According to Beckman, (1999) the best way to organize knowledge is through some debate. The most powerful and supportive classifications of KM is based on a blend of knowledge accessibility (knowledge stored or located where and in what form?) and knowledge transformation (the flow of knowledge from one place to another and from one form to another). Innovation or knowledge happens as a result of the flow and alteration of knowledge.
Based on the “knowledge matrix” of Nonaka & Takeuchi knowledge is classified as either explicit or tacit, and either individual or collective. They state that knowledge is transformed from one form to another i.e., socialisation (from unspoken to unspoken, where an individual acquires tacit knowledge straight from others through shared experience, observation, imitation and so on); externalisation (from tacit to explicit, through expression of tacit knowledge into explicit concepts); combination (from explicit to explicit, by a systematisation of concepts drawing on different bodies of explicit knowledge); and internalisation (from explicit to tacit, through a process of "learning by doing" and through a verbalisation and documentation of experiences).
Boisot's I-Space Model
Boisot (1998) proposes a model of knowledge asset development which has an extra dimension to the model developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi. His model introduces abstraction, meaning that knowledge may become inferred to different situations.
In Boisot's strategy, knowledge assets can be situated in a 3 dimensional space distinct by axes from "uncodified" to "codified", from "concrete" to "abstract" and from "undiffused" to "diffused". He then suggests a "Social Learning Cycle" (SLC) which makes use of the I-Space to mold the energetic flow of knowledge through a sequence of 6 stages:
It is clear from both Boisot's and Nonaka & Takeuchi model that the course of growing and increasing knowledge assets inside organisations is constantly changing.
APQC International Benchmarking Clearinghouse Study based on business process
Karl Wiig (1997) and the APQC (American Productivity and Quality Center) acknowledged 6 budding KM strategies. The strategies mirror the diverse natures and intensities of the organisations concerned (Wiig, 1997; Manasco,