Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

THE STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF KNOWLEDGE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - This approach presents marked differences with the predominant one in the previous stage:
        • Faced with the paradigm "market structure-behavior of the company-results" typical of the Industrial Organization, the Theory of Resources and Capacities raises the logic "resources of the company-position in the market1 -results".
        • Instead of the traditional approach to competitive analysis focused on products and markets, the point of view of this theory is to consider the company as a set of resources that make up its competitive advantages. Therefore, it goes from the business portfolio to the portfolio of resources, skills and competencies used in different businesses.
      - This perspective is based on a conception of the company as a repository of knowledge, capable of generating and applying it (Grant, 1996; Conner and Prahalad, 1996). It is considered an extension of the Theory of Resources and Capabilities, in which knowledge is valued as the most valuable resource that the company can possess (Zack, 1999).
        Polanyi (1966) classifies knowledge into two large categories, namely:
        • Coded or explicit knowledge, that is, that which can be transmitted through formal mechanisms.
        • Tacit knowledge, that is, that which is characterized by depending on people and, therefore, very complex to transmit.
        
        THE STRATEGIC PROCESS
        In the field of business, strategy can be considered from simply a guide for action, to a coherent, unified and integrating decision pattern aimed at achieving a sustainable competitive advantage, in order to maximize long-term benefits (Aparicio et al, 2000).
        STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
        In this phase of the strategy formation process, it is intended, based on the analysis of the environment that surrounds the company, both general and specific, and of the internal situation of the company itself, the identification of opportunities and threats, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, respectively.
        
        Human Capital. Set of skills and knowledge (explicit or tacit) useful for the company that the worker owns and that he takes with him at the end of the working day.
        Structural Capital. Knowledge that remains in the company at the end of the working day when people go home or leave work.
        
        Technological Capital: we can distinguish two basic components: technology (stock) and the process of technological innovation (flow) (Nieto, 2001).
        
        Organizational Capital: facilitates the improvement in the flow of knowledge and results in an improvement in the effectiveness of the organization by adequately integrating the different functions of the company (Martín and García, 2001).
        
        -Relational Capital. Set of relationships that the company maintains abroad, both with clients, suppliers and partners, as well as with other border agents (universities, administrations, etc.).
- - - - Strategic analysis process according to the theory of resources and capabilities
        
        Identify and classify human and organizational resources: assess strengths and weaknesses in relation to competitors to improve the use of human resources.
        
        Identify the key capabilities of the company: identify HR and organizational that offer organizational capabilities different from the competition and analyze their complexity. These capabilities are very difficult to detect.
        
        Assess the income-generating potential of resources and capacities in terms of: their potential as a sustainable competitive advantage and the appropriability of their returns.
        
        Select the general and personnel strategy that best exploits human resources and capacities in relation to external opportunities.
        
        Identify the HR gaps that need to be covered.
- - - - According to González et al. (2016), knowledge-based organizations are those whose main object and resource is the transformation of knowledge, to obtain innovation, learning and improvement in techniques, which will be applied in innovation, research and development projects (R&D ), and training and learning for the production of new knowledge (Lundvall, 1999).
        
        In this context, Csaszar (2012) explored how structure influenced organizational performance, and defined it as the decision-making structure within a group of individuals.
        The organizational structure integrates the way in which work is divided and tasks are coordinated, depending on the consistency or internal balance that organizations seek.
        
        Consequently, according to Fernández, Sánchez and Rico (2001), the relationships between organizational structure and strategic processes are conceived as interdependent elements that must be complemented to achieve high organizational performance.
- - - - Fernández Enguita (2002, 38) affirms that the organization of the school can be seen from a systemic perspective in three increasing levels of complexity:
        
        Aggregate level (individual elements, teaching staff);
        
        Level of Structure (first plane for the relationship between people);
        
        System level (relationships between relationships, functions they perform in the environment).
        
        Schools, although they have the same organs, can function in the three aforementioned ways.
        
        We have coercive isomorphism when an organization must adopt measures as a consequence of formal or informal pressures exerted by other organizations on which it depends (the Educational Administration, for example, the Inspection, etc.) the mimetic is the result of imitating organizations with success; and the normative refers to the application of norms shared by different organizations.