Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain

from a Knowledge Management Perspective

Johanna Trujillo-Diaz1,2(&) , Flor Nancy Diaz-Piraquive3(&) ,

Milton M. Herrera4(&) , and Jairo Gómez Acero5(&)
1
Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería Julio Garavito, Bogotá, Colombia
johanna.trujillo@escuelaing.edu.co
2
Strategic Planning and Technological Management,
Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla (UPAEP), Puebla, Mexico
3
Universidad Católica de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
fndiaz@ucatolica.edu.co
4
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Bogotá, Colombia
Milton.herrera@unimilitar.edu.co
5
Fundación Universitaria Cafam, Bogotá, Colombia
jairo.gomez@unicafam.edu.co

Abstract. The Colombian swine supply chain (CSSC) has a low level of
national competitiveness compared to other supply chains such as coffee and
fruit. While consumption of pork has raised in Colombia, most dealers are
importing it from The United States and Canada, since farmers in those coun-
tries have received agricultural incentives to breed and commercialize pigs.
Additionally, agribusiness have received technological developments to share
information and develop the swine sector. This article aims to state theoretical
Knowledge Management (KM) dimensions for CSSC that were built under
authors’ assumptions on the literature. These were proposed to identify the
competitiveness level in CSSC, because only two different kinds of measuring
for swine competitiveness were found, but on the other hand, no model about
Swine Supply Chain (SSC) was found. Perspectives of researching KM in CSSC
would integrate stakeholders using a technological web platform which allows
interchange of information among them.

Keywords: Swine supply chain
Colombian swine sector

Knowledge management model
Theoretical model
Knowledge sharing

Competitiveness

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
The swine sector is very attractive for Colombian economy, because it generates
employment [1]. However, it does not have enough technology and knowledge transfer,
specialized transportation, or government subsidies. Furthermore, swine smallholders
and technified producers are searching to lower its cost, because pork consumption in
Colombia has been growing for the last ten years according to statistics from the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

L. Uden et al. (Eds.): KMO 2019, CCIS 1027, pp. 25–35, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21451-7_3
26 J. Trujillo-Diaz et al.

Federation of Cattle Ranchers - FEDEGAN (acronym in Spanish), but demand is not

enough. In 2017, swine consumption was 7.1 kg per inhabitant [2], but the productive
cost is between 60% and 70% of the total cost which includes disease and pest pre-
vention, high quality, health and safety, and the lack of livestock policies [3].
Pork is the most consumed type of meat worldwide [4]. The United States of
America is the second largest pork producer in the world after China, which has almost
half of the world’s total production [4]. Additionally, 60% of meat consumed in China
is pork [5]. According to projections of The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Brazil will become the world’s largest pork exporter by 2021 [6].
The most competitive countries in Swine Supply Chain, such as China, have
implemented laws in the last 20 years to guarantee innocuousness in pigs’ slaughter
houses centralizing butchers [5]. Moreover, some countries have been controlling prices,
whose increase is proportional to food, market speculation, safety, etc. [7]. Alternatively,
some countries have made associations to share information and develop competitive
strategies, InterPIG, for instance, which is composed by seventeen countries [8].
In Latin-American countries, Brazil has established coordination strategies and
governance structures in pork slaughterhouses and processors, including contracts,
alliances, cooperatives, and vertical integration to comply with public quality regulation
[9–11]. The livestock sector in Latin America has grown at an annual rate (3.7%), higher
than the global average growth rate (2.1%) [3]. In 2018, Colombia’s agriculture and
livestock sectors increased 5.9% higher than in 2017. In addition, in Colombia, agri-
cultural crops and its related activities have incremented 6.0%, livestock 5.8%, growth
of the pig’s sector is more than double with 8.8%, while cattle was only 4.2% [12].
In the second quarter of 2018, Colombia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was
2.8% higher than in 2017 [12]. Furthermore, during 2017 the GDP was 1.8%, which
was led by the agricultural and financial services sectors. Colombia has a large rural
sector extended throughout its geographical territory; agricultural and livestock activ-
ities take place all over it. In fact, livestock is classified in bovine, swine, poultry,
among others. Historically, agriculture has allowed the evolution of the country’s
economy, it has also allowed to accumulate capital to develop other sectors, for
instance the technology and services sector [13]. Currently, the Colombian agricultural
GDP is 6.5% [14, 15] which exceeded 2017’s world average of 3.5% [16].
Carcass meat imports in Colombia have been growing since 2008. In 2017, the
most important exporting countries of pork were: United States, Germany, Spain,
Denmark, Canada, Netherlands, and Brazil. In contrast, leading exporters of pigs were
Denmark, Netherlands, China, Canada, Germany, and Belgium [17]. On the other
hand, Colombian imports were made up of (a) breeding pigs; (b) fresh, chilled or
frozen pork; and (c) edible offal in 2017, which sum USD$ 177,007,661. Notably,
91.2% of pork importations are from The USA, followed by Canada (5.1%), Chile
(3.7%) and other countries such as Denmark, Portugal, and Spain (0.1%) [17]. In
Colombia, those imports go to Bogotá, Valle del Cauca, and Bolívar [18].
CSSC’s production of pork covers only the domestic demand [19], it is located
mainly in Antioquia, Valle del Cauca, Cundinamarca, Meta, and Córdoba. That sector
is the second most important in livestock, it represents around 17% of national pro-
duction [9]. CSSC’s products include reproductive male, pregnant sows, lactating,
 Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain 27

non-lactating, replacement, backyard-pigs, and prime pigs [20] (see Fig. 1). Its average
productive cycle is 296 days, it includes 142 days for raising farms and 154 days for
fattening up farms.

Multiparous sows are productive

until 7 labors since its second Sows go into the labor
pregnancy. The average of labors units between 4 and 7 days
per year is 2,57 Mating before labor day
service
(7 days) Raising farms
Breeding Cycle 142 days
Finalization phase:
phase:
Lean (day 134 - 154)
Pregnancy
105 kg
(114 days)
Cebo farms 3 – 7 days to a new
Cycle 154 days mating

Fattening phase Breeding phase –

Breastfeeding phase
(day 113 - 133) 85 kg (21 days)
Pig Production Cycle
(PPC) – 296 days
For genetics, a sow’s possibilities to
get pregnant are higher when its
weight is between 75 – 140 kg

Breeding phase –
Lift phase
Preinitiation
(day 71-112) 65kg
(day 21 - 49) 17,5 kg

Pre Cebo phase

(day 49-70) (weaning -
32kg)

Fig. 1. Pig production cycle

In 2017, total bovine, swine, and poultry sectors production was 3,377,833 tons
[15] which are represented by: poultry 46%, bovine 43%, and swine 11%. In addition,
458 thousand tons of pigs were slaughtered [21]. For the second quarter of 2018, the
record of pigs slaughtered was 1,075,697, it showed an increase of 9% compared to the
same period in 2017 [22]. On average, more males are slaughtered than females. For
instance, in the second quarter of 2018 in Colombia, slaughter levels for males are
higher than females, that is, 67% male and 33% female pigs [22].
What are the dimensions or key indicators of knowledge management that CSSC
needs for increasing its competitiveness?
CSSC’s background and problematics are explained on the first part of the article.
Secondly, applications of knowledge management in supply chains found in the lit-
erature are described. The model and its dimensions are explained at the third part of
the article.

1.2 Related Works in KM in Supply Chains

Knowledge management (KM) is defined by [23] as asystematic process to add value
[23, 24]. To obtain competitive advantage [25, 26], a KM model must be accessible
[27], validated [28], materialized [29], and improved or updated [25, 30, 31]. Some
benefits in the use of KM practices into a SC are cooperation [32–35], integration [36–
41], dissemination of good practices [34], and decision-making support [42–44].
Nevertheless, the main objectives of KM are both social capital and intellectual capital,
that is, people knowledge and learning [29, 45–48]. Thus, KM processes are knowl-
edge creation [28, 49], knowledge storage [30, 31, 50], knowledge transfer [30, 31, 50],
and knowledge application [28, 30, 31, 49, 50].
28 J. Trujillo-Diaz et al.

There are few models found in the literature about KM models for improving
efficiency or competitiveness applied to organizations like: supply chains, clusters,
industrial groups, etc. On the contrary, there are several models found in the literature
applied to firms. Those models complement each other, so:
(i) The model developed by [29] is considered to be the cornerstone of KM models
[51]. This model explains the processes involved in knowledge transfer, those
are: (a) socialization or interaction; (b) externalization, defined as the formal-
ization of a knowledge body; (c) internalization, described as the change of
theory into practice; and (d) combination, explained as the unification of existing
theories [46].
(ii) An adaptation of Nonaka’s model was made by [52] who classified knowledge
into individual, group, organizational and inter-organizational levels.
(iii) Another adaptation of Nonaka’s model was carried out by [52] who classified
knowledge into codified and uncodified knowledge (depending on the ability of
preparation for sharing purposes), and into diffused and undiffused knowledge
(depending on sharing speed), moreover, the author adds a new knowledge
catalogue: patented, public, personal, and common sense.
Different catalogues of KM models were found in the literature review: (a) ac-
cording to knowledge definition [29, 46, 49, 53, 54], (b) intellectual capital models [46,
53–55], (c) models constructed under social objectives [46, 56], (d) networks and
communities of people models [49, 53, 54], (e) scientific and technological [54, 56],
where the main driving force for knowledge creation are IT tools, (f) quantitative
models [53], (g) philosophical models [53, 54, 57], based on epistemology, and
(h) holistic models [54]. Regarding knowledge definitions, the following were found:
tacit [58, 59], explicit [58, 59], programmed [60], acquired [60], codified/uncodified
[52], diffused/undiffused [52], public [52, 61], registered or patented [52, 60], and
personal [52, 61].

2 Methodology

This article is an exploratory study about CSSC where collected variables for building
KM determinants are summarized and represented in the model proposed. To answer
the research question, first, background was collected from primary sources; it sum-
marized the most important issues for the Colombian swine sector that have had an
impact on economy. In this part, transversal information from 10 years until the present
day was used.
The literature review has four issues, namely: (a) global information about com-
petitiveness and its main targets; (b) KM; and (c) KM in CSSC. These were done
consulting papers on SCOPUS and all collections from WoS database. This search was
made using the following query: “Knowledge Management” AND (pig OR swine OR
pork) AND (“supply chain” OR “swine sector”). Therefore, this model is proposed
based on previously written frameworks which have elements from knowledge man-
agement models, either applications of KM to supply chains or other sectors.
 Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain 29

Information analysis and assessment for papers were obtained through a

hypothetic-deductive method in which the information was identified and classified by
dimensions, constructs, and variables.

3 Proposed KM Model in CSSC

CSSC represents the flow of information and swine products across stakeholders (see
Fig. 2). In this figure, CSSC has eight steps, depicted in gray, and market segments, in
yellow. CSSC’s information and products flow is set up as: (a) suppliers that include
genetic providers, veterinary products, medicines and vaccines, food, machinery and
equity, and supplies; (b) primary production composed by breeding, fattening or
complete cycle farms; those farms could be technified, non-technified or traditional;
(c) standing pigs trade gathered by formal and informal transporters; (d) pig slaughter,
either technified in plants or performed informally; (e) pork slaughter done by
wholesalers and retailers; (f) sausage processing plants; (g) wholesale and large sur-
faces; and finally (h) retail trade, which includes institutional channels, specialized
expenses, stores and supermarkets, meat stores, and restaurant expenses.

What is Storage What should

known? Web be known?

Government organizations (Ministerio Supervision organizations Trade-union entities Academic and research entities
de Agricultura, Ministerio de Ambiente Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Instituto Regional associations, Universities and research centers, SENA,
y Desarrollo Sostenible, Ministerio de Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos, Unidad cooperatives, chambers of Corporación colombiana de investigación
Salud y Protección Social, DIAN) Municipal de Asistencia Técnica Agropecuaria commerce agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA)

Provisions of Primary Standing Processing

Slaughter Butcher Wholesale Retail
supplies production animals trade plants

Technified Swine channel

raising, fatting wholesale
up and full cycle
Genetics farms Institutional
Slaughter
suppliers Big butcherer channel
plants
Wholesalers
Food suppliers Specialized
Creation stores
Transfer
Semi-technified Web
Interaction
Medication and raising,
vaccine fattening and
suppliers full cycle farms Informal Small Supermarkets
slaughter butcherer
Machinery and
equipment Collector
Meat stores

Provisions of Traditional Sausage

supplies farms processors Restaurants

Supplies Meat in channels Capital and information

Support R&D
Link Section flows
organizations organizations Meat in cuts
Standing animals Transport

What could What must

be done? Application
be done?

Fig. 2. Knowledge Management model proposed for CSSC

In addition, CSSC has been linked to government, union, and supervision orga-
nizations. However, in this proposed KM model academic organizations involved in
innovation, research, and development are included. Those organizations in the figure
are represented in a green box on the upper right corner.
In Fig. 2, knowledge management processes involve the whole CSSC, and are
represented by the blue boxes. Those boxes show the creation, storage, transfer, and
knowledge application stages; those are jointly generating a continuous improvement
30 J. Trujillo-Diaz et al.

cycle. Since the KM model at this stage is a proposal, and the CSSC currently has a
level of tacit knowledge, the indicators of interest and good practices throughout it are
identified through literature that would allow CSSC to increase its competitiveness.
There are global indexes such as the Global Competitiveness Report or Annual
Global Competitiveness Book. However, swine competitiveness indexes are few, this
research has been partially addressed in France [62], Denmark [63], and The United
Kingdom [64] as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Dimensions or key indicators to develop a KM model in CSSC

Strategic
Pork imports
Number of direct connections with industry, government, unions, and research centers [62]
Laws and regulations for price protection
Supply pig farms Swine breeding farms Pig fattening farms
Utility per national package Productivity of sows [62] Utility per pig sold [62, 64]
of sold food Utility per pig sold [62, 64] Labor, food, transportation
Utility per imported bulk of Loss due to stillborn pigs and indirect costs [64]
sold food Labor, food, transportation, Available and occupied
Utility per sold vaccines and indirect costs [64] capacity (pigs) [62]
Proximity to breeding and Available and occupied Number of pigsties [62]
fattening points capacity (pigs) [62] Proximity to slaughter points
Number of pigsties [62] Automation level
Automation level
Investment infrastructure and
RD&I [62]
Slaughter companies Swine stripping companies Distribution
Sales volume [62, 64] Utility [62, 64] Labor, storage,
Utility [62, 64] Labor, storage, transportation transportation and indirect
Labor, storage, and indirect costs [62, 64] costs [64]
transportation, and indirect Automation level [62] Sales volume [62, 64]
costs [64] Cutting standardization [62] Utility [62, 64]
Proximity to deboning zone Sales volume [62, 64] Sales force [62]
Investments infrastructure and Quantity of employees [62]
RD&I[62]
Proximity to distribution area
[62]

4 Conclusions

In the literature, the proposed KM model is original for CSSC, because it is at a stage of
tacit knowledge [58, 59], this research hopes to share this knowledge through a web
platform in which CSSC’s stakeholders can interact. That web platform expects to have
all phases of knowledge management models: creation, storage, transfer, and appli-
cation. Thus, stakeholders can share their key indicators and good practices. The
proposed KM model validation would be done using a competitiveness index built and
fed by stakeholders’ interactions on a web-platform designed for that purpose.
 Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain 31

Competitiveness can be seen as a legislative, political, economic, and social

advantage between two different systems [65], it involves the transformation of granted
and produced goods which represent an economic profit [66] and added value in
agroindustry [67–70]. The low technological level in CSSC is the main obstacle in
developing competitiveness [71–73]. Other obstacles are the lack of (a) production
capacity [71, 72, 74], (b) innovation [74], research and development (R&D) [71, 72],
(c) exports [72, 75, 76], (d) product quality, (e) strong government policies in terms of
price fixing and market protection [71, 72], and (f) tax incentives to specific industries
[71, 72]. Thus, the proposed model in KM would be used to encourage industrial
cooperation [77, 78], to share information, knowledge, and raise CSSC
competitiveness.
There is no evidence of platforms which integrate the different actors involved into
CSSC, so there is a need for high technological capabilities in both human resources
and infrastructure to develop a strong upstream and downstream communication in all
stages of CSSC.
Low technological development and a lack of interest from SC stakeholders seem
to be the main barriers in the development of a KM model in CSSC.
KM and SCM’s practices should be taken into consideration as strategic rather than
operational factors due to their high impact through all SC and their importance for
decision making and planning.
Stakeholders, such as government, public institutions, and universities, must
become involved in the SC to create a “knowledge region”, stimulate the demand, and
obtain both cluster policies from government and incentives from public institutions.

Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments that helped improve the content of the article. The authors thank ECIJG (DII/C008
CIJI2019), UMNG (INV-ECO-3008), UCC, and UNICAFAM for providing financial support to
this research.

References
1. DNP: Bases del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018–2022, 6 March 2018. https://
colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Prensa/PND-2018-2022.pdf
2. FEDEGAN: Estadísticas – Consumos, 22 August 2018. http://www.fedegan.org.co/estadist-
icas/consumo-0
3. FAO: Producción pecuaria en América Latina y el Caribe, 24 August. http://www.fao.org/
americas/prioridades/produccion-pecuaria/es/
4. AGMRC: Pork International Markets Profile, 2 February 2018. https://www.agmrc.org/
commodities-products/livestock/pork/pork-international-markets-profile
5. Chen, Y., Yu, X.: Does the centralized slaughtering policy create market power for pork
industry in China? China Econ. Rev. 50, 59–71 (2018)
6. USDA: Agricultural Baseline Projections, 19 February 2018. https://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/farm-economy/agricultural-baseline/
7. Yu, X.: Meat consumption in China and its impact on international food security: status quo,
trends, and policies. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 989–994 (2015)
32 J. Trujillo-Diaz et al.

8. Hoste, R.: International comparison of pig production costs 2015 (2017). https://library.wur.
nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/412970
9. Ménard, C.: The economics of hybrid organizations. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. JITE 160, 345–376
(2004)
10. Raynaud, E., Sauvee, L., Valceschini, E.: Alignment between quality enforcement devices
and governance structures in the agro-food vertical chains. J. Manag. Governance 9, 47–77
(2005)
11. Martins, F.M., Trienekens, J., Omta, O.: Differences in quality governance: the case of the
Brazilian pork chain. Br. Food J. 119, 2837–2850 (2017)
12. DANE: Boletín técnico - Producto Interno Bruto, 22 August 2018. https://www.dane.gov.co/
files/investigaciones/boletines/pib/bol_PIB_IItrim18_producion_y_gasto.pdf
13. DANE: Cuenta Satélite Piloto de la Agroindustria (CSPA): Procesos de cría de ganado
bovino y porcino y su primer nivel de transformación industrial (Resultados preliminares
2005–2011), 28 June 2013. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/pib/agroindustria/
metodologia_CSPA_Ganado_bovino_porcino_23_2013.pdf
14. DANE: Cuentas Trimestrales - Colombia Producto Interno Bruto (PIB): Primer Trimestre de
2015, 22 August 2018. http://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/52-espanol/noticias/noticias/
4174-producto-interno-bruto-pib-i-trimestre-2017
15. SAC: Estadísticas > Producción Agropecuaria desde 2000 > Producción pecuaria, 22
August 2018. http://sac.org.co/es/estudios-economicos/estadisticas.html
16. BM: Indicadores > Agricultura, valor agregado (% del PIB) Colombia (Banco Mundial ed.),
22 August 2018. https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=
CO
17. UN-COMTRADE: Base de datos Estadísticas sobre las Naciones Unidas sobre el comercio
de mercancías, 22 August 2017. http://comtrade.un.org/data/
18. SIEX: Importaciones - Supartida arancelaria - Departamento de destino (Sistema Estadístico
de Comercio Exterior (SIEX) - Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales (DIAN) ed.),
25 August 2018. http://websiex.dian.gov.co/
19. Ronderos & Cárdenas: Sector Porcícola en Colombia, 25 June 2015. http://ronderosycarde-
nas.com/ActualidadRyC/Inf.Ejec.PorkCol./
20. DANE: Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario (Departamento Administrativo Nacional de
Estadística (DANE) ed.), 20 August 2018. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/images/foros/foro-
de-entrega-de-resultados-y-cierre-3-censo-nacional-agropecuario/CNATomo2-Resultados.
pdf
21. DANE: Encuesta de sacrificio de ganado (ESAG), 25 August 2018. http://www.dane.gov.co/
index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/pobreza-y-condiciones-de-vida/encuesta-nacional-del-uso-
del-tiempo-enut?id=131&phpMyAdmin=3om27vamm65hhkhrtgc8rrn2g4
22. DANE: Boletín técnico > Encuesta de Sacrificio de Ganado - ESAG, 27 August 2018. http://
www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/boletines/sacrificio/bol_sacrif_IItrim18.pdf
23. Choo, C.W.: The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct
meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 16, 329–340 (1996)
24. De Jarnett, L.: Knowledge the latest thing, Information Strategy. Executives J. 12, 3–5
(1996)
25. Bukowitz, W.R., Williams, R.L.: The Knowledge Management Fieldbook. Financial
Times/Prentice Hall (2000)
26. Wigg, K.: Knowledge management foundations (1993)
27. Muñoz-Avila, H., Gupta, K., Aha, D.W., Nau, D.: Knowledge-based project planning. In:
Dieng-Kuntz, R., Matta, N. (eds.) Knowledge Management and Organizational Memories.
Springer, Boston (2002). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-0947-9_
11#citeas
 Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain 33

28. Johnston, R., Blumentritt, R.: Knowledge moves to center stage. Sci. Commun. 20, 99–105
(1998)
29. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Long Range plann. 4, 592 (1996)
30. Meyer, M., Zack, M.: The design and implementation of information products. Sloan
Manag. Rev. 37, 43–59 (1996)
31. Zack, M.H.: Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40, 45–58 (1999)
32. Zhang, M., Zhao, X., Lyles, M.A., Guo, H.: Absorptive capacity and mass customization
capability. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35, 1275–1294 (2015)
33. Kant, R., Singh, M.: An integrative framework of knowledge management enabled supply
chain management. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, IEEM 2008, pp. 53–57 (2008)
34. Peng Wong, W., Yew Wong, K.: Supply chain management, knowledge management
capability, and their linkages towards firm performance. Bus. Process Manag. J. 17, 940–964
(2011)
35. Croom, S.R.: The impact of e-business on supply chain management: an empirical study of
key developments. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25, 55–73 (2005)
36. Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Salisbury, W.D., Enns, H.: The effects of supply chain integration on
customer satisfaction and financial performance: an organizational learning perspective. Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 146, 346–358 (2013)
37. Angeles, R.: RFID critical success factors and system deployment outcomes as mitigated by
IT infrastructure integration and supply chain process integration. Int. J. Value Chain Manag.
6, 240–281 (2012)
38. Cheung, C.F., Cheung, C., Kwok, S.: A knowledge-based customization system for supply
chain integration. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 3906–3924 (2012)
39. Li, Y., Tarafdar, M., Subba Rao, S.: Collaborative knowledge management practices:
theoretical development and empirical analysis. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 32, 398–422
(2012)
40. Nikabadi, M.S.: A multidimensional structure for describing the influence of supply chain
strategies, business strategies, and knowledge management strategies on knowledge sharing
in supply chain. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. (IJKM) 8, 50–70 (2012)
41. Ayoub, H.F., Abdallah, A.B., Suifan, T.S.: The effect of supply chain integration on
technical innovation in Jordan: the mediating role of knowledge management. Benchmark-
ing Int. J. 24, 594–616 (2017)
42. Chong, A.Y.-L., Bai, R.: Predicting open IOS adoption in SMEs: an integrated SEM-neural
network approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 221–229 (2014)
43. Revilla, E., Knoppen, D.: Building knowledge integration in buyer-supplier relationships:
the critical role of strategic supply management and trust. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35,
1408–1436 (2015)
44. Davis-Sramek, B., Germain, R., Krotov, K.: Examining the process R&D investment–
performance chain in supply chain operations: the effect of centralization. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
167, 246–256 (2015)
45. Butter, M.C., Veloso, A.A.: Modelo de gestión del conocimiento basado en la integración
curricular de tecnologías de información y comunicación (tic) en la docencia universitaria
(GC + TIC/DU). REXE: Revista de Estudios y Experiencias en Educación 5, 55–74 (2006)
46. McAdam, R., McCreedy, S.: A critical review of knowledge management models. Learn.
Organ. 6, 91–101 (1999)
47. López, M., Hernández, A., Marulanda, C.E.: Procesos y prácticas de gestión del
conocimiento en cadenas productivas de Colombia. Información tecnológica 25, 125–134
(2014)
34 J. Trujillo-Diaz et al.

48. González, M.R.: El negocio es el conocimiento: Ediciones Díaz de Santos (2006)

49. Swan, J., Newell, S.: Linking knowledge management and innovation. In: ECIS 2000
Proceedings, p. 173 (2000)
50. Jordan, J., Jones, P.: Assessing your company’s knowledge management style. Long Range
Plann. 30, 392–398 (1997)
51. Morales, F.J.L., Gutiérrez, H.A.: La gestión del conocimiento: Modelos de comprensión y
definiciones. Revista de investigación en ciencias estratégicas 2, 84–111 (2015)
52. Boisot, M.: Information and Organizations: The Manager as Anthropologist. Fontana,
London (1987)
53. Kakabadse, N.K., Kakabadse, A., Kouzmin, A.: Reviewing the knowledge management
literature: towards a taxonomy. J. Knowl. Manag. 7, 75–91 (2003)
54. Barragán Ocaña, A.: Aproximación a una taxonomía de modelos de gestión del
conocimiento (2009)
55. Sánchez Díaz, M.: Breve inventario de los modelos para la gestión del conocimiento en las
organizaciones. Acimed 13, 0 (2005)
56. Rodríguez Gómez, D.: Modelos para la creación y gestión del conocimiento: una
aproximación teórica. Educar 37, 025–039 (2006)
57. Polanyi, M.: Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago (1958)
58. Nonaka, I.: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review Press (2008)
59. Hedlund, G.: A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strateg.
Manag. J. 15, 73–90 (1994)
60. McLaughlin, H., Thorpe, R.: Action learning-a paradigm in emergence: the problems facing
a challenge to traditional management education and development. Br. J. Manag. 4, 19–27
(1993)
61. Wiig, K.: Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About-How People and
Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Schema, Arlington (1993)
62. Duflot, B., Roussillon, M., Rieu, M.: A competitiveness index for national pork chains in
Europe: for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, Cahiers de l’IFIP, vol. 1, pp. 29–45 (2014)
63. Selva, G.: “Analysis of the Competitiveness of the Pork Industry in Denmark. In: 99th
seminar of the EAAE “The Future of Rural Europe in the Global Agri-Food System”,
Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 24–27, August 2005
64. AHDB and BPEX: Profitability in the pig supply Chain (2011). https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/
media/2338/profitability_in_the_pig_supply_chain.pdf
65. Porter, M.E.: Competitive Advantage of Nations: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. Simon and Schuster (2011)
66. Dwyer, L., Kim, C.: Destination competitiveness: development of a model with application
to Australia and the Republic of Korea. Department of Industry Science and Resources,
Canberra (2001)
67. Mugera, A.W.: Sustained competitive advantage in agribusiness: Applying the resource-
based theory to human resources. Int. Food Agribusiness. Manag. Rev. 15(1030–2016-
82811), 27–48 (2012)
68. Pérez-Mesa, J.C., Galdeano-Gómez, E.: Agrifood cluster and transfer of technology in the
Spanish vegetables exporting sector: the role of multinational enterprises. Agric. Econ. 56,
478–488 (2010)
69. Pitts, E., Lagnevik, M.: What determines food industry competitiveness. In: Competitiveness
in Food Industry, London, pp. 1–34 (1998)
70. Boyle, G., Kearney, B., McCarthy, T., Keane, M.: The competitiveness of Irish agriculture:
Irish Farmers Journal Dublin, (2002)
 Modeling the Colombian Swine Supply Chain 35

71. Amin, S., Hagen, A.: Strengthening American international competitiveness: a recom-
mended strategy. Am. Bus. Rev. 16, 94 (1998)
72. Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., Knell, M.: The competitiveness of nations. Presented at the
DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, Aalborg, Denmark (2005)
73. Trujillo-Diaz, J., Rojas, M.M., Franco, C.F., Contreras, A.T.V., Bolivar, H., Gonzalez, J.F.
P.: Criteria for decision-making in transportation logistics function. Presented at the IEOM
2015 - 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management,
Proceeding, United Arab Emirates (2015)
74. Porter, M.E., Ketels, C.H.: UK competitiveness: moving to the next stage (2003)
75. Adams, G., Gangnes, B., Shachmurove, Y.: Why is China so competitive? Measuring and
explaining China’s competitiveness. World Econ. 29, 95–122 (2006)
76. Waheeduzzaman, A.: Competitiveness and convergence in G7 and emerging markets.
Competitiveness Rev. Int. Bus. J. 21, 110–128 (2011)
77. Sölvell, Ö., Lindqvist, G., Ketels, C.: The Cluster Initiative Greenbook. Ivory Tower
Stockholm (2003)
78. Boekholt, P., Thuriaux, B.: Public policies to facilitate clusters: background, rationale and
policy practices in international perspective. Boosting innovation: the cluster approach,
pp. 381–412 (1999)