This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Constantin Bratianu* and Ivona Orzea**
The purpose of this paper is to present a new approach to analyzing the knowledge strategies by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Knowledge strategies represent new and powerful strategies elaborated at the organization level with the goal of achieving competitive advantage. Knowledge strategies are based on the organization’s intangible resources and on the dynamics of organizational knowledge that include processes like knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge diffusion and knowledge loss. Knowledge strategies are important especially for the knowledge-intensive organization. The AHP method is used in the managerial decision-making process and is concerned with deriving dominance priorities from paired comparisons of homogeneous elements with respect to a common criterion or attribute. In our research, we used the AHP method to analyze the intergenerational knowledge transfer in universities and to derive the weighting factors for the dynamic equilibrium equation of the knowledge field in organizations.
Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Knowledge dynamics, Knowledge Management (KM), Knowledge strategy, Strategic management
Knowledge Management (KM) emerged as a new field of organizational processes focused on integrating and using the intangible resources for value creation efficiently. The first generation of KM considered these intangible resources as given, and its aim was to deploy them for objectives achievement (Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Kermally, 2002; and McElroy, 2003). The second generation of KM is focused on knowledge creation and knowledge embedding in products and services. It is an integration between knowledge demand and knowledge supply within a knowledge life cycle (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; and McElroy, 2003). However, it is not about managing knowledge as such in a mechanical sense. “It is about extending the view of a process looking at the components of embodied knowledge, that which the knower intrinsically knows. It refers to the undocumented information, the intuition, empathy and experience that enables us to make the right decisions—at least most of the time” (Gamble and Blackwell, 2001, p. 13). Managing knowledge ultimately means to design an organizational environment that stimulates creation and sharing of knowledge within the organization. Embedded knowledge that exists in processes, products, rules and procedures must also be considered as an intrinsic part of KM.
* Professor, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania. E-mail: email@example.com * * Assistant Professor, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process © 2012 IUP . All Rights Reserved. 7
. 15). 1994. organizing and disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organization’s long-term performance” (Debowsky. 2012 . and Bratianu. 2009). 2007. 2010). and Bratianu. for the analysis of strategies in the case of a multinational company. 2002. the challenge that lies ahead is forging this link between knowledge management and fundamental business strategy” (Davenport and Prusak. an organization that is able to generate both feedback and feedforward loops of information. That means a new mind set for the top management able to integrate KM into the organizational culture and link it with innovation management. 2009. we may reveal the importance of identifying strategic knowledge for organizations which directly contributes to the competitive advantage. p. 2008. No. which will prove the interaction between the KM and the business strategy (Tiwana. At the same time. From an interdisciplinary perspective. Bratianu and Andriessen. Carpenter and Sanders. exploitation and sharing of human knowledge (tacit and explicit) that uses appropriate technology and cultural environments to enhance an organization’s intellectual capital and performance” (Jashapara. but also to be able to acquire knowledge from the external environment. imagined as a field (Nonaka. 2005. 1994. and reducing the loss of knowledge toward the external environment. talent. and BecerraFernandez and Sabherwal. Thus. The long-term thinking of the top management and achieving competitive advantage in a turbulent environment represent the main characteristics of strategic management (Dess et al. and Saaty. Strategic knowledge is at the core of the organizational knowledge. There will be two applications: one for the analysis of strategies in the case of intergenerational knowledge transfer in universities and the second. 2011a). emotions and wisdom. Analytic Hierarchy Process The AHP method is well known in the managerial decision-making practice (Saaty. 2011b).. 2001. 2006. p. 1995. The purpose of this paper is to present such a new approach based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). “KM is the process of identifying. Geisler and Wickramasinghe. intuition. “For the most mature knowledge managing organizations today. p. it is important to develop knowledge strategies that aim at increasing the level of total knowledge and intelligence of the organization.e. Challenge for KM is to contribute directly in developing a learning organization i. and Johnson et al. 2006. Considering KM to be just a part of the strategic management. Strategic knowledge is mostly of tacit nature and incorporates experience. 2000. X. 2006. Knowledge sharing and intergenerational knowledge transfer contribute to the enhancement of knowledge retention when employees retire or just leave for another organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi. Vol.. KM can be defined as “the effective learning process associated with exploration. Saaty and Louis. This will increase the chances of success in generating a competitive advantage.The third generation of KM integrates both perspectives offered by the operational management and the strategic management. and to increase their total knowledge. capturing. Organizations need to develop strategies not only to generate new knowledge internally. and to influence the external business environment through its knowledge and value generation (Dalkir. 2. It is a measurement theory 8 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. Saaty and Vargas. Elaborating knowledge strategies requires a different approach than elaborating business strategies based on financial evaluations since knowledge is intangible and hard to be measured. 2008). IX). 16). 2011.
H2: The knowledge field can be structured into a hierarchy of goals. 426). The measurement process is based on ratio scales. The AHP uses the fundamental scale of absolute values 1-9 to represent paired comparison judgments to keep measurement within the same order of magnitude. The third hypothesis says that using this method we are looking for significant knowledge and not for rational statistical data sampling. The method can be extended to nonhomogeneous elements through clustering technique. a hierarchy is a special case of the more general system formulation.concerned with deriving dominance priorities from paired comparisons of homogeneous elements with respect to a common attribute. or in a network (feedforward-feedback) system of components allowing for dependence within and between components. and it reflects mostly the researcher’s experience. H3: Questionnaires can be answered by knowledgeable people. That means we are not interested in processing a huge quantity of questionnaires in order to extract means and correlations. Thus. 2009 and 2011b). Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 9 . Although this process generates redundancy. Saaty started by observing that people can only compare stimuli in a limited range where their perception is sensitive enough to make distinctness. The second hypothesis is based on the human capacity to structure complex problems and create hierarchy of different qualitative conceptual categories. However. These ratio scales are obtained through some structured questions that have the following generic formulation: which of the two attributes (alternatives) is more important. and activities or alternatives.. The first hypothesis is based on the metaphorical analysis performed by Bratianu and Andriessen (2008). 2008). Actually. this structuring activity of the organizational knowledge field constitutes the qualitative part of the AHP method. “the AHP can be used to scale elements in a hierarchy (feedforward) structure with mutually independent elements at each level. multicriteria and multiactor decisions. considering energy as a source domain and knowledge as a target domain. This is the most adequate interpretation for the organizational knowledge since it departs from the tangible perspective of stocks and flows. but in knowledgeable people able to make pair comparisons and establish a ration scale. it helps to improve the validity of the resulting ratio scale and draws the maximum information from judgments (Harkers and Vargas. the network” (Saaty. 1987. we admit that the knowledge field is strongly nonlinear and nonuniform (Bratianu. p. 1994. strategies or criteria. This method proved to be a comprehensive framework designed to deal with both the rational and irrational mind when making multiobjectives. In choosing the scale. we consider the following working hypotheses: H1: The organizational knowledge can be represented as a continuous field. In order to apply the AHP method to analyze the knowledge strategies of a given organization with respect to a certain goal. which permit manipulation with respect to all the four arithmetic operations. and estimating the other as a multiple of it. In a multicriteria setting. and Liang et al. preferred or likely with respect to a higher level attribute? Forming rations is similar to the process of measurement in which the lesser favored alternative is taken as a unit.
strategies and activities. 2. For illustration. S1 or S2 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important). S1 or S3 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important). Figure 1: The Generic Structuring Pattern G Goal Strategies S1 S2 S3 Activities A1 A2 A3 For this specific structure. The structuring pattern has no fixed number of layers or entities on each layer. For achieving this goal we define three strategies. No. and for each strategy we may have three activities through which these strategies can be implemented.The first stage in applying the AHP method is to structure the organizational knowledge field in several layers in accordance with the purpose of analysis and create the hierarchy of goals. Vol. the questions for the evaluation of defined strategies are formulated as follows: In the perspective of the defined Goal (G) • Which strategy is more important. we present in Figure 1 a generic pattern of AHP structuring. what is the importance of the chosen strategy with respect to others? In the perspective of the defined Goal (G) • Which strategy is more important. X. 2012 . what is the importance of the chosen strategy with respect to others? 10 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. Usually for each goal there is such a structure.
The eigenvalue equation is represented by Equations (1) and (2).. Thus. how important is the chosen activity with respect to the others? In the perspective of the Strategy (S1) • Which activity is more important. 1994. 2006). A1 or A2 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important).. and then we form the eigenvalue equation in order to determine the vector of priorities for these strategies S (Saaty. A1 or A3 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important).. K ij Si S j . what is the importance of the chosen strategy with respect to others? With the numeric values obtained from the above questions. we construct a matrix of the pairwise comparisons for the set of the defined knowledge strategies K. and Saaty and Vargas. For each strategy we get numerical values of the activity ratios. A2 or A3 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important)... how important is the chosen activity with respect to the others? In the perspective of the Strategy (S1) • Which activity is more important.(2) K I S 0 where. we formulate the questions for the pairwise comparisons of the defined activities or alternatives for strategies implementation. K ij 1 K ji . S2 or S3 ? • Using a scale from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important).. We remark the fact that the knowledge strategy matrix K is symmetric. for each strategy we get the following set of matrix equations: Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 11 .In the perspective of the defined Goal (G) • Which strategy is more important.(3) By solving Equation (2) we obtain the vector of priorities for the defined knowledge strategies. how important is the chosen activity with respect to the others? The same set of questions will be formulated for strategies S2 and S3. and the matrix coefficients by Equation (3). having Equation (1) on the diagonal. For each strategy there will be a set of questions of the following structure: In the perspective of the Strategy (S1): • Which activity is more important. We form with them the matrix of pairwise comparisons and the corresponding eigenvalue equation. Next.(1) . KS S .
A ij 1 A ji . Unlike explicit knowledge that can be easily codified and transferred. 2007. 12 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. and we received 223 valid questionnaires from all of these universities. Vol. 2008).. the largest part of all knowledge transfer in the academic environment is done using explicit knowledge. while the second one emphasizes the non-synchronic knowledge transfer. This form of knowledge is highly rational and in most cases it is a result of our metaphorical thinking (Lakoff and Johnson. We defined in our research three activities important for intergenerational knowledge transfer—(1) working together in realizing research grants. 2007. Actually. know-how. 2009.(5) M I A 0 where. and Jensen and Szulanski. 2. and (b) encouraging individual competition. Pinker. and thus it is much more difficult to be transferred (Szulanki. Andriessen.(6) By solving Equation (4) we obtain the vector of priorities for the defined knowledge activities. However. 20011c). Geisler and Wickramasinghe. and (3) writing papers for scientific journals. We addressed 500 questionnaires. Nonaka and Toyama. 2012 . Szulanski and Jensen. A ij A i A j . Intergenerational knowledge transfer refers to any knowledge flow across generations in a specific Ba. 2007). and Bratianu. Explicit knowledge is a direct result of the externalization and combination processes from the Nonaka’s model of knowledge creation. 2008. 1999. No. It is implicitly contained in all kinds of knowledge types: know-what.... X. and on using questionnaires structured accordingly. Our investigation is based on the AHP method.MA A . intergenerational knowledge transfer contains an important contribution of tacit knowledge. Knowledge fluxes contain both explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi. and Bratianu and Andriessen. University teaching and learning are based on explicit knowledge. Application for Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer in Universities Motivation The purpose of our investigation is to analyze the main strategies for the intergenerational knowledge transfer—(a) encouraging cooperation through teamwork.(4) .. as a result of the knowledge gradients in the organizational intellectual capital of the university. 2000. 2004. know-why. Andriessen. Research Design and Implementation We considered for this research all the faculties of economics and business from the academic consortium composed of the five most important universities of Romania. Explicit knowledge is that form of knowledge which can be transferred through language and mathematical modeling. 1995. 2006. and know-who. tacit knowledge is sticky. The first strategy is emphasizing the synchronic knowledge transfer.. (2) working together in writing textbooks.
The whole transfer dynamics is structured into three levels: 1. associate professors in the middle age level. (A2) The activity done for writing books. 2. The top level is for defining the goal of this evaluation. The goal is to enhance knowledge retention in the university through intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer. The respondents represent quite well the three main generations considered in the academic staff: professors in the upper age level. and activities that are significant for intergenerational knowledge transfer. The lowest level is for defining the main activities considered in this research: (A1) The activity done for research grants. Finally we got 223 valid questionnaires. 3. Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 13 . The questionnaires contained questions formulated according to the model presented above. The graphical illustration of this model is presented in Figure 2. and (S2) The strategy to stimulate the faculty staff attitude towards individual competition. Figure 2: AHP Model for Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer Goal (G) Strategy (S1) Strategy (S2) Activity (A1) Activity (A2) Activity (A3) Numerical Results and Discussion The survey was delivered to academics from the faculties of economics and business of the consortium of the main comprehensive universities of the country mentioned above. and (A3) The activity done for writing papers to be published in scientific journals. and the young assistants in the lower age level. Once again. we underline the fact that in this type of research the significance of respondents’ position is important and not the total number of respondents since the knowledge transfer field is not homogeneous. The next lower level is for the main strategies used for identifying the priorities of knowledge transfer attitudes: (S1) The strategy to stimulate the faculty staff attitude toward cooperation.The qualitative component of our research consists in structuring the knowledge transfer field within the university and in defining the basic strategies for enhancing knowledge retention in universities.
In order to establish the composite or global priorities of the alternatives considered.469 0.214 0.230 for strategy S1.233 0.The priority vector of the strategy considered to influence the intergenerational knowledge transfer was calculated as an average of the individual vectors of priority.170 1. Complex projects stimulate team member interactions. we lay out in a matrix the local priorities of the alternatives with respect to each strategy and multiply each column of vectors by the priority of the corresponding strategy and then add across each row.596 0. The university management can develop strategies 14 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management.181 0. Vol. in writing books the most important contribution is done by explicit knowledge.136 0.245 for strategy S2).034 0. and common responsibility instills an attitude of cooperation in each member. Table 1: Synthesis in the Distributive Mode Strategies Priority Vector Activity (A1) Activity (A2) S1 0. This score shows that writing papers is a rather individual process. Results weighted for all the respondents are summarized in Table 1. In second place comes knowledge sharing through work for writing textbooks (0. it is clear that the most important mode of knowledge sharing is working together for research grants (0. and 0.155 for strategy S2).174 0.786 S2 0. 2.597 0.000 These results strengthen the distributive mode results demonstrating that the main strategy for enhancing the intergenerational knowledge transfer in the academic community is by working together for research grants (0.174 for strategy S1. Analyzing now the priority vector for each strategy individually.786 0. It is a rather interesting result knowing the preference for competition in the past.214 Global Values 0. and 0. 2012 . and 0.600 for strategy S2).786) than individual competition (0.214). respondents appreciate that team work for research grants (0. which results in the composite or global priority vector of the alternatives. even if many published papers have usually several authors.596 for strategy S1.174) in the perspective of intergenerational knowledge transfer.233 and 0. In the teamwork for research we can integrate both tacit and explicit knowledge. Writing papers for scientific journals remains less important for intergenerational knowledge transfer (0. The corresponding results are presented in Table 2. No. It is a change in the university strategy followed by a change in the organizational culture.600 0.230 S2 0. Table 2: Synthesis Activities Activity (A1) Activity (A2) Activity (A3) Total S1 0.245 Analyzing the structure of the priority Activity (A3) 0.052 0.128 0. Considering cooperation as the main strategy.597 by comparison with 0. X.170). or writing papers for scientific journals (0.155 vector of strategies becomes evident from the fact that most of the academic staff consider cooperation much more important (0.230).596) is much more important as writing books (0.
although it is an important way of increasing the organizational knowledge level. called strategy or criterion is given by: C W 1 A1 W 2 A 2 W 3 A 3 W 4 A 4 . knowledge creation. the level of total knowledge changes with time due to the following factors: • Knowledge creation inside the organization. Fa. “Leaders will have to address the challenges of knowledge retention if they hope to avoid the unacceptable costs of lost knowledge”. and Fc. p. patents and many knowledge embedded products. software programs.(8) where C is the generic component (i. According to DeLong (2004. Knowledge Strategies for Enhancing the Level of Organizational Knowledge Motivation In any organization. • Knowledge acquisition from the external environment. L is the knowledge loss variation during T time.to encourage and reward this type of activity that is an important component of the financing mechanism. Knowledge creation has been researched both at the individual and organizational levels. Fl are the weighting factors for each component of Equation (7).e.. The dynamic equilibrium equation for the level of the total organizational knowledge developed for a time interval T. Cr is the knowledge creation variation during T time. A is the knowledge acquisition variation during T time. Ai is the activity (i) variation in the time interval T. Wi is the weighting factor for activity (i). expertise. Thus. and knowledge loss) variation in the time interval T. knowledge retention and knowledge loss reduction must enter the balance of organizational knowledge. and • Knowledge loss. The dynamic equilibrium equation for a generic component of Equation (7).. journals. Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 15 . an organization may buy books.. Basically. most of its characteristics being incorporated into the models presented above (Bratianu and Orzea.. Knowledge creation and knowledge acquisition will have a positive contribution to the level of total organizational knowledge and knowledge loss will have a negative contribution since it represents a vector crossing the organization interface toward the external business environment.(7) where K is the knowledge variation in organization during T time. 4). databases. 2010). is given by: K Fc C r Fa A Fl L . Knowledge loss is a relatively new issue in knowledge management research.. Knowledge acquisition has been less explored. knowledge acquisition.
denoted with S. Based on this survey. (A3) creating a performing motivation for the employees. 2012 . This evaluation is organized through the consideration of three criteria. Vol. Out of the received answers. Thus. four matrices of judgments are built for every respondent. The second page was devoted to the determination of the priority vectors of the three chosen strategies for increasing the knowledge level of the organization. The attempt to measure the increase in the level of organizational knowledge within a large company has as central focus on the evaluation of the employee’s perceptions toward four activities: (A1) hiring new valuable human resources. journals. The structure we consider for this research is composed of three levels. 2. Specifically. (S2) the strategy of increasing acquisitions of new knowledge. software programs and other informative materials. First matrix. each of these having a certain influence on the previously mentioned four activities. X. 2. Figure 3: The Knowledge Dynamics Structure According to AHP Method Increasing Organizational Knowledge Knowledge Creation (S1) Knowledge Acquisition (S2) Knowledge Loss (S3) New Employees (A1) Training Programs (A2) Efficient Motivation (A3) Buying Knowledge Bases (A4) Research Design and Implementation The survey was electronically delivered to 500 employees from a large telecom company and the rate of response was 37. S s ij i. as shown in the presentation of the AHP method. The scale considered for this research is from 1 (equally important) to 9 (extremely important). (A2) developing training programs. j 1. a three level hierarchy is considered as a framework in which the employees perceptions with respect to the goal of measuring the level of organizational knowledge will be numerically quantified.5%. the three strategies considered are: (S1) the strategy for increasing knowledge creation. as shown in Figure 3.The second part of the mathematical model is based on the Saaty’s AHP . Questions are formulated in comparative terms. 3. corresponds to the comparisons among the three 16 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. The survey’s first page was devoted to general information about the respondent and his/her managerial position in the company. No. and (S3) the strategy for reducing knowledge loss. and (A4) purchasing books. 173 were valid.
with a weight of 0.224 0. S2 and S3) and it is a positive. i 1.469. the S2 strategy will be preferred to S1 at an absolute value of 1/6.259). The priority vector of the criteria considered to influence the increase in the level of organizational knowledge was calculated as an average on the individual vectors of priority. The weight of the Alternative 1 (hiring new valuable human resources) from the point of view of the strategy for increasing knowledge creation (S1). 3 and In order to establish the composite or global priorities of the alternatives considered we lay out in a matrix the local priorities of the alternatives with respect to each strategy and multiply each column of vectors by the priority of the corresponding strategy and add across Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 17 . employees perceptions regarding the three strategies S1.103 S2 0. as being the most important. j 1.181 S3 0. Individual vector of priorities for the pairwise comparison matrix were averaged over all the respondents and the values are shown in the first row of the Table 3 (0. Saaty and Louis. i.469. summing over the rows and normalizing to obtain the priority vector. reciprocal one s ij 0.270 0. the matrix of judgments S is determined assuming values equal to one on the main diagonal and also reversibility of the preferences. using the Gauss 9.337 0. 2009). A4 from three points of view: the strategy for increasing knowledge creation (S1). the corresponding vector of priorities is calculated in an eigenvalue formulation.291 0. which is 0. 2. the strategy of increasing acquisitions of new knowledge (S2) and the strategy for reducing the knowledge loss (S3). Thus.160 0. These can be interpreted as follows: given the goal of increasing the level of organizational knowledge. Table 3 Synthesis in the Distributive Mode Distributive Mode A1 A2 A3 A4 S1 0. with a weight of 0. so that if S1 is preferred to S2 at a corresponding absolute value of 6. The vector of priorities is the derived scale associated with the matrix of comparisons (Saaty.166 (s21 = 0.231 0.284 0.301 0.i j) with ones on the main diagonal s ii 1.166).0 program.236 strategies (S1. 0. sij 1 s ji .259. 0. and the corresponding priority vectors are also presented in Table 3. The solution is obtained by raising the matrix to a sufficiently large power. The next three matrices are corresponding to the choices done among the alternatives A1. A3. 3 . with a weight of 0.380 0.265 0. A2.270 and the strategy for reducing knowledge loss (S3) as being sensibly less important than the previous one.259 0. is calculated again as an average over the individual values. S2 and S3 rank the strategy for increasing knowledge creation (S1). For all these four matrices. 1994.469 0. 2. 2001.270. and Saaty. The process is stopped when the difference between components of the priority vector obtained at the kth power and at the (k + 1) power is less than some predetermined small value. the strategy of increasing acquisitions of new knowledge (S2) on the second place.
Our research is based on the AHP method developed by Saaty for managerial decision making. and knowledge loss.469 Cr 0.291A 2 0.271A 0..(10) The same dynamic Equation (8) for a generic component can be written with respect to all strategies. knowledge transfer and sharing.224 A1 0. it is useful to learn and 18 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management.224 As a straight conclusion. from the point of view of A2 0. the dynamic equation for knowledge level Equation (7) can be written as: K 0. it can be enlarged in order to contain more components and to reflect in a better way the variation of the organizational knowledge dynamics. The last one in this list of importance is A4.259 L . developing training A3 0. Knowing these priorities. The main idea of this method is to structure the field of interest on several layers of different decision making powers. Vol. which results in the composite or global priority vector of the alternatives. Using the coefficients from Table 3 obtained for the relative importance of strategies.287 assessing the importance of the four alternatives (hiring new valuable human resources (A1).. The conceptual model presented in this paper is generic and it can be applied to any organization. can be written as: C 0. If necessary.329 A 3 0.each row.329 programs (A2).. and obtaining a generic equation for the organizational knowledge dynamics. the strategies developed to achieve this goal. Also. followed by A2 and A1. We applied this model for two cases: intergenerational knowledge transfer in universities where this process is at the core of the academic life.287 A 2 0.159 employees (A3) and purchasing books.159 A 4 .. software programs and other informative materials (A4).(9) The dynamic equilibrium Equation (8) for a generic component of Equation (7). The corresponding results are presented in Table 4.(11) Conclusion Analyzing knowledge strategies based on a certain quantitative method becomes more and more important as the strategic management incorporates strategies for knowledge creation. creating a performing motivation for the A4 0.380 A 3 0. the top management is able to emphasize and invest in the strategy with highest priority. 2012 .103A 4 .224 A1 0. and data from Table 4 can be used for the weighting factors for the coefficients: C 0.. and characteristic activities through which the chosen strategies can be implemented. journals. 2. The practical importance of this model consists in determining the vector of priorities for a defined structure of knowledge strategies.. We considered only three layers: the organization goal. the respondents perception rank A3 as being the most important. X. No. Table 4: Synthesis Distributive Mode A1 0. knowledge acquisition.
9. “The Frontier of Linearity in the Intellectual Capital Metaphor”. Oxford. Debowsky S (2006). pp. “On the Metaphorical Nature of Intellectual Capital: A Textual Analysis”. Dalkir K (2005). New York. No. 12. Boston. pp. Business Excellence Publishing House. Harvard Business Press. Bratianu C (2009). 4. 1-17. 5. Systems and Processes. The qualitative dimension comes from structuring the main organizational strategies and activities. 7. pp. 415-424. Bratianu C and Orzea I (2010). Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 19 . References 1. “Changing Paradigm for Knowledge Metaphors from Dynamics to Thermodynamics”. “Stuff or Love?: How Metaphors Direct Our Efforts to Manage Knowledge in Organizations”. pp. Knowledge Management Research & Practice . Andriessen D (2008). Vol. New York. Southampton Solent University. 8. 6. Davenport T H and Prusak L (2000). Knowledge and Intellectual Capital. “Universities as Knowledge Intensive Learning Organizations”. A Dynamic Perspective: Concepts and Cases. Amsterdam. Bratianu C (2011b). “Organizational Knowledge Creation”. 5-12.understand the relative importance of each strategy and each activity within a given strategy. Bratianu C and Andriessen D (2008). Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. 10.). UK. Strategic Management. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What they Know. Sidney. 11. 3. Andriessen D (2006). 93-110. September 4-5. Vol. pp. 4. Innovative Knowledge Management: Concepts for Organizational Creativity and Collaborative Design. 75-82. Carpenter M A and Sanders W G (2007). Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R (2010). Prentice Hall. pp. 7. 13. “Knowledge as Energy: A Metaphorical Analysis”. Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. Vol. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. in order to make adequate managerial decisions. Knowledge Management. Upper Saddle. pp. Bratianu C (2011c). Knowledge Management. 14. DeLong D W (2004). 160-169. No. Management & Marketing. 2. 41-62. John Wiley & Sons Australia. Vol. 7. Oxford University Press. M E Sharpe. Bratianu C (2011a). Information Science Reference. 1. No. 5. Vol. Bucharest. and the quantitative dimension comes from computing vectors of priorities for these strategies and activities. in Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Knowledge Management. This new model is a useful qualitative and quantitative tool for managerial decision making. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences. 6. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Elsevier. 28. 3. in A Eardley and L Uden (Eds.
Butterworth-Heinemann. The New Knowledge Management. 23. 21. pp. “The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process”. pp. Management Science. Principle of Knowledge Management. “Template Use and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer”. 1383-1403. Opportunities. Kogan Page. RWS Publications. 1716-1730. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits. 30. “Why Do Firms Differ? The Theory of the KnowledgeCreating Firm”. 27. 42. 24. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Kermally S (2002). Vol. Knowledge Creation and Management. pp. 2012 . 26. 2nd Edition. 18. 28. Scholes K and Whittington R (2008). Practice and Cases. M E Sharpe. Saaty T L (1994). Pittsburgh. 25. New York. Saaty T L (2009). 16. The Knowledge Creating-Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. “Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Vol. Vol. 17. New Challenges for Managers. 46-55. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Gamble P R and Blacwell J (2001). 53. Strategic Management: Text and Cases. Amsterdam. London. Prentice Hall. 31. Pinker S (2007). 11. Vol. New York. 2nd Edition. 20 The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management. McElroy M W (2003). “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”. Costs and Risks. 8th Edition. 74. “Mapping Verbal Responses to Mumerical Scales in the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. 19. 2. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. Hua Z and Zhang B (2008). Lumpkin G T and Eisner A B (2006). Management Science. European Journal of Operational Research. 13-31. No. Chichester. No. 33. pp. Jensen R J and Szulanski G (2007).). No. Harkers P T and Vargas L G (1987). Prentice Hall. 426-447. Organization Science. Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text & Cases. Nonaka I (1994). Liang L. New York. Wang G. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Jashapara A (2011). 11. 14-37. Basic Books. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995). 1. pp. 22. Geisler E and Wickramasinghe N (2009). Boston. Effective Knowledge Management. Vol. Theory. pp. 20. London. Oxford University Press. X. Penguin Books. Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach. Nonaka I and Toyama R (2007). 5. Johnson G. 29. Lakoff G and Johnson M (1999).15. New York. Vol. Oxford. in K Ichijo and I Nonaka (Eds. Knowledge Management: A State of the Art Guide. John Wiley & Sons. Dess G G. No.
Vol. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Szulanski G (2000). Springer. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic.32. 25. 9-27. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes . Models. Social and T echnological Applications with Benefits. 33. “The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness”. Saaty T L and Louis G V (2001). No. Methods. 1. Managerial and Decision Economics. 82. 347-363. Szulansky G and Jensen R J (2004). 2nd Edition. Opportunities. Political. Boston. Saaty T L and Vargas L G (2006). Reference # 29J-2012-04-01-01 Knowledge Strategies Analysis by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 21 . “Overcoming Stickiness: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of the Template in the Replication of Organizational Routines”. pp. 34. The Knowledge Management Tool Ki. Prentice Hall. New York. Tiwana A (2002). Costs and Risks. Upper Saddle River. Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 36. pp. Vol. 35.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.