Posted by Carol on September 22, 2002 at 16:37:16:

In Reply to: accounts receivable = tacit knowledge & accounts payable = explicit knowledge posted by Mezei on September 19, 2002 at 10:01:33:

verifying that I understand what you mean:

accounts receivable = tacit knowledge

in the real world, a/r = monies owed to you becuase you have provided a good or service -- you sold "something". So you are positing that you are being paid for what you know. Is that correct?

accounts payable = explicit knowledge

a/p = money you owe because you have been provided a good or service -- you bought "something". So your proposition is that you paid someone else for what they know.

I assume that in both cases "something" was transmitted: let's make it easy and say it was a knowledge artifact or boundary object [where's Denham?]. Why would what you "sell" be tacit and what you "buy" be explicit? Why wouldn't you be selling explicit and buying tacit? Isn't that what R&D does -- sell tacit knowledge [aka ideas] to the organization?

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: accounts receivable = tacit knowledge & accounts payable = explicit knowledge Mezei 19:09:28 09/22/02 (1)
  • Re: accounts receivable = tacit knowledge & accounts payable = explicit knowledge Mezei 19:17:33 09/22/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: