اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 38 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,408 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,088 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 11,909,074 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,961,220 |
مدلسازی اثر سرمایه فکری بر حاکمیت دیجیتال و پیامد آن بر مدیریت دانش در صنایع با فناوری پیشرفته (مطالعه موردی: پارک علم و فناوری ارومیه) | ||
| مدیریت راهبردی دانش سازمانی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 9، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 32، فروردین 1405، صفحه 52-77 اصل مقاله (892.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی با اصالت | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1981 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| ایمان قاسمی همدانی* 1؛ مریم اخوان خرازیان2؛ سکینه ابراهیمی3 | ||
| 1دکترای تخصصی بازاریابی، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران | ||
| 2استادیار، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3دانشجوی دکترای بازاریابی، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده اقتصاد و مدیریت، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 08 آذر 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 24 آذر 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 15 بهمن 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: هدف این پژوهش توسعه و آزمون یک مدل یکپارچه بهمنظور تبیین این روابط و شناسایی سازوکارهای اثرگذاری آنها در صنایع با فناوری پیشرفته است. روش پژوهش: پژوهش حاضر یک مطالعه کمی و توصیفی-تحلیلی است. حداقل حجم نمونه ۲۱۰ نفر شامل شامل مدیران و متخصصان حوزه فناوری اطلاعات، منابع انسانی و مدیریت دانش در شرکتهای مستقر در پارک علم و فناوری ارومیه با روش دانیل سوپر و نمونهگیری تصادفی ساده تعیین شد، روایی و پایایی دادهها از طریق آلفای کرونباخ و ضریب پایایی ترکیبی تأیید شد. برای آزمون مدل پژوهش از مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری با روش حداقل مربعات جزئی استفاده شد. یافتهها: ضرایب بارهای عاملی شاخصها بالاتر از ۰.۴ و مقادیر آماره t بیش از ۱.۹۶ بودند، که نشاندهنده روایی ساختاری قابل قبول ابزار است. آلفای کرونباخ و ضریب پایایی ترکیبی تمامی سازهها بالای ۰.۷ بود و کفایت و پایداری ابزار را تأیید کرد. روایی همگرای سازهها با میانگین واریانس استخراج شده تأیید شد و تمامی مقادیر بالاتر از ۰.۵ بودند، در نهایت برازش قوی مدل تایید گردید. بحث: حاکمیت دیجیتال نقش محوری در ارتقای مدیریت دانش ایفا کرده و اثر سرمایه فکری و تحول دیجیتال بر مدیریت دانش را تسهیل میکند؛ بهگونهای که بدون چارچوب منسجم حکمرانی دیجیتال، بهرهبرداری اثربخش از دانش سازمانی امکانپذیر نیست. تحول دیجیتال تأثیر معناداری بر حاکمیت دیجیتال دارد و موجب تسریع بلوغ ساختارهای حکمرانی میشود. مقررات دیجیتال نیز بهعنوان تعدیلگر، اثر سرمایه انسانی و ساختاری بر حاکمیت دیجیتال را تضعیف کنند که بیانگر ضرورت سیاستگذاریهای هوشمند و منعطف است. نتیجهگیری: حاکمیت دیجیتال بهعنوان حلقه اتصال حیاتی میان سرمایه فکری، تحول دیجیتال و مدیریت دانش شناسایی شد و مدل پژوهش از توان تبیینی و اعتبار تجربی مطلوبی در شرکتهای مستقر در پارک علم و فناوری ارومیه برخوردار است. | ||
تازه های تحقیق | ||
| ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| پارک علم و فناوری؛ تحول دیجیتال؛ حاکمیت دیجیتال؛ سرمایه فکری؛ صنایع با فناوری پیشرفته؛ مدیریت دانش | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Modeling the Effect of Intellectual Capital on Digital Governance and Its Consequences on Knowledge Management in High-Tech Industries (Case Study: Urmia Science and Technology Park) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Iman Ghasemi Hamedani1؛ Maryam Akhavan Kharazian2؛ Sakineh Ebrahimi3 | ||
| 1PhD in Marketing, Department of Business Management، Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran, E-mail: ghasemi.iman1987@gmail.com | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran, E-mail: m_akhavan@sbu.ac.ir | ||
| 3PhD student in Marketing, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran, E-mail: st_s.ebrahimi@urmia.ac.ir | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Purpose: The acceleration of digital and data-driven technologies in high-tech industries has reshaped competitive structures, value creation, and organizational practices, making many traditional mechanisms insufficient for complex environments. The growth in data volume, process automation, and interactions among intelligent platforms highlights the need for innovative digital governance frameworks. These frameworks, based on algorithms, automated protocols, and intelligent systems, enhance transparency and coordination beyond traditional systems. Achieving effective digital governance requires technological, knowledge, and organizational capacities that many organizations are still developing. Intellectual capital including human, structural, and relational components is a key driver of digital empowerment and innovation. Employees’ digital skills, data-driven infrastructures, organizational standards, and stakeholder trust networks are critical to supporting governance. The influence of intellectual capital on digital governance is often indirect, mediated by digital transformation, which reorganizes processes, infrastructures, and work patterns to enable digital capacities. Digital governance also plays a central role in knowledge management, as the creation, storage, sharing, and utilization of knowledge depend on data transparency, information quality, and integrated knowledge flows. Weak governance can disrupt these flows and limit the effective use of intellectual capital. Human and relational capital particularly drive knowledge flows and innovation capacity, while their interaction with knowledge management strengthens value creation and competitive advantage. At the macro level, regulatory frameworks moderate the relationships among intellectual capital, digital transformation, and governance, acting as enablers or constraints. Organizations must comply with regulations controlling data, privacy, and transparency, which shape digital governance and knowledge management, aligning technology, intellectual capital, and knowledge processes. Despite extensive studies, a fully integrated theoretical model connecting intellectual capital, digital transformation, governance, regulations, and knowledge management has not yet been established. This study aims to provide such a model, offering practical and theoretical insights for managers and policymakers in high-tech industries. Methodology: The present study is a quantitative, descriptive-analytical research aimed at examining the relationships among intellectual capital, digital transformation, digital governance, and knowledge management in companies located in the Urmia Science and Technology Park. The study population comprised senior IT managers, data managers, human resources managers, digital transformation specialists, and knowledge management experts working in these companies. Initially, a sampling frame was developed based on the official list of eligible employees, with inclusion criteria requiring continuous employment in one of the park''s units, at least two years of relevant experience in IT, data, human resources, or knowledge management, and a managerial or specialist role related to digital transformation. The minimum sample size of 210 participants was determined using Daniel Supr’s (2025) formula for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM/PLS-SEM), considering the number of constructs, indicators, path complexity, and desired statistical power. A simple random sampling method was employed, with unique numeric identifiers assigned to each member and selection performed using R software (version 4.3.2) with seed = 2025. To account for non-responses, 273 questionnaires were distributed, resulting in 210 valid responses after screening. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale. The validity of the instrument was assessed through content validity (via expert evaluation), convergent validity (using Average Variance Extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (using the Fornell-Larcker criterion). Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability (CR), both with acceptable thresholds of 0.7. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the research model, allowing the examination of relationships among multiple variables, measurement errors, multicollinearity, latent constructs, and hypothesized paths. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and Smart-PLS. Model evaluation included R² (coefficient of determination), Q² (predictive relevance), T-values (for path significance), and the overall Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) index. Thresholds were applied to interpret model fit, explanatory power, and predictive accuracy. The results indicated that the model provided robust explanatory and predictive capabilities for the relationships among intellectual capital, digital transformation, digital governance, and knowledge management in the context of the park. Results: The findings of the study indicated that all factor loadings of the questionnaire items were above 0.4 and the T-statistics exceeded 1.96, demonstrating the acceptability of the indicators and the structural validity of the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha for all constructs was above 0.7, and the composite reliability of the research variables was also higher than 0.7, confirming the adequacy and stability of the instrument. Convergent validity of the constructs was assessed using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with all values exceeding 0.5, indicating a satisfactory convergence of the variables with their respective indicators. For discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker method was applied, showing that the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than its shared variance with other constructs, confirming acceptable discriminant validity for all constructs. The coefficient of determination (R²) for the knowledge management variable was at a strong level, while it was moderate for digital governance and digital transformation, indicating a good model fit in explaining the variance of the dependent variables. The Q² index, which measures the predictive relevance of the model for endogenous constructs, was strong for knowledge management and moderate for digital governance and digital transformation, reflecting the model’s adequate predictive capability. The overall Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) index was calculated as 0.483, indicating a strong overall fit and proper alignment between observed and predicted values. Additionally, for hypothesis acceptance, the path coefficients needed to be positive and the T-values above 1.96; the results showed that all hypothesized relationships were statistically significant, and thus all research hypotheses were supported. In summary, the results of factor analysis, reliability and validity tests, R² and Q² indices, and the overall GOF confirm the validity, explanatory power, and predictive capability of the research model in examining the relationships among intellectual capital, digital transformation, digital governance, and knowledge management in companies located in the Urmia Science and Technology Park. Discussion: Digital governance plays a pivotal role in enhancing knowledge management and facilitates the impact of intellectual capital and digital transformation on knowledge management; in such a way that without a coherent digital governance framework, effective exploitation of organizational knowledge is not possible. Digital transformation has a significant impact on digital governance and accelerates the maturation of governance structures. Digital regulations also act as moderators, weakening the impact of human and structural capital on digital governance, which indicates the need for smart and flexible policymaking. Conclusion: The study findings indicate that human, structural, and relational capital all positively influence digital governance. Human capital, including employees’ digital skills, specialized knowledge, and competencies, especially among IT managers and data specialists, is crucial for implementing effective digital standards and governance mechanisms. Structural capital, such as robust organizational frameworks, integrated information flows, and comprehensive documentation, enhances governance by enabling secure and transparent management of digital information. Relational capital, consisting of trust-based relationships and strategic collaborations, strengthens the organization’s ability to operate effectively within interconnected digital environments. Digital governance, in turn, has a significant positive effect on knowledge management. It improves the accuracy, reliability, and accessibility of organizational data, facilitating knowledge sharing, integration, and optimal use of expertise. Digital transformation positively affects governance by modernizing processes, adopting advanced technologies, and developing data-driven infrastructures. Moreover, digital governance mediates the relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge management, as well as between digital transformation and knowledge management, highlighting that the benefits of intellectual capital and transformation are realized primarily when strong governance is in place. However, digital regulations can negatively moderate these relationships, as overly restrictive frameworks limit organizational flexibility and the effective use of human, structural, and relational resources. Overall, these results emphasize digital governance as a key link connecting intellectual capital, digital transformation, and knowledge management. To enhance knowledge flows and governance while maximizing intellectual assets, organizations must invest simultaneously in human, structural, and relational capacities and implement adaptive regulatory approaches that support innovation and digital effectiveness. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Science and Technology Park, Digital Transformation, Digital Governance, Intellectual Capital, High-Tech Industries, Knowledge Management | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable innovation in small medium enterprises: the impact of knowledge management on organizational innovation through a mediation analysis by using SEM approach. Sustainability, 12(6), 2407. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407 Adhikari, D. R., & Shrestha, P. (2023). Knowledge management initiatives for achieving sustainable development goal 4.7: higher education institutions’ stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(4), 1109-1139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2022-0172 Al-Breiki, H., Rehman, M. H. U., Salah, K., & Svetinovic, D. (2020). Trustworthy Blockchain Oracles: Review, Comparison, and Open Research Challenges. IEEE Access, 8, 85675–85685. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992698 Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Abed, I. A., Khalaf, B. K., & Nader, A. (2020). Systematic Literature Review of Intellectual Capital Components (Multi-View). Test Eng. Manag, 83, 4682-4700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.107526 Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Haddad, H., Alkhodary, D., & Marei, A. (2021). Dynamic capabilities and their impact on intellectual capital and innovation performance. Sustainability, 13(18), 10028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810028 Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Haddad, H., Al-Ramahi, N. M., Almubaydeen, T. H., & Abed, I. A. (2022). The impact of intellectual capital on dynamic innovation performance: an overview of research methodology. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(10), 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100456 Aljuboori, Z. M., Singh, H., Haddad, H., Al-Ramahi, N. M., & Ali, M. A. (2021). Intellectual capital and firm performance correlation: the mediation role of innovation capability in Malaysian manufacturing SMEs perspective. Sustainability, 14(1), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010154 Alvarenga, A., Matos, F., Godina, R., & CO Matias, J. (2020). Digital transformation and knowledge management in the public sector. Sustainability, 12(14), 5824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145824 Amin Eshayeri. (2024). Examining the Relationship between Digital Transformation and Knowledge Management in the Public Sector. Journal of New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 8(92), 2198–2213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2020-0086 (In Persian) Atapour, H., Hamdipour, A., & Safipour, S. (2024). Investigating the relationship between human capital and innovation with the mediating role of knowledge sharing and social media networking in iranian creative companies. Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 7(4), 117-139. https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2024.1803 (In Persian) Barbosa, G. F., Shiki, S. B., & Da Silva, I. B. (2020). R&D roadmap for process robotization driven to the digital transformation of the industry 4.0. Concurrent Engineering, 28(4), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1063293X2 Barreto, M., & Lopez-Fresno, P. (2020, October). LET''S GO DIGITAL! Implementation Challenges of Digital Transformation in Government Institutions for Enhancing Trust, Leading to Intellectual Capital and Innovativeness. In International Conference on Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (pp. 55-63). Academic Conferences International Limited. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13020044 Bashokouh Ajirlo, M. and Ghasemi Hamedani, I. (2023). The role of personal skills and entrepreneurship to transform from hybrid entrepreneurship to full-time entrepreneurship with emphasis on experiential learning theory. Journal of Studies in Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Agricultural Development, 10(2), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.22069/jead.2023.20505.1631 (In Persian) Bashokouh, M., & Ghasemi Hamedani, I. (2022). Investigation the effect of knowledge management on the performance and loyalty of employees with the moderating role of innovation (case study: employees of Tabriz Petrochemical Company). Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 5(4), 75-109. https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2022.1481 (In Persian) Baud, I. S. A., Scott, D., Pfeffer, K., Sydenstricker-Neto, J., & Denis, E. (2014). Digital and spatial knowledge management in urban governance: Emerging issues in India, Brazil, South Africa, and Peru. Habitat International, 44, 501-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.09.009 Bogoviz, A. V. (2020). Perspective directions of state regulation of competition between human and artificial intellectual capital in Industry 4.0. Journal of intellectual capital, 21(4), 583-600. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2019-0270 Bondar, S., Hsu, J. C., Pfouga, A., & Stjepandić, J. (2017). Agile digital transformation of System-of-Systems architecture models using Zachman framework. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 7, 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.03.001 Buuren, A. V. (2009). Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge: Inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes. international public management journal, 12(2), 208-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490902868523 Cahyaningsih, E., Sensuse, D. I., Arymurthy, A. M., & Wibowo, W. C. (2017). Nusantara: a new model of knowledgemanagement in government human capital management. Procedia Computer Science, 124, 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.130 Chen, X., & Cao, Y. (2025). Digital Governance, Financial Support, and Intellectual Property Protection Transformation. Finance Research Letters, 108250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108250 Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336. https://B2n.ir/p53562 Choi, I. (2016). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-Government. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2016.1257549 Commerford, B. P., Dennis, S. A., Joe, J. R., & Ulla, J. W. (2022). Man Versus Machine: Complex Estimates and Auditor Reliance on Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12407 Corral de Zubielqui, G., Lindsay, N., Lindsay, W., & Jones, J. (2019). Knowledge quality, innovation and firm performance: a study of knowledge transfer in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 145-164 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2019.2279040 De Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: a structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(2), 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.2015261 Delgado-Verde, M., & Franco-Curiel, J. C. (2025). The interplay between entrepreneurial risk-taking and intellectual capital: effects on innovation novelty in high-tech firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 26(3), 761-783. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2024-0110 Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Pezzi, A., & Kalisz, D. E. (2021). The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A systematic literature review. Journal of business research, 123, 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.042 Ding, T., & Yang, L. (2025). Intellectual property protection and corporate digital transformation: An empirical analysis from the perspectives of intellectual property protection and digital governance. International Review of Economics & Finance, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104125 Dutil, P., & Williams, J. (2017). Regulation governance in the digital era: A new research agenda. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 562-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12226 Eke, D., & Stahl, B. (2024). Ethics in the governance of data and digital technology: An analysis of European data regulations and policies. Digital Society, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00101-6 Fawaz, F., Mnif, A., & Popiashvili, A. (2021). Impact of governance on economic growth in developing countries: A case of HIDC vs. LIDC. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 23(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-021-00149-x Flew, T., Martin, F., & Suzor, N. (2019). Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J. M., & Popa, S. (2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(8), 1655–1687. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497 Hasan, I., & Rizvi, S. (2021). Knowledge management framework for sustainability and resilience in next-Gen e-governance. In Data Engineering for Smart Systems: Proceedings of SSIC 2021 (pp. 191-203). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2641-8_18 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 20(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2195::AID-SMJ133.0.CO;2-7 Idzi, F. M., & Gomes, R. C. (2022). Digital governance: government strategies that impact public services. Global Public Policy and Governance, 2(4), 427-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-022-00055-w Irbe, I. (2024). Digital Governance and Regulation. Available at SSRN 4723373. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4723373 Kausche, K., & Weiss, M. (2025). Platform power and regulatory capture in digital governance. Business and Politics, 27(2), 284-308. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2024.33 Kearns, G. S., & Sabherwal, R. (2006). Strategic alignment between business and information technology: a knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences. Journal of management information systems, 23(3), 129-162. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230306 Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211047576. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576 Liu, Y., Wu, Y., & Wu, W. (2023). Which kind of board benefits more from the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and radical innovation? The asymmetric roles of board characteristics in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01906-5 Manesh, M. F., Pellegrini, M. M., Marzi, G., & Dabic, M. (2020). Knowledge management in the fourth industrial revolution: Mapping the literature and scoping future avenues. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TEM.2019.296 Manoharan, A. P., Melitski, J., & Holzer, M. (2023). Digital governance: An assessment of performance and best practices. Public Organization Review, 23(1), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00584-8 Manoharan, A. P., Melitski, J., & Holzer, M. (2023). Digital governance: An assessment of performance and best practices. Public Organization Review, 23(1), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12226 McDowell, W. C., Peake, W. O., Coder, L., & Harris, M. L. (2018). Building small firm performance through intellectual capital development: Exploring innovation as the “black box”. Journal of business research, 88, 321-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.025 Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H. R., Akhavan, P., & Ghatari, A. R. (2013). Prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in knowledge-based industries: Evidence from pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.002 Milakovich, M. E. (2021). Digital governance: Applying advanced technologies to improve public service. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003215875 Payal, R., Ahmed, S. and Debnath, R.M. (2019), “Impact of knowledge management on organizational performance”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 510-530. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-07-2018-0063 Plekhanov, D., Franke, H., & Netland, T. H. (2023). Digital transformation: A review and research agenda. European management journal, 41(6), 821-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2504917 Pokrovskaia, N. N., Korableva, O. N., Cappelli, L., & Fedorov, D. A. (2021). Digital regulation of intellectual capital for open innovation: Industries’ expert assessments of tacit knowledge for controlling and networking outcome. Future Internet, 13(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13020044 Prusak, R., & Kardas, E. (2024). The Analysis of Mutual Relations and Dependencies of Intellectual Capital Components in Polish Enterprises in the Context of Sustainability Goals. Sustainability, 16(18), 7994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187994 Rehman, S. U., Bresciani, S., Ashfaq, K., & Alam, G. M. (2022). Intellectual capital, knowledge management and competitive advantage: a resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(7), 1705-1731. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2021-0453 Rosca, E., Tate, W. L., Bals, L., Huang, F., & Ciulli, F. (2022). Coordinating multi-level collective action: how intermediaries and digital governance can help supply chains tackle grand challenges. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(12), 1937-1968. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2022-0432 Sadat Rasool, M., Nouri, R., & Montakhabrad, A. (2021). Investigating the Social Capital Effect on Knowledge Management Cycle in Banks: Competitive Benchmarking Approach. Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 3(4), 141-169. https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2020.1234 (In Persian) Seifollahi, N., & Ebrahimi Kharajo, V. (2022). Analyzing the Moderating Role of Knowledge Management in Relation to Intellectual Capital and Brand Competitive Advantage: Focusing on the Mediating Role of Brand Value (Case Study: Ardebil Hotels). Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 4(4), 151-182. https://doi.org/10.47176/smok.2021.1378 (In Persian) Shleifer, A. (2005). Understanding regulation. European Financial Management, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.03.003 Sohrabi,S. , Salimi,G. R. and Habibi,M. (2024). The Model of Smart Governance in Crisis Situations with an Emphasis on Urban Management in Line with the General Policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Quarterly Journal of The Macro and Strategic Policies, 12(46), 234-262. https://doi.org/10.30507/jmsp.2023.415836.2635 (In Persian) Tan, E., & Crompvoets, J. (2022). A new era of digital governance. In The new digital era governance (pp. 13-49). Wageningen Academic. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706290638 Trevlopoulos, N. S., Tsalis, T. A., Evangelinos, K. I., Tsagarakis, K. P., Vatalis, K. I., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2021). The influence of environmental regulations on business innovation, intellectual capital, environmental and economic performance. Environment Systems and Decisions, 41(1), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-021-09802-6 Ur Rehman, S., Elrehail, H., Alsaad, A., & Bhatti, A. (2022). Intellectual capital and innovative performance: a mediation-moderation perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(5), 998-1024. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2020-0109 Vaia, G., Arkhipova, D., & DeLone, W. (2022). Digital Governance Mechanisms and Principles that Enable Agile Responses in Dynamic Competitive Environments. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(6), 662–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2078743 Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T. L. J., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N. E., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Reflection and Research Agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbus Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly, 33(1), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650284 Xu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Does intellectual capital measurement matter in financial performance? An investigation of Chinese agricultural listed companies. Agronomy, 11(9), 1872. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091872 Yang, R., & Cai, J. (2025). Intellectual property protection strategy, digital governance, and the upgrading of corporate human capital structure—a quasi-natural experiment based on the construction of national intellectual property model cities. Finance Research Letters, 107526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107526 Yin, J., & Xu, J. (2025). Intellectual capital, digital transformation and firms’ financial performance: Evidence from ecological protection and environmental governance industry in China. PloS one, 20(1), e0316724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316724 Youndt, M. A., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00435.x Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management studies, 41(2), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00435.x Zhao, S., Teng, L., Arkorful, V. E., & Hu, H. (2023). Impacts of digital government on regional eco-innovation: Moderating role of dual environmental regulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, 122842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122842 Zhuo, C., & Chen, J. (2023). Can digital transformation overcome the enterprise innovation dilemma: Effect, mechanism and effective boundary. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 122378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2023.2434010 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 97 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 48 |
||