Knowledge management (KM) is a complicated process that involves socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization and requires close collaboration among the people involved. Although Nonaka proposed the SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) model and the concept of Ba, which provides a process-oriented view of knowledge creation and transfer, practicing it is rather ad hoc. COVID-19 has provided a chance for practitioners to find a new method for KM. In this study, we adapted a group problem-solving system called TeamSpirit and structured it as a Ba for the SECI model. We then compared TeamSpirit with two other implementations of Ba, email and face-to-face communication, to evaluate their effects on knowledge externalization, knowledge combination, and knowledge internalization. Then, we evaluated whether these knowledge-conversion processes could improve knowledge acquisition and intention to share knowledge. A 3 × 2 mixed factorial design experiment was conducted. The results show that (a) TeamSpirit was better than the others, and face-to-face was better than email for each of the three knowledge conversion processes (externalization, combination, and internalization) and (b) the better the team’s knowledge conversion process lead, the stronger its knowledge acquisition and knowledge-sharing intention.

知识管理（KM）是一个复杂的过程，涉及社会化，外部化，组合和内部化，需要相关人员之间的紧密协作。尽管Nonaka提出了SECI（社会化，外部化，组合，内部化）模型和Ba的概念，Ba提供了面向过程的知识创造和转移观点，但实践起来是临时的。COVID-19为从业人员提供了寻找KM新方法的机会。在这项研究中，我们改编了一批解决问题的系统，称为的TeamSpirit并把它作为一个巴的SECI模型。然后，我们将TeamSpirit与Ba的其他两个实现进行了比较，电子邮件和面对面的交流，以评估它们对知识外部化，知识组合和知识内部化的影响。然后，我们评估了这些知识转换过程是否可以改善知识获取和共享知识的意图。进行了3×2混合因子设计实验。结果表明，在三个知识转换过程（外部化，组合和内部化）中，（a）TeamSpirit优于其他人，面对面的交流优于电子邮件，并且（b）团队的知识转换更好过程领导，其知识获取和知识共享的意图就越强。