ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 10 December 2019

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02730

Managing Knowledge in
Organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI
Model Operationalization
Maria Luisa Farnese 1 , Barbara Barbieri 2* , Antonio Chirumbolo 1 and Gerardo Patriotta 3
1
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, 2 Department of Political and Social Sciences,
University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy, 3 Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

Purpose: The SECI model (Nonaka, 1994) is the best-known conceptual framework
for understanding knowledge generation processes in organizations. To date, however,
empirical support for this framework has been overlooked. The present study
aims to provide an evidence-based groundwork for the SECI model by testing a
multidimensional questionnaire Knowledge Management SECI Processes Questionnaire
(KMSP-Q) designed to capture the knowledge conversion modes theorized by Nonaka.
Edited by: Methodology: In a twofold study, the SECI model was operationalized via the KMSP-
Giuseppe Santisi,
University of Catania, Italy
Q. Specifically, Study One tested its eight-dimensional structure through exploratory
Reviewed by:
and confirmatory factorial analyses on 372 employees from different sectors. Study
Tiziana Ramaci, Two examined the construct validity and reliability by replicating the KMSP-Q factor
Kore University of Enna, Italy
structure in knowledge-intensive contexts (on a sample of 466 health-workers), and by
Silvia Ivaldi,
University of Bergamo, Italy investigating the unique impact of each dimension on some organizational outcomes
*Correspondence: (i.e., performance, innovativeness, collective efficacy).
Barbara Barbieri
[email protected] Findings: The overall findings highlighted that the KMSP-Q is a psychometrically
robust questionnaire in terms of both dimensionality and construct validity, the
Specialty section:
different knowledge generation dimensions being specifically linked to different
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology, organizational outcomes.
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology Research/Practical Implications: The KMSP-Q actualizes and provides empirical
Received: 21 October 2019 consistency to the theory underlying the SECI model. Moreover, it allows for the
Accepted: 19 November 2019 monitoring of an organization’s capability to manage new knowledge and detect the
Published: 10 December 2019
strengths/weaknesses of KM-related policies and programs.
Citation:
Farnese ML, Barbieri B, Originality/Value: This paper proposes a comprehensive measure of knowledge
Chirumbolo A and Patriotta G (2019)
generation in work contexts, highlighting processes that organizations are likely to
Managing Knowledge
in Organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI promote in order to improve their performance through the management of their
Model Operationalization. knowledge resources.
Front. Psychol. 10:2730.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02730 Keywords: knowledge management, Nonaka, SECI model, questionnaire, measurement

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

INTRODUCTION both to test the SECI model’s consistency and the nature of
knowledge generation construct, and to explore its relationship
Knowledge represents a crucial drive for organizations’ with other variables and make meaningful inferences. For
competitive advantage. It generates value by supporting an instance, the KMSP-Q provides a systemic picture of the
organization’s capability to produce innovation (Ahuja and organization’s practices purposing to grow its own knowledge
Katila, 2001; Darroch, 2005; Zhou and Li, 2012), learn and capital, thus enabling to highlight the strengths and weaknesses
unlearn (Hedberg, 1981; Gherardi, 2000; King, 2009), and of specific processes or to verify their effectiveness related to the
transfer best practices across boundaries (Hansen, 1999; Carlile, organizational performance.
2004; Patriotta et al., 2013). This paper starts with a brief description of Nonaka’s
Following the wider debate about the emergence of the SECI model, a conceptual framework for the knowledge
information age and the knowledge society, recent years have creation process. Afterward, we propose an operationalization
seen an explosion of writings about organizational knowledge of this model, depicting organizational processes that concur
from different disciplinary and theoretical perspectives (Patriotta, to generate knowledge, and tested the construct validity of
2003). The vast literature on knowledge management has the questionnaire. Specifically, we present two studies: Study
documented the processes through which organizations One tests the KMSP-Q factor structure on a general sample
systematically capture, integrate, share, use, and maintain of employees working in different Italian companies. Study
knowledge in order to improve performance. From a managerial Two examines its generalizability by replicating its factor
perspective, this literature has also suggested the development structure in a sample of employees working in health contexts,
of management practices able to render knowledge available which are typical knowledge-intensive sectors. The KMSP-
throughout the organization (e.g., O’Dell and Greyson, 1998; Q criterion validity is also tested by verifying the unique
Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999; Brown and Duguid, 2000; Davenport contribution of each knowledge creation process onto different
and Prusak, 2000). organizational outcomes.
Within this plethora of knowledge-based theories, concepts,
and tools, the SECI model is widely acknowledged as a theoretical
landmark and adopted as framework for most knowledge Theoretical Framework
management conceptualization or descriptive purposes in case Nonaka’s SECI Model: Types of Knowledge and Their
studies. The model (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) Interaction
considers knowledge creation as a dynamic process, in which the Nonaka (1994) conceived knowledge generation as a systemic,
continuous dialog between tacit and explicit knowledge generates dynamic, and ongoing process, which emerges and recurs
new knowledge and amplifies it across different ontological levels over time. The SECI root metaphor, the spiral, differs from
(individual, organizational, inter-organizational). The model most knowledge management process conceptualizations,
stands out because it not only formalizes a theory of knowledge which mainly propose an evolutionary path: for instance,
creation based on the epistemological distinction between tacit the generation–codification–transfer–application process
and explicit knowledge but also offers practical tool for assessing (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Ford, 2004); the four processes
knowledge creation in organizational contexts. of creation, retrieval, transfer, and application of knowledge
Despite the wide diffusion of the SECI model, theoretical (Alavi and Leidner, 2001); and the accumulation of dynamic
development has not always been accompanied by sound competence development (Zollo and Winter, 2002). These
methodologies for documenting empirically how the model models suggest a sequential evolution of knowledge, which has
works in practice (Patriotta, 2004). In particular, the model’s the same quality but a different “stage of life” and usefulness
considerable abstraction has led several authors to criticize it, to organizational life, consistent with the commonly accepted
arguing that it is largely based on anecdotal evidence and does conceptualization of knowledge management as a path going
not have a sound empirical grounding (Glisby and Holden, from acquiring, storing, and diffusing knowledge to applying it
2003; Gourlay, 2006; Bratianu, 2010). Furthermore, owing to (Chen and Chen, 2006). Conversely, the SECI model focuses on
its tacit component, the model can be particularly elusive holistic processes that, through knowledge conversion from one
and difficult to test. Indeed, to date only few researches has type to another, generate a new quality of knowledge.
attempted to operationalize the model, proposing instruments This conceptualization highlights the underlying processes
that reflect its four modes (see Nonaka et al., 1994; Becerra- engendering knowledge, rather than the function that each
Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Lee and Choi, 2003), but knowledge stage plays for organizational life. It draws on
showing inconclusive results. Polanyi’s (1967) classification regarding the coexistence of two
In order to meet the need for stronger empirical roots types of knowledge: tacit and explicit, metaphorically comparable
in Nonaka’s conceptual model, the present research aimed to an iceberg. The explicit knowledge represents the part of
to propose and validate a new measurement, the Knowledge the iceberg above the water, that is, the knowledge we are
Management SECI Processes Questionnaire (KMSP-Q). It is aware of and capable of codifying and transferring through
conceived of as a multidimensional scale, identifying some key formal language. Examples of explicit knowledge in organizations
processes related to the four knowledge conversion modes, at are institutional communications (e.g., newsletters), practices
different social levels (among individuals, group, and within the based on formal meetings (e.g., conferences, refresher courses),
organization). This analytic and reliable instrument would allow or knowledge products (e.g., websites, databases, manuals,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

patents). Explicit knowledge, however, rests on a broad system complex and systematic explicit knowledge. The creative use
of tacit knowledge, originated through experience related to of computerized communication networks and large-scale
professional practice and embedded into the specific work databases can facilitate this mode of knowledge conversion.
context. This knowledge is situated, analogic, and based on For example, using ICT, such as groupware, online databases,
routines and habits (Warnier, 1999). Driving a car or using a intranet, and virtual communities to communicate and share
computer keyboard are examples of actions based on knowledge information has been the focus of several previous investigations
we are mainly unaware of. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) (Koh and Kim, 2004). These information-sharing processes
suggested that knowledge is created through an epistemological create higher-order knowledge, such as models, best practices,
process of knowledge conversion from one type to another handbooks, and information systems (Van den Hooff and Van
(tacit and explicit) and amplified through different ontological Weenen, 2004) that, in turn, may be disseminated even in the
levels (from interaction between individuals, to groups, to absence of interpersonal relationships.
the organization as a whole). The dynamic and continuous The SECI spiral concludes with the Internalization mode,
interaction between epistemological and ontological dimensions where explicit knowledge is absorbed by individuals, enriching
of knowledge gives rise to spiral conversion processes, which their tacit knowledge base: formal knowledge is connected to
quantitatively and qualitatively expand knowledge. It implies that personal experiences to be subsequently transferred and used in
an organization aiming to increase and transform its knowledge practical situations, becoming the base for employees’ renewed
should simultaneously promote many and diverse policies and routines. For example, in training programs, trainees can enter
related practices, supporting all of the conversion modes, so that a new role by reading documents or manuals about their
the cycle does not deflate or stop. job/company and reflecting upon them; they may also engage
The SECI model depicts the four Socialization– in learning-by-doing, simulations, or trial-and-error sessions.
Externalization–Combination–Internalization conversion modes Overall, these training activities allow people to integrate new
generated by the switching process from one type of knowledge knowledge within their own mental models and enrich their
to another (Nonaka, 1994). The spiral starts with the Socialization professional know-how, paving the way to new tacit knowledge
mode, in which tacit knowledge is exchanged among individuals generation. This new internalized knowledge is re-circulated in
through shared experiences in day-by-day social interaction. the spiral of knowledge, initiating further conversion processes.
Since tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and often time- Conversion modes as a whole and in their interaction give rise to
and space-specific, it can only be acquired by directly sharing the spiral of knowledge generation (Nonaka, 1994).
work experiences (e.g., working side-by-side or observing
colleagues). Typically, it is the case of traditional apprenticeship Some Conceptual and Measurement Issues
where newcomers learn the tacit knowledge needed in their Although SECI model is recognized as the most relevant and
craft through hands-on routines and close interactions over time comprehensive theoretical proposal in the field of knowledge
(Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Essentially, this first mode concerns management and a reference point for many subsequent
the sharing of tacit knowledge, carried out at an interpersonal conceptualizations and studies (Argote et al., 2003), empirical
level, and allows for the defining of patterns of “how to do things” evidence to bolster the model’s consistency is fragmented.
or reckon events, beliefs, representations of objects, and actions Figure 1 depicts results of 108 publications that have focused
and models of professional practices. on the SECI model, published since Nonaka’s (1994) seminal
Tacit knowledge is converted, through the Externalization paper on knowledge creation. As shown, the SECI model has
mode, into new explicit knowledge in the form of concepts, mainly been used in theory or for descriptive purposes and case
images, and written documents. Here, individuals use dialog, studies; indeed, approximately half of the studies are theoretical
metaphors, and team confrontations as effective methods to articles (n = 55), whereas the remaining empirical studies include
make tacit knowledge codifiable. For this mode to succeed, it is qualitative case studies (n = 20) and quantitative investigations
necessary that knowledge is dis-embedded through a reflection- (n = 33) with high empirical heterogeneity (Gourlay, 2006).
on-action process, inserting distance between the subject and the Furthermore, only some empirical studies have tested the
object (Gherardi, 2000). An important outcome of this reflection model’s dimensionality, for instance showing that different
on experience is the generation of crystallized knowledge, which knowledge processes are associated to specific domains of
is the organizational memory: “members come and go, and knowledge (Byosiere and Luethge, 2008) or are related to distinct
leadership changes, but organizations’ memories preserve certain outcomes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Chen and Chen, 2006). Some
behaviors, mental maps, norms, and values over time” (Hedberg, studies have also found that the effectiveness of a knowledge
1981, p. 6). This formalization leads to new knowledge, accessible management process depends on the circumstances under which
in the future and available to other co-workers. This is the gist of it was used; thus, individuals may employ different types of
“synthesizing,” where new meta-knowledge is generated through knowledge creation processes in order to better perform different
selection and connected to the established knowledge system in types of tasks (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Chou
the organization, which allows for the emergence of new models and He, 2004). Nonetheless, these findings are still exploratory,
or mental maps (Nonaka et al., 2006). and more research is needed to give empirical support to a
Explicit knowledge is then pooled with other intra- or multidimensional conceptualization of the knowledge generation
inter-organizational explicit knowledge through the Combination process and to demonstrate that it provides more information
mode, being merged, edited, or processed to form more than a holistic one. More generally, very few studies have

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

FIGURE 1 | Qualitative review of publications on the SECI model. To identify publications for inclusion in this review, we searched WoS databases using specific
keywords linked to the Nonaka’s model, such as “SECI” and “Nonaka,” “application,” “process,” “inventory,” “questionnaire,” or “scale.” We also used a snowball
approach by searching the references of relevant publications to identify further papers for inclusion in the review. Inclusion criteria were: (a) publications that were
focused on the SECI model; (b) temporary lag from 1994 to December 2018; (c) scholarly publications (conference papers, dissertations, working papers, and
practitioner publications were removed). The final sample included 108 publications. References related to this table are available from the correspondence author.

verified the SECI predictive validity and tested its effectiveness few questionnaires that have attempted to assess the knowledge
in generating new knowledge in organizations, thus paving the creation process based on the four SECI conversion modes.
way to better performance and value creation (see Tammets’, 2012 The first questionnaire is the one proposed by Nonaka et al.
qualitative meta-analysis, 2012). (1994) to study management commitment toward knowledge
Other scholars have questioned the SECI model’s management practices, assessing the amount of time they spend
generalizability, highlighting the need to explore its cross- on specific knowledge creation activities. Subsequently, Becerra-
cultural transfer and replication (Glisby and Holden, 2003), Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) identified several knowledge
the role of contextual factors and external knowledge inputs in management tools examining the presence–absence of each. Also,
shaping knowledge generation (Bereiter, 2002; Martin-de-Castro Lee and Choi (2003) proposed a scale to test a model that
et al., 2008; Magnier-Watanabe et al., 2011), and the contribution linked knowledge management enablers to the SECI modes,
of local social practices (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). and in turn organizational performance. Lastly, Martin-de-
A further issue is related to the quality of the new knowledge Castro et al. (2008) proposed a further questionnaire, but
generated in the conversion processes, that is, whether tacit and results did not confirm the theoretical structure and were
explicit knowledge are dichotomic qualities of knowledge rather inconsistent between the two independent samples. Despite
than poles of a continuum (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009) or the being conceived as multidimensional questionnaires, they have
need to differentiate implicit and tacit knowledge (Li and Gao, often been empirically used as unidimensional or not based
2003). Some scholars have speculated that not all the conversion on validation analyses. Moreover, most of them have targeted
processes composing the SECI model are truly generative and managers, thus reducing the possibility of examining employees’
have called for further research to shed light on this issue point of view. Overall, inconsistency of results and the absence
(Gourlay, 2006; Bratianu, 2010). Specifically, they have assumed of a reliable measurement make it difficult, to date, to ascertain
that only those processes that actually change the quality of the SECI model conceptualization and its criterion validity, for
knowledge (from tacit to explicit or vice versa) should be strictly instance, testing its effectiveness in increasing organizational
considered knowledge conversion processes, by this generating performance (Gourlay, 2006; Tammets, 2012).
new knowledge, whereas processes limited to sharing the same
quality of knowledge (tacit-to-tacit, explicit-to-explicit) should be Aims of the Studies
more properly conceived of as knowledge transfer processes. Drawing from the literature depicted above, to address scholars’
In general, authors have highlighted that Nonaka tended to claim for a stronger evidence-based support for the SECI
adopt a philosophical perspective, which made it difficult to model (Gourlay, 2006), the present study aimed to contribute
actualize the model into a measurement instrument and test to the knowledge management literature by generating and
its validity (Gourlay, 2006; Tammets, 2012). To date, there are validating a multidimensional questionnaire (KMSP-Q) to assess

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

Nonaka’s SECI model. Indeed, a reliable instrument capable of process related to knowledge generation (e.g., the degree of
capturing the nature of the construct and providing support knowledge sharing among teammates) but the “commitment”
for SECI’s multidimensionality would allow organizations to and the intentionality of the organization in promoting policies
assess whether and how each process specifically contributes to aimed at supporting that process and making it useful for
performance, highlight their relative value in comparison to the enhancing new knowledge (e.g., sharing knowledge to improve
other processes, and measure their knowledge capital, also in work performance) (Darroch, 2005). Indeed, Nonaka highlighted
cross-cultural comparisons (Marr et al., 2003). that, although some learning takes place spontaneously or
Specifically, our first goal was to identify prominent casually in organizational life, the knowledge generation process
dimensions that could be used to operationalize conceptual fully occurs only if the actors are involved in the process,
constructs related to the conversion modes proposed by expressing a commitment to learn, and when processes convey
Nonaka and transform them into concrete knowledge generation management choices (Nonaka et al., 2000): “Organizational
organizational processes (Study One). The factor structure knowledge creation, as distinct from individual knowledge
of the questionnaire was investigated via both explorative creation, takes place when all four modes of knowledge creation
and confirmative factor analyses, together with the internal are “organizationally” managed to form a continual cycle”
consistency of all single dimensions. Furthermore, these analyses (Nonaka et al., 1994, p. 341).
were replicated in both a general sample (Study One) and in
a knowledge-intensive context sample (Study Two), in order to Item generation
acquire greater generalizability. Our scale development consisted of three steps. In the first phase,
The second goal was to verify the KMSP-Q criterion a pool of items related to the eight dimensions were generated
validity by examining whether and how each of the different from a review of the relevant literature, by a research team.
knowledge processes provided a specific contribution to different The final list of 83 items was subjected to semantic evaluation,
organizational performance outcomes (Study Two). Indeed, the and two of the authors assessed their pertinence in respect to
multidimensionality of the questionnaire allowed an examination the construct. Items were subsequently reduced to 67 and pilot-
of not only the relationship between each knowledge process and tested with a sample of employees from different work contexts.
each of the different organizational outcomes considered, but also Explorative analyses and feedback by participants were discussed
the simultaneous and unique contribution of each knowledge and led to the final 48-item and eight-dimension scale (see
process compared to the others. Supplementary Appendix). The theoretical underpinnings of
each dimension are described below. Responses were rated on
a frequency scale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (very
STUDY ONE often or always).

Scale Development and Dimensionality Dimensions of the KMSP-Q

The first study proposed a new questionnaire, the KMSP- The eight dimensions refer to the four SECI conversion processes
Q (Knowledge Management Processes Questionnaire), that (two for each process). Among the many possible organizational
identifies eight processes related to the four modes for knowledge processes related to knowledge management that could have
creation and provides a “state of the art” picture of the been included in this model, we chose those that, in our
organization’s capability to implement knowledge. Generative opinion, were more consistent with the epistemological and
criteria are explained, and the psychometric properties of the ontological conversion processes and, at the same time, have
scale are assessed. Specifically, we assumed that the knowledge been highlighted by the literature as having an impact on
management generation process includes several dimensions, organizational effectiveness. In other words, those domains that,
correlated but differentiated among themselves. if absent within organizational life, would determine the failure
of managing their own heritage of knowledge.
Item Development The first two dimensions pertain to the tacit-to-tacit
General ratio conversion mode (Socialization), mainly capturing the
Nonaka’s conversion modes are too abstract and not applicable knowledge exchange at the interpersonal level. Mentoring
in the field; thus, their operationalization was made through practices relate to tacit knowledge transfer from expert
identification of the underlying organizational processes. More members (supervisors, tenured peers) to newcomers or less
specifically, the KMSP-Q was based on the following criteria: (1) experienced members, through tactics designed to support better
Grounded on SECI’s theory: each dimension was developed while socialization at work. They allow the sharing of tacit knowledge
bearing in mind a specific epistemological feature of knowledge by observation, modeling, and assimilation of the implicit
creation (the tacit–tacit, tacit–explicit, explicit–explicit, explicit– and unconscious skills embedded in professional practice.
tacit shifts) and a main ontological level (i.e., individuals, Mentoring is a typical organizational socialization tactic to
group, organization); (2) Generalizability of use: the KMSP-Q implement employees’ learning, practical abilities, and personal
was designed for use in most types of organizations and by growth in role transitions, enhancing a deep understanding
all levels of employees (not specifically managers); (3) Roots of professional skills, organizational politics and values, as
within a strategic management framework: items depicted not well as leads to several behavioral, attitudinal, and relational
only the presence–absence of a specific tool or organizational outcomes (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Eby et al.,

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

2008; Farnese et al., 2016a). Example item is: More experienced The fifth and sixth dimensions concern the explicit-to-
colleagues provide less experienced colleagues with constructive explicit conversion mode (Combination). This mode mainly
feedback about their work. captures the knowledge exchange at the organizational level;
Knowledge sharing refers to the willingness to share one’s indeed, it aims to create and support a knowledge system to
own knowledge (e.g., experiences, best practices, skills) with make information accessible to all organizational members
colleagues, when needed or asked. The literature widely when needed. Organizational communication focuses on
acknowledges the importance of knowledge sharing for establishing norms and formal practices (e.g., meetings, internal
organizational performance (van Wijk et al., 2008; Wang and communication tools) to share information and news, to keep
Noe, 2010), but also highlights the difficulty of sharing the all members updated and to overcome unit boundaries and
knowledge embedded in individuals (Szulanski, 2000). Thus, to hierarchical levels. Thus, a systemic view of the organization
promote “lateral communication” and access to individuals with is enhanced. By managing the “politics of information” and
relevant knowledge, social and motivational systems and human making information available, the organization lays the cultural
resource practices need to be implemented (Alavi and Leidner, conditions for fair distribution of knowledge power and
2001; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). An example item for this trustworthiness among people (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
dimension is: Each one’s know-how is made available to colleagues Ipe, 2003). The literature has widely supported the relationship
to deal with problems that may arise. of organizational information sharing with performance and
The third and fourth dimensions refer to the tacit-to-explicit innovation (Collins and Smith, 2006; Mesmer-Magnus and
conversion mode (Externalization) in which teammates need to DeChurch, 2009). An example item for this dimension is: We are
engender a shared language that gives meaning to their actions. kept informed about what happens within the organization.
Indeed, this conversion mode is mainly focused on knowledge Technological support refers to the contribution of knowledge
exchange at the group level, paving the way to the building of management systems and tools that boost quick and useful
a wealth of common knowledge. Team reflexivity expresses the transfer and access to knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). It is
process of collective reflection on the way we work to critically a critical dimension for the success of the organization, because
revise goals, methods, practices, and the environment where they it can be used to systematize, improve, and exchange intra- and
operate, accordingly planning changes to be more effective (West inter-firm knowledge, enhancing its competitiveness (Melville
et al., 2000) and enhancing organizational performance and et al., 2004). It expresses the willingness to use these tools and
innovativeness (Schippers et al., 2015; Farnese and Livi, 2016). to encourage collaborative environments based on reciprocity
According to Nonaka, “organizations continuously create new and knowledge sharing, as well as to facilitate the management
knowledge by reconstructing existing perspectives, frameworks, of information allowing its systematization, categorization, or
or premises on a day-to-day basis” (Nonaka et al., 1994, reconfiguration (Nonaka, 1994; Goh, 2002). An example item for
p. 341). Through dialog and discussion on experience, employees this dimension is: Technologies allow us to easily share knowledge
separate themselves from professional practice. Tacit knowledge and information between different units.
is extracted and made explicit through processes of abstraction Finally, the seventh and eighth dimensions concern the
(e.g., maps) or symbolization (e.g., metaphors), generating higher explicit-to-tacit conversion mode (Internalization) that could be
awareness and a meta-level learning (Gherardi, 2000; West et al., defined as the exercise of operational knowledge. This is a process
2000). An example item for this dimension is: At the end of each of embodiment of collective and explicit knowledge that, through
project, we examine the mistakes made in order to prevent their practice and reflection becomes a “sticky” individual knowledge
repetition in the future. (Szulanski, 2000). Thus, this conversion mode mainly focuses
Organizational memory includes the storage, organization, on the processes rooting the knowledge at the individuals’ level.
systematization, and retrieval of past experience and events, Indeed, according to Nonaka and Nishiguchi (2001), knowledge
aimed to decrease forgetting. Through a disembedding process is often in the eye of the beholder, and one gives meaning to
from individuals and from specific contexts, organizational a concept through the way one uses it. The human resources
memory reduces knowledge stickiness to individuals (Szulanski, training dimension is related to those learning processes designed
2000) and allows teammates to select relevant knowledge. At to support employees to assimilate new knowledge and mold
the same time, it makes experience accessible over time and their maps, for decision-making and work processes or support
to other colleagues through a crystallization process connecting role transitions (Salas et al., 2012). Training programs strengthen
it to the wider organizational knowledge system (Wexler, human and social capital, producing effective advantage for the
2002; Nonaka et al., 2006). Practices for memory are based organization and helping it to remain competitive (Arthur et al.,
on formalization of experience, for instance, collecting good 2003; Alvarez et al., 2004). An example item for this dimension is:
practices or producing manuals, reports, and other written Employees’ work skills are developed through training.
documentation (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Scholars have shown Human resources development refers to all those policies
that stored knowledge may enhance organizational performance, and practices able to support the development of human
helping to properly act routines, but also innovation, by resources and allowing people to make sense of what they do, to
supporting access to a stock of expertise and core capabilities attribute meaning to their professional experience, and to value
(Moorman and Miner, 1997). An example item for this their extra-role behaviors. A learning organization “encourages
dimension is: Activities are monitored by collecting and processing continuous learning and knowledge creation at all levels [...],
relevant data. defines processes for facilitating the circulation of knowledge

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

[...] translating this knowledge into changes in internal and each dimension loaded onto the same factor with a loading
external behavior” (Senge, 1990, p. 21). Overall, it expresses greater than 0.35, showing no significant cross-loadings with
the organization’s capability to be a context where all members other factors (see Table 1).
are encouraged to learn and to develop their full potential, The first factor accounted for 43.7% of the variance and
and human resource development is a core strategy (Argote referred to the dimension of HR development (DEV). Factor
et al., 2003). An example item for this dimension is: We have loadings ranged from 0.43 to 0.73 (average loading 0.56). The
time/resources to reflect upon how to improve our work. second dimension tapped the technological support dimension
(TECH) and explained 6.4% of the variance, with factor loadings
Materials and Methods ranging from 0.59 to 0.83 (average loading 0.74). The third
Participants and Procedure factor represented the knowledge sharing dimension (SHA),
Participants of Study One were 372 Italian employees working which accounted for 4.8% of the variance (factor loadings
in different productive sectors (e.g., industry, service companies, ranged from 0.47 to 0.82; average loading, 0.69). The fourth
ICT, local public administrations). Respondents were balanced factor accounted for 4.7% of the variance and referred to the
for gender (48.4% males, 51.1% females, two missing). Age dimension of mentoring practices (MENT). Factor loadings varied
ranged from 20 to 61 years (M = 37 years, SD = 8.8). Participants from 0.45 to 0.85 (average loading of 0.63). The fifth factor
had attained a relatively high level of education (45.0% reflected the team reflexivity (REFL) dimension (3.3% of the
high school, 41.5% graduates), held different organizational explained variance, factor loadings ranged from 0.47 to 0.68,
positions (53.8% operatives, 23.5% technical-specialized, 19.9% average loading 0.58), while the sixth factor was loaded by items
supervisors, 2.7% management), had mostly a permanent job referring to organizational memory (MEM) dimension (2.8%
(67.8%), and ranged in organizational tenure from 1 to 36 years of the explained variance, factor loadings ranged from 0.36
(M = 8.4 years, SD = 7.8). to 0.69, average loading 0.53). The seventh factor referred to
Data were collected through anonymous questionnaires, the dimension of organizational communication (OCOM) and
which were administered by hand delivery and returned. accounted for 2.6% of the variance: its factor loadings ranged
Administration was conducted through the snowball technique, from 0.40 to 0.73 (average loading 0.64). Finally, the eighth factor
which involved bachelor students who voluntarily took part in regarded HR training (TRAI), explaining 2.4% of the variance,
the data-collecting phase after a training session. To ensure with factor loadings ranging from 0.43 to 0.70 (average loading,
heterogeneity of the sample, each research assistant approached 0.56). The eight factors were correlated to each other, with a range
between 10 and 30 employees from different organizations. varying from modest (0.24) to moderate (0.53).
Participants voluntarily participated in the study and did not
receive any kind of reward. All participants were informed of Reliability, Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations
the anonymity and confidentiality of the survey. The study The reliability of each dimension was tested using Cronbach α: all
that collected the data for this validation was approved by the dimensions showed very good internal consistency ranging from
Comitato I.R.B. (Institutional Review Board), Department of 0.88 to 0.92. Descriptive statistics and reliability are reported in
Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome (Prot. No. 0000151). Table 2, while intercorrelations among dimensions are reported
in Table 3. The correlations among variables were substantial.
Data Analyses However, their magnitude suggested a good discriminant validity
In order to assess the dimensionality of the KMSP-Q, an between dimensions. A further test of their distinctiveness,
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on the final however, was performed conducting a CFA (see next paragraph).
48 items. From a theoretical point of view, an eight-factor
solution was expected. Afterward, the emerged factor solution Confirmative Factor Analysis
was further tested via Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA) by A CFA was conducted in order to test whether the eight-
testing two nested models: Model 1, where all dimensions factor solution was optimal as well as examine whether the
collapse into a general knowledge management factor; and Model eight dimensions were sufficiently distinct from each other. Two
2, where each of the eight dimensions represent correlated but alternative nested factor models were contrasted and formally
differentiated factors. compared. In the first model (M1), the fit of a one-factor solution
Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed with SPSS 25, was tested. In case the eight dimensions were not sufficiently
while CFA was run with LISREL 9.2. distinct to each other, model M1 would demonstrate a satisfactory
fit. In the second model (M2), the fit of an eight correlated factor
Results solution was tested. The two models were then compared (M1
Exploratory Factor Analysis vs. M2) to decide which had the best fit. Model fit was evaluated
In order to examine the dimensionality of the KMSP-Q, an EFA according to the following indices: the Comparative Fit Index
was conducted on the 48 items with Principal Axis Factoring (CFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Root Mean
extraction. An oblimin rotation was then performed to reach a Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA). In particular, CFI
simple solution. Both the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) and parallel and NNFI values between 0.90 and 0.95 are considered acceptable
analysis, based on Monte Carlo simulations (Horn, 1965; Patil while values over 0.95 are considered very good; on the other
et al., 2008), suggested that eight factors should be retained, hand, RMSEA values smaller than or equal to 0.08 indicate a good
accounting for 70.9% of the total variance. All of the items of fit. Specifically, it was expected that M2 would show a better fit

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

TABLE 1 | Factor loadings of the explorative factor analysis (PAF with TABLE 2 | Means, standard deviations, and reliability of each dimension (Study One).
oblimin rotation).
M SD α No. of Items
Items/Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mentoring practices 3.80 0.86 0.91 6
DEV_4 0.73 Knowledge sharing 3.56 0.72 0.92 6
DEV_3 0.65 Team reflexivity 3.46 0.75 0.88 6
DEV_6 0.53 Organizational memory 3.23 0.91 0.89 6
DEV_9 0.52 Organizational communication 2.97 0.82 0.90 6
DEV_8 0.50 Technological support 3.25 0.80 0.91 6
DEV_5 0.43 Human resources training 3.03 0.90 0.90 6
TECH_4 0.83 Human resources development 2.71 0.81 0.90 6
TECH_5 0.80
TECH_3 0.76
TECH_2 0.73
than M1. In this perspective, also the chi-square difference test
TECH_7 0.73
(1χ2 ) between the two nested models was performed (Satorra
TECH_1 0.59
and Bentler, 2001): if the eight factors were sufficiently distinct, a
SHA_3 0.82
significant decrease in chi-square from M1 to M2 was expected.
Results of the CFA indicated that the one-factor model (M1)
SHA_5 0.74
did not show a satisfactory fit, CFI = 0.88, NNFI = 0.87,
SHA_7 0.72
RMSEA = 0.20. Conversely, the eight-factor model (M2) showed a
SHA_4 0.71
very satisfactory fit, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08. The
SHA_2 0.70
chi square difference between M1 and M2 showed that there was
SHA_6 0.47
indeed a significant increase of fit in M2, 1χ2 M1 –M2 = 1499.16,
MENT_4 0.85
p < 0.000. Thus, the eight-factor model (M2) has to be preferred
MENT_3 0.74
to the one-factor model (M1) (see Table 4).
MENT_1 0.62
MENT_5 0.55
Discussion
MENT_2 0.54
Study One purposed to generate a new questionnaire, the
MENT_8 0.45
KMSP-Q, grounded on the theoretical framework of the SECI’s
REFL_2 −0.68
model and designed to capture the four knowledge conversion
REFL_8 −0.62
modes that Nonaka supposed could enhance the organizational
REFL_1 −0.60
knowledge assets. Results confirmed that KMSP-Q had good
REFL_3 −0.56
psychometric properties, as well as each of its eight dimensions.
REFL_9 −0.55
Thus, a first contribution of this study is that findings showed
REFL_4 −0.47 adequate robustness of the KMSP-Q, a measurement that could
MEM_4 0.69 help to actualize and test the theory underlying the SECI. Indeed,
MEM_5 0.69 this allows scholars to root knowledge management research
MEM_2 0.65 on a measure that reflects a strong conceptualization, both
MEM_3 0.43 assessing the knowledge generation construct and integrating
MEM_8 0.38 it within possible explicative models with other variables. Also,
MEM_7 0.36 policies and interventions to support knowledge generation
OCOM_5 −0.73 and development may be consistently targeted to implement
OCOM_6 −0.73 the effectiveness of organizational practices or hinder the
OCOM_4 −0.72 generation process.
OCOM_1 −0.65 Secondly, results of this study showed that the eight-factor
OCOM_2 −0.64 model had a better fit than the alternative one-dimension
OCOM_8 −0.40 model. This means that each dimension is related to the others,
TRAI_4 −0.70 but also offers a unique contribution to the construct. In
TRAI_3 −0.61 other words, they do not completely overlap and merging
TRAI_1 −0.59 all the different facets in a single dimension could be
TRAI_6 −0.52 misleading. Overall, findings supported a multidimensional
TRAI_2 −0.51 conceptualization of the knowledge generation process,
TRAI_5 −0.43 showing as the eight identified key processes provide
more information than a holistic measurement. Hence,
DEV, human resources development; TECH, technological support; SHA,
knowledge sharing; MENT, mentoring practices; REFL, team reflexivity; MEM,
our tool is consistent with the theoretical model it was
organizational memory; OCOM, organizational communication; TRAI, human drawn on, reflecting in its multidimensional structure a
resources training. main feature of the Nonaka’s SECI model, and providing

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

TABLE 3 | Intercorrelations among dimensions (Study One).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1) Mentoring practices 1

(2) Knowledge sharing 0.63∗∗ 1
(3) Team reflexivity 0.62∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 1
(4) Organizational memory 0.58∗∗ 0.49∗∗ 0.67∗∗ 1
(5) Organizational communication 0.59∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.65∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 1
(6) Technological support 0.41∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 1
(7) Human resources training 0.66∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.65∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 1
(8) Human resources development 0.59∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 0.64∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.73∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.68∗∗ 1
∗∗ p < 0.01.

TABLE 4 | Confirmative factor analysis: comparison of two nested models

Study Two further aimed to assess the KMSP-Q’s criterion
(Study One). validity by verifying whether and how the eight dimensions
uniquely contribute to different organizational outcomes (i.e.,
Models CFA performance, innovativeness, collective effectiveness). Indeed,
M1: Single factor χ2 (104) = 1755.96, p < 0.000
as previously discussed, the existing literature has suggested
RMSEA = 0.20
that the different conversion modes could lead to different
CFI = 0.88 outcomes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez and
NNFI = 0.87 Sabherwal, 2001; Chou and He, 2004; Chen and Chen, 2006).
M2: Eight correlated factors χ2 (76) = 256.80, p < 0.000 Specifically, taking into account epistemological feature, scholars
RMSEA = 0.078 (Gourlay, 2006; Byosiere and Luethge, 2008; Bratianu, 2010)
CFI = 0.99 have claimed that conversion modes that substantially transform
NNFI = 0.98 the quality of knowledge (i.e., Externalization: tacit-to-explicit;
1χ2 M1 –M2(28) = 1499.16, p < 0.000 Internalization: explicit-to-tacit) are more strictly related to
innovation outcomes rather than conversion modes, that
are limited to transferring the same type of knowledge (i.e.,
initial evidences for a multifaceted conceptualization of Socialization: tacit-to-tacit; Combination: explicit-to-explicit).
the knowledge generation process. Study Two purposes to Consistently, we hypothesized that the Externalization (REFL,
strengthen this result, both contributing to its generalization MEM) and Internalization dimensions (TRAI, DEV) will
and testing whether and how the eight dimensions could be related to organizational innovativeness. Considering
outline specific patterns differently contributing to the the ontological feature, we further hypothesized that those
organizational effectiveness. dimensions related to the interpersonal (Socialization: MENT,
SHA) and team levels (Externalization: REFL, MEM) will be
more strictly related to group collective efficacy, whereas the
STUDY TWO organizational-level dimensions (Combination: OCOM, TECH)
will be more strictly related to organizational outcomes (i.e.,
Generalizability in Knowledge Contexts performance and innovativeness).
and Construct Validity
The second study firstly proposed to confirm results from Study Materials and Methods
One, thus contributing to demonstrating the generalizability Participants and Procedure
of the KMSP-Q. Specifically, it replicated the CFA analyses in Participants of Study Two included 466 employees working in
an independent sample of employees working in knowledge- the health sector (specifically, in 11 Italian Hospitals). They were
intensive contexts. This is the case of health organizations, mainly females (60.4%) and ranged in age from 23 to 69 years
whose effectiveness relies on an intellectually skilled workforce (M = 42.7 years, SD = 9.6). Consistent with their profession,
(Alvesson, 2000). Specifically, health organizations show a high participants had attained a relatively high level of education
level of heterogeneity in the different activities carried out (14.4% high school, 33.8% graduates, 15.5% Bachelor’s degree,
and within working groups and professions (Perrow, 1965); 26.8% Postgraduate degree). They held different organizational
have to solve increasingly complex health problems and handle positions (53.8% auxiliary nurses, 69.8% nurses, 6.7% head
demands from clinical care activities (Sorrells-Jones and Weaver, nurses, 20.9% physicians), had mostly a permanent job (73.2%),
1999; von Nordenflycht, 2010); and base their practices on and ranged in organizational tenure from 1 to 38 years
high-quality knowledge embedded in equipment, products, and (M = 10.7 years, SD = 8.8).
organizational routines (Starbuck, 1992; Candy, 2010). It is Data collection was conducted by research assistants
therefore fundamental for health organizations to manage their that directly contacted the hospital’s managers and, after
knowledge resources, which constitute their key capital. their approval, administered the questionnaire. Participants

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

voluntarily participated in the study and did not receive any kind Results of the CFA indicated that the one-factor model (M1) did
of reward. Each of the employees received the questionnaire in a not show a satisfactory fit (CFI = 0.88, NNFI = 0.87, RMSE = 0.20,
blank envelope along with a presentation letter, which contained χ2 (104) = 1646.63, p < 0.000). Conversely, the eight-factor
a brief description of the research and its main objectives. Prior solution model (M2) showed a very satisfactory fit (CFI = 0.99,
to administering the survey, all participants were informed of the NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08, χ2 (76) = 197.95, p < 0.000). The
anonymity and confidentiality of the survey and were allowed to chi-square difference between M1 and M2 showed that there was
decline participation if they so choose. The study that collected a significant increase of fit in M2 (1χ2 M1 –M2 (28) = 1448.68,
the data for this validation was approved by the Comitato p < 0.000). Thus, as in Study One, results of the CFA suggested
I.R.B. (Institutional Review Board), Department of Psychology, that the eight-factor solution has to be preferred to the alternative
Sapienza University of Rome (Prot. No. 0000151). one-factor model.

Measures Multivariate Regression Analysis

To measure the knowledge management processes, we used the A multivariate regression analysis with manifest variables was
KMSP-Q, as in Study One. As outcome variables, we used two conducted in order to test the criterion validity of the KMSP-Q. In
indicators of organizational performance and innovativeness, this analysis, the eight KMSP-Q dimensions were the predictors
respectively, aimed to capture employees’ perception about how while organizational performance, organizational innovativeness,
well their hospital is doing with regard to its own goals (one item: and group collective efficacy comprised the three criteria.
“To what degree, in the last year, has your hospital. . .achieved a Standardized structural coefficients are reported in Tables 5,
good performance goal?”) and the degree their hospital is capable 6). The three outcomes were predicted by different knowledge
of being innovative (one item: “To what degree, in the last year, has management dimensions. Organizational performance was
your hospital. . .been innovative?”) (Van Dyck et al., 2005). Both predicted by DEV, REFL, and TECH, and marginally by OCOM.
indicators were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all Organizational innovativeness was predicted by OCOM, TECH,
to 10 = completely. The third outcome we considered was group and DEV. Group collective efficacy was predicted by REFL, SHA,
collective efficacy (Borgogni et al., 2009), a six-item scale that DEV, MEM, and MENT. The KMSP-Q dimensions accounted
captures, from the group’s perspective, the shared belief about from 31 to 40% of the variance of the three outcomes.
how well the work group is conjointly capable to organize and
relate to each other in order to produce given attainments. We Discussion
used the hospital ward – that is the clinical unit defined according Results of Study Two provided good psychometric support for
to clinical diseases (e.g., orthopedics, surgery) – as the referent for the KMSP-Q’s validity, being consistent with findings from Study
measuring collective efficacy. Example items include: “I believe One and thus contributing to its generalizability. Specifically, the
that my ward is able to. . . fulfill deadlines even in situations CFA comparison between the one-factor and eight-factor models
of work overload”; “. . . to keep harmony even when tension is supported a multidimensional conceptualization of the construct
high.” Response choices ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to in knowledge-intensive contexts.
5 = strongly agree. Second, Study Two contributed to further test the criterion
validity verifying whether and how the eight KMSP dimensions
Results were related to the outcome variables. The multivariate
Confirmative Factor Analysis regressions showed different and specific relationships with
A CFA was performed on an independent sample to test the the three outcomes, thus providing a unique contribution in
robustness of the factor structure that emerged in Study One. explaining processes that, from knowledge generation, lead to
The same data analysis strategy as in Study One was employed. better overall organizational effectiveness. Nevertheless, future

TABLE 5 | Means, standard deviations, and reliability (in parentheses) of each dimension, and intercorrelations among dimensions and outcome variables (Study Two).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(1) Mentoring practices 3.44 0.88 (0.86)

(2) Knowledge sharing 3.22 0.87 0.54∗∗ (0.93)
(3) Team reflexivity 3.26 0.85 0.57∗∗ 0.65∗∗ (0.88)
(4) Organizational Memory 2.76 0.96 0.49∗∗ 0.56∗∗ 0.73∗∗ (0.88)
(5) Organizational communication 2.85 0.90 0.47∗∗ 0.69∗∗ 0.67∗∗ 0.66∗∗ (0.91)
(6) Technological support 2.86 0.96 0.37∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.59∗∗ 0.64∗∗ 0.67∗∗ (0.92)
(7) Human resources training 2.77 0.95 0.53∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.69∗∗ 0.71∗∗ 0.71∗∗ 0.67∗∗ (0.91)
(8) Human resources development 2.48 0.90 0.47∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.74∗∗ 0.62∗∗ 0.76∗∗ (0.91)
(9) Organizational performance 6.16 2.22 0.31∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.49∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.45∗∗ –
(10) Organizational innovativeness 5.60 2.47 0.33∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.48∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.74∗∗ –
(11) Group collective efficacy 3.21 0.82 0.44∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.48∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.48∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.41∗∗ (0.92)
∗∗ p < 0.01.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

TABLE 6 | Results of multivariate regression analysis.

Organizational performance Organizational innovativeness Group Collective efficacy

β p β p β p

(1) Mentoring practices 0.037 n.s. 0.002 n.s. 0.107 0.025

(2) Knowledge sharing 0.040 n.s. 0.042 n.s. 0.247 0.000
(3) Team reflexivity 0.174 0.009 0.025 n.s. 0.269 0.000
(4) Organizational memory 0.027 n.s. 0.096 n.s. 0.128 0.038
(5) Organizational communication 0.136 0.050 0.259 0.000 0.004 n.s.
(6) Technological support 0.148 0.014 0.141 0.012 0.007 n.s.
(7) Human resources training 0.062 n.s. 0.111 n.s. 0.025 n.s.
(8) Human resources development 0.197 0.004 0.127 0.047 0.197 0.002
R2 = 0.308 R2 = 0.395 R2 = 0.398

β are standardized regression coefficients.

longitudinal studies should confirm the predictive validity of different conversion modes differently relate to creativity and
the eight dimensions. Specifically considering our hypotheses, implementation of innovation stages (Lee and Choi, 2003) or
results were consistent with the ontological feature of the also how the interplay among them paves the way to innovation
SECI model, but not with the epistemological one. Indeed, through different patterns.
considering the ontological feature, all of the interpersonal-
level (MENT, SHA) and team-level (REFL, MEM) dimensions
were significantly related to group collective efficacy, as GENERAL DISCUSSION
expected. Also, the two organizational-level (OCOM, TECH)
dimensions were related to organizational performance and Scholars have recognized the prominent role of the SECI
innovativeness indicators. The two individual-level dimensions model in offering a comprehensive conceptualization for
showed specific patterns: TRAI did not provide any unique organizational knowledge generation processes. However,
contribution to the considered outcomes while DEV significantly extant research is grounded on limited empirical evidence
contributed to all of them. These findings suggest that while with respect to both the model’s operationalization and
training processes support individual knowledge creation or its contribution to organizational effectiveness (see our
implementation, its actual transfer into organizational practices qualitative review and Tammets’, 2012 meta-analysis,
and subsequent outcomes depends on the training design 2012). To address this issue, the aim of this research
and other organizational conditions (Arthur et al., 2003; was to develop and test a multidimensional instrument,
Salas et al., 2012). the KMP-Q, to capture the generation modes leading to
Taking into account the epistemological level and following knowledge creation. Our results provide initial empirical
scholars’ suggestions (Gourlay, 2006; Byosiere and Luethge, evidence for the KMSP-Q’s structure, showing its
2008; Bratianu, 2010), we hypothesized that dimensions related psychometric robustness and supporting the usefulness of a
to the transformative modes (Externalization: REFL, MEM; multidimensional conceptualization.
Internalization: TRAI, DEV) may be more strictly related to Overall, the twofold studies contribute to the knowledge
innovation. Results demonstrated that only DEV was related management literature in several ways. Firstly, we propose
to organizational innovativeness while REFL was related to an overarching measure of knowledge generation processes
organizational performance but not to innovativeness. We in work contexts (Alavi and Leidner, 2001), consistent
propose that these positive or missing links may be due with the epistemological and ontological SECI features.
to our innovativeness indicator that measured the actual This is an important starting point because a reliable
implementation of innovation rather than the creative instrument allows for the proposal of explicative models
preliminary stages for innovativeness. Thus, it is plausible or the testing of specific patterns that lead to different
that all the four conversion models contribute to innovation, indicators of organizational effectiveness (Becerra-Fernandez
but at different phases of the process (i.e., idea exploration, and Sabherwal, 2001; Marr et al., 2003). Thus, having a
generation, championing, and implementation). For instance, reliable instrument is the essential premise for testing the
some scholars have highlighted that reflexivity practices set the SECI model. Future research could assess its consistency
conditions for readiness to innovation but do not necessarily and generalizability based on a sound empirical ground,
result in its implementation (West, 2000; Farnese and Livi, also in cross-national or cross-sector studies (Glisby and
2016; Farnese et al., 2016b). Conversely, both performance Holden, 2003; Gourlay, 2006; Bratianu, 2010); verify its
and innovation indicators were related to the two macro-level validity in predicting value creation (Tammets, 2012); or
knowledge-transfer dimensions (OCOM, TECH), expressing focus on organizational factors that affect the implementation
the more explicit and formalized quality of knowledge. of knowledge management strategies (e.g., goals and values
Future studies should verify whether dimensions expressing consistent with learning-oriented practices).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

Secondly, in line with Nonaka’s framework, results of both Indeed, in order to enhance organizational effectiveness,
studies gave support to a multidimensional conceptualization of management may propose programs aimed at enhancing the
the knowledge generation process, showing that the different key critical processes that, if not supported, could stop the virtuous
processes hold a unique informative contribution that add to knowledge generation spiral; implement those processes that
the overall organization’s capability to generate knowledge, thus need attention despite not being an immediate cause for concern;
leading to different outcomes. or even boost those processes on which the organizational
A further finding is related to the prominent role identity is grounded (Hatch and Schultz, 2002).
of the ontological feature that, highlighting the social The KMSP-Q can further be used to assess the programs’
level where knowledge is generated, paves the way to effectiveness, by monitoring how these processes evolve over
specific outcomes. In other words, a multidimensional time, or to compare organizations within or across sectors, thus
operationalization that distinguishes among processes defining benchmarks or specific standard profiles.
at the interpersonal, group, and organizational levels
allows us to focus on how each social level contributes to
generate new knowledge. This represents a starting point Limitations and Direction for Future
for future research to analyze how each social level may Research
enhance or hinder the flow of knowledge production. For The aim of this paper was to integrate the literature regarding
instance, it can explore whether and how communication the SECI model, by proposing a multidimensional questionnaire
exchange works among teammates (i.e., at group level) and within this conceptual framework and examining its structure
through top-down levels or how to implement knowledge and construct validity. Although the dimensionality of the
retention (e.g., memory, forgetting) at the individual and KMSP-Q was mainly addressed consistently with Nonaka’s
organizational level. framework, further dimensions could be added and retested
Conversely, the epistemological feature didn’t seem to for construct validation. For instance, the inter-organizational
discriminate among transformative or generative modes, in knowledge exchange could be included (Martin-de-Castro
relation to the considered outcomes. This result could suggest et al., 2008). Additionally, the cross-sectional design precludes
that, consistently with Nonaka’s model, all modes fairly the ability to make statements of causal relationships on
contribute to the spiral of new knowledge. Following other organizational performance indicators, and future studies
scholars’ suggestions (see Gourlay, 2006; Bratianu, 2010), further utilizing time-lagged or multisource data are recommended.
research should verify this result, for instance by relating the For instance, a longitudinal design would allow to explore how
KMP-Q dimensions to different innovation outcomes. the knowledge creation modes develop and their interaction
Finally, this study offers a cross-cultural contribution to across time, thus offering empirical grounding to the spiral
the model given that, as far as we know, research on dynamism the SECI assumes (Nonaka, 1994). For instance,
SECI in western countries is underrepresented, probably due such a design would allow scholars and practitioners to better
to the less promising results emerging from several studies understand the specific contribution of each dimension in
in Western organizations, which have shown how much the interplay with the others, also in relation to different
national cultures can significantly promote or hinder the outcomes (e.g., learning or performance or innovation at
success of knowledge management initiatives (Tseng, 2010; the individual, team, and the organizational level), and
Magnier-Watanabe et al., 2011). what happens in case of change of level (e.g., when the
organization invests on one facet, for instance, introducing
Practical Implications new practices or through training; or when one of them is
The KMP-Q represents a useful inventory for management in particularly weak).
order to monitor their capability to manage knowledge resources, Also, the single-country setting and the specific health sector
feature their profile with relative strengths and weaknesses, for Study Two could limit the generalizability of our findings,
and assess organizational investments on policies and practices due to local social practices rooted in contexts (Nonaka and
knowledge oriented. von Krogh, 2009) and the embeddedness of tacit and implicit
Specifically, the KMSP-Q provides management with more knowledge (Li and Gao, 2003). Thus, research would benefit
insight into the “state of the art” of organization’s capability from replications in other national or organizational contexts.
to generate and implement its own knowledge, tapping critical We further believe that, given the nature of tacit knowledge
processes. Assessing a profile is important because the SECI and difficulty in unveiling it, research would benefit from the
model assumes that knowledge creation is an endless and adoption of mixed methods.
recursive process. Thus, criticalities in a knowledge conversion Overall, this study presents some encouraging results
mode (epistemological feature) or on a social level (ontological that could stimulate additional inquiry. For instance, modes
feature) could create an impasse or even a break in the related to different qualities of knowledge (transformative
flow of knowledge. vs. transfer) do not seem to differently relate to innovation,
Moreover, understanding the specific contribution given as some scholars have suggested (Byosiere and Luethge,
by each dimension, compared to the others, paves the way 2008). Thus, future research should specifically compare
to set priorities and focused interventions, supporting the innovation outcomes related to both the generation
organizational strategies and policies for knowledge generation. (e.g., creativity) and implementation phases (e.g., new

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

products/services introduced to the market). In addition, AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

multilevel research could study in depth the ontological feature of
the model, simultaneously examining the individuals’ and team’s MF and BB developed the research project and reviewed
shared perceptions. the literature. AC carried out the data analysis. GP
reviewed the manuscript.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

FUNDING
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author. This work was supported by the Open Access Publishing Fund
of the University of Cagliari, with the funding of the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna – L.R. n. 7/2007.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
approved by Comitato I.R.B. (Institutional Review Board),
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome (Prot. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
No. 0000151). The patients/participants provided their written online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
informed consent to participate in this study. 2019.02730/full#supplementary-material

REFERENCES Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative

framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15, 555–568.
Ahuja, G., and Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strateg. Manag. J. 22, Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree-test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav.
197–220. doi: 10.1002/smj.157 Res. 1, 245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge Chen, M. Y., and Chen, A. P. (2006). Knowledge management performance
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q. 25, evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004. J. Inform. Sci. 32, 17–38. doi:
107–136. 10.1177/0165551506059220
Alvarez, K., Salas, E., and Garofano, C. M. (2004). An integrated model of training Chou, S. W., and He, M. Y. (2004). Knowledge management: the distinctive roles of
evaluation and effectiveness. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 3, 385–416. doi: 10.1177/ knowledge assets in facilitating knowledge creation. J. Inform. Sci. 30, 146–164.
1534484304270820 doi: 10.1177/0165551504042804
Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge- Collins, C. J., and Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination:
intensive companies. J. Manag. Stud. 37, 1101–1124. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486. the role of human resource practices in the performance of high-
00218 technology firms. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 544–560. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.21
Argote, L., McEvily, B., and Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge 794671
in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance.
themes. Manag. Sci. 49, 571–582. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571. J. Knowl. Manag. 9, 101–115. doi: 10.1108/13673270510602809
14424 Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., and Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness Manage What They Know. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.
of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard
features. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 234–245. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88. Business School Press.
2.234 Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., and DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does
Becerra-Fernandez, R. S., and Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and
management: a contingency perspective. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 18, 23–55. non-mentored individuals. J. Vocat. Behav. 72, 254–267. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.
doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045676 2007.04.005
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Abingdon: Farnese, M. L., Bellò, B., Livi, S., Barbieri, B., and Gubbiotti, P. (2016a).
Routledge. Learning the ropes: the protective role of mentoring in correctional police
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., Petitta, L., and Latham, G. P. (2009). Collective officers’ socialization process. Milit. Psychol. 28, 429–447. doi: 10.1037/mil000
efficacy and organizational commitment in an Italian city hall. Eur. Psychol. 14, 0131
363–371. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.14.4.363 Farnese, M. L., Fida, R., and Livi, S. (2016b). Reflexivity and flexibility:
Bratianu, C. (2010). A critical analysis of Nonaka’s model of knowledge dynamics. complementary routes to innovation? J. Manag. Organ. 22, 404–419. doi:
Electronic J. Knowl. Manag. 8, 193–200. 10.1017/jmo.2015.42
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: how to capture knowledge Farnese, M. L., and Livi, S. (2016). How reflexivity enhances organizational
without killing it. Harv. Bus. Rev. 78, 73–80. innovativeness: the mediation role of team support for innovation and
Byosiere, P., and Luethge, D. J. (2008). Knowledge domains and knowledge individual commitment. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 14, 525–536. doi: 10.1057/
conversion: an empirical investigation. J. Knowl. Manag. 12, 67–78. doi: 10. kmrp.2015.13
1108/13673270810859523 Ford, D. (2004). Trust and Knowledge Management: The Seeds of
Cabrera, E. F., and Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people Success. In Handbook on Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer,
management practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 16, 720–735. doi: 10.1080/ 553-575.
09585190500083020 Gherardi, S. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing
Candy, P. C. (2010). Healthcare Knowledge Management: Issues, Advances and in organizations. Organization 7, 211–223. doi: 10.1177/13505084007
Successes. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. 2001

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

Glisby, M., and Holden, N. (2003). Contextual constraints in knowledge Nonaka, I., and von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective-Tacit knowledge and
management theory: the cultural embeddedness of Nonaka’s knowledge- knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational
creating company. Knowl. Process Manag. 10, 29–36. doi: 10.1002/kpm.158 knowledge creation theory. Organ. Sci. 20, 635–652. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework 0412
and some practice implications. J. Knowl. Manag. 6, 23–30. doi: 10.1108/ Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., and Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge
13673270210417664 creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organ. Stud. 27,
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s 1179–1208. doi: 10.1177/0170840606066312
theory. J. Manag. Stud. 43, 1415–1436. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006. O’Dell, C., and Greyson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: identification
00637.x and transfer of internal best practices. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 154–174. doi:
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing 10.2307/41165948
knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 82–111. Patil, V. H., Singh, S. R., Mishra, S. K., and Donovan, DT. (2008). Efficient
Hatch, M. J., and Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Hum. theory development and factor retention criteria: abandon the ’eigenvalue
Relations 55, 989–1018. greater than one’ criterion. J. Bus. Res. 61, 162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.
Hedberg, B. (1981). “How organizations learn and unlearn?,”in Handbook of 05.008
Organizational Design. eds P.C. Nystrom, and W.H. Starbuck, (London, Oxford Patriotta, G. (2003). Organizational Knowledge in the Making: How Firms Create,
University Press). Use and Institutionalize Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Patriotta, G. (2004). On studying organizational knowledge. Knowl. Manag. Res.
Psychometrika 30, 179–185. doi: 10.1007/bf02289447 Pract. 2, 3–12. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500017
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Patriotta, G., Castellano, A., and Wright, M. (2013). Coordinating knowledge
Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2, 337–359. doi: 10.1177/153448430325 transfer: global managers as higher-level intermediaries. J. World Bus. 48,
7985 515–526. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.09.007
King, W. R. (ed.). (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Perrow, C. (1965). “Hospitals: technology, structure, and goals,” in Handbook of
Boston, MA: Springer, 3–13. Organizations. ed J March, (Chicago: Ran McNally), 910–971.
Koh, J., and Kim, Y. G. (2004). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R. I. (1999). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart
e-business perspective. Expert Syst. Appl. 26, 155–166. doi: 10.1016/s0957- Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
4174(03)00116-7 Review Press.
Lee, H., and Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes and Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Kraiger, K., and Smith-Jentsch, K. (2012). The science of
J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 20, 179–228. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.1104 training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychol.
5756 Sci. Public Int. 13, 74–101. doi: 10.1177/1529100612436661
Li, M., and Gao, F. (2003). Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge: a Satorra, A., and Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic
critical review. J. Knowl. Manag. 7, 6–14. doi: 10.1108/1367327031049 for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66, 507–514. doi: 10.1007/
2903 bf02296192
Magnier-Watanabe, R., Benton, C., and Senoo, D. (2011). A study of knowledge Schippers, M., West, M. A., and Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and
management enablers across countries. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 9, 17–28. innovation: the moderating role of team context. J. Manag. 41, 769–788. doi:
doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2011.1 10.1177/0149206312441210
Marr, B., Gray, D., and Neely, A. (2003). Why do firms measure their Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning
intellectual capital? J. Int. Cap. 4, 441–464. doi: 10.1108/1469193031050 Organization.New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
4509 Sorrells-Jones, J., and Weaver, D. (1999). Knowledge workers and knowledge-
Martin-de-Castro, G., Lopez-Saez, P., and Navas-Lopez, J. (2008). Processes of intense organizations, Part 1: a promising framework for nursing and
knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: empirical evidence from healthcare. J. Nurs. Adm. 29(7/8), 12–18. doi: 10.1097/00005110-199907000-
Boston’s Route 128 and Spain. Technovation 28, 222–230. doi: 10.1016/j. 00008
technovation.2007.10.002 Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. J. Manag. Stud. 29,
Melville, N., Kraemer, .K., and Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and 713–740. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00686.x
organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of
28, 283–322. stickiness. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82, 9–27. doi: 10.1006/obhd.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., and DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and 2000.2884
team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 535–546. doi: 10.1037/ Tammets, K. (2012). Meta-analysis of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s knowledge
a0013773 management model in the context of lifelong learning. J. Knowl. Manag. Pract.
Moorman, C., and Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory 13, 1–10.
on new product performance and creativity. J. Mark. Res. 34, 91–106. doi: Tseng, S. M. (2010). The correlation between organizational culture and knowledge
10.1177/002224379703400108 conversion on corporate performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 14, 269–284. doi:
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. 10.1108/13673271011032409
Sci. 5, 14–37. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw098 Van den Hooff, B., and Van Weenen, F. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context:
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., and Konno, N. (1994). Organizational the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and
knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test. Int. Bus. Rev. 3, 337–351. CMC use on knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 8, 117–130. doi: 10.1108/
doi: 10.1016/0969-5931(94)90027-2 13673270410567675
Nonaka, I., and Nishiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., and Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational
Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation. Oxford: Oxford University error management culture and its impact on performance: a two-study
Press. replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1228–1240. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, K. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York, 1228
NY: Oxford University Press. van Wijk, R., Jansen, J., and Lyles, M. (2008). Inter-and intra-organizational
Nonaka, I., and Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents
knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 1, 2–10. and consequences. J. Manag. Stud. 45, 830–853. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500001 00771.x
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory
model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan. 33, 5–34. doi: 10.1016/ and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 155–174.
s0024-6301(99)00115-6 doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.45577926

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730

Farnese et al. Managing Knowledge in Organizations

Wang, S., and Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for knowledge sharing. Strategic Manag. J. 33, 1090–1102. doi: 10.1002/smj.
future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20, 115–131. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr. 1959
2009.10.001 Zollo, M., and Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
Warnier, J. P. (1999). Construire la Culture Matérielle: l’Homme qui Pensait Avec capabilities. Organ. Sci. 13, 339–351. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
ses Doigts. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 176.
West, M. A. (2000). “Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams,” Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
in Product Development Teams, eds M. M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, and absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
S. T. Beyerlein (Stamford, CT: JAI Press), 1–29. potential conflict of interest.
West, M.A., Beyerlein, M., Johnson, D., & Beyerlein, S. (2000). “Reflexivity,
revolution and innovation in work teams,”. in Advances in interdisciplinary Copyright © 2019 Farnese, Barbieri, Chirumbolo and Patriotta. This is an open-
studies of work teams. eds M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Stanford: access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
JAI Press), vol. 5, 1–29 License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Wexler, M. (2002). Organizational memory and intellectual capital. J. Intellect. Cap. provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
3, 393–414. doi: 10.1108/14691930210448314 original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
Zhou, K. Z., and Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2730