تعداد نشریات | 38 |
تعداد شمارهها | 1,240 |
تعداد مقالات | 8,994 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,848,285 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,708,351 |
الگو سازی بعد دانشی در نظام نوآوری با رویکرد فراترکیب و دیماتل خاکستری | ||
مدیریت راهبردی دانش سازمانی | ||
مقاله 6، دوره 6، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 21، تیر 1402، صفحه 183-241 اصل مقاله (1.29 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله مروری | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.47176/smok.2023.1576 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
محمدحسن کامفیروزی1؛ یاسر قاسمی نژاد* 2؛ علی طاهری2؛ محسن میری2؛ حسین بازرگانی2 | ||
1دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت سیستمها، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران. | ||
2استادیار، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین(ع)، تهران، ایران. | ||
تاریخ دریافت: 18 بهمن 1401، تاریخ بازنگری: 25 اسفند 1401، تاریخ پذیرش: 26 فروردین 1402 | ||
چکیده | ||
پژوهش حاضر به بررسی مدل ها و ادبیات علمی حول نقش دانش در نظام نوآوری به استخراج مدلی از بعد دانشی نظام نوآوری جهت ارائه در یک سازمان نظامی پرداخته و نحوه تعاملات بین اجزای مدل را کشف مینماید. پارادایم تحقیق تفسیری، با رویکرد کاربردی و توسعه ای، با استراتژی قیاسی- استقرائی و روش آمیخته شکل گرفته است. جمع آوری داده های پژوهش بصورت کتابخانه ای و میدانی و روش نمونه گیری بصورت نظری بود. جامعه آماری این پژوهش در بخش کیفی مقالات علمی موجود در پایگاه های پژوهشی بودند و به صورت تمام شمار مورد بازبینی قرار گرفتند. در بخش کمی نیز جامعه آماری شامل خبرگان حوزه نوآوری و تحصیلکردگان دانشگاهی بودند. در این پژوهش ابزار گرداوری داده شامل بررسی اسناد و مدارک و همینطور ماتریس ورودی روش دیماتل در قالب پرسشنامه مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. جامعه پژوهش در بخش کیفی شامل اسناد علمی مشخص با روش نمونه گیری نظری مورد بازبینی قرار گرفت. همینطور در بخش کمی جامعه پژوهش خبرگان این حوزه با روش نمونه گیری هدفمند مورد توجه قرار گرفتند. در این پژوهش با استفاده از رویکرد فراترکیب مبتنی بر رویکرد باروسو و ساندلوفسکی که شامل هفت گام اساسی است و کنکاش پژوهش های گذشته که با توجه به معیارهای ورودی شامل مقالات علمی با درجه مشخص و بعد از سال 2000 میلادی ، مفاهیم استخراج شده و در نهایت اجزای بعد دانشی نظام نوآوری شناسایی شدند. این اجزا که پس از غربالگری منابع، از 48 منبع گرداوری گردیدند، در قالب 84 کد استخراج گردید که در بطن ده مضمون اساسی جایدهی شدند. این مضامین در قالب مقولات سه گانه پژوهش، یادگیری و مدیریت دانش بعد دانشی نظام نوآوری را شکل دادند. مدل استخراج یافته طی یک پرسشنامه توسط 10 نفر از خبرگان یک سازمان نظامی مورد نظر قرار گرفته و بومی شد. در ادامه با استفاده از روش دیماتل به بررسی نحوه اتصال اجزا و بررسی کنشهای متقابل بین آن ها در بین خبرگان یک سازمان نظامی پرداخته شد. اعتبار پژوهش در بخش کیفی با روش حیاتی و کاپای کوهن و در بخش کمی با مراجعه به خبرگان مورد تایید قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که دو متغیر "مقدمات یادگیری" و "صیانت از دانش" به عنوان عواملی که بیشترین میزان مجموع اثرگذاری و اثر پذیری را دارا هستند( به ترتیب با مقادیر 2.0841 و 1.5240) در مجموعه عوامل به عنوان بازیگران مهمی شناخته میشوند. همچنین دو متغیر "مقدمات یادگیری" و " آموزش" دارای بیشترین مقدار تاثیر گذاری خالص(کسر میزان اثرگذاری از اثر پذیری) در مجموعه این عوامل، به ترتیب با مقادیر 0.9726 و 0.2763، را دارا بودند. از این رو این دو عامل به عنوان بیشترین تحریک کننده مجموعه عوامل به شمار آمده و نیاز است در طرحریزی ها مورد توجه قرار گرفته شوند. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
بعد دانشی نظام نوآوری؛ دیماتل خاکستری؛ فراترکیب؛ مدیریت دانش؛ نظام نوآوری؛ یادگیری و پژوهش | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
Modeling The Knowledge Dimension in The Innovation System with a Meta-Synthesis and Grey DEMATEL Approach | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Mohammadhassan Kamfiroozi1؛ Yaser Ghasemi2؛ Ali Taheri2؛ Mohsen Miri2؛ Hossein Bazargani2 | ||
1Doctoral Candidate of Systems Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
2Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Economics, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
The present research sought to extract a model from the knowledge dimension of the innovation system by examining the models and scientific literature about the role of knowledge in the innovation system to be presented in a defense organization and to discover the interactions between the components of the model. This research has been formed in the framework of the interpretative paradigm, with an applied and developmental approach, with a deductive-inductive strategy and a mixed method. The research data was collected in library and field and the sampling method was theoretical. The statistical population of this research was the scientific articles available in the research databases and were reviewed in full. In the quantitative part, the statistical population included experts in the field of innovation and university graduates. In this research, data collection tools, including the review of documents and documents, as well as the input matrix of the DEMATEL method were used in the form of a questionnaire. The research community was reviewed in the qualitative section, including specific scientific documents, using the theoretical sampling method. Also, in the quantitative part of the research community, the experts in this field were considered with the purposeful sampling method. In this research, using the meta-composite approach based on Barroso and Sandlovsky's approach, which includes seven basic steps, and the exploration of past researches, which according to the input criteria include scientific articles with a certain grade and after the year 2000, concepts are extracted and finally The components of the knowledge dimension of the innovation system were identified. These components, which were collected from 48 sources after screening the sources, were extracted in the form of 84 codes, which were placed in ten basic themes. These themes formed the knowledge dimension of the innovation system in the form of three categories of research, learning and knowledge management. In the following, by using the Dimetal method, the method of connecting the components and the interaction between them was investigated among the experts of a military organization. The validity of the research was confirmed in the qualitative part with the critical method and Cohen's kappa, and in the quantitative part by referring to experts. The results showed that the two variables "Preliminaries of learning" and "Protection of knowledge" are known as important players in the set of factors as factors that have the highest total effect and effectiveness (with values of 2.0841 and 1.5240, respectively). Also, two variables "Learning Introduction" and "Training" had the highest net impact value (deduction of impact from effectiveness) in the set of these factors, with values of 0.9726 and 0.2763, respectively. Therefore, these two factors are considered as the most stimulating factors and they need to be taken into consideration in the plans. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Innovation system, knowledge dimension of innovation system, Knowledge management, learning and research, meta- synthesis, Grey-DEMATEL | ||
مراجع | ||
Abou-Zeid, E., & Cheng, Q. (2004). The effectiveness of innovation: a knowledge management approach. International journal of innovation management, 8(3), 261-274. Ahmadi, M. M., Tavallaei, R., Mahdi, M., & Mohtadi, A. T. (2021) Investigating the trend of" Knowledge Acquisition" developments: A Scientometric analysis of Iranian and global research. Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge,4(12),1-49. [In Persian] Akhwan Peyman, Pezeshkan, Amir (2012), "Presentation of the framework of human resources strategies with emphasis on the knowledge dimension" Modares of Human Sciences - Management Researches in Iran, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 1-29[In Persian] Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. (2013). Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International small business journal, 31(4), 454-470. Araei, Mahmoud, Mohammadi Mehr, Mozhgan. (2019). Investigating the mediating role of organizational learning in the relationship between knowledge management and organizational innovation (case study: faculty members of a military university). Journal of Military Medicine, 22(4), 373-383[In Persian] Asadi, R., Rezghi Shirsawar, H., Mousavi, S., and Aali Farja, S. (2016). Evaluation of the national innovation system in the field of urban management in Tehran metropolis and providing a suitable model. New Perspectives in Human Geography Quarterly, 9(3), 223-246. [In Persian] Bench, S.; Day, T. (2010), “The user experience of critical care discharges: a metasynthesis of qualitative research”, International journal Of nursing studies, 47(4): 487-499. Chaithanapat, P., Punnakitikashem, P., Oo, N., & Rakthin, S. (2022). Relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, customer knowledge management, innovation quality and firm performance in SMEs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(1), 100162. Chen, J., Yin, X., & Mei, L. (2018). (2018). Holistic innovation: An emerging innovation paradigm. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2(1), 1-13. Choung, J. Y., Hwang, H. R. and Yang, H. (2006) “The Co-Evolution of Technology and Institution in the Korean Information and Communications Industry”. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 36, 1-3. Coombs, R., & Hull, R. (1998). 'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation. Research policy, 27(3), 239-256. Costa, V., & Monteiro, S. (2016). Key knowledge management processes for innovation: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 46(3), 386-410. Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation, and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(9), 101–115. Dehghani, H. (2014). The role of knowledge management in organizational innovation. Quarterly Journal of Technology Development, 10(39), 44-52.[In Persian] Demir, A., Budur, T., Omer, H. M., & Heshmati, A. (2021). Links between knowledge management and organisational sustainability: does the ISO 9001 certification have an effect?. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-14. Dickel, D., & de Moura, G. (2016). Organizational performance evaluation in intangible criteria: a model based on knowledge management and innovation management. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(3), 211-220. Diokti, M., Aghajani, H., Shir Khodayi, M., and Tehran Chian, A. (2018). Comparative comparison of the economic complexity of selected countries in the context of the national innovation system. Regional Economic and Development Research, 25(16), 123-87. [In Persian] Donate, M., & de Pablo, J. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of business research, 68(2), 360-370. Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of knowledge management.. 1(4), 20-29. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organizations.. Psychology Press. Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in society, 21(1), 63-79. Edquist, Ch. And Johnson, B. (1997). “Institutions and Organisations in Systems of Innovation”. In C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation-Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter. Europeia, C. (2013). Powering European public sector innovation: towards a new architecture. Report of the Expert Group on Public Sector Innovation, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Innovation Union, European Commission, Brussels. Faber, A., & Hoppe, T. (2013). Co-constructing a sustainable built environment in the Netherlands—Dynamics and opportunities in an environmental sectoral innovation system. Energy policy, 52, 628-638 Faqihi, A., Salimi, S. (2010). The study of the sector innovation system with an emphasis on determining the relationships between institutions, knowledge collaborations and functions. Iranian Management Sciences Quarterly, 4(13), 1-24. [In Persian] Falatoonitoosi, E., Leman, Z., & Sorooshian, S. (2012). Casual strategy mapping using integrated BSC and MCDM-DEMATEL. Journal of American Sciences, 8(5), 424-428. Fieldsend, A. F., Cronin, E., Varga, E., Bir?, S., & Rogge, E. (2021). 'Sharing the space'in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system: multi-actor innovation partnerships with farmers and foresters in Europe. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(4), 423-442. Finizadeh Bidgoli, Jafar. (2018). Examining the position of knowledge dimension in organizational architecture patterns (case study: security organizations). Protection and Security Research, 26(7), 27-54. [In Persian] Fontela E, Gabus A. The DEMATEL observer, DEMATEL 1976 report. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center; 1976. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Printer Publishers. Gaggioli, A. R. (2012). Networked flow: Towards an understanding of creative networks. Springer Science & Business Media. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva, Switz: Battelle Geneva Research Center. Ghazinoori, S. G. (2008). Extracting Solutions for Reforming Iran's National System of Innovation by Investigating Selected Countries. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 1(1), 64-80. Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C. and Rabellotti, R. (2005). “Upgrading in Global Value Chains: Lessons from Latin American Clusters”. World Development, 33(4), 549-573. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T. (2005). “The Governance of Global Value Chain”. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-100. Goh, A. (2005). Harnessing knowledge for innovation: An Harnessing knowledge for innovation: an integrated management framework. Journal of Knowledge management, 4(9), 6-18. Goodyear, P. B. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. In Goodyear, Banks. Hodgson & MacConnell (Ed.). Granstrand, O. (1994). The Economics of Technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Guo, B., Li, Q. and Chen, X. (2017). “The Rise to Market Leadership of a Chinese Automotive Firm: The Case of Geely”. In F. Malerba, S. Mani and P. Adams (eds.), The Rise to Market Leadership: New Leading Firms from Emerging Countries. Inc. USA: Edward Elgar. Hasirchi, A., Tavallaee, R., & Motahar, M. M. (2021). Designing a Model for Extracting Individuals' Knowledge and Organizational Experiences at the Strategic Level. Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 3(11), 101-136. [In Persian] Hopkins, D. (2003). Understanding Networks for Innovation, In Policy and Practice in Networks of Innovation: Towards New Models for Managing Schools and Systems. Paris: OECD. Horta, I., Camanho, A., & Da Costa, J. (2012). Performance assessment of construction companies: A study of factors promoting financial soundness and innovation in the industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 137(1), 84-93. Hoy, W. K. (2005). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Iizuka, M. (2009). “Low-Tech Industry: A New Path for Development? The Case of the Salmon Farming Industry in Chile”. In F. Malerba and S. Mani (eds.), Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production in Developing Countries. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar. Inkinen, H., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M. (2015). Knowledge management practices and innovation performance in Finland. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(4), 432-455. Jackson, D. &. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In Stoll & Louis (Ed.) Professional Learning Communities. Jensen, L.; Allen, M. (1996), “Meta- synthesis of qualitative findings”, Qualitative Health Research, 6(4): 553-560. Jin, J., & McKelvey, M. (2019). Building a sectoral innovation system for new energy vehicles in Hangzhou, China: Insights from evolutionary economics and strategic niche management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, 1-9. Jones, C. R. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: weak and strong ties. Journal of computer assisted learning, 24(2), 90-102. Kamali, Yahya. (2017). Metacomposite methodology and its application in public policy making, Politics Quarterly 47(3), pp. 721-736. [In Persian] Kargar Shahamat, B., Taghva, M. R., & Tabatabaiean, S. H. (2017). Iran’s Pharmaceutical Sectoral Innovation System. Journal of Pharmaceutical & Health Sciences, 5(3), 257-276. Kilcline, K., Dhubháin, Á. N., Heanue, K., O'Donoghue, C., & Ryan, M. (2021). Addressing the challenge of wood mobilisation through a systemic innovation lens: The Irish forest sector innovation system. Forest Policy and Economics, 128, 102461. Kim, J. Y., Park, T. Y. and Lee, K. (2013). “Catchup by Indigenous Firms in Software Industry and the Role of the Government in China: A Sectoral System of Innovation (SSI) Perspective”. Eurasian Business. Review, 3(1), 100-120. Kim, T., & Shin, D. H. (2016). Social platform innovation of open source hardware in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 217-226. Kolleck, N. (2013). Social network analysis in innovation research: using a mixed methods approach to analyze social innovations. European Journal of Futures Research, 1(1), 25-33. Lazarevic, D., Kautto, P., & Antikainen, R. (2020). Finland's wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction. Forest policy and economics, 110, 101861. Liao, S., & Wu, C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert systems with Applications, 37(2), 1096-1103. Lin, R., Che, R., & Ting, C. (2012). Turning knowledge management into innovation in the high‐tech industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(1), 42-63. Lundvall. 2016. "National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning." In The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, edited by B.-?. Lundvall, 85-106. London: Anthem Press. Mahmoudzadeh, A., and Alavinejad, A. (2018). Examining the relationship between knowledge management and organizational innovation (case study: social assistance and crime prevention in the judiciary). Scientific Research Quarterly of National Defense Strategic Management Studies, 7(2), 81-104 . [In Persian] Malerba, F. and Nelson, R. (2011). “Learning and Catching up in Different Sectoral Systems: Evidence from Six Industries”. Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 20, 6, 1645-1675. Malerba, F. and Orsenigo, L. (1997). “Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Manteghi, M. (2013). “The Automotive Industry: New Trends, Approaches and Challenges”. In A. S. Soofi and S. Ghazinoory (eds.), Science and Innovation in Iran: Developmet, Progress and Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan. Mardani, A., Nikoosokhan, S., Moradi, M., & Doustar, M. (2018). The relationship between knowledge management and innovation performance. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 29(1), 12-26. Martelo-Landroguez, S., & Cegarra-Navarro, J. (2014). Linking knowledge corridors to customer value through knowledge processes. . Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 342-365. McBriar, I., Smith, C., Bain, G., Unsworth, P., Magraw, S., & Gordon, J. (2003). Risk, gap and strength: key concepts in knowledge management. Knowledge-Based Systems, 16(1), 29-36. McKelvey, M., Orsenigo, L. and Pammolli, F. (2004), Pharmaceuticals Analyzed through the Lens of a Sectoral Innovation System”. In F. Malerba (ed.), Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Menaouer, B., Khalissa, S., Abdelbaki, B., & Abdelhamid, T. (2015). Towards a new approach of support innovation guided by knowledge management: Application on FERTIAL. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (210), 260-269. Mir, Ashkhasi, Namaki (2016), Investigating the relationship between knowledge management and innovation in the Islamic advertising organization, the third international conference on behavioral sciences and social studies. [In Persian] Motmeni, A., Rezaiyan, A., Alam Tabriz, A., and Nazari, A. (2016). Functional elements of cultural product innovation system. Basij Strategic Studies Quarterly, 19(73), 114-87. [In Persian] Moumiwand, Nouri, Eskandari, Akhwan (2021). Investigating the relationship between knowledge management and creativity and innovation in a military organization. Industrial Technology Development Quarterly, 19(45), 49-60, [In Persian] Mousavi, A. (2015). Innovation system in humanities. Humanities Methodology, 21(82), 143-169. [In Persian] Naqshbandi, M., & Jasimuddin, S. (2018). Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation: Role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals. International Business Review, 27(3), 701-713. Narula, Rajneesh, and Antonello Zanfei. "Globalisation of innovation." Handbook of innovation 19 (2005): 318-345. Nazarizadeh, F. (2013). Providing a model to evaluate innovation performance and its application in a defense industry. Industrial Engineering Master's Thesis, Tehran, Malek Ashtar University of Technology. [In Persian] Nelson, R. R. and Rosenberg, N. (1993). “Technical Innovation and National Systems”. In R. R. Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. . (2009). The knowledge-creating company. In The economic impact of knowledge (pp. 175-187) Routledge. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1996). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Long range planning, 4(92), 592. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2015). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. در essentials of knowledge management (p 95-110) London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(3), 209-217. Pavitt, K. (1984). “Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory”. Research Policy, 13, 6, 343-373. Rahimi, Soheili, Bastami, and Bahraminia. (2020). Investigating the relationship between knowledge management and service innovation in university libraries. Academic Library and Information Research, 54(1), 114-99. [In Persian] Rahimi M. (2020). The mediating role of organizational agility in the relationship between knowledge management and organizational innovation among municipal employees of Shiraz region. Publication: Applied Researches in Management and Accounting, Volume 5, Number 20, 23-33. [In Persian] Rezaian Fordoei, S., Fallah, H., Ghazi Nouri, S., and Ali Ahmadi, A. (2014). Modeling the relationship between knowledge management functions and performance indicators of the national innovation system. Strategy, 71(23), 167-191. [In Persian] Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2015). Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study.. Technovation, 35, 22-31. Sadeghi, A., & Rad, F. (2018). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management and innovation. Management Science Letters, 8(3), 151-160. Saghafi, F, Nabavi, S, and Manteghi, M. (2019). Explaining the factors affecting the formation of the sector innovation system (case study: general aviation of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Scientific-Research Quarterly of Command and Control, 3(3), 79-91.[In Persian] Salimi, A and Seyed Esfahani, M. (2007). Comparison of knowledge sharing and transfer at different levels of innovation systems. Modares Humanities Quarterly, 10(4), 77-110.[In Persian] Sandelowski, M.; Barros, J. (2007), Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research, Springer publishing company Inc. Sandelowski, M.,; Barroso, J. (2003), “Classifying the findings in qualitative studies”, Qualitative Health Research, No. 13: 905-923. Shaw, M., Subramaniam, C., Tan, G., & Welge, M. (2001). Knowledge management and data mining for marketing. Decision support systems, 31(1), 127-137. Shujahat, M., Sousa, M., Hussain, S., & Nawaz, F. (2019). Translating the impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based innovation: The neglected and mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity. Journal of Business Research(94), 442-450. Siva, V., Hoppe, T., & Jain, M. (2017). Green buildings in Singapore; analyzing a frontrunner’s sectoral innovation system. Sustainability, 9(6), 919. SUURS, R., & HEKKERT, M. (2012). Motors of Sustainable Innovation: Understanding Transitions from a Technological Innovation System’s Perspective: Roald Suurs and Marko Hekkert. In Governing the Energy Transition (pp. 163-190). Routledge. Tajpour, M., Hosseini, E., Mohammadi, M., & Bahman-Zangi, B. (2022). The effect of knowledge management on the sustainability of technology-driven businesses in emerging markets: The mediating role of social media. Sustainability, 14(14), 8602. Tarikhi, P., Abbassi, M. and Ashrafi, M. (2013). “Iran’s Aerospace Technology”. In A. S. Soofi and S. Ghazinoory (eds.), Science and Innovation in Iran: Developmet, Progress and Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2009). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2, 283-317. Torkaman, A. (2009). Comparison of the national innovation system of Brazil Japan and Russia in the airline industry. Journal of Technology Development, 6(21), 29-41. Tavallaei, R., Haghighi Boroujeni, P., & Khalili, H. (2021). An Investigation on the Effect of Knowledge Management on the Strategic and Operational Performance of Organizations Through the Application of Organizational Excellence Model (EFQM 2020). Scientific Journal of Strategic Management of Organizational Knowledge, 4(14), 141-174. [In Persian] Ulmanen, J., & Bergek, A. (2021). Influences of technological and sectoral contexts on technological innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 20-39. Velásquez, R. M. A., & Lara, J. V. M. (2021). Knowledge management in two universities before and during the COVID-19 effect in Peru. Technology in Society, 64, 101479. Wang, M., Chen, P., & Fang, S. (2018). A critical view of knowledge networks and innovation performance: The mediation role of firms' knowledge integration capability. Journal of Business Research, 88, 222-233. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert systems with applications, 39(10), 8899-8908. Webb C.; Roe, B. (Eds) (2007), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice, Oxford: Blackwell. Wood, P. (2000), “Meta-analysis”. In Glynis M. Breakwell, Sean Hammond & Chris FifeSchaw (Eds.), Research methods In psychology (2nd edition) (pp.414-425). London: Sage. Xie, X., Wang, L., & Zeng, S. (2018). Inter-organizational knowledge acquisition and firms' radical innovation: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Research(90), 295-306. Yongabo, P., & Göransson, B. (2022). Constructing the national innovation system in Rwanda: efforts and challenges. Innovation and Development, 12(1), 155-176. Zavareh, and Mobini Dehkordi. (2018). Identifying obstacles to defense technological innovation system management. Military Management Quarterly, 18(71), 132-158. [In Persian] Zhang, L., Lam, W., & Hu, H. (2013). Complex product and system, catch-up, and sectoral system of innovation: a case study of leading medical device companies in China. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 6(3), 283-302 Zia, N. (2020). Knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management behaviour and innovation performance in project-based SMEs. The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1819-1839. Zimmer L. (2006), “Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts”, Journal of Advanced Nursing 53(3): 311-318. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 266 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 304 |