Cognitive Processing

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 461–477 | Cite as

Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion

  • Osvaldo Cairó BattistuttiEmail author
  • Dominik Bork
Research Report


The ability to create, use and transfer knowledge may allow the creation or improvement of new products or services. But knowledge is often tacit: It lives in the minds of individuals, and therefore, it is difficult to transfer it to another person by means of the written word or verbal expression. This paper addresses this important problem by introducing a methodology, consisting of a four-step process that facilitates tacit to explicit knowledge conversion. The methodology utilizes conceptual modeling, thus enabling understanding and reasoning through visual knowledge representation. This implies the possibility of understanding concepts and ideas, visualized through conceptual models, without using linguistic or algebraic means. The proposed methodology is conducted in a metamodel-based tool environment whose aim is efficient application and ease of use.


Knowledge conversion Knowledge modeling Knowledge acquisition Knowledge management Knowledge-based systems 



This paper was partially funded by Asociación Mexicana de Cultura A.C.


  1. Al-Alawi A, Al-Marzooqi N, Mohammed Y (2007) Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. J Knowl Manag 11(2):22–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonious G, van Harmelen F (2004) Web ontology Language: OWL. In: Staab S et al (eds) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bork D, Fill H-G (2014) Formal aspects of enterprise modeling methods: a comparison framework. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’2014), pp 3400–3409Google Scholar
  4. Bork D, Buchmann RA, Karagiannis D (2015) Preserving multi-view consistency in diagrammatic knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on knowledge science, engineering and management, KSEM 2015, pp 177–182Google Scholar
  5. Breuker J (1987) Model driven knowledge acquisition: interpretation models. In: Breuker J (ed) Deliverable A1, Esprit Project 1098, memo 87, VF project knowledge acquisition in formal domains. University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairó O, Guardati S (2012) The KAMET II methodology: knowledge acquisition, knowledge modeling and knowledge generation. Expert Syst Appl 39(9):8108–8114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairó O, Poblete K (2015) KAMET II Conceptual Modeling Language, a visual and consistent language proved using Concept Algebra. Proc Comput Sci 60:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cañas AJ, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Gómez G, Eskridge T, Arroyo M, Carvajal R (2004) CmapTools: a knowledge modeling and sharing environment. In: Cañas AJ, Novak JD, González FM, (eds) Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  9. Cyert R, March A (1994) A behavioral theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 15:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druker P (2001) The next society: a survey of the near future. Economist 3(1):2–20Google Scholar
  11. Fensel D, van Harmelen F, Horrocks I, McGuinness D, Patel-Schneider P (2001) OIL: an ontology infrastructure for the Semantic Web. Intell Syst 16(2):38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fill H-G, Karagiannis D (2013) On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp Modell Inf Syst Archit Int J 8(1):4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford K, Can̄as A, Jones J, Stahl H, Novak J, Adams-Webber J (1991) ICONKAT: an integrated constructivist knowledge acquisition tool. Knowl Acquis 3(2):215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freud S (1922) Introductory lectures on Psychology. George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Garshol L (2004) Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all. J Inf Sci 30(4):378–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gatignon H, Tushman M, Smith W, Anderson P (2002) A structural approach to assessing innovation: construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Manag Sci 48(9):1103–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendler J, McGuinness D (2000) The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intell Syst 15(6):67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herschel R, Nemati H, Steiger D (2001) Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: knowledge exchange protocols. J Knowl Manag 5(1):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johannsen F, Leist S (2012) Wand and Weber’s decomposition model in the context of business process modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 4(5):271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karagiannis D, Kühn H (2002), Metamodeling platforms. In: Proceedings of the third international EC-Web 2002—Dexa, Aix-en-Provence, Springer, p 182Google Scholar
  21. Karagiannis D, Mayr HC, Mylopoulos J (2016a) Domain-specific conceptual modeling: concepts, methods and tools. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karagiannis D, Buchmann RA, Bork D (2016b) Managing consistency in multi-view enterprise models: an approach based on semantic queries. ECIS 2016: research paper 53Google Scholar
  23. Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification.
  24. Leidner D, Kayworth Y (2006) A review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q 30(2):357–399Google Scholar
  25. Motta E, Stutt A, Zdrahal Z, O’Hara K, Shadbolt N (1996) Solving VT in VITAL: a study in model construction and knowledge reuse. Int J Hum Comput Stud 44(3/4):333–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mylopoulos J (2008) Conceptual modelling and Telos. Conceptual modeling, databases, and CASE, pp 363–376Google Scholar
  27. Nonaka I, von Krogh G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ Sci 20(3):635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nonaka I, Toyama R, Konno N (2000a) SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan 33(1):5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nonaka I, Toyama R, Nagata A (2000b) A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Ind Corp Change 9(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pepper S (2000) The TAO of topic maps.
  31. Reddy M (1979) The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 284–310Google Scholar
  32. Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer L (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1Google Scholar
  33. Schreiber G, Wielinga B, de Hoog R, Akkermans H, Van de Velde W (1994) CommonKADS: a comprehensive methodology for KBS development. IEEE Expert 9(6):28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Krogh G, Ichijo K, Nonaka I (2000) Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vygotsky L (1986) Thought and language. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang Y (2008) On concept algebra: a denotational mathematical structure for knowledge and software modeling. J Cognit Inf Nat Intell 2(2):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenger E (2000) Communities ODF practice and social learning systems. Organization 7:2225–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yli-renko H, Autio E, Sapienza H (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge explotation in young technologies-based firms. Strateg Manag J 22:587–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.University of Vienna, Faculty of Computer Science, Research Group Knowledge EngineeringViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations