Журнал «Менеджмент и бизнес-администрирование»
№3 / 2019

Управление наукоемкими предприятиями на основе анализа теорий управления ресурсами и знаниями

Попов Е.В.,

чл.-корр. РАН, доктор экономических наук, руководитель Центра экономической теории, Институт экономики УрО РАН,

Аксенова Т.В.,

кандидат экономических наук, доцент, Институт новых материалов и технологий, Уральский Федеральный Университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина

Аннотация. Цель исследования — систематизация основных направлений развития теории управления ресурсами и теории управления знаниями на уровне экономической деятельности предприятия. Предметом исследования в статье является развитие понятия «предприятие» в фокусе пересечения двух теорий. Проведен структурный анализ публикаций, индексируемых на платформах Scopus и Web-of-Science в этих теориях и выявили их парадигмы. Для анализа тенденций их развития разработан алгоритм сочетания наукометрических инструментов, учитывающий специфику социальных наук, затем результаты анализа уточнены на массивах публикаций 2016–2019 годов. Интеграция тенденций развития парадигм двух теорий в один вектор дала возможность проследить динамику характеристик наукоемких предприятий. В результате сравнения трактовок понятия «предприятие» в двух теориях сформулированы конструктивные противоречия, которые, по нашему мнению, являются направлениями будущих исследований. Структура статьи: (1) метод и наукометрический алгоритм исследования с учетом специфики социальных наук; (2) анализ развития теорий «управление ресурсами» и «управление знаниями», авторы и парадигмы; (3) основные характеристики и проблемы управления наукоемкими предприятиями в фокусе парадигм каждой теории, современное развитие понятия «предприятие»; (4) противоречия в теориях управления ресурсами и знаниями относительно перспектив управления предприятием — направления будущих исследований.

Ключевые слова: наукоемкое предприятие, управление знаниями, управление ресурсами, Scopus, Web of Science, наукометрия.

Managing knowledge-intensive enterprises on the basis of the knowledge management and resource management theories analysis

Popov E.V.,

Corresponding Member of RAS, Dr. Sc. (Economics), Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

Aksenova T.V.,

PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Institute of New Materials and Technologies of Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin

Abstract. The purpose of the study is to systematize the main directions of development of the theory of resource management and the theory of knowledge management at the level of an enterprise economic activity. The research is particularly concentrated on the «enterprise» concept development, which is the focus of two theories intersection. The publication arrays structural analysis, made on Scopus and Web-of-Science databases, reveals theories paradigms. The algorithm of using scientometric tools allowed us to integrate paradigm trends and then to trace knowledge-intensive enterprises characteristics dynamics. As a result of comparison of interpretations of the concept «enterprise» in two theories constructive contradictions which, in our opinion, are directions of future researches are formulated. The structure of the article: (1) method and scientometric algorithm of research taking into account the specifics of social Sciences; (2) analysis of the development of the theories of «resource management» and «knowledge management», the authors and paradigms; (3) the main characteristics and problems of management of knowledge-intensive enterprises in the focus of paradigms of each theory, the modern development of the concept of «enterprise»; (4) contradictions in the theories of resource management and knowledge about the prospects of enterprise management, directions of future research.

Keywords: knowledge-intensive enterprise, knowledge management, resource management, Scopus, Web of Science, scientometrics.

DOI: 10.33983/2075-1826-2019-3-93-120

Библиографический список

1. Акоев М.А. Наука, технология и общество. В сб. Руководство по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии: [монография] / М.А. Акоев, В.А. Маркусова, О.В. Москалева, В.В. Писляков; под. ред. М.А. Акоева. — Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2014. — 250 с.
2. Писляков В.В. Библиометрические индикаторы в ресурсах Thomson Reuters. В сб. Руководство по наукометрии: индикаторы развития науки и технологии: [монография] / М.А. Акоев, В.А. Маркусова, О.В. Москалева, В.В. Писляков; под. ред. М.А. Акоева. — Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2014. — 250 с
3. Alavi M., Leidner D.E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues // MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. — 2001. — (25:1). — Pp. 107–136. DOI: 10.2307/3250961.
4. Amadasun P., Application of organizational homeostasis as an emerging paradigm for knowledge management (Conference Paper) // International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development. — 2014. — (5:1). — Pp. 32–49. DOI: 10.1504/IJKBD.2014.059800.
5. Amara N., Landry R., Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science // Scientometrics. — 2012. — (93:3). — Pp. 553–581. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2.
6. Amit R., Schoemaker P.J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rent // Strategic Management Journal. — 1993. — (14:1) — Pp. 33–46. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250140105.
7. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. // Journal of Management, — 1991. — (17:1). — Pp. 99–120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
8. Barney J.B., Ketchen D.J., Wright, M. The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? // Journal of Management. — 2011. — (37:5). — Pp. 1299–1315. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310391805.
9. Barney JB, Mackey T. Testing resource-based theory // In Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Ketchen DJ, Bergh DD (eds). Elsevier: San Diego, CA; — 2005 — (2). — Pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/S1479-8387(05)02001-1.
10. Barney J., Wright M., Ketchen D.J. The resource-based view of the ?rm Ten years after 1991 // Journal of Management. — 2001. — (27:625). — Pp. 625–641. DOI: 10.1177/014920630102700601.
11. Brown J.S., Duguid P. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation // Organization Science, 1991. — (2:1), Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G. March. — Pp. 40–57. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.40.
12. Chen C., Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. — 2004. — (101: Issue SUPPL. 1). — Pp. 5303–5310. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0307513100.
13. Coase R.H. The nature of the ?rm. Economica (N.S.). — November 1937 — Vol. 4. — № 16 — Pp. 386–405.
14. Cobo M.J., López-Herrera A.G. et al., Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. — 2011. — (62:7). — Pp. 1382–1402.
15. Crook T.R., Ketchen Jr. D.J. et al., Strategic resources and performance: A meta-analysis // Strategic Management Journal. — 2008. — (29:11). — Pp. 1141–1154. DOI: 10.1002/smj.703.
16. Eisenhardt K.M., Martin J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? // Strategic Management Journal. — 2000. — (21:10-11), Pp. 1105–1121.
17. Fulk J., Yuan Y.C., Location, motivation, and social capitalization via enterprise social networking // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2013. — (19:1). — Pp. 20–37. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12033.
18. Grant R.M. Prospering in Dynamically–competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration // Organization Science. — 1996. — (7:4) — Pp. 375–387.
19. Grant R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm // Strategic Management Journal. — 1996. — 17(SUPPL. WINTER). — Pp. 109–122. Retrieved from www.scopus.com.
20. Hayek F.A. The use of knowledge in society // American Economic Review. — 1945. — (35:4). — Pp. 519–530. DOI: WOS:000203277200001.
21. Heisig P., Suraj O.A., Kianto A., et al. Knowledge management and business performance: global experts’ views on future research needs // Journal of Knowledge Management. — 2016. — (20:6). — Pp. 1169–1198. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-12-2015-0521.
22. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. Theory of the Firm Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and ownership structure // Journal of Financial Economics. — 1976. — (3). — Pp. 305–360. DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
23. Kogut B., Zander U. What Firms Do, Identity, and Learning. // Organization Science. — 1996. — (7:5). — Pp. 502–518. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.7.5.502.
24. Kraaijenbrink J., Spender J.-C., Groen A.J. The Resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques (Review) // Journal of Management. — 2010. — (36:1). — Pp. 349–372. DOI: 10.1177/0149206309350775.
25. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, — 1970. — 2-ed. Chicago.
26. Leonardi P.M., Huysman M., Steinfield C., Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. — 2013. — (19:1). — Pp. 1–19. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12029.
27. Levy M., WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management // Journal of Knowledge Management. — 2009. — (13:1). — Pp. 120–134. DOI: 10.1108/13673270910931215.
28. Lin Y., Wu L.-Y., Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework // Journal of Business Research. — 2014. — (67:3). — Pp. 407–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.019.
29. Lockett A., Thompson S., Morgenstern U. The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal // International Journal of Management Reviews. — 2009. — (11:1). — Pp. 9–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00252.x.
30. Mahoney J.T., Pandian J.R. The resource–based view within the conversation of strategic management // Strategic management journal. — 1992. — (13:5). — Pp. 363–380. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250130505.
31. Majchrzak A., Faraj S., Kane G.C., Azad B. The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. — 2013. — (19:1). — Pp. 38–55. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12030.
32. March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational science (2:1), 1991. — Pp. 71–87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
33. McAfee A.P., Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration (Review) // MIT Sloan Management Review. — 2006. (47:3). — Pp. 21–28.
34. Molloy J.C., Chadwick C. et al. Making intangibles «tangible» in tests of resource-based theory: A multidisciplinary construct validation approach // Journal of Management. — 2011. — (37:5). — Pp. 1496–1518. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310394185.
35. Nason R.S., Wiklund J., An Assessment of Resource-Based Theorizing on Firm Growth and Suggestions for the Future // Journal of Management. — 2018. — (44:1). — Pp. 32–60. DOI: 10.1177/0149206315610635.
36. Nonaka I.A., Konno N. The Concept of «Ba». Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review (40:3), 1998. — Pp. 40–53.
37. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation // Oxford University Press, 1995. — 304 p.
38. Penrose E.T. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. — John Wiley and Sons. — New York, 1959. — P. 272. ISBN 978-0-19-828977-7.
39. Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation (Review) // Journal of Interactive Marketing. — 2004. — (18:3). — Pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1002/dir.20015.
40. Qi C., Chau P.Y.K. Will enterprise social networking systems promote knowledge management and organizational learning? An empirical study // Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. — 2018. — (28:1). — Pp. 31–57. DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2018.1407081.
41. Schneider M., Somers M., Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of Complexity Theory for leadership research // Leadership Quarterly. — 2006. — (17:4). — Pp. 351–365. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006.
42. Serenko A., Dumay J. Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect // Journal of Knowledge Management. — 2015. — (19:6). — Pp. 1335–1355. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0086.
43. Sirmon D.G., Hitt M.A., Ireland R.D., Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box // Academy of Management Review. — 2007. — (32:1). — Pp. 273–292. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2007.23466005.
44. Teece D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance // Strategic Management Journal. — 2007. — (28:13). — Pp. 1319–1350. DOI 10.1002/smj.
45. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy // Research Policy. — 1986. — (15:6). — Pp. 285–305. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2.
46. Teece D.J., Intangible assets and a theory of heterogeneous firms // Book chapter in Intangibles, Market Failure and Innovation Performance. — 2015. — Pp. 217–239. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07533-4_9.
47. Teece D.J., Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory // Journal of Management and Organization. — 2018. — (24:3). — Pp. 359–368. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2017.75.
48. Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management // Strategic Management Journal. — 1997 — (18:7). — Pp. 509–533. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
49. Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management // Technological Know–How, Organizational Capabilities, and Strategic Management: Business Strategy and Enterprise Development in Competitive Environments. — 2008. — (1). — Pp. 27–52. DOI: 10.1142/9789812834478_0002.
50. Terziovski M., Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view // Strategic Management Journal. — 2010. — (31:8). — Pp. 892–902. DOI: 10.1002/smj.841.
51. Wernerfelt B., A resource?based view of the firm // Strategic Management Journal. — 1984. — (5:2). — Pp. 171–180. DOI:10.1002/smj.4250050207.

52. White H.D., Griffith B.C., Author co citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. — 1981. — (32:3). — Pp. 163–171. DOI: 10.1002/asi.4630320302.