Las tiendas de barrios son fuentes de ingresos económicos para las familias que, por falta de aplicación de conocimientos administrativos, impiden que se adapten a sus necesidades, frente a la competencia y por ende puedan provocar el cierre de estos. La importancia del presente estudio reside en dar a conocer opciones para mejorar las dificultades administrativas que atraviesan en sus actividades cotidianas. Factores como el tiempo, dinero, el desconocimiento entre otros, son considerados como parte de las causas que impiden el aprendizaje y crecimiento de estos. Por lo que, para contrarrestar la problemática existente, se estableció como objetivo general realizar un análisis situacional para poder conocer las gestiones administrativas que manejan los micronegocios denominados tiendas de barrio del Guasmo Sur en la ciudad de Guayaquil. La metodología de investigación que se empleó es mixta, donde la recolección de datos se realizó por medio de las herramientas como encuesta, entrevistas y observaciones dirigidos a los dueños y clientes de tiendas pertenecientes a la localidad del Guasmo Sur de nuestra ciudad porteña. Por lo cual concluimos, que las tiendas de barrio del Guasmo Sur, en su gran mayoría son administrados por miembros de una misma familia, siendo el 45,9% de estos negocios la única fuente de ingresos. Estos micronegocios a su vez asumen conductas empresariales en menores escalas, por lo que podrían mejorar la administración del negocio y la atención al cliente al conocer la importancia de la gestión administrativa.
This paper adopts a way of looking at knowledge work that is inherently personal and more intimate: How we know depends on who we are. SRI’s Values and Lifestyles™ research offers empirical findings that help shape the knowledge profiles of different people. The knowledge profiles can be used to create, communicate and package knowledge more effectively. Such an approach to knowledge also helps us understand how the subjectivity of knowledge may greatly contribute to value creation in knowledge work.
This article explores what knowledge management is and what relevance it has to organizations and the people who work in or with them. Taking a broad definition of knowledge, it raises a number of questions concerning knowledge management as a source of competitive advantage and questions our conceptualization of ‘knowledge’. We provide a brief review of the field and raise a number of challenges for managers. From this emerges an agenda for the development of action-orientated goals for managers, organizations and networks of organizations. These include the formulation and implementation of strategies for developing, acquiring and applying knowledge, and the monitoring and evaluation of knowledge assets and processes for the their effective management.
– The purpose of this paper is to describe two related fields – knowledge management (KM) and capability maturity model integrated (CMMISM) – and highlight their similarities.
– The KM framework used for this comparison is the one established and used at Israel Aircraft Industries, while the CMMISM source of information is none but the original document produced by the CMMISM product team at the Carnegie Mellon University, as well as papers published on the subject.
– Knowledge management is a rather young discipline promising to maximize innovation and competitive advantage to organizations that practice knowledge capture, documentation, retrieval and reuse, creation, transfer and share to its knowledge assets in a measurable way, integrated in its operational and business processes. The capability maturity model integrated deals with the ways an organization has to follow, in order to maintain well mapped processes, having well defined stages, because of the assumption that in mature organizations, it is possible to measure and relate between the quality of the process and the quality of the product. Though KM and CMMISM take different approaches to the achievement of competitive advantage, they seem to be supporting as well as dependent of each other.
– Practitioners as well as researchers in the field of knowledge management and in the implementation of the CMMISM standard will find comfort in realizing how mutually supportive are these two fields.
The purpose of this paper is to order and connect different perspectives on the creation and management of knowledge. Several proposals for the classification of the main approaches to knowledge management are considered and their connections and differences discussed. Three main groups emerge: measuring knowledge, managing knowledge (either with greater emphasis on the human factor or on information technologies) and creating knowledge. After selecting and analysing selection of the most relevant studies in this area, these concepts can be arranged into a continuum from a more descriptive perspective to a more normative one. The main contribution of this study is the compilation of literature on knowledge management and creation, along with the analysis of our own proposal for the classification of different approaches, depending on their more descriptive or more normative perspective.Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2008) 6, 77–89. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500164
Understanding sources of sustained competitive advantage has become a major area of research in strategic management. Building on the assumptions that strategic resources are heterogeneously distributed across firms and that these differences are stable over time, this article examines the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Four empirical indicators of the potential of firm resources to generate sustained competitive advantage-value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability are discussed. The model is applied by analyzing the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages. The article concludes by examining implications of this firm resource model of sustained competitive advantage for other business disciplines.
Knowledge management models are understood as value added to the organization and must be considered from a management pragmatic view having an impact on managerial excellence. A model of knowlkedge management is suggested, consisting of three systems the implementation of which needs three different roles -infrastructure system (knowledge computer agent), structure system (knowledge training agent), and superstructure system (knowledge trust agent). Coaching and mentoring are suggested as means of managing trust. Some experiences of knowledge managment currently being carried out are reported, where implementation of coaching and mentoring processes prove successful.
Researchers in the area of strategic management agree on the key role of knowledge as a source of sustainable competitive advantage, but very few know how to manage knowledge that produces value or intellectual capital in an efficient way. Intellectual capital benchmarking system (ICBS) is trying to fill this gap using benchmarking techniques, and facilitating the process of learning from the best competitors. ICBS is at the same time a new strategic management method and a new strategic management tool that allows companies to benchmark core competencies or intellectual capital against world class best competitors of the same business activity. When using ICBS in an orderly systematic and repetitive way, we obtain competitiveness balance sheets that complement and perfect financial balance sheets and lead companies to leveraging intellectual capital. The system has been tested and successfully implemented in more than 30 European enterprises.
Organizational knowledge is much talked about but little understood. In this paper we set out to conceptualize organizational knowledge and explore its implications for knowledge management. We take on board Polanyi’s insight concerning the personal character of knowledge and fuse it with Wittgenstein’s insight that all knowledge is, in a fundamental way, collective. We do this in order to show, on the one hand, how individuals appropriate knowledge and expand their knowledge repertoires, and, on the other hand, how knowledge, in organized contexts, becomes organizational. Our claim is that knowledge is the individual capability to draw distinctions, within a domain of action, based on an appreciation of context or theory, or both. Organizational knowledge is the capability members of an organization have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their work, in particular concrete contexts, by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings. Following our theoretical exploration of organizational knowledge, we report the findings of a case study carried out at a call centre in Panafon, in Greece. Finally, we explore the implications of our argument by focusing on the links between knowledge and action on the one hand, and the management of organizational knowledge on the other. We argue that practical mastery needs to be supplemented by a quasi-theoretical understanding of what individuals are doing when they exercise that mastery, and this is what knowledge management should be aiming at. Knowledge management, we suggest, is the dynamic process of turning an unreflective practice into a reflective one by elucidating the rules guiding the activities of the practice, by helping give a particular shape to collective understandings, and by facilitating the emergence of heuristic knowledge.
In this concluding article to the Management Science special issue on ÜManaging Knowledge in Organizations: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge,Ý we provide an integrative framework for organizing the literature on knowledge management. The framework has two dimensions. The knowledge management outcomes of knowledge creation, retention, and transfer are represented along one dimension. Properties of the context within which knowledge management occurs are represented on the other dimension. These properties, which affect knowledge management outcomes, can be organized according to whether they are properties of a unit (e.g., individual, group, organization) involved in knowledge management, properties of relationships between units or properties of the knowledge itself. The framework is used to identify where research findings about knowledge management converge and where gaps in our understanding exist. The article discusses mechanisms of knowledge management and how those mechanisms affect a unit's ability to create, retain and transfer knowledge. Emerging themes in the literature on knowledge management are identified. Directions for future research are suggested.
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)
In the postindustrial era, the success of a corporation lies more in its intellectual and systems capabilities than in its physical assets. The capacity to manage human intellect—and to convert it into useful products and services—is fast becoming the critical executive skill of the age. As a result, there has been a flurry of interest in intellectual capital, creativity, innovation, and the learning organization, but surprisingly little attention has been given to managing professional intellect.