دانلود ترجمه مقاله انتگراتورهای سرمایه فکری سازمانی

• فهرست مطالب:

چکیده
یادداشت بیوگرافی
۱ مقدمه
۲ مولفه های سازنده اولیه
۲ ۱ دانش فردی
۲ ۲ فکر فردی
۲ ۳ ارزش های فردی
۳ تلفیق کننده ها
۳ ۱ تعریف
۳ ۲ فناوری و فرایند ها
۳ ۳ مدیریت و رهبردی
۳ ۴: افق چشم انداز و ماموریت غایی
۳ ۵ فرهنگ سازمانی
۴ نتیجه گیری

• بخشی از ترجمه:

هدف این مقاله، تحلیل سرمایه فکری سازمانی به عنوان یک فرایند یکپارچه می باشد که به دنبال ریشه است تا شاخه. از این روی، ما تک تک مولفه های سازنده دانش فردی، هوش فردی،و ارزش های فرهنگی فردی را در نظر می گیریم. دانش در ساختار پیچیده مولفه های صریح و ضمنی لحاظ شده و بررسی می شود. هوش و تفگر از دیدگاه چند گانه گاردنر با در نظر گرفتن ابعاد منطقی و غیر منطقی بررسی شد. ارزش های درونی، مهم ترین عناصر در فرایند تصمیم گیری بوده و از زمان بچگی در سیستم آموزشی کسب می شوند.
همه این مولفه های فردی درون یک شرکت تلفیق شده و فرهنگ سازمانی و هوش سازمانی را ایجاد می کنند. فرایند تلفیق با نیروهای خاصی صورت می گیرد که ما به آن ها تلفیق کننده می گوییم. آن ها بر اساس دو خصوصیت درون وابستکی و هم افزایی هستند. این مفهوم جدید به ما در درک فرایند تولید سرمایه فکری و افزایش اثر هم افزایی( منظور از اثر هم افزایی: ۱+۱=۲ و مقداری سود یا انرژی) در خروجی نهایی کمک می کند
فناوری و فرایند های مرتبط با آن بر اساس دانش فردی و به خصوص نوع ضمنی عمل می کنند . تنها سیستم های فناور یاطلاعات، تفکر فردی را تحریک کرده و در تولید هوش سازمانی بر آن ها متکی هستند. مدیریت و رهبری یک تلفیق کننده قوی در بخش غیر خطی کل طیف هستند. رهبردی مهم ترین مولفه از نظر قدرت خود با اتکا بر دانش فردی ، هوش فردی و ارزش فردی است. ماموریت و افق یک تلفیق کننده جالب بوده و فرزند خلف مدیریت راهبردی هستند. این خود بر اساس هوش عاطفی فردی عمل می کند. فرهنگ سازمانی یک تلفیق کننده بسیار قوی است زیر بر اساس هوش فردی و ارزش های درونی بوده و ایجاد الگوهای رفتاری سازمانی می کند.

• بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction Powerful concepts have always been used beyond their initial semantic domain due to human temptation of trying them in a variety of situations and new research fields in order to explore their potential and to get better solutions for the problems at hand. As a direct result of this situation, their semantic spectrum has been enriched, and their applicability has been generalized. We may think, for example, to entropy (Craig, 1992; Handscombe and Patterson, 2004), information (Bar-Hillel, 1964; Brillouin, 1959), knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), intelligence (Gardner, 2006), and strategy (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel,1998; Whittington, 2001). In order to illustrate the semantic dynamics of such a concept, let us consider entropy. The concept of entropy has been defined for the first time by R.J.E. Clausius in 1865, in relation with the second law of thermodynamics (Craig, 1992). Clausius’ definition of entropy change could be expressed verbally as being the amount of energy dispersed reversibly at a specific temperature T. Clausius’ synonym for entropy was transformation, which in classical thermodynamics is energy’s dispersing from a source that is almost imperceptibly above T to a receptor that is at T, or spreading out from where it is confined in a small space to a larger volume whenever it is not restricted from doing so. However, physical real processes are irreversible, and their natural tendency is to go from an ordered state toward a disordered one. In this new perspective, entropy isgenerated by all real processes and it is a measure of disorder. Although the meaning of disorder has not been initially in Clausius’ definition of entropy, the concept has been enriched semantically for new situations (i.e. irreversible processes). Later on, scientists extended the concept of entropy to new research fields, like information theory (BarHillel, 1964), economics (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971), innovation and business (Handscombe and Patterson, 2004). Thus, the concept of entropy has been generalized beyond its initial scientific field, receiving new meanings. I consider that the relative new concept of intellectual capital is exposed to a similar semantic enriching process, due to its powerful potential. In a generic analysis of its roots, Roos et al. showed that: “To be more precise, the theoretical roots of intellectual capital can be traced to two different streams of thought. We will call the two streams the strategic stream and the measurement stream” (Roos et al., 1997, p.15). The first one studies the creation and the use of knowledge, being composed of contributions coming from: learning organization, conversation management, innovation, knowledge management, core competences and invisible assets. The second root is related to measurements and is composed of contributions coming from: human resources accounting, balanced scorecard and financial scorecards. Roos et al. assert that both major components are two sides of the same coin, since what one can measure it can be managed, and what one would like to manage it has to be measured. Intellectual capital theory represents a welding process of these two theories. Regardless of its roots, which can be traced back to different authors (Andriessen, 2004), the concept of intellectual capital covers both the idea of a potential, and that of the action produced by it in the process of value creation within a given organization. Strictly speaking, the concept of intellectual capital is fuzzy and somehow confusing since its boundaries are not well defined, and they interact with the boundaries of the human capital concept. For instance, Stewart considers that the intellectual capital “is the Author 192 sum of everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge”, or “Intellectual capital is intellectual material – knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience – that can be put to use to create wealth. It is collective brainpower” (Stewart, 1998). It is enough to analyse the overview presented by Andriessen (2004, Fig.3.2), or to study in detail some of the most representative contributions in this field (Andriessen and Tissen, 2000; Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Roos et al., 1997; Stewart, 1999; Sveiby, 1997). In many schemes, the intellectual capital of any organization contains: human capital, structural or organizational capital, and relational or customer capital. Human capital is fundamental because it is the source of innovation and renewal, and it represents the capabilities of the employees to provide solutions to customers. Structural capital consists of all organizational relations which make possible the transformation of the intellectual potential into necessary actions to create value embedded into products and services.

nbsp;