Main dimensions that impact knowledge management and university-business-government collaboration in the Brazilian scenario.
| Autor | Ribeiro, Suzana Xavier |
-
Introduction
The increasing relevance of information and knowledge for economic and social development and for strengthening competitiveness of organizations has made the diffusion of knowledge and the search for innovation primordial to public and private institutions, resulting in competitive advantage and strategic positioning.
In the knowledge-based economy, the overall performance of innovation depends not only on the performance of specific formal institutions, but rather on how they interact with one another as dimensions of a collective system of knowledge creation and utilization (Beesley, 2003).
In this context, collaboration between universities, industry and government is considered fundamental for knowledge transfer, organizational growth, innovation and economic and social development (Cunningham and Link, 2015; Weckowska, 2015; Schofield, 2013; Morlacchi and Martin, 2009; Salter and Martin, 2001).
Nevertheless, in developing countries there is often a low level of research and development (R&D) in companies, and related activities are carried out more through the public sector, state-owned companies, research institutes and universities (Sutz, 2000). On the other hand, in the university environment, there is a lack of synergy between teaching missions, research and extension activities, with a fragmentation of functions, which includes university-industry-government cooperation (Liefner and Schiller, 2008). In addition, the collaborative culture is not often embedded in the traditional role of the researcher in the academic context, focusing more on the production and communication of research results.
Although this type of interaction has increased since the 1990s, the main focus is still not the shaping of integrated action policies, but the search for financial benefits (Arza, 2010) or scientists inherent to the area and the segment.
Studies that discuss topics related to knowledge management and university-industry-government collaboration are still relatively fragmented (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Perkmann et al., 2013) and focus especially on the main barriers and motivations for university and industry collaboration (Bruneel et al., 2010). There is a lack of papers dealing with interorganizational collaboration in an integrated way, including the role of government (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa, 2015), analyzing how effective cooperation can benefit the achievement of individual organizational goals, as well as those of the whole society.
Thus, the objective of this paper is to analyze how certain dimensions of university-industry-government collaboration contribute to knowledge creation, management and transfer, focusing on Brazilian particularities.
In addition to this introduction, this paper has four more sections. The second section presents a literature review on knowledge management, university-industry-government collaboration and the dimensions that influence the two areas: structural, relational, cognitive and context. The third section provides a description of the method used, the fourth presents the case studies with a descriptive synthesis and the conclusions are drawn in the final considerations.
-
Literature review
In this topic, a literature review on the main topics addressed in this work is presented: knowledge management and university-industry-government collaboration. It also addresses the most relevant dimensions that influence these two topics concomitantly.
2.1 Knowledge management and university-industry-government collaboration Despite the recognized importance of knowledge as a vital resource for organizational performance, there is little understanding of how organizations actually create and manage knowledge dynamically. In a competitive environment in which the only certainty is uncertainty, the ability to create and use knowledge is the most important source of sustainable competitive advantage for companies, which are seen as a dynamic, evolved and almost autonomous system of knowledge production and application (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al, 2000; Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
There are two types of knowledge: tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, which is the cognitive dimension, technical ability, know-how, experience, mental models, beliefs and values, is intrinsic to people, and is hard to be communicated and formalized in concrete ways. Due to the fact that it is formal and systematic, explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is easily processed, shared and stored in documents, manuals, database and other media.
Knowledge conversion (the SECI model) occurs from tacit knowledge (socialization), from tacit to explicit (externalization), from explicit to tacit (internalization) and from explicit to explicit (combination) (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000). This model can be understood as the ability of an organization to create knowledge, to disseminate it in all areas and to incorporate it into goods, services and systems (Johannessen et al., 1999). It represents a dynamic process in which the organization creates, maintains and exploits knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2000).
In addition to the SECI model, to understand how organizations create knowledge dynamically, there are two other relevant elements: ba, a word of Japanese origin that represents the dynamic and shared organizational context in knowledge creation, dissemination and utilization processes and knowledge resources, which are inputs, outputs and moderate factors of the knowledge creation process (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003; Nonaka et al, 2000).
Characterized by the dynamic interactions between members of an organization and between these members and the environment in which they are inserted, the knowledge creation process improves the interaction between individuals, organizations and society, in that it expands the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit. In an organizational environment, it is important to transform individual learning into collective and continuously create new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al, 2000), which is fundamental to boost knowledge transfer and university-industry-government collaboration.
The Triple Helix model, proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), is one of the main ones in the field of university-industry-government collaboration and addresses the interrelationships between these three spheres considered fundamental for creating an environment conducive to innovating, generating and disseminating knowledge needed to develop society.
This concept has recently brought about an attempt to better recognize the dynamics of the knowledge-based economy and presents itself as a new knowledge infrastructure generated in terms of overlapping institutional spheres with hybrid organizations emerging from these interfaces (Beesley, 2003).
Interaction between the functions of these three helices takes place by creating communication and knowledge diffusion networks, as well as an environment that stimulates innovation and, consequently, economic and social development (Etzkowitz, 2003; Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2006; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).
In this context, universities maintain their fundamental mission of disseminating knowledge, even if they take on some roles from the industry and government area; industry continues to produce goods and services and also does research, providing high level training and now having expertise in its field; and the government continues as a final guarantor of social functions, besides making it possible to set up new companies (Etzkowitz, 2003).
Thus, the Triple Helix postulates that the (interorganizational) interaction between university, industry and government is the key to improving the conditions for innovation in the knowledge society, insofar as collaboration generates knowledge (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa, 2015).
2.2 Dimensions that impact knowledge management and university-industry-government collaboration
When relating the knowledge management theories and the Triple Helix model, which is characteristic of university-industry-government cooperation, four dimensions considered fundamental were defined: the structural dimension, the relational dimension, the cognitive dimension and the context in which the organizations are inserted.
Structural dimension. According to Nonaka and Toyama (2003), structure influences people. In the conventional theory of organizations, it is believed that the environment has an impact on the structure of the organization, which, in turn, determines people's actions who are part of it. In fact, the structure of the organization does not always directly determine people's actions within the organization. On the contrary, the environment and structure are activated and updated by the people in the company while at the same time affecting them (Nonaka et al., 2008).
Among the functions of organizational structure, Hall (2002) highlights the production of organizational results and goals and the determination of how power is exercised (because it fixes or defines hierarchical positions) and how decisions are made (since the flow of information is largely determined by the structure). Thus, the organizational structure is related to the multifunctional integration mechanisms and structuring work teams (Nagano et al., 2014).
Hall (2002) also highlights the characteristics of structure, formalization and centralization. The first refers to factors such as centralization of power and affects a person's behavior as it can empower the individual or even be coercive. It can vary from maximum formalization (assembly line), minimal formalization (individuals need to use their own judgment to decide what to do) or vary in an intermediate position, as in most cases. In turn, centralization is related to the distribution of power in organizations, and is therefore a good way to synthesize the general concept of structure.
In addition to...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
