دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 21582
عنوان فارسی مقاله

مطالعه تجربی کسب دانش ضمنی کارگاهی در شرکت های تولیدی چینی

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
21582 2004 13 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
An empirical study of shop floor tacit knowledge acquisition in Chinese manufacturing enterprises
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Volume 34, Issue 4, October 2004, Pages 249–261

کلمات کلیدی
دانش - کسب دانش ضمنی - کارگاه - شرکت - هوش -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله مطالعه تجربی کسب دانش ضمنی کارگاهی در شرکت های تولیدی چینی

چکیده انگلیسی

China’s WTO entry has led to further market reforms and openness. China’s manufacturing enterprises are realizing that they have to strive to survive in the increasingly competitive market. One of the ways to attain a better competitive edge is to use new technologies. However, research has found that there are many hurdles to successful implementation of new technologies. As the shop floor of a manufacturing enterprise is where most computerized and automated systems are located and used, this research focuses on the shop floor of China’s manufacturing enterprises in the context of computerization and automation. This empirical study started out with four research hypotheses. The test of these hypotheses was conducted through a questionnaire survey. The research found that tacit knowledge acquisition (TKA) on the shop floor could be measured quantitatively. The study identified nine factors that are associated with TKA. Among them, “technical professionals” play a significant role on TKA. The study leads to the development of a set of quantitative models that can be used to predict, analyze, assess, and improve the quality of TKA and performance of shop floor.

مقدمه انگلیسی

Research into tacit knowledge acquisition (TKA) can be traced back to the study of intelligence. Intelligence is defined differently by different researchers such as Neisser (1979), Gardner (1993), Eysenck (1994) and Valsiner and Leung (1994). To most of us, intelligence generally means the ability to learn, understand, think, create, and innovate. It is a conscious activity rather than an instinct. For over one hundred years, there have been numerous studies on intelligence (e.g. Spearman, 1927; Thurstone, 1938; Wechsler, 1944; Guilford, 1967; Vygotsky, 1978; Sternberg, 1985; Boykin, 1986; Sternberg and Kagan, 1986; Lave, 1988; Ceci, 1990; Horn, 1991; Armour-Thomas and Gopaul-McNicol, 1998). These studies have deepened our understanding of the nature and application of intelligence. In particular, the study of practical intelligence has great significance in real world settings (e.g. Sternberg (1982) and Sternberg (1997); Sternberg and Caruso, 1985; Sternberg and Wagner, 1989; Sternberg, et al., 1993). Practical intelligence concerns problem solving, problem finding, and knowledge acquisition. For most situations, knowledge acquisition is the basis of problem finding and problem solving. Knowledge, generally, may be classified into two kinds: academic knowledge and practical knowledge. According to Sternberg and Caruso (1985), “Academic knowledge, can be either procedural or declarative, but if it is procedural, it is procedural knowledge not relevant to one's everyday life” while practical knowledge has “both real world relevance and procedural (action) consequence. Information that does not satisfy these two constraints is viewed as academic.” In contrast to academic knowledge, acquired through declarative instruction (e.g. in school), practical knowledge derives from practical know-how, experienced in situations where information is generally not openly or explicitly expressed (e.g. on a job). Another major difference between practical and academic knowledge is that: academic knowledge plays a primary role in solving academic problems (Chi et al., 1988), but in general, contributes much less to practical problem solving. In everyday situations, the key to solving problems appears to be informal or tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, an instantiation of practical knowledge acquired in situations where the information is not openly expressed (i.e. tacit), is, in turn, hard to articulate and as a result, usually not explicitly verbalized or taught. Tacit knowledge is a tangible factor in achieving success in the workplace (Colonia-Willner, 1999). Tacit knowledge is practical know-how that one picks up on a job or in everyday kinds of situations, rather than through formal instruction (Sternberg et al., 1993). Sternberg et al. (1993) distinguished three kinds of workplace tacit knowledge: tacit knowledge about managing oneself, about managing others, and about managing tasks. Tacit knowledge about managing oneself refers to the knowledge about the self-motivational and self-organizational aspects of work-related performance. Tacit knowledge about managing others refers to the knowledge useful in work-related interactions with one's subordinates, superiors, and peers. Finally, tacit knowledge about managing tasks refers to the knowledge about how to do specific work-related tasks well. There are two contexts of tacit knowledge, depending upon the time frame within which the tacit knowledge would be used. A local context refers to a concern with short-term accomplishment. The focus is on the situation at hand, for example, how to carry out the tasks one faces on a given day. A global context refers to a concern with long-term accomplishment. The focus is on how the situation at hand fits into the bigger picture, for example, how to get a promotion. Two orientations of tacit knowledge can also be distinguished. One way to judge ideas, solutions and products is in terms of their idealistic or absolute quality, without regard to their practicality. A second way is to judge them in pragmatic terms, that is, in terms of how workable they are. Because the three kinds of tacit knowledge are orthogonal to the two contexts and two orientations, combining them would yield twelve (3×2×2)—element tacit knowledge “cube” (see Fig. 1). Fig. 1. The tacit knowledge framework (From Wagner and Sternberg, 1991). Figure options The other question is how to measure tacit knowledge. Wagner and Sternberg (1985) devised a method of presenting scenarios to individuals that depicted the kinds of problems faced by people in a given life pursuit. Examinees make judgment about these scenarios that require them to have and exploit tacit knowledge. The measures are not simply measures of whether or not individuals have tacit knowledge, but measures of whether they have and then can use it. They tested tacit knowledge with this method on a variety of people, such as professional psychologists, business managers, bank managers, and salespeople. Following Sternberg et al. (1993) and Colonia-Willner (1998) and Colonia-Willner (1999) studied practical intelligence among managers in the banking environment. Two hundred bank managers’ tacit practical knowledge was assessed using the Tacit Knowledge Inventory for Managers and two psychometric measures of the Different Aptitude Test. This study reported two useful findings: age is related to measures of psychometric reasoning, but less so to the tacit knowledge measure; and tacit practical knowledge is associated with managerial success. Furthermore, Lyles and Salk (1996) studied TKA in International Joint Ventures (IJVs) in Hungary. They examined organizational characteristics, structural mechanisms and contextual factors that influence TKA from the foreign parents of IJVs in Hungary. They in turn related assessments of TKA to IJV performance. Adaptation mechanisms (such as capacity to learn, articulated goals), and structural mechanisms (such as the provision of training, technology and managerial assistance by foreign parents), all were positively associated with the degree to which IJVs reported acquiring knowledge from their foreign parents. They also looked at the relationship between knowledge acquisition and different dimensions for evaluating IJV performance. The relationship between TKA and performance was significant for all indicators of performance, though knowledge acquisition from the foreign parent and organizational characteristics affected some dimensions of performance more than others. The present research aims at identifying the impact factors that influence TKA on the shop floors of Chinese manufacturing enterprises, defining the concept of performance of shop floor, building the relationships between TKA, performance of the shop floor and the impact factors, and developing a set of models through field surveys and empirical evidence in order to predict, analyze, assess, and improve TKA and the performance of the shop floor. The review of literature indicates that this is still an unfilled gap at present in China. In this paper, we focus on the setting up of our research hypotheses and discussion of the research findings.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.