No description available.

Faced with the challenges to addressing the novelties of the changing business environments (e.g., new customer requirement, changes in customers taste and preferences, the introduction of new products or services by competitors), organizations seek to build collaboration among their employees who possess complementary knowledge. Integrating complementary knowledge enhances employees' ability to address environmental challenges and foster innovation. Despite the importance of knowledge integration for innovation, integration of such knowledge becomes difficult when employees lack a shared understanding of knowledge, and when the knowledge is newly generated. Because new knowledge is tacit in nature and highly personal to a particular individual, it is difficult to articulate, making knowledge integration (KI) an arduous task. Lack of shared understanding, the presence of new knowledge, and lack of common interests in employees creates three types of knowledge boundaries – syntactic (information processing) boundaries, semantic (interpretive) boundaries, and pragmatic (political) boundaries. The presence of knowledge boundaries makes it difficult for employees to share and access their knowledge with each other. To overcome the challenges related to the knowledge boundaries, employees use boundary-spanning objects, which are common lexicons, common meaning, and common interests, to share and access their knowledge across the boundaries. Although prior studies have emphasized the importance of knowledge integration of various knowledge sources for innovations, examinations of what enhances KI capability of employees for organizational innovation remain limited. In addition, apart from Carlile, (2004) and Franco (2013), which are both case studies, other studies that examine the role of boundary spanning objects for knowledge integration are missing. The knowledge management literature also fails to measures (the success of common lexicons, common meaning, and common interests for achieving KI capability) boundary spanning objects. Therefore, in this study, new measurement items of boundary spanning objects and novelty are developed to test the hypotheses. A survey-based design was used to collect data and measure the constructs examined in this study. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the direct relationship hypotheses. The moderation effects were tested using 1) multi-group analysis using hierarchical linear regression, and 2) relative weight of each boundary spanning object determining KI capability at the different levels of novelty. Evidence suggests that while common meaning and common interests positively influence KI capability, common lexicon does not have a statistically significant relationship with KI capability. The results also revealed that KI capability positively influences organizational innovation. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the strength of the relationship between boundary spanning objects and KI capability is different at the medium and the high level of novelty.

O presente estudo destinou-se à compreensão do conceito de acesso coletivo à justiça, a partir da verificação do que é, como ocorre, quais os mecanismos existentes no sistema processual vigente que propiciam o acesso à justiça dos grupos sociais necessitados, bem como a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública para a defesa dos interesses difusos, coletivos e individuais homogêneos. Em virtude do crescente número de conflitos coletivos existentes atualmente, os quais giram em torno dos direitos do consumidor, da proteção ao meio ambiente, à saúde pública, entre outras demandas de repercussão social, surgiu a preocupação com a defesa dos interesses coletivos daqueles que além de não disporem de meios suficientes para arcar com os custos de um processo judicial, desconhecem tanto os seus direitos quanto os instrumentos hábeis a reclamá-los. Muito se tem falado acerca do acesso à justiça, porém ainda não resta clara a compreensão do seu significado, principalmente quanto ao acesso coletivo à justiça, motivo pelo qual debruçou-se neste momento sobre o presente tema, buscando construir um conceito apto a revelar o verdadeiro papel do Estado na prestação jurisdicional, a partir do estudo sobre a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública, do seu papel como função essencial à justiça, conforme disposto na Constituição Federal de 1988, avaliando a sua atuação nas ações coletivas, tanto nas fases cognitiva e executória da sentença. Foram abordados significados como os de lide, litígio, necessidade, interesse, pretensão, conflitos coletivos, legitimidade, representação, interesses coletivos, difusos e individuais homogêneos, os quais subsidiaram a investigação pretendida. Foi avaliada a inovação trazida com a Lei n 11.448, de 15 de Janeiro de 2007, que ampliou o rol dos legitimados para a propositura da Ação Civil Pública, inserindo entre eles a Defensoria Pública, bem como foram avaliadas as críticas contrárias à referida legitimidade e a Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade proposta pela Associação Nacional dos Membros do Ministério Público, sendo essas críticas todas refutadas com base na análise hermenêutica dos textos legais, no entendimento da doutrina e nos posicionamentos jurisprudenciais predominantes. Este trabalho procurou endossar a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública na sua defesa dos interesses coletivos, individuais homogêneos e, sobretudo, dos interesses difusos das classes sociais menos favorecidas, tendo em vista o direito fundamental da coletividade à prestação jurisdicional do Estado, cujo provimento, para ser alcançado, depende da atuação efetiva da Defensoria Pública, prerrogativa indispensável para o acesso coletivo à justiça / The present study set out to understand the concept of collective access to the judicial system, starting from the verification of what this means in practice, how it is effected, and what mechanisms exist in the prevailing legal system that allow needy social groups to access the judicial system, as well as the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service in defending diffuse, collective and homogeneous individual interests. In view of the current increase in the number of collective disputes involving the rights of consumers, protection of the environment, public health, among other demands with social repercussions, there arose a concern for the defence of the collective interests of those who, besides not having the financial means to pay the costs of a legal action, are lacking in knowledge not only of their rights, but also of the appropriate instruments for demanding these rights. Much has been spoken on access to the judicial system, but the understanding of its meaning remains unclear, particularly with regard to collective access to the system. As a result, it was decided to focus on this issue with the aim of formulating a concept capable of disclosing the true role of the state in providing a judicial service, taking as starting point a study of the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service and its role as an essential organ of the judicial system, in accordance with the provisions of the Brazilian constitution of 1988, evaluating the performance of the service in collective legal actions, in both the cognitive and executory phases of the sentence. The meaning of terms such as lide (dispute), litígio (litigation), necessidade (need), interesse (interest), pretensão (claim), conflitos coletivos (collective conflicts), legitimidade (legitimacy), representação (representation) and interesses coletivos, difusos e individuais homogêneos (diffuse, collective and homogeneous individual interests), all of which contributed data for the investigation, was addressed. An assessment was made of the innovation introduced by Act n 11,448, of 15 January 2007, which extended the number of legal entities legitimated to initiate a Public Civic Action, including the Public Legal Aid Service, and of the criticisms of those opposed to the abovementioned legitimacy and of those members of the Public Prosecution Service who initiated a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, all of these criticisms being refuted on the basis of a hermeneutic analysis of legal texts, an understanding of legal doctrine and the predominant stances adopted by judges. This paper sought to endorse the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service in its defence of homogeneous individual and collective interests, and, above all, the diffuse interests of the less privileged social classes, bearing in mind the communitys basic right to legal assistance from the state, the successful provision of which depends on the effective actions of the Public Legal Aid Service, an indispensable condition for collective access to the judicial system

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:17:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_amanda_marques.PDF: 739038 bytes, checksum: 923285b2d16dc8e9b9560569c0c24f52 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-11-01 / The present study set out to understand the concept of collective access to the judicial system, starting from the verification of what this means in practice, how it is effected, and what mechanisms exist in the prevailing legal system that allow needy social groups to access the judicial system, as well as the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service in defending diffuse, collective and homogeneous individual interests. In view of the current increase in the number of collective disputes involving the rights of consumers, protection of the environment, public health, among other demands with social repercussions, there arose a concern for the defence of the collective interests of those who, besides not having the financial means to pay the costs of a legal action, are lacking in knowledge not only of their rights, but also of the appropriate instruments for demanding these rights. Much has been spoken on access to the judicial system, but the understanding of its meaning remains unclear, particularly with regard to collective access to the system. As a result, it was decided to focus on this issue with the aim of formulating a concept capable of disclosing the true role of the state in providing a judicial service, taking as starting point a study of the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service and its role as an essential organ of the judicial system, in accordance with the provisions of the Brazilian constitution of 1988, evaluating the performance of the service in collective legal actions, in both the cognitive and executory phases of the sentence. The meaning of terms such as lide (dispute), litígio (litigation), necessidade (need), interesse (interest), pretensão (claim), conflitos coletivos (collective conflicts), legitimidade (legitimacy), representação (representation) and interesses coletivos, difusos e individuais homogêneos (diffuse, collective and homogeneous individual interests), all of which contributed data for the investigation, was addressed. An assessment was made of the innovation introduced by Act nº 11,448, of 15 January 2007, which extended the number of legal entities legitimated to initiate a Public Civic Action, including the Public Legal Aid Service, and of the criticisms of those opposed to the abovementioned legitimacy and of those members of the Public Prosecution Service who initiated a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, all of these criticisms being refuted on the basis of a hermeneutic analysis of legal texts, an understanding of legal doctrine and the predominant stances adopted by judges. This paper sought to endorse the legitimacy of the Public Legal Aid Service in its defence of homogeneous individual and collective interests, and, above all, the diffuse interests of the less privileged social classes, bearing in mind the community s basic right to legal assistance from the state, the successful provision of which depends on the effective actions of the Public Legal Aid Service, an indispensable condition for collective access to the judicial system / O presente estudo destinou-se à compreensão do conceito de acesso coletivo à justiça, a partir da verificação do que é, como ocorre, quais os mecanismos existentes no sistema processual vigente que propiciam o acesso à justiça dos grupos sociais necessitados, bem como a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública para a defesa dos interesses difusos, coletivos e individuais homogêneos. Em virtude do crescente número de conflitos coletivos existentes atualmente, os quais giram em torno dos direitos do consumidor, da proteção ao meio ambiente, à saúde pública, entre outras demandas de repercussão social, surgiu a preocupação com a defesa dos interesses coletivos daqueles que além de não disporem de meios suficientes para arcar com os custos de um processo judicial, desconhecem tanto os seus direitos quanto os instrumentos hábeis a reclamá-los. Muito se tem falado acerca do acesso à justiça, porém ainda não resta clara a compreensão do seu significado, principalmente quanto ao acesso coletivo à justiça, motivo pelo qual debruçou-se neste momento sobre o presente tema, buscando construir um conceito apto a revelar o verdadeiro papel do Estado na prestação jurisdicional, a partir do estudo sobre a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública, do seu papel como função essencial à justiça, conforme disposto na Constituição Federal de 1988, avaliando a sua atuação nas ações coletivas, tanto nas fases cognitiva e executória da sentença. Foram abordados significados como os de lide, litígio, necessidade, interesse, pretensão, conflitos coletivos, legitimidade, representação, interesses coletivos, difusos e individuais homogêneos, os quais subsidiaram a investigação pretendida. Foi avaliada a inovação trazida com a Lei nº 11.448, de 15 de Janeiro de 2007, que ampliou o rol dos legitimados para a propositura da Ação Civil Pública, inserindo entre eles a Defensoria Pública, bem como foram avaliadas as críticas contrárias à referida legitimidade e a Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade proposta pela Associação Nacional dos Membros do Ministério Público, sendo essas críticas todas refutadas com base na análise hermenêutica dos textos legais, no entendimento da doutrina e nos posicionamentos jurisprudenciais predominantes. Este trabalho procurou endossar a legitimidade da Defensoria Pública na sua defesa dos interesses coletivos, individuais homogêneos e, sobretudo, dos interesses difusos das classes sociais menos favorecidas, tendo em vista o direito fundamental da coletividade à prestação jurisdicional do Estado, cujo provimento, para ser alcançado, depende da atuação efetiva da Defensoria Pública, prerrogativa indispensável para o acesso coletivo à justiça