مقایسۀ علم‏‌سنجی مفاهیم راهبرد دانش و راهبرد مدیریت دانش

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران

2 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی (مدیریت اطلاعات و دانش)، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر تحلیل و مقایسه مفاهیم راهبرد دانش و راهبرد مدیریت دانش بر اساس آثار نمایه شده در وبگاه علم است. پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی، و از نظر روش‌شناسی، توصیفی با رویکرد علم‌سنجی است که در آن از فنون تحلیل هم‌واژگانی و تحلیل شبکه استفاده شده است. جامعه پژوهش تولیدات علمی مرتبط با موضوع راهبرد دانش و راهبرد مدیریت دانش در وبگاه علم است. نرم افزارهای هیست سایت ، اکسل و گفی جهت تحلیل داده‌ها و ووس‌ویور جهت ترسیم نقشه‌ها استفاده شده است. در حوزه راهبرد دانش 404 اثر و در حوزه راهبرد مدیریت دانش 720 اثر در وبگاه علم نمایه شده است. کشورهای ایالات متحده و چین بیشترین تولیدات را در حوزه‌های راهبرد دانش و راهبرد مدیریت دانش داشته‌اند. براتیانو و بیرلی به ترتیب بیشترین تولیدات و استنادات را در حوزه راهبرد دانش و گرندینتی و هانسن، نوهریا و تیرنی به ترتیب بیشترین تولیدات و استنادات را در حوزه راهبرد مدیریت دانش به خود اختصاص داده‌اند. حوزه‌ اقتصاد کسب و کار بیشترین سهم را در تولید آثار هر دو حوزه داشته است. دانشگاه‌ پادوآ بیشترین مشارکت را در هر دو حوزه داشته است. واژگان آثار راهبرد دانش 5 خوشه و آثار راهبرد مدیریت دانش 8 خوشه تشکیل دادند. 534 کلیدواژه مشترک در خوشه‌های موضوعی این دو حوزه وجود دارد. کلیدواژه‌های راهبرد دانش، مدیریت دانش و نوآوری؛ در حوزه راهبرد دانش و کلیدواژه‌های مدیریت دانش، راهبرد مدیریت دانش و نوآوری در حوزه راهبرد مدیریت دانش به ترتیب دارای بیشترین مرکزیت‌های درجه، نزدیکی و بینابینی هستند. روند رشد تولیدات علمی دو حوزه صعودی بوده و تعداد بیشتر تولیدات و استنادات حوزه راهبرد مدیربت دانش نشان از توجه بیشتر پژوهشگران به این حوزه در سطح بین‌الملل و ایران دارد. حوزه پژوهشی علم اطلاعات در آثار پژوهشی راهبرد دانش مشارکت بیشتری نسبت به حوزه علم رایانه دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing and comparing the concepts of knowledge strategy and knowledge management strategy from a research perspective

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sepideh Fahimifar 1
  • somayyeh Jafari 2
1 university of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Given the difference between knowledge strategy and knowledge management strategy the aim of the present study is to analyze and compare knowledge strategy and knowledge management strategy researches. The present study is a descriptive-scientific approach that uses co-word and social network analysis techniques. The research community is the scientific studies of the knowledge strategy and knowledge management strategy in the WOS. Histcite, Excel, and Gephi softwares were used to analyze the data and VOS to draw the maps. The United States and China have the highest productions in the areas of knowledge strategy and knowledge management strategy. Bratiano and Birli have the highest productions and citations in the field of knowledge strategy, and Hansen, Neuchrea and Tierney have the highest productions and citations in the field of knowledge management strategy. The business economy has contributed the most to the production of works in both fields. Padua University has the largest participation in both fields. The vocabulary of the knowledge strategy constitutes 5 clusters and the knowledge management strategy constitutes 8 clusters. There are 534 common keywords in the thematic clusters of these two areas. The growth trend of scientific products of two fields is ascending and more products and citations in the field of knowledge management strategy show more attention of researchers to this field. The field of information science has more participation in research works of knowledge strategy than the field of computer science.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • knowledge strategy
  • knowledge management strategy
  • scientometrics
  • co-word
  • knowledge map
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., and Leydesdorff, L. (2012). “Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks”. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), pp. 403-412.
Ahmadi, H., Osareh, F. (2017). “Co-word Analysis Concept, Definition and Application”. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 28(1), pp. 125-145. {In Persian}
Ahmadi, H. and Kokabi, M. (2015). “Co-word analysis: a study on the links and boundaries between information and knowledge management according to Iranian press authors”. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 30(3), pp.647-676. {In Persian}
Akhavan, P., Ebrahim, N. A., Fetrati, M. A., and Pezeshkan, A. (2016). “Major trends in knowledge management research: a bibliometric study”. Scientometrics. 107(3), pp. 1249-1264.
 
Akhavan, P., and Bagheri, R. (2010). “Knowledge management: from idea to action”. Tehran: Atingar. {In Persian}
Brown, R. B., and Guilding C. (1993). “Knowledge and the academic accountant: An empirical study”. Journal of Accounting Education, 11(1), pp. 1-13.
Biranvand, A., Shabani, A., Asemi, A., cheshmaeh Sohrabi, M. (2019). “Mapping Intellectual Structure of Commercialization of Knowledge Research: Using Co-Word Analysis and Science Visualization”. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 11(Special Issue: Knowledge Management), pp. 45-66. {In Persian}
Buckman, R. H. (1999). “Collaborative knowledge”. Human resource planning, 22(1), pp. 22-24.
Cuellar, M. J., Takeda, H., Vidgen, R., and Truex, D. (2016). “Ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation: Making an assessment of scholarly capital”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 3.
Callahan, S. (2002). “Crafting a knowledge strategyˮ. In ACT Knowledge Management Forum (ActKM) Conference.
Dattero, R. (2006). “Collaboration between the top knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers”. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(4), pp. 264-269.
Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., and Foo, S. (2001). “Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis”. Information processing & management، 37(6), pp. 817-842.
du Toit, A., and Steyn, P. (2011). “Knowledge management as a strategic managementtool at a South African enterprise”. African Journal of Business Management, 5(13), pp. 5083-5091.
Erfanmanesh, M., Arshadi, H. (2015). “Co-authorship Network of Institutions in Iranian Knowledge and Information Science Papers”. Journal of Academic librarianship and Information Research, 49(1), pp. 79-99. {In Persian}
GAO. (2004). “Major Management Challenges and Programm Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective”. General Accounting Officer Report GAO, 1(21).
Han, P., Shi, J., Li, X., Wang, D., Shen, S., and Su, X. (2014). “International collaboration in LIS: global trends and networks at the country and institution level”. Scientometrics, 98(1), pp. 53-72.
Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
He, Q. (1999). “Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis”. Library Trends. 48(1), pp. 133-159.
Kasten, J. (2007). “Knowledge strategy and its influence on knowledge organization. Proceedings of the North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization”. NASKO, 1(1), p. 100-104.
Keshtkar, M., Narimani, A. (2013). “A study of knowledge management pattern and proposition of a knowledge strategy formulation model in a research center”. Military Science and Tactics, 9(23), pp. 27-54.  {In Persian}
Khademi, R., Heidari, G. (2016). “Mapping the intellectual structure of Information Management using Co-words during 1986 to 2012”. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 2(2), pp. 59-93.{In Persian}
Kim, Y. G., Yu, S. H., and Lee, J. H. (2003). “Knowledge strategy planning: methodology and case”. Expert systems with applications, 24(3), pp. 295-307.
Law, J., and Whittaker, J. (1992). “Mapping acidification research: A test of the co-word method”. Scientometrics, 23(3), 417-461.
 
Lee, P.C., and Su, H. N. (2011). “Quantitative mapping of scientific research-The case of electrical
conducting polymer nanocomposite”. Technological forecasting and social change, 78(1), pp. 132-151.
Ma, Z. and Yu, K. H. (2010). “Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management studies: 1998‐2007”. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), pp. 175-189.
Mahdieh, O. (2010). “Knowledge Management and Competitive Strategy of the Company: The Role of Strategic Reference Points”. Technology Development Quarterly, 6(23), pp. 15-27. {In Persian}
Najafi, H., Aghdasi, M., Teimurpoor, B. (2017). “Designing Knowledge Map for Knowledge Management projects Using Network Analysis”. Journal of Information Technology Management, 9(3), pp. 637-657. {In Persian}
Norouzi Chakoli A. (2012). “The Role and Situation of the Scientometrics in Development”. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 27 (3):723-736. {In Persian}
Perçin, S. (2010). “Use of analytic network process in selecting knowledge management strategies”. Management Research Review. 33(5), pp. 452- 471.
Ponzi, L. (2002). “The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development”. Scientometrics, 55(2), pp. 259-272.
Radfar, A. (2012). “Review of specialized books and articles published in the field of library and information in 1390”. Journal of knowledge studies, 5(18), pp. 35-50. {In Persian}
Ramezani, H., Alipour-Hafezi, M., Momeni, E. (2014). “Scientific Maps: Methods and Techniques”. Popularization of Science, 5(1), pp. 53-84. {In Persian}
Rezaeeyan, A., Mohammad Ahmadvand, A., and Tavallaee, R. (2010). “The Study of Knowledge Management Strategy and Knowledge Strategy in Organizations”. Police Organizational Development, 6(27), pp. 33-64. {In Persian}
Salemi, N. and Koosha, K. (2014). “Co-citation Analysis and Co-word Analysis in Bibliometrics Mapping: A Methodological Evaluation”. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 29(1), pp.253-266. {In Persian}
Salemi, N., Fadaei, G., Asareh, F. (2014). “Social Network Analysis in Evaluation of criteria for the use of bibliometric”. Journal of knowledge studies, 7(25), pp. 81-88. {In Persian}
Sedighi, M., and Jalalimanesh, A. (2017). “Mapping research trends in the field of knowledge management”. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 19)1(, pp. 71-85.
Sedighi, M., (2015). “Using of co-word analysis method in mapping of the structure of scientific fields (case study: The field of Informetrics)”. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 30(2), pp.373-396. {In Persian}
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2004). “Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: Citation impact and research productivity rankings”. Knowledge and process management, 11(3), pp. 185-198.
Serenko, A and Bontis, N. (2013). “Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals: 2013 update”. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), pp. 307-326.
Shiffrin, R., Borner, K. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains. National academy of science of the U.S.A., 101(1), 5183-5185.
Sharifzadeh, F., Budlaei, H. (2008). “Knowledge management in administrative, production and service organizations”. Tehran: Jahade Daneshgahi (Allameh Tabatabai University) {In Persian}
Shekofteh, M. and Hariri, N., (2013). “Scientific mapping of medicine in Iran using subject category co-citation and socialn network analysis”. Journal of Health Administration (JHA), 16(51), pp.43-59. {In Persian}
Shokriehzadeh, P., Zalzadeh, E., Soheili, F. (2017). “Drawing the Structure of Scientific Domains Using Co-word Method: A Case Study of Kermanshah Province Agricultural Studies”. Scientometrics Research Journal, 3(5), pp. 85-96. {In Persian}
Short, T. (2000). “Components of a knowledge strategy: Keys to successful knowledge mamangement”. Srikantaiah and Koenig [915], knowledge management for the information professional, Medford. Nj., pp. 351-363.
Silva, R., Leal, C., Marques, C. S., and Ferreira, J. (2017). “The strategic knowledge management, innovation and competitiveness: a bibliometric analysis”. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Academic Conferences International Limited, Maribor, Portugal: Lisbon, 6 – 9 April, pp. 303.
Soheili, F., Osareh, F. (2013). “Concepts of Centrality and Density in Scientific and Social Networks”. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 24(3), pp. 92-108. {In Persian}
Soheili, F., Khasseh, A., koranian, P. (2018). “Thematic trends of concepts in Knowledge and Information Science based on co-word analysis in Iran”. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 29(2), pp. 171-190. {In Persian}
Tectem (2001). Benchmarking project knowledge management. Benchmarking center. University st. gallen, switzerlang. Screening report: 37.Tiwana, A. (1999). “The Knowledge Management Toolkit, Prentice Hall”. Available at: http://sgpwe.izt.uam.mx/files/users/uami/dml/Tiwana_Amrit_1999_Knowledge_Manage ment_Toolkit1.pdf, Accessed: 94.08.24.
Van den Besslaar, P., and Heimeriks, G. (2006). “Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study”. Scientometrics, 68(3), pp. 377–393.
Zach, M. H. (1999). “Developing a knowledge strategy”. California management review, 41(3), pp. 125-145.
Zolfaghari, S., Tavakkoli, M., Mirzaei, A., Soheili, F., Sajjadian, M. (2016). “The Application of Patent Co-Word Map Analysis in Technical Knowledge Disclosure”. National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization, 27(3), pp. 147-159. {In Persian}
Zolfaghari, S., Soheili, F., Tavakkolizadeh Ravari, M., Mirzaei, A. (2015). “A Patents’ Co-word Analysis for Determining the Subject Trends of Technology”. Rahyaft, 25(59), pp. 51-64. {In Persian}