Organizational scholars like Haas & Hansen (2007) explicitly concern themselves with both conceptually developing and empirically testing the knowledge-based view of the firm. The basic propositions they develop and test relate to the impact that the acquisition by work groups of tacit and explicit knowledge from beyond their group/team have on what they call task productivity. This was done within the empirical context of sales teams in a large management consultancy in the developed economies' firm, examining how the external knowledge the teams utilized impacted on the effectiveness of their work efforts. Their paper is based upon most of the typical assumptions made by those utilizing the knowledge-based theory of the firm and adopting an objectivist view of knowledge. For example, they argue that tacit and explicit knowledge are distinctive knowledge types (shared via different mechanisms), that the effective use and sharing of knowledge is an increasingly important source of competitive advantage for firms, and they adopt the 'conduit' model of knowledge sharing (talking about the 'providers' and 'receivers' of knowledge). Their paper also conceptually develops the knowledge-based view of the firm in a number of ways. Firstly, while much research has examined the barriers to knowledge sharing that exist, and the impact of knowledge sharing on organizational performance, little has been done on the impact of knowledge sharing on task performance/productivity. Secondly, this study goes beyond the common assumption that the greater level of knowledge sharing that exists the better it is for organizations, by examining at a more micro level the different consequences that the sharing and acquisition of different types of knowledge has on particular organizational tasks. The management consultancy firm examined by Haas & Hansen provided tax and audit advice to clients in a wide range of industries including energy, communications, healthcare, automotive and financial services. The firm was both large, and highly dispersed, employing over 10,000 consultants in over 100 offices spread across the country. The study focused narrowly on particular work tasks, examining the acquisition and use of knowledge in the work done by sales teams in pitching for business with prospective clients. These sales teams were typically ad hoc and temporary, bringing together groups of consultants deemed to have relevant knowledge and expertise to prepare particular bids. One of the key elements involved in preparing such bids, which was the knowledge sharing/acquisition process examined by Hass and Hansen, was the work done by consultants to draw on and utilize knowledge or experience from previous bids that they felt was relevant. The data on the knowledge and work processes they examined was acquired from surveys that were distributed to the team leaders of a random selection of sales bids carried out during a particular time period. Of the 259 team leaders who were emailed, 191 responded, giving a response rate of 74%. Three dimensions of task productivity were examined. These included times saved, task quality, and the extent to which the bid team were considered to be competent by external stakeholders such as clients. In terms of knowledge sharing, two mechanisms were examined, with one being related to each type of knowledge that was examined. Fundamentally it was assumed that explicit knowledge was shared through the acquisition and use of documentation, whereas tacit knowledge was acquired through person-to-person interaction. Finally, for both tacit and explicit knowledge they examined the impact that both process and content factors had on task productivity, with process factors relating to the extent to which the knowledge acquired had to be adapted and customized, and content factors relating to the inherent quality of the knowledge acquired. The most fundamental and general finding of their study was that, as their hypotheses predicted, tacit and explicit knowledge did both impact on task productivity, but in quite different ways. For example, in relation to the task productivity measure of time saved, the use of explicit/ codified knowledge did have positive time saving benefits, but the acquisition of tacit knowledge did not. Further, the higher the quality of the explicit/codified knowledge that was used, the greater the time saving. By contrast, the sharing of tacit knowledge had different benefits and impacts on task productivity, improving both task quality and client's perception of competence, with both being positively related to the quality of the tacit knowledge that was shared. This study doesn't privilege tacit over explicit knowledge and shows that both tacit and explicit knowledge have their own distinctive benefits for task productivity. Discussion Questions: What objectives have been persuaded by the researchers in their study while theoretically developing and testing the knowledge based view of the firm? How both the variables, namely, the acquisition of tacit and explicit knowledge and task productivity, have been measured by the organizational scholars in their study? Briefly elaborate. Does this empirical evidence undermine assumptions regarding the superiority of explicit over tacit knowledge? Explain your response with reason(s)