The Relevance of Intellectual Capital in Shared Service Centres: An Exploratory Research on the Contribution of Three Models from Different Areas of Knowledge

The Relevance of Intellectual Capital in Shared Service Centres: An Exploratory Research on the Contribution of Three Models from Different Areas of Knowledge

Luisa Domingues (ISTAR - ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal), Agostinho Sousa Pinto (ISCAP/CEOS - P.Porto, Porto, Portugal) and Carlos José Guterres (ISEG – Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal)
Copyright: © 2018 |Pages: 16
DOI: 10.4018/IJTHI.2018040101
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


In the context of shared services, considering the intrinsic characteristics of the concepts service and sharing, organizational knowledge can assume different levels of relevance depending on the models adopted, from the most conventional to the most recent models considered as new forms of shared services. These are: Centres of Competence, Centres of Excellence, Centres of Expertise and Technical Centres. According to Nonaka, the creation of new knowledge takes place in a continuous process of transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Marciniak correlates the new models of shared services with the tacit and explicit knowledge. Domingues presents in the SSAM model the concept of intellectual capital as the driving force of innovation and quality service effectiveness. This article, using a qualitative approach and constructivist paradigm, develops exploratory research that aims in new directions and horizons at the confluence of these three models (Nonaka, SSAM and Marciniak) in knowledge management at shared service centres.
Article Preview

Methodological Approach

The present study aims to analyse how three models - Marciniak, SSAM and Nonaka - from distinct areas of knowledge are correlated regarding knowledge management approach in shared service centres.

In order to pursue this research, the work developed follow an exploratory investigation that, according to Raymond Quivy (1998), does not seek to verify hypotheses nor to collect or analyse specific data, but rather to open up avenues for reflection, to extend or define the horizons of reading, becoming aware of the dimensions and aspects of the subject of research. Additionally, this methodology allows to identify false problems, unconscious results of our assumptions or prejudices.

The present work follows a constructivist paradigm, methodologically supported in the construction instead of the verification, following a qualitative approach. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative methods consider the interaction of the researcher with the field and its members as an explicit part of the production of knowledge. The subjectivity of the researcher and the objects studied are part of the research process (Flick, 2014).

In addition, different perspectives of the validity of research according to the paradigm coexist. According to a positivist paradigm, one argues for rigor in the application of the method. However, in a constructivist paradigm, methodological rigor is not neglected, it is argued that it is not the methods that allow “truth” but rather the processes of interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 2003).

Following the assumptions presented, based on literature review, accepted theories, published scientific papers and the authors' experience, a new approach was developed and presented in the area of Organizational Knowledge Management.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Volume 18: 4 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2005)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing