What you are describing is to rely solely on codified knowledge, i.e. knowledge that has been coded into such things as papers and books. This is one form of knowledge transmission, however it has some definite drawbacks.

There are somethings that cannot be transferred via codified knowledge, e.g. "know how" how to do  certain things like ride a bike or make certain kinds of japanese pottery. Now you can write down certain steps but there are somethings that cannot be written down e.g. how a soup is supposed to taste or how to create a beautiful yet strong weld. Other kinds of knowledge that can't be transferred via this method are such forms of knowledge such as cultural knowledge or "know why" why do we do things this way? What does it really mean when your boss says, "I suggest you rethink that decision." This kind of knowledge is only transferred through lived experience. Now sometimes it is transferred via stories but the stories need to be told within the context of the culture so you understand the exact nature of the meaning of the stories. 

If interested, I can refer you further to the works of Polanyi, Spender and Nonaka to get a handle on these different kinds of knowledge.

I agree with Michael - actually I do not think there is knowledge outside of the human mind - what we have available in texts and books e.t.c. are *descriptions* of knowledge - which may or may not be *understandable* by another human being. This understanding is our efforts to *re-create* the knowledge of the author - which we may or may not be able to do. As far as I know (?) we - as human beings - cannot read each other minds and so we can never know if our personal understanding of anything is the same as any other human beings personal understanding. We can agree on messages - but the meaning of messages is available for us to compare. So this means that *codified* knowledge can be lost even if people can read the descriptions - they may not understand and recreate the same knowledge as what was in the mind of the creator. Furthermore I am not sure we as individuals can fully re-create our own *knowledge* at any one time. Considering that we do not have a static mind of our own to compare our thoughts with. In my view - We are living, thinking and sense-making beings - and we cannot stop thinking as long as we are alive and self aware.

Thanks to Michael and Peter for your responses and please, Michael I would love to have those references.

But think this way, that nowadays with further implementation of IT and computer techniques we try to modify this scheme of knowledge processing. For example there are several efforts to make computer based cognitive systems or as well as knowledge engineering which is now a very common practice. The key factor here is to understand knowledge and how to work with it. Even those that Michael mention as "know hows" or Peter stated as "understanding and senses' could be described as a formal method and then we have a codified knowledge. What do you recommend to have a model which could process this way?

I think what you are mainly touching upon currently Ali is the field of data mining and knowledge processing which is really gaining momentum especially if one thinks about the IBM supercomputer Watson-

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/

We are now in the era of 'Cognitive Computing' and I guess IBM Watson serves as one example. However even with this type of system there will need to be knowledge management processes in place so that the interface between the humans and the output of Watson can be both effectively managed and the ensuing knowledge optimally utilised.

about learning Grant (1996) mention direction and routines as a way to share knowledge. But as you probably know, there are the information systems and there is no need to learn to extend the knowledge. Yet there is need to share some fundamental component of it that must be read and interpreted by the recipient. Star talks of Boundary Objects in 1988, then describe them in a beautiful case study in 1989 with Griesemer. Carlile 2004 in Org Sci talks about it quite extensively. 

Definitely not. Our individual mental capacity is limited, although it has been shown physiologically that evolves from generation to generation. Moreover, knowledge falls quickly into obsolescence, so if we do not maintain contact with the real world, we will not be updated and will probably reinvent the wheel in some aspect of a domain. Finally, we must not forget that many authors say. Tacit knowledge is the most valuable and this only recreates and updates through socialization. This knowledge is transverse to any discipline and responsible for serendipitys.

Thanks to Deborah, Claudio and Ricardo for your responses.

Thank you Arjun for your good response it was very interesting the point which you mentioned as "archiving human knowledge is a real knowledge or a representation of it". And you always welcome to participate in our discussions. 

No judgment about the personal knowledge as being tieted to the person's level of education, experience, and critical thinking, Thus it will reflect what islearned and acquired, but not what is known.  To know, you need to share to look for the big picture and what others have and think.  This could be achived through the explicit knowledge (sharing by reading through the codified knowledge) or the tacit knowledge when involved in discussions, training, workshops (sharing others' black box hidden knowledge)

Thanks Naeema for your answer.

Michael's right on the money. While it is impossible to quantify the fraction of our knowledge in any circumstance which is tacit that fraction is substantial. Some practitioners seem to be of the opinion that, somehow, explicit knowledge is more valuable, more accessible, more easily disciplined. That is not my theoretical position nor my practical experience.

You might like to consider the forms of intellectual capital in  an organization, such as Human Capital (sensu strictu) being what individuals know, Organizational Social Capital (OSC) , Structural Capital (what's in routines and processes) and Client Capital. There are others. In none of those does explicit knowledge dominate.

Then of course you have the problem of how do we transfer, create and propagate the tacit component.. The answer to that does NOT lie in making it explicit.

Thanks John for your answer. Although I agree with the significance of tacit knowledge nevertheless technology looks for something tangible and or descriptive than subjective. 

Of course but that is  a conceit of technology (by which I imagine you mean ICT/IS). Technology in this narrow sense  has no option but to recognise that it's role is not to so much make explicit but to enable the communities of practice and tacit-tacit dialogue. Technology can have a role in know-how data bases and the communicative substrate. If we rely on technology only as a channel; to explication we will be on dangerous ground. There is even an argument that the very act of making explicit denies further development of the knowledge set if the knowledge is highly tacit in nature..

Technology has to accept that the world is not completely captured by a data set. To take a simple example, if I want, as an experienced engineer, to ex;plain to you how I design a complex system such as an aircraft or even a simple table and chairs, I will not be  able to make explicit everything I know or you need to know. As Polyani said "We know more than we can say" Hence technology should as much be concentrating  on enabling tacit-tacit exchange as on the other three parts of Nonaka's now very jaded framework.

I think that when people stop confusing descriptions of knowledge (e.g. messages) with knowledge this type of discussion will become much more valuable. All technical systems deal with *messages* and *data* - they are all *data processing systems)* and we may call them other things such as Information Systems, Knowledge Systems , Decision Support Systems and even Intelligent Systems - but all of these systems deal and process *data* - very cleverly and sometimes also with very sophisticated methods. The data may consist of complex combinations of multiple orders of meta-data and so imitate some aspects of human behaviour - but still they process data. Not *knowledge* or *understanding*.

This *limitation* to data processing does not mean that such systems could not be used in very effective and efficient way *to support* human sense-making and decision making practices. They could be very valuable through their clever design and advanced data processing, storing, retrieving and generating abilities. Their value can be for all kind of purposes - supporting and / or entertaining. But for the moment we cannot read other peoples minds - (mostly we cannot even read our own mind) so the concept of *knowledge* outside of any human mind and sense-making activity is highly questionable.

If people insist to use the concept *knowledge* (and for that sake also *information*) when they describe different forms and types of *data* and *messages* then by the time they get to *understanding* which is *subjective* they have difficulties to identify and even recognize the difference between them. If we cannot differentiate between our understanding of things as *knowledge* and descriptions of our understanding of things - we can easily mislead ourselves and others by treating them as if they were *the same*. In industrial practices this is an issue that has already has serious and detrimental consequences on organizational activities - leading to corporate competetive *disadvantage*.

@Peter M. Bednar, although I appreciate your argument but it is very clear that nothing can replace human cognitive ability for the sake of finding effective or efficient methods to understand phenomena. The key concept here is not to mix humans with machines as a target for knowledge transference but to evolve the techniques we use as knowledge processing and to be able to exploit the available technologies even more.

If we consider the meaning of knowledge as a basis for understanding, of course it is not possible for other than human mind to consider such an ability. But the definition of knowledge as there is in the literature is also a type of information. The "VISCOSITY" of this type of information is as in any context we refer it as knowledge. Then it is not absurd to call those techniques or even machines that work with this level of viscosity as a knowledge processing techniques or machines.

Humans choose signs such as alphabets or any other kinds to record their understanding of phenomena. This records only recognizable according to correct correspondence to the mental concepts. with a systematic procedure, this records will be defined as science. Then, we cannot limit the definition to human cognitive system and to avoid finding better techniques to process knowledge.

I was suggesting that it is questionable to say that you are processing knowledge when all you do is process data. Because this confusing use of terminology then makes it difficult to develop better techniques to support human knowledge workers. The reason is that the concept knowledge is being used by IT people to describe sophisticated forms of data and meta-data. Additionally *information* can also be defined as the result of human sense making and interpretation - so information is not the same as data and information can thus not be objectively available because it is directly dependent on *understanding*. Again the use of terminology is confusing and paradoxical - for that reason it is also not helpful to support the technological agenda in finding better techniques to *process data* in support of human being for human purposes.

Peter is dead right when he accuses some members of the IS/IT community of conflating knowledge with data and meta-data. It's not helpful in achieving the end result if putting the right knowledge in the right person for the right end at the right time.

It's not about the IT, guys. That plays a number of roles in the wider KM endeavour, specifically in processing and moving data and information about, in capturing and recording some explicit knowledge and in providing the communicative substrate for those knowledge exchange mechanisms that cannot be carried out at the explicit-explicit level. However, if we allow the management of knowledge to be imprisoned by these narrow understandings of some members of the IS/IT community we will lose hugely. Specifically, if we limit knowledge exchange to the explicit-explicit we will fail to enable the tacit-tacit, a knowledge exchange which cannot be enabled by explication.It's simply not negotiable; we know for an absolute fact, based on decades of observation and experiment that not all knowledge can be captured. "We know more than we can tell."

IS/IT has a role, but it is not to capture, store and process all forms of knowledge and if it tries to do that it will do its paymasters the greatest disservice.

Whether you see it as a joy or a defect in the world, the fact that the knowledge of an experienced case lawyer, of an artistic director, of a designer, or a ship's captain, even of a skilled s/w designer, cannot be made explicit is an inescapable reality. The IS/It community has to concentrate on a) data and information processing and dissemination, b) capturing and dissemination of that (rather small) part of human knowledge which is explicable and c) providing the communicative substrate for tacit-tacit knowledge transfer. It's a clear agenda, but one that has to work with the softer, more social processes at its border.

On one level I'm quite pleased that the IS/IT folk haven't woken up to this because it means lots of continuing opportunities to earn fees baling out organizations who have succumbed to the seductive nonsense that all knowledge can be captured...  :>)

Not so much an answer as an observation/ contribution - in the words of the late R.D. Laing Glaswegian psychiatrist and one time bête noire of the profession "I cannot experience your experience".

I am not into "knowledge science", but based on my own experience this would work very purely. There are many problems, including:

• "hidden knowledge" which never gets written down, only exists in the head of few key people but affects the design decisions
• "hidden agenda" which is a consequence of the background and business or academic background of participants and manifests in the same way
• "implied meanings and expectations" which always exist and which are only visible to newcomers. 

Some very recent anecdotal evidence: two weeks ago I started working on a new project with a large (100+) team and tried to understand what is going on by reading documentation. After a few days of work, I did gain some additional knowledge, but this knowledge is just enough to know which questions to ask. some things simply aren't written down, and other are written in a way which is too easily misunderstood if you don't have a context. So the next step is to track down people that might answer my questions and talk with them.

When I think of it, I could write a book on "misunderstandings caused by problems with written communication and cultural differences and how to resolve them", Half of my work time I'm trying to understand what different researchers and practitioners really need, what they really wish to offer, and how to put all these needs and wishes together in order to get some exciting results. *Talking* face-to-face is almost always the best way to resolve this type of issues.

Thanks to Denis Havlik for your points, they are valuable.I would like to know that based on your statement how could we deal with the "knowledge sharing" element? Should we change the style of knowledge sharing? Or should we use new techniques e.g. talking as a necessity for knowledge sharing?

The emphasis has to be on tacit to tacit transfer. IS/IT needs to provide a communicative substrate but face to face co experience is essential. I know that's inconvenient for the knowledge capture dinosaurs, but the industrial and commercial reality is that in addition to knowledge explication, common experience is the most efficient and effective way of transferring both human knowledge and organisational knowledge.

communities of practice help, as do knowledge source databases ( who knows what). 

I totally agree with the position of Peter Bednar, few comments above. I add here that probably nothing  has impaired so much the research on how to design IT support of knowledge (I mean the socially embedded practice of knowing and understanding) than the wrong interpretation of the work by Polanyi (cf. the tacit dimension). At a careful reading of his influential work on the "tacit dimension" it should be noted that knowledge (or better yet, knowing) can be "tacit", indeed, but the expression "explicit knowledge" can not even be found in the index of that book. In fact, Polanyi states that tacit knowledge is "the indispensable element of all knowing and [...] the ultimate mental power by which all explicit knowledge is endowed with meaning". Bingo. Reading page 60 and the following ones of The Tacit Dimension corroborates my fear that Polanyi's ideas could be misunderstood (as they actually have been, even without reading those pages). However, there is still someone trying to speak of knowledge by doing without  this distinction and taking the stance clearly expressed by Peter as a premise for any technology-oriented research. In my little own, that's what I did in a contribution influenced also by the work by Gourlay (and many others), I will present next month at  KMIS 2015 (sneak preview here on RG, http://goo.gl/6IYLwE).

Hi all.

It is becoming very obvious that the ODYSSEY of KNOWLEDGE is now a serious issue for consideration. Recent threads on this site with similar spiceS include:

• Are intellectual property rights a 'right' thing? Do we own information, knowledge, and wisdom, or do they belong to all?
• Is it possible to do a software cost estimation before requirement collection?

For the past three days, the thoughts of opening up a thread with a subject concerning the ODYSSEY of KNOWLEDGE has been occurring me. May be this is the time to truly bring up the issues surrounding INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM for discussion. The owners of ResearchGate need to understand that activities on this website have already gone beyond the scenario of Questions & Answers. It is becoming a community whose ethical characteristics must be raised to such a level that can be TRUSTED globally as a repository for UNBIASED information and judgement. Does any person has the monopoly of knowledge? How does information derive into knowledge? And knowledge eventually derive into wisdom? What of understanding? How does it relate to knowledge? An ancient sage used to say, "Man, know Thyself." So, if we apply this statement to researchers, then maybe a start-off indicator might be in the word - RESEARCH. Meaning - RE and SEARCH.  The process/method of acquiring information on any object (animate or inanimate) is basically four types - OBSERVATION; STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE (INTERVIEW) and EXPERIMENT. Of the four, OBSERVATION type gives you the most unbiased information about anything. How you now choose to twist this information before passing it on is ETHICALLY up to you. I know that I have not tried to answer the question concerning this thread, but it is important to know that with questions like this and similar ones, something is amiss.

Dear Ali,

Sorry, I did not notice the question before. From my point of the view, face to face meetings with people are indeed indispensable, especially at the start of a big project, and especially if these people never worked together before.

I usually take care of this by designing the (big) research projects with several mega-meetings in the first 4-6 months. Three full-week meetings within first four months of the project works well for the "integrated project" size. That is approximately 50 full-time equivalents over a period of 3-4 years.

Since you simply can't keep this for very long, one of the important tasks in these few months is to build a pro-web culture and assure the researchers agree use other means of collaboration and  communication than e-mails in the project. Skype, Google docs or dropbox are excellent examples: easy to use and extremely helpful. Having a joint bibliography pool is also great. Which software you really end up using depends on the people involved, but it's always worth a try.

In CRISMA project, we ended up also using this piece of custom-made software: https://crisma-cat.ait.ac.at/

In addition to the publicly visible information, each of the articles/pages has a dedicated discussion forum which is used by the team. With e-mail integration, so we basically have tons of mailing lists with web archive, one for each  article. Makes the information exchange much easier and better focused (less "spam", more information which you really want to hear).

Is it possible to extend personal and also universal knowledge (science) without knowledge sharing?

That is the question. Not an easy one to answer with a simple YES or NO, I would say.

I shall respond to your above question without going into the riders that your question seem to incorporate. I shall not delve into the ontology of knowledge here – I leave it to others to expound on it. What exactly is personal knowledge? It is knowledge that one creates or accumulates from doing something. It may be the result of deep thought or even of superficial considerations. If one has been doing something, such as an artisan, one would develop some special insights from doing something repeatedly. It may even be something that one’s teacher might not know. Or, perhaps he or she might know, but as an artisan, one might have a particular view gained from facing a problem, and trying to solve that problem. So, to develop personal knowledge one must have had exposure to an aspect of a problem that not many might have seen. One’s answer could be unique or it could be known to others who might have grappled with the similar or related problems. Still, it is personal knowledge.

A remarkable example of personal knowledge that I can cite is that which came to be attributed to, at the time, a little known student of mathematics,  in India. Now, think of that great Indian mathematician, Srinivas Ramanujan, considered by many as one of, or even the greatest mathematician of the 20th century,  who had very little formal education but taught himself the mathematics he knew; he was what we call an autodidact. He also had no formal mathematical education, but  still derived or discovered a whole range of mathematical operations/theorems, by his own efforts, without really knowing what any average student of mathematics at university would know. In that respect, what he discovered, I would argue is personal knowledge and they became  universal knowledge in that the theorems he discovered were true and were  communicated to the world, and they still exercise the minds of mathematicians to this very day. Some of his theorems are still baffling the minds of today’s mathematicians. An example of this is, Ramanujan’s  Tau Conjecture,  also known as Ramanujan’s hypothesis, which was only proved long years after his death by the Belgian mathematician, Pierre Rene Degli in 1974  (see Deligne, P. "La conjecture de Weil. I." Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 43, 273-307, 1974)  for which achievement, he was awarded in 1978 the Field’s Medal,  the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in  mathematics. Ramanujan’s  mathematical discoveries would have remained with him, and would have disappeared with him had he died without disclosing them to that famous English mathematician Professor G H Hardy, who invited him to Cambridge University and taught Ramanujan much of the mathematics, he Ramanujan did not know. Ramanujan died at the young age of 34. Ramanujan’s life and times may  be seen as a romance of mathematics. If you want to know more, you should read  Robert  Kanigel’s  The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan (New York, C Scribner, ISBN:   978-0-684-19259-8). A film of the same name is now being shot. A short preview of  the film of the same name can be seen on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLEyxQv3l0U. in which a Japanese-American Professor Ken Ono who was involved in Ramanujan’s mathematics also appears.  A presentation about Ramanujan’s Lost Notebook (which on its own is also remarkable, and a story  not likely to emerge from the pen of most creative of writers)  can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0NuOBNobk. As you can see, the self-taught Ramanujan has made numerous contributions, and they were communicated to the world, thus becoming universal knowledge… I hope you enjoy watching both… and there are still many more videos on YouTube devoted to that mathematical genius.

I am sure that readers of this response will have a better idea of how personal knowledge can be created, disseminated and made available to  the benefit of humanity. Now, I am sure readers will know other examples. We  hope to read of more such examples, but none I suspect, that would match the story and the romance of the mathematics of Srinivas Ramanujan…

History has shown that the knowledge has been passed from generation to generation through the experience generated by the action. Undoubtedly, the volume of knowledge of those times is not compared with the current production. Here comes a dilemma: What is the speed with which an individual can accumulate knowledge in relation to their outside world?... how current is accumulated by an individual regarding the socially generated knowledge? ... In the search for answers to these two questions emerge two evidences; first, knowledge quickly falls into obsolescence; and second, due to a finite storage capacity we have an obligation to unlearn and relearn.

Dear Phil Barbonis.

I thank you very sincerely for bringing out this detailed documentation of the eternal process by which universal knowledge derive from personal knowledge. And personal knowledge derive ONLY from personal research/inquisitive efforts. I quote the COLLINS GEM Dictionary of Quotations by W. T. McLeod, ISBN 0 00 458745 6, Latest Reprint 1979, "No great discovery has ever come from a group of people, but from an individual who decided to make his personal life a study of God and His Ways." I apologize I cannot locate the page right now.

One very true statement stands out in your contribution, and that is: "Ramanujan’s mathematical discoveries would have remained with him, and would have disappeared with him had he died without disclosing them to that famous English mathematician Professor G H Hardy, ...".

Another true statement of fact, in your contribution is: "He also had no formal mathematical education, but still derived or discovered a whole range of mathematical operations/theorems, by his own efforts, without really knowing what any average student of mathematics at university would know."

In my earlier contribution, there is the statement: "How you now choose to twist this information before passing it on is ETHICALLY up to you."

Beyond this, ETHICS are everything to those in research, invention and innovation. Just as Ramanujan self-tutored himself in Mathematics, I self-tutored myself in QuickBasic 4.5, then VisualBasic 5.0 and finally MASM32 Assembly programming. Why all these efforts that spanned over 10 years. It was to help me acquire the skills necessary to develop a document-communication solution that may solve an impending security crises I saw some years before year 2000. The document-communication solution, called ECourier, was released in year 2000. For what really happened after its release, see http://gss.eu5.org.

About 50 years ago, an uncle of mine gave my father the secret of an ointment he got from nothern part of Nigeria. My father, later in the 70s, developed this ointment and called it RUVIG. This ointment will dissolve any full-blown whitlow and boil without need for surgery. Even today, am yet to know of any cure for whitlow except surgery. My father tried to tranfer this knowledge to me and my juniors, but we were not interested. So he left step-by-step powder-preparations should we be interested in the future, and my brother is looking into this now.

Back in 1994, a friend told me of a seed that is for birth control. Around 2005, during a talk, I made mention of this seed and an Ibo-tribe fellow heard it and tried it on his wife. To his surprise it worked. He did more trials which were amazingly fantastic.

The drift is this: people have issues and life is about solution. At a time, the Eternal will bring solution in the form of knowledge through a person, just like the inventor of the steam engine. After all, many women had seen the kettle boil and whistle in the kitchen, but the idea of the steam engine NEVER came to any of them.

The contribution of Phil Barbonis is an exact documentation of how knowledge evolve because I have experienced it. When you experience it, you become disinterested in any title what so ever.

Thank you Phil Barbonis.

It is hard to imagine how knowledge can be extended without knowing what has come before. Knowledge can be shared in multiple ways. First, there is direct teaching in which instructions are imparted, Then there is imitation. One person observes the behavior of another (or of a group) and imitates it. Then there is a "flash of insight" that seems to come out of no where but actually had a firm foundation on other knowledge that was learned over a long period of time. Experiential knowledge and tacit knowledge also are forms of knowledge. Knowing how to play the violin or guitar is an example of knowledge that is learned only through experience and practice. No matter how many lessons you have you still need to practice.

Mr Odukale,

May I suggest that you try to commercially exploit the RUVIG ointment? It could help some people who might not be able to afford expensive  items from the established  producers. And if it does work, as you say, it might attract more buyers. I certainly would try to do that, if I were you. If you need the help of say phyto-chemists, I know people who can help.

Best wishes.

Hello Ali,

It is possible to extend personal and conventional knowledge without knowledge sharing, if you define sources of new knowledge. To show the feasibility of knowledge creation without knowledge sharing, our team has designed a computer technology and conducted series of experiments. A few examples have been given to show what personal and conventional knowledge could be extended with the aid of this technology:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281275186_Outlining_Goals_for_Discovering_new_Knowledge_and_Computerised_Tracing_of_Emerging_Meanings?ev=prf_pub.

Hope this helps.

With kind regards

Igor

Conference Paper Outlining Goals for Discovering new Knowledge and Computeris...

Ali, cordial greetings. From my perspective, in my doctoral thesis, work in part the principles of Nonaka and Takeuchi, I consider that the exchange of knowledge from the ontological levels of the organization are necessary for the amplification at all levels, both personal and universal. However, this requires facilitating the creation of organizational knowledge that are beyond treaties in traditional literature. Knowledge at any level while in collective interaction, submit to the premise that knowledge in the organization is socially constructed. I agree with Michael and Peter, I think they have a proper posture.

In one of my papers (excuse the self-mention) we defined knowledge as knowledgable (usually also effective) behaviors. This is within a known strand of research, which I trace back to the work by Varela and Maturana, namely "tree of knowledge". For instance, giving right answers to some questions is (a manifestation of) knowledge. Also teaching how to give right answers is (rather than requires) knowledge. Solving a problem is knowledge. Common place, right. After all, the specific traits of a human being that others (and even herself) would recognize as a knowledgeable behavior are all but parts of one's phenotype. Thus, we defined a “memotype” as “the capacity of expressing that phenotype in a given environment”. Genetics, epigenetics and the Dawkin's theory of memes (the level of culture, that is of social interaction) can help us understand what knowledge really is, as long as we do not confuse it with its observable traces (like inscriptions, buildings, machines, bodily configurations, utterances, ...). Since knowledge is an abused term, which can be stretched to almost any (reasonable) meaning, we proposed to get rid of ambiguities and begin speaking (in technical writing) of phenotype-memotype dyads. Just two cents tossed in...

Conference Paper The Knowledge-Stream Model A comprehensive model for knowled...

Federico, fraternal greetings. With regard to your question, I believe that in spite of the ability to know the knowable is in a single function in the first instance, what the facts show is that it requires a collective and social construction of knowledge, we are a society interconnected. I believe that here, the approaches of Herbert Simon on the principle of bounded rationality and science model artificial lights can help with the matter.

Ali,

To the extent that the individual would have access to databases then to that extent knowledge sharing has occurred as these databases represent inventories of codfied knowledge..

Knowledge can be tacit/explicit, codified/non-codified. The act of transformation makes codified knowledge subject to possible imitation and sharing. Despite legal protection mechanisms, codified knowledge can be imitated, bought, stolen and copied. Knowledge in and of itself is of little value to the firm unless the firm has a capacity to share and exploit knowledge as well as a capacity to protect that knowledge from imitation. Organizational knowledge at the “core competency” of the firm comprises both “know- what”,or explicit knowledge,and the more elusive“know-how” which represents an ability to put know- what into practice and while know-how is embedded in work practice and is consequently relatively easy to protect, in contrast the explicit know-what is harder to protect due to its ease of movement and transport, Brown & Dugiud (1998).

Article refers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236941623_Building_a_knowledge_society_one_individual_at_a_time_a_multi-level_review

Working Paper Building a knowledge society one individual at a time: a mul...

Additional perspectives to earlier paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301341427_Reforming_Jamaica%27s_National_Systems_of_Innovation

Technical Report Reforming Jamaica's National Systems of Innovation

Given the difficulties in identifying what is and what is not knowledge, I would be very hesitant to do any sharing.

Maybe you can explore Cynefin model by Dave Snowden