Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, May-August 2026; 14(2), e1025
Translated from the original in Spanish

Original article

An integrated procedure for knowledge and innovation management in an electronics company

Procedimiento integrado para gestionar conocimiento e innovación en una empresa electrónica

Procedimento integrado para a gestão do conhecimento e da inovação em uma empresa de eletrônicos

Cesar Luis Otaño Ordaz¹ 0009-0009-3272-9895 cesarl24041985@gmail.com
Maricela María González Pérez² 0000-0003-2617-5370 maricela@upr.edu.cu

¹ Electronic Components Company “Ernesto Ché Guevara”. Cuba.
² University of Pinar del Río "Hermanos Saíz Montes de Oca". Cuba.

Received: 23/07/2026
Accepted: 3/09/2026

ABSTRACT

Integrated knowledge and innovation management is a decisive factor for electronics companies, which are exposed to short technology cycles, resource constraints, and the risk of losing expert knowledge. In the Cuban context, these capabilities take on a strategic dimension for local development and technological sovereignty. Consequently, the objective of this study was to design a procedure for managing knowledge and innovation that contributes to enhancing the company's competitiveness and capacity to adapt to its environment, as well as to regional development. The research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach -descriptive and applied- that combined a literature review, a Likert-scale survey of 106 managers, specialists, and operators, group work, descriptive statistics, triangulation using the Vester matrix, and Iadov validation. The main findings confirmed the existence of qualified human capital, support structures, and external collaboration, but also revealed low strategic alignment, poor capture of lessons learned, insufficient knowledge platforms, and a lack of systematic measurement. Twelve of 22 items showed a floor effect, and none showed a ceiling effect. A systemic and context-specific procedure was designed, consisting of seven phases and 23 activities, which integrates alignment, diagnosis, generation, preservation, transfer, application, and improvement. The Group Satisfaction Index was 0.6333, indicating favorable acceptance. The proposal organizes dispersed capabilities without creating parallel structures, links critical knowledge to innovation projects, and offers a viable basis for its gradual implementation and longitudinal evaluation, with potential impact on local development.

Keywords: organizational learning; local development; knowledge management; innovation management; electronics industry; procedure.

RESUMEN

La gestión integrada del conocimiento y la innovación constituye un factor decisivo para las empresas electrónicas, expuestas a ciclos tecnológicos breves, restricciones de recursos y riesgo de pérdida de saber experto. En el contexto cubano, estas capacidades adquieren una dimensión estratégica para el desarrollo local y la soberanía tecnológica. En consecuencia, el objetivo de este trabajo fue diseñar un procedimiento para la gestión del conocimiento y la innovación que contribuya a elevar la competitividad y la capacidad de adaptación de la empresa al entorno, así como al desarrollo del territorio. La investigación se desarrolló empleando una metodología mixta, descriptiva y aplicada, que combinó revisión documental, encuesta Likert a 106 directivos, especialistas y operarios, trabajo grupal, estadística descriptiva, triangulación con matriz de Vester y validación Iadov. Como principales resultados se constató la existencia de capital humano calificado, estructuras de apoyo y colaboración externa, pero también baja alineación estratégica, débil captura de lecciones, insuficientes plataformas de conocimiento y ausencia de medición sistemática. Doce de 22 ítems presentaron efecto suelo y ninguno efecto techo. Se diseñó un procedimiento sistémico y contextualizado, compuesto por siete fases y 23 actividades, que articula alineación, diagnóstico, generación, conservación, transferencia, aplicación y mejora. El Índice de Satisfacción Grupal fue 0,6333, lo que indica aceptación favorable. La propuesta organiza capacidades dispersas sin crear estructuras paralelas, vincula el conocimiento crítico con proyectos de innovación y ofrece una base viable para su implementación gradual y evaluación longitudinal, con potencial impacto en el desarrollo local.

Palabras clave: aprendizaje organizacional; desarrollo local; gestión del conocimiento; gestión de la innovación; industria electrónica; procedimiento.

RESUMO

A gestão integrada do conhecimento e da inovação é um fator decisivo para empresas do setor de eletrônicos, que enfrentam ciclos tecnológicos curtos, restrições de recursos e o risco de perda de conhecimento especializado. No contexto cubano, essas capacidades assumem importância estratégica para o desenvolvimento local e a soberania tecnológica. Consequentemente, o objetivo deste estudo foi elaborar um procedimento de gestão do conhecimento e da inovação que contribua para aumentar a competitividade e a adaptabilidade da empresa ao seu ambiente, bem como para fomentar o desenvolvimento local. A pesquisa empregou uma metodologia mista, descritiva e aplicada, combinando revisão de literatura, levantamento com escala Likert envolvendo 106 gestores, especialistas e operadores, trabalho em grupo, estatística descritiva, triangulação por meio da matriz de Vester e validação pelo método Iadov. Os principais resultados revelaram a presença de capital humano qualificado, estruturas de apoio e colaboração externa, juntamente com baixo alinhamento estratégico, registro deficiente de lições aprendidas, plataformas de conhecimento inadequadas e ausência de mensuração sistemática. Doze dos 22 itens apresentaram efeito de piso, enquanto nenhum apresentou efeito de teto. Foi elaborado um procedimento sistêmico e contextualizado, composto por sete fases e 23 atividades, que integra alinhamento, diagnóstico, geração, preservação, transferência, aplicação e melhoria. O Índice de Satisfação do Grupo foi de 0,6333, indicando uma aceitação favorável. A proposta organiza capacidades dispersas sem criar estruturas paralelas, vincula conhecimentos críticos a projetos de inovação e oferece uma base viável para implementação gradual e avaliação longitudinal, com potencial impacto no desenvolvimento local.

Palavras-chave: aprendizagem organizacional; desenvolvimento local; gestão do conhecimento; gestão da inovação; indústria de eletrônicos; procedimento.

INTRODUCTION

The contemporary industrial economy is shaped by the capacity to convert data, experience, and learning into differentiated decisions and solutions. In this context, knowledge management and innovation management are no longer separate fields. The former organizes the identification, creation, preservation, exchange, and application of knowledge; the latter transforms ideas and knowledge into products, processes, services, or organizational forms that generate value. Recent evidence confirms that the capacity for innovation mediates the relationship between knowledge management and performance, such that storing information without applying it to problems and opportunities yields limited results (Abou-Moghli, 2025; Georgakellos et al., 2024).

The state of the art shows a shift from static repositories toward socio-technical systems capable of integrating tacit and explicit knowledge, networks, culture, leadership, and digital technologies. The structured review by De Bem Machado et al. (2022) identifies this convergence in Industry 4.0, while Cerchione et al. (2024) rethink organizational knowledge creation in light of the digital transition. Digitization expands the capacity to capture, combine, and share information, but its impact depends on competencies, learning routines, and organizational arrangements; it is not an automatic solution. Chen et al. (2024) demonstrate that different forms of interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge explain the heterogeneous outcomes of digital transformation in manufacturing companies.

The literature also highlights the role of dynamic capabilities. An organization needs to detect signals from the environment, seize opportunities, and reconfigure resources. Digital knowledge management strengthens technological innovation when it connects environmental monitoring, internal expertise, and organizational response (Shao et al., 2025). Similarly, knowledge transfer and dynamic capabilities foster business transformation, although their outcomes depend on absorptive capacity and context (Xiong, 2024). This perspective prevents innovation from being reduced to the purchase of equipment or software; it requires governance, learning, and criteria for evaluating value.

In the electronics industry, integration takes on particular importance. Short product life cycles, the convergence of hardware and software, rapid obsolescence, and quality demands concentrate specialized knowledge in people, projects, and networks. Critical factors for innovation vary between developed and developing countries, but leadership, cooperation, human capital, and technological orientation appear repeatedly (Dos Santos et al., 2022). Nassani et al. (2023) show that technology orientation influences innovative performance through digital innovation, while studies by Hao et al. (2022, 2023) reveal that the structure of knowledge networks affects exploratory and exploitative innovation differently.

The adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies can enhance knowledge management when selected based on specific processes and needs. Lista Rossetti et al. (2024) identify technological enablers for locating, storing, transferring, and applying knowledge; Tortorella et al. (2024) observe that technology adoption can amplify its effect on innovation. However, organizational capabilities remain the key unifying factor (Motamedimoghadam et al., 2025). In small and medium-sized enterprises, the maturity of knowledge determines the extent to which Industry 4.0 can be leveraged and requires gradual solutions tailored to actual resources and capabilities (Riascos Erazo & Aguilera Castro, 2024).

For Cuban companies in the electronics sector, these demands are compounded by constraints on financing, access to components, connectivity, and technical resources. Such conditions heighten the strategic value of accumulated knowledge and of partnerships with universities and research centers. They also increase the risk associated with the aging of specialists: when critical knowledge is not identified or transferred, the departure of a single person can affect production continuity. A viable response must leverage existing structures, avoid parallel documentation systems, and direct resources toward priority gaps.

The "Ernesto Ché Guevara" Electronic Components Company has experienced staff, a Development and Innovation Unit, and bodies capable of supporting innovation. However, there was insufficient coordination between these capabilities, the strategy, and the mechanisms for identifying, preserving, transferring, and applying knowledge. The gap between research and practice was therefore identified as the absence of an integrated, contextualized, and measurable pathway connecting critical knowledge to innovation and to existing management systems.

This article addresses this gap from a perspective that transcends the strictly business sphere. Knowledge and innovation management in a strategic company such as the one studied not only affects its competitiveness but also constitutes a key factor in the development of the Pinar del Río region. The generation, retention, and application of technological capabilities in the electronics sector strengthen the local productive fabric, create linkages with the regional science and innovation system, and contribute to technological sovereignty.

The objective of the study was to design a procedure for knowledge and innovation management that contributes to enhancing the company's competitiveness and capacity to adapt to its environment, as well as to the development of the region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An applied research study was conducted, using a mixed-methods approach with a qualitative focus, at the "Ernesto Ché Guevara" Electronic Components Company, located in Pinar del Río. The study consisted of three phases: theoretical systematization, organizational diagnosis, and development and validation of the procedure. The historical-logical approach allowed for an analysis of conceptual evolution; the systemic and modeling approaches were used to structure phases, relationships, actors, records, and indicators.

The object of study was the knowledge and innovation management process. The diagnosis combined a literature review, a survey, and group work. The development strategy, the business improvement file, the structure, procedures, and records were examined, as well as the minutes of the Board of Directors and the Technical Advisory Council from 2021 to 2025. The literature review explored strategic alignment, structures, knowledge practices, idea management, projects, measurement, and learning.

The population consisted of 136 employees. The sample was calculated using the simple random sampling method with proportional allocation to strata in the category of operators and technicians; since all managers were included, the calculation was performed with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. In total, the sample consisted of 106 employees, including 11 members of the Board of Directors, 49 technicians, and 46 operators.

The questionnaire was developed based on ISO 56004 and the Innovation Capability Maturity Model (ICMM) for the electronics industry. It consists of twenty-seven questions divided into six groups, twenty-one of which are closed-ended and six are open-ended. The funnel technique was used for the closed-ended questions, which range from the easiest to the most difficult. A five-point Likert scale was used for the closed-ended questions: 1, nonexistent; 2, initial; 3, defined; 4, managed; and 5, optimal.

Frequencies, percentages, weighted means, estimated population standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated.

For the analysis of the results, a floor effect was considered when at least 15% of the valid responses were concentrated in category 1, and a ceiling effect when that concentration occurred in category 5. To interpret the dispersion, the following descriptive criteria were used: standard deviation less than 0.60, low; between 0.60 and 0.99, moderate; and 1.00 or higher, high. The coefficient of variation was interpreted as low (<20%), moderate (20-30%), or high (>30%).

The documentary, quantitative, and qualitative findings were triangulated through group work. Using Vester's (1983) matrix, relationships of influence and dependence among seven problems were estimated; the problem tree supported the causal interpretation.

The research preserved the anonymity of the responses and used the data for academic and organizational improvement purposes. Participants were informed of the purpose of the assessment, and the analysis was based on aggregated results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Organizational diagnosis

The literature review confirmed a viable organizational foundation. The company had a staffing level of 59.65% (136 out of 228 positions filled), with mid-level technicians and college graduates predominating. The existence of a Development and Innovation Unit, the Technical Advisory Council, the National Association of Innovators and Rationalizers, the Youth Technical Brigades, and the Forum Commission provided a potential institutional infrastructure. Prototyping and simulation technologies, as well as links with clients, universities, and research centers, were also observed.

These strengths coexisted with significant risks. Fifty-eight-point one percent (79 out of 136) of the workforce was over 50 years old, with the aging workforce concentrated in technical and production areas. The strategy developed in 2022 had not been updated; the innovation-related objective lacked measurement criteria; and its implementation across the units was insufficient. The minutes of the Board of Directors did not include a systematic discussion of knowledge management and innovation. The Technical Advisory Board operated irregularly and focused on operational problems, with little attention paid to their root causes or the lessons learned.

The six dimensions of the survey showed a low and uneven level of maturity (Table 1). Culture and People scored the highest average (2.66), although it remained below the defined threshold. Results and Measurement was the most critical dimension (1.44). The 1.22-point difference between the two indicated descriptive discriminative power. The instrument distinguished between relatively developed areas and practices that were virtually nonexistent. There was no ceiling effect; 12 of 22 items exhibited a floor effect, and 15 had a coefficient of variation greater than 30%, reflecting both weaknesses and heterogeneity of experiences across areas.

Table 1. Survey results by dimension

Dimension	Mean	Minimum	Maximum	Items with a floor effect
Strategy and leadership	2.36	1.51	2.89	1 of 4
Processes and structures	2.36	1.44	3.48	2 of 4
Culture and people	2.66	2.20	2.96	1 of 3
Technology and tools	2.38	1.55	3.34	2 of 3
Results and measurement	1.44	1.15	1.68	3 of 3
Capacities and innovative context	2.08	1.35	3.18	3 of 5

Source: Own elaboration based on the research findings

The internal contrasts were particularly revealing. The organizational structure scored 3.48 for its potential to facilitate learning, but systematic knowledge capture scored 1.60 and the documentation of lessons learned scored 1.44. In technology, the availability of prototyping and simulation tools reached 3.34, while the existence of platforms for storing and reusing knowledge stood at 1.55. This showed that having a structure or equipment does not equate to incorporating them into learning and innovation routines.

The most pronounced floor effects were observed in the monitoring and continuous improvement of both systems (87.7%), the periodic review of the innovation system (70.0%), the documentation of lessons learned (63.6%), the alignment of knowledge with the innovation vision (61.6%), and knowledge platforms (59.2%). The absence of a ceiling effect ruled out an artificial concentration of favorable responses.

These results are consistent with the literature that views organizational capabilities as a prerequisite for digital innovation (Motamedimoghadam et al., 2025). The isolated technology did not resolve knowledge fragmentation; it was necessary to connect leadership, processes, people, and measurement. Likewise, the heterogeneity across areas corresponds to the approach proposed by Riascos Erazo and Aguilera Castro (2024): the maturity of knowledge determines the effective use of advanced technologies.

Vester's matrix (Table 2) identified insufficient strategic alignment and leadership as the most influential problem. Derived from this core issue were a limited culture of knowledge sharing, weak procedures for capturing and reusing knowledge, poor technological integration, and a lack of indicators. Triangulation prevented the low scores from being interpreted as mere perceptions: the meeting minutes, the strategy, and the records all showed a consistent pattern.

Table 2. Vester matrix

Code	Problem	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	Influence
P1	Lack of strategic alignment and leadership	0	3	3	3	3	2	2	16
P2	Ineffective processes and structures for knowledge management	2	0	3	1	2	2	1	11
P3	Unfavorable organizational culture	2	1	0	0	2	0	2	7
P4	Weaknesses in technology and knowledge management tools	2	2	3	0	3	1	2	13
P5	Lack of measurement, monitoring, and control of results	2	0	3	0	0	1	2	8
P6	Weak core innovation capabilities	0	0	0	2	1	0	2	5
P7	Weaknesses in human capital and labor structure	2	1	1	0	2	2	0	8
Dependency		10	7	13	6	13	8	11	68

Source: Own elaboration based on group work

The proposal was designed using a socio-technical, systemic, and continuous improvement approach, in accordance with the principles of ISO 56000, taking into account the identified strengths and gaps (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of identified strengths and gaps

Component	Strengths	Priority gaps
Human capital	Qualified technical and academic staff; accumulated experience	Aging workforce and risk of losing critical knowledge
Governance	Formally established UDI and supporting bodies	Low strategic alignment; inconsistent leadership and oversight
Processes	Structure with potential for learning	Capture, lessons learned, and transfer are not very systematic
Technology	Prototyping and simulation resources	Lack of an integrated repository and limited connectivity
Open innovation	Relationships with universities, clients, and research centers	Insufficiently formalized project monitoring and management
Measurement	Available operational information	Lack of indicators for knowledge, innovation, and impact

Source: Own elaboration based on the research findings

One finding that warrants further reflection is the marked discrepancy between the rating of the organizational structure (3.48) and the systematic capture of knowledge (1.60). This gap suggests that the company has a formal framework in place that could facilitate learning, but that it is not being utilized. The likely causes point to cultural factors associated with a management tradition focused on operations rather than learning, and the absence of leadership that explicitly prioritizes knowledge management. This interpretation is supported by the irregular functioning of the Technical Advisory Board and the lack of follow-up in the minutes of the Board of Directors.

Proposed integrated procedure

The procedure was designed as a cross-functional tool that does not create a parallel structure. It integrates with the Quality Management System, the strategy, the annual plan, the Development and Innovation Unit, and the Technical Advisory Board. Senior management approves the policy and resources; the Unit coordinates; process managers identify critical knowledge and opportunities; Human Resources manages competencies and knowledge transfer; and employees contribute ideas, experiences, and lessons learned.

The proposal addresses the interdependence between knowledge and innovation documented by Uekubo et al. (2023) and Abou-Moghli (2025). Its logic prevents knowledge from ending up in a file: every output must inform a decision, a project, an improvement, or a preservation mechanism. At the same time, it recognizes that innovation generates new knowledge, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

Seven phases and 23 activities structure the process (Table 4). Phase 0 addresses the root cause through awareness-raising, a coordinating team, and an integrated policy. Phase 1 assesses maturity, necessary knowledge, critical know-how, gaps, and sources. Phase 2 combines research, learning from experience, training, and technology watch. Phase 3 preserves explicit and tacit knowledge and protects assets. Phase 4 fosters communities, access, and knowledge transfer in the face of personnel changes. Phase 5 converts knowledge into improvements, ideas, and projects. Phase 6 measures results, evaluates effectiveness, and updates the procedure.

Table 4. Phases and purpose of the procedure

Phase	Purpose	Activities
0. Strategic alignment and leadership	Establish legitimacy, policy, and coordination	1-4
1. Identification and diagnosis	Determine maturity, critical knowledge, gaps, and sources	5-8
2. Generation, creation, and acquisition	Produce and capture relevant knowledge	9-12
3. Storage, organization, and protection	Preserving memory and intellectual assets	13-15
4. Transfer and dissemination	Bringing knowledge to those who need it	16-18
5. Application and innovation	Turning Knowledge into improvements and projects	19-21
6. Monitoring, measurement, and improvement	Evaluating, learning, and refining the system	22-23

Source: Own elaboration based on research findings

The minimum requirements defined were: a shared digital repository, access to technical resources, a basic budget, an approved policy, approval from the Board of Directors, management buy-in, and connectivity in key positions. Implementation can be phased in when a requirement is not fully met. This flexibility is relevant for environments with limited resources and aligns with the need to build capabilities rather than replicate universal models.

The preservation phase paid special attention to tacit knowledge. Mentoring, exit interviews, a directory of experts, and knowledge transfer plans for critical positions were proposed. The solution is consistent with the contemporary rethinking of the knowledge creation model: digitization does not mean converting all experience into documents, but rather combining human interaction, selective codification, and contextualized access (Cerchione et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024).

Technology watch and external relations were incorporated as acquisition mechanisms. In a high-tech industry, diversified networks expand access to ideas and capabilities, although they require criteria for absorbing and applying what has been learned (Hao et al., 2022, 2023). The proposal leverages existing partnerships and links them to newsletters, source maps, challenges, and specific projects.

The application of knowledge was organized through a channel for ideas, feasibility assessments, project fact sheets, resources, and follow-up. This link is crucial because digitalization generates value when it changes innovation routines and not just when it automates tasks (Vãrzaru & Bocean, 2024; Yordanova, 2024). A technology-oriented approach must translate into the ability to explore and exploit opportunities (Hashem et al., 2024; Nassani et al., 2023).

The indicators (Table 5) cover participation, implementation, training, problem-solving, project portfolio, satisfaction, and economic impact. They are incorporated into management reviews to avoid records that no one uses. The measurement addresses the most critical gap identified in the diagnosis and allows for verification of whether knowledge management translates into innovation and performance, a relationship highlighted by Abou-Moghli (2025) and Georgakellos et al. (2024).

Table 5. Monitoring indicators

Indicator	Formula or criterion	Proposed target	Frequency
Participation in ideas	Employees with ideas / total × 100	≥20%	Annual
Implementation of ideas	Ideas implemented/received × 100	≥15%	Annual
Critical training	Number of employees trained in critical positions / total number of critical positions × 100	100%	Annual
Technical resolution	Average time to final resolution	Reduction ≥10%	Quarterly
Active projects	Number of projects in progress	≥5 per year	Semiannual
Satisfaction with knowledge	Average survey score for availability and usefulness	≥4 out of 5	Annual

Source: Own elaboration based on the research results

Validation and scope

Validation using the Iadov method with 15 potential users showed favorable acceptance. Nine participants (60%) reported being completely satisfied, five (33.33%) were more satisfied than dissatisfied, and one (6.67%) was indifferent. Nine expressed definite agreement with the implementation, and six indicated they would likely agree. The Group Satisfaction Index reached 0.6333, falling within the positive range.

Acceptance was evaluated using the Iadov technique among 15 potential users: ten managers and five specialists. The individual categories and the Group Satisfaction Index were calculated (Table 6).

Table 6. Iadov logic table

	P3: (Perceived quality/relevance): How would you rate the overall quality of the procedure (its clarity, logical structure, alignment with the company's needs, and feasibility of implementation)?
	Yes			No			I don’t know
	P2: (Intention to use / recommendation): If the company decided to implement a system for managing knowledge and innovation, would you agree to use this procedure as the basis for that system?
P1: (Overall satisfaction): How do you feel about the usefulness of the proposed procedure for improving knowledge and innovation management in the company?	Yes	No	I don’t know	Yes	No	I don’t know	Yes	No	I don’t know
1- Clear satisfaction (A)	1	2	6	2	2	6	6	6	6
2- More satisfied than dissatisfied (B)	2	2	3	2	3	3	6	3	6
3- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (C)	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
4- More dissatisfied than satisfied (D)	6	3	6	3	4	4	3	4	4
5- Clear dissatisfaction (E)	6	6	6	6	4	4	6	4	5
6- I can't say (F)	2	3	6	3	3	3	6	3	4

Source: Own elaboration

Based on the table, the satisfaction index was calculated using the formula:

$ISG=\frac{A*(+1)+B*(+\mathrm{0,5})+C*\left(0\right)+D*(-\mathrm{0,5})+E*(-1)}{N}$

Where:

A, B, C, D, and E represent the number of subjects with individual indices of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 (which correspond to the categories in Iadov's logical table).

N represents the total number of respondents.

The assessment supports perceived clarity, relevance, and applicability, but does not demonstrate organizational effectiveness.

The practical contribution of the procedure lies in organizing existing capabilities around a single workflow. The methodological contribution lies in translating concepts related to creation, dynamic capabilities, networks, and digital management into a roadmap applicable to an electronics company. The proposal does not claim to be universal; it merely offers an adaptable framework, whose tools and goals must be recalibrated for other organizations.

From the perspective of local development, the procedure takes on additional relevance. By strengthening the innovation capacity of a strategic company in the Pinar del Río region, it contributes to talent retention, the creation of production chains, and local technological sovereignty. The collaboration with universities and research centers, as outlined in the procedure, reinforces the regional science and innovation system and creates synergies that extend beyond the business sphere.

The integration of knowledge management and innovation is a strategic necessity for the electronics industry, because the rapid pace of technological change, specialization, and the risk of obsolescence make it imperative to transform experience and learning into decisions, improvements, and projects. The diagnosis confirmed that available structures and technologies generate value only when they are aligned with leadership, processes, and measurement.

In the company studied, qualified human capital, support units, and external collaboration coexisted alongside low strategic alignment, poor capture of lessons learned, insufficient transfer of critical knowledge, and a lack of indicators. Results and measurement were the most critical dimension. Triangulation identified insufficient strategic alignment and leadership as the most influential problem.

The proposed procedure comprises seven phases and 23 activities: alignment, diagnosis, generation, preservation, transfer, application, and improvement. Its main strength is that it leverages the Quality Management System, the Development and Innovation Unit, and existing bodies, with defined responsibilities, records, risks, and indicators. Iadov validation showed favorable acceptance (Group Satisfaction Index = 0.6333). It is recommended to verify its effectiveness through pilot implementation and longitudinal monitoring, with special attention to the preservation of expert knowledge and the conversion of ideas into innovation outcomes.

Beyond the business sphere, the proposal offers a tool to potentially strengthen local development in the Pinar del Río region by contributing to the retention of technological capabilities, the creation of production networks, and coordination with the regional science and innovation system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the executives, specialists, and workers of the "Ernesto Ché Guevara" Electronic Components Company who provided information and insights during the assessment and validation phases.

REFERENCES

Abou-Moghli, A. (2025). The interplay between knowledge management and organizational performance measurement through the mediating effect of innovation capability. Knowledge and Performance Management, 9(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.09(1).2025.04

Cerchione, R., Centobelli, P., Borin, E., Usai, A., & Oropallo, E. (2024). The WISED knowledge-creating company: Rethinking SECI model in light of the digital transition. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(10), 2997-3022. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2024-0133

Chen, Y., Pan, X., Liu, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2024). How does digital transformation empower knowledge creation? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(2), 100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100481

De Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: A structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(2), 320-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.2015261

Dos Santos, S. M., Pacagnella Junior, A. C., Fournier, P. L., Morini, C., & Santa Eulalia, L. A. (2022). Critical success factors for the innovativeness of the electronic industry: An analysis in developed and developing countries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 31(4), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12522

Georgakellos, D. A., Agoraki, K. K., & Fousteris, A. E. (2024). Pioneering Sustainability: Insights from the Integrative Role of Knowledge Management Processes and Technological Innovation. Sustainability, 16(10), 4296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104296

Hao, J., Li, C., Khaliq, N., Yin, Q., & Ullah, M. (2023). Evolutionary Analysis of Knowledge-Based Networks of the Electronic Information Industry from a Dual Innovation Perspective. Mathematics, 11(5), 1230. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11051230

Hao, J., Li, C., Yuan, R., Khansa, P., Muhammad Asif, K., & Sun, X. (2022). Dual Innovation Performance through Knowledge-Based Network Structure: Evidence from Electronic Information Industry. Engineering Economics, 33(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.33.1.25899

Hashem, G., Aboelmaged, M., & Ahmad, I. (2024). Proactiveness, knowledge management capability and innovation ambidexterity: An empirical examination of digital supply chain adoption. Management Decision, 62(1), 129-162. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2023-0237

Lista Rossetti, A. P., Luz Tortorella, G., Bouzon, M., Gao, S., & Chan, T. K. (2024). Identifying Industry 4.0 technologies enablers for knowledge management - a scoping review. The TQM Journal, 36(1), 340-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-05-2022-0173

Motamedimoghadam, M., Mira Da Silva, M., & Amaral, M. (2025). Organizational capabilities for digital innovation: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(7), 3024-3048. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2024-0227

Nassani, A. A., Grigorescu, A., Yousaf, Z., Condrea, E., Javed, A., & Haffar, M. (2023). Does Technology Orientation Determine Innovation Performance through Digital Innovation? A Glimpse of the Electronic Industry in the Digital Economy. Electronics, 12(8), 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12081854

Riascos Erazo, S. C., & Aguilera Castro, A. (2024). Innovación, madurez de la gestión del conocimiento e Industria 4.0: Mirada en las pymes colombianas. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 19(1), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242024000100029

Shao, B., Kuang, X., & Wang, H. (2025). Digital knowledge management effect on enterprise technological innovation: An empirical study from China's manufacturing industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 37(11), 2240-2254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2024.2351926

Tortorella, G., Prashar, A., Vassolo, R., Cawley Vergara, A. M., Godinho Filho, M., & Samson, D. (2024). Boosting the impact of knowledge management on innovation performance through industry 4.0 adoption. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(1), 32-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2108737

Uekubo, C. M., Lorenzini, I. P., Rosa, P. K., De Borba, M. L., Casagrande, R. A., Favretto, J., De Mattos, M. C., & Yamaguchi, C. K. (2023). Knowledge Management and Innovation: A Bibliometric Study on their Relationship and Trends. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(2), e04257. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n2-006

Vãrzaru, A. A., & Bocean, C. G. (2024). Digital Transformation and Innovation: The Influence of Digital Technologies on Turnover from Innovation Activities and Types of Innovation. Systems, 12(9), 359. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090359

Vester, F. (1983). Unsere Welt - ein vernetztes System. Dt. Taschenbuch-Verlag.

Xiong, X. (2024). Examining the influence of knowledge transfer and dynamic capabilities on enterprise digital transformation. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0311176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311176

Yordanova, Z. (2024). Digital Transformation of the Firm's Innovation Process - A Bibliometric Analysis. Economic Alternatives, 30(3), 508-528. https://doi.org/10.37075/EA.2024.3.03

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors' contribution

Cesar Luis Otaño Ordaz and Maricela María González Pérez designed the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the draft.

Cesar Luis Otaño Ordaz was involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

All the authors reviewed the writing of the manuscript and approve the version finally submitted.