Search results

This paper aims to propose a model of production management that integrates knowledge management, as a third dimension, to the production and work dimensions and to identify factors that promote a favorable context for knowledge sharing and results achievement in the production operations shop floor environment.

The model proposed is built from opportunities identified in the literature review.

The factors in the model integrate its three main components: knowledge management, production organization and work organization, providing a representation of the dynamics of the workplace and shop floor environment.

The proposed model and its factors allow managers to better understand and to improve the organization activities, because it integrates knowledge management with the production organization and work organization components of traditional models.

Literature acknowledges the role of knowledge as competitive advantage, but it is still dealt in an implicit way within the traditional models of production management. This paper proposes a model and factors that provide a favorable context for tacit knowledge sharing and results achievement in the production operations shop floor environment. The model explicitly integrates knowledge management with traditional models' components.

The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in unstructured work environments, such as those found in automated production lines.

The study is based on a qualitative approach, and it draws data from a four‐month field study at a blown‐molded glass factory. Data collection techniques included interviews, informal conversations and on‐site observations, and data were interpreted using content analysis.

The results indicated that sharing of tacit knowledge is facilitated by an engaging environment. An engaging environment is supported by shared language and knowledge, which are developed through intense communication and a strong sense of collegiality and a social climate that is dominated by openness and trust. Other factors that contribute to the creation of an engaging environment include managerial efforts to provide appropriate work conditions and to communicate company goals, and HRM practices such as the provision of formal training, on‐the‐job training and incentives.

This paper clarifies the scope of managerial actions that impact knowledge creation and sharing among blue‐collar workers.

Despite the acknowledgement of the importance of blue‐collar workers' knowledge, both the knowledge management and operations management literatures have devoted limited attention to it. Studies related to knowledge management in unstructured working environments are also not abundant.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.