A Gestão do Conhecimento holística e a aderência do modelo Fivaz e Pretorius

Abstract

Resumo A atual Gestão do Conhecimento é fundamentada no paradigma reducionista. No entanto, é premente a necessidade de avançar, seguindo os preceitos do paradigma holístico, sendo esta uma lacuna científica ainda não preenchida. Nesse sentido, esta pesquisa ajusta o gerenciamento do conhecimento à luz do paradigma holístico, de modo a elucidar o almejado pela Gestão do Conhecimento mediante esse padrão científico. Com essa fundamentação, têm-se por objetivo analisar a aderência do modelo de Fivaz e Pretorius à Gestão do Conhecimento holística, visando identificar se um modelo com essa envergadura foi atingido. A Análise de Conteúdo, de abordagem qualitativa, e a quantificação percentílica são os procedimentos metodológicos adotados para prover o exame do referido modelo. Por resultado, o modelo analisado adere-se parcialmente aos preceitos da Gestão do Conhecimento holística, permitindo inferir que a lacuna assinalada ainda permanece. A análisede outros modelos, seguindo os delineamentos metodológicos desenvolvidos nesta pesquisa, é uma oportunidade de futuras investigações.

Construction and Content Validation of an instrument for assessment holistic Knowledge Management

“…The reductionist perspective of this management can be seen in KM models, also known as structures or frameworks, which consist of schematic approaches used to express intricate relations hips in a more intelligible way (Corrêa, 2020). Such models contemplate some of the areas surrounding knowledge management, isolating them from the Salzano et al (2016) and Bem, Coelho, and Dandolini (2016).…”

“…In summary, two guiding lines stand out: a) holistic KM is a form of management that reciprocally relates to other themes and areas of the organization to promote processes and activities based on knowledge, aiming to achieve the goals desired by the organization; b) a KM initiative is an action based on knowledge, which is put into practice in a certain organizational context. Adjusted to these outlines are the foundations of holistic KM, presented by Corrêa (2020), who consolidated the 13 areas, also called dimensions or factors, considered critical for the success of this management, which must be treated concurrently in frameworks of knowledge management, being:…”

“…1) Strategy: the organizational strategy must be aligned with the KM so that it supports the business objectives, and employees must be communicated (Corrêa, 2020). KM initiatives must be based on the company's mission, vision and values (Pereira;Skrobot;Danielsson, 2010;Batista, 2012;Probst;Raub;Romhardt, 2002); 2) Leadership and support of senior management: leadership must act as an example of behavior, and senior management must support the KM proposal and communicate it to the organization (Corrêa, 2020).…”

“…1) Strategy: the organizational strategy must be aligned with the KM so that it supports the business objectives, and employees must be communicated (Corrêa, 2020). KM initiatives must be based on the company's mission, vision and values (Pereira;Skrobot;Danielsson, 2010;Batista, 2012;Probst;Raub;Romhardt, 2002); 2) Leadership and support of senior management: leadership must act as an example of behavior, and senior management must support the KM proposal and communicate it to the organization (Corrêa, 2020). Furthermore, critical knowledge gaps must be determined, aiming to remedy them to achieve what the company desires (Teixeira Filho, 2000;Batista, 2012;Fivaz;Pretorius, 2015;Salzanoet al, 2016;Bem;Coelho;Dandolini, 2016); 3) KM team: KM demands a team of professionals with specific responsibilities and activities, such as managing and coordinating, assessment holistic Knowledge Management Fabio Corrêa; Fabricio Ziviani; Dárlinton Barbosa Feres Carvalho; Vinícius Figueiredo de Faria; Fernando Silva Parreiras aiming at its longevity and achievement of the desired goals (Corrêa, 2020).…”

“…Among the various KM models that have diagnoses, such as the proposals by Bukowitz and Williams (2002), Terra (2005), and Batista (2012), two limitations stand out: 1) presentation of a psychometric assessment for instrument validation; 2) neglect of critical aspects for conducting knowledge management. The first gives quality to the instrument from the perspective of specialists in the field (Hernández -Nieto, 2002;Filgueiras et al, 2015), while the second expresses the articulation of all critical dimensions for the success of this admi nistration Damian;Valentim, 2019;Corrêa, 2020), both of which are of urgent relevance for the purposes of a diagnosis relating to this form of management.…”