Le rôle de la gestion de connaissance dans l'amélioration de la performance des institutions bancaires _ étude de cas d'un groupe de banques algériennes

5102 5103

ةيفرصملا تاسسؤملا ءادأ نيسحت يف ةفرعملا ةرادإ رود

ةيرئازجلا كونبلا نم ةعومجم ةلاح ةسارد

يآ تا ميكحلا ركّذلا يو

ميكحلا هباتك يف ىلاعت لػقي 7

ْنأ يِنْعِزْوَأ ِّبَر َأ

ْش ك َتىعن ر َعنأ يِتّما ك

ْى َت

َع ِّيل َعو َط لَمعَأ نأو ِّيدلاو ى َل َضرت ًاحلا

ها

َو ْطأ ِن ِل ح ِو يِّنإو َكيم ِإ تْب ت يِّنإ يتَّير ذ يِف ي نيِملص ىما ي

: فاقحألا ةروس ﴿ 51

﴾

ْتَبَص َك اَو اَهَل اَهَع ْس و ّال ِإ ًاصْفَن هّللا فّلكي َال

ْن ِإ اَنْذخاَغ ت َال ان َّبَر ْتَبَصَت ْكا اَو اَهْيَنَع َو اَنّبَر أَن ْأَعخ َأ ْوَأ اَنيِسَن

اَنَم َةَقا َط َال اَو اَنْنِّمَح ت َالَو ان َّبَر اَنِنْبَق يِو َنيِذَّلا ىَلَع هَتْنَمَح اَم َك اًرص ِإ اَنْينَع لِمْحَت َال َو ِهِب

َتْن َأ اَنْمَحْراَو اَنَم رِفْغا َو اَّنَع فْعا َو ِمْػَقما ىَلَع اَنْر صْناَف اَنَالْػَو َني ِرِفاَكما

: ةرقبلا ةروس ﴿ 682

﴾

ّللا قدط

ميظعما ه

II

III

ريدقتماو ركضما

ّللا مسب ميحرلا يمحرلا ه

هدمحأ ،لىعما اذه مامتإ يو يننّكوو ، ةميزعماو ربعماب ينّدوأو ينناعأ ىذلا نيىماعما بر هلل دىحلا دمحم انالػوو اندّيس ىلع ملسأو يّلطأو اريثك اًدمح

دعب اوأ ، ميرك ما ّيبنما 7

عباتمب اهنظفتم ةديفو يوايحي ةرػتكدلا ةلضافما يتذاتسأو يتمّلعىم نانتوإلاو ركضماب مدقتأ ةيادبما يف ة

اهتاهيجػت لالخ يو ، لىعما اذه وامتإل لطاػتىما يػنعىما اهمعدو لي ػعما اهربطو

ه .

هتدعاصو ىلع ةنػضنش دمحم رػتكدلل ركضما لي زجب مدقتأ كلذك هتاهيجػتو

ةقداط ةرػضوو اواىتهاو ةّػخأ ماهس يسػو ةرػتكدلا ىلإ اظيأ يركش لّجسأ و و اهبيػعتب مايقما و ةحورطألا ةضقانو لػبقب ههنّظفتم ةضقانىما ةنجل ةذتاسأ ىلإ ريدقتما و ركضما صماخ

. لظفأ يملع لكشب اهراهظإو

لي زجلا ركضماب مدقتأ نأ نافرعماو ءافػما بجاو ينػعدي امك كئموأ ةطاخ ،كػنبما يفظػوو يريدىم

. ةب ولعىما ةيناديىما تاوولعىما ميدقت يف انواعتو اواىتها اودبأ نيذلا ّلا لأسأ ءالغهل

ءازج ريخ يّنع ههيزجي نأ ريدقما يلعما هل

يو و ،لىعما اذهب انعفني نأ هلأسأ ، هدحو هل اعماخ اركش بينأ هيمإو لّكػتأ هينع ىذلا ركشأو دػعأو

،هأرق ّللاو ، ةّينماو لىعماو لػقما يو هاضري اىم انقّفػي و ، ريخب انم متخي نأو دعقما ءارو يو ه

.

ةليظف ينف /ةثحابما

IV

V I

II III

IV) XI

XII) XV

XVI) XVIII

10 55

20 I 20 -1-I

-2 -I 20

-3 -I 20

20 II 20 1-II

-2-II 20

-3-II 20

4-II 20

.III 20

1-III 20

2-III 10

3-III 10

4-III 00

52

32 00 02 02 02 00 00 02 00 00 00 00

VI 00

02 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 21 20 20 20 22 20 20 20 20 02 00 02

33 62

00 00 02 02 00 00 00 02 00 00

VII 00

01 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 02 00 00 02

63 010

00 00 00 00 00 120 120 120 122 120 120 120 120 112 112 112 111

VIII 110

110 110 110 110 110 110 110 102 102 102 100 100

Balanced Scorecard,1992) 102

102 100 100 102 102

(Performnce Pyramid,1998 102

(Performance Prism, 2001) 101

(Benchmarking, 2006) 100

102 EFQM 101

015 035

100 100 100 100 102 102 100 100 100

IX 100

100 100 100 121 121 121 120 120 122 122 122 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 101 100 100 100 100 102 102 102 100 100 100 100

100 000

102 102

X 102

102 100 100 100 1001

1000 100 1000

61 100 01

100 100 100 100 5102 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 100 102 102 102 100 100 100 022 022 021 020 020 020 020 012 001

XI 001

000 000 002 000 000 000 001 002 000 000 002 000 000 020

XII

XIII 20

0 02 1

0 00 0

0 0 00

0 00 0

0 02 2

0 22 0

0 20 0

0 20 0

0 00 0

0 00 1

0 01 0

0 01 0

0 110 1

0 110 0

0 102 0

2 100 1

0 101 1

0 0 102 1000

0 0 100 0212

0 100 0

0 100 2

0 100 0

0 100 0

0 022 0

0 021 0

020 020 022 012 011 010

XIV 010

001

Spearman 000

000 000 000 000 000 002 001 000 000 000 000 002 000 000

0 00 1

0 00 0

0 02 0

0 20 0

0 20 2

0 20 0

0 00 0

0 00 1

0 02 0

0 00 0

XV

0 00 0

0 2 00 Wiig

0 0 Marquardt

00

0 0 Duffy

02

0 00 0

0 00 0

H.Boquin 120

120 120 110 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 100 100 120 100 101

0 0 100 (

100 100

XVI

XVII

02 20

120 102

02

(%

XVIII

Abstract

The role of knowledge management in improving the performance of banking institutions

The case Study of a group of Algerian banks

Knowledge management of more subjects received increasing attention by researchers and administrators alike, multiple views and concerns different, since knowledge has become the main feature of economic life, but the most important strategic asset to the organization, and considered by many of the most valuable. Under an accelerated competitive environment we moved from the idea of survival of the fittest on the idea of survival of the fastest, , the resolution of the head money of intellectual replace the head physical capital, the world today live cognitive revolution Exceeds its impact on the global economy, the impact of the largest industrial revolutions that humanity ever known during the past centuries .

Due to this importance is seeking business organizations today of all kinds to enhance the benefit of intellectual resources in order to improve their performance, in this sense came this research to explore the relationship between knowledge management Requirements (knowledge management processes, technological infrastructure, individuals) and levels of performance from the perspective of the balanced Scorecard (financial perspective, the customer perspective, the perspective of internal processes, learning and growth perspective), and for this purpose was used by identifying been distributed to research respondents marked by the directors and heads of agencies and departments public banks(35agencies), as well as the departments of regionalization, it existed in towns (Batna, Biskra, Setif, M'sila) where they were retrieving (109) questionnaire (out of 120), was selected as the public sector to study due to the domination of the Algerian banking life by (95%), was the use of appropriate statistical methods, It has been reached that there is a positive relationship between the elements of knowledge management and performance levels, with recording of the human factor as the biggest factor affecting the banks, the study replaced the viewpoint managers perform, followed by the technological side with the absence of the impact of knowledge management processes on performance, not least due to the lack of awareness of the Algerian public banks after the importance of and the ability of knowledge management processes (knowledge generation, knowledge storage, distribution dissemination of knowledge, application of knowledge) in improving the overall performance of the business organizations.

Keywords:

ةساردلل ماعلا راطإلا :لوألا لصفلا

2

I

1000 Konaka & Takeuchi

Knowledge is power

3

-1-I

1 0 0

0

2

-2 -I



4

1

0

0



1

0

0

0 -3 -I

 1 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤

2022

5

0 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022

 1 α

≤

0 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022

 1 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022

0 α

≤ 2022



6

II

1-II

-2-II

:

7

-3-II

%

(

(

8

4-II

Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS)

α≤

Frequencies , Percents )

( (Cronbach Alpha

( Means

:

( Std.Deviation )

( Multiple Regression ):

(

One –Way ANOVA

9

III -

III



87









%70





10











11



















12

 Yasmina BENABDERRAHMANE (2012)

Management des connaissances, déploiement des TIC et GRH des organisations : cas de l’Algérie

Pierre SAULAIS(2013

Application de la gestion des connaissances à la créativité des experts et à la planification de la R & T en milieu industriel de haute technologie

13

2 Leinder & Timothy Kayworth al(2006)

Dorothy E.

The Role of Culture in Knowledge Management:A Case Study of Two Global Firms

Sabiha HOMRI(2013)

La gestion des connaissances, du concept à l’application au sein d’une institution publique : Le Conseil Régional PACA

PACA

Scott

2-III -



14

15

 Sylvain CARUANA(2014) De La Connaissance de la valeur sociale à la prediction de la Performance: LA PERFORMANCE: Approche psychosociale de la

description de soi dans les inventaires de Personnalité

NEO PI-R

l’AlterEgo

Emilie Chardine – Baumann

Modèles d’évaluation des performances économique, environnementale et sociale dans les chaînes logistiques

Angéle Renaud, Nicolas Berland

La Performance Globale des enterprises

16

5116 Frederico, Guilherme Francisco

The Measurement of Organizational Performance with a Focus on Stakeholders : Performance Prism Approach

Amal Zerrouki

Elaboration d'un Modèle de conception de sysème de Mesure de performance

17

3-III -

















α

18















19



















20

:













2008

21

221







 000

Aur_elie Dudezert, Agn_es Lancini

Performance et Gestion des Connaissances: Contribution à la construction d'un cadre d'analyse

Brahmi Bechir

Impact de l'approche Managériale sur la performance organisationnelle en Matiére de la Gestion de la Connaissance dans le secteur de la haute

Technologie

22

4-III -

2008

عملا نوديري مهتعيبطب رشبلا ةفر

"

أ طسر و

نحن "

ال نع ةئملا يف دحاو نم نويلم فرعن أ

ءيش ي "

ساموت أ نوسيد

ةفرعملا ةرادإل يميهافملا راطإلا :يناثلا لصفلا

24

25

(Knowledge )

0220 00

۩

۩

. :



:

 00







0221 20



J.M. Bruneau &

al.,1992,p18

26



Jean Brilman,,2001,382)



(Malika Grim-Yafsah , 2013,p20)





0220 00



0220 00



0210 20

5 0

Source : (Istvan Mezgar,2006, P 17) 0222

01

( Bits )Data Information

Knowledge

Wisdom

27

Beckman & Liebowits

Hay, David C,2006

.

0

(Data)

0221 00

02

“

Jean-yves

Prax,2003,p60 0222

01

,2006,p15) Michel Ferrary

Information

Guillermo Cortes Robles,2006,p55

28

2

0220 00 00

1

0220 00

29 0220

20

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

30

5 0























































0220 00

31

22

0220 10

32

5 5

M . Polanyi, 1966 J. M. Bruneau , .J.F.

pujos(1992) , 1997 Stewart

M . zack,1999 T. Packman

Prusak, 2000

(OCDE know-How

Know What

Know Why Care Why

1000 we know more than we can tell

1001

0220 00

0

Explicit Knowledge)

5

Tacit Knowledge)

33

5 2

1

Personalization Approach

0

Codification Approach

IT

1002 (Nonaka &Takeuchi

,

0220 22

34



 5

5

0220 000

(OCDE

)

(tacite)

Know-How

. know-who

Software

(Know-

CD

what) Know-why)

02

(IT)

35

5 2

100

( (Michael Polanyi,1966

Iceberg

-

-

:

0210 10 12

0

5

36

0210

5 1

02

% 02

% 02

% 22

% 22

% 02

% 2

%

0212 00

0220 20 12

1

0

0

37

0

2 0

(Dominique foray,2000,pp09_10)

6002

0222 10 10

38

0220 0220001





39 6002

0220 01

40

5 2

0220 102

41

0220 02 01

(V. Lungu,2013, p17

Nonaka, I, Takeuchi,1995



0220 020

Gilles Balmisse, 2005, p04)



42

0222 11

IT-KM People-

KM

( M. Ferrary & Pesqueux, 2006, p42

V. Lungu ,2013,p16)

Schermerhorn , 2010,p43

0212 00

43

0220 100











0

scanner



44 0220

00

0

(Knowledge Workers)

0220 001

(Refaa,2006

5

2

I.Nonaka

0220 001

(Tarondeau,2002,p05

)



45





.









1

0

0

46

0 2 0

0

0

0 12

11

Devenport 00

0220 00 00

1

0

0

0

47 (Reix,1995,p16

0222 101

1

0

0

0

0222012

2

0

48 0211

00

49

0221 012

1

0

0

0

2

0

50

5 3

1

0

0

0

2 0

0

0

0 12

11

02220000

Pierre Caspar & al.,1988,p 63

51

02200100

1

0

0

0

0220 02

0220 000

1 0

0

0

2

0

52

0





0210 20

0220 000

53 0210 02

0220

100

(Tiwana Amrit,1999,p129

)

54

5 1

Strategy-Knowledge link Knowledge

Gap

Strategic gap

Knowledge-Strategy link Source :

0220

000 What your company

must do?

What your company must know?

What your company can do?

What your company knows?

55

1001

0220 102

1

Knowledge Despository) )

0

Knowledge Network)

Brain Network 0210002

56

5 4

0220 102

(M.Greiner & al, 2007,p06)

57

5 5

Source : (M.Greiner.M& al,2007,06)

5 2

Source:(Martina E. & al.,2007,p06)

58



;

. .



.

02100102

02200100

59

(Donald Hislop ,2009,p99)

P. Senge (1990

0210 ) 0222 110

Knowing Organizations

Organizations Thinking

5 3

5 0

2 1

Source : (D.Hislop,2009 , p22)

.

(P.Senge,1990)

60

0

5

Mental Models

.

2

Building Shared Vision

0210

Shawn

Grimsley,2015

1

Team Learning

.

(Dialogue) .

2

.

0220

Daft

100 101

0

61

5

2 1 ,

2

.

62

5 4

02100020

. Marquard,2002

0210 : 02

63

5 6

50 50

0210 02

0212 10

0210 100

1

0

64

0 2

0 0 0

0210 120

Bannet & Bannet(2003)

0210000

65

تامّوقم :ثلاثلا لصفلا

ةفرعملا ةرادإ

67

68

N.Dubois & T.Wilkerson (2008)

N.Dubois &al.,2008,p21

)

C.Gorelick & B.Tantawy(2005)

Gorelick & al.,2005, 125 (C

2 0 Culture

Source : (Carol Gorelick & al., 2005, 152) Dilip Bhatt,2000)

02 12 %

%

02

%

Caroline De Brùn

C. De Brùn, 2005,p61 0222

00 122

People

KM

KM Process

Technology

69

Grover and Devenpport (2001

Grover,2001,p201 (Devenpport

IM IT

Murray Jennix(2008) M.Jennix;2008, pp 35_40

2 0

Massey & al.(2002)

Lindsey,(2002)

Jennex & olfman,(2004)

Maier,(2002)

Murray Jennix

0220010



70





 Internet , Intranat , Website

5 6

0221010

(Turban,2002)

0220 010

71

2 5

1 Nonaka & Takeuchi ,

1995 1

0 0

0

0 Gartner Groupes , 1996

1 0 0

0 2

0 Demrest, 1997

1 0

0 0

0 Davenport& Prusak,

1998 1

0 0

2 Daal and Others, 1998

1 0 0

0 2

0

Liebowitz J, et Beckman.

T ,1998 1

0 0 0

2 0 0

0 Desrpres & Chauvel,

1999 1

0 0

0 2

0

0 Nissen,1999

1 0

0 0

2

Alavi et Leidner ,1999 1

0 0

0 Rastogi, 2000

1 0

0 0 2

0 0

0 Mertins et al. ,2001

1 0 0 0

12 Skeyrme , 2001

1 0 0

0 2

0 0 0 0

12 11

11 Laudon & Laudon, 2001

1 0

0 0

10 Turban, 2002

1 0 0

0 2 0

10 Southon et al , 2002

1 0

0

10 McElroy, 2003

1

12 Fernands et al. , 2004

1 0

0 0

10 Bouthiller &Shearer,

2004 1

0 0

0 2

0

10 Awad & Ghaziri , 2004

1 0

0 0

0222 10 1

0

0 0 2 0

0 0 0

0222 10 1

0 0

0

0220 10 0210000

00 Sabiha HOMRI,2013,P183,

72

Mertins et al. ,2001)

Ikujiro Nonaka(1999)

0220 12 0222

02

( J. Maurice & al.,1992,pp88_89







 produit savoir

0212 01

- -

-

I.Nonaka – H.Takeuchi Nonaka I,

Takeuchi,1997,p19)

1

Socialisation

73 Partagé

0

Explicitation

Conceptuel

0

Association

Systémique

0 Intériorisation

Opérationnel

I.Nonaka – H.Takeuchi

Source : (Jean-Louis Ermine,,2010) .

Discovery Connaissances ( ةحيرص ةفرعم

) explicites (Information)

Explicitation Intériorisation ^{ناطبتسلإا}

Connaissances ( ةحيرص ةفرعم ( Explicites

(Information)

(Connaissances tacites) تفرعم تينمض

(Connaissances tacites) تينمض تفرعم تيطبارتلا

Association

تيكارتشلإا Socialisation

2

2

74

If only we knew what we know

Acquisition

Filemon. A,Uriarte.Jr, 2008,pp46_47)

J.Maurice&al.,1992,pp49_50

(J.Brilman,2001,p386

(J.Brilman,2001,p386

1

75

0

0 0 2

"

"

. .

.

76

02100100

1

0

0

2 1

0220

100

.

77

2 0662

Wiig 1000 Wiig

0220 100

0 5 2 1

78

2 2 Wiig

0220 100

5 5115

Marquardt

Marquardt 0220

0222 22

1 -

0 -

0 -

0 -

2 -

0 -

79

2 3 Marquardt

0222 22

2 Duffy (2000)

0222

1

0

0

0

2

80

2 4 Duffy

0222 100

1 Gupta

Jason 5115

(Gupta& Jason ,2011)











0211 100 101

81

 MKSM

Methodology for Knowledge System Management

Methodologie pour Gestion de système de Connaissance

(Seniotique Syntaxiqu

e

Semantique

Pragmatique

 Rex

Retour d’experience) 1000

0 5112

0222

0210 00

82

2 5





















0210 00

5 5115

0220

Stock – Flow – Advantage

0220 102



 :

.

83

 :

.

 :

.

 :

.

(Chaou-Fisil,2004

84 0220

00 00

0

5

0210 11

Software Opérating) (Software Applications

2

1

1000

1000 0221

85

E-business

0221





0220 000

86

2 6

0220 002

) (

0220 002

0220 000



Expert Systems

87

0220 010

 Piere Levy

(Quebec

J.Maurice,1992,p51

(J.Brilman,2001,386











On line

88

0 5 GroupWare

0220 00







89

Bollinger and Smith(2001)

( C. B. Crawford,2006,06





 Davenport & Prusak (1998)













0210 020 012

90

0

5

2

0220 12

Hofsted(2005)

,2012,102 M. Chmielecki

91

N.Dudois , T. Wilkerson (2008 )

Dubois, N. & Wilkerson,2008,21

) N.Dudois , T. Wilkerson (2008

2 2













































Source: (Dubois, N. and Wilkerson, 2008,23)

92 01

1

0 0

0

.

93

0220

C. De Brùn (2005)

C. De Brùn,2005,61

De Brùn (2005) . -

.

.

Ndou (2004

0212 20

1

0

0

0

2

0

94 0210

00

1

5

95

ءادألا سايقل ةيرظنلا ةبراقملا : عبارلا لصفلا

97

98 (

35_36

(Y.Benabderrahmane,2012,pp

Taylor , 1911

one best way 1010

Fayol, )

Weber , 1922 )

(Follett,1924) (Mayo, 1933

(Dickson, 1939)

(Simon , 195 (

Selznick , 1948 )

( Wiener, 1948

99 performer

to perform "

(Stéphane Jacquet,2011,p02 Larousse

(Vincent plauchu,2006,p07)



Thomas Gelbert,2007,pp17_18

"

100



Zaher & Pearse,1989) )

 wiersemn

)

&Robbins,1995 )

Ecclec, 1999) )



(Lorino Philippe,2011,p20)



101





W.Peterson & al.,2003,p22 )















102 H.Bouquin

( H.Boquin )

(Efficiency

Druker Peter

(Stéphane Jacquet,2011,p03

103

(Effectiveness) (H.Bouquin,

2004,p508) (Vincent plauchu,2006,p06

)

Paturel 2007) ( M.Pendaries,2011,50 )

(M.Kalika,1995,328

104



105













106

J.Martinez p

06,pp01-02) M.Armstrong,

)

) (Patrice Rousse

Sylvie saint-onge,2012,pp04_05

107

Source : (Sylvie Saint–onge , 2006,p06

(T.Samsonowa,2012,p34

Armstrong & Baron,1998,p45 )

108











109









(M.Armstrong ,2006,p19 (Role definition

(The Performance agreement

(The Performance improvement

(The personal development plan

( Managing Performance throughout the year

(Performane review

110 (Y.Benabderrahmene,2012,p34

(Performance Mesurement) .

111 Feed Back )













112

113

1

Validity

( Flexibility )

Reliability

( Discrimination )

Practicality

114



jacot, 1990

Burlat & al., 2003

( (M.Mathieu_Lauras,2004,p1



115













116 Kaplan & Norton(1998)

0 0

( 0220 ) Lorino (0

0222 ) Malo & Mathé 0

0 Paturel (2007) Martinet & Reynaud

M.

(A. Hattabou, 2011 ,114_ 115)

Kaplan & Norton

Sustainability Balanced Scorecard

(SBSC) BSC)

Balanced Scorecard

(BSC)

117

(A. Hattabou, 2011 , 115) Source :

118









.

119

120

121







:



p



 Kaplan & Norton

122





Eccles

(1998)

:( Frederico & al ,2009,04

)

Source :( Frederico & al ,2009 , 04)

123

Source Frederico al,2009 , P 05)

124

Thompsonet & Strickland(1999

)













125

4 3

.

Balanced Scorecard,1992

Kaplan & Norton

Harvard Business Review

( (Kaplan, 2010,p02

126

Druker P.

Kaplan & Norton (1992

سيردإ(

يبلاغلاو 0 0220 0 121 ) M. Pendaries,2011,p119)

)

(Tableau de Bord

équilibrée) ( P.Arveson,1998,p07 )

0

127

Financial Perspective

128

( Customer Perspective

(Target Customer)

(Customer Retention 0

(Customer Satisfaction)

(Customer Acquisition)

) (Internal Business Processes Perspective

Learning and Growth Perspective)

A.Hattabou,2011,p138) )

129

Kaplan & Norton, 1992)

.

130

5 (Performnce Pyramid,1998

(:

G.P.Kurien

&al.,2011,06 )

131

(G.P.Kurien&al.,2011,26)

(Performance Prism, 2001)

The Measurement of Organizational Performance with a Focus on Stakeholders Neely & Adams,2000

)

(Kaplan &

Norton 1992) (Performance Prism)

132

(Performance Prism , 2000)

(Andy Neely& al.,2002,pp04_07 Stakeholder Satisfaction

Stakeholder Contribution

Strategies Processes Capabilities

Stakeholder Contribution

Strategies

Processes

Capabilities

133 (Performance Prism)

Source : (Andy Neely& al.,2002,12)

(Performance Prism)



 (Benchmarking, 2006)

(BenchMarking )

134

Vassilis Kelessidis

(V. Kelessidis,2000,p02)

F.Lepoivre,2005,p03 )

(Gerard J.Balm,1994

( Fabien Lepoivre,2005,p03 )

( Internal Benchmarking )

( External Benchmarking )

 (

Competitive benchmarking )

135



(J.Alexender & al.,2003,p38)



( Functional Benchmarking )

 (Generic Benchmarking

J.Alexender & al.,2003,p39) (

F.Lepoivre,2005,pp08-10)





best of the best

(L. Dragolea,2009,p818

EFQM

EFQM

EFQM 2013) )

136

( Adding Value for Customers )

(Creating a Sustainable Future

(Developing Organisational Capability

ر

(Harnissing Creativity& Innovation

(Leading with Vision, Inspiration & Integrity

(Managing With Agility

(Succeeding through the Talent Of people

(sustaining OUTstanding Results)

137 (

Source : An Overview of the EFQM Excellence Model ( 2013 ), P 03 (The RADAR)

(The RADAR)

Source : An Overview of the EFQM Excellence Model ( 2013 ), P 06 .

138

EFQM EFQM

Source : An Overview of the EFQM Excellence Model ( 2013 ), P 04

( Enabler Criterion )

139

(Leadership)

(peaple

(Strategy

(Partnerships & Resources

(Processes, Products & Services

ِ(

Customer Results

(People Results

(Society Results

140

Buisness Results )

141

نيسحتو ةفرعملا ةرادإ نيب ةقالعلا : سماخلا لصفلا

ءادألا

143

144

.

145













146

147

148

















149

























150













(Six Segma



-

Six Segma 

002

151

-

-

-





152

-

-

-

153













154 (

)Ford

155

156

157

158

159

160

161 Telebanking

Electronic Funds Transfer at the Point of Sale EFTOPS

162



Bank of America



Wall Street Journal Market Watch 28 July 2009

100

0210 ^



163 Grameen Bank ^

1000 

164

-

-

165

166 (Kaplan &

Norton,1992)

167









168

ةيناديملا ةساردلا جئاتن ليلحتو ضرع : سداسلا لصفلا

تايضرفلا رابتخاو

170

10 / 20 / 1000 م

1000 م 00

/ 20 / 1000 م

"La Banque de L'Algerie"

1021 م

171 0210 100

1022

3 0

20 CFAT 20

02

00 CFCB 0

00

12 12

BNCIA 20

20

20 20

20 20

20 21

20

20 20

20 BIAM 20

20 20

172 20

20

21 21

21 21

21 21

21 21

21 21

21 21

21 21

10 20

00

102 12

10

0210 100 102

173



0640

0653

174

175 8 1966

.

176 .

177 6002

00

تيلاملا ةرازو

يرئاسجلا يسكرملا كنبلا

تيمنتلا كنب تيلحملا

BDL

يبعشلا ضرقلا يرئاسجلا

CPA

يجراخلا كنبلا يرئاسجلا

BEA

تحلافلا كنب تيفيرلا تيمنتلاو

BADR

ينطولا كنبلا يرئاسجلا

BNA

يراسجلا كنبلا تيمنتلل BAD تنيسخلا

تيمومعلا

TP

قوذنصلا ريفوتلل ينطولا

طايتحلإاو

CNEP

178

- - - - - -

-

179









180

181

El Khalifa

Elbaraka

يرئازجلا يراجتلا عمجملا

CAB

BCIA

ABC BGM

NATEXIS Soc. Générale

Cite Bank BGM ALRyan Arab Bank

BNP CCP

CNEP CPA BNA

BEA

BADR BDL

Union Bank

SALEM

يف ان بلا Finalep

كنب انوم Mouna Bank

يرئازجلا يلودلا كنبلا Algerian international

bank

كنب سنان يفوس Sofinance

يبرعلا يراجيلإا ضرقلا نواعتلل Arab Leasing

corporation