**3. Background theories and assumptions**

The theories and assumptions presented in this section are, for some parts, excerpts from two chapters published by IntechOpen: "Toward Knowledge-Based Management" [2] and "Three postulates that change the paradigm of knowledge management" [3].

### **3.1 Creation of tacit knowledge**

Our vision on creation of tacit knowledge is based on the theories of Shigehisa Tsuchiya concerning organizational learning [5]. Professor Tsuchiya drawing on the concepts suggested by Polanyi of "tacit knowledge" [6], "sense-giving," and "sense-reading" [7], added the concept of "interpretative framework," which from our perspective can be considered a mental model as defined by Jones *et al*. [8]3 . Polanyi defined the "sense-giving" and "sense-reading" as follows: "*Both the way we endow our own utterance with meaning and our attribution of meaning to the utterances of others are acts of tacit knowing*" (p. 301). Tsuchiya observed there exists a clear distinction among terms "datum," "information," and "knowledge" that are often used interchangeably ([5], p. 88). He explained that when data are sense-given through interpretative framework, it becomes information, and when information is sense-read through interpretative framework, it becomes knowledge. We can say that tacit knowledge that resides in our brain results from the sense given to data

<sup>3</sup> "Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to Interact with the world around them… They provide the mechanism through which new information is filtered and stored." (Abstract)

### **Figure 1.**

that we perceive among the information, which are transmitted to us. These data are filtered by our interpretative frameworks. Following our own interpretation of this point of view, **Figure 1** shows the process of transformation from a set of data to information and tacit knowledge. Let us describe this process.

At phase 1, we have to consider the relationship between data and information. This phase must be thought as a basic process where data are discrete raw elements perceived, gathered, and filtered by a person. A transmitter P1, acting in specific context and situation at time T0. P1 has preexisting interpretative frameworks, previous tacit knowledge, and intentions4 . During an information creation phase, P1 has direct access to a set of data outside himself. Then, P1 according to a sensereading process—that depends on his preexisting interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions, filters some of these data that take sense for him. At the same time, a sense-giving process using P1's previous tacit knowledge enables P1 to aggregate, supplement, and organize selected data into information I (P1T0). Once created, this information becomes a static object independent from P1 and time. It is this information that is passed on by the individuals or by means of the digital information system (DIS) where it is stored, treated, and transmitted as a stream of digital data. During this process, P1's preexisting interpretative frameworks are not changing; previous tacit knowledge can be reorganized and modified into new tacit knowledge.

At phase 2, we have to consider the relationship between information and tacit knowledge. This phase is in rupture with the first one, it presupposes that information already exists whatever are time and context in which it was created.

Later, after phase 1, at time Tn, when receiver P2 perceives the information I (P1T0) during a reception, self-reflection, and observation phase, this information

*Process of transformation from a set of Data to tacit knowledge.*

<sup>4</sup> In that case, intention is built up in the brain of a person under the influence: on the one hand, of the context and the situation in which the person finds himself, and on the other hand, the information she receives and the spontaneous activation of previous tacit knowledge more or less clear such as her intuition, emotions, beliefs and previous representations.

*Knowledge-Based Management: the Creative Power of Tacit Knowledge in the "Age of New… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101947*

I (P1T0) is captured by P2, who is in different context and situation than P1 who elaborates it. P2 has his own intentions. Then, P2 according to a sense-reading process interprets this information I (P1T0), filtering data through his preexisting interpretative frameworks activated depending of his context, his situation, and his intentions. At the same time, a sense-giving process that uses P2's previous knowledge operates and engenders new tacit knowledge.

### **3.2 Commensurability of interpretative frameworks**

Professor Tsuchiya [5] emphasizes how organizational knowledge is created through dialog. Let us quote him: "*It is important to clearly distinguish between sharing information and sharing knowledge. Information becomes knowledge only when it is sense-read through the interpretative framework of the receiver. Any information inconsistent with his interpretative framework is not perceived in most cases. Therefore, commensurability*<sup>5</sup> *of interpretative frameworks of members is indispensable for individual knowledge to be shared.*" (p. 89) He highlighted that "commensurability" of the interpretative frameworks of the organizations members is indispensable for an organization to create organizational knowledge for decision and action.

During the process of transformation described Section 3.1, knowledge created can be very different from one person to another when the commensurability of their interpretative frameworks is small. There are large risks that the same information takes different senses for each of them and consequently generates different tacit knowledge in their brain. Unlike the information, knowledge is dynamic. Once constructed, knowledge cannot be considered as an object independent from the person who built it or the individual who appropriates it to make a decision and to act.

However, one must take into account that interpretative frameworks evolve in a dynamic way: they are not rigid frameworks. Especially, when considering that, as time is going on, contexts and situations evolve. Thus, the contribution of scientific results, techniques and new methods, the influence of young generations, the impact of identity crisis and multiple cultures, modify the interpretative frameworks, and create a gap between individuals' commensurability of interpretative frameworks. It is what happens considering the impact of COVID-19 crisis.

### **3.3. Creative power of tacit knowledge**

The creative power of tacit knowledge appeared in the doctoral thesis of Professor André Niel. His thought, which remained in the form of unfinished documents, is reflected in his book [9]. In particular, he analyzes the "field of the creative relationship" between people. It shows how the energy that occurs in the field of relationship can be transformed into combat energy, into creative energy, or (if nothing happens) into the self-destructive energy of mental anguish, depending on the nature of people and modes of communication that can, or cannot, establish themselves among themselves. Having known him well and having led creative groups with him to experiment with the "field of creative relationship," we had the opportunity to measure the creative power of tacit knowledge in the exchanges between people in this field of relationship.

The tacit knowledge of an individual affects his behavior. The behavior of an individual is triggered by information, which, in a given context and situation, is interpreted through its interpretative frameworks and transformed into tacit knowledge that makes him act in the form of interactions and exchanges of knowledge with other individuals and the digital information system.

<sup>5</sup> Here, commensurability is the common space of the whole interpretative frameworks of each member.
