MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3004364104

Knowledge Management as an Agent of Enhancing the Safety Culture in Organizations

2019· article· en· W3004364104 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueBusiness and Economic Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBusinessSafety cultureKnowledge managementOrganizational cultureOperations managementComputer sciencePublic relationsManagementEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background and aims: Today, the safety culture in the High-Reliability Organizations (HRO) across various industries of a country is described as a long-term competitive advantage that can be considered as a factor in preventing costly events for organizations and countries. Therefore, promoting safety culture in such organizations can be weighed up as one of the main concerns of the organization and government managers and regulatory agencies. So how can industry managers, regulatory agencies and government officials help the organizations improve their safety culture? According to the results of this paper, the established processes of knowledge management system after sufficient time can enhance the organizationchr('39')s safety culture and help managers in this way. In this paper, we examine the relationship between the knowledge management system and the safety culture variables among Iranchr('39')s nuclear reactors staff. According to the majority of safety culture scholars, Scheinchr('39')s organizational culture model (1992) has been used to address the safety culture in this research. Schein defines organizational culture: "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems." Guldenmound (2000) declares: "In the way, Schein conceives and defines (organizational) culture, there is no need for a specific definition for safety culture. Basic assumptions permeate throughout the organization, including its aspect of safety." So safety culture can be treated as one aspect of the entire organizational culture. What comes from Scheinchr('39')s definition of organizational culture is that any cultural constructions and cultural activities in an organization or industry have to deal with collective learning. As a consequence, any efforts to enhance the safety culture of an organization should lead to positive learning experiences and cross the organizational learning membrane. Subsequently, these positive experiences gradually will penetrate to the organizational learning membrane and mix with the basic assumptions of organization members at this time new cultural assumptions will emerge. The authors believe that knowledge management systems in organizations can be used as the most effective tools for acquiring new knowledge and facilitating their learning. So that organizations via knowledge management systems can acquire knowledge and the culture of knowledge (according to practice-based perspective to knowledge) to develop their culture or promote their safety culture. For this reason, the implemented knowledge management system in an organization can be seen as a factor in promoting the concept of safety culture in that organization. Consequently, it is expected that a positive correlation is observed between these two variables over a relatively long term period. In this research, the knowledge management system has been considered in an exogenous construct and a reflective model about its core processes and safety culture variable. The reason behind this model is that the concept of knowledge management can exist as a pure entity in the organization because according to the perception of authors from the concept of practice-based perspective to knowledge the epistemology of knowledge management is related to organizational learning not to some processes in the organizations. This notion of knowledge management is opposed to the objective perspective and calls for a deeper understanding of learning and knowledge in organizations. Method: The research data were collected from employees in Iran nuclear reactors located in Tehran, Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr cities using a paper questionnaire. In these facilities, responses were acquired from 98 respondents, representing the tow functional sectors of the organization: 1- safety-related sections like HSE and radiation protection sectors 2- other operating sections like engineering, technical support, and sectors that are engaged in core operation of the organization. The respondents were categorized as follows: 30 (30 percent) were technicians; 56 (56 percent) were experts; 12 (12 percent) were supervisors; With regards to gender all respondents were (100 percent) male. Knowledge management processes were measured by inquiring the respondents to reply to a set of items on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree). These 25 Items were drawn from the Organisational Renewal Capability Inventory survey (Kianto, 2008). Kianto (2016) states that: “In sum, the literature typically identifies four to six knowledge management processes that are cyclically interrelated. Similar to these views, this paper proposes that KM processes can be divided into five main types: knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, knowledge codification, and knowledge retention. Although these types are, to some extent, interrelated and overlapping, and are cyclically interrelated, they are individually distinguishable because of their different foci.” The scale for knowledge acquisition tested the significance and fluency of knowledge acquired from extra-organizational sources, while the scale for knowledge sharing pointed horizontal knowledge flows inside the organization. Knowledge retention addressed the constancy and conservation of knowledge inside the organization. Items for knowledge creation addressed the periodicity and the foundation of new idea development in various groups of activities. Items for knowledge codification looked at the amount of documentation and storage and the scope of knowledge repositories. To measure the construct of safety culture, respondents were asked to answer questions similar to the one on the previous scale from 1 to 7 (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree). These questions were drawn from the IAEAchr('39')s 2017 Safety Culture Perception Questionnaire for License Holders (IAEA SCPQ-LH, 2017). The IAEA Safety Culture Perception Questionnaire for License Holders (SCPQ-LH) is one of five data collection methods used by the International Atomic Energy Organization to perform safety culture assessments. The questionnaire has been developed by an international group of experts with skillfulness in organizations safety culture, nuclear safety issues and questionnaire development, chaired by Dr. Mark Fleming, St Mary’s University, Canada. The data were analyzed with structural equation modeling (SEM), directed using the partial least squares (PLS) package (version 3 of SmartPLS). The first step was to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement model. Subsequently to test the hypotheses and examine connections between the study variables the structural model was used. In addition to testing the research model, the authors wanted to assess the relationship between knowledge management processes and safety cultures in more detail so the research model was tested for three groups of employees: 1- whole sample data 2- safety-related employees (like HSE or radiation protection sections employees, N=46) 3- operator related employees (like engineering and technical support or various operator groups sections, N=52). Results: According to this research findings, knowledge management processes accounted for nearly 57 percent of variance for whole employees. Therefore, establishing knowledge management processes in a high-reliability organization like nuclear reactor operators is significantly linked with safety culture. Interestingly, severity of this relationship differs as a function of job characteristics and the type or content of knowledge that is to be found in the scope of the knowledge management system for that group of employees because knowledge management processes explained a larger amount of the variance of safety culture (62 percent) for safety-related employees and a smaller amount for other operator employees (53 percent). For this reason, phrases like Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM) or safety-related knowledge management which is used in the International Atomic Energy Organization or other national or international institutions is justified and acceptable. In addition to this, organizations can enhance the safety culture by using design for their knowledge management system and emphasizing the development and dissemination of safety knowledge in the organization. This type of knowledge management system may be referred to as a strategic knowledge management system for safety. The consistency of the results obtained from the reflective model for knowledge management and failure to obtain reliable and meaningful results for the model in which the knowledge management construct was applied endogenously in the formative model with its indicators can be seen as evidence of the validity of the reflective model used in this study. It should be noted, indicators in the reflective models are manifestations of the constructs whereas indicators are defining characteristics of the constructs in the formative models. And from item relationships with construct antecedents and consequences point of view, indicators are required to have the same antecedents and consequences in a reflective model. Conversely, indicators in the formative models have not the same antecedents and consequences. It points out, this variable should be considered as a deep and independent concept in the organization that relates to deeper concepts such as organizational learning and organizational culture and must be evaluated with an impact on organizational learning. Conclusion: To summarize, the real learning in organizations is a subject that occurs in deep organizational layers (according to Shinechr('39')s organizational culture model) and the actual results of knowledge

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,070
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,958

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0430,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,454
Écart entre enseignants0,370 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle