Innovation, talent attraction and retention

The success of an organization isn’t, in most cases, only shown trough their profits. Today the value of a company, with respect to its market value exceeds their financial quality. Intellectual capital is a major share in the value of the company. Managing employees with an emphasis on intellectual capital and talent is an emergency that arises in the path of human resource managers. The definition of intellectual capital and talent, leads us, first, to a high IQ (Intelligence Quotient), good schools and / or university results. But the intellectual capital and talent of an employee must be linked to his ability, to high performance and good results. How to manage, attract and keep these employees in organizations is also something that requires talent. Now, the basic skills of employees aren’t sufficient for competitive companies. There are currently required higher levels of skills, because there are a growing number of activities that involve "knowledge work". Most companies in the world have a great challenge for the coming years: the challenge of scarcity of talent. The most competitive companies will be those that have the most talented employees. In terms of originality, this paper aims to create discussion about the relationship between talent attraction, talent retention and innovation, as drivers of business competitiveness. The research is based on the categorization methodology defined by Yin (2003) as single case study carried out in a company that is specialized in high precision components.The findings presented here show a strong link between talents attraction, talents retention and innovation.

Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.