If you understand explicitly the determining elements of a problem and of its solution, you can resuse your 'best practise'-solution when you encounter the same determining elements in a ('new') problem.

Because problems often ask for a quick respons and society is getting so complex, ad hoc solutions tend to be vast majority of all solutions because they don't demand for the time needed to fully understand what you are doing. In present society and business life, everything changes so quickly that abstrahising an ad-hoc solution in order to understand (in an almost scientificly way) when to reuse it, is something which you simply don't always have the time for.

Therefor for me, the difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, is the time you have at your disposal to study and learn those constitutional elements from the ad hoc solution.

To determine whether the knowledge is tacit or explicit, you have to judge whether making the tacit knowledge more explixit knowledge, is worth the effort yes or no. It could be worth the effort because of re-usability. The answer depends on the context.

SInce the full abstract understanding of a problem has an economic value (you save thime when the problem is encoutered for a second time) and this value is determined by how many times the solution can be reused, companies could have an advantage by working together.

So should we abandon Newton and Descartes and do everything ad-hoc? I don't think so. It's what made brought us so far. I think we just need to think carefully whether it's worth making it explicit knowledge yes or no.