ArticlePDF Available

Stuff or love? How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge in organisations†

Authors:
  • Utrecht University of Applied Sciences

Abstract and Figures

This position paper addresses the way knowledge is conceptualised in knowledge management (KM) literature and practice. Using the work of Lakoff and Johnson on metaphors it will show how people use metaphors to think and talk about knowledge. In KM literature at least 22 different metaphors for knowledge are used. Further research shows that these metaphors are primarily Western metaphors while in Eastern philosophy many other metaphors for knowledge are used. The choice of metaphors for knowledge has great influence about the way we think about KM. They determine what we diagnose as KM problems in organisations and what we develop as KM solutions. To illustrate this, this paper presents the results of an exercise set up to determine the effect of metaphors on KM approaches in which two challenging metaphors for knowledge were used: knowledge as water and knowledge as love.
Content may be subject to copyright.
POSITION PAPER
Stuff or love? How metaphors direct our efforts
to manage knowledge in organisations
w
Daniel G. Andriessen
INHOLLAND University of Professional
Education, Diemen, The Netherlands
Correspondence: Daniel G. Andriessen,
Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital,
INHOLLAND University of Professional
Education, Saturnusstraat 2-24, 2132 HB
Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Tel: þ31 6 52375658;
E-mail: daan.andriessen@inholland.nl,
www.weightlesswealth.com
w
This position paper is the edited text of a
keynote address delivered to the 8th European
Congress on Knowledge Management 2007
held on 6 and 7 September in Barcelona, Spain.
Received: 12 October 2007
Accepted: 15 October 2007
Abstract
This position paper addresses the way knowledge is conceptualised in
knowledge management (KM) literature and practice. Using the work of
Lakoff and Johnson on metaphors it will show how people use metaphors to
think and talk about knowledge. In KM literature at least 22 different
metaphors for knowledge are used. Further research shows that these
metaphors are primarily Western metaphors while in Eastern philosophy many
other metaphors for knowledge are used. The choice of metaphors for
knowledge has great influence about the way we think about KM. They
determine what we diagnose as KM problems in organisations and what we
develop as KM solutions. To illustrate this, this paper presents the results of an
exercise set up to determine the effect of metaphors on KM approaches in
which two challenging metaphors for knowledge were used: knowledge as
water and knowledge as love.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2008) 6, 512.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500169
Keywords: intellectual capital; sensemaking; meaning of knowledge; ontology;
philosophy; theory of knowledge
Introduction
Intellectual capital is a fascinating term full of contradictions, as it does
not refer to capital in the literal sense of the word and is not about intellect
either. Yet, it has helped to raise the awareness for the importance of
knowledge in organisations among scholars and practitioners, including
even the accounting profession. If the term is not used in the literal sense,
it must be somehow metaphorical and in my search for an explanation of
this phenomenon, I stumbled upon a book that has changed my life. This
book (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) proves beyond doubt that not only
intellectual capital is a metaphor, but also that all abstract concepts that we
use as human beings derive their meaning from metaphor, including terms
like organisation, strategy, human capital, intellectual capital, social
capital, andyy. knowledge.
Knowledge can only be analysed, talked about, and understood by using
metaphors. In our work on knowledge management (KM) you and I use
metaphors constantly, often without being aware of it. In my contribution,
I would like to explain to you how this works, talk about the many
metaphors for knowledge that I found in my research, and elaborate on the
important consequences of this fact for our work on KM.
We primarily use metaphor to reason about knowledge
The fact that we can only reason about knowledge through metaphors is
not a bad thing (or a good thing), it is inescapable; that’s how the human
mind works. However, the unconscious choice of metaphor has enormous
Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2008) 6, 5–12
&2008 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 1477–8238/08 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp
impact on how we reason about knowledge, what is
highlighted and what is hidden, what is seen in the
organisations as problems and what is understood as
solutions.
Let me give you a small example as a starter. Many KM
approaches advice companies to make an ‘inventory’ of
knowledge, check where knowledge is ‘located’, ‘store’
important or vulnerable knowledge in databases, use
intranet technology to improve ‘access’ to knowledge,
etc. What is important to see is that knowledge is not
literally located and stored. After all, you cannot see it and
you cannot grab it and put it in a container. A knowledge
inventory is not literally an inventory like the inventory of
a warehouse. And access to knowledge is not literally
access like you have access to the warehouse. These are all
metaphors and they make sense to us because we are very
familiar with the KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE meta-
phor. Resource metaphors are very common in human
thought. We use the TIME AS A RESOURCE metaphor
very often, for example, when we say ‘I got plenty of
time’ , ‘that took three hours’, ‘he wasted my time’ or
‘this will save time’.
How metaphors work: the example of time
So how does this metaphor stuff work? To explain how it
works and how common metaphors are, let us start with
a more neutral concept that is as abstract as knowledge
and that we are all familiar with: the concept of time.
What do you do when I would ask you to point me where
the future is? You will probably point somewhere in front
of you. And where is the past? You will probably point
behind you. People see the future as being in front of
them and the past behind them. This TIME ORIENTA-
TION metaphor is the same all over the world. In our
thinking of time we use space as a metaphor and
conceptualise the future in front of us and the past
behind us. We see the passage of time as the passage
along a path from the past to the future. We also use the
MOVING OBSERVER metaphor. In this metaphor, each
location on the observer’s path is a time. The distance
moved by the observer is the amount of time passed. This
shows in sayings like ‘will you be staying a long time of a
short time?’ or ‘how long is your visit?’
Another metaphor is the MOVING TIME metaphor. In
this metaphor the observer stands still and time moves,
for example when we say that ‘time flies by’ or ‘the time
for action has arrived’. We even use space to measure time
when we say: ‘how long does that take?’ The TIME AS
SPACE metaphor has served us well and is embedded in
our brain. It is the same for almost all people in the
world. One exception is known. For the Aymara people of
the Andes Mountains in Peru, the future is behind ego
and the past is in front of ego (Nu
´nez & Sweetser, 2006).
In Aymare language, the word ‘nayra’ means ‘eye/sight/
front’, while ‘nayra mara’ means ‘last year’. ‘Qhipa’
means ‘back/behind’ while qhipuru means ‘a future
day’. The Aymara do not only use this metaphor in
speech but also in their gestures.
However, sometimes the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is
flawed. Some characteristics of space in the source
domain are not applicable to the target domain of time.
Let me give you an example where the TIME AS SPACE
metaphor is flawed. We consider passage of time as a path
with events as locations on that path. When time goes by
we ‘move’ along the path. However, in space there is
always another location before or after every location.
This never stops. In the source domain of space, infinity is
part of the concept of space. In the target domain of time
this is not the case. As we know now from science, there
was no time before the Big Bang. Time started at the Big
Bang. But the idea that time itself started with the Big
Bang makes no sense given our common metaphor. That
we have difficulty understanding this shows how funda-
mental the TIME AS SPACE metaphor is for thinking
about time.
Another area where the time as space metaphor falls
short is when it comes to travelling. In the source domain
of space we can travel through space. The TIME AS SPACE
metaphor tempts us to think that this attribute of space
can be transferred to the target domain of time. This, of
course, is not true, but the false idea of travelling in time
has produced some great science fiction stories and
movies!
So the way metaphor works in our brain is that some
characteristics of the source domain (space) are trans-
ferred to the target domain (time). These are called
metaphorical entailments (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Not
all characteristics of the source domains are transferred
and more metaphors may be useful to further concept-
ualise the concept of the target domain (see Figure 1).
Intermezzo 1: truth does not exist
as direct observation does not exist because people always
use concepts to describe reality;
as these concepts derive their meaning from metaphor;
as half of these metaphors are embodied in our brain and
cannot be shut off or altered;
as the choice of the other half is to a large extent arbitrary;
Time Moving Object
“length”
“amount”
“scarcity”
“direction”
“origin”
“destination”
“arrives”
“flies by”
“speed”
Figure 1 The target and source domains of the TIME AS A
MOVING OBJECT metaphor.
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen6
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
we will never be able to perfectly describe and understand
reality and ego, truth (defined as correspondence with reality)
does not exist.
Metaphors for knowledge
What the time example shows is that metaphors play a
crucial role in the conceptualisation of abstract concepts,
that they highlight characteristics and hide others, and
that they can fool us when we take them as literal.
Knowledge is also an abstract concept. The research I did
last year shows that in three of the most quoted texts on
KM, at least 99% of all references to knowledge are
metaphorical (Andriessen, 2006). In total, I discovered 22
different metaphors for knowledge. Three of those are
very dominant in Western KM literature. The KNOWL-
EDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor (Figure 2) uses the
source domain of resources to help us reason about
knowledge. Many attributes of resources are used to
reason about knowledge. Knowledge is used in produc-
tion, it is adding to the production process, it can be
stored and shared. One can talk about ‘an amount of
knowledge’, and the metaphor allows knowledge to be
placed in a view that considers organisations as input/
output (logistical) systems. In the English language, some
characteristics of resources are not used, like the ‘size’ or ‘
weight’ of knowledge. At the same time some character-
istics of knowledge are not covered by the metaphor, like
the non-rivalry and non-additiveness of knowledge (Lev,
2001) and the tacitness of knowledge. Through the
KNOWLEDGE AS RESOURCE metaphor, knowledge
becomes part of a logistic discourse about organisations.
The KNOWLEDGE AS ASSETS metaphor (Figure 3) uses
the source domains of assets to help us reason about
knowledge. Several attributes of this accounting term are
used including that knowledge can be controlled by the
enterprise, generates future economic benefits that flow
to enterprise, is identifiable, that its costs can be
measured, that it is used in production, and deserves a
place in the reporting system of the enterprise. Through
the KNOWLEDGE AS ASSETS metaphor, knowledge
becomes part of an accounting discourse about organisa-
tions.
The KNOWLEDGE AS PROPERTY metaphor (Figure 4)
makes it possible to use knowledge in the legal discourse
about organisations. This metaphor makes it possible to
reason about the ownership, value and exclusiveness of
knowledge. It highlights the legal rights aspects of
knowledge, its transferability and its options to commer-
cialise is.
What is interesting is that different writers are using
different metaphors for knowledge, which reveals a
different conceptualisation of, or view on knowledge
(see Figure 2). American writers Davenport and Prusak
predominantly use the KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF meta-
phor. Japanese writers Nonaka and Takeuchi predomi-
nantly use the KNOWLEDGE AS THOUGHTS OR
FEELINGS metaphor (Andriessen, 2006). This reflects
both a cultural difference and a difference in view on
KM (Figure 5).
Metaphor analysis can reveal insufficient or false
argumentation
Now you may ask ‘so what? What is relevance of this for
my work on KM?’ My answer would be that the
consequences are enormous. Metaphors highlight and
hide in a way that we are not aware of. Let us take
another look at the KNOWLEDGE AS CAPITAL metaphor.
Here is a list of attributes of capital in the source domain
of capital (see Table 1). Many of these attributes are
transferred to the target domain of knowledge by many
writers in the field of intellectual capital. These transfor-
mations seem indisputable, until we start to realise that it
is a metaphor we are using, and that we actually need
some argumentation to claim that the attribute of the
Location
Size
Weight
Other physical
characteristics
Use in production
Adding to
Storing
Sharing knowledge
Amount of knowledge
Place in input/output
(logistical) system
Non-rivalry of knowledge
Non-additiveness of
knowledge
Tacitness of knowledge
What is not usedWhat the metaphor
highlights
What the metaphor hides
Target
Domain
Source
Domain
RESOURCE
Figure 2 The KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor.
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen 7
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
source domain is applicable in the target domain. Is
having more knowledge always better? Can knowledge
really be owned? Can it be valued? Does it have to be put
on the balance sheet? Is it additive? Is it a stock? And why
must it be measured to be able to manage it?
The opposite is also true; many authors go at length to
explain that a certain characteristic of capital is not
applicable in the target domain of knowledge, not being
aware of the fact that we are dealing with metaphor. An
example is the non-rivalry of knowledge as in the quote:
‘knowledge is the only resource that is not used up when
it is used’. When we realise we are dealing with the
KNOWLEDGE AS RESOURCE metaphor here, this remark
becomes a non-statement. The only thing you are saying
about knowledge when you say it is not used up is that
the attribute of a resource in the source domain of rivalry
is not transferable to the target domain of knowledge. So
what? Many attributes of source domains are not
transferable to target domains!
The KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor helps
dehumanise organisations
So the metaphorical analysis of KM literature can uncover
insufficient or false argumentation. Now let us adopt for a
moment a more critical approach. With the widely used
KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor we are committing an
act of, what Gustavson has called, ‘thingification’
(Gustavsson, 2001). We act as if knowledge is a thing.
This has many advantages because things can be
counted, controlled, and managed. However, things are
Location
Size
Weight
Other physical
characteristics
Controlled by enterprise
Generate future
economic benefits that
flow to enterprise
Identifiable and cost can
be measured
Use in production
Place in reporting
system
Non-rivalry of knowledge
Non-additiveness of
knowledge
Tactiness of knowledge
What is not usedWhat the metaphor
highlights
What the metaphor hides
Target
Domain
Source
Domain
ASSET
Figure 3 The KNOWLEDGE AS AN ASSET metaphor.
Location
Other physical
characteristics of
property
Ownership
Value
Exclusiveness
Legal rights
Transferability
Ability to commercialize
Place in legal system
People cannot be
owned
Tacitness of knowledge
Purposeness of
knowledge
What is not usedWhat the metaphor
highlights
What the metaphor hides
Target
Domain
Source
Domain
PROPERTY
Figure 4 The KNOWLEDGE AS PROPERTY metaphor.
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen8
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
also objective and neutral, so the metaphor assumes that
knowledge is objective; that it can be stored and retrieved
without any distortion; that it can be transferred from
one human being to another without interpretation.
Furthermore, things have no feelings, require no moral,
can be moulded, malformed, and thrown away. So while
the KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor highlights
that knowledge is important in organisations, at the same
time it hides that knowledge is about people that need to
be empowered and be treated with respect. The language
of KM based on KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE is
mechanistic, dehumanised, cold. It talks about ‘gather-
ing’ knowledge, ‘storing’ knowledge, ‘distributing’
knowledge as if it has nothing to do with people. It
provides management with even more means to control
organisations in a mechanistic way, often with IT as the
main tool. By the way, many studies have shown that this
IT-dominated approach to KM has limited effectiveness,
but that is not the point I try to make here. My argument
is that this instrumental approach to KM, that only treats
knowledge as a tool, contributes to the further dehuman-
isation of organisations that is taking place in modern
society.
So far we have seen that metaphors are inescapable
thinking devices for abstract thinking and that they are
often used without us being aware of them. Yet, they
determine the way we think about KM by highlighting
certain attributes of knowledge and hiding others. The
KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor further strengthens
the idea that organisations are machines with input,
throughput and output, and put more power into the
hands of managers that want to control these machines.
This is unhealthy for employees and often ineffective for
companies.
Alternative metaphors for knowledge
So what are some of the alternatives? What other
metaphors for knowledge can the KM movement adopt
to help create more humane and effective organisations?
Here we may find some inspiration in the East. In a recent
study (Andriessen and Van den Boom, 2007), we high-
lighted different metaphors for knowledge between West
and East. The West was represented by the top-10 KM
literature. In the Arab countries and Asia, there is very
little English literature on KM so we decided to look at
knowledge in four major religions: Islam, Buddhism,
Hinduism, and Confucianism. Although these religions
are very different, they have in common that they tend to
see knowledge as spirit and wisdom, as unfolding truth,
as illumination or enlightenment of an underlying,
deeper reality and, in Japan, as essence-less and nothing-
ness. Furthermore, these religions highlight the unity of
knowledge and action and see knowledge creation as a
Figure 5 Difference in metaphors between Davenport & Prusak (1998) and Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) (Andriessen, 2006).
Table 1 Entailments of the CAPITAL metaphor
Capital is valuable and important
Capital is an asset for the future and not an expenditure
Capital can be invested in
Capital can be capitalised
Capital itself can be invested
Capital allows for a return
Capital resonates with managers and CFOs
Having more capital is better
Capital can be owned
Capital can be valued financially
Capital often appears on the balance sheet
Capital is additive (1+1 ¼2)
Capital is a stock
Capital can and must be measured and managed
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen 9
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
continuous, self-transcending process. These metaphors
for knowledge are difficult to translate into management
actions and that is exactly the point. Maybe for a good
role of knowledge in organisations we need less manage-
ment, not morey
Studying the effects of metaphors on KM
I wanted to know what exactly is the impact of choosing
a certain metaphor for knowledge on the ideas about KM
in organisations so I did a small exercise (Andriessen,
2007). I organised two workshops on KM in a department
of the Dutch central government. In the first workshop,
15 employees were invited, in the second workshop 15
managers. In both workshops I asked the participants to
identify a number of problems related to KM in their
organisation and think of a number of solutions.
However, I asked them to do this using a particular
metaphor for knowledge. First I asked them to do this
using the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor. This
resulted in a number of problems and solutions (see
Table 2). As you can see, most of these are in line with the
mechanistic approach to KM as outlined earlier.
Then I asked them to do the same, but this time using a
metaphor that is much more in line with an Eastern view
of knowledge. I asked them to discuss problems and
solutions regarding knowledge while thinking of
KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE. What happened was quite
remarkable. The topic of conversations changed comple-
tely. Suddenly their conversations were about relation-
ships within the organisation, trust, passion in work, the
gap between their tasks and their personal aspirations,
etc. (see Table 3).
So by introducing a new metaphor, the diagnosis of the
current situation changed completely. Moreover, it
shifted from problems related to the accessibility of
knowledge, to problems related to the preconditions for
knowledge work and the well-being of the knowledge
workers in the organisation. A similar thing happened
when the groups started to talk about possible solutions.
The solutions that were proposed had to do with improv-
ing the quality of the collaboration within the organisation
and the working conditions of the knowledge worker.
Intermezzo 2: problems do not exist
This small exercise is a good illustration that problems do not
exist. Problems are not phenomena waiting out there in reality
to be observed. This implies that is nonsense to ask questions
like ‘what is the problem in this organisation?’ A problem is a
gap between an existing and a preferred situation (Ist and Soll).
And as both the perception of the existing as the perception of
the preferred situation depends on how you prefer to look at it, a
problem is by definition subjective. The concepts you choose to
diagnose an organisation, and the underlying metaphors that
they are based on, determine the way you perceive the situation
as well as how it should be. Or, as Professor Joseph Kessels once
phrased it: ‘a problem is an interpretation of a feeling of
discomfort’ (Kessels, 2005).
KM is an instrument of power
This small exercise shows that the metaphor for knowl-
edge chosen has an enormous impact on the perceived
KM problems and proposed solutions. In addition, when
asked what metaphor they preferred it turned out that
management in general preferred the KNOWLEDGE AS
WATER metaphor and employees the KNOWLEDGE AS
LOVE metaphor. In fact, most employees expressed a
particular dislike of the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER meta-
phor. As we have seen, KNOWLEDGE AS WATER stresses
the possibilities to control and manage knowledge, while
Table 2 Results of the KNOWLEDGE AS WATER metaphor
Diagnosis Solutions
Knowledge does not flow Build canals
Separate source of knowledge Flush out and freshen knowledge
Knowledge is not channelled Tap knowledge from people leaving
No dispersion of knowledge Create knowledge map
Hydrocephalus: people keeping knowledge to themselves Managers as knowledge channels
Knowledge management
Table 3 Results of the KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE metaphor
Diagnosis Solutions
Knowledge is not cherished Provide time and space for sharing knowledge
Lack of trust Match people’s passions and tasks
Unrequited love Go out and date more
Rivalry and forced marriages Hire marriage counsellor
Attractive but lonely singles Partner-swapping
In-breeding Don’t manage and systemise knowledge
We only talk about our wedding certificate but not about our relationship
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen10
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
KNOWLEDGE AS LOVE emphasises the working condi-
tions of knowledge workers. So each of the two groups,
managers and employees, preferred the metaphor that
was in alignment with their own interests: management
and control vs improved working conditions. This is an
important point, ladies and gentlemen, as it shows that
KM is not a neutral concept. Depending on the
metaphors for knowledge it is based on, a KM approach
serves the interests of particular groups within an
organisation. When a KM approach is based on the
KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF metaphor (and most KM
approaches are) it will probably be in the interest of
management and not in the interest of employees. KM is
an instrument of power.
Conclusions
What I have been trying to show you is that in our
theorising and thinking about knowledge and KM,
metaphors play a crucial role. The problem is that these
metaphors often stay hidden in the realm of our
unconscious thought. Yet, they decide what we identify
as knowledge problems and KM solutions. If we want to
advance the field of KM, we must bring our metaphors for
knowledge to the surface. Therefore, I would like to
encourage you to do a small exercise when reading this
copy of KMRP. When you read an article, write down
some of the verbs the author uses related to knowledge.
What is even more fun is when you also start to count
them. This way you will discover the dominant meta-
phors for knowledge the author is using. There is
a big chance that this will be the KNOWLEDGE AS STUFF
metaphor. To facilitate this process I have developed
a simple scoring form (see Appendix). Then, when
you have finished the article, reflect on it using one
simple question: What would have been the outcome
of the research if we see knowledge not at stuff but
as love?
References
ANDRIESSEN DG (2006) On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital:
a textual analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital 7, 93–110.
ANDRIESSEN DG (2007) Knowledge as love; how metaphors direct the way
we manage knowledge in organizations. In Proceedings of the 5th
Critical Management Society Conference, 11–13 July, Critical Manage-
ment Society, Manchester, UK.
ANDRIESSEN DG and VAN DEN BOOM M (2007) Intellectual capital and east-
west variations. In Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
DAVENPORT TH and PRUSAK L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston.
GUSTAVSSON B (2001) Power over meaning; unlearning and human
values. In Management of Power – Ethical and Values Aspects
(CHAKRABORTY SK, Ed), pp 339–358, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
KESSELS JWM (21-9-2005) A problem is an interpretation of a feeling of
discomfort. Andriessen, Daniel G, Personal Communication.
LAKOFF G and JOHNSON M (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books, New
York.
LEV B (2001) Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting.The
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
NONAKA IandTAKEUCHI H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford
University Press, New York/Oxford.
NU
´NEZ RE and SWEETSER E (2006) With the future behind them:
Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the
crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive
Science 30, 401–450.
Appendix
Knowledge Management Metaphor Analysis
Scoring Form
This list of metaphors for knowledge is taken from the
data used for Andriessen (2006). You can apply it to
identify the metaphors for knowledge used in papers and
presentations. The list contains verbs related to know-
ledge and the underlying metaphor they derive their
meaning from. The metaphors are grouped into cate-
gories. Some categories are divided into sub categories
indicated behind each verb.
Verb Metaphor #
Knowledge as stuff metaphors
Accumulate knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Acquire knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Anchor knowledge Knowledge as a ship
Apply knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Capitalize knowledge Knowledge as capital
Categorize knowledge Knowledge as an object
Combine knowledge Knowledge as an object
Create knowledge Knowledge as an object
Crystallize knowledge Knowledge as a substance
Deliver knowledge Knowledge as a product
Develop knowledge Knowledge as a product
Disseminate knowledge Knowledge as seed
Embody knowledge Knowledge as an object
Exchange knowledge Knowledge as an object
Exploit knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Externalise knowledge Knowledge as an object
Find knowledge Knowledge as an object
Get knowledge Knowledge as an object
Have knowledge Knowledge as an object
Hold knowledge Knowledge as an object
Identify knowledge Knowledge as an object
Integrate knowledge Knowledge as an object
Internalise knowledge Knowledge as an object
Invest in knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Invest knowledge Knowledge as capital
Appendix Continued
Verb Metaphor #
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen 11
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Leverage knowledge Knowledge as an object
Link knowledge Knowledge as an object
Locate knowledge Knowledge as an object
Manage knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Measure knowledge Knowledge as capital
Move knowledge Knowledge as an object
Navigate knowledge Knowledge as a ship
Need knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Obtain knowledge Knowledge as a product
Package knowledge Knowledge as a product
Pass on knowledge Knowledge as an object
Recognize knowledge Knowledge as an object
Seek knowledge Knowledge as an object
Sell knowledge Knowledge as a product
Share knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Sort knowledge Knowledge as an object
Store knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Synthesize knowledge Knowledge as a substance
Transfer knowledge Knowledge as an object
Use knowledge Knowledge as a resource
Value knowledge Knowledge as capital
Knowledge as thoughts and feelings metaphors
Articulate knowledge Thoughts and feelings
Communicate knowledge Thoughts and feelings
Elicit knowledge Thoughts and feelings
Express knowledge Thoughts and feelings
Verbalize knowledge Thoughts and feelings
Knowledge as organism metaphors
Capture knowledge Knowledge as organism
Grow knowledge Knowledge as organism
Harness IC Knowledge as organism
Interacting knowledge Knowledge as organism
Knowledge as form metaphors
Codify knowledge Knowledge as a structure
Convert knowledge Knowledge as a form
Organize knowledge Knowledge as a structure
Reconfigure knowledge Knowledge as a structure
Restruct knowledge Knowledge as a structure
Transform knowledge Knowledge as a form
Miscellaneous metaphors
Amplify knowledge Knowledge as a wave
Automate knowledge Knowledge as a process
Deploy knowledge Knowledge as military troops
Diffuse knowledge Knowledge as light
Evaluate knowledge Knowledge as action
Formalize knowledge Knowledge as a process
Generate knowledge Knowledge as electricity
Justify knowledge Knowledge as action
Mobilize knowledge Knowledge as military troops
Transmit knowledge Knowledge as a wave
Metaphors you found
Verb Metaphor Source #
About the author
Daniel G. Andriessen is Professor of intellectual capital
at INHOLLAND University of professional education, The
Netherlands, and director of the INHOLLAND Centre for
Research in Intellectual Capital, a research group set up to
study the impact of the intangible economy on people
and organisations (www.inholland.com). Before joining
INHOLLAND, Dr. Andriessen worked as a management
consultant for KPMG for more than 12 years. He was the
founder of KPMG’s Knowledge Advisory Services Group
in 1997, together with Professor Dr. Rene
´Tissen. Daniel
received his Ph.D. degree at Nyenrode University in The
Netherlands and he holds a masters degree in political
and administrative science at the Free University,
Amsterdam. He suggests you check out his website
(www.weightlesswealth.com) and mail him your feed-
back.
Appendix Continued
Verb Metaphor #
Appendix Continued
Verb Metaphor #
How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge Daniel G. Andriessen12
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
... However, they can be understood by using metaphors having in the source domain physical entities from the natural environment. Their semantic structure and content depend on the metaphors used in framing them (Andriessen, 2008). Thus, various definitions formulated in literature for knowledge and knowledge dynamics are dependent on the metaphors used in explaining them, and these metaphors depend on the background of the authors and their native culture. ...
... Although it is not her priority in that paper, Kianto (2007) underscores the importance of metaphorical thinking in understanding the basic meanings of knowledge, knowledge dynamics, and intellectual capital dynamics, aligning her conclusions to those formulated by Andriessen (2006Andriessen ( , 2008. Considering on the one hand, the importance of understanding much better the meanings of knowledge dynamics from the perspective of knowledge management, and on the other hand, the scarcity of papers dealing with this issue, the present paper aims to develop a semantic analysis of the concept knowledge dynamics based on a literature review, and to propose a framework for the semantic clusters used frequently in knowledge management. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper aims to perform a semantic analysis of the knowledge dynamics concept and to propose a framework for the semantic clusters used in knowledge management. Knowledge is an abstract term without correspondence with any physical object. Knowledge can be understood through metaphorical thinking. Metaphors used in explaining knowledge contribute to its spectrum of meanings today and the difficulty of finding a unique definition. Among the most frequently used metaphors are those based on an object, a stock, an iceberg, a flow, a process, and energy. The concept of knowledge dynamics follows the same pattern, and its interpretation depends on the researcher's experience and the metaphor used. That explains why we find so many different interpretations for such a critical concept in knowledge management theory and practice. The aim of the present research is to perform a semantic analysis of the multiple meanings assigned to knowledge dynamics and to propose a framework for the semantic clusters. The research is based on a qualitative analysis of the literature, the theory of metaphorical thinking, and the theory of semantic clustering. We take as reference the well-defined meanings of the dynamics concept from physics and thermodynamics. In physics, dynamics means motion in space or change in time. In thermodynamics, dynamics means transformation from one state to another state or from one field into another field of a given variable. Our analysis findings can be instrumental in a better understanding of the knowledge dynamics concept and adequate utilization in practice. Many researchers use, for instance, the meaning of flow for both the concept of knowledge and that of knowledge dynamics without a correct understanding of the fluid mechanics laws. That leads to misinterpretations in their research models and empirical research. The originality of this paper comes from the semantic clustering analysis and the proposed framework used and an interdisciplinary approach.
... A KMS is a technology and its associated new modes of action, is crucial for successful implementation (Khalil & Dudezert, 2014;Sellin, 2011). Andriessen (2008Andriessen ( , 2011 has shown that employees mobilize metaphors to think and talk about knowledge in organizations. Furthermore, Mason (2003) states that KMS have been criticized as having a North American bias and that the cultural dimension of KMS, particularly the relationship of learning and culture in KM projects, should be investigated further. ...
... They can relate to what people think of technologies, their relationships with them and whether and how they decide to use them. Metaphors can help diagnose KM problems in organizations and what we develop as KM solutions (Andriessen, 2008). Metaphors can be seen as thinking devices to help how we think and talk about the concept of knowledge (Andriessen, 2011). ...
Article
Management research is increasingly using fiction as an insightful way to analyze complex organizational dynamics. Focusing on user appropriation of Knowledge Management Systems, we describe how we used the popular Astérix, a well-known French cartoon to better understand KMS appropriation. We came to use this approach in an action research project in a large French construction firm initially designed to help Chief Knowledge Officers address KMS non-use. After our first findings showed paradoxical cultural issues, and based on the idea that culture is central to sensemaking and appropriation, we used the notion of the cultural metaphor to help better understand the cultural aspects associated with KMS appropriation. These results contribute knowledge in three different areas. First, we underline the role of cultural metaphors in information systems appropriation. Second, we enrich the literature on the role of fiction in management by illustrating the role of cultural metaphors. Third, we report on how this can be used in an action research project to help better understand KMS appropriation issues, which has the potential of leading to practical managerial action.
... El conocimiento sistémico depende del valor generado por otros componentes de la configuración de la organización Régimen de propiedad intelectual Es el conocimiento protegido por la Ley de Protección de Propiedad Intelectual Fuente: adaptado de Paniagua et al., (2007) En este mismo orden de ideas, el paradigma del capital intelectual estático permite sólo dos formas de conocimiento para ser transformados uno dentro del otro: el conocimiento tácito que refleja el individuo, conocimiento potencial, y el conocimiento explícito que refleja la capacidad de transferencia de conocimiento individual (Bratianu, 2014;Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Geisler & Wickramasinghe, 2015;Holden & Glisby, 2010;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1999). Según el modelo SECI de Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), el conocimiento tácito puede ser transformado en conocimiento explícito como resultado del proceso de externalización, y el conocimiento explícito puede ser transformado en conocimiento tácito como resultado de la proceso de internalización, adicionalmente, concibe al capital intelectual como una acción que refleja el potencial de una organización determinada en un determinado tiempo (Chatzkel, 2002); por lo cual, al ser considerado como una acción, el capital intelectual puede ser adquirido, acumulado, combinado, distribuido y medido como todos los demás recursos tangibles, aunque los sistemas de medición pueden diferir (Andriessen, 2008). ...
... Este paradigma estático de capital intelectual ha ido evolucionando hacia un paradigma dinámico y entrópico, en donde se incorpora el tiempo como una variable fundamental (Bratianu, 2014), y se fundamenta en el concepto de flujo de conocimiento, según Nissen (2006) el conocimiento de la organización no existe en la forma necesaria para su aplicación, en el lugar y el tiempo requerido para el desempeño del trabajo; razón por la cual este debe fluir desde donde se encuentra, hasta cómo y dónde se necesita. Así, "el conocimiento es una mezcla fluida de experiencias, valores, información contextual, y la visión de expertos que proporciona un marco para evaluar e incorporar nuevas experiencias e información" (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p.5). En consecuencia, el cambio de paradigma estático al dinámico, consiste en que este último visualiza el conocimiento como un flujo a través de la organización; así, el conocimiento no se encuentra literalmente localizado y almacenado dentro de la organización (Andriessen, 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Se presenta un análisis de las estrategias de transferencia del conocimiento en las universidades nacionales experimentales del estado Zulia, Venezuela. Las bases teóricas se fundamentaron en Davenport & Prusak (2001), Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), Benavides Velasco & Quintana García (2003) y Bratianu (2014). Se desarrolló bajo el tipo de investigación descriptiva, con diseño de campo no experimental y transeccional. Dentro de los resultados mas importantes, se tiene que las estrategias de transferencia del conocimiento mas usadas son las categorizadas, espontáneas y formalizadas.
... Understanding the knowledge economy means to understand first the concept of knowledge and its specific features. For instance, knowledge does not have a clearly delineated structure because its understanding is bounded by the metaphors used in getting its semantic field (Andriessen, 2004;Andriessen, 2008;Lakeoff & Johnson, 1999). Knowledge is intangible and nonlinear distinguishing this way clearly from the tangible resources like physical objects including monetary resources Bratianu & Vasilache, 2009;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The paper aims to study cybersecurity correlations with the knowledge economy, focusing on its challenges in this new age of economy. The relevance of the cybersecurity concept is sustained by the academic literature that shows its important role in the business environment, where disruptive changes will become the norm. In the digital age the disruptions are happening frequently which gives organizations less time to manage the change and the fact that they are almost constrained to develop new strategies to answer the challenges of the changing business environment. The knowledge economy has evolved and with that, new concepts began to appear out of necessity and the need to secure the dynamic environment of knowledge management systems. Considering the unprecedented access to information and advancements in conducting academic research, in the present landscape of the knowledge economy and cybersecurity domain, new methods are available to structure and examine a body of literature. The text mining and scientific mapping analysis conducted with VOSviewer software version 1.6.18 is allowing us to identify meaningful insights about the knowledge economy concept, such as the (1) existing research gaps, at least on cybersecurity challenges in the knowledge economy and the (2) the research interests seen for the time period between 2019 and 2021. To achieve this, a database derived from Web of Science's core collection has been used, and the text mining based on term co-occurrence analysis contributed to a deeper understanding of current and future workspace dynamics. Abstract The paper aims to study cybersecurity correlations with the knowledge economy, focusing on its challenges in this new age of economy. The relevance of the cybersecurity concept is sustained by the academic literature that shows its important role in the business environment, where disruptive changes will become the norm. In the digital age the disruptions are happening frequently which gives organizations less time to manage the change and the fact that they are almost constrained to develop new strategies to answer the challenges of the changing business environment. The knowledge economy has evolved and with that, new concepts began to appear out of necessity and the need to secure the dynamic environment of knowledge management systems. Considering the unprecedented access to information and advancements in conducting academic research, in the present landscape of the knowledge economy and cybersecurity domain, new methods are available to structure and examine a body of literature. The text mining and scientific mapping analysis conducted with VOSviewer software version 1.6.18 is allowing us to identify meaningful insights about the knowledge economy concept, such as the (1) existing research gaps, at least on cybersecurity challenges in the knowledge economy and the (2) the research interests seen for the time period between 2019 and 2021. To achieve this, a database derived from Web of Science's core collection has been used, and the text mining based on term co-occurrence analysis contributed to a deeper understanding of current and future workspace dynamics.
... They would notice, or have pointed out to them, a parallel between a physical realm they already understand and a conceptual realm they don't understand yet." Andriessen (2006Andriessen ( , 2008Andriessen ( , 2011 applied these ideas coming from the cognitive sciences and analyzed the most significant knowledge metaphors and their pattern embedded in a cultural context. He demonstrates that knowledge has no referent in the physical world and from this point of view the semantic field associated to knowledge is open to different interpretations coming from the metaphors people use. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Despite the recent flurry of scientific interest in the Dark Triad – narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism – the research has been mostly descriptive in nature. Relatively ignored by researchers, darker personality variables may prove valuable in understanding counterproductive work behaviors. In the present study, we attempt to integrate the Dark Triad personality traits into organizational life by correlating them with the level of counterproductive work behavior and with work locus of control. Although those three facets have different origins, the personalities described as dark personalities share a number of features. In different degrees, all of them entail a socially malevolent character with behavior tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness. A narcissistic person is described in terms of a high vanity, constantly seeking for attention and admiration, with a sense of superiority or authority. Most often he or she manifests manipulative and exhibitionist behaviors. Machiavellianism is a tendency to be cynical, pragmatic, emotionally detached in interpersonal relations but, at the same time a good organizer and having long-term strategically thinking. Psychopathy presents as cardinal features: impulsiveness, emotional detachment, manipulative antisocial behavior. The recently published meta-analysis by O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks and McDaniel (2011), showed that counterproductive behavior in the workplace is associated with all three facets of the dark triad. In the current study 122 participants (36 males and 86 females) were invited to fill in the following measures: Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1988), MACH IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979), Self-Report Psychopathy scale – version III (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press) and Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (Spector & Fox, 2002). Results did not showed positive correlations between Machiavellianism and counterproductive work behaviour, or between narcissism and counterproductive work behaviour. Nevertheless, one strong positive correlation was found between psychopathy and counterproductive work behaviour (r= .438, p<.01), mirroring Patrick’s results (2007, as cited in Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Regarding the work locus of control, it was identified a positive significant correlation with Machiavellianism (r= .204, p<.05), meaning that the higher the score on work locus of control – internal, the higher the tendency to act in a machiavellic way.
... In the model proposed by Nissen (2006) the focus is on knowledge flow. Changing the metaphor used in the first phase of knowledge management (Andriessen, 2008), from physical objects to fluid flows, Nissen shows how knowledge is building up within a social context: "To the extent that organisational knowledge does not exist in the form needed for application or at the place and time required to enable work performance, then it must flow from how it exists and where it is located to how and where it is needed. This is the concept knowledge flows" (Nissen, 2006, p. xx). ...
Article
Full-text available
Knowledge building is a social process that is driven by the willingness of people to share their expertise and create new knowledge. Scientific Communities of Practice (CoPs) are communities of professors and researchers whose aim is to foster scientific knowledge generation. In the KM literature, research concerning this kind of CoPs has been substantially neglected so far. The present research analyses the case study of the International Association for Knowledge Management (IAKM) seen as a scientific CoP where members are mostly academics with research interests in developing and promoting knowledge management. Based on a collection of quantitative and qualitative data about member collaborations and scientific production, the study investigates the structure of interactions and the collaborative processes of IAKM members and the specific mechanisms of knowledge building within this CoP, seen as a paradigmatic example of scientific community. Members were asked to respond to a survey regarding their collaborative activities carried out with other IAKM members in the period of 2011-2020. The descriptive analysis revealed the kind of collaborations, the distribution of interactions across the community, and the dynamic patterns over time. A follow-up social network analysis was used to provide deeper insight into the community structure and dynamics. The research found that a CoP can really be useful for progress in a scientific field because it can provide a platform for trust and mutual acquaintance that reduces barriers to collaboration and knowledge building across different universities, professional roles, countries, and cultures, which is increasingly important for the progress of science. Most importantly, IAKM exhibited a cohesive and active core membership with pivotal roles played by a number of active members, which contributed significantly to the growth of the Association and, in general, to the advancements in the field of KM through collaborative knowledge building.
... A deeper understanding of knowledge is given by the metaphor used in explaining or just using the concept of knowledge. If the first metaphors used for knowledge presentation were physical objects (Andriessen, 2008), the second waves of metaphors were based on the concept of flow (Nissen, 2006;Nonaka, Toyama & Hirata, 2008). Finally, in the third wave, knowledge derives its main features from the concept of energy and knowledge dynamics from that of thermodynamics (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019;Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2020). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This study addresses the special context of Communities of Practice (CoPs) in the case of scientists and academics, which is still a little studied environment. The paper considers the case of Scientific Associations and, particularly, the International Association for Knowledge Management (IAKM). As will be examined in the paper, IAKM (www.iakm.net) can be considered as a sort of CoP for the international community of KM researchers. It was established in 2012 with a mission to address existing challenges in knowledge management (KM) research, and to contribute to a unified view of KM. This study analyzes the structure and collaborative processes of IAKM members to better understand the community’s knowledge development behaviour and performance. It combines a qualitative representation of the “history” of IAKM and its salient characteristics and milestones as a CoP and a quantitative analysis of data on collaborative activities, collected from all IAKM members via email. Members were asked to fill in a spreadsheet form with the following data for each of their collaborative activities carried out in the period 2011-2020: (a) collaborating members, (b) type of collaboration, (c) year when carried out and (d) short description of collaborative activity. The initial analysis was performed by simple frequency count. A follow-up social network analysis (SNA) was used to provide deeper insight into the community dynamics. The initial analysis revealed some interesting points, in particular concerning the kind of collaboration, the distribution of interactions across the community, and the dynamic patterns of these interactions over time. Overall, these findings contributed to our enhanced understanding of the nature of a scientific association as a CoP, and how it informed KM-related scholarship over the past decade. Specifically, the study found that IAKM exhibited a cohesive and active core membership that contributed significantly to the development of the field. The study also pointed to areas for further improvement that could serve as a basis for future planning of scientific associations as CoPs.
Article
The paper aims to study cybersecurity correlations with the knowledge economy, focusing on its challenges in this new age of economy. The relevance of the cybersecurity concept is sustained by the academic literature that shows its important role in the business environment, where disruptive changes will become the norm. In the digital age the disruptions are happening frequently which gives organizations less time to manage the change and the fact that they are almost constrained to develop new strategies to answer the challenges of the changing business environment. The knowledge economy has evolved and with that, new concepts began to appear out of necessity and the need to secure the dynamic environment of knowledge management systems. Considering the unprecedented access to information and advancements in conducting academic research, in the present landscape of the knowledge economy and cybersecurity domain, new methods are available to structure and examine a body of literature. The text mining and scientific mapping analysis conducted with VOSviewer software version 1.6.18 is allowing us to identify meaningful insights about the knowledge economy concept, such as the (1) existing research gaps, at least on cybersecurity challenges in the knowledge economy and the (2) the research interests seen for the time period between 2019 and 2021. To achieve this, a database derived from Web of Science’s core collection has been used, and the text mining based on term co-occurrence analysis contributed to a deeper understanding of current and future workspace dynamics.
Article
Full-text available
Official administrative "necessities"? Property "possession" and ownership Questionable claims to possession Possession of a sense of place Divided realms and domains as variously possessed Dispossession, repossession and being possessed Possession of a worldview within the noosphere Associative diasporas and degrees of possession Expression of opinion and association voting rights Reimagining unification and reunification through metaphor Sensing time and the potential of return Engaging with other elective affinities
Article
Full-text available
Knowledge management developed in the last decades as a dynamic symbiosis between science and art with significant implications on business and business education. Knowledge management operates within the organizational management, but it focuses on intangible resources, which are distinguished from the tangible ones as a result of their abstraction, metaphorical semantic, and nonlinearity. The purpose of the present paper is to explore the impact of knowledge management on business education through the mediation of academic curriculum and the influence of the business environment. The methodology is based on both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The qualitative phase focuses on a critical literature search and a semantic analysis of the main concepts and ideas, which allowed us to construct the research model and design a questionnaire addressed to business students and professors. The quantitative approach uses the statistical software packages SPSS 26.0 version, including the PROCESS macro for SPSS version 3.5 and the known reliability, validation, and interpretation criteria. Findings show that knowledge management impacts business education through the mediation of the academic curriculum and the influence of the business environment. The originality of the present research comes from the dynamics between knowledge management and business education and the research model’s design.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – To analyse common metaphors used in the intellectual capital (IC) and knowledge management literatures to conceptualise knowledge, in order to study the nature of the intellectual capital concept. Design/methodology/approach – A textual analysis methodology is used to analyse texts from The Knowledge-Creating Company by Nonaka and Takeuchi, Working Knowledge by Davenport and Prusak and “Brainpower” by Stewart, in order to identify underlying metaphors. Findings – Over 95 per cent of the statements about knowledge identified are based on some kind of metaphor. The two dominant metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital are “knowledge as a resource” and “knowledge as capital”. Research limitations/implications – Metaphors highlight certain characteristics and ignore others, so the IC community should ask itself what characteristics of knowledge the “knowledge as a resource” and “knowledge as capital” metaphors ignore. Practical implications – Knowledge has no referent in the real world and requires metaphor to be defined, conceptualised, and acted upon. When using such metaphors we should become aware of their limitations as they steer us in certain directions and this may happen unconsciously. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society. Originality/value – This paper is the first to highlight that intellectual capital is a metaphor and that the metaphorical nature of the concept has far reaching consequences.
Article
Wealth and growth in today's economy are primarily driven by intangible (intellectual) assets. Physical and financial assets are rapidly becoming commodities, while abnormal profits, dominant competitive positions, and sometimes even temporary monopolies are achieved by the sound deployment of intangibles, along with other types of assets. This book advances the intangible (intellectual, knowledge) assets literature in four key dimensions: It lays the foundation for the economics of intangibles, balancing the value drivers (scalability, increasing returns, network effects) against the value detractors (nonexcludability, inherent risk and nonmarketability). The discussion proceeds to survey and analyze the voluminous evidence in the economic, organization, finance and accounting literature on the attributes of intangibles and their impact on corporate performance and market value. The discussion then turns to information issues, particularly to the deficient reporting on intangible investments by the accounting system, adversely affecting both managers' and investors' decisions. Extensive evidence of private and social harms associated with the reporting on intangibles is presented. Finally, a comprehensive proposal for a new information system reporting on the firm's value chain, with particular focus on intangibles, is advanced. The book will be published in 2001 by the Bookings Institution, but an early version can be downloaded from my website: baruch-lev.com
Book
Japanese companies have become successful because of their skill and expertise at creating organizational knowledge. Organizational knowledge is not only the creation of new knowledge, but also disseminating it throughout the organization, and embodying it in products, services, and systems. Knowledge is the new competitive resource, and its creation and utilization is a dynamic, interactive process. Knowledge is used as the basic unit of analysis to explain firm behavior; a business creates and processes knowledge. Knowledge may be explicit or tacit; this study treats them as complements that form a dynamic relationship. The individual interacts with the organization through knowledge; knowledge creation occurs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The forms of knowledge interaction (between tacit and explicit, and between individual and firm) produce four major processes of knowledge conversion: from tacit to explicit, explicit to explicit, explicit to tacit, and tacit to tacit. Japanese companies create new knowledge by converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. The book has three goals: to formalize a generic model of organizational knowledge creation, explain why certain Japanese companies have been continuously successful in innovation, and develop a universal model of company management based on convergence of knowledge practices in Japan and the world. First presents a philosophical exposition of knowledge and its application to managemen, then the core concepts of knowledge creation, with four modes of knowledge conversion. The Matsushita company is used to illustrate the process model of organization knowledge creation. The two traditional styles of management (top-down and bottom-up) are shown not to be effective in fostering the dynamic necessary to create organizational knowledge, and a new organization structure considered most conducive to knowledge creation is proposed. (TNM)
Article
Cognitive research on metaphoric concepts of time has focused on differences between moving Ego and moving time models, but even more basic is the contrast between Ego- and temporal-reference-point models. Dynamic models appear to be quasi-universal cross-culturally, as does the generalization that in Ego-reference-point models, FUTURE IS IN FRONT OF EGO and PAST IS IN BACK OF EGO. The Aymara language instead has a major static model of time wherein FUTURE IS BEHIND EGO and PAST IS IN FRONT OF EGO; linguistic and gestural data give strong confirmation of this unusual culture-specific cognitive pattern. Gestural data provide crucial information unavailable to purely linguistic analysis, suggesting that when investigating conceptual systems both forms of expression should be analyzed complementarily. Important issues in embodied cognition are raised: how fully shared are bodily grounded motivations for universal cognitive patterns, what makes a rare pattern emerge, and what are the cultural entailments of such patterns?
Intellectual capital and east-west variations
  • Andriessen Dg
  • M Van Den Boom
ANDRIESSEN DG and VAN DEN BOOM M (2007) Intellectual capital and eastwest variations. In Proceedings of the McMaster World Congress, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
21-9-2005) A problem is an interpretation of a feeling of discomfort
  • Kessels Jwm
KESSELS JWM (21-9-2005) A problem is an interpretation of a feeling of discomfort. Andriessen, Daniel G, Personal Communication.
Power over meaning; unlearning and human values
  • Gustavsson B
GUSTAVSSON B (2001) Power over meaning; unlearning and human values. In Management of Power -Ethical and Values Aspects (CHAKRABORTY SK, Ed), pp 339-358, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Philosophy in the Flesh
  • Johnson Lakoff G
LAKOFF G and JOHNSON M (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books, New York.
A problem is an interpretation of a feeling of discomfort. Andriessen, Daniel G, Personal Communication
  • Jwm Kessels