Article of Organizational Performance Evaluation PDF
Article of Organizational Performance Evaluation PDF
Article of Organizational Performance Evaluation PDF
com
Abstract
Today innovation and knowledge management are determining factors for success and continuity of organizations. However, because they are
considered intangibles, their measurement becomes a challenge. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a model to measure organizational
performance with a focus on knowledge management and innovation management. To be able to do that, we used a quantitative research study,
characterized as a multi-case study applied to three companies in the metal-mechanic sector in southern Brazil. The methodology uses the
assumptions of well-known methods such as the Key Performance Indicators, the Swing Weighting and Simple Attribute Rating Technique. With
the results, it could be seen that the proposed model can be an effective tool for assessing organizational performance and that, in its application,
the surveyed organizations could already identify their main weaknesses and use the results reported to improve its management.
© 2016 Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP.
Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.06.005
1809-2039/© 2016 Departamento de Administração, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo – FEA/USP. Published
by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
212 D.G. Dickel, G.L. Moura / RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13 (2016) 211–220
of the management of its knowledge? Innovation and knowl- their processes to the managers (Parmenter, 2012; Samsonowa,
edge management are now considered intangible assets and, 2012).
therefore, their measurements become a big challenge for orga- Fernandes (2006) highlights an important topic about the per-
nizations. Thus, in view of the presented topic, the objective of formance evaluation, to clarify that the expected results may
this study was to develop a model to measure organizational differ between the various stakeholders in the performance of
performance with a focus on knowledge management and inno- an organization. Notably, the owners seek maximum return on
vation management. Therefore, it was considered necessary to investment (ROI), employees seek maximum payment and cus-
build a measurement tool; to apply the proposed tool to evaluate tomers call for innovative high quality products at the lowest
its effectiveness; to analyze the performance index obtained in price, so the main goal is often a conflict between these groups.
the surveyed organizations; and to compare the results obtained Thus, it is important to outline to whom the performance mea-
from the companies surveyed to identify key areas for perfor- surement system is destined and to which strategic vision it
mance improvement. aligns.
This research is justified by the imminent growth on the Several models are available in the scientific literature related
issue of knowledge management and also the importance of to performance measurement, each one with features that seek
the subject associated with innovation. In the same vein, with to track the rapidly changing global market. This concern was
competition increasing and intensifying the race to get ahead, demonstrated by Neely (2002), which notes the growing expan-
innovation becomes an important strategy for growth and even sion on researching this theme.
survival for organizations. This work is also justified by the con- Amidst all these proposals, a compilation made by
tribution to the business world as it seeks to explain and solve, Neuenfeldt Júnior (2014) presents in a summary form some of
through the scientific method, phenomena that are part of the the models considered most relevant to the performance mea-
daily routine of companies. It is also important to mention the surement as well as their main features, as it can be seen in
subjectivity involved in the constructor of innovation and knowl- Table 1.
edge management because they are intangible. In this line, it is a This list of possibilities, however, should not be understood
very big challenge to measure the performance of organizations as isolated models but as flexible options able to adjust the best
in these respects. This study contributes to a tool that enables possible way to the reality intended to be modeled, leaving to
this measurement. the user of the tool the responsibility to be sensible enough to
The work is divided into four sections besides this introduc- do that, since even the scientific literature does not present a
tion. The second section offers a brief review of the literature consensus of which method is most appropriate.
on the concepts involving knowledge management and innova- Adding to this, publications that are intended to iden-
tion management. In the third, there is a complete explanation tify desirable attributes in performance measurement sys-
of the methodology used for the study. In the fourth, the results tems such as the study by Figueiredo, Macedo-Soares,
achieved by applying the proposed method are reported. The Fuks, and Figueiredo (2005) stand out, which identified the fol-
fifth section seeks to make an overview of the work, ending it lowing nine characteristics based on the analysis of different
with the book references. bibliographic sources: organizational learning; critical analysis;
balancing; clarity; dynamism; integration; alignment; participa-
Systems for organizational performance measurement tion; and causal relationship. The author also lectures on each of
these attributes, in an attempt to guide the reader in the choice
The process of performance measurement is considered one of an evaluation model. Accordingly, Simons (2009) argues on
of the key elements of strategic management, being able to iden- four points of view that should support the construction of a
tify the gap between the current situation of an organization and performance measurement system:
the level of excellence to be considered, by proposing goals that
are aligned with strategic planning and the use of indicators
(Hill & Jones, 2012; Kaplan & Norton, 2008). The proposal of (a) Its function should be to transmit basic information about
using indicators is based on the fact that tangible and intangi- the case either having economic focus or not;
ble factors, such as innovation, can always be measured, as long (b) It must contain routines and standard procedures;
as they use well-defined metrics, routines that operationalize the (c) It should promote cross-checks that allow the systemic view
data collection and standardized measurement scales, translating of the business, not the exact representation of processes’
scattered data into useful information for managing production data.
units (Hubbard, 2009; Olson & Slater, 2002). (d) It should focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness
Takashina and Flores (1996) say that the use of indicators of processes, directed to the goals.
plays essential role in planning and control activities, since
they enable the establishment of quantifiable goals that help in
anticipating future events and monitoring of current processes, In light of the desirable characteristics for a performance
assisting in decision-making and in the pursuit of operational measurement system, the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
excellence. Consequently, the provision of these tools con- stand out. Parmenter (2012) states that there is a general
tributes to both innovation and knowledge managements when misunderstanding about the tool because many organizations
promoting mechanisms that bring back robust information on use measurements that, despite returning valuable information,
D.G. Dickel, G.L. Moura / RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13 (2016) 211–220 213
Table 1
Methods for performance measurement.
Method Key features
Management by objectives (APO) Effort directed technique through planning and administrative control, in which the goals are set together between
manager and his superior and responsibilities are specified for each position according the expected results.
KPI Tool used to assess the status of certain activity, so that the levels of an organization understand how their jobs affect the
business.
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Translates the organization’s strategy into a set of measures that carry out the measurement of its performance in order
to achieve the main strategic goals set.
Three Levels of Performance Considers the establishment of three levels (organization, process, and performer) of performance, so that a company or
system can be assessed from the implementation of these vertices.
Mckinsey 7-S Management model developed to understand seven factors considered determining for effective change in an
organization.
Baldrige It aims to provide assistance to companies when it comes to stimulating the improvement of their quality and
productivity by providing the necessary information to reach a high level of qualification of their processes
Quantum Model proposed in order to associate mission, strategy, goals and processes within the organization, working with an
array in three dimensions: quality, cost and time, seeking balance between these.
Performance Prism It is a methodology that aims to integrate the processes in order to create value for the stakeholders in the system,
starting from indicators that refer the status in which the management is.
cannot be considered KPIs. To define which are and which are services (Friedman, 2005). The world is moving from an
not KPIs, the author frames the indicators under four groups: industrial age, based on natural resources, to an era of knowl-
edge, based on skills, education and research and development.
(a) Key Results Indicators (KRIs) express the performance Knowledge has emerged as a key source of jobs and economic
achieved in a perspective of the Balanced Scorecard or growth in the global economy because it is the basis for innova-
critical success factors; tion (Gulbranson & Audretsch, 2008).
(b) Result Indicators (RIs) express any result achieved; Organizational knowledge provided improvements in the
(c) Performance Indicators (PIs) express what should be done; course of processes, activities, competitiveness and growth of
(d) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) express what should be organizations. The characterization of knowledge as the most
done to boost performance dramatically. important production asset of the organizations is the central
aspect of the twenty-first century society, standing out from the
As it can be seen, KPIs are a set of special indicators that traditional assets such as hand labor, capital and technology.
reflect in a quantitative and condensed way the performance of Before, the central value was the mass production of goods, val-
a specific sector of the organization as a whole, affecting not ued for its materiality. Today the central position is occupied
just one but multiple perspectives of the BSC or critical suc- by ideas, information and digital codes, valued in its materi-
cess factors (CSF) (Dransfield, Fischer, & Vogel, 1999; Meyer, ality producer of innovation, creativity and service (Nicolás &
2003; Parmenter, 2012; Samsonowa, 2012). Thus, the use of Cerdán, 2012; Zabot & Silva, 2002).
KPI assumes to establish a strategy with a target they want to Although there are numerous approaches to conceptualize
reach (objective KPI), and through it unfold the CSF, where the knowledge management, there is a consensus that it is a struc-
correct identification of these corresponds mainly to the suc- tured approach to creation, codification, use, exchange and
cessful implementation of the methodology (Parmenter, 2012; retention of knowledge to meet the organizational challenges
Samsonowa, 2012). and to create additional value (Rowlei, 2000; Tobin, 1998). Con-
Finally, the use of KPIs as a performance measurement sys- temporary organizations are a result of the knowledge they and
tem can be considered as an updated tool because of the theme other individuals and groups have built in the past and continue
recurrence in scientific works. Recent publications by Janes and to build through the experience they have and the changes that
Faganel (2013), Flipse et al. (2013), Dombrowski, Schmidtchen, occur all the time (Rodan & Galunic, 2004; Zabot & Silva, 2002).
and Ebentreich (2013), May et al. (2014), Sánchez (2014) and Knowledge can provide sustainable advantage, since over
Galar, Berges, Sandborn, and Kumar (2014) are some of the lat- time competitors can usually even the price or quality of the
est examples that address KPIs and show this subject is being products offered by a company. Meanwhile, the company that
widely explored by the scientific community today. is rich in knowledge will be able to reach a new level of quality,
creativity and efficiency. The advantage of knowledge is sus-
Knowledge management tainable because it generates increasing returns by using tools
that competition does not know (Chou, Wang, & Tang, 2015).
Although manufacturing still have fundamental importance The relevance of knowledge as a base for innovation requires
for development, globalization has changed the concept of exploration and interaction of different sources for its achieve-
competitiveness of developed economies, moving away the stan- ment. With all the resources available now and the speed with
dardized manufacturing activities from the knowledge-based how changes are happening, there is a growing demand for
214 D.G. Dickel, G.L. Moura / RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13 (2016) 211–220
combination of sources, information and knowledge, facilitated 2008; Yam et al., 2011; Forsman, 2011; Alves et al., 2011). How-
by the proper management of these resources. This led to a ever, other inputs are still needed to consolidate the concepts of
substantial increase in the degree of interaction between organi- innovation, since this mapping out is very complex and involves
zations (Chen & Fong, 2015). all areas of the organization.
The current meaning of competitiveness covers not only per- The contribution of Schumpeter (1984) proved to be very rich
formance excellence and technical efficiency of companies or in understanding the importance of innovation in organizations.
products, it also covers the ability to develop systematic pro- The author points to a form of holistic innovation in order to
cesses to search for new opportunities and overcome technical determine dimensions for innovation, arguing that it can come
and organizational obstacles via production and application of in the dimension of a new product, a new process, in the search
knowledge. Innovation management seeks to bring together the for new markets, developing new sources of raw materials or
mechanisms and instruments as well as the methodologies and new market structures. He also says that innovation involves
forms of organization that can guarantee the ability to innovate combining different types and parts of knowledge and turning
in organizations based on knowledge acquired inside and outside them into new useful products and services to the market and
the company (Carnongia et al., 2004). society.
However, there is still a lot of difficulty in the adoption of From that, other authors also advocate for innovation mod-
knowledge management practices by organizations and part of els that not only run from the concept of product innovation.
the reason for the possible failure of knowledge management The models by Utterback (1970), Pugh (1991), Thomas (1993)
initiatives is justified by skepticism because of the inability and Levy (1998) emphasize the market as a source of ideas for
to develop metrics to measure the success of these practices. the development of new products and processes. Cooper (1993,
Knowledge management deals with intangible assets and for 1994, 2008), Khurana and Rosenthal (1998), Goffin and Mitchell
that reason it might be difficult to measure the benefits, but (2010), Rozenfeld et al. (2006) and Coral et al. (2008) highlight
management needs to know in depth the benefits in terms of the organizational strategy as driving element to the beginning
added value, derived from knowledge management initiatives of the process, related to organizational strategy. Furthermore,
(Liebowitz, 2013; Poyhonen & Hamalainen, 2001; Roper & models such as by Khurana and Rosenthal (1998), Goffin and
Dundas, 2015). Mitchell (2010) and Bessant et al. (2005) emphasize that the
Mills and Smith (2011) led a study that sought to find a way to strategy must be the guiding principle of the whole process, giv-
measure knowledge management. The study provides evidence ing a systemic meaning to the concept (Silva, Bagno, & Salerno,
linking some knowledge resources to organizational perfor- 2014).
mance and the results show that some knowledge resources In the current business world, innovation as discipline has not
(e.g., organizational structure and the application of knowledge) yet reached the stage of development able to satisfy the need to
are directly related to organizational performance, while oth- innovate. It appears that in many companies where innovation
ers (e.g., technology and conversion of knowledge), although is considered important, the need exceeds the capacity (Bruce
important preconditions for knowledge management, are not & Birchall, 2009; De Bes & Kotler, 2011; Sigala & Chalkiti,
directly related to organizational performance. Those insights 2015). This is due to the innovation process being characterized
can help companies to better target their investments and as discontinuous and irregular, with concentration of innovation
increase the success of their knowledge management initiatives. outbreaks, which will influence differently the various sectors
of the economy in certain periods. In addition to not follow-
Innovation ing a linear pattern, continuous and regular, innovations also
have a considerable degree of uncertainty, since the solution
Industry has gone through periods of intense competitiveness of the problems and consequences of resolutions are a priori
in globalized economy, characterized by increasingly more effi- unknown. It reveals, however, a cumulative basis, given that the
cient and qualified processes and technology, so that the adoption ability of a company to make changes and improvements within
of innovative strategies becomes crucial in the management pro- an established standard is strongly influenced by the character-
cess (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2012; Porter, 2009). Thus, to istics of the technologies used and the experience accumulated
ensure the survival of any business, it is necessary that the activ- in the past, which shows a strong influence of knowledge man-
ities create value, not only within the organization’s boundaries, agement in the process of innovating (Rowlei, 2000; Song, Zhu,
but also in any competitive environment (Certo & Peter, 2005; & Rundquist, 2014).
Di Serio & Vasconcellos, 2009). Clark and Wheelwright (1993) proposed a classic model that
Innovation management is a contribution to the companies for seeks to understand the process of innovation as a key to the
making them more competitive in the market through the use of acquisition, development and application of technology for com-
new concepts or improving existing concepts in the organiza- petitive advantage, the development funnel. The premise of this
tional context. Innovation is no longer a differential but became model is based on the theory of selectivity (Silva et al., 2014),
a determining factor for the continuity of businesses (Wang et al., in which many ideas go through phases of selecting and cut-
2008; Forsman, 2011). ting, and only the most promising ones become products in the
There are still many studies about the innovativeness that aim market.
to develop the concept of innovation itself, to try to identify the In the same line of thought, aiming project selection, the
specific skills needed to make it possible to innovate (Wang et al., model by Chesbroug (2006) arose, highlighting the idea of open
D.G. Dickel, G.L. Moura / RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13 (2016) 211–220 215
organization. This author defended with his model the vision Methodology
that innovation comes not only from people, knowledge, pro-
cesses and internal capabilities of the organization, but also that This research is classified as quantitative as to the nature,
the boundaries must be broken so that the knowledge and oppor- descriptive and exploratory about the objectives and, on the tech-
tunities come to add to the internal process, in the same extent nical procedures, we opted for a multi-case study with three
as it seeks new markets (Friesike, Widenmayer, Gassmann, & companies, all of these large organizations of the mechanical
Schildhauer, 2014). engineering sector of Rio Grande do Sul, located in the Serra
In the paradigm of Open Innovation, organizations become Gaucha, Central and South Regions, now called only A, B and
able to respond quickly and flexibly to changes in the environ- C.
ment, remain competitive and do not lose the market time of For the development of the evaluation of knowledge man-
products and technologies’ life cycle. Cooperation with univer- agement and innovation management factors and organizational
sities, research centers and new entrepreneurs is a great asset performance determination, eight methodological steps were
to improve and expand innovation strategies in a variety of mapped, assessing internal aspects of business management and
organizations (Chesbroug, 2006). also external factors, as shown in Fig. 1.
More focused on the bias of the processes that culminate in Then, we assigned variables that would be able to demon-
innovations, Sawhney, Wolcott, and Arroniz (2006) presented strate, in the end, the degree of innovation performance of each
his model named radar innovation, in which it is understood of the companies, being structured in two depth levels: factors
that the innovation of a business is not only the innovation of a (Fi ) and criteria (Cu ), as shown in Fig. 2. To survey these factors
product, but mainly of its values. Given that, the innovation of a and criteria, the principles defended by authors such as Rodan
business can be divided into four quadrants: product, customer, and Galunic (2004), Zogbi (2008), Freitas Filho (2013), Song
process and place. et al. (2014) were used.
Knowledge documentation
To get the value that measures the organizational performance criterion of synthesis, it is first necessary to prepare the over-
of each evaluated company, two factors will be used: Knowledge all objective function (BOBJ) in order to be able to express the
Management (F1 ) and Innovation Management (F2 ) that can company’s situation in relation to the context. The same was
be determining factors for the competitiveness of organizations established from a mathematical model provided by Eq. (1),
(De Bes & Kotler, 2011; Terra, 2012). The criteria used are able i=1
to gather the key factors of performance (KPIs) to measure the Fi
VObj = n (1)
results obtained in each of the companies separated by evaluation 2
teams. which is necessary for both checking the condition of the two
Knowledge management variables (F1 ) measure the organi- factors (knowledge management and innovation management),
zation’s ability to use internal and external expertise to improve (Fi ) considered for the measurement of context, as shown in Eq.
its performance. The people criterion (C1 ) addresses how the (2)
organization acts in people management to improve knowledge
i=1
management, the structure criterion (C2 ) measures how the com- Cu
pany invests and uses the necessary infrastructure for knowledge F i = Wi ∗ n → ∀u ⊂ i (2)
NCu
management and the process criterion (C3 ) measures if the com-
pany processes are focused on knowledge management. where Wi is the relevance of each criterion in relation to the
In this same logic, the variables of innovation management whole; NCu is the total amount of characteristic criteria of i and
(F2 ) measure the organization’s ability to turn their efforts Cu , which are the criteria disposed in the second level of the
toward innovation as well as the results it obtains focusing on hierarchical structure, measured from the definitions proposed
that. Organizational alignment criteria were raised (C4 ) in this by Eq. (3)
factor, whose function is to measure if the organization has its n
KPIi
strategy aligned with innovation objectives; support and organi- C u = Wu ∗ → ∀i ⊂ u (3)
zational resources (C5 ) seeks to measure whether the resources s
i=1
allocated in the organization are sufficient for the innovation
development; innovation process (C6 ) measures whether the Therefore, the determination of dos Cu is directly related to
innovation process is well defined and efficient; and the behav- the result obtained by measuring the KPIi , ∀i ∈ {1, 2, . . ., n},
ior and mental model (C7 ) aims to understand how the company generated according to the metrics established at the time of
culture favors innovation. definition of KPIs and following the math proposal described
Given the seven criteria for modeling, it is possible to deter- by Eq. (4), designed using the α range, based on the Likert,
mine KPIs capable to measure performance as explained in which used a 5-point Likert Scale, starting with a scale with a
Table 2, using the principles espoused by Davenport and Prusak minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 with intermediate values 2, 3
(2003), Prahalad (2008), Zogbi (2008), Santos, Basso, and and 4 capable to transmit to the interviewee’s opinion regarding
Kinura (2012), Oliveira et al. (2012), and Ferreira (2012). the indicators, ∀e ∈ {1, 2, . . ., n},
Regarding the development of modeling, developed math-
KPIi = βi → βi ∝ α (4)
ematical equations based on multiple criteria methodology to
support the decision, as explained by Gomes and Gomes (2012), being the opinions expressed from the values assumptions in
will be presented to follow. From the approach to the only βe , according to the variation limits proposed by α. As the
Table 2
Description and purpose of KPIs.
KPIi Definition Purpose
KPI1 Incentives for knowledge generation To measure how much incentive the organization provides for people to generate knowledge
KPI2 Roles centered in knowledge management To measure whether the company uses specific roles to handle knowledge management
KPI3 Recruitment and selection based on skills To represent how people’s skills are taken into consideration when hiring
KPI4 Knowledge searching mechanisms To show that the company has mechanisms to search the knowledge generated internally and externally
KPI5 Intranet To check the use of tools such as intranet in the dissemination of knowledge
KPI6 Internal knowledge available for decision To check that the internal knowledge is available and organized to assist managers in decision-making
KPI7 Knowledge documentation To represent the formalization level of knowledge
KPI8 Performance measurement To observe if the company has the habit to measure the results of its actions
KPI9 Knowledge transference between departments To measure the level of knowledge transference between departments and areas
KPI10 Clear focus on innovation To show if the organization has well-defined focus and if it is oriented to innovation
KPI11 Widespread organizational objectives To check how widespread the organization’s objectives are
KPI12 Financial resources for innovation To measure if the financial resources for innovation are sufficient
KPI13 Adequate infrastructure to generate value To measure if the infrastructure for innovation is suitable
KPI14 Clear process for innovation To demonstrate the existence of a clear flow for innovation development
KPI15 Ideas from several departments To check that the ideas of the different teams are moving forward
KPI16 Innovative organizational culture To observe if the organizational culture is focused on innovation
KPI17 Partnership with universities Represent the degree of involvement with universities and research centers
and structural levels alleviates the effects of possible economic Dombrowski, U., Schmidtchen, K., & Ebentreich, D. (2013). Bal-
downturns, political or social on the results presented, as these anced Key Performance indicators in product development. Inter-
national Journal of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing, 1(1),
occur in the system level.
27–31.
It is necessary to say that the performance measurement Dransfield, S. B., Fischer, N. I., & Vogel, N. J. (1999). Using statistics and statisti-
methodology proposed could be used in future studies and is cal thinking to improve organizational performance. International Statistical
intended to serve as a management tool for companies from the Review, 67(2), 99–150.
mechanical engineering sector as well other sectors in which Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. (2001). Aprendizagem Organi-
zacional e Organização de Aprendizagem. São Paulo: Atlas.
innovation management and knowledge management are shown Edwards, W. (1971). Social utilities. Engineering Economist, 6, 119–129.
determinants. Fernandes, B. H. R. (2006). Competências e desempenho organizacional: o que
há além do Balanced Scorecard. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Ferreira, E. M. (2012). Diagnóstico para inovação. São Paulo: Qualitymark.
Conflicts of interest Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis:
State of art surveys. New York: Springer.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Figueiredo, M. A. D., Macedo-Soares, T. D. L. A., Fuks, S., & Figueiredo, L.
C. (2005). Definição de atributos desejáveis para auxiliar a auto-avaliação
dos novos sistemas de medição de desempenho organizacional. Gestão &
References Produção, 12(2), 305–315.
Flipse, S. M., Sanden, M. C. A., Velden, T., Fortuin, F. T. J. M., Omta, S.
Alves, A. C., Zen, A. C., & Padula, A. D. (2011). Routines, capabilities and inno- W. F., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). Identifying key performance indicators in
vation in the Brazilian wine industry. Journal of Technology Management food technology contract R&D. Journal of Engineering and Technology
and Innovation, 6(2), 128–144. Management, 30, 72–94.
Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small
beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25(12), 1366–1376. http://dx.doi.org/ enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors.
10.1016/j.technovation.2005.04.007 Research Policy, 40(5), 739–750.
Bruce, A., & Birchall, D. (2009). Via expressa para o sucesso em inovação. São Freitas Filho, F. L. (2013). Gestão da inovação: teoria e prática para
Paulo: Bookman. implantação. São Paulo: Atlas.
Carnongia, C., Santos, D. M., Santos, M. M., & Zackiewicz, M. (2004). Fore- Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first
sight, competitive intelligence and knowledge management as innovation century. London: Lane.
management tools. Gestão e Produção, 11(2), 231–238. http://dx.doi.org/ Friesike, S., Widenmayer, B., Gassmann, O., & Schildhauer, T. (2014).
10.1590/S0104-530X2004000200009 Opening science: Towards an agenda of open science in academia
Carvalho, G. D. G., Silva, W. V., Póvoa, A. C. S., & Carvalho, H. G. (2015). and industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, http://dx.doi.org/
Radar da inovação como ferramenta para o alcance de vantagem competitiva 10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6
para micro e pequenas empresas. Revista de Administração e Inovação-RAI, Galar, D., Berges, L., Sandborn, P., & Kumar, U. (2014). The need for aggregated
São Paulo, 12(4), 162–186. indicators in performance asset management. Maintenance and Reliability,
Certo, S. C., & Peter, J. P. (2005). Administração estratégica: planejamento e 16(1), 120–127.
implementação da estratégia. São Paulo: Makron Book., 320 pp. Galarza-Molina, S. L., Torres, A., Moura, P., & Lara-Borrero, J. (2015). Cride: A
Chen, L., & Fong, P. S. W. (2015). Evaluation of knowledge management perfor- case study in multi-criteria analysis for decision-making support in rainwater
mance: An organic approach. Information & Management, 52(4), 431–453. harvesting. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.01.005 Making, 14(01.).
Chesbroug, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innova- Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2010). Innovation management: Strategy and imple-
tion landscape. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. mentation using the Pentathlon framework (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Chou, C. H., Wang, Y., & Tang, T. (2015). Exploring the determinants of Macmillan.
knowledge adoption in virtual communities: A social influence perspec- Gomes, C. F., & Gomes, L. F. A. M. (2012). Tomada de decisão gerencial:
tive. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 364–376. Enfoque Multicritério (4th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.001 Guitouni, A., & Martel, J. M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an
Clark, K. B., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1993). Managing new product and processes appropriate MCD-A method. European Journal of Operational Research,
development: Text and cases. New York: Free Press. 109(2), 501–521.
Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2001). Making hard decisions with decisions tools Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept cen-
(2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Duxbury. ters: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. The
Cooper, R. G. (1993). Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 249–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
idea to launch (1st ed.). Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing. s10961-008-9086-y
Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Prod- Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. (2012). Strategic management theory: An integrated
uct Innovation Management, 11(1), 3–14. approach. Independence: Cengage Learning., 560 pp.
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate (R) idea-to-launch process- Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2012). Strategic management:
update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Competitiveness and globalization. Independence: Cengage learning., 472
Management, 25(3), 213–232. pp.
Coral, E., et al. (2008). Visão geral da metodologia NUGIN. In E. Coral, A. Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple
Ogliari, & A. F. Abreu (Eds.), Gestão Integrada da Inovação: Estratégia, bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177–191.
Organização e Desenvolvimento de Produtos. São Paulo: Atlas. Janes, A., & Faganel, A. (2013). Instruments and methods for the integration
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2003). Conhecimento Empresarial: como as of company’s strategic goals and key performance indicators. Kybernetes,
organizações gerenciam o seu capital intelectual. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier. 42(6), 928–942.
De Bes, F. T., & Kotler, P. (2011). A bíblia da inovação: princípios fundamentais Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The execution premium. Harvard Business
pata levar a cultura da inovação contínua às organizações. São Paulo: Lua School.
de papel. Khurana, A., & Rosenthal, S. R. (1998). Towards holistic “front ends” in new
Di Serio, L. C., & Vasconcellos, M. A. (2009). Estratégia e competitividade product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(1),
empresarial: inovação e criação de valor. São Paulo: Saraiva., 364 pp. 57–74.
220 D.G. Dickel, G.L. Moura / RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13 (2016) 211–220
Levy, N. S. (1998). Managing high technology and innovation. New Jersey: Rowlei, J. (2000). From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur. Jour-
Pearson Education. nal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 7–15.
Liebowitz, J. (2013). Developing metrics for determining knowledge manage- Rozenfeld, H., Forcellini, F. A., Amaral, D. C., Toledo, J. C., Silva, S. L.,
ment success: A fuzzy logic approach. Information System Journal, 6(2), Alliprandini, D. H., et al. (2006). Gestão de desenvolvimento de produtos:
36–42. uma referência para a melhoria do processo. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Machado, D. P. N., Carvalho, L. C., & Heinzmann, L. M. (2012). Ambi- Samsonowa, T. (2012). Industrial research performance management: Key Per-
ente favorável ao desenvolvimento de inovações e cultura organizacional: formance Indicators in the ICT industry. Berlin: Physica-Verlag.
integração de duas perspectivas de análise. Revista de Administração (São Sánchez, M. A. (2014). Integrating sustainability issues into project manage-
Paulo), 47(4). São Paulo. ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, no prelo.
May, A., Anslow, A., Wu, Y., Ojiako, U., Chipulu, M., & Marshall, A. (2014). Santos, D. F. L., Basso, L. F. C., & Kinura, H. (2012). A estrutura da capacidade
Prioritization of performance indicators in air cargo demand management: de inovar das empresas brasileiras: uma proposta de construto. Revista de
An insight from industry. Supply Chain Management, 19(1), 108–113. Administração e Inovação. São Paulo, 9(3), 103–128.
Meyer, M. W. (2003). Rethinking performance measurement: Beyond the bal- Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for
anced scorecard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 220 pp. companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 75–81.
Mills, A. M., & Smith, T. A. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational Schumpeter, J. A. (1984). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into
performance: A decomposed view. Journal of Knowledge Management, profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New York: Oxford
15(1), 156–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756 University Press.
Neely, A. (2002). Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. (2015). Knowledge management, social media and
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 369 pp. employee creativity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45,
Neuenfeldt Júnior, A. L. (2014). Modelagem para a mensuração de desem- 44–58.
penho dos sistemas BRT no Brasil. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Silva, D. O., Bagno, R. B., & Salerno, M. S. (2014). Modelos para a gestão da
de Produção). Santa Maria: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria. inovação: revisão e análise da literatura. Production, 24(2), 477–490.
Nicolás, C. L., & Cerdán, A. L. M. (2012). Strategic knowledge management, Simons, R. (2009). Performance measurement & control systems for implemen-
innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Manage- ting strategy: Text and cases. New Jersey: Prentice Hall., 792 pp.
ment, 31(6), 502–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.02.003 Song, N., Zhu, J., & Rundquist, E. J. (2014). Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, E. H. (2008). Gestão do conhecimento. São Paulo: and Global R&D Operations in MNCs. International Journal of Innovation
Bookman. and Technology Management, 11(06).
Oliveira, H. P., Gonçalves, C. A., Paula, E. A. M., & Santos, K. A. (2012). Takashina, N. T., & Flores, M. C. X. (1996). Indicadores da qualidade e do
Gestão do conhecimento orientada para a estratégia de inovação de produtos desempenho: como estabelecer metas e medir resultados. Rio de Janeiro:
tecnológicos: o caso da Invent Vision. Revista de Administração e Inovação, Qualitymark.
São Paulo, 9(4), 153–176. Terra, J. C. (2012). 10 Dimensões da Gestão da Inovação. São Paulo: Elsevier.
Olson, E. M., & Slater, S. F. (2002). The balanced scorecard, competitive strat- Thomas, R. J. (1993). New Product Development: Managing and forecasting
egy, and performance. Business Horizons. for strategic success. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Parmenter, D. (2012). Key performance indicators for government and nonprofit Tobin, D. R. (1998). Networking your knowledge. Management Review, 46–48.
agencies: Implementing winning KPIs. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Utterback, J. M. (1970). Process of innovation – A study of origination and
Inc. development of ideas for new scientific instruments. IEEE Transactions on
Porter, M. E. (2009). Competição on competition: estratégias competitivas Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Aes6(5).
essenciais. Rio de Janeiro: Campus Elsevier. Wang, C. H., Lu, L. Y., & Chen, C. B. (2008). Evaluating firm technological
Poyhonen, M., & Hamalainen, R. P. (2001). On the convergence of multiattribute innovation capability under uncertainty. Technovation, 28, 349–363.
weighting methods. European Journal Operational Research, 129, 569–585. Yam, R. C. M., Lo, W., Tang, E. P. Y., & Lau, A. K. W. (2011). Analysis of sources
Prahalad, C. K. (2008). A Nova era da Inovação (1st ed.). São Paulo: Elsevier. of innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: An
Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engi- empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Research Policy,
neering. Harlow: Addison Wesley. 40, 391–402.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge Zabot, J. B. M., & Silva, L. C. M. (2002). Gestão do Conhecimento. São Paulo:
diversifies influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Atlas.
Management Journal, 25(6), 541–562. Zogbi Edison. (2008). Competitividade através da gestão da inovação. São
Roper, S., & Dundas, N. H. (2015). Knowledge stocks, knowledge Paulo: Atlas.
flows and innovation: Evidence from matched patents and innovation
panel data. Research Policy, 44(7), 1327–1340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.respol.2015.03.003