Analysis of the interplay between knowledge and performance management in industrial clusters

The concept of industrial clustering has been studied in-depth by policy makers and researchers from many fields, mainly due to the competitive advantages it may bring to regional economies. Companies often take part in collaborative initiatives with local partners while also taking advantage of knowledge spillovers to benefit from locating in a cluster. Thus, Knowledge Management (KM) and Performance Management (PM) have become relevant topics for policy makers and cluster associations when undertaking collaborative initiatives. Taking this into account, this paper aims to explore the interplay between both topics using a case study conducted in a collaborative network formed within a cluster. The results show that KM should be acknowledged as a formal area of cluster management so that PM practices can support knowledge-oriented initiatives and therefore make better use of the new knowledge created. Furthermore, tacit and explicit knowledge resulting from PM practices needs to be stored and disseminated throughout the cluster as a way of improving managerial practices and regional strategic direction. Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2012) 10, 368-379. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.23

Evaluation of the power production performance of the wavepiston, wave energy converter

In the early 1970 the community has started to realize that have as a main principle the industry one, with the oblivion of the people and health conditions and of the world in general, it could not be a guideline principle. The sea, as an energy source, has the characteristic of offering different types of exploitation, in this project the focus is on the wave energy. Over the last 15 years the Countries interested in the renewable energies grew. Therefore many devices have came out, first in the world of research, then in the commercial one; these converters are able to achieve an energy transformation into electrical energy. The purpose of this work is to analyze the efficiency of a new wave energy converter, called WavePiston, with the aim of determine the feasibility of its actual application in different wave conditions: from the energy sea state of the North Sea, to the more quiet of the Mediterranean Sea. The evaluation of the WavePiston is based on the experimental investigation conducted at the University of Aalborg, in Denmark; and on a numerical modelling of the device in question, to ascertain its efficiency regardless the laboratory results. The numerical model is able to predict the laboratory condition, but it is not yet a model which can be used for any installation, in fact no mooring or economical aspect are included yet. È dai primi anni del 1970 che si è iniziato a capire che il solo principio dell’industria con l’incuranza delle condizioni salutari delle persone e del mondo in generale non poteva essere un principio guida. Il mare, come fonte energetica, ha la caratteristica di offrire diverse tipologie di sfruttamento, in questo progetto è stata analizzata l’energia da onda. Negli ultimi 15 anni sono stati sempre più in aumento i Paesi interessati in questo ambito e di conseguenza, si sono affacciati, prima nel mondo della ricerca, poi in quello commerciale, sempre più dispositivi atti a realizzare questa trasformazione energetica. Di tali convertitori di energia ondosa ne esistono diverse classificazioni. Scopo di tale lavoro è analizzare l’efficienza di un nuovo convertitore di energia ondosa, chiamato WavePiston, al fine si stabilire la fattibilità di una sua reale applicazione in diverse condizioni ondose: dalle più energetiche del Mare del Nord, alle più quiete del Mar Mediterraneo. La valutazione sul WavePiston è basata sullo studio sperimentale condotto nell’Università di Aalborg, in Danimarca; e su di una modellazione numerica del dispositivo stesso, al fine di conoscerne l’efficienza a prescindere dalla possibilità di avere risultati di laboratorio. Il modello numerico è in grado di predirre le condizioni di laboratorio, ma non considera ancora elementi come gli ancoraggi o valutazione dei costi.

Knowledge-Production Processes in Practice Research - Outcomes and Critical Elements

The welfare sector has seen considerable changes in its operational context. Welfare services respond to an increasing number of challenges as citizens are confronted with life’s uncertainties and a variety of complex situations. At the same time the service-delivery system is facing problems of co-operation and the development of staff competence, as well as demands to improve service effectiveness and outcomes. In order to ensure optimal user outcomes in this complex, evolving environment it is necessary to enhance professional knowledge and skills, and to increase efforts to develop the services. Changes are also evident in the new emergent knowledge-production models. There has been a shift from knowledge acquisition and transmission to its construction and production. New actors have stepped in and the roles of researchers are subject to critical discussion. Research outcomes, in other words the usefulness of research with respect to practice development, is a topical agenda item. Research is needed, but if it is to be useful it needs to be not only credible but also useful in action. What do we know about different research processes in practice? What conceptions, approaches, methods and actor roles are embedded? What is the effect on practice? How does ‘here and now’ practice challenge research methods? This article is based on the research processes conducted in the institutes of practice research in social work in Finland. It analyses the different approaches applied by elucidating the theoretical standpoints and the critical elements embedded in them, and reflects on the outcomes in and for practice. It highlights the level of change and progression in practice research, arguing for diverse practice research models with a solid theoretical grounding, rigorous research processes, and a supportive infrastructure.

Meeting the Challenges of Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production for Sustainable Water Governance

Increasing pressure on mountain water resources is making it necessary to address water governance issues in a transdisciplinary way. This entails drawing on different disciplinary perspectives, different types of knowledge, and different interests to answer complex governance questions. This study identifies strategies for addressing specific challenges to transdisciplinary knowledge production aiming at sustainable and reflective water governance. The study draws on the experiences of 5 large transdisciplinary water governance research projects conducted in Austria and Switzerland (Alp-Water-Scarce, MontanAqua, Drought-CH, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Planning, and an integrative river management project in the Kamp Valley). Experiences were discussed and systematically analyzed in a workshop and subsequent interviews. These discussions identified 4 important challenges to interactions between scientists and stakeholders—ensuring stakeholder legitimacy, encouraging participation, managing expectations, and preventing misuse of data and research results—and explored strategies used by the projects to meet them. Strategies ranged from key points to be considered in stakeholder selection to measures that enhance trustful relationships and create commitment.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Production performance of swine at experiment stations ten years after the introduction of aureomycin. [Paper presented at American Cyanamid Company's Tenth Animal Feed Symposium.]

Mode of access: Internet.

Evidence and implications of multiple paradigms in accounting knowledge production

This paper uses evidence gathered in two perception studies ofAustralasian and British accounting academics to reflect on aspects of the knowledge production systemwithin accounting academe. We provide evidence of the representation of multiple paradigms in many journals that are scored by participants as being of high quality. Indeed most of the journals we surveyed are perceived by accounting academics as incorporating research from more than one paradigm. It is argued that this ‘catholic’ approach by journal editors and the willingness of many respondents in our surveys to score journals highly on material they publish from both paradigm categories reflects a balanced acceptance of the multi-paradigmatic state of accounting research. Our analysis is set within an understanding of systems of accounting knowledge production as socially constructed and as playing an important role in the distribution of power and reward in the academy. We explore the impact of our results on concerns emerging from the work of a number of authors who carefully expose localised 'elites'. The possibilities for a closer relationship between research emerging from a multi-paradigm discipline and policy setting and practice are also discussed. The analysis provides a sense of optimism that the broad constituency of accounting academics operates within an environment conducive for the exchange of ideas. That optimism is dampened by concerns about the impact of local 'elites' and the need for more research on their impact on accounting academe.

Playful laboratories: the significance of games for knowledge production in the digital age

Presented at DiGRA 2015 Diversity of Play, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany, on the 15th of May 2015.