Descriptive-analytical study evaluates knowledge management practices and Pathfinder service performance in digital settings, indicating high technical readiness but lacking managerial strategy.
The study aims to deepen the conceptual framework of knowledge management laws and the Pathfinder service in the light of contemporary literature and the digital environment, and to reveal the role of strategic practices of knowledge management in developing the operational and innovative dimensions of the performance of the Pathfinder service, and to measure the level of effectiveness of the Pathfinder service as a strategic performance tool in light of the application of knowledge management laws (Sharing, Accumulation, and Renewal)the descriptive-analytical approach was adopted in the study and the questionnaire, observation and standardized interview were used as methods of data collection, and the statistical program SPSS version 23 was used to analyze the results of the study, and the study came out with a number of results, most notably: The technical and physical aspect (hardware, networks, software) achieved the first rank in the reality of requirements with a weighted arithmetic average of 2.20 and relative importance of 73%, which indicates the readiness of the basic technological environment in the institution under study, and the paragraph related to the existence of a clear management strategy to support knowledge management initiatives was recorded as the lowest arithmetic mean in the requirements axis (2.08) with a weight of 69% , This confirms the absence of binding policies and legislation to institutionalize knowledge and its application. The results showed a strong reliance on previous knowledge stocks and periodic updating of links to face information obsolescence, as the law of knowledge accumulation achieved the first rank in the axis of laws with a weighted average of 2.42 and a weight of 80%. Keywords Knowledge ManagementKnowledge Management LawsPathfinderPerformance
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Firas Adredah Mansoor (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: