Tacit knowledge is crucial in organisational knowledge (Baronian 2022). It is characterised by the experience, expertise and skills of individuals and is present in hunches, ideas, insights, intuition and values (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). It has been described as knowledge capital, implicit knowledge, expert knowledge, intellectual capital, knacks, experience and skills (Biloslavo & Lombardi 2021). Tacit knowledge encompasses skills and experience-based knowledge of employees, which can be expressed through actions, evaluations, attitudes, points of view, commitments and motivation.

Tejero, Pau and León (2019) notice that tacit knowledge is crucial to enterprises and accounts for 90% of total organisational knowledge. Its relevance in any organisation or business enterprise rests upon its ability to unlock organisational competitive advantage and operational effectiveness (Huie, Cassaberry & Rivera 2020). Regrettably, tacit knowledge is easy to lose to mergers, reorganisation, downsizing, brain drain, redeployment, retirement, resignation, retrenchment, dismissal, a continual increase in the on-demand transient workforce, millennials not staying long with a single employer, more baby boomers’ retirement, and death of employees (Meister & Willyerd 2021; Mohajan 2017). The possible loss of tacit knowledge because of multiple factors makes its management crucial for business/organisation survival and competitiveness, but stopping tacit knowledge owners from leaving their jobs with their knowledge is a major challenge.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises can innovate by successfully managing their tacit organisational knowledge, which is the bedrock of innovation (Taipale-Erävala, Henttonen & Lampela 2019). However, they tend to have a high turnover rate, which means that they often lose the specialised knowledge that is the core of their businesses (Cerchione, Esposito & Spadaro 2015). Grice, Peer and Morris (2011) recognised this difficulty and recommended that SMEs employ TKM initiatives, as they have the capacity and capability to exploit knowledge management practices by exploring tacit knowledge (Mohd Selamat et al. 2020). It has been suggested that a situation in which critical tacit knowledge resides in the minds of resigning staff members can lead to knowledge loss. This serves as the basis for the clamour of Droege and Hoobler (2003) that though it may be impossible to stop staff members from leaving, there must be a way to stop them from taking their knowledge with them.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises play an important role in almost all economies, particularly in developing countries such as South Africa, where there are several difficulties with employment and income distribution (Ozkan et al. 2019). As a result, the capacity of SMEs in developing countries to compete is critical to their economic success. However, despite the importance of TKM in organisations, extant literature has revealed that while several organisations in developed countries have successfully mapped out knowledge management strategies, most SMEs in developing countries are yet to explore these initiatives optimally (Uzelac et al. 2018).

A widely held and contested view is that tacit knowledge cannot be managed holistically because of its complexity or intangibility. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argue that it is possible to capture and manage tacit knowledge. Tejero et al. (2019) also observed that properly collecting tacit knowledge can prevent knowledge loss in organisations, particularly those at risk of losing their knowledge-based competitive advantage. It is agreed that it is easy for one to learn or acquire tacit knowledge through shared experiences, observation, imitation, coaching and mentoring, skills, observation, intuitive feelings, mental modes, beliefs, values and face-to-face discussions (Mohajan 2017). Fahrenbach, Revoredo and Santoro (2019) describe tacit knowledge as a key ingredient of socially constructed knowledge that can be captured through informational discussions, such as from the experience of employees or teams for organisational benefit.

Mohajan (2016) stated that the most valuable organisational knowledge is not as much in written procedures as in the heads/minds of humans. This realisation necessitates the need to have tacit knowledge captured and shared. Recognising the high value of tacit knowledge, companies have started capturing it through organisational learning processes and by interviewing employees before their exit (Droege & Hoobler 2003). Al-Qdah and Salim (2013) and Dzekashu and McCollum (2014) highlight the role of communities of practice (CoPs) (a group that shares knowledge, insight and experience, learns together, and creates common practices about an area of common interest) in the capturing and sharing of tacit knowledge. Other methods of capturing and managing tacit knowledge reported by Al-Qdah and Salim include observing the procedures of an expert to gain insights into the practices of the expert, reinforcing attitudes and building of knowledge base (internalisation in the SECI model). In addition, the use of an apprenticeship system, in which a novice gains hands-on tacit knowledge from the experiences of a master, mentor or colleague, is equally important (Mohajan 2017).

McAdam and Reid (2001), in their study of Australian SMEs, reported that the highest-ranked tacit knowledge capture methods employed by SMEs are informal discussions, while inductions and exit interviews were ranked the least methods. Some other researched tacit knowledge creation, capturing and sharing methods are mentoring, an ongoing relationship of learning and dialoguing/personal developmental relationship, in which a more experienced or knowledgeable person guides a less experienced or less knowledgeable person (Al-Qdah & Salim 2013); storytelling, the process of using tales or narratives to effectively transfer knowledge about organisational, managerial systems, norms, values and culture (Al-Qdah & Salim 2013); expert interviews, through which an apprentice uses structured or unstructured questions to interview an expert in a specific domain of expertise (Chennamaneni & Teng 2011); and lessons learned, where lessons are put together and shared with other members of the organisation to enable learning from the experiences of others (Chennamaneni, Teng & Raja 2012), which is considered highly effective for generating creative ideas and solutions through intensive and group discussions (McAdam & Reid 2001). While different methods have been used successfully for TKM in several organisations and nationalities, not much is known about this process by SMEs in KZN, South Africa.

It is also apt to caution that organisations should pay attention to the enabling factors that aid the TKM of SMEs, because tacit knowledge is subjective and human-embedded, and its explication cannot be forced but motivated (Jiang & Xu 2020). The next section addresses this.

Tacit knowledge management requires organisational support. Al-Shammari and Almulla (2023) highlighted the role of leadership and organisational culture as enablers of effective management of tacit knowledge. Other facilitating factors were individual, organisational structure and knowledge management strategy factors (Alves & Pinheiro 2022). While Sitharam (2014) studied the factors affecting the performance of SMEs in KZN, South Africa, the enabling factors that aid effective tacit knowledge capture, processing, sharing and preservation in South African SMEs were not covered in Sitharam’s study.

Findings revealed that the most important methods of capturing tacit knowledge are monitoring (93.9%), practical sessions (92.2%), in-house training programmes (91.7%) and brainstorming and/or knowledge sharing sessions (91.7%). The least used method(s) of capturing tacit knowledge are examination or assessment (46.1%), written interviews (43.9%), storytelling programmes (34.4%) and audio and/or video-recorded interviews with employees (31.7%) (Figure 1).

The study discovered the following activities, in decreasing order, through which tacit knowledge is shared: meetings (practice, project teams), dialogues among employees, brainstorming and knowledge sharing sessions, practical sessions, review of work performance, socialisation, interactions, get-togethers, intellectual discussions, mentoring programmes, induction and orientation programmes, project review sessions with experts, workshops, internship, pairing system, online platforms, apprenticeship programmes, imitation of experts, CoPs, concept mapping and storytelling programmes (Figure 2).

Findings also revealed that tacit knowledge is stored or preserved among SMEs in KZN in electronic files in computers within or outside the business premises, cloud storage facilities, physical files and cabinets, organisational archive or repository, Google Drive, memory stick, and compact discs (CDs), video CDs (VCDs) and digital video discs (DVDs) (Table 2).

Regarding the existing technologies, the majority of the respondents (173, 96.1%) admitted that they use information and communication technology (ICT) to manage tacit knowledge, mail (164, 91.7%), Internet and/or intranet (159; 88.3%) and mobile phones (157; 87.2%) (Figure 3). The employment of ICT by almost all the respondents to enable TKM underlines its crucial role in aiding knowledge creation, acquisition, conversion, dissemination and utilisation.

Table 3 depicts that most respondents (123, 68.3%) agreed that it is good to reward tacit knowledge sharing. More than half of the SMEs (115, 63.9%) also opined that sharing tacit knowledge should be a component of employees’ organisational performance appraisal. In addition, most of the respondents (140, 77.8%) revealed that they reward tacit knowledge sharing using non-monetary incentives, such as organisational recognition. Other reward types include cash, certificates, awards, gifts, training and development programmes, salary increases, performance appraisal, lunch and entitlement payment.

The cross-tabulation of sharing tacit knowledge should be rewarded versus a condition for performance appraisal is presented in Table 4. The contingency table (Table 5) shows that 78.3% of the respondents who said sharing expert knowledge should also be rewarded see it as a condition for performance appraisal. Of the 44 respondents who said sharing expert knowledge should not be rewarded, 53.8% said it should be a condition for performance appraisal. Among those who said they did not know whether sharing expert knowledge should be rewarded, 38.5% said it should be a condition for performance appraisal; none disagreed, but 61.5% said they did not know if it should be a condition for performance appraisal. The Pearson’s chi-square statistic is 73.562 with 4 degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, it can be implied that sharing tacit knowledge should be rewarded is significantly associated with whether it should be a condition for performance appraisal by SMEs in KZN Province, South Africa, at a 5% level of significance.

This section sought to determine the prevailing organisational culture in terms of teamwork and informal relationships. The study revealed that most SMEs encourage employees to share business-related information (176, 97.8%), form teams (154, 85%) and informal networks (163, 16%) to promote tacit knowledge (Table 4). The SMEs encourage informal networks for employees to discuss freely problem-solving methods. This implies that organisational culture is very important in managing tacit knowledge for organisational competitiveness, development and survival.

As regards tacit knowledge capturing methods, most respondents agreed that it is possible to capture tacit knowledge and acknowledged that there is a particular tacit knowledge critical to their organisational goals. These acknowledgements give credence to the rationale for this study and support Nonaka and Takeuchi’s previous studies. The remaining respondents either did not agree that tacit knowledge can be captured or saw no reason to bother about capturing it, because they believed their organisational activities do not require much expertise. Findings showed that the most common method of capturing tacit knowledge is monitoring. In support, Dzekashu and McCollum (2014) reported that 40% of the labour force in the United States retire annually, and the best way to preserve their tacit knowledge is through monitoring.

Regarding tacit knowledge sharing, findings reveal that SMEs in KZN mostly share tacit knowledge in meetings, dialogues, brainstorming sessions, knowledge sharing sessions, practical sessions and in-house training programmes. Previous studies have encouraged combining formal and informal means of TKM (Castellani et al. 2021). It was also suggested that formal avenues such as meetings, training programmes and workshops could also be held in informal places like relaxation rooms (Mueller 2015). Castellani et al. further contend that using formal methods can reinforce informal methods and vice versa; hence, they suggest adopting ‘hybrid solutions’ for knowledge sharing, such as socialisation, which will embed formal and informal means of capturing and sharing tacit knowledge.

Relevant research has notably emphasised the fundamental role of socialisation, social interactions in tacit knowledge sharing. As such, socialisation, a component of the SECI model, and dialogue are indispensable components of tacit knowledge sharing (Panahi, Watson & Partridge 2013). The authors confirm that dynamic exchanges and discussions through socialisation enable personal and professional experience sharing. Milovanovic and Nis (2006) further advocate for trust and open and friendly communication to enable socialisation and tacit knowledge sharing; however, most activities of tacit knowledge capture and sharing overlap. Yew (2021) concurs with the study of family firms, enterprise development and tacit knowledge transformation of SMEs in Malaysia.

The study highlighted electronic files in computers within or outside the business premises, cloud technologies, and physical files and cabinets as the tacit knowledge storage methods, which are affirmed by Ofori-Dwumfuo and Kommey (2013) in a study on TKM among SMEs in Ghana where preservation of knowledge through electronic files was most popular. Related studies have highlighted that tacit knowledge can be codified and stored in databases for easy access and reuse rather than in repositories (Chergui, Zidat & Marir 2020). In another study, Narendra, Pradeep and Prabhakar (2017) developed a standard knowledge management repository system that supports traditional and multimedia captured knowledge formats. They show that although less emphasis is laid on the use of physical files and cabinets in support of the current technology era, just as in the case of using a hybrid method for TKM, the same can be adopted in the storage process. The fundamental requirement is to ensure that organisations store tacit knowledge in such a way that externalised and captured tacit knowledge remains in their organisational memory even if employees leave (Ganesh & Pravin Kumar 2017).

Applying the SECI model to our findings has implications in practice. Remarkably, both socialisation and externalisation occur within overlapping activities: monitoring, practical sessions, in-house training programmes, brainstorming sessions, skills demonstration, mentoring, lessons learned from project sessions and apprenticeship. In support of Constandse’s (2013) earlier observation, the four SECI modes overlap and can happen concurrently. Constandse observes that for tacit knowledge capture (externalisation mode) to occur, SMEs’ management may need to be deliberate and systematic about the process. This is where formal activities such as after-project reviews, lessons learned, best practice reviews, exit interviews, CoPs, reviews of work performance, apprenticeship and mentoring become useful tools. In this study, the identified activities sit within the socialisation model of the SECI model, which is any process of tacit knowledge sharing that involves physical proximity/togetherness, direct interaction, interpersonal relationships and social contact. Socialisation takes place when experiences are shared. Therefore, it is possible to observe that SMEs in KZN practise socialisation, although tilting more towards the formal avenues (training programmes, meetings, interviews). This finding implies that when SMEs share tacit knowledge, the organisational knowledge base is enriched for innovation and competitive advantage. In addition, sharing tacit knowledge improves teamwork among SME employees. It also builds ties and interpersonal relationships that enhance organisational performance. However, for effective TKM to take place, the following facilitating factors were identified.

Regarding existing technologies, approximately 96% of the respondents admitted that they use ICT to manage tacit knowledge, followed by e-mails, Internet, intranet, and mobile phones. It can be deduced that most SMEs store expert knowledge in digital format through computers and cloud drives, as they admitted that technology is a factor that needs to be considered in managing tacit knowledge. Thus, the role of ICT is inevitable for effective TKM because it facilitates knowledge creation, acquisition, conversion, dissemination and utilisation. The study’s finding concurs with Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Castellani et al. (2021), which emphasise the need for knowledge-intensive organisations, particularly SMEs, to adopt technological innovations that will sustain TKM activities.

In this context, a reward system is intended to motivate members of an organisation to share tacit knowledge, which is the owner’s property until shared. Rewarding tacit knowledge sharing is practised by up to 68% of the SMEs studied, and this is more in the form of non-monetary incentives such as organisational recognition, training and development programmes, and promotion. Other reward types include cash, certificates, awards, gifts, training and development programmes, salary increases, performance appraisal, lunch and entitlement payments. Most of those who agreed that tacit knowledge sharing should be rewarded said that it should be a component of the employee performance appraisal. Others agreed that a rewarding system should not be encouraged in promoting organisational TKM. Rewarding tacit knowledge sharing, as agreed by most of the study respondents, seems to be widespread as noticed in related studies by Šajeva (2014), who admitted that a reward system is designed to promote TKM in organisations. Some previous studies have debated the merits of rewarding tacit knowledge sharing behaviour (Suppiah & Singh Sandhu 2011). However, most recent studies, such as Oliveira and Pinheiro (2022), have supported the need to reward tacit knowledge sharing because the knowledge owner must be willing to share. Rewards may be non-monetary incentives such as appreciation, encouragement, motivation, bonuses, entitlement, certificates, gifts, development programmes and training. They can also be monetary incentives such as cash and salary increment. The questionnaire responses pointed out that reward types are mostly non-monetary incentives, for instance, organisational recognition. However, the form of reward, monetary or non-monetary, remains contextual. A significant contribution to the issue of the form of reward is best explained by Oliveira and Pinheiro (2022) that:

This submission implies that the personality traits of the knowledge owner are a major determinant of what type of reward is most suitable. Other determinants of reward type are altruism and the personal value of knowledge (Obrenovic et al. 2020). Evidently, reward system is a delicate undertaking that should be handled cautiously.

The SMEs studied encourage informal networks and team activities for projects. The study revealed that most SMEs encourage employees to share business-related information and form teams, and informal networks to promote tacit knowledge. The SMEs encourage informal networks for employees to discuss freely problem-solving methods. This implies that organisational culture is very important in managing tacit knowledge for organisational competitiveness, development and survival. In support, Wethyavivorn and Teerajetgul (2020) attest to the significant relationship between informal networks and tacit knowledge sharing in organisations. Thus, organisational culture in SMEs can be leveraged to create a favourable condition for organisational development and survival in competitive environments.

It was observed in the findings of research question 1 that awareness of tacit knowledge provides the platform for knowledge audits, valuing and identifying key knowledge issues. Knowledge audit is described as a significant first step in KM implementation (Sohal et al. 2018). It is defined by Ghosh and Pradhan (2017) as a:

The authors affirm the need-to-know strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) and risks. The submission buttressed the assertion of Liebowitz et al. (2000) that knowledge audit aids organisations in determining the most effective method of knowledge storage and dissemination. Thus, this study suggests that carrying out a comprehensive knowledge audit will help to identify other components as follows.

For instance, tacit knowledge subjects are known through knowledge role components of the knowledge audit, which include identifying the employees with critical expertise, skills and knowledge pertinent to achieving organisational goals. We suggest that these can be used to design appropriate point-of-entry assessments for recruitment, being a reported method of identifying employees with tacit knowledge. We also observed earlier that personality traits impact tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. Therefore, we consider that putting items regarding personality traits in recruitment tests may be useful in employing personnel who will be more inclined to share their tacit knowledge.

We believe that exploring organisational policies and culture will uncover appropriate factors, such as reward systems, informal relationships, teamwork and tacit knowledge sharing-embedded performance appraisal that will motivate tacit knowledge sharing.

Determining the required and available resources from the knowledge audit would ensure that appropriate tools are available and accessible to aid TKM activities.

We suggest that all the middle layer components of the proposed model will determine the appropriate tacit knowledge sharing methods for specific SMEs.

The TKM model component is illustrated in Figure 4.