Evaluation of knowledge synergy components

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSkačkauskienė, Ilona
dc.contributor.authorHrušecká, Denisa
dc.contributor.authorKatinienė, Aušra
dc.contributor.authorČepel, Martin
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29
dc.date.available2018-03-29
dc.date.issued2018-03-29
dc.description.abstractThere is no doubt that knowledge is a key asset of any organisation, enabling it to get a competitive advantage, implement innovation, deal with difficulties and improve its management processes. Requirements on employees´ knowledge have been rising in recent years, especially with regard to the new trends and currently the widely discussed fourth industrial revolution. In the emerging network economy and knowledge society, organisations must be ready for complex knowledge dissemination and management processes. Knowledge is collected, stored, assessed, and created by an organisation and shared by its members. In the course of knowledge dissemination, members of the organisation create synergy which generates unique knowledge. Managing organisational knowledge necessary for the creation of added value and the acquisition of a competitive advantage requires evaluating the knowledge synergy and its components. The paper aims at identifying knowledge synergy components and providing an evaluation method of employees’ knowledge synergy and its components to have a rational and objective evaluation of employees’ knowledge, relations among employees, and organisational knowledge synergy. To achieve this aim, knowledge synergy components are identified, evaluation issues are revealed, types of knowledge synergy relations are presented together with an evaluation formula for each of these relations, components of employees’ knowledge and factors reflecting knowledge content are specified, an evaluation formula for each component is provided, and an organisational knowledge synergy evaluation method is described. Due to its versatility, presented results are applicable in any industry or business area for measuring and improving intellectual capital as well as for benchmarking purposes. The research applies methods of analysis, synthesis, graph theory and combinatorics as well as a systematic approach.en
dc.formattext
dc.format.extent15 strancs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2018-1-010
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/22792
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonBelohlavek, D. (2007). The Unicist Ontology of Intellectual Capital Building. Buenos Aires: Blue Eagle Group.
dc.relation.isbasedonBianchi, M. (2010). Perspectives for the extension of Graiciunas’ span of control to the process of enterprise creation. Journal TILTAI Social Sciences, 53(4), 15-33.
dc.relation.isbasedonBivainis, J., & Morkvėnas, R. (2008). Darbuotojų žinių potencialo vertinimas. Business: Theory and Practice, 9(2), 105-115. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.105-115.
dc.relation.isbasedonBoyatzis, R. E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: Wiley.
dc.relation.isbasedonBrčić, Ž. J., & Mihelič, K. K. (2015). Knowledge sharing between different generations of employees: an example from Slovenia. Economic Research, 28(1), 853-867. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1092308.
dc.relation.isbasedonCho, W., Shaw, M. J., & Kwon, H. D. (2013). The effect of synergy enhancement on information technology portfolio selection. Information Technology and Management, 14(2), 125-142. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10799-012-0150-9.
dc.relation.isbasedonDesauza, K. C. (2003). Knowledge Management Barriers – Why the Technology Imperative Seldom Works. Business Horizons, 46(1), 25-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(02)00276-8.
dc.relation.isbasedonDias, M. S. (2014). Gestão do conhecimento no setor público: identificando práticas e desafios no centro de desenvolvimento da tecnologia nuclear. Accounting and Management, 7(7), 193-208.
dc.relation.isbasedonDrucker, P. (1980). Managing in Turbulent Times. New York: Harper & Row.
dc.relation.isbasedonDrucker, P., & Peter, F. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New York: Harper & Row.
dc.relation.isbasedonEikenberry, K. (2007). Remarkable Leadership: Unleashing Your Leadership Potential One Skill at a Time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
dc.relation.isbasedonEUROSTAT. (2017a). Annual data on employment in knowledge-intensive activities at the national level, by sex (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2). Retrieved July 3, 2017, from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=htec_kia_emp2&lang=en.
dc.relation.isbasedonEUROSTAT. (2017b). Employment in technology and knowledge-intensive sectors at the national level, by level of education (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2). Retrieved July 3, 2017, from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=htec_emp_nisced2&lang=en.
dc.relation.isbasedonFink, K. (2005, June 29 – July 1). Knowledge Measurement and Interviewer Bias. Paper presented at I-KNOW ’05, Graz, Austria. New York: ACM.
dc.relation.isbasedonFombelle, P. W., Jarvis, C. B., Ward, J., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Leveraging customers’ multiple identities: identity synergy as a driver of organizational identification. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 587-604. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0254-5.
dc.relation.isbasedonGinevičius, R., & Podvezko, V. (2007). Some problems of evaluating multicriteria decision methods. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 8(5), 527-539. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2007.013415.
dc.relation.isbasedonGraičiūnas, V. A. (1937). Relationship in Organization. In L. H. Gulick & L. F. Urwic (Eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (182-187). N.Y.: I.P.A.
dc.relation.isbasedonHaynes, K. S., & Mickelson, J. S. (2009). Affecting Change: Social Workers in the Political Arena. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
dc.relation.isbasedonHelms, M., & Cengage, G. (2006). Experience and Learning Curves. Encyclopedia of Management. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia.
dc.relation.isbasedonHuang, Y., Ye, J., & Gao, Z. (2012). Study on Team Stability Based on the Perspective of Knowledge Potential. iBusiness, 4(3), 256-259. https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ib.2012.43032.
dc.relation.isbasedonHwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods and Applications. A State of the Art Survey. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
dc.relation.isbasedonJankauskienė, V., Kanapeckienė, V., Narkauskaitė, L., & Valintėlienė, R. (2012). Visuomenės sveikatos priežiūros funkcijas vykdančių specialistų žinios ir įgūdžiai. Visuomenės sveikata, 2(57), 45-56.
dc.relation.isbasedonJuřičková, E. (2014, February 6 – February 7). Innovation's Dependence on Human Capital in the World's Most Innovative Countries. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ICIE), Bangkok, Thailand. England, Sonning Common: ACPI.
dc.relation.isbasedonKaminskienė, L. (2011). Lietuvos kvalifikacijų sistemos ir europos kvalifikacijų sąrangos sąsajos. Kvalifikacijų ir profesinio mokymo plétros centras. Retrieved November 24, 2016, from .
dc.relation.isbasedonKetchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Marketing and organization theory: opportunities for synergy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 481-483. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0259-0.
dc.relation.isbasedonKhan, I. A. (2010). Knowledge Groups: A Model for Creating Synergy across the Public Sector. Public Organization Review, 10(2), 139-152. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0101-z.
dc.relation.isbasedonKlafke, R. V., Lievore, C., Picinin, C. T., de Francisco, A. C., & Pilatti, L. A. (2016). Primary knowledge management practices applied in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) industries from 2001-2010. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 812-828. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2015-0522.
dc.relation.isbasedonKloudová, J., & Chwaszcz, O. (2011). New Way of Analysis of Creative Centers within Europe. Economics & Management, 16, 197-206.
dc.relation.isbasedonLobanova, L., & Chlivickas, E. (2009). Žmogiškųjų išteklių kompetencijų vertinimas viešajame sektoriuje. Viešasis administravimas, 21(1), 63-72.
dc.relation.isbasedonMatošková, J. (2016). Measuring Knowledge. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(4), 5-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.04.01.
dc.relation.isbasedonMeenu, D., Mikku, D., & Shishodia, Y. S. (2012). Knowledge Management and Organizational Competencies: A Harmonic Collaboration. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2(12), 45-50.
dc.relation.isbasedonMoradmand, N., Datta, A., & Oakley, G. (2014, June 23 – June 27). An Interactive Multimedia Development Life Cycle Model Based on a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Paper presented at World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2014, Tamplere, Finland. USA, Waynesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
dc.relation.isbasedonMorkvėnas, R. (2010). Organizacijos žinių potencialo vertinimas. Daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Technika.
dc.relation.isbasedonNeef, D., Siesfeld, T., & Cofela, J. (1998). The Economic Impact of Knowledge. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
dc.relation.isbasedonNewman, M., Barabási, A., & Duncan, J. W. (2006). The Structure and Dynamics of Networks. New York: Princeton.
dc.relation.isbasedonNonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dc.relation.isbasedonOpricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
dc.relation.isbasedonPark, M., Lee, H.-S., & Kwon, S. (2010). Construction knowledge evaluation using expert index. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(3), 401-411. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.46.
dc.relation.isbasedonPodvezko, V. (2008). Sudėtingų dydžių kompleksinis vertinimas. Verslas: Teorija ir praktika. Business: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 160-168. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.160-168.
dc.relation.isbasedonSala-i-Martin, X., Bilbao-Osorio, B., Blanke, J., Drzeniek Hanouz, M., & Geiger, T. (2011, January 28). The Global Competitiveness Index 2011–2012: Setting the Foundations for Strong Productivity. Paper presented at World Economic Forum 2011, Davos, Switzerland. Geneva: WEF.
dc.relation.isbasedonSenge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday / Currency.
dc.relation.isbasedonSimon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: Simon & Schuster.
dc.relation.isbasedonSkačkauskienė, I., & Katinienė, A. (2015). Žinių potencialo sampratos formavimasis tinklaveikos visuomenėje. Mokslas – Lietuvos ateitis, 7(2), 163-171. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/mla.2015.740.
dc.relation.isbasedonSkačkauskienė, I., Kazlauskienė, E., & Katinienė, A. (2017). Modelling Knowledge Synergy Evaluation. Montenegrian Journal of Economic, 13(1), 35-49. https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2017.13-1.2.
dc.relation.isbasedonSmith, I. W. (2004). Continuing Professional Development and Workplace Learning 7: Human Resource Development – a Tool for Achieving Organizational Change. Library Management, 25(3), 148-151. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120410522370.
dc.relation.isbasedonSmith, R. (2001). Knowledge Management – The Road Ahead. Presented at the 2nd Conference & Expo of the Staff Exchange Program of The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C., USA. Available from .
dc.relation.isbasedonSmith, R., & Farquhar, A. (2000). The Road Ahead for Knowledge Management: An AI Perspective. AI Magazine, 21(4), 17-40.
dc.relation.isbasedonSteiner, I. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
dc.relation.isbasedonStrassmann, P. (1998). The Value of Knowledge Capital. American Programmer, 11(3), 3-10.
dc.relation.isbasedonŠegota, A., Tomljanovic, M., & Hudek, I. (2017). Contemporary approaches to measuring competitiveness – the case of EU member states. Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics: Journal of Economics and Business, 35(1), 123-150. https://dx.doi.org/10.18045/zbefri.2017.1.123.
dc.relation.isbasedonTorres, A. A. L., Ziviani, F., & Silva, S. M. (2012). Mapeamento de competências: ferramenta para a comunicação e a divulgação científica. Transinformação, 24(3), 191-205.
dc.relation.isbasedonUrban, B., & Joubert, G. C. D. S. (2017). Multidimensional and comparative study on intellectual capital and organisational performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 84-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1255990.
dc.relation.isbasedonUrwick, L. (1943). Personnel Management in Relation to Factory Organization. London: Urwick Institute of Labour Management.
dc.relation.isbasedonUstinovichius, L., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2004). Statybos investicijų efektyvumo sistemotechninis įvertinimas. Vilnius: Technika.
dc.relation.isbasedonVanagas, R., & Tumėnas, A. (2008). Savivaldybės darbuotojų tarnybinės veiklos vertinimas veiklos valdymo kontekste. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 25, 57-67.
dc.relation.isbasedonWu, W.-P., & Choi, W. L. (2004). Transaction Cost, Social Capital and Firms’ Synergy Creation in Chinese Business Networks: An Integrative Approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 325-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:APJM.0000036466.90433.92.
dc.relation.isbasedonŽaptorius, J. (2007). Darbuotojų motyvavimo sistemos kūrimas ir jos teorinė analizė. Socialogija, 18(4), 105-117.
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectknowledge managementen
dc.subjectknowledge synergyen
dc.subjectknowledge sharingen
dc.subjectintellectual capitalen
dc.subjectevaluationen
dc.subjectcommunicationen
dc.subject.classificationM1
dc.titleEvaluation of knowledge synergy componentsen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage158
local.citation.spage144
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_1_2018_10
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue1
local.relation.volume21
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_1_2018_10.pdf
Size:
1.54 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 1