in the
transcendental and dialectic turns of SECI theorizing. In fact, in the study of the
philosophy of language, Searle, following the tradition of Austin, has discovered the
same intentionality in his theory of speech acts, where a speech is taken as an act the
speaker performed with intended results, rather than a mere presentation of what s/he
means [9,10]. Such realization is consistent with Nishidas views that the essence of
existence is acting in the world rather than just perceiving it. In Philosophy of
Sociology [11], Habermas sees actions as the essence of social reality and explained
the rationalization of the society through the theory of communicative actions
grounded on the inter-subjective rather than subjective rationality. Both theories
uncover the structure of the speech acts: (Point 1) each speech carries certain
illocutionary force exerted by the speaker of the message on the hearer, as well as the
speaker; (Point 2) the force may be intended at effecting a change in the state-of-
affairs so the external world fits with the subjective ones or vice versa (namely, the
regulatives target includes both the speaker and the hearer), or it may be intended as
a disclosing of or a stating of facts in the internal and external worlds, respectively
(namely, the expressive and constatives target includes only the speaker); (Point 3)
the degree of the satisfaction of the intended change depends on that of validity
conditions claimed by the speech. For example, when a speaker said I like rock
singing, it is an expressive speech act that discloses the senders preference. For that
speech to be valid, the sender must be sincere in committing him/her-self to such
preference. However, if the speaker said I like rock singing because it is an art. By
supplying the reason of the preference, the speaker intends to invoke a normative rule:
An art is to be preferred, to justify/explain why the speaker has such a preference.
Such speech is no more an expressive speech act, it is rather a regulative speech act
that intends to effect the acceptance of a preference of the speaker by the hearer.
While at the same time, the validity claim of the speech is also different and becomes
dependent on whether the hearer agrees with the implicit social norm that is being
foregrounded by the speech, namely, an art is to be preferred.

A synthesis of Searles and Habermas communication model was done by [12] as shown in
Figures 1a and 1b below:



Figure 1a. A Generic Communication Mode



Figure 1b: Classification of Communication Acts

As shown in Figure 1a, unlike Searles one world (namely, the external) model for
speech acts, Habermas three world model: subjective, objective and social, worlds, is
adopted as the generic model. As shown in Figure 1b, Point 1 discussed above is
reflected in the column Pragmatic function that each speech act has an intended
effect (the pragmatic function) that is to be achieved. The Direction-of-fit and
World columns elaborate Point 2, as each speech as a direction of fit from the
message to one (or more) of the three worlds (subjective the internal, objective and
social worlds the external). The Validity claim column highlights Point 3 as
whether a speech act will obtain the intended effect depends on the rightness, truth,
sincerity or satisfaction of the fore-grounded implicit claims.

With the above generic communication model and speech acts put in place, we can
then attempt to map the SECI space with a Cascading Mode of Communication as
shown in Figure 2 below:


Figure 2: Cascading Modes of Communication

Due to the limited scope of this paper, we will only explain the following: (1) Why
Socialization process can be characterized by the expressives and constatives speech
acts/patterns (2) Why Blog is a social media for Socialization process to take place in
and (3) Why the mapping can explain the SECI processes naturally; the rest of the
issues shall be covered in a future paper.

First, recall Socialization is defined as sharing and creating tacit knowledge
through direct experience in [6]. The speech patterns such as This, X, is truly what I
believe/feel/like achieves the intended results of socialization process because the
speakers/participants disclose their belief and desires truthfully and sincerely and vice
SECI Space Criteria of
Meaningfulness
Communication Mode
(Speech Act Pattern)
Social Media
and Reports
Mode 1 Socialization Authenticity
(truth and
sincerity)
This, X, is truly what I
believe/feel/like
(The expressives and
constatives)
Blog or Social
Network
Mode 2 Externalization Rationality
(rightness and
satisfaction)
I agree/disagree with
/need to clarify about X,
because of Y
(The declaratives and
imperatives, and
interrogatives)
Forum
Mode 3 Combination Normality
(rightness and
satisfaction)
Regardless of X, Z is
what most of us
believe/feel/like.
(The directive-
commissives, with
concessions)
Wiki
Mode 4 Internalization Reality Given Z, how do I do
about X
(This involves material
actions rather than
communicative actions.
Reflective;
Report
versa for the hearers in response to the speakers. Such authentic exchange is indeed
the essence of the Socialization process. In fact such exchanges certainly have the
potential to lead to a situation when an individual/participant sympathizes or even
empathizes with others, removing the barrier between the self and others the very
essence of Initiating Ba that energizes the Socialization space.

Second, as shown in Appendix A, the intended use of blogs is distinct from those
of wikis and forums. Blog posts are made by the blog's author only, and posts are
usually opinion pieces and written in the authors voice. These features fit the speech
patterns This, X, is truly what I believe/feel/like nicely, where I refers to the author.

Third, we shall explain why SECI processes may proceed from Socialization to the
rest of the processes naturally from the perspective of a communication discourse.
Once a speaker expresses his or her true and sincere belief and feeling, there could be,
at least, two opposite responses from the hearer. One response is the acceptance of
such belief or feeling, whereupon social bonds are then forged. The hearer may even
follow-up with a comment, or a like, on the speakers blog. However, the other,
opposite, response could be doubt, or even rejection. If it is doubt, then the hearer,
could then engage with the speaker in clarification, Why do you think this way? If
rejection, s/he could express disagreement by saying I do not agree with you (on X)
because of W. However, the proper place for clarifying doubts and bridging
disagreement will be forum, and not blog, as these speeches are no more expressive
(mere belief and preference) but intended to be regulative (declaratives and
imperatives); they are intended to impose a certain norm or objective fact on the
speaker contrary to the assumption of the point expressed by it at the first place. The
discussion thread structure of a forum can be used to organize a sub-thread whenever
there is a contention in the reasons (X
i
and Y
i
) given to support/validate the
regulatives. Note that, the various X
i
and Y
i
are then the externalized knowledge of
the participants in the Externalization process.

However, such argument cannot proceed indefinitely due to the constraints of
resources that can be afforded. Thus there is a need to arrive at an interim conclusion
to coordinate action and carry on with the business in the organization. At this point,
the leader should then make a statement committing all participants in the discourse
with a consensus agreed by the majority at that point, the speech pattern Regardless
of X
i
(and Y
i
), Z is what most of us agreed, which is then to be recorded in the wiki.
Z is then the combined knowledge in the Combination process. It is also a directive-
commissive act that commits all participants in a common course of actions implied
by the combined knowledge. Certainly, Z can be further edited in the subsequent
rounds of SECI process, if the edits are duly concluded through the S and E steps.

Lastly, the Internalization process is where the reality is being transformed by the
new knowledge Z through the challenge Given Z, how about do I do about X. For
each individual participant, if Z is consistent with X (the participants belief and
preference) then the decision is easy to make. However, if Z is contrary to X, then the
decision requires drastic change of ones knowledge and belief that may not be
achievable. This in turn will be reflected in the material action carried out by the
participant: whether they are in accordance with the committed plan or not. If not,
then the knowledge fails to be internalized and the concerned actor risks being
excluded from the organization in future action. But certainly, this also gives energy
for the concerned participants to ponder carefully whether s/he can initiate a new
round of SECI process by firstly expressing, and admitting, his emotion; for instance,
This Z is driving me crazy, I did not sleep for three days, in a Socialization space.
Given the authenticity of such feeling/belief is being validated in the Socialization
step, it will have the potential to initiate a new round of discourse to revise the
common goal/knowledge. Thus SECI process can be perpetuated for creating new
knowledge for the organization that would be authenticated, rationally argued,
pragmatically normalized, and realistically implemented.
3 Connecting SECI with Activity Theory (AT) via CMC
In [13], Engestrm argued that the main problem with SECI model, and with many
other models of organizational learning, is the assumption that the assignment for
knowledge creation is relatively unproblematically given from above. In the SECI
model, what is to be created and learned is depicted as a management decision that is
outside the bounds of the local process [14]. This assumption leads to a model in
which the first step consists of smooth, conflict-free socializing, the creation of
sympathized knowledge [7]. Engestrms model of expansive learning in work
teams is based on a learning cycle with seven stages in its ideal form as shown in
Figure 3.


Figure 3: Expansive cycle of learning actions.


The cycle starts with individual subjects questioning and criticizing some existing
practices. This is followed by an analysis of the historical causes and empirical inner
relations of the activity system in question. After that, participants engage in
modelling a new solution to the problematic situation. Following that they examine
the new model by experimenting and examining whether it works and what
potentialities and limitations it has. Next, the new model is implemented in order to
explore practical actions and applications, and the process is evaluated during an
activity of reflection. Finally, participants engage in consolidating this practice in its
new form. Through this expansive cycle, in which the actors focus on
reconceptualizing their own activity system in relation to their shared objects of
activity, both the objects and the existing scripts are reconceptualized. The activity
system is transformed and new motives and objects for the activity system created.

Engestrm has criticized Nonaka and Takeuchi for not taking into account the first
two phases of the expansive cycle - questioning and analyzing the situation - and in
doing so, neglecting the importance of controversies and conflicts in knowledge
creation [15].

Such criticism can be reviewed anew through the reconceptualized SECI in CMC.
As explained in the last part of Section 2, the internalization process indeed carries a
problematic situation when combined knowledge that is considered normalized can be
embodied by the actors in carrying out the tasks. Thus, the previous exposition of
SECI perhaps has only explored one of the scenarios where the successive
communicative acts, or SECI processes, do not lead to problematic situations. But
certainly there is no guarantee this is the only scenario each communication discourse
will develop. As explained by [16], communicative actions are not the only possible
actions, when the background knowledge is not sufficient to reconcile the difference,
strategic actions or breaking off of communication or a new round of more reflective
discourse may recommence, similar to what was described in the last part of the last
section. In the case where a new round of more reflective discourse recommences,
certainly, the participants would have certainly questioned and analyzed the situation,
thus the tasks certainly are no longer given by the management and not out of reach
for local processes.
4 Concluding remarks and future research
In an earlier work [17], we have applied CMC to configure an e-learning space of a
Professional Seminar - a maters level course that consists of Blog, Forum and Wiki.
This research is motivated by further exploring the theoretical underpinning of the
CMC model by situating it as a bridge between SECI and Activity Theory (AT). We
gave a brief review of SECI and highlighted the foregrounding of the Ba concept has
helped to evolve SECI model to ever more abstract conceptualization as
communicative intention. With such abstraction, we can then introduce Cascading
Modes of Communication as a way to connect SECI and Activity Theory. In Section
3, SECI, through the mapping with CMC, is seen to be able to resolve problematic
situations arising in a communication discourse, making it more compatible with
ATs expansive learning cycle that starts with questioning the problematic, followed
by a process to resolve that. A more comprehensive analysis is needed; for instance,
the emphasis of transformation between tacit and explicit knowledge is crucial in
SECI, and it does not seem obvious such concepts are relevant to AT. However in
[18], it is stated that the object of an activity resides between the producing activity
and the using activity. We believed here lies another way of interpreting tacit to
explicit knowledge conversion, in that the producing activity aligns along the tacit to
explicit conversion, where through Socialization and Externalization more and more
background knowledge is brought to bear in a problematic situation for constructing a
new common ground (the new tool) that can resolve the problems; and the using
activity (of the new tool), thus align with the explicit to tacit knowledge conversion,
where the explicit knowledge (the new tool) are combined (with the old tools) and are
being internalized by the participants in carrying out the activity.

A second area that should be pursued is to consider whether the distinction
between communicative and material actions is really fruitful for a synthesized theory
of knowledge creation. Concepts such as instrumentality, comprehensibility and
sociality that are tied to different spheres of action are shown to be able to be applied
across both communicative and material actions [19]. Unifying the different spheres
of action, the analysis applied in Cascading Modes of Communication (CMC) can be
used to analyze the sociality in Activity Theory (AT), for instance, how the social
dimensions of community, division of labors and rules, of an activity system can be
systematically constructed through communicative action. While at the same time, the
notation of instrumentality in AT can be used to examine how a speech act can be
seen as a tool instrumental to material actions and thus, tools may not merely seen as
material but also communication tools.
Last and most importantly, we should leverage on the precision of analysis in AT
to increase the preciseness of the analysis of SECI. Through CMC, the unit of
analysis of SECI can be fixed at the level of successive speech acts. We need to carry
out the same rigor in analyzing the SECI discourse as communication enacted by the
interacting Activity Systems.
References
1 Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: accelerating information
creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9-18.
2 Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). Frominformation processing to knowledge
creation: a paradigmshift in business management. Technology in society, 18(2), 203-218.
3 Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation
theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization studies,27(8), 1179-1208.
4 Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of" Ba": BUILDING A FOUNDATION
FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION. California management review,40(3).
5 Yuasa, Y. (1987). The body: Toward an Eastern mind-body theory. Suny Press
6 Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing flow: A process theory of the
knowledge-based firm (Vol. 19). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press
8 Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge
creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge management research & practice, 1(1), 2-
10.
9 Searle, J . R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626).
Cambridge university press.
10 Austin, J . L. (1975). How to do things with words (Vol. 1955). Oxford university press.
11 Habermas J . (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One, Reason and the
Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press, Boston
12 Eriksson, O. (1999). A generic communication model based on Habermas and Searles
versions of Speech act Theory. Listener, 1, 5.
13 Engestrm, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning
work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974
14 Engestrm, Y. (1999a). 23 Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of
knowledge creation in practice. Perspectives on activity theory, 377.
15 Engestrm, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical
perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1-2), 63-93.
16 Habermas, J . (2000). On the pragmatics of communication. MIT press.
17 Wu, H-J P (2004). Knowledge and Community Formation via Cascading Modes of
Communication with a Case Study and Research Desig. The 8
th
International
Conference of Knowledge Management in Organizations, 189-204
18 Virkkunen, J . (2009). Two theories of organizational knowledge creation. Learning and
expanding with activity theory, 144-159.
19 Goldkuhl, G. (2001). Communicative vs material actions instrumentality, sociality and
comprehensibility. Univ., Centrumfr studier av mnniska, teknik och organization
Appedix A: Differences between Discussion Boards, Blogs and
Wikis (retrieved, May 12
th
2014,
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/myuni/staff/resources/tutorials/content/Differ
ences_between_Discussion_Boards__Blogs_and_Wikis.html)



Discussion Forums are TOPIC
centred.
discussions are organised into topics
by 'threads'
anyone in the community can start a
thread on a topic of their choosing
all participants have an equal voice
posts require someone to reply for a
discussion to take place
you can follow through a thread on a
particular topic
Blogs are AUTHOR centred.
posts are made by the blog's
author only (may be a group)
posts are usually opinion pieces
and written in the authors voice
readers can add comments to
the author's post
organised in reverse
chronological order so the most
recent posts show on the entry
page
reflect the authors identity in the
tone, look and feel and content
Wikis are CONTENT/DOCUMENT
centred.
wikis are for group authoring
editable website with a complete
version history kept
aim is to reach a consensus or
compromise on the content of the
page
the focus is the content produced,
not the individual authors
usually neutral and objective
discussion/comment is separated
from the wiki content
Used to DISCUSS and DEBATE
class discussion
debate
q and a
role play
help forums
social forum
online icebreakers
Used to REFLECT and REVIEW
learning reflections
journal writing
book reviews
resource reviews
software reviews
editorial style articles
personal publishing
travel diaries
news
Used to COLLABORATE and
SYNTHESISE
group projects
group authoring of academic papers
collaborative writing
easy to update website
knowledge base
faq
planning events and activities