Tacit vs Explicit Knowledge

Definition

Michael Polanyi’s distinction between two fundamentally different forms of knowledge:

  • Explicit knowledge — can be articulated, written down, encoded in formal language. Transferable through documents, code, video, formulas.
  • Tacit knowledgenot fully articulable. Lives in skill, intuition, judgment, body memory. Transferable only through shared practice — apprenticeship, mentoring, doing.

“We know more than we can tell.” — Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (1966)

Why it matters

The fundamental problem of every Knowledge Management System: most valuable knowledge in an organization is tacit, and tacit knowledge does not survive a resignation, an exam period, or a hiring freeze.

The job of a KMS is to make the tacit-to-explicit conversion routine enough that the org doesn’t lose key capability when people leave.

Examples in NOTQIN context

Tacit knowledgeWhat an explicit version would look like
Operator knows the press is about to jam from the soundVibration-signature spec + threshold + alert config
Salesperson reading a buyer’s posture in a meetingDiscovery-call script + objection-handling playbook
Ahmed’s intuition that “this prospect is wasting our time”A formal qualification rubric in the NOTQIN Pilot Playbook
Tertius Zitzke knowing which mining customers are price-cyclicalCustomer segmentation model with maturity + cycle exposure factors

How to convert tacit → explicit

Common mistakes

  • Believing tacit knowledge can be fully captured (it can’t — see Polanyi’s “ineffable” residue)
  • Forcing premature externalization — people stop sharing when capture feels like surveillance
  • Capturing only what’s easy to write (procedures), missing the harder judgment knowledge (heuristics)
  • Treating tacit knowledge as “vague” or “soft” when it’s often the most economically valuable form

See also