Literature often presents thinking of knowledge as a dichotomy. Knowledge can be explicit or implicit, local or global, individual or collective. Explicit knowledge is available through written material, lectures, and media and has global character. It consists of facts and artefacts, the so called know-what and know-why knowledge. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is tacit and local in character. This knowledge is acquired through experience and social practise, in other words, know-how and know-who knowledge.
A central contribution to the understanding knowledge and innovation is Jensen et al (2007) who present two ideal types of learning and innovation. Codified scientific and technological knowledge characterise the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) mode, while learning by doing, using and interaction is included in the Doing, Using and Interacting (DUI) mode.
Organisations that combine the STI mode with the DUI mode are the most innovative and this draws attention to the grey zone between the divisions of knowledge (680).
Learning the four types of knowledge, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-who, takes place in different ways and through different channels. The STI mode focuses on know-what and know-why, where important aspects can be acquired through written material.
Specialised what is normally a requirement in science. The DUI-mode includes know-how and know-who. Know-know-how relates to high skilled workers, who practise in a given field.
Know-who involves relationship and communication with peers at conferences, fieldwork and teamwork as well as dealing with customers, subcontractors or other external partners.
Through know-who codes of information and social bounds develop (682). Jensen et al (2007) argue that science and technology involve all types of knowledge, but the STI-mode has been dominant in technological development. Technology consists of practice – how it is produced and used, and an understanding that supports and rationalises the technology itself.
Science does not normally influence technological advancement directly, but provides a general understanding and a point of departure for further development. Know-why is
therefore incorporated in technology. Still, know-why cannot fully explain practise and that is why the DUI mode is crucial for success. Practise is experienced through working in the field with the ever on-going changes and new problems that have to be faced. The workers acquire generic and specific know-how skills through this process. Learning by doing and using normally also implies working together with colleagues, partners and possibly customers, which also develop know-who knowledge. Collaboration facilitates the transition of local and tacit knowledge (683-684).
There is a tension between the STI and DUI modes both at the micro and macro level in the economy since there is a need to codify and produce explicit knowledge in formal R&D processes, while at the same time encourage learning from informal interaction within and between organisations to build competence. It is thus a knowledge management task to make strong version of the two modes to work together in order to get the most out of knowledge creation and innovation (Jensen et al, 2007: 689). Empirical findings suggest that firms are characterised either by STI or DUI learning strategies, although many firms also combine the two strategies. As mentioned, firms that combine the two strategies are the most innovative.
Increased attention is paid to DUI learning and innovation strategies, as know-how and know who knowledge is largely embodied in employees and thus beyond the firms reach when employees move (Lorenz and Lundvall, 2006). Since the DUI mode is central in innovation processes, appropriate DUI mode indicators should be developed to better describe innovation processes and R&D policy objectives and priorities should take the DUI mode into account (Jensen et al, 2007: 689).
The STI mode and the DUI mode of learning and innovation are competing, but at the same time supplementary models to explain how different types of knowledge apply to innovation processes. The four types of knowledge should be acquired by individuals and fostered in different ways through different channels. Research implies all types of knowledge and we could therefore assume that doctoral education intends to develop all types. The STI mode of learning will be an integrated part of the students´ research and dissertation. Because it is explicit and codified, it can more easily be identified and evaluated than the DUI mode. The DUI mode will vary according to how and with whom research is carried out in social practise. We would therefore expect that know-how and know-who knowledge is dependent on the research environment and the networks the students have access to. We would also expect that heterogeneous networks facilitates DUI mode learning as the students will get
richer input and get socialised into different environments. Students in industry-academia relations would thus potentially access diverse research environments. Still, we can expect this to be modified with the level of integration, interaction and cooperation within the research environments.
Another central contribution comes from Lam and Lundvall, who see education systems and labour markets as key societal institutions that shape the learning capabilities and knowledge creation in firms. Knowledge at firm level can be placed along two axes; the collective and explicit versus the individual and tacit, which give taxonomy of four knowledge types that will be more or less developed in all organisations. Embodied knowledge is characterised of individual and tacit knowledge, which is normally acquired through practise and experience.
Embrained knowledge is individual and explicit, depends on the individual skills and cognitive abilities and is learnt through formal education. Encoded knowledge is collective and explicit and shared through formal information systems in the organisation. Embedded knowledgeis collective and tacit and built into norms, routines and habits.
Differences between organisation´s ability to develop tacit knowledge, result in different capabilities to learn and innovate. Lam and Lundvall have developed a four ways taxonomy of organisations connected to the four types of knowledge. Professional bureaucracy based on individual and explicit knowledge refers to highly specialised individual carrying out highly specialised tasks. Precision can be necessary in many situations, but generally professional bureaucracy will lead to a narrow focus on learning and thus limited innovation.
Machine bureaucracy is based on collective and explicit knowledge and characterised by standardisation and control, typically required in mass production. Tacit knowledge is not fostered in this environment and as a consequence, innovation is limited. Operating adhocracyhas an individual and tacit knowledge base and draws on individual know-how and experience in problem solving, with few control and standardisation mechanisms. This gives an explorative environment that allows individuals to accumulate knowledge, use a mix of different competences and to work autonomously and in interaction with others to solve problems, which is likely to lead to radical innovations. Finally, J-form organisations have a collective and implicit knowledge base and are characterised by shared values and an organisational culture that encourage systematically interaction across function. This leads to a stable environment and to learning by doing strategies, which normally results in incremental innovation (Lam and Lundvall in Lorenz and Lundvall, 2006:118-120).