Knowledge
management in public universities in Brazil and Portugal

Gestão do
conhecimento em universidades públicas no Brasil e em Portugal

Lydia
Maria Pinto Brito

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1514-9476

Doutora em
Educação. Universidade Potiguar (UNP) – Brasil.
[email-masked].

Ahiram
Brunni Cartaxo de Castro

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-953X

Doutor em Administração.
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do
Rio Grande do Norte (IFRN) – Brasil. [email-masked].

António Jorge Fernandes

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0145-017X

Doutor em Ciências Econômicas e
Empresariais. Universidade de Aveiro (UA) – Portugal. [email-masked].

Naeldson
Expedito Alves da Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3069-8182

Doutorando em Ensino de Ciências e
Matemática. Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido
(UFERSA) – Brasil. [email-masked].

Cristine
Hermann Nodari https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0397-337X

Doutora em Administração.
Universidade Potiguar (UNP) – Brasil. [email-masked].

Arthur William Pereira da Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-6581

Doutor em Administração.
Ceará (IFCE) – Brasil. [email-masked].

ABSTRACT

The objective of this research was to
investigate which indicators facilitate or are barriers to Knowledge Management
and which therefore behave as enablers or inhibitors of innovation and social
effectiveness in higher education institutions in Brazil and Portugal, in the
perception of managers in education. It is a quantitative study operationalized
through a survey with descriptive purpose. Data were collected through
questionnaires and their treatment was operated on electronic spreadsheets. The
results showed that both the Brazilian and the Portuguese higher education
institutions  have a satisfactory
performance in knowledge management, especially in the process of knowledge
acquisition. However, the section that deals with knowledge assessment, and which
is related to the strategic process, showed that the organizational strategy
has not taken on the role of a learning process overtime, which can compromise
innovation capability and social effectiveness of institutions in the future.
Through this study, facilitating indexes and knowledge management barriers were
identified in the public service of education in Brazil and in Portugal.

Keywords: knowledge management; higher education institution; comparative study.

RESUMO

O objetivo desta pesquisa foi investigar quais indicadores
facilitam ou são barreiras à Gestão do Conhecimento e que
se comportam, portanto, como capacitadores ou inibidores da
inovação e da efetividade social em instituições de
ensino superior do Brasil e Portugal, na percepção de gestores em
educação. Trata-se de um estudo quantitativo operacionalizado por
meio de uma pesquisa com objetivos descritivos. Os dados foram coletados por
meio de questionários e o tratamento realizado em planilhas
eletrônicas. Os resultados mostraram que tanto a IES brasileira quanto a
portuguesa tem um desempenho satisfatório na gestão do
conhecimento, notadamente no processo de obtenção de
conhecimento. Contudo, a seção que trata da avaliação
do conhecimento, relacionada com o processo estratégico, demonstrou que
a estratégia organizacional não tem assumido a forma de um
processo de aprendizado ao longo do tempo, o que pode comprometer a capacidade
de inovação e de efetividade social das instituições
no futuro. Por meio do estudo foram identificados indicadores facilitadores e
as barreiras à gestão do conhecimento no serviço
público de educação do Brasil e de Portugal.

Palavras-chave: gestão do conhecimento;
instituição de ensino superior; estudo comparativo.

Recebido em 13/02/2021.  Aprovado em 17/02/2022. Avaliado pelo
sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme normas da APA.

https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2022.v12.p01-13.1739

1 INTRODUCTION

In times of great challenges, artificial intelligence, fast
technological evolution and the need for more flexibility in order to adapt to
emerging turbulences, organizations have become more and more concerned about
how to manage their organizational knowledge in order to build new knowledge
and promote qualitative transformations in the market and in society.

The use of knowledge as the main resource of the organizations finds
support in the Knowledge-Based View (KBV), which is an extension of
Resource-Based View (RBV), whose analysis treats the firm as an institution to
create and integrate knowledge.

In this sense, Rodrigues and Gava (2016) and Masa’deh et al.
(2017) suggest the inclusion of the educational system, represented by higher
education institutions (HEI), into the core of the investigation on knowledge
production and transfer, which will provide changes in the market and in
society, and as an essential factor for the development of countries, since
education institutions have knowledge as the main resource and there is a
strong relationship between the level of schooling and the economic and social
development of the countries (Unesco, 2010).

In this collection, González, Escudero, Nieto and Portela (2011) state that the accumulation of social
capital in education institutions is only possible from a systematic
implementation of processes and indexes which contribute to knowledge formation
– Knowledge Management.

According to Wiig (2000), KM will be able to supply tools in order to
help the social actors and the education organizations that are involved in the
development process of the countries to mitigate their challenges, since
knowledge management can increase the effectiveness in public services (Wiig,
2000) and create public value, that is, produce services and results, and
create trust in the population (Batista, 2012).

To Inkinen, Kianto
and Vanhala (2015) and Donate and Pablo (2015), the
organizations’ innovation capability is also meaningfully related to KM,
for these actors emphasize that KM antecedes, favors or accelerates the
organizations’ success in innovation.

According to Batista (2012), KM in public administration must be turned
to creating, sharing and applying knowledge in order to qualify social
effectiveness. As a mean, social effectiveness involves a balanced dialogue
among all the people at the heart of the community by generating actions of
solidarity and education to meet the mutual challenges dialogically addressed
by all the social actors involved in the process, and by trying to end the
educational and social exclusion of students, families, schools and contexts
(Álvarez, 2015). As an end, social effectiveness is linked to the
results to be reached, to the beneficiaries, in the face of the execution of
public policies (Batista, 2012), which, concerning this study, find locus in
public education.

Thus, the question is: which indexes are facilitators and which are
barriers to KM of knowledge from the perception of education managers and,
which, therefore, favor or inhibit innovation and social effectiveness in
higher education institutions in Brazil and Portugal?

The general objective of this article was to investigate which indexes
either facilitate or not the barriers to KM of knowledge and which, therefore,
behave as capacitators or inhibitors of innovation and social effectiveness in
higher education institutions in Brazil and Portugal from the perception of
education managers.

This is a relevant research, for, although scientific production about
the nature of knowledge management and innovation in public service is growing,
according to Serenko (2013); Serenko
and Dumay (2015); Castro, Nodari, Brito, Silva and
Santos (2018), this field is still limited, especially from comparative
studies. Concerning the KM theme, this construct is still under a gradual
growing process to which it becomes vital to contribute with studies for its
consolidation as a reference discipline (Serenko,
2013), especially in the public education area. From the managerial point of
view, this study will be able to foster paths on KM for the social
effectiveness of the public institutions of education, extrapolating the
national character of research on the topic. On the other hand, from the social
point of view, the research will be able to promote the development of the
organizations so that they become competitive in the knowledge areas of
interest for the development of their nations, promote the improvement of their
services in education, and intensify the capability to solve problems of
governmental organizations.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The discussion on the KM role is sophisticated, since the model promotes
and develops the organizational competencies in order to research, acquire,
create, organize, share and transform knowledge with the objective to identify
and explore a competitive advantage.

To Du Plessis (2007), KM is like a planned and structured approach to
manage knowledge creation, distribution, acquisition and sharing.

On the other hand, to Bukowitz and Williams
(2002); Brito, Oliveira and Castro (2012); Cardoso, Meireiles
and Peralta (2012); Alegre, Sengupta and Lapiedra
(2013), KM consists of knowledge processes, infrastructures (especially those
highlighted by information and communication technology), cultural factors and
knowledge capabilities (dynamic capabilities) which give support to and improve
the organizational performance in the search for innovation and competitive
advantage.

The publication of the KM Generations’ board suggested by Serenko (2013), show that each research group
(generations), since the first ones, around the 1990’s, not only introduced
new themes and methods but also kept the research guidelines previously
established, from a techno-centric view of the knowledge processes to a
generation highlighted by knowledge complexity and economy, which shows
advancements in studies on KM in literature.

Thus, by considering this research’s objective, the KM model
suggested by Bukowitz and Williams (2002), has stood
out and it has been used in several researches. The authors’ model is
divided into two processes, which are: the tactic processes and the strategic
processes. The first one uses four basic steps: Obtain, Use, Learn and
Contribute (Bukowitz & Williams, 2002).

The Obtain section, which is the first step in the KM tactic process,
refers to acquiring/capturing/obtaining information and knowledge. To Wang,
Wang, Cao & Ye (2016) and Granados, Mohamed and Hlupic
(2017), the activities for obtaining knowledge involve its acquisition through
knowledge sharing and importation from external sources. To Von Krogh (2012);
Lee, Leong, Hew and Ooi (2013); Donate and Pablo
(2015), the Obtain section aims to recycle the existing tactic knowledge,
generate new capabilities and changes, and has practical implications over the
management models and product prototypes in order to keep the institutions’
differentiation. This process is facilitated by information technologies and by
specialists who are able to see new opportunities in the market.

The second step, Use, takes place after knowledge has been obtained, and
it refers to the need of its use. This section deals with the moment when the
organization must encourage its creativity, experimentation
and receptivity in order to satisfy its beneficiary’s needs (Brito et al., 2012; Brito et al., 2019) and, for such, it is important that the organization
have a varied source of knowledge, besides the capability to respond to
imperatives such as “permeability” and “liberty” and
their respective challenges (Bukowitz & Williams,
2002).

Concerning the Learn section, it entails the presence of social
relationships and a mutual engagement between people, infrastructure
(information and communication technologies – ICTs – and network
structure), and collaboration practices, atmosphere and learning organizational
culture, motivation strategies to learn and to spread intellectual capital,
transformational or participative leaders, innovative performance strategies
(dynamic and absorptive capabilities), decentralized knowledge processes
(knowledge acquisition, creation, storing and sharing) and intra- and
inter-organizational partnerships.

The learning process can be facilitated through social media and
networks either formally or informally, and it can take place when researches
are revisited, when there are reports on a certain project, in work teams,
through experimentation, research and development, applied research
(learn-by-doing), departmental collaborations, practice communities, with the
help of internal and external experts, through observation, and through useful
previous lessons, among other ways (Du Plessis, 2007; Serenko,
2013; Alegre et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; Donate &  Pablo, 2015).

According to the authors, the learning process aims at facilitating
knowledge dissemination, the capabilities’ development, innovation
sustainability and performance, aligning strategies, adapting behaviors,
solving organizational problems, developing employees’ creativity,
building up an organizational memory, prospecting future development,
generating value, evaluating decisions’ efficiency and effectiveness, and
stimulating experiences’ learning.

Concerning the Contribute section, it is a step of the process that the
organizations find difficult to schedule because knowledge sharing might be
surrounded by complications and barriers. This process takes place when there
is favorable culture, liability, networks involving employees, and reward for
shared knowledge (Bukowitz & Williams, 2002).
Knowledge sharing can take place either through interpersonal interaction or
through databases, it is encouraged by leaderships and its aim is to improve
the capabilities of knowledge processes and promote learning (Du Plessis, 2007;
Von Krogh, 2012; Lee et al., 2013;
Wang, Noe & Wang, 2014).

On the other hand, the second process of the Knowledge Management
Diagnosis (KMD) is composed of strategic processes, which encompass the Assess,
Build/Keep and Discard sections. According to Bukowitz
and Williams (2002), on a strategic level, the goal is to align the
organization’s knowledge strategy with the institution’s general
strategy.

Assess is the first section of the strategic process and it is both a
strategy reflex and a tool to implement it. The Assess role is to keep the
organization in accordance with the reality of the strategy in the edges (Bukowitz & Williams, 2002). Measuring the organizational
knowledge is important for the preparation and adequacy of organizational
goals, for the organizational strategies need to take on the form of a learning
process overtime (Castro et al.,
2018).

The Build/Keep section, it is responsible to make sure the acquired
knowledge keeps the organization either competitive or manageable in the
future. The idea is to develop the knowledge that is still not part of the
organization’s assets but which will be very important in the future, and
to protect and cultivate this knowledge (Bukowitz
& Williams, 2002) in order to perfect it.

The seventh and last KM step, presented by Bukowitz
and Williams (2002), is Discard. In this step, the organization gives up the
knowledge that no longer meets its strategic objectives in
order to be able to direct its time and resources to keep and increase
the knowledge that is still important for its economic-financial and social
performance (Castro et al., 2018).
However, it is important to highlight that, according to Bukowitz
and Williams (2002), just like many people tend to accumulate, the
organizations also find it difficult to abandon their activities and resources
that used to produce valuable results. To Castro and Brito (2014), on the other
hand, the knowledge discard phase is important to generate innovation. Next,
there is the research’s delimitation and the methodological procedures.

3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

As for the type of research, quantitative research was used through a
survey with descriptive purpose (Hair Jr., Black, Babin
& Anderson, 2014). To collect the research data, a Knowledge Management
Diagnosis questionnaire proposed by Bukowitz and
Williams (2002) was used. The tool, developed by Bukowitz
and Williams (2002), and which was methodologically validated and tested, is
composed of 140 questions divided into seven sections, which are: Obtain, Use,
Learn, Contribute, Assess, Build/Keep and Discard, with 20 statements for each
one. For each instrument statement, the authors adopt a scale of gradual
responses with scores of 1, 2 and 3 points, which correspond to poorly
descriptive, moderately descriptive and strongly descriptive, respectively.
Therefore, the highest score possible for each section is 60 points and the
highest score possible per process is 420 points. Bukowitz
and Williams (2002) point out that the values commonly found in each section
range from 30% to 70%, and that the lowest mean accepted for the whole
knowledge management process is 55%.

In order to go
deeper into the research, KM indexes suggested by Brito et al. (2012) were used, according to Table 1, in which, for each
cognitive domain (questionnaire questions), specific assessing items were
defined, that is, indexes were elaborated from literature.

Table
1. Distribution of the assessing research items
according to the Knowledge Management indexes

KM Indexes

KMD Sections

Obtain

Use

Learn

Contribute

Assess

Build/ Keep

Discard

Knowledge
management processes/

Contextualization/

Knowledge
management policy

-

-

1,
10, 12, 15

2,
12, 15, 16, 18

3,
4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20

1,
7, 16, 18

1,
2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 20

Knowledge
sharing/

Communication/

Relationship

1,
2, 4, 8, 9

1,
5, 8, 15, 18,

19

19

5,
7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

2,
12

1,
2, 19

2,
4, 9, 19

Capability
of task accomplishment

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

Knowledge
management roles

3,
6, 10, 12, 13, 18

-

-

1,
9, 16

14

3,
10

6

Physical
and organizational structure

2,
3, 11, 13, 17

-

4,
8, 10

-

-

-

Electronic
means and information technology

5,
7, 11, 14, 16, 17

-

-

4,
10

-

2,
5, 7, 11, 13, 17

-

Documentation,
results, measurement/protocols and rules

19,
20

14

-

-

3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 20

15,
20

-

Decisive
process

-

4

2,
6, 8, 17, 18, 20

-

13

-

1,
3, 8, 13, 14, 15

Simulation/

games/innovation/problem
solution

-

6,
8, 9, 12, 20

4,
11, 13, 16, 20

-

-

4,
10, 14

18

Partnership

-

7,
10, 16

3,
9

6

-

8,
12, 18

11,
12, 19

Knowledge
assessment

-

-

5,
7, 9, 14

-

-

-

5,
13, 16

Values

-

-

-

-

-

6,
9

-

Knowledge
management appreciation and valorization

-

-

-

3,
17, 18

1,
16,

19

-

10,
20

Source: Adapted from Brito et al. (2012).

To evaluate these indices, the data collected from each question in the
research instrument were treated using electronic spreadsheets from Microsoft
Excel® software, version 16.0.6769.2017 for Windows®, when they were
sequenced and their average was extracted. According to Costa (2011), the
analysis recommendation for the case of a three-point scale is that a mean of
up to 1.8 is poorly descriptive, from 1.8 to 2.4 is moderately descriptive,
whereas a mean above 2.4 is strongly descriptive.

The public teaching institutions researched were two universities. One
in Northeastern Brazil and the other one in central Portugal. These
institutions were chosen due to being public, located in medium-sized cities
(from 50,000 to 300,000 inhabitants), and accessibility, since the research was
performed by researchers from the two organizations who are somehow related to
their social roles.

The Brazilian institution was founded in 1967 with knowledge production
and dissemination in higher education as its social role, sustainable
development and full citizenship exercise as its objective by means of
humanistic, critical and reflexive training that is able to prepare
professionals who can meet society needs. It is composed of four campuses, has
40 graduation courses and 17 stricto sensu post-graduation courses. Moreover, it has 687
teachers and 10,440 students.

Concerning the Portuguese university, it is a public institution that
was founded in 1973 whose social role is to create knowledge, expand access to
knowledge on behalf of the community and society through investigation,
teaching and cooperation; take over a project of individual global training; be
an actor in the construction of a European location for investigation and
education and of a regional development model defined by innovation and scientific
and technological knowledge. The Portuguese institution currently has 16
departments and four Polytechnic schools. It is composed of around 1,004
teachers and 15,000 students.

In the Brazilian institution, 40 education managers joined the
research’s individuals. On the other hand, the Portuguese institution had
23 participating members. Both institutions had a census with managers on the
tactic and strategic levels. Next, the KMD results and data discussion.

4 RESULTS

Table 2 shows the results obtained upon KMD data collection and
processing. Based on the score obtained for each section, it was possible to
see that there is an adequacy between the results found for the values raised
by Bukowitz and Williams (2002) in field studies,
which is marked by a satisfactory KM performance in the teaching institutions
researched. This initial result, by section, was ratified by the general mean
of all the sections, which are: 58.94% for the Brazilian institution, and
64.34% for the Portuguese institution. Therefore, they had a percentage above
the 55% advocated by the KMD authors. These results show that the higher
education institutions researched are enhancing their innovation capability (Inkinen et al.,
2015; Donate & Pablo 2015) and their social effectiveness (Batista, 2012;
Álvarez, 2015).

Table
2. General results of the scores and percentages
obtained by section

Process

Section

BRAZILIAN HEI

PORTUGUESE HEI

Points

% by Section

Performance

Points

% by Section

Performance

Tactic

Obtain

37.40

62.33

Best performance

41.87

69.78

Best performance

Use

35.00

58.33

Worst performance

39.09

65.14

Learn

35.05

58.42

36.52

60.87

Worst performance

Contribute

35.78

59.63

37.96

63.26

Subtotal

143.23

59.68

155.43

64.76

Strategic

Assess

31.45

52.42

Worst performance

34.39

57.32

Worst performance

Build/Keep

37.03

61.71

Best performance

42.00

70.00

Best performance

Discard

36.30

60.50

38.52

64.20

Subtotal

104.85

58.21

114.91

63.84

Grand Total

248.00

59.05

270.35

64.37

Source:
Research data (2019).

The best performances in both universities refer to the KM tactic
processes, especially concerning the ‘Obtain’ section. Therefore,
it means that, through people, the institutions perfectly describe its need for
information and know how to require, understand, communicate, capture and store
the information they need. As for the worst performances, and following the
tendency of other previous researches (Brito  et
al., 2012; Brito et al., 2017;
Brito et al., 2019), they come from
the Assess section of the KM strategic process. This section points out to the
need of an organizational strategy to take on the shape of learning process
overtime through continuous knowledge assessment (Castro et al., 2018).

4.1 Knowledge Management facilitating indexes

From the KM indexes analysis, as suggested by Brito et al. (2012), and from the Brazilian and Portuguese education
managers’ perception, it was possible to identify which of them favor the
social effectiveness and the innovation in the HEI researched.

According to Table 3, all the sections presented similar indexes, that
is, they can be seen both in the Brazilian and in the Portuguese HEI, which
are, respectively: the Obtain section – the Capability to perform a task
and Knowledge Sharing / Communication / Relationship indexes; the Use section
– the Documentation, results, measurement / protocols and rules index;
the Learn section – the Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship
index; the Contribute section – the Partnership indexes; Knowledge
management roles; Physical and organizational structure and Electronic means
and information technologies; the Assess section – the Knowledge
management appreciation and valorization index; the Build/Keep section –
the Electronic means and information technologies index; and the Discard
section – the Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship and
Knowledge management roles indexes.

These results mean that, in both organizations, there are mutual factors
of perception that strongly describe the tactical point of view, that the
employees are able to spot the information they need at the moment they search,
whether in internal or external sources, thus supporting Wang et al. (2016) and Granados et al. (2017); that they give full
explanations when they ask for information, understand and communicate the
intended use of such information (Obtain); that the institutions keep levels of
information safety protocols private (Use); that the people are able to
interact with others in the search for information by favoring the culture of
companionship, liability, cooperation and complementarity, no matter the
hierarchical level they have (Learn); and, organizational management is enabled
through the creation of internal and external partnerships that favor
productive relationships and an effective communication in order to facilitate
knowledge sharing.

Moreover, the education managers are able to monitor the contents of
virtual networks by helping people to better express what they know and lead
whoever can benefit from knowledge; the organizational structure of people,
groups or information technology is able to connect the knowledge stored so
that it can lead the people’s contributions; and the information and
communication technologies (ICTs) are able to contribute to information storing
and direction (Contribute) (Du Plessis, 2007; Von Krogh, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014).

From the strategic point of view, the results mean that there is KM
appreciation and valorization (Assess). According to Castro et al. (2018), this appreciation is
important for the elaboration and adequacy of organizational goals. Moreover,
the results show that the institutions either connect or use their electronic
means and ITs in a network as a source of reliable information that is needed
for the accomplishment of its social role (Build/Keep); and that the HEIs are
able to comprehend the impact of the relationships over productivity before the
automatization of tasks and treat the affected people with dignity and respect
in order to keep the knowledge basis intact; and take part in research groups
about the organization’s business area by helping to decide the need to
acquire knowledge (Bukowitz & Williams, 2002).

Table
3. Facilitator indexes on innovation and social
effectiveness through KM

Process

Section

BRAZILIAN HEI

PORTUGUESE HEI

Tactic

Obtain

Capability of task accomplishment (3.53)
and Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship (3.11)

Capability of task accomplishment (4.04);
Knowledge Sharing / Communication / Relationship (3.08); Knowledge Management
Roles (3.11); Electronic Means and Information Technologies (3.57); and
Documentation, Results, Measurement / Protocols and rules (3.07)

Use

Documentation, results, measurement /
protocols and rules (2.50)

Knowledge Sharing / Communication /
Relationship (3.13); Physical and organizational structure (3.08);
Partnership (3.55); Documentation, results, measurement / protocols and rules
(2.87) and Decisive process (2.09)

Learn

Knowledge sharing / Communication /
Relationship (3.08)

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy (2.05); Knowledge Sharing /
Communication / Relationship (3.52); Decisive process (2.80) and Knowledge
assessment (2.53)

Contribute

Partnership (3.38); Knowledge management
roles (2.65); Physical and organizational structure (2.75) and Electronic means and information technologies (2.78)

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy (2.11); Knowledge sharing /
Communication / Relationship (2.57); Knowledge management roles (3.00);
Physical and organizational structure (3.30); Electronic means and
information technologies (3.26); Partnership (3.39)

Strategic

Assess

Knowledge management appreciation and
valorization (2.83) and Knowledge management roles (2.55)

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy (2.26) and Knowledge
management appreciation and valorization (3.09)

Build / Keep

Electronic means and information
technologies (2.98)

Knowledge management processes /
Knowledge management policy (2.58) / Knowledge sharing / Communication /
Relationship (2.74); Documentation, results, measurement / protocols and
rules (3.72); Knowledge management roles (3.00); Electronic means and
information technologies (3,65); Simulation / games / innovation / problem
solution (3.52); Partnership (3.39) and Values (3,00)

Discard

Electronic means and information
technologies (2.98); Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship (2.55);
Knowledge management roles (2.51); and Documentation, results, measurement /
protocols and rules (2.70)

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy (2.81); Simulation / games /
innovation / problem solution (4.04); Knowledge sharing / Communication /
Relationship (3.20); Knowledge management processes (3.26); Decisive process
(2.63); Partnership (2.78); Knowledge assessment (3.04)

Source:
Research data (2019).

Based
on Table 3, it is possible to see that other indexes stood out separately. In
the Brazilian HEI, the following indexes by section were strongly descriptive
in their capability to generate innovation and social effectiveness through KM:

a)
In the Assess section, the Knowledge Management Roles
indexes. This index explains that the HEI strongly produces individuals or
groups that are able to lead a knowledge management effort in the organization
(Bukowitz & Williams, 2002); and

b)
In the Discard section, the Electronic means and
Information technologies and Documentation, results, measurement / protocols
and rules indexes. This means that the Brazilian institution strongly uses ICTs
and keeps protocols and rules to discard the knowledge that adds no value.

Concerning
the Portuguese HEI, in the tactic process, the following stood out by section:

a)
In the Obtain section: the Knowledge Management Roles;
Electronic Means and Information Technologies; and Documentation, Results,
Measurement/Protocols and Rules indexes. These indexes explain that the
Portuguese HEI has specific individuals or groups that are able to judge,
identify, collect, classify, summarize and spread the organizational knowledge,
through articulation between information needs and information databases by
narrowing information options to the best of the best, which may consider
specialists (Von Krogh, 2012); that it has electronic navigating and capture
instruments which lead people into the best information needed in order to
improve work quality and efficiency; and it has a structure and processes to
document and share the information generated centrally and the information
published individually (Bukowitz & Williams,
2002);

b)
In the Use section, the Knowledge Sharing /
Communication / Relationship index stands out. This index offers the
comprehension that the Portuguese HEI is strongly willing to consider the
collaboration process when people or organizations have an opinion or idea to
give in order to improve work;

c)
In the Learn section, the Knowledge management process
/ Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy; Decisive process and
Knowledge Assessment indexes. They mean that the  HEI considers the mistakes, failures,
problems and disagreements in the experiences respectively, and that this may
show the opportunity to learn as a way to rebuild the KM processes in the
organizational environment; that it uses mental and decision-taking models
redundantly in order to better understand how the facts happen in a specific
way, and learn how to solve different issues; and that the ***Portuguese HEI is
reflected on work experi20ences and learned knowledge as an indispensable way
to adjust the organizational system, making it more effective and efficient
(Alegre et al., 2013; Donate &
Pablo, 2015);

d)
The Contribute section: the Knowledge Management
Processes / Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy; and Knowledge
Sharing / Communication / Relationship indexes. These indexes show that the
Portuguese HEI strongly integrates and legitimates processes to contribute to
the organization’s knowledge and that it is able to guide the ideas and
experiences that are socialized by people so that they can add value to the
institution’s social role (Bukowitz &
Williams, 2002).

Concerning
the Portuguese HEI strategic process, here are the innovation and social
effectiveness facilitators, by section:

a)
Assess: the Knowledge management processes / Contextualization
/ Knowledge Management Policy context index, whose explanation shows that HEI
strongly measures and describes the knowledge management process flow in order
to help better understand what it is trying to manage and its results;

b)
In the section Build/Keep, these are the indexes:
Knowledge Management Processes / Contextualization / Knowledge Management
Policy; Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship; Knowledge management
roles; Simulation / games / innovation / problem solution; Partnerships and
Values. These indexes strongly show that the HEI is able to foster the creating
process of different people network, through IT systems, in order to retain
them and boost knowledge through long-lasting relationships into other areas by
keeping in the groups the people who are indispensable for its social role.
Moreover, the institution also knows when it is inappropriate to share
knowledge externally; it projects specific individuals or groups that are able
to lead the knowledge management effort in the organization; it encourages
people to think about the construction of innovative ideas of products or
services from non-functional activities of its employees; it builds strategic
relationship networks with other organizations and beneficiaries by sharing
technology and ideas in order to take innovative products into the market and
into society; and, in the Portuguese HEI, people are seen as sources of value
instead of cost, and there is an effort to align to formal and informal values
between people and institution;

c)
In the Discard section, the following indexes stand
out, separately: Knowledge management processes / Contextualization / Knowledge
management policy; Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship. These
indexes show that the organization strongly tries to pursue higher value
activities or allocate people into the right skills and experiences before
considering removing them from their roles/activities, for it analyzes the
impact of losing people who hold knowledge that is important for the
institution’s social role. Furthermore, the Portuguese HEI is able to
comprehend the impact of the relationships over productivity before task
automatization, and treats the affected people with dignity and respect in
order to keep its knowledge basis intact (Bukowitz
& Williams, 2002).

4.2 Knowledge Management Barriers

On the other hand, the study results also pointed out to KM barriers for
social innovation and effectiveness of the HEI studied, according to Table 4.

Table
4. Critical results to social effectiveness

Process

Section

BRAZILIAN HEI

PORTUGUESE HEI

Tactic

Contribute

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy (1.78) and Knowledge
management appreciation and valorization (1.79)

-

Strategic

Assess

Knowledge
management processes / Contextualization / Knowledge Management Policy
(1.78); Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship (1.05);
Documentation, results, measurement / protocols and rules (1.44) and Decisive
process (1.79)

Documentation,
results, measurement / protocols and rules (1.77)

Build/Keep

Knowledge management processes /
Contextualization / Knowledge management policy (1.79) and Simulation / games
/ innovation / problem solution (1.70)

-

Discard

Knowledge Management Roles (1.65)

-

Source: Research data (2019).

In the Brazilian HEI, the following KM indexes were poorly descriptive:
for the Contribute section – the Knowledge management processes / Contextualization
/ Knowledge Management Policy and Knowledge Management Appreciation and
Valorization indexes; for the Assess section – the Knowledge management
processes / Contextualization / Knowledge management policy and Knowledge
sharing / Communication / Relationship indexes; and for the Discard section
– the Knowledge Management Roles index.

These results mean, respectively, that: i) the institution fairly
integrates and legitimates the contributing processes with knowledge for the
organization; it fairly appreciates and values the people who contribute to the
knowledge they have and which can generate value; ii) the institution poorly
measures and describes the KM process flow in order to help better understand
what it is trying to manage and its results; and, it poorly discusses and
reports on KM in order to produce records on the quality of this management;
and iii) there is little employee’s participation in research groups
about its business area by helping decide the need to acquire new knowledge for
the accomplishment of its social role (Bukowitz &
Williams, 2002).

Concerning the Portuguese HEI, the Documentation, results, measurement /
protocols and rules index was poorly descriptive for KM in the Assess section:
This means that the institution poorly keeps products or services with added
value as a result of the knowledge they hold (Bukowitz
& Williams, 2002).

5 CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, both the Brazilian and the Portuguese HEI have a
satisfactory KM performance, especially about acquiring knowledge in order to
maximize innovation and favor social effectiveness. However, the section which
deals with knowledge assessment and which is related to the KM’s
strategic process, showed that the organizational strategy hasn’t taken
on the form of a learning process overtime, which can jeopardize the
institutions’ innovation capability and social effectiveness in the
future.

The main indexes, which are mutual for both HEIs and contribute to
promoting innovation and social effectiveness in public education service, and
which, in turn, are KM facilitators, are: Capability of task accomplishment and
Knowledge Sharing / Communication / Relationship (Obtain); Documentation,
results, measurement / protocols and rules (Use); Knowledge sharing /
Communication / Relationship (Learn); Partnership; Knowledge Management Roles;
Physical and organizational structure; Electronic means and information
technologies (Contribute); Knowledge management appreciation and valorization
(Assess); Electronic means and information technologies (Build/Keep); and
Knowledge sharing / Communication / Relationship and Knowledge management roles
(Discard).

As for the Brazilian HEI’s, the KM barriers are in the following
indexes: Knowledge management processes / Contextualization / Knowledge
management policy; Knowledge management appreciation and valorization
(Contribute); Documentation, results, measurement / protocols and rules;
Decisive process (Assess); Simulation / games / innovation / problem solution
(Build / Keep); and Knowledge Management Roles (Discard). In the Portuguese
institution, the barrier was identified in the Documentation, results, measurement
/ protocols and rules index, from the KMD’s Assess section.

The identification of these indexes creates an opportunity of reflection
by the education managers of the HEIs investigated over their implications in
the achievement of the HEI’s social role for the market and society.
Furthermore, it shows the need of KM practices’ development which enables
the combination between the intellectual with the strategic demands, since most
barriers lie on the strategic process of KM.

Therefore, it may seem right to state that the present research
contributes to comprehending how the KM process works in two federal public
universities in Brazil and in Portugal, and that, at the same time it produces
knowledge which can be used by the institutions in the development of their
activities and in the search for the improvement of the quality of educational
service delivery.

Also, the managerial contribution of the research is to establish the
main elements that hinder and promote knowledge management in educational
organizations, through the application of a methodology developed for other
contexts, as well as its contrast with the numerical results obtained in other
studies with the same methodology.

Suggestions for future work are based on longitudinal studies with
triangulation of data, in order to overcome the limitations of a single method
and non-generalizable results, and on the investigation of how educational
institutions, whose main resource is knowledge, can improve its knowledge
assessment process.

REFERENCES

Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R.
(2013). Knowledge management and innovation performance in a
high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 454-470.

Álvarez,
C. Á. (2015). De la innovación educativa a la transformación
social: teoría y práctica. Intangible
Capital, 11(3), 285-292.

Arpaci, I. (2017). Antecedents and consequences
of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 382-390.

Batista, F. F. (2012).
Modelo de gestão do conhecimento para a administração
pública brasileira: como implementar a gestão do conhecimento
para produzir resultados em benefício do cidadão.
Brasília: IPEA.

Brito, L. M. P., Silva, N. E. A.,
Castro, A. B. C., Nodari, C. H., & Silva, A. W. P. D. (2019). Knowledge
management for the sustainable development of the semi-arid region in
Northeastern Brazil. Ciência
Rural, 49, 1-6.

Brito, L. M. P., Santos, S.
R. V., El-Aouar, W. A., & de Castro, A. B. C.
(2017). Gestão do conhecimento em uma cooperativa médica do
norte/nordeste brasileiro. Revista Gestão em Análise, 6(1/2),
69-87.

Brito, L. M. P., Oliveira,
P. W. S. D., & Castro, A. B. C. D. (2012). Knowledge management
in a public institution for technical assistance and rural extension of
northeastern Brazil. Revista
de Administração Pública, 46(5), 1341-1366.

Bukowitz, W. R. & Williams, R. L. (2002). The
Knowledge Management Fieldbook. London: Pearson
Education.

Cardoso, L., Meireles, A.,
& Ferreira Peralta, C. (2012). Knowledge management and its critical
factors in social economy organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2),
267-284.

Castro, A. B. C., Nodari,
C. H., Brito, L. M. P., Silva, A. W. P., & Santos, H. C. C.
Temáticas emergentes em Gestão do Conhecimento: um estudo
bibliométrico. In: Anais... XXI SEMEAD - Seminários em
Administração da FEA/USP. São Paulo: SEMEAD, 2018.

Castro, A. B. C.; Brito, L.
M. P. (2014). Discard of knowledge as an innovation strategy: a
study in a public institution of non-formal education in northeastern Brazil. HOLOS, 30(4), 397-414.

Costa, F.J. D. (2011).
Mensuração e desenvolvimento de escalas: aplicações
em administração. Rio de Janeiro: Ciência Moderna.

Donate, M. J., & Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The
role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360-370.

Du
Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20-29.

González,
M., Escudero, J., Nieto, J., & Portela, A.
(2011). Coordenadas y referentes para la renovación
organizativa de los centros escolares. Innovaciones en el gobierno y
gestión de los centros escolares, 19-38. Madrid: Síntesis.

Granados,
M. L., Mohamed, S., & Hlupic, V. (2017). Knowledge
management activities in social enterprises: lessons for small and non-profit
firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 376-396.

Hair
Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., &
Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th
edition. Hellaby Hall: Pearson.

Inkinen, H. T., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M.
(2015). Knowledge management practices and innovation performance in
Finland. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(4), 432-455.

Lee,
V. H., Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., & Ooi, K. B.
(2013). Knowledge management: a key determinant in advancing technological innovation?. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(6), 848-872.

Masa’deh, R. E., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). The impact of knowledge management on
job performance in higher education: The case of the University of
Jordan. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), 244-262.

Rodrigues,
F. C. R., & Gava, R. (2016). Support capacity to
innovation of federal institutes and federal universities in minas gerais: a comparative study. REAd.
Revista Eletrônica de
Administração, 22(1), 26-51.

Serenko, A. (2013).
Meta-analysis of scientometric research of knowledge
management: discovering the identity of the discipline. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 17(5), 773-812.

Serenko, A., & Dumay, J.
(2015). Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part I:
articles and their characteristics. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 19(2), 401-431.

Unesco. (2010). United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. Report: Education is the key to
sustainable development. Brasília, DF: Unesco.
Recovered from
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Brasilia/pdf/MDG_EFA_new_figures_pt_21-09-2010.pdf.

Von
Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward
a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 21(2), 154-164.

Wang,
S., Noe, R. A., & Wang, Z. M. (2014). Motivating knowledge
sharing in knowledge management systems: A quasi–field
experiment. Journal of Management, 40(4), 978-1009.

Wang,
Z., Wang, N., Cao, J., & Ye, X. (2016). The impact of intellectual
capital–knowledge management strategy fit on firm
performance. Management Decision, 54(8), 1861-1885.

Wiig,
K. M. (2000). Knowledge management: an emerging discipline rooted in a long
history. Knowledge horizons: the present and the promise of knowledge
management (3-26).