Tacit Knowledge Management with Generative AI: Proposal of the GenAI SECI Model

Naoshi Uchihira · Mar 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

The emergence of generative AI is bringing about a significant transformation in knowledge management. Generative AI has the potential to address the limitations of conventional knowledge management systems, and it is increasingly being deployed in real-world settings with promising results. Related research is also expanding rapidly. However, much of this work focuses on research and practice related to the management of explicit knowledge. While fragmentary efforts have been made regarding the management of tacit knowledge using generative AI, the modeling and systematization that handle both tacit and explicit knowledge in an integrated manner remain insufficient. In this paper, we propose the "GenAI SECI" model as an updated version of the knowledge creation process (SECI) model, redesigned to leverage the capabilities of generative AI. A defining feature of the "GenAI SECI" model is the introduction of "Digital Fragmented Knowledge", a new concept that integrates explicit and tacit knowledge within cyberspace. Furthermore, a concrete system architecture for the proposed model is presented, along with a comparison with prior research models that share a similar problem awareness and objectives.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.