**2.1 Objective knowledge**

Several attempts to define tacit knowledge later acknowledged that it can be compared to objective knowledge, and that become one of the conversional definitions of tacit knowledge and established by many authorities in knowledge management literature [11]. In some explanations Smith [12], opined that it is the type of knowledge shared using symbolic gestures or signs between individuals and groups. The recipients of this knowledge can be as much in the known as the originator. It implies that objective knowledge may consist of two components. According to [13] the first category of objective knowledge is the ability to communicate; it is easily encoded, comprehended, written or documented and explained. The second classification is concerned with possessing objective knowledge. In the views of Lee et al. [14, 15] this type of knowledge is not peculiar to the individual possessing it or the organization. According to Inkpen and Dinur [16] this form of knowledge may be shared among a group of people. The diverse opinions of tacit knowledge and the few consensus has featured countless time in literature with the possibility of defining exactly what objective knowledge is. Irrespective of the consensus meanings of this term many scholars prefer to conceive their own terminologies that best describe objective knowledge. Hedlund [17] refers to it as articulated knowledge. Dampney et al. [18] defined it as articulable knowledge and according to Nonaka and von Krogh [19] the main attribute of objective knowledge is explicit, Fernandez and Sabherwal [20] consider it verbal while documented it as declarable in nature. These terminologies and definitions are the fundamental of knowledge management. However, these terms are often interpreted in contexts, but most importantly they tend to explain what tacit knowledge is not.
