Changing paradigm for knowledge metaphors from dynamics to thermodynamics

SystemsResearch andBehavioral ScienceSyst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)Published online 31January 2011inWiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.1080
& ResearchPaper

Changing Paradigm for KnowledgeMetaphors from Dynamics toThermodynamics

Constantin Bratianu*

Academy of Economic Studies of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

*CorStudiBuchE-ma

Cop

The aim of the paper is to analyse dominant metaphors in knowledge managementthinking, show their limitations by analysing their source domains, and then offer a betteralternative. It has been demonstrated that metaphors play an important role in definingthe concept of knowledge. In knowledge management important ideas incorporated intothe SECI model and other extended knowledge dynamics models are based on themetaphors that have their source domain in Newtonian dynamics. These metaphorshave limitations coming from some characteristics of the source domain that cannot bemapped onto the target domain, like the conservation law and linearity. The otherlimitation is that these metaphors hide the fact that knowledge and emotion go together.In order to integrate emotion into the knowledge concept we need a different set of fourmetaphors that have as a source domain the paradigm of thermodynamics. Copyright #2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords cognitive knowledge; emotional knowledge; energy; knowledge metaphor; thermo-dynamics

INTRODUCTION

In a seminal key address delivered to the 8thEuropean Conference on Knowledge Manage-ment held on 6 and 7 September 2007 in Barcelona,Consorci Escola Industrial de Barcelona, Spain.Daniel Andriessen demonstrated how powerful itis metaphorical analysis in understanding theconceptual nature of knowledge (Andriessen, 2007).

respondence to: Constantin Bratianu, Academy of Economices of Bucharest, Str. Matei Basarab, no.48, Sector 3, 030674arest, Romania.il: [email protected]

yright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

There is practically an infinite spectrum ofpotential metaphors we can use since knowledgehas got a very complex and dynamic field ofmeanings. There is no wonder that there areso many different views about the natureand content of this semantic attractor we callknowledge, since authors position themselves indifferent segments of this spectrum when theypresent their research. As Andriessen empha-sized, ‘. . .the unconscious choice of metaphorhas enormous impact on how we reason aboutknowledge, what is highlighted and what ishidden, what is seen in the organization as

Syst. Res. RESEARCHPAPER

problems and what is understood as solution’(Andriessen, 2008, pp.5–6).

There is an inherent difficulty in operatingwith the concept of knowledge since our brain isprocessing knowledge to produce new knowl-edge. The brain is a natural computationalsystem, and the mind is what the brain does(Pinker, 1998, 2008; Damasio, 1994; Fauconnierand Turner, 2003). Lakoff and Johnson (1999, p.3)summarized the findings of the cognitive sciencein three basic sentences:

� T

Co

Ch

he mind is inherently embodied.
� T hought is mostly unconscious. � A bstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
These findings change completely the frame-work of our thinking, giving priority to themetaphorical approach. Thus, our conceptualsystem is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.That means that we construct progressively theconceptual realm by mapping concepts we knowvery well from the world of tangibles intoconcepts belonging to the world of intangibles.‘Linguists and philosophers made a powerfulcase for the centrality of metaphor in humancognition, and, again, clever methodologieswere invented—for investigating metaphoricthought’ (Fauconnier and Turner, 2003, p.15).Essentially, this natural and continuous mentalprocess ‘is based on the idea that to think isto grasp a metaphor—the metaphor metaphor’(Pinker, 2008, p.238).

Metaphors represent cognitive abilities ofanalogical reasoning between a known domainwe call ‘source domain’ and an unknown domainwe call ‘target domain’ (Moser, 2004; Andriessen,2006). The known domain is practically mappedonto the target domain, such that the cognitivematrix of the source domain to be projected ontothe target domain. In the target domain wemay construct a semantic field for a new concept,or we may enlarge an existing semantic field fora known concept.

Metaphors integrate reason and imagination.‘Reason, at the very least, involves categorization,entailment and inference. Imagination, in oneof its many aspects, involves seeing one kind ofthing in terms of another kind of thing—what we

pyright � 2011JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

anging Paradigm for KnowledgeMetaphorsQ2 Pa

have called metaphorical thought. Metaphor isthus imaginative rationality’ (Lakoff and John-son, 2003, p.193). Due to imagination, the result ofmapping is a fuzzy semantic field. It is just theopposite of a mathematical mapping where thefinal result is achieved using a precise systemsof rules. However, it is this ambiguity andfuzziness that make possible the extension andenrichment of the semantic field. Any metaphorcontains entailments that are connotations ableto transfer meanings from the source domainto the target domain (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003;Andriessen, 2006). They do represent thefunctional interface between the semantic fieldsof the two domains. There are simple or primarymetaphors and complex metaphors. A simplemetaphor represents a mapping from a singlesource domain onto a single target domain. As anexample we may consider the metaphor Knowl-edge is a fluid, used by Davenport and Prusak(2000, p.5) in defining the concept of knowledge.A complex metaphor integrates two or moresimple metaphors. As an example we mayconsider A purposeful life is a journey. Thismetaphor involves the following mappings:

Journey

radigm for Knowledg

!

Syst. R

eMetapho

Purposeful life
Traveller ! Person living a life Destinations ! Life goals Itinerary ! Life plan
As explained by Lakoff and Johnson (1999,p.62), this complex metaphor integrates foursimple metaphors being a consequence of thefollowings: ‘(a) the cultural belief that everyone issupposed to have a purpose in life, (b) theprimary metaphors Purposes are Destinationsand Action is Motion and (c) the fact that a longtrip to a series of destinations is a journey’.

The aim of the paper is to analyse dominantmetaphors in knowledge management thinking,show their limitations by analysing their sourcedomains, and then offer a better alternative. Theargument is built on the following main ideas:

(a) M
etaphors play an important role in thedefining the concept of knowledge.
(b) I
n knowledge management important ideasincorporated in the SECI model and some
es.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

rs 161

Copy

162

RESEARCHPAPER Syst. Res.

other knowledge dynamics models are basedon the metaphors that have their sourcedomain in Newtonian dynamics.

(c) T
hese metaphors have limitations. Twolimitations come from some characteristicsof the source domain that cannot be mappedon the target domain: conservation law andlinearity. The other limitation is that thesemetaphors hide the fact that knowledge andemotion go together.
(d) I
n order to integrate emotion into theknowledge concept we need a different setof four metaphors that have as a sourcedomain the paradigm of thermodynamics.Thus, the paper suggests shifting fromthe Newtonian dynamics paradigm to thethermodynamics paradigm.
METAPHORS IN THE SECI MODEL

The Nonaka’s Knowledge Dynamics Model

Nonaka and his co-workers developed a consist-ent body of theory concerning knowledgecreation in organizations based on four mainideas: (a) knowledge is composed of tacitknowledge and explicit knowledge; (b) knowl-edge creation is a result of the four conversionprocesses: socialization, externalization, combi-nation and internalization; (c) the epistemologi-cal dimension describes the transformationsof tacit knowledge into explicit knowledgeand vice versa; (d) the ontological dimensiondescribes the transformation of individualknowledge into group knowledge and then,the transformation of the group knowledge intothe organizational knowledge. Thus, the Non-aka’s knowledge dynamics model is composedof the SECI (Socialization–Externalization–Com-bination–Internalization) engine for knowledgecreation, and the Ba shared context of knowledgecreation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Ichijo andNonaka, 2007; Ichijo and Nonaka, 2007; Nonakaet al., 2008). Socialization is considered by Nonakathe most important knowledge transfer ofthis cycle since it involves the hidden and stickypart of all knowledge created at individual level,

right � 2011JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

that is tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge ‘ispersonal knowledge embedded in individualexperience and involves intangible factorssuch as personal belief, perspective and thevalue system’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995,p.VIII). Also, as fluid in a stationary state tacitknowledge is characterized by inertia andstickiness (Szulansky, 1995, 1996). Tacit knowl-edge is sticky, which means that it has a highlydegree of inertia and difficulty of being trans-ferred. Tacit knowledge is a result of directexperience of an individual within a givenBa (Ichijo and Nonaka, 2007). Ba is the contextand the field of meanings that are shared andcreated through interactions which occur ata specific time and a specific space. That meansthat changing the functional position one mayhave in a Ba it will induce changes in his tacitknowledge, in a similar way of changes inducedin the potential energy by changing the positionof the fluid in the gravitational field. Themain entailment of this metaphor is the potentialof the tacit knowledge acquired by an individualas a result of his positioning in the gravity fieldof a given Ba. As Polanyi (1983) remarked, dueto tacit knowledge we know much more thanwe can tell.

Externalization is an individual processthrough which the tacit knowledge istransformed into explicit knowledge. Once theknowledge becomes explicit it can be shared,disseminated and transferred to others throughverbal and nonverbal languages. Explicit knowl-edge ‘can be articulated in formal language,including grammatical statements, mathematicalexpressions, specifications, manuals and so forth.This kind of knowledge thus can be transmittedacross individuals formally and easily’ (Nonakaand Takeuchi, 1995, p. VIII).

Combination is the process of creating newnetwork structures of explicit knowledge byintegrating individual explicit knowledge intoorganizational knowledge structures. Unlikeexternalization that is a purely individualprocess, combination is a social process basedon the communicable property of explicit knowl-edge. Combination takes place in a specificorganizational context, and thus it is intrinsicallyrelated to the concept of Ba.

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Constantin Bratianu


Internalization is an individual process ofembodying explicit knowledge as tacit knowl-edge. It is closely related to learning-by-doing.Knowledge is internalized through an integ-ration process in the already known knowledgestructure. If necessary, internalization will gen-erate a re-structuring process of tacit knowledge.

Knowledge Flows

This metaphor has been used extensively byDavenport and Prusak (2000), and by Nissen(2006). It is framed according to the paradigm ofNewtonian dynamics applied to fluid flows. Innature, fluids flow due to the action of the gravityfield. Examples are rivers and channels, wherewater is flowing down the hill. In industry, fluidsflow through pipes and ducts due to a pressuredifference between the entrance and the exitof them. In both contexts fluids flow as a resultof action of a field of forces between twocoordinates. This mechanical model has inspiredNissen (2006, p.XX) to imagine knowledgeas a fluid and organization as a field of forces:‘To the extent that organizational knowledgedoes not exist in the form needed for applicationor at the place and time required to enable workperformance, then it must flow from how it existsand where it is located to how and where it isneeded. This is the concept knowledge flows’.This is a complex metaphor composed of foursimple metaphors:

Metaphor 1: Knowledge !

Copyright � 2011JohnWiley & Sons,L

Changing Paradigm for Knowle

F

td

dg

luid
Metaphor 2: Tacit knowledge ! P otential energy Metaphor 3: Explicit knowledge ! K inetic energy Metaphor 4: Knowledge dynamics! E nergy
dynamics

The inner structure and the main entailmentsof each of these simple metaphors will bediscussed in the followings.

Metaphor 1: Knowledge as FluidIn this simple metaphor the main entailmentis the concept of continuum in motion, whichis different than an object in motion. Also, it isa generic concept since we do not have to specifythe nature of the fluid; it can be water, air, wine

.

e MetaphorsQ2 Pa

or any other substance in a fluid state. It is avery powerful metaphor due to our rich experi-ence in dealing everyday with fluids.

Metaphor 2: Tacit Knowledge as Potential EnergyThis metaphor has been introduced andexplained by Bratianu and Andriessen (2008).Potential energy is the energy embedded witha body as a result of its positioning within thegravitational field. The magnitude of potentialenergy is proportional with the height the bodyis lifted up from the surface of earth. Changing itsposition produces a proportional change in itspotential energy. In the target domain, tacitknowledge represents a potential for socializa-tion and externalization processes, from the SECImodel. Similar to the potential energy, tacitknowledge is the invisible part of the integralknowledge.

Metaphor 3: Explicit Knowledge as Kinetic EnergyThis metaphor appears in the paper of Bratianuand Andriessen (2008). In the physical world,kinetic energy is associated with the motion ofthe body or the fluid, and through its variationthe mechanical work is produced. In the targetdomain, explicit knowledge is that part ofknowledge that can be transferred from oneindividual to another, or it can be codified andstored in organization. Similar to the kineticenergy, explicit knowledge is the visible part ofthe integral knowledge. The main entailment ofthis metaphor is the capacity of moving andproducing work in organization.

Metaphor 4: Dynamics of Knowledge Conversion asDynamics of Energy TransformationThis is a complex process integrating tworeciprocal transformations: (1) externalizationas transformation of potential energy intokinetic energy and (2) internalization as trans-formation of kinetic energy into potential energy.As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p.IX) empha-sized, tacit knowledge and explicit knowledgeare the basic building blocks in a complimentaryrelationship. ‘More importantly, the interactionbetween these two forms of knowledge is the keydynamics of knowledge creation in the businessorganization’. Externalization is the conversion

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

radigm for KnowledgeMetaphors 163


process of tacit knowledge into explicit knowl-edge, taking the shapes of metaphors, analogies,concepts, hypotheses or mental models. Theseoutcomes of externalization can be used incommunication in a similar way in whichkinetic energy can be used in producing mech-anical work. Internalization is the reverseprocess through which explicit knowledge isconverted into tacit knowledge contributing thisway to experience enrichment. It is a functionalparallel to the conversion of kinetic energyinto potential energy. The energy dynamics ismapped onto the knowledge dynamics. Anillustration of the integrating metaphor is shownin Figure 1.

The main entailment of this metaphor is thedynamics of reciprocal transformation of one formof energy or knowledge into the other form. Inthis Newtonian dynamics paradigm both formsof energy have the same mechanical nature, andhave the same quantitative measure system.Fluid flows when there is a variation in thegravity field or in a pressure field and potentialenergy is transformed into kinetic energy. Thiskinetic energy can be transformed using a waterwheel, into mechanical work. In the integratingmetaphor, this whole dynamics from the sourcedomain is mapped onto the target domain. Tacit

Figure 1 Knowledge metaphor bas

Copyright � 2011JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

164

knowledge that represents the personal experi-ence potential is transformed into explicit knowl-edge through the externalization, which can beshared in the combination process to others in aBa environment. Much of this mapping is doneby our cognitive unconscious (Lakoff andJohnson, 1999).

Knowledge is Power

This metaphor has been so much used thatwe have almost taken it for granted. ‘Knowledgeis power. Knowledge represents one of thefew bases of sustainable competitive advantageavailable to the modern enterprise, but knowl-edge is distributed unevenly throughout organ-ization’ (Nissen, 2006, p.IX). However, thequestion is: What kind of power? Even theconcept of power is a multidimensional semanticconstruct, each new dimension being addedthrough a metaphorical process. There iseconomic power, administrative power, leader-ship power, scientific power, technologicalpower, political power and so forth. The semantickernel of all of these concepts is the capacityof performing a certain type of work, or ofmaking decisions and being in control of them.In the knowledge field, knowing means power,

ed on the dynamics paradigm.

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Constantin Bratianu


i.e. the ability to control people and things, or toinfluence people’s decisions.

Since metaphorical mappings are experiencedbased, the metaphor knowledge is power is hard toaddress to one source only. For instance, inengineering the source domain of the powermetaphors mentioned above is defined in therealm of physics. Power means the rate of energywith respect to time, that is work done by amechanical or electrical equipment. Taking theroot of mechanics, we reach the Newtoniandynamics paradigm, since mechanical work canbe done by the variation of kinetic energy whichis an outcome of the potential energy transform-ation. Essentially, we go down to the complexmetaphor presented in Figure 1.

Knowledge as wave, Knowledge as electricity orsimilar metaphors identified by Andriessen(2006) in his textual analysis use the sameparadigm of the Newtonian dynamics as thesource domain, as discussed above. Actuallythere should be no wonder about this genericparadigm since the Newtonian dynamics istaught in schools and universities, and it stilldominates out mental models (Nissen, 2006;Frith, 2007; Bratianu and Murakawa, 2009).

LIMITATIONS OF NEWTONIANDYNAMICS KNOWLEDGE METAPHORS

There are three important limitations in usingthe Newtonian dynamics knowledge metaphors:(a) the conservation law; (b) the linearityproperty; and (c) the dyad formed of tacitand explicit knowledge. We shall explain howthese limitations influence our understanding oforganizational knowledge dynamics. In thephysical world potential energy is transformedinto kinetic energy and vice versa according to thelaw of conservation that states that energy cannotbe created, nor destroyed. It can only betransformed from one form into another suchthat the total energy of the system remainsconstant. This law cannot apply to knowledge,since knowledge can be created and it can bedestroyed or forgotten. Also, knowledge can beshared, without any loss from the individual whoshares some of his knowledge with others. Thus,


Changing Paradigm for KnowledgeMetaphorsQ2 Pa

the conservation idea represents a feature of thesource domain that is not transferred to the targetdomain. In the source domain, energy transform-ations in a system do not increase or decrease itstotal energy. In the target domain, knowledgeconversions in an organization may increase ordecrease the total organizational knowledge. Thisidea is important in stimulating knowledge sharingthrough socialization and combination in order toincrease the level of organizational knowledge.

The second limitation is due to the linearityproperty of the tangible objects and their aggrega-tion. As demonstrated by Bratianu (2009) linearityis a major limitation in using metaphors con-structed on source domains defined in the physicalrealm. Linearity is a result of the algebraicoperations of summation and multiplication. Forinstance, if two arbitrary elements a and b belong toa linear space, then aþ b¼ c belongs also to thislinear space. In the sameway, if a and k belong to alinear space, then a� k¼ ak belongs to the samelinear space. These properties do not apply in theknowledge field. For instance, if snow and computerare two elements that belong to a semantic field,then, according to the linearity property, snowcomputer should belong to the same semantic field.However, snow computer has no significance, andthus the linearity property does not apply. In thefield of organizational knowledge and intellectualcapital nonlinearity becomes the major property,and integration instead of summation becomes themost important process (Bratianu, 2008).

The third limitation results from using the dyadformed of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledgesince it hides the emotional knowledge. AlthoughNonaka considers that tacit knowledge containsemotions, it is not obvious how they participatein the knowledge conversions of the SECI model.Emotional knowledge has a different nature thencognitive knowledge and thus it does not fitinto the Newtonian dynamics paradigm used inthe above-discussed metaphors.

THERMODYNAMICS KNOWLEDGEMETAPHORS AS AN ALTERNATIVE

Cognitive science started with the Greek idea ofmind as reason and logic. The idea of the human

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres



mind as an ideal computational machine seemedmore appealing than the idea of the mind asa biological organ (Simon, 1996; Pinker, 1998).Since cognitive science was a science of infor-mation processing, emotions did not fit into thatperspective. This approach has been rooted in theWestern rational effort of discovering the truth:‘It follows that we cannot know things throughthe senses alone, since through the sensesalone we cannot know that things exist. There-fore knowledge consists in reflection, not inimpression and perception is not knowledge,because it has no part in apprehending existence’(Russel, 1972, p.153).

Based on new findings and a large spectrum ofexperimental data concerning the brain activity,cognitive science developed continuously byintegrating emotions and thoughts. Our mentalmodels represent now cognitive and emotionalapproximations of the world we are living in,and knowledge can be considered as a field ofmeanings and feelings in a continuous dynamics.As emphasized by LeDoux (1998, p.39), ‘it istime to put cognition back into its mentalcontext—to reunite cognition and emotion inthe mind. Minds have thoughts as well asemotions and the study of either without theother will never be fully satisfying’. Thisconclusion fits very well to the Japanese philos-ophy of oneness of humanity and nature, onenessof body and mind, and oneness of self and other(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This philosophyhas been developed based mainly on ZenBudhism and on the intuitive approach ofachieving wisdom through physical training.Samurai education was designed in thisperspective on action and knowing inductionthrough physical training. As explained by thelegendarymartial artist MiyamotoMusashi in hisfamous Book of five rings, ‘I have constantlystudied ways to train my hands and eyes.Through constant practice, I have come tounderstand the spiritual aspects of my strategy’(Kaufman, 1994, p.78).

Emotions have been recognized as an import-ant component of knowing and decision-making(LeDoux, 1998; Gladwell, 2005; Frith, 2007;Hill, 2008). Thus, we may talk about a new dyadcomposed of cognitive knowledge and emotional


166

knowledge. Cognitive knowledge represented bythoughts has only an extensive dimension whichallows a quantitative approach to knowledge.Emotional knowledge has both an extensivedimension, and an intensive dimension. Theextensive dimension characterizes the quantitat-ive magnitude of an emotion, while its intensitycharacterizes the qualitative nature of emotion.Some authors already used for this intensivedimension the concept of emotional temperature(Hill, 2008). Emotional knowledge is thus a formof knowledge different in nature from thecognitive knowledge. In order to integrate it intothe knowledge concept we have to change thetacit knowledge—explicit knowledge dyad usedextensively by Nonaka and his co-workers into anew dyad: cognitive knowledge—emotionalknowledge (Bratianu and Andriessen, 2008;Bratianu and Orzea, 2009; Bratianu, 2010). Thatmeans to change the paradigm of Newtoniandynamics with the paradigm of thermodyn-amics, and to construct a new complex knowl-edge metaphor based on this last one. We wouldlike to emphasize the fact that changing theparadigm is fundamental in understandingthe new semantic extensions of knowledge byintegrating feelings and emotions. Althoughthe framework and the basic functional structureare similar to the previous ones, the innerprocesses are totally different. The complexmetaphor is composed of the following foursimple metaphors:

Metaphor 1: Knowledge !

Syst. R

Co

E

es.

ns

nergy
Metaphor 2: Cognitive knowledge! M echanical
energy
Metaphor 3: Emotional knowledge! T hermal energy Metaphor 4: Knowledge dynamics! E nergy
thermodynamics

These above simple metaphors will beexplained in the followings.

Metaphor 1: Knowledge as Energy

This metaphor has been analysed by Bratianuand Andriessen (2008). The main differencefrom the Knowledge is fluid metaphor comes fromchanging the source domain. Fluid is a mechan-

28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

tantin Bratianu


ical continuum. It is a substance, and energy is itsfundamental property as a result of motion.When energy becomes the source domain thewhole meaning is changed since energy cannotbe represented by an object or a substance. Itis represented by a field which is nonsubstance.A field of forces is by its nature mass free andspread in space as a continuous domain. It is anonuniform and nonlinear field of forces thatgenerates fluxes of energy oriented in the inversedirection of its gradient. To understand betterthis assertion we may think of the gravity field,or of an electrical field of forces. Thus, the mainentailment from the source domain mapped ontothe target domain is the field characteristic ofknowledge.

Metaphor 2: Cognitive Knowledge asMechanical Energy

This metaphor can be considered as a condensedresult of metaphors 2 and 3 from the Newtoniandynamics paradigm. Cognitive knowledge com-prises both rational and nonrational knowledge.It would be a mistake to reduce the wholespectrum from the cognitive knowledge tothe rationality characteristic. Many Japanesecompanies following Zen Budhism practicesorganize training programs for their employees,especially for those working in the research anddesign departments, based on developing non-rational thinking. For instance, Honda organizessuch training programs called Y-gaya, whereparticipants ‘are required to devote themselvesto the world of nonlogic throughout theirlearning process’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995,p.30).

Metaphor 3: Emotional Knowledge asThermal Energy

This is the new element of the knowledgemetaphor that changes the functional paradigmfrom dynamics to thermodynamics. It is inter-esting to remark the fact that in the beginningof development of the heat theory scientists usedthe metaphor of a fluid called caloric. Thermalenergy has a different nature and manifestationthan the potential and kinetic energy. This



new complexity led actually to the developmentof a new perspective in physics called thermo-dynamics, able to explain these new phenomena.Mechanical energy has only an extensive dimen-sion that allows quantitative measurements.Thermal energy or heat has two dimensions:an extensive dimension similar to that ofmechanical energy, and an intensive dimensionmeasured by a temperature scale. The higherthe temperature of a physical object, the higherthe intensity of the heat source. Emotionalknowledge is characterized by both contentand intensity. For the same emotional contentwe may have different levels of intensities, andthis is actually the main difference from thecognitive knowledge. The meaning of 2þ 2¼ 4is the same for everybody, and its intensity has novariation from one individual to another, or fromone context to another.

Metaphor 4: Knowledge Dynamics asEnergy Thermodynamics

This is the most difficult metaphor to explainsince it requires a very good understandingof thermodynamics. However, we may empha-size the fact that the total energy of a physicalobject or system is represented by interactionswith its environment as mechanical work andheat transfer. That means that mechanical energycan be transformed into heat, and heat intomechanical work by means of these interactions.In a similar way, we may consider that cognitiveknowledge can be transformed into emotionalknowledge, and emotional knowledge intocognitive knowledge through cognitive workand emotional heat. For instance, Hill (2008,p.24) remarks that ‘Feelings provide us withinformation. We usually ask ourselves, ‘How doI feel about such and such?’ Feelings alsoinfluence how we process information’. Also,the reverse transformation may happen: ‘Athought will be likely to cause a sensory, bodilysensation only if it triggers an emotion’ (Hill,2008, p.26). Although it is not explained indetails, the research of Andriessen et al. (2009) onknowledge metaphors in visuals leads to manyideas along this new direction of analysis wediscuss here.

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres


Figure 2 Knowledge metaphor based on the thermodynamics paradigm.


An illustration of this new complex knowledgemetaphor based on the thermodynamics para-digm is shown in Figure 2.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Knowledge metaphors evolved from very simplebased on physical object to complex metaphorsbased on Newtonian dynamics. Knowledge is flowand Knowledge is power represent only two of themost used in this perspective. Their spectrum ismuch larger. This metaphor has been constructedon the Nonaka’s dyad composed of tacit knowl-edge and explicit knowledge. The huge successof this type of metaphors can be explained easilyby analysing the semantic spectrum of theNewtonian dynamics that contains not onlypotential energy and kinetic energy in the sourcedomain, but also their reciprocal transformation.These metaphors have limitations. Two limita-tions come from the characteristics of the sourcedomain that cannot be mapped onto the targetdomain: conservation law and linearity. Theother limitation is that these metaphors hide thefact that knowledge and emotion go together.

In order to accommodate the new findingsof cognitive science concerning the importance


168

of emotions and feelings in developing ourmental models and crafting our attitudes andbehaviour as decision makers, a new class ofknowledge metaphors has to be created. Thesenew metaphors linking heat and emotions, andinducing the concept of emotional temperaturecould not be constructed on the Newtoniandynamics paradigm. The new paradigm ofthermodynamics has to be explored. The essenceof our research and conclusion of this paper is thatknowledge can be better understood designingcomplex metaphors that have as a source domainthe paradigm of thermodynamics. The benefitsof the new proposed set of metaphors are thefollowing: knowledge management can incor-porate emotional knowledge and emotionalintelligence in a new framework; organizationalknowledge dynamics can be explained in a moreadequate way, and the decision-making processcan be better understood in both terms ofrationality and emotionality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the support receivedfrom UEFISCSU Romania through PNII researchgrant ID_1812/2008.

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres

Constantin Bratianu


REFERENCES

Andriessen D. 2006. On the metaphorical nature ofintellectual capital: A textual analysis. Journal ofIntellectual Capital 7: 93–110.

Andriessen D. 2007. Knowledge as love. How metaphorsdirect our efforts to manage knowledge in organizations.Keynote address, 8th European Conference onKnowledge Management, Consorci Escola Indus-trial de Barcelona, Spain, 6–7 September 2007.

Andriessen D. 2008. Stuff or love? How metaphorsdirect our efforts to manage knowledge in organiz-ations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6:5–12.

Andriessen D, Kliphuis E, Mckenzie J, Van WinkelenC. 2009. Pictures of knowledge management. Devel-oping a method for analysing knowledge metaphorsin visuals. In Proceedings of the European Conference onIntellectual Capital, INHolland University of AppliedSciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 28–29 April2009, Stam C, Andriessen D. (eds.). Academic Pub-lishing: Reading; pp. 36–43.

Bratianu C. 2008. A dynamic structure of the organiz-ational intellectual capital. In Knowledge Managementin Organizations, Naaranoja M. (ed.). Vaasa: Vaasan,Yliopisto; pp. 233–243.

Bratianu C. 2009. The frontier of linearity in the intel-lectual capital metaphor. Electronic Journal of Knowl-edge Management 7(4): 415–424.

Bratianu C. 2010. A critical analysis of Nonaka’s modelof knowledge dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2ndEuropean Conference on Intellectual Capital, ISCTELisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal, 29–30 March 2010, Rodrigues S. (ed.). Academic Pub-lishing: Reading.

Bratianu C, Andriessen D. 2008. Knowledge as energy:A metaphorical analysis. In Procedings of the 9thEuropean Conference on Knowledge Management,Southampton Solent University, UK, 4–5September 2008, Harorimana D, Watkins D. (eds.).Academic Publishing: Reading; pp. 75–82.

Bratianu C, Murakawa H. 2009. Strategic thinking. InNonlinear Approaches to Economic Processes, Purica I.(ed.). Bucuresti: Expert; pp. 207–230.

Bratianu C, Orzea I. 2009. Emergence of the cognitive-emotional knowledge dyad. Review of InternationalComparative Management 10(5): 893–902.

Damasio A. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, andHuman Brain. A Grosset/Putman Book: New York.

Davenport TH, Prusak L. 2000. Working Knowledge.How Organizations Manage What They Know. HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston.

Fauconnier G, Turner M. 2003. The Way We Think.Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complex-ities. Basic Books: New York.

Frith C. 2007.Making up the Mind. How the Brain Createsour Mental World. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.



Gladwell M. 2005. Blink. The Power of Thinking WithoutThinking. Back Bay Books: New York.

Hill D. 2008. Emotionomics. Leveraging Emotions forBusiness Success, Revised edition. Kogan Page:London.

Ichijo K, Nonaka I. 2007. Knowledge Creation and Man-agement. New Challenges for Managers. Oxford Uni-versity Press: Oxford.

Kaufman SF. 1994. The Martial Artist’s Book of FiveRings. The Definitive Interpretation of Miyamoto Musa-shi’s Classic Book of Strategy. Tuttle Publishing: Bos-ton, Masachusetts.

Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. TheEmbodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought.Basic Books: New York.

Lakoff G, Johnson M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. TheUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.

LeDoux J. 1998. The Emotional Brain. The MysteriousUnderpinnings of Emotional Life. Phoenix: New York.

Moser KS. 2004. The role ofmetaphors in acquiring andtransmitting knowledge. In European Perspectives onLearning at Work: The Acquisition of Work ProcessKnowledge, Fisher M, Boreham N, Nyham B.(eds.). Office for Official Publications of the Euro-pean Communities: Luxemburg; pp. 148–163.

NissenME. 2006.Harnessing Knowledge Dynamics: Prin-cipled Organizational Knowing and Learning. IRM Pre-ss: London.

Nonaka I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge. Organization Science 5: 14–37.

Nonaka I, KonnoN. 1998. The concept of Ba: Building afoundation for knowledge creation. California Man-agement Review 40: 40–54.

Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge CreatingCompany. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamicsof Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.

Nonaka I, Toyama R, Hirata T. 2008.Managing Flow. AProcess Theory of the Knowledge-Based Firm. PalgraveMacmillan: New York.

Pinker S. 1998. How the Mind Works. Penguin Books:New York.

Pinker S. 2008. The Stuff of Thought. Language as a Windowinto Human Nature. Penguin Books: New York.

Polanyi M. 1983. The Tacit Dimension. Peter Smith:Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Russel B. 1972. A History of Western Philosophy. Simonand Shuster: New York.

Simon AH. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rdEdition. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Szulansky G. 1995. Unpacking stickiness: An empiricalinvestigation of the barriers to transfer best practicesinside the firm. Academy of Management Journal 38:437–441.

Szulansky G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impe-diments to the transfer of best practice within thefirm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (winter specialissue): 27–43.

Syst. Res.28, 160 1̂69 (2011)DOI:10.1002/sres


Documents

Changing paradigm for knowledge metaphors from dynamics to thermodynamics