The article (from an IT consultancy, not really a theory) does not engage knowledge from an implicit/explicit axis. it is just a wandering talk around some other hazy active/passive axis. is it active as in "causing change”, or just persistent (=not fading) ?

The other three seem indeed closely related to implicit knowledge.

"Programming as Theory Building" argues that tacit Knowledge always precedes the activity of coding (in both importance and time) [0]. So, this theory is pointing to how fundamental "personal tacit knowledge" is to knowledge work (like coding)

"Conceptual integrity" describes the idea of "resonant minds" [1]. How do resonant minds communicate their knowledge so easily and fluently? is it because they share an implicit mental space where they can easily "get it" ? So this theory is maybe (implicitly ?) pointing to how much efficient "collective tacit knowledge" is (in small teams)

Nonaka's Theory (cited in this thread) is more ambitious as it describes a general process by which knowledge grows though interaction in organizations [2] : a continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge.

[0] a programmer’s main activity isn’t coding, it’s creating a theory of the problem at hand and its solution. This theory is implicit knowledge.

[1] Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed from one mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant mind

[2] Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation