Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Constantin Bratianu, Adriana Agapie and Ivona Orzea
important: <strong>the</strong> activity done for writing books (A2), or <strong>the</strong> activity done for writing papers to be
published in scientific journals (A3)?
b) Please, indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9 to what extent you consider that your previous choice
is more important than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r one.
7.a) Given <strong>the</strong> strategy for stimulating faculty staff competition (S2), what do you think is more
important: <strong>the</strong> activity done for writing papers to be published in scientific journals (A3), or <strong>the</strong>
activity done for research grants (A1)?
b) Please, indicate, on a scale from 1 to 9 to what extent you consider that your previous choice
is more important than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r one.
Paired comparison judgments in <strong>the</strong> AHP are applied to pairs <strong>of</strong> homogeneous elements and
summarized in a matrix <strong>of</strong> judgments. Scoring is applied to rank <strong>the</strong> two alternative strategies. Matrix
<strong>of</strong> judgments is determined assuming values equal to one on <strong>the</strong> main diagonal and also reversibility
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> preferences-so that if S1 is preferred to S2 at a corresponding absolute value <strong>of</strong> 5, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> S2
will be preferred to S1 at an absolute value <strong>of</strong> 1/5, which is 0.2. The corresponding vector <strong>of</strong> priorities
is computed in an eigenvalue formulation. The solution is obtained by raising <strong>the</strong> matrix to a
sufficiently large power, <strong>the</strong>n summing over <strong>the</strong> rows and normalizing to obtain <strong>the</strong> priority vector. The
process is stopped when <strong>the</strong> difference between components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> priority vector obtained at <strong>the</strong> (k)
power and at <strong>the</strong> (k+1) power is less than some predetermined small value. The vector <strong>of</strong> priorities is
<strong>the</strong> derived scale associated with <strong>the</strong> matrix <strong>of</strong> comparisons (Saaty, 1994). After setting priorities for
<strong>the</strong>se strategies, pair wise comparisons are also made ratings <strong>the</strong>mselves to set priorities for <strong>the</strong>m
under each strategy and dividing each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir priorities by <strong>the</strong> largest rated intensity to get <strong>the</strong> ideal
intensity. Finally, alternatives are scored by checking <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong>ir respective ratings under each criterion
and summing <strong>the</strong>se ratings for all strategies. This produces a ratio scale score for <strong>the</strong> alternative. The
scores thus obtained <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> alternatives can in <strong>the</strong> end be normalized by dividing each one by <strong>the</strong>ir
sum.
4. Numerical results and discussion
The survey was delivered to academics from <strong>the</strong> faculties <strong>of</strong> economics and business <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
consortium <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main comprehensive universities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country, mentioned above. Finally we got
223 valid questionnaires. Once again, we underline <strong>the</strong> fact that in this type <strong>of</strong> research <strong>the</strong>
significance <strong>of</strong> respondents’ position is important and not <strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> respondents since <strong>the</strong>
knowledge transfer field is not homogeneous. The respondents represent quite well <strong>the</strong> three main
generations we considered in <strong>the</strong> academic staff: pr<strong>of</strong>essors – in <strong>the</strong> upper age level, associate
pr<strong>of</strong>essors – in <strong>the</strong> middle age level, and <strong>the</strong> young assistants – in <strong>the</strong> lower age level. The priority
vector <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strategy considered to influence <strong>the</strong> intergenerational knowledge transfer was calculated
as an average on <strong>the</strong> individual vectors <strong>of</strong> priority. Results weighted for all <strong>the</strong> respondents are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Syn<strong>the</strong>sis in <strong>the</strong> Distributive Mode
Strategies S1 S2
Priority vector 0.786 0.214
Activity A1 0.596 0.600
Activity A2 0.230 0.245
Activity A3 0.174 0.155
Analyzing <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> priority vector <strong>of</strong> strategies becomes evident <strong>the</strong> fact that most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
academic staff consider cooperation much more important (0.786) than individual competition (0.214).
Considering cooperation as <strong>the</strong> main strategy, respondents appreciate that team work for research
grants (0.596) is much more important as writing books (0.230), or writing papers for scientific journals
(0.174) in <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> intergenerational knowledge transfer. It is a ra<strong>the</strong>r interesting result
knowing <strong>the</strong> preference for competition in <strong>the</strong> past. It is a change in <strong>the</strong> university strategy followed by
a change in <strong>the</strong> organizational culture. Analyzing now <strong>the</strong> priority vector for each strategy individually,
it is clear that <strong>the</strong> most important mode <strong>of</strong> knowledge sharing is working toge<strong>the</strong>r for <strong>the</strong> research
grants (0.596 for strategy S1, and 0.600 for strategy S2). In second place comes knowledge sharing
through work for writing textbooks (0.230 for strategy S1, and 0.245 for strategy S2). In <strong>the</strong> teamwork
for research we can integrate both tacit and explicit knowledge; in writing books <strong>the</strong> most important
contribution is done by explicit knowledge. Writing papers for scientific journals remains less important
for intergenerational knowledge transfer (0.174 for strategy S1, and 0.155 for strategy S2). This score
128