Sammenlign metoder
Gennemgå dine valgte metoder side om side; rækker, der afviger, er fremhævet.
| Corporate Governance Spørgeskema× | Knowledge Management Capability Scale× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagområde | Strategisk ledelse | Strategisk ledelse |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Oprindelsesår≠ | 1976 (theory); 1992 (operational) | 1995 |
| Ophavsperson≠ | Jensen and Meckling (foundational); Cadbury Committee (operational framework) | Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (SECI model); adapted by organizational scholars |
| Type | Organizational self-report questionnaire | Organizational self-report questionnaire |
| Oprindelig kilde≠ | Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. DOI ↗ | Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. link ↗ |
| Aliasser | CG Assessment, Governance Maturity Scale | KM Capability Scale, Knowledge Management Maturity Scale |
| Relaterede | 5 | 5 |
| Resumé≠ | Corporate Governance encompasses the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Jensen and Meckling's (1976) agency theory formalized the principal-agent problem—how to ensure management (agents) acts in shareholders' (principals') interests despite information asymmetry and incentive misalignment. The Cadbury Report (1992) operationalized this into practical governance frameworks emphasizing board independence, audit committees, and transparency. This questionnaire assesses organizational governance maturity across multiple dimensions: board structure and independence, internal controls and risk management, audit and compliance, stakeholder engagement, and transparency. Strong governance reduces agency costs, improves decision quality, and protects against fraud and misconduct. | Knowledge Management (KM) refers to the organizational capacity to create, capture, organize, and apply knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness, innovation, and decision-making. Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995) knowledge-creating company framework conceptualized knowledge as moving through four conversion modes: socialization (tacit to tacit knowledge transfer through experience), externalization (tacit knowledge articulation into explicit forms), combination (explicit knowledge assembly into systems), and internalization (explicit knowledge absorption into tacit understanding). This scale measures organizational capability across the four KM processes—knowledge creation, capture, sharing, and application—revealing where organizations excel or struggle in converting information into competitive advantage. |
| ScholarGateDatasæt ↗ |
|
|