Data: Facts and figures which relay something specific, but are not organized in any way and

provide no further information regarding patterns, context, etc

Thierauf (1999): "unstructured facts and figures that have the least impact on the typical
manager."

Information: For data to become information, it must be contextualized, categorized,

calculated and condensed (Davenport & Prusak 2000). Information thus paints a bigger picture;
it is data with relevance and purpose. It may convey a trend in the environment, or perhaps
indicate a pattern of sales for a given period of time. Essentially information is found "in
answers to questions that begin with such words as who, what, where, when, and how many"
(Ackoff 1999).
IT is usually invaluable in the capacity of turning data into information, particularly in larger
firms that generate large amounts of data across multiple departments and functions. The
human brain is mainly needed to assist in contextualization.
Knowledge: Knowledge is closely linked to doing and implies know-how and understanding.
The knowledge possessed by each individual is a product of his experience, and encompasses
the norms by which he evaluates new inputs from his surroundings "Knowledge is a fluid mix of
framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight, and grounded intuition that
provides an environment and framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information. It originates and is applied in the mind of the knowers. In organizations it often
becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in organizational routines,
practices and norms."
Types of knowledge:
Within business and KM, two types of knowledge are usually defined, namely explicit and tacit
knowledge. The former refers to codified knowledge, such as that found in documents, while
the latter refers to non codified and often personal/experience-based knowledge. Some
researchers make a further distinction and talk of embedded knowledge.
Explicit Knowledge

This type of knowledge is formalized and codified, and is sometimes referred to as know-what
(Brown & Duguid 1998). It is therefore fairly easy to identify, store, and retrieve (Wellman
2009). This is the type of knowledge most easily handled by KMS, which are very effective at
facilitating the storage, retrieval, and modification of documents and texts.
From a managerial perspective, the greatest challenge with explicit knowledge is similar to
information. It involves ensuring that people have access to what they need; that important
knowledge is stored; and that the knowledge is reviewed, updated, or discarded.
Many theoreticians regard explicit knowledge as being less important (e.g. Brown & Duguid
1991, Cook & Brown 1999, Bukowitz & Williams 1999, etc.). It is considered simpler in nature
and cannot contain the rich experience based know-how that can generate lasting competitive
advantage.
Although this is changing to some limited degree, KM initiatives driven by technology have
often had the flaw of focusing almost exclusively on this type of knowledge. As discussed
previously, in fields such as IT there is often a lack of a more sophisticated definition. This has
therefore created many products labeled as KM systems, which in actual fact are/were nothing
more than information and explicit knowledge management software.
Explicit knowledge is found in: databases, memos, notes, documents, etc. (Botha et al. 2008)
Tacit Knowledge

This type of knowledge was originally defined by Polanyi in 1966. It is sometimes referred to as
know-how (Brown & Duguid 1998) and refers to intuitive, hard to define knowledge that is
largely experience based. Because of this, tacit knowledge is often context dependent and
personal in nature. It is hard to communicate and deeply rooted in action, commitment, and
involvement (Nonaka 1994).
Tacit knowledge is also regarded as being the most valuable source of knowledge, and the most
likely to lead to breakthroughs in the organization (Wellman 2009). Gamble & Blackwell (2001)
link the lack of focus on tacit knowledge directly to the reduced capability for innovation and
sustained competitiveness.
KMS have a very hard time handling this type of knowledge. An IT system relies on codification,
which is something that is difficult/impossible for the tacit knowledge holder.
Using a reference by Polanyi (1966), imagine trying to write an article that would accurately
convey how one reads facial expressions. It should be quite apparent that it would be near
impossible to convey our intuitive understanding gathered from years of experience and
practice. Virtually all practitioners rely on this type of knowledge. An IT specialist for example
will troubleshoot a problem based on his experience and intuition. It would be very difficult for
him to codify his knowledge into a document that could convey his know-how to a beginner.
This is one reason why experience in a particular field is so highly regarded in the job market.
The exact extent to which IT systems can aid in the transfer and enhancement of tacit
knowledge is a rather complicated discussion. For now, suffice it to say that successful KM
initiatives must place a very strong emphasis on the tacit dimension, focusing on the people
and processes involved, and using IT in a supporting role.
Tacit knowledge is found in: the minds of human stakeholders. It includes cultural beliefs,
values, attitudes, mental models, etc. as well as skills, capabilities and expertise (Botha et al
2008). On this site, I will generally limit tacit knowledge to knowledge embodied in people, and
refer separately to embedded knowledge (as defined below), whenever making this distinction
is relevant.

Embedded Knowledge

Embedded knowledge refers to the knowledge that is locked in processes, products, culture,
routines, artifacts, or structures (Horvath 2000, Gamble & Blackwell 2001). Knowledge is
embedded either formally, such as through a management initiative to formalize a certain
beneficial routine, or informally as the organization uses and applies the other two knowledge
types.
The challenges in managing embedded knowledge vary considerably and will often differ from
embodied tacit knowledge. Culture and routines can be both difficult to understand and hard to
change. Formalized routines on the other hand may be easier to implement and management
can actively try to embed the fruits of lessons learned directly into procedures, routines, and
products.
IT's role in this context is somewhat limited but it does have some useful applications. Broadly
speaking, IT can be used to help map organizational knowledge areas; as a tool in reverse
engineering of products (thus trying to uncover hidden embedded knowledge); or as a
supporting mechanism for processes and cultures. However, it has also been argued that IT can
have a disruptive influence on culture and processes, particularly if implemented improperly.
Due to the difficulty in effectively managing embedded knowledge, firms that succeed may
enjoy a significant competitive advantage.
Embedded knowledge is found in: rules, processes, manuals, organizational culture, codes of
conduct, ethics, products, etc. It is important to note, that while embedded knowledge can
exist in explicit sources (i.e. a rule can be written in a manual), the knowledge itself is not
explicit, i.e. it is not immediately apparent why doing something this way is beneficial to the
organization.
Knowledge management is the systematic management of an organization's knowledge assets
for the purpose of creating value and meeting tactical & strategic requirements; it consists of
the initiatives, processes, strategies, and systems that sustain and enhance the storage,
assessment, sharing, refinement, and creation of knowledge.
Knowledge management (KM) therefore implies a strong tie to organizational goals and
strategy, and it involves the management of knowledge that is useful for some purpose and
which creates value for the organization.
Generally, KM is a concept, in which an enterprise gathers, organizes, analyses, & share its
knowledge in terms of resources, documents, and people skills. It helps an organization to gain
insight and understanding from its own experience. It is the process through which
organizations generate value from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets.

A knowledge manager takes the responsibility of facilitating the on-going process of knowledge
sharing and knowledge renewal. It is important to understand how knowledge is formed, and
how people and organizations learn to use it wisely. Once the best advice is collected, the
course manager publishes the information in notebooks and distributes them to all the
concerned employees.

The end result of a well-designed knowledge management programme is that everyone wins.
KM is a newly emerging, interdisciplinary business model dealing with all aspects of knowledge
within the context of the company. It encompasses both technological tools and organizational
routines in overlapping parts to include knowledge creation, knowledge codification, and
knowledge sharing to promote learning and innovation.

Before we further discuss KM in the organizational context, it is important to clarify certain

wrong assumptions about it. Often we believe that KM is about technology, but this is not
correct. Technology acts as an enabler in KM functions. Knowledge is about people who
collaborate and share their experiences to help the organization develop its human resources.
Knowledge is innovative use of information.

It is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or
association. From the organizational behaviour point of view, knowledge may also be described
as a set of models that describe various properties and behaviours within a domain.

Knowledge may be recorded in the individual brain or stored in the organizational process,
products, facilities, systems, and documents (Webster’s Dictionary). Knowledge is the capacity
to act. It is the product of learning, related to human action, and is more than just a piece of
information.

Knowledge assets are the knowledge regarding markets, products, technologies, and
organizations, that a business owns or needs to own and which enable its business process to
generate profits. KM involves identification and analysis of the available and required
knowledge, and the subsequent planning and control of actions to develop knowledge assets so
as to fulfil the organizational objectives.

Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying,

capturing, retrieving, sharing, and evaluating an enterprise’s information assets. The
information assets may include databases, documents, policies, and procedures as well as the
un-captured tacit expertise and expertise resident in individual workers. Corporate knowledge
is the sum of ‘justified beliefs’ of the employees, which diminishes with the departure of
employees. It is the major source of competitive advantage. It can never be static.

KM is important because there is increasing competition in the marketplace. To fight

competition, organizations need to be innovative. They should focus on the creation of
customer values and reduction in the size of the work force. To manage knowledge, we need to
first identify the organizational knowledge assets, understand how knowledge can add value,
specify what actions are necessary to achieve better usability and added value and finally
review the use of knowledge to ensure added value.

Knowledge management encompasses human capital, which are organizational learning,

educational levels, employee empowerment, management experience, and time in training.
Innovation capital consists of copyrights and trademarks, patents (legally protected intellectual
assets), new market, and research leadership. Process capital includes strategy, decisions, cycle
time, and IT capacity. Customer capital includes market growth and share, customer size and
contact, and image enhancing customers.
Organizational Knowledge Resources

Business knowledge can exist on several different levels:

Individual: Personal, often tacit knowledge/know-how of some sort. It can also be explicit, but

it must be individual in nature, e.g. a private notebook.
Groups/community: Knowledge held in groups but not shared with the rest of the organization.
Companies usually consist of communities (most often informally created) which are linked
together by common practice. These communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) may share
common values, language, procedures, know-how, etc. They are a source of learning and a
repository for tacit, explicit, and embedded knowledge.
Structural: Embedded knowledge found in processes, culture, etc. This may be understood by
many or very few members of the organization. E.g. the knowledge embedded in the routines
used by the army may not be known by the soldiers who follow these routines. At times,
structural knowledge may be the remnant of past, otherwise long forgotten lessons, where the
knowledge of this lesson exists exclusively in the process itself.
Organizational: The definition of organizational knowledge is yet another concept that has very
little consensus within literature. Variations include the extent to which the knowledge is
spread within the organization, as well as the actual make-up of this knowledge. Hatch (2010)
defines it as: "When group knowledge from several subunits or groups is combined and used to
create new knowledge, the resulting tacit and explicit knowledge can be called organizational
knowledge. A very common solution is to use something like Microsoft Sharepoint or
Helpjuice's Internal Knowledge Base Software"
Others present a broader perspective: "individual knowledge, shared knowledge, and
objectified knowledge are different aspects or views of organizational knowledge" (Ekinge &
Lennartsson 2000). As always, texts emphasizing an IT based outlook once again offer
shallower, information-based definitions, e.g. Virvou & Nakamura 2008, "Information
internalized by means of research, study or experience that has value to the organization".
For the purpose of this site I will adopt a broad, knowledge-based perspective. Organizational
knowledge is therefore defined as: all the knowledge resources within an organization that can
be realistically tapped by that organization. It can therefore reside in individuals and groups, or
exist at the organizational level.
Extra-organizational: Defined here as: Knowledge resources existing outside the organization
which could be used to enhance the performance of the organization. They include explicit
elements like publications, as well as tacit elements found in communities of practice that span
beyond the organization's borders.
Implications for KM

In order to enhance organisational knowledge, KM must therefore be involved across the entire
knowledge spectrum. It must help knowledge development at all levels and facilitate &
promote its diffusion to individuals, groups, and/or across the entire firm, in accordance with
the organization's requirements. KM must manage organizational knowledge storage and
retrieval capabilities, and create an environment conducive to learning and knowledge sharing.
Similarly it must be involved in tapping external sources of knowledge whenever these are
necessary for the development of the organizational knowledge resources.
To a large degree, KM is therefore dependent on the understanding and management of
organizational learning, organizational memory, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and
organizational culture.

that some aspects of it appeal to virtually all cultures (Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011).
Organizational Memory and Knowledge Repositories

Traditional memory is associated with the individual's ability to acquire, retain, and retrieve
knowledge. Within business this concept is extended beyond the individual, and organizational
memory therefore refers to the collective ability to store and retrieve knowledge and
information.
So how does one define organizational memory? Any definition would need to span all the
different repositories in which a company may store knowledge. This includes the more formal
records, as well as tacit and embedded knowledge located in people, organizational culture,
and processes.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) offer some deeper insight into the workings of organizational
memory. They look at how and organization's history can influence current decision making.
They how shared understandings evolve, becoming part of an organizational whole which may
remain constant even after key individuals have left the firm. This is done through the
formation of collective interpretations regarding the outcome of decision making. The
information defining the decision's stimulus and response is stored in information, and it affects
present decisions when it is retrieved.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define a number of stages in the organizational memory process and
outline five retention facilities:
 Acquisition: Organizational memory consists of the accumulated information
regarding past decisions. This information is not centrally stored, but rather it is split
across different retention facilities. Each time a decision is made and the consequences
are evaluated, some information is added to the organizational memory.
 Retention: Past experiences can be retained in any of the five different repositories:
 Individuals
 Culture: The language and frameworks that exist within an organization
and form shared interpretations.
 Transformations: The procedures and formalized systems that the
organization employs. These systems reflect the firm's past experiences and are
repositories for embedded knowledge.
 Structures: These link the individual to other individuals and to the
environment. Social interaction is conditioned by mutual expectations between
individuals based on their roles within the organization. The interaction sequences
for a pattern over time and begin to extend to an organizational level. This can take
 place both through formal and informal structure and it constitutes a social
memory which stores information about an organization's perception of the
environment.
 External activities: The surroundings of the organization where knowledge
and information can be stored. E.g. former employees, government bodies,
competitors, etc.
 Retrieval: This can either be controlled or automatic. The latter refers to the intuitive
and essentially effortless process of accessing organizational memory, usually as part of
an established sequence of action. Controlled refers to the deliberate attempt to access
stored knowledge.
As one can see, the three stages presented here are essential to the learning process of the
firm. Much like an individual, the firm must be able to access and use past experiences so as to
avoid repeating mistakes and to exploit valuable knowledge. Unlike an individual however, OM
is not centrally stored and resides throughout the firm and even beyond it. The process of
retrieving knowledge/information will inevitably vary depending on the retention facility that
one is trying to access. For example, written documentation may be accessed through IT while
cultural memory is accessed through the understanding and/or application of the norms and
procedures of the working environment.
A further distinction regarding the type of knowledge retained in the organization is offered by
Ramage and Reif (1996). They separate the documented aspects from the more subtle
knowledge that belongs to individuals as a result of their role as members of the organization:
 Artifacts of Cooperation: These are the hard indicators which are visible and
examinable. The include products, records of collaboration, and ideas. The latter refers to
minutes of meetings, reports, FAQs, and other items that record common knowledge.
These are easily storable and presumably also more easily accessible.
 Knowledge of the Organization Qua Entity: This type of knowledge cannot be stored
in the same way as the artifacts of cooperation. It includes knowledge of the political
system, of the culture, and of how things are normally done within the firm. It can include
the knowledge of who is an expert, of where a particular person is, and on who to
contact for a specific problem.
This definition is useful as a way of understanding the knowledge categories and the potential
management challenge that organizational memory, and ultimately knowledge management
(KM) would pose.
Furthermore, as is the case with many KM related disciplines, one finds a distinct difference in
the way organizational memory is perceived between IT practitioners and business
theoreticians. In the words of Wellman (2009): "The IT path emphasizes the acquisition and
storage of organizational knowledge including data warehousing, document management, and
search tools. The organization development (OD) path emphasizes tacit knowledge, coaching,
social interactions, and encouraging ad hoc knowledge exchange."
IT based models thus tend to focus on more concrete, definable memory and less on people,
culture, and informal structures. Essentially, they focus more on artifacts of cooperation.
Since this site deals with organizational memory within the context of KM, it is not necessary to
arrive at a specific definition or model. Instead it is important to understand the scope of
organizational memory, its varied and often complex retention facilities, and the types of
knowledge available. In later sections, I will investigate more closely the specific role that IT can
have in supporting, promoting, and enhancing organizational memory.
The SECI Model and Knowledge Conversion

Arguably the most important contributor to this subject has been Ikujiro Nonaka. He worked
extensively with the concepts of explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, and drew attention to
the way Western firms tend to focus too much on the former (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1996). This
sentiment has since been echoed throughout organisational learning and knowledge
management (KM) literature (e.g. Cook & Brown 1999, Kreiner 1999, Tsoukas & Valdimirou
2001, etc.).
Nonaka and Takeuchi introduced the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1996) which has become
the cornerstone of knowledge creation and transfer theory. They proposed four ways that
knowledge types can be combined and converted, showing how knowledge is shared and
created in the organization. The model is based on the two types of knowledge outlined above.
 Socialization: Tacit to tacit. Knowledge is passed on through practice, guidance,
imitation, and observation.
 Externalization: Tacit to explicit. This is deemed as a particularly difficult and often
particularly important conversion mechanism. Tacit knowledge is codified into
documents, manuals, etc. so that it can spread more easily through the organization.
Since tacit knowledge can be virtually impossible to codify, the extent of this knowledge
conversion mechanism is debatable. The use of metaphor is cited as an important
externalization mechanism.
 Combination: Explicit to explicit. This is the simplest form. Codified knowledge
sources (e.g. documents) are combined to create new knowledge.
 Internalization: Explicit to tacit. As explicit sources are used and learned, the
knowledge is internalized, modifying the user's existing tacit knowledge.
The SECI Model Knowledge Creation Spiral

In this model, knowledge is continuously converted and created as users practice, collaborate,
interact, and learn. The process should be seen as a continuous, dynamic, swirl of knowledge
rather than a static model. It is basically a visual representation of overlapping, continuous
processes that take place - or should take place - in an organization.
Below I have included a graphical representation of this concept as presented in the SECI
model:
A great deal of effort has been put into investigating its practical applicability (with mixed
results), but in recent years the applicability of the model has been linked strongly to culture,
both organizational and national. The issue is whether culture is more than just an element in a
KM model, i.e. culture-in-the-model, but rather acts as a limiting factor for a model, i.e. culture-
of-the-model (Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011). The issue of culture as a limiting factor for KM
models is an issue I will incorporate into the site in the future and provide a link from this article
to the new sections.
Nonetheless, the SECI model remains at the core of knowledge conversion theory within KM,
and this almost universal attraction to the model may in itself be an indication that some
aspects of it appeal to virtually all cultures (Andreeva & Ikhilchik 2011).

8 Integral Components of Knowledge Management

From the definitions and concepts of KM detailed above, we can list the integral components
as under:
1. Generating new knowledge

2. Accessing valuable knowledge from outside sources

3. Using accessible knowledge in decision making

4. Embedding knowledge in processes, products, and/or services

5. Representing knowledge in documents, databases, and software

6. Facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incentives

7. Transferring existing knowledge to other parts of the organization

8. Measuring the value of knowledge assets and/or impact of KM.

Benefits of Knowledge Management:

Some benefits of KM correlate directly to bottom-line savings, while others are more difficult to
quantify. In today’s information-driven economy, companies uncover the most opportunities—
and ultimately derive the most value—from intellectual rather than physical assets. Today, both
knowledge and information are the main inputs of HR, and not just the sole prerogative of the
knowledge officers. In fact, the knowledge officers are all from the field of HR.

To get the most value from a company’s intellectual assets, knowledge management
practitioners maintain that knowledge must be shared and must serve as the foundation for
collaboration. Yet, better collaboration is not an end in itself; without an overarching business
context, knowledge management is at the best, meaningless, and at the worst, harmful.

Consequently, an effective KM programme should help a company do one or more of the

following:
1. Foster innovation by encouraging free flow of ideas

2. Improve customer service by streamlining response time

3. Boost revenues by getting products and services to market faster

4. Enhance employee retention rates by recognizing the value of employees’ knowledge and
rewarding them for it

5. Streamline operations and reduce costs by eliminating redundant or unnecessary processes.

These are the most prevalent examples. A creative approach to knowledge management can
result in improved efficiency, higher productivity, and increased revenues in practically any
business function.

Knowledge is impossible to imitate or co-opt and so it gives a unique and inherently protected
commodity to its possessor. This lends an increasing importance to intellectual or knowledge
assets (70 per cent of market value of company) in the market value of the firm.
In this context, tacit knowledge plays a more crucial role in controlling competitive positions in
the global banking business. With the emergence of a knowledge-based economy, a new type
of executive will surface in many organizations—the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) who will
implement the practice of KM. The CKO will promote, as a change agent, the corporate culture
to encourage knowledge sharing to build a cultural climate that rewards the sharing- behaviour
of the employees of an organization.

Process of Knowledge Management:

The process of knowledge management consists of the following steps as proposed by

Beckmans.

1. Identify:

The organisation determines the areas where it needs to be competent for success, like
customers, product, finance, management, employees, environment etc. After determining the
area, it identifies related strategic and knowledge domains. “Knowledge domain is the
specialised subject-matter area where recognised experts can demonstrate superior
performance.”

It then recognises the expertise of its workforce for each knowledge domain. If there is gap
between existing and needed expertise, domain experts organise education programmes and
performance support systems with the help of information technology, so that professionals
improve their levels of knowledge.

2. Collect:

If knowledge of workforce needs to be increased, managers acquire knowledge, skills and

experience to create organisational core competencies and knowledge domains. This
knowledge can be acquired from data base and expert systems from various sources.

3. Select:

The knowledge acquired should not merely add to organisation’s information data. Valuable
knowledge which needs to be added to organisation’s knowledge base should be selected by
domain experts.

4. Store:

The selected knowledge is added to organisational memory in different forms:

(a) In human minds:

Knowledge is made explicit and organised into different knowledge structures in the knowledge
repository.
(b) On paper:

It is stored as data and information into different types of database.

(c) In electronic form:

It is stored in decision support systems and expert systems electronically. This can be retrieved
through computers.

5. Share:

Knowledge stored in corporate memory is shared with its users. Members tell their needs to
the corporate memory which distributes it electronically or on paper. Besides corporate
memory, individuals/groups/departments share ideas, opinions, knowledge and expertise in
person or in meetings.

6. Apply:

Having shared the knowledge, it is used in organisational tasks, solving problems, making
decisions and researching ideas. In order to retrieve and apply right knowledge at the right time
in the right form, Integrated Performance Support Systems (IPSS) are used by organisations.

To retrieve the right knowledge, the system should understand user’s purpose and content of
knowledge. To receive it at the right time, the system should monitor user actions and
determine when it is appropriate to intervene. To receive it in the right form, users can
customize the format in which knowledge is to be presented by the system.

7. Create:

It involves converting non-verbal, unconscious knowledge acquired from domain experts into
documented formal knowledge.

8. Sell:

When new knowledge is embedded in human brain, it is used to make and sell new products
and services.

Project Report # 8. Approaches to Knowledge Management:

These are two approaches to knowledge management:

1. Codified Approach
2. Personalised Approach

1. Codified approach:

In this approach, knowledge is stored in database from where it can be used by anyone in the
organisation. This is explicit knowledge extracted from the person who developed it, stored in
electronic form and accessible to people for use. This is called ‘people- to-document’ approach
as people have access to knowledge not through the person who developed it but through the
electronic repository. It makes use of information technology to create databases.

2. Personalised approach:

In this approach, knowledge is not stored in the database. It is attached to the person who
developed it and is not stored in electronic form. It involves sharing tacit knowledge through
‘person-to-person’ approach. Information is shared through face-to-face communication and
creates networks between the knowledge provider and knowledge users through conferences,
seminars, workshops etc.

Broad differences between the two approaches are as follows:

Codified approach:

1. Knowledge is stored in database

2. It makes use of explicit knowledge

3. It involves ‘people-to-document’ approach

4. People have access to knowledge through electronic repository

5. It is used by companies that use tactical processes.

Personalised approach:

1. Knowledge is stored in human brain.

2. It makes use of tacit knowledge.

3. It involves ‘person-to-person’ approach

4. People have access to knowledge through face-to-face communication.

5. It is used by companies that use strategic processes.

Choice of approach (Strategy):

Use of these approaches depends upon whether the organisation performs tactical processes
or strategic process. Tactical process involves making day-to-day use of knowledge to deal with
recurring problems. It is used to meet expectations of the customers in the market place.
Companies making use of tactical processes rely more on codified approach as defined
solutions to more or less similar problems can be retrieved from the computer system.

Strategic process makes use of knowledge to match organisational strengths with strategic
environmental opportunities. Companies using strategic processes deal with high-level strategic
problems which require use of creative, innovative and analytical brain.

They require individual expertise where that person can personally share his knowledge with
others through face-to- face communication (seminars, workshops etc.) or indirect
communication (telephone, e- mail, video-conferencing etc.). Such companies make extensive
use of personalised strategy. Codified approach is, thus, used by companies that deal with
recurrent problems and personalised approach is used by companies that deal with strategy
making.