Knowledge Management

Journal of Knowledge Management
Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance

Jenny Darroch,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jenny Darroch, (2005) "Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 Issue: 3,
pp.101-115, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602809
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602809
Downloaded on: 09 October 2017, At: 08:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18165 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2011),"Knowledge management and organizational performance: a decomposed view", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1
Downloaded by Southern Cross University At 08:35 09 October 2017 (PT)
pp. 156-171 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756">https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756</a>

(2012),"Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness
and economic performance", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 617-636 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13673271211246185">https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211246185</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:398589 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Knowledge management, innovation and
firm performance
Jenny Darroch
Abstract
Purpose – To provide important empirical evidence to support the role of knowledge management
within firms.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a mail survey sent to CEOs representing
firms with 50 or more employees from a cross-section of industries. A total of 1,743 surveys were mailed
out and 443 were returned and usable (27.8 percent response rate). The sample was checked for
response and non-response bias. Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling.
Jenny Darroch is an Assistant Findings – This paper presents knowledge management as a coordinating mechanism. Empirical
Professor of Marketing at the evidence supports the view that a firm with a knowledge management capability will use resources more
Peter Drucker and Masatoshi Ito efficiently and so will be more innovative and perform better.
Graduate School of Research limitations/implications – The sample slightly over-represented larger firms. Data were also
Management at Claremont collected in New Zealand. As with most studies, it is important to replicate this study in different contexts.
Graduate University. Her current Practical implications – Knowledge management is embraced in many organizations and requires a
research focuses on the business case to justify expenditure on programs to implement knowledge management behaviours
interface between marketing and practices or hardware and software solutions. This paper provides support for the importance of
knowledge management to enhance innovation and performance.
and entrepreneurship, in
particular the comparison Originality/value – This paper is one of the first to find empirical support for the role of knowledge
management within firms. Further, the positioning of knowledge management as a coordinating
between market driven and
mechanism is also an important contribution to our thinking on this topic.
driving markets firm behaviour.
Keywords Knowledge management, Innovation, Business performance
She has also published
extensively on the role of Paper type Research paper
knowledge management within
organizations, in particular as an Introduction
antecedent. Prior to joining
Knowledge management has recently emerged as a new discipline in its own right and,
Claremont Graduate University,
given its newness, is probably still developing its theoretical home. In this paper, an
She was the Director of
enhanced understanding of knowledge management will be provided by revisiting the
Entrepreneurship and Senior
Lecturer in Marketing at the
works of Penrose (1959) and Nelson and Winter (1982). In doing so, this paper will argue that
University of Otago in New although knowledge in itself is a resource, the effective management of knowledge enables
Zealand. E-mail: those within the firm to extract more from all resources available to it. Further, knowledge
jenny.darroch@cgu.edu management plays an important supporting function by providing a coordinating
mechanism to enhance the conversion of resources into capabilities. The remainder of
this section explains this perspective.
An understanding of why firms exist and how resource allocation decisions are made within
firms has been a central theme in economic theory (Penrose, 1959). However, the treatment of
resources in economic theory has, at times, been problematic. For example, in general
equilibrium theory (a mainstay of neo-classical microeconomic theory) resources were
considered to be homogeneous, information perfectly available and evenly distributed, profit
maximization central and an equilibrium level of output guided production decisions (Penrose,
1959). Clearly, general equilibrium theory was deficient in that it failed to properly consider
what went on inside firms (Nelson, 1991). There were several early and notable attempts to
DOI 10.1108/13673270510602809 VOL. 9 NO. 3 2005, pp. 101-115, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 101
break away from the general equilibrium model. Of particular relevance here is Penrose’s
(1959) book, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Penrose (1959) argues that although
markets set price signals that influence resource allocation, those within the firm make
decisions on what activities the firm will be involved in, how those activities will be performed,
what resources are required, which resources are allocated to different activities and,
ultimately, which resources are used. As a consequence, internal processes and insights
rather than external market prices and cost signals will greatly influence a firm’s growth.
However, decisions about internal processes are burdened with a considerable degree of
uncertainty since decision makers often do not have full information upon which to act. This
may be because either full information is unavailable or the information is asymmetrically
distributed (Clarke and McGuiness, 1987; Coase, 1937). Therefore, in order to understand the
internal operations of a firm, it is important to understand not only the types of resource
decisions but also to acknowledge the affect of information on those resource decisions.
As already indicated, what makes the contribution of Penrose (1959) important is that she
endeavoured to consider what goes on inside a firm, something not traditionally accounted
for by mainstream economists (Nelson, 1991; Sautet, 2000). Furthermore, Penrose’s (1959)
work contributed to the foundations for what is now called the resource-based view of the
firm, one of a number of theories of the firm (Sautet, 2000; Wernerfelt, 1984). In this paper, the
suggestion is that her work also underpins the new discipline of knowledge management
(this assertion will be revisited again shortly).
Central to Penrose’s (1959) paper, and therefore to the resource-based view of the firm, are
decisions about the acquisition and use of resources. But what exactly are resources?
Resources are generally categorized as tangible assets (or resources) and intangible assets (or
resources). Examples of tangible assets include financial resources, types of capital equipment,
land and buildings, location and the qualification profile of employees. Intangible assets are
more difficult to describe. One typology of intangible assets is presented by Hall (1993) and was
recently used by Fernández et al. (2000). Here, intangible assets are either people dependent
(e.g. human capital) or people independent and include organizational capital (e.g. culture,
norms, routines and databases), technical capital (e.g. patents) and relational capital (e.g.
reputation, brands, customer and employee loyalty, networks within the distribution channel, the
ability of managers to work together, relationships between buyers and sellers, etc.)[1].
Perhaps more important than the classification of resources is the manner in which Penrose
(1959, p. 25) views them:
Strictly speaking, it is never the resources themselves that are the ‘‘inputs’’ into the production
process, but only the services that the resources can render. The services yielded by resources
are a function of the way in which they are used – exactly the same resources when used for
different purposes or in different ways and in a combination with different types or amounts of
other resources provides a different service or set of services.
This contribution is important because it illustrates that simply owning resources is not
necessarily going to provide any kind of advantage to the firm. More specifically:
The services that the resources will yield depend on the capacities of the men using them, but the
development of the capacities of men is partly shaped by the resources men deal with (Penrose,
1959, p. 78).
As Penrose (1959) implies, the knowledge of an employee is based upon his or her skills and
experiences and ability to absorb new knowledge. Therefore, while knowledge is a resource
in its own right, the way in which knowledge is managed and used will affect the quality of
services that can be leveraged from each resource owned by the firm. Thus knowledge
management is placed in an important supporting role within the firm.
An alternative way of viewing knowledge management is to consider it as a coordinating
mechanism that enables resources to be converted into capabilities (Nelson and Winter,
1982). As Nelson and Winter (1982) attest, coordinating mechanisms are required to ensure
people not only know their own jobs but are also able to interpret and respond to information
j j
PAGE 102 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 9 NO. 3 2005
‘‘ Internal processes and insights rather than external market
prices and cost signals will greatly influence a firm’s growth. ’’
flowing into the organization. One could argue that knowledge management is simply a more
modern term to describe Nelson and Winter’s (1982) concept of a coordinating mechanism.
Thus, effective knowledge management, a capability in its own right, is also critical to the
long run survival of the firm because it underpins the development of other capabilities.
Therefore, it seems that while Penrose (1959) is rightly attributed with providing theoretical
foundations from which the resource-based view of the firm was spawned, she also provided
an important contribution to the new discipline of knowledge management.
Having accepted the importance of effective knowledge management, it is disappointing to
note that there is little guidance in the extant literature as to what effective knowledge
management really means and even less guidance as to what the quantifiable outcomes of
effective knowledge management might be. Perhaps this incomplete treatment of
knowledge can be explained when one accepts that the identification and measurement
of knowledge and knowledge management is difficult given the tacitness of much

knowledge and the tacit component to knowledge management (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). While the difficulty in identifying and measuring knowledge and knowledge
management provides one plausible explanation as to the dearth of empirical studies in this
discipline, another explanation might simply be that knowledge management is a relatively
new discipline. As suggested by Preiss (1999, p. 39), ‘‘the need now is for analytical
methods that can be used in this new discipline, so that management may add a quantitative
dimension to qualitative [knowledge management] approaches.’’
This paper addresses these deficiencies in two ways. First, a richer understanding of
Penrose’s (1959) contribution can be explained by integrating knowledge management into
the resource-based view of the firm. In addition, Nelson and Winter’s (1982) view, that
coordinating mechanisms (restated here as knowledge management behaviours and
practices) are required for resources to be transformed into capabilities, can be established.
Second, seeing knowledge management in a supporting role may limit any acceptance of its
importance. Therefore empirical evidence as to the consequences of effective knowledge
management is also required. Possible consequences of effective knowledge management
include: competitive advantage (Connor and Prahalad, 1996; Hall, 1993) improved financial
performance (Teece, 1998; Wiig, 1997); innovation (Antonelli, 1999; Carneiro, 2000; Dove,
1999; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995); anticipation of problems (Carneiro, 2000); enhanced
organizational learning (Buckley and Carter, 2000); and superior use of information
(Carneiro, 2000). This paper will empirically examine the link between knowledge
management and innovation and firm performance.
By way of summary, Figure 1 provides an overview of the conceptual model described so far
in this paper. Inputs, including knowledge inputs, are shown as influencing organizational
routines. Routines for knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge are
provided as examples of the many types of routines performed within an organization. Some
routines will develop into organizational capabilities and many will also influence the
acquisition of resources. Resources, routines and capabilities underpin outputs such as
innovations and affect outcomes such as financial performance.
Hypothesis development
This paper examines the role of effective knowledge management in two ways. First, the
paper examines the suggestion that effective knowledge management supports the
conversion of all other resources into capabilities. Since capabilities underpin the long run
survival of a firm, firms with effective knowledge management behaviours and practices are
j j
VOL. 9 NO. 3 2005 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 103
Figure 1 The conceptual model
likely to make better use of resources and so will exhibit superior outcomes such as more
innovation and superior financial performance. Therefore:
H1a. Firms that effectively manage knowledge are likely to be more innovative.
H1b. Firms that effectively manage knowledge are likely to perform better.
Second, the paper examines the direct contribution of effective knowledge management to
two outcomes of interest: innovation and performance. Consistent with Darroch (2003),
knowledge management is presented in three parts: knowledge acquisition, knowledge
dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge. While little guidance comes from the
extant literature, this paper proposes a positive relationship between the three knowledge
management components. That is, a firm with access to a greater pool of knowledge will
have better-developed knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge
behaviours and practices. Similarly, a firm with better-developed knowledge
dissemination behaviours and practices will be more responsive to knowledge. The
hypotheses related to the discussion in this section are:
H2. Knowledge acquisition positively affects knowledge dissemination.
H3. Knowledge dissemination positively affects responsiveness to knowledge.
H4. Knowledge acquisition positively affects responsiveness to knowledge.
Recall that there are only a limited number of studies reported in the extant literature that
consider the consequences of effective knowledge management. However, there are a
number of studies that consider antecedents of innovation and performance. Many of these
antecedents may be applicable within a definition of knowledge management. For example,
Capon et al. (1992) profiled innovative firms in the USA and found that acquiring other firms,
as a way of accessing new knowledge, did not significantly affect the ability of a firm to
innovate. However, Capon et al. (1992) did find that hiring scientists, spending money on
applied R&D to develop new products and encouraging scientific discussions enhances the
ability of a firm to innovate.
Probably the most frequent area of research linking knowledge management and innovation
relates to the role of inter-functional co-ordination, teamwork and the use of networks to
facilitate innovation. There are many good review articles in this area. Perhaps one of the
more extensive reviews is that of Griffin and Hauser (1996) who examined the integration
between R&D and marketing, citing such integration as an important antecedent of new
product success. In this article, Griffin and Hauser (1996, p. 202) make recommendations
based on a summary of a large number of empirical studies, that integration is achieved by
the design and location of physical facilities, personnel movement, informal social systems,
organizational structures, incentives and rewards, and formal integrative management
j j
processes (e.g. the use of the stage-gate new product development process or quality
functional deployment process). Henard and Szymanksi (2001) provide another
comprehensive review article. The authors undertook a meta-analysis of the antecedents
of new product performance. Of the 24 antecedents reported frequently (i.e. n $ 10), two
related to aspects of knowledge management: cross-functional integration and
cross-functional communication. However, the results of the meta-analysis found that
neither could be generalized across research studies.
Several studies provide mixed evidence of the effect of organizational climate on innovation
(e.g. Amabile et al., 1996; Anderson and West, 1998; Capon et al., 1992; Tang, 1999). In this
paper, it is argued that organizational climate is an antecedent of knowledge management
since few items included in climate studies can be considered knowledge management
behaviours and practices. To place climate as an antecedent of knowledge management is
consistent with work by researchers such as Jaworski and Kohli (1993), who positioned
organizational climate as an antecedent of a market orientation or Homburg and Pflesser
(2000) who included a market oriented culture as an antecedent of market orientation
behaviours and practices.
Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the extant literature about the relationship
between effective knowledge management and innovation. This is not because empirical
evidence refutes the existence of such a relationship, but simply because research
examining this link is developing. In spite of limited evidence, one of the primary aims of this
paper is to empirically investigate a link between effective knowledge management and
innovation that, to date, has largely only been proposed in the literature. Thus, based on
mixed but scant empirical results, it is proposed that each component of the knowledge
management construct will positively affect innovation. In order for innovation to occur,
managers first need to have knowledge about the internal and external forces that affect the
firm – the more knowledge, and the greater the variety of knowledge, the better. Second,
knowledge must flow freely around the firm – the better the dissemination of knowledge the
greater the likelihood of innovation as more people within levels and departments of the
organization are exposed to new knowledge that interacts with the knowledge already held.
Lastly, an innovative organization is, by definition, responsive. In fact, innovation is a
response in itself. Therefore, the more responsive and agile an organization is the more likely
it is to be innovative. Thus, the relevant hypotheses are:
H5. Knowledge acquisition positively affects innovation.
H6. Knowledge dissemination positively affects innovation.
H7. Responsiveness to knowledge positively affects innovation.
Finally, this paper argues that effective knowledge management is a worthwhile activity for
managers to emphasize. For managers to encourage the development of knowledge
management behaviours and practices, they need evidence that financial performance will
be enhanced as a consequence. However, once again there are very few studies linking
aspects of knowledge management and performance and as a result, each component of
the knowledge management construct is presented as positively affecting performance. The
relevant hypotheses are:
H8. Knowledge acquisition positively affects performance.
H9. Knowledge dissemination positively affects performance.
H10. Responsiveness to knowledge positively affects performance.
‘‘ Simply owning resources is not necessarily going to provide any

kind of advantage to the firm. ’’
j j
For the sake of completion, a further relationship examined in this study is the link between
innovation and performance. A positive relationship between innovation and performance is
fairly well established in the extant literature (e.g. Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1999;
Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Capon et al., 1992; Deshpandé et al., 1993; Han et al., 1998; Li
and Calantone, 1998; Manu and Sriram, 1996; Mavondo, 1999; Vázquez et al., 2001). On this
basis, the following hypothesis is presented:
H11. Innovation positively affects performance.
Research design
Data
The data were obtained from a sample of New Zealand organizations with 50 or more
employees. This screening criterion was established on the basis that larger organizations
would require the existence of some processes to facilitate knowledge management. The
most senior person within each organization was identified and asked to complete the survey,
assuming that he or she would be in a position to comment on the flow of knowledge around
the entire organization rather than the flow of knowledge within one or a few departments.
The administration of the survey proceeded in three stages. After identifying a total of 1,743
organizations with 50 or more employees (see www.Kompass.com for a description of the

database) and representing a cross section of industries. A pre-notification letter was sent to
potential respondents explaining the purpose of the research and announcing the imminent
arrival of the survey. Respondents were also promised a report-card summary of the knowledge
management profile of their organization as an incentive to complete the survey. Two weeks
later, a copy of the questionnaire was mailed to potential respondents, along with a cover letter
and a stamped addressed return envelope. The useable sample size was 443 and the effective
response rate (after adjustments) was 27.8 percent. The sample was not strictly representative
of industry groupings within New Zealand and slightly over-represented larger firms. Since
there has been little empirical research on knowledge management practices reported in the
extant literature, it is difficult to know how industry classification or industry size might bias the
results. To check for non-response bias, a random cross section of 150 organizations, from
which there had been no response, was selected and sent a brief questionnaire for completion.
Of this group, 44 (29.3 percent) completed the brief questionnaire. Next, data was categorized
into one of four waves. Results of ANOVA tests showed no significant differences between
mean responses from early, late or non-respondents and therefore no significant difference
between each category of respondents.
Definition of variables
Knowledge management orientation. Darroch (2003) developed three scales to measure
behaviours and practices for each of component of knowledge management: knowledge
acquisition, knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge. Knowledge
acquisition is captured by six factors: valuing employees attitudes and opinions and
encouraging employees to up-skill; having a well-developed financial reporting system;
being market focused by actively obtaining customer and industry information; being
sensitive to information about changes in the marketplace; employing and retaining a large
number of people trained in science, engineering or math; working in partnership with
international customers; and getting information from market surveys. Five factors describe
the knowledge dissemination construct: readily disseminating market information around
the organization; disseminating knowledge on-the-job; using techniques such as quality
circles, case notes, mentoring and coaching to disseminate knowledge; using technology
(such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing and Groupware) to facilitate communication;
and preferring written communication to disseminate knowledge. Lastly, responsiveness to
knowledge was described by five factors: responding to knowledge about customers,
competitors and technology; being flexible and opportunistic by readily changing products,
processes and strategies; and having a well-developed marketing function.
j j
Innovation. The original Booz Allen Hamilton (1982) typology of innovation is used in this
paper. Here, innovations are categorized as new to the world, new products to the firm,
additions to existing product lines, improvements or revisions to existing product lines, cost
reductions to existing products, or repositioning of existing products. New to the world
innovations are typically characterized as radical innovations while the other categories are
incremental innovations. In spite of recent attempts to revisit innovation typologies (for a
recent discussion of this see Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1999 or Garcia and Calantone, 2002),
the Booz Allen Hamilton (1982) scale still maintains reasonable face validity.
Performance. This paper uses comparative and internally reflective performance measures,
for example, ‘‘Compared with the industry average, our company is more profitable’’ and
internally reflective performance measures, for example, ‘‘We are more profitable than we
were five years ago’’ (the measures used are based on those found in Avlonitis and
Gounaris, 1999; Deshpandé et al., 1993; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Vázquez et al., 2001).
These performance measures capture both financial measures (in this case profit) and
non-financial measures (e.g. market share and sales growth).
Results and discussion

Tables I-IV provide the results of the correlation analysis and are provided to test H1. Tables I
and III use summated scores for each knowledge management component while Tables II
and IV provide more detail by using all sixteen knowledge management factors. To assist
readability, correlation coefficients are omitted if not statistically significant. Table I confirms
that the three knowledge management components do correlate with all types of innovation
and so preliminary evidence is provided to support the view that a firm with a capability in
knowledge management is also likely to be more innovative.
However, the detail provided by Table II suggests that a firm with a capability in knowledge
management is less likely to develop new to the world innovations. In other words, when a
firm develops a new product or service for which it lacks the scientific or business
expertise, a capability in knowledge management may not be helpful. By contrast, firms
developing incremental innovations (and so are working within the boundaries of existing
scientific and business expertise) tend to have well developed knowledge management
behaviours and practices. This finding is interesting because it implies that knowledge
management behaviours and practices flourish when those inside the organization work
within the confines of existing capabilities. This interpretation is also consistent with a view
presented earlier by Tushman and Anderson (1986) who attest that incremental
innovations are competence enhancing, while radical (i.e. new to the world innovations)
are competence destroying. In the context of this paper, new to the world innovations have
the potential to put the business at risk, because not only is an existing knowledge
management capability almost irrelevant but also existing resources available to the firm
may not be well utilized.
Table I Correlations of knowledge management scales with innovation types

Knowledge acquisition Knowledge dissemination Responsiveness to knowledge
We have launched products that are the first of

their kind in the world 0.30* 0.29* 0.17*
We often introduce new ranges of products or
services not previously offered by this company 0.30* 0.32* 0.45*
We often add new products or services to our
existing ranges 0.36* 0.39* 0.46*
We often improve or revise existing products or
services 0.51* 0.49* 0.59*
We often change our products or services in
order to reduce costs 0.26* 0.16* 0.30*
We often reposition existing products or services 0.32* 0.31* 0.41*
Note: * result significant at a , 0:01
j j
Table II Correlations of knowledge management factors with innovation types
New to New to New products to Improve existing Change products Reposition
the world the firm existing ranges products to reduce costs existing products
Knowledge acquisition
KAF1. Organization values employees’
attitudes and opinions 0.13* 0.20* 0.27* 0.38* 0.14* 0.24*
KAF2. Organization has well developed
financial reporting systems – 0.17* 0.16* 0.25* 0.21* 0.17*
KAF3. Organization is sensitive to
information about changes in the market
place 0.14* 0.34* 0.38* 0.47* 0.26* 0.35*
KAF4. Science and technology human
capital profile 0.27* – – – – –
KAF5. Organization works in partnership
with international customers 0.21* 0.19* 0.26* 0.27* 0.20* 0.14*
KAF6. Organization gets information
from market surveys 0.19* 0.25* 0.29* 0.39* 0.19* 0.23*
Knowledge dissemination
KDF1. Market information is freely
disseminated 0.15* 0.28* 0.34* 0.45* 0.21* 0.27*
KDF2. Knowledge is disseminated
on-the-job – 0.22* 0.22* 0.27* – 0.16*

KDF3. Use of specific techniques to
disseminate knowledge 0.15* 0.19* 0.18* 0.28* 0.11* 0.17*
KDF4. Organization uses technology to
disseminate knowledge 0.25* – 0.13* – – 0.14*
KDF5. Organization prefers written
communication 0.13* 0.20* 0.17* 0.28* – 0.13*
Responsiveness to knowledge
KRF1. Responds to customers – 0.16* 0.20* 0.32* 0.15* 0.14*
KRF2. Well-developed marketing
function – 0.30* 0.35* 0.42* 0.23* 0.34*
KRF3. Responds to technology 0.23* 0.30* 0.26* 0.35* 0.19* 0.22*
KRF4. Responds to competitors – 0.27* 0.23 0.32* 0.21* 0.27*
KRF5. Organization is flexible and
opportunistic 0.16* 0.47* 0.47* 0.40* 0.34* 0.45*
Table III Correlation of knowledge management scales with performance types

Knowledge acquisition Knowledge dissemination Responsiveness to knowledge
Comparative performance measures

Compared with the industry average, we are
more profitable 0.23* 0.19* 0.31*
Compared with the industry average, we have a
greater market share 0.17* 0.18* 0.35*
Compared with the industry average, we are
growing more rapidly 0.35* 0.31* 0.43*
Internal performance measures
In general, our organization is performing better
than it did 12 months ago – – –
In general, our organization is performing better
than it did five years ago – – –
Over the past 12 months, our organization has
met its performance objectives – – 0.18*
Over the past five years, our organization has
met its performance objectives 0.28* 0.21* 0.23*
j j
Table IV Correlation of knowledge management factors with performance types
Comparative measures Internally reflective measures
Better Better Met objectives Met objectives
More Greater More performance performance over 12 over five
profit market share growth over 12 months over five years months years
Knowledge acquisition
KAF1. Organization
values employees’
attitudes and opinions – – 0.24* 0.17* 0.23* 0.20* 0.29*
KAF2. Organization has
well developed financial
reporting systems 0.26* – 0.26* – 0.16* 0.22* 0.26*
KAF3. Organization is
sensitive to information
about changes in the
marketplace 0.31* 0.29* 0.39* 0.13* 0.12* 0.20* 0.21*
KAF4. Science and
technology human capital
profile – – – – – – –
KAF5. Organization works
in partnership with
international customers 0.18* – 0.17* – 0.13* 0.15* 0.21*

KAF6. Organization gets
information from market
surveys 0.13* 0.13* 0.17* – – – 0.17*
Knowledge dissemination
KDF1. Market information
is freely disseminated 0.24* 0.18* 0.30* 0.12* 0.18* 0.22* 0.23*
KDF2. Knowledge is
disseminated on-the-job – – 0.22* – 0.18* 0.22* 0.23*
KDF3. Use of specific
techniques to disseminate
knowledge – – 0.20* – 0.15* – 0.16*
KDF4. Organization uses
technology to disseminate
knowledge – – – – – – –
KDF5. Organization
prefers written
communication – – 0.13* – 0.13* – 0.15*
Responsiveness to
knowledge
KRF1. Responds to
customers 0.24* 0.17* 0.28* – 0.17* 0.28* 0.26*
KRF2. Well-developed
marketing function 0.30* 0.26* 0.38* – 0.18* 0.18* 0.22*
KRF3. Responds to
technology 0.17* 0.14* 0.28* – 0.19* 0.21* 0.28*
KRF4. Responds to
competitors 0.27* 0.28* 0.29* – 0.15* 0.19* 0.14*
KRF5. Organization is
flexible and opportunistic – – 0.21* – – – –
The results in Table III are mixed. All correlations between knowledge management and
comparative performance measures were positive and significant. However, there were only
a limited number of significant correlations between knowledge management and internal
measures of performance. The detail provided in Table IV supports the view that many
individual knowledge management factors do not correlate with types of performance
measures. One possible explanation for these results could be that comparative
performance measures may suffer from a halo affect whereby CEOs exaggerate the
performance of their own firm. Further, knowledge management is not the only variable to
j j
affect performance. Other variables, such as the economic or competitive environment in
which the firm operates might have a greater impact on performance.
To conclude this part of the discussion, at an aggregated level it is reasonable to accept H1a
and conclude that firms with well developed knowledge management practices and
behaviours are more likely to develop incremental innovations. However, H1b is rejected
because there is insufficient evidence to support the view that firms with well developed
knowledge management practices and behaviours will perform better. An examination of
individual knowledge management factors also favours these conclusions.
Structural equation modelling was used to test for the effects of knowledge management on
innovation and performance and to test for the effect of innovation on performance. Figure 2
provides an illustration of the model tested. Fit statistics were good (x2 ¼ 69:64, df ¼ 44,
GFI ¼ 0:96, AGFI ¼ 0:92, NFI ¼ 0:95, TLI ¼ 0:97, RMSEA ¼ 0:05). Squared multiple
correlations for innovation was 0.41 and for performance was 0.35. Results are provided
in Table V.
The three knowledge management components behaved as proposed in the hypotheses.
That is, knowledge acquisition positively affected both knowledge dissemination (H2) and
responsiveness to knowledge (H3). In addition, knowledge dissemination positively affected
responsiveness to knowledge (H4). Thus, H2-4 are strongly supported (a , 0:01). Thus, a
firm with access to a greater pool of knowledge is likely to have better developed knowledge
dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge behaviours and practices. Similarly, a firm

with better-developed knowledge dissemination behaviours and practices is likely to be
more responsive to knowledge.
Figure 2 The measurement model
Table V Results of structural equation modelling

Hypothesis Regression weights Total effects Direct effects Indirect effects Hypothesis supported?
H2 KA ! KD 1.22** 1.12** 0.00 Yes

H3 KD ! KR 0.15** 0.15** 0.00 Yes
H4 KA ! KR 0.96** 0.79** 0.17** Yes
H5 KA ! innovation 3.20** 1.29** 1.92** Yes
H6 KD ! innovation 0.75** 0.55** 0.20* Yes
H7 KR ! innovation 1.35** 1.35** 0.00 Yes
H8 KA ! performance 1.86** 0.72 1.90** Indirect only
H9 KD ! performance 0.03 20.21 0.20** No
H10 KR ! performance 1.24** 1.11** 0.00 Yes
H11 Innovation ! performance 0.09 0.09 0.00 No
Notes: Squared multiple correlations: KA ¼ 0:00; KD ¼ 0:44; KR ¼ 0:51; innovation ¼ 0:41; performance ¼ 0:35; sample size ¼ 441.
* a , 0:05; ** a , 0:01
j j
All three components of knowledge management positively predicted innovation and so
H5-7 are accepted (a , 0:01). The link between knowledge management and innovation
was conceptually supported in the literature, although not well supported with empirical
evidence. Thus, in this study, a firm capable in all three knowledge management
components is more innovative. A widely held view has been that intangible knowledge is
likely to be harder for competitors to access and copy and so this type of knowledge
provides greater potential for developing competitive advantages (Foss, 1996; Kogut and
Zander, 1992; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Further, knowledge dissemination and
responsiveness to knowledge impact upon the creation of sustainable competitive
advantages because of their ambiguity and uniqueness to the firm and the fact that
knowledge becomes embedded in organizational processes (Day, 1994; Fahey and Prusak,
1998; Grant, 1996; Teece, 1998, 2000). The results reported in this paper are important
because they show that, in order to be innovative, having knowledge is as important as what
is done with that knowledge.
Of the three knowledge management constructs, only responsiveness to knowledge
appeared as a statistically significant antecedent of performance and so H10 was accepted.
This result supports the view that responsive organizations are likely to extract more from
their resources, and so will enjoy superior benefits than less responsive organizations
(Penrose, 1959). Knowledge acquisition affects performance but this relationship is
mediated by responsiveness to knowledge and so H8 is only partially supported on the
basis of statistically significant indirect effects. There is no support for the hypothesis that
knowledge dissemination affects performance (H9). Thus, firms with a knowledge
management capability do not necessarily perform better.
The hypotheses tested here were presented without direct empirical support from the extant
literature. One possible reason for these results then is that the knowledge management
construct is broad and includes knowledge about both market and non-market activities; it
may transpire that non-market activities do not have any direct impact on profitability. Thus,
there is likely to be a larger gap between, say, getting an idea from an employee and a
subsequent financial performance improvement versus responding to a customer’s
expression of an unmet need and a subsequent financial performance improvement.
However, by the time the organization is ready to respond to the knowledge, the gap
between any internal company activities and performance will have closed, hence the
relationship between responding to knowledge and performance.
The relationship between innovation and performance was not supported and so H11 is
rejected. This result contradicts research reported in the area. A possible reason for the
apparent contradiction with the extant literature is that other innovation-performance studies
reported earlier did not consider categories of innovation but instead, considered the
general characteristics of the innovating firm (e.g. Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Capon et al., 1992;
Manu and Sriram, 1996; Mavondo, 1999, Vázquez et al., 2001), the number of innovations
(e.g. Han et al., 1998; Vázquez et al., 2001) or the advantages of the new product (e.g. Li and
Calantone, 1998). Thus, direct comparisons are less relevant given the different
operationalization of constructs. However, in spite of the disappointing results reported
here, it would be unwise for managers wanting to enhance performance not to pursue
innovation since in the current environment; innovation might be required to simply remain
competitive. Without innovation, firms risk losing their competitive position by falling behind
(Veryzer, 1998).
Conclusions
Implications for theory

Within firms, decisions are made as to what activities the firm will be involved in, how those
activities will be performed, what resources are required, which resources are allocated to
different activities and, ultimately, which resources are used (Penrose, 1959). Against this
backdrop, this paper argues that knowledge takes on a number of roles: first, knowledge is,
in itself, both a tangible and intangible resource (Hall, 1993); second, having access to
j j
knowledge supports any decision making about resources; third, a capability in knowledge
management enables those within a firm to leverage the most service from knowledge and
other resources (Penrose, 1959); and fourth, effective knowledge management makes
contributes to innovation and performance.
The role of effective knowledge management as a coordinating mechanism was established
by providing evidence that firms with a propensity toward developing incremental
innovations were more likely to have well-developed knowledge management behaviours
and practices. One can assume that these firms not only have a knowledge management
capability but also effectively use other available resources. This result provides early
empirical support for the ideas of Penrose (1959) and Nelson and Winter (1982) by showing
the role of knowledge management as a coordinating mechanism when developing
incremental innovations.
However, there was limited support for the view that a firm developing new to the world
innovations had well-developed knowledge management behaviours and practices, nor
was there conclusive evidence for the proposition that superior financial performance and
knowledge management co-existed. One interpretation of this result is that new to the world
innovations require those within the firm to move beyond their comfort zone, to take on board
new knowledge and to develop new capabilities. It may be that a reliance on existing
knowledge and existing processes to disseminate and respond to that knowledge may
inhibit the development of new to the world innovations. For performance, it may be that
there is perhaps too large a gap between the supporting role of knowledge management
and performance as an outcome.
All three knowledge management components were found to have a direct effect on
innovation, but only responsiveness to knowledge directly contributed to financial
performance. This result is particularly important because seminal works on knowledge
management, for example Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) book, The Knowledge-creating
Company, present knowledge management as imperative for innovation. Although Nonaka
and Takeuchi’s definition of knowledge management is more consistent with the knowledge
dissemination component of the construct used in this paper, my results are important
because they provide the first empirical support for the multiple conjectures that are made
about the consequences of effective knowledge management.
While disappointing that only responsiveness to knowledge directly affected performance,
the findings can be explained by the large gap between non-market knowledge and
performance. Once again, to have empirical evidence to add richness to the discussion of
the consequences of effective knowledge management is an important outcome of this
study.
Implications for managers

Knowledge management has been hailed as a new discipline. Unfortunately, the
interpretation of the construct knowledge management is often confused with the
introduction of information technology as a solution to capture knowledge. This paper
presents a broader concept of knowledge management by using sixteen knowledge
management factors previously found to be characteristic of a firm effectively managing
knowledge (Darroch, 2003). The paper also provides evidence of the importance of effective
knowledge management. Therefore, managers should consider programs to enhance the
‘‘ A firm capable in knowledge acquisition, knowledge

dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge is more
innovative. ’’
j j
16 knowledge management behaviours and practices since a firm that does effectively
manage knowledge will be more innovative.
Limitations
The sample used in this study over-represented firms with 200 or more employees and was
not completely representative of industry sectors. However, the effect of firm size or industry
type on knowledge management is unknown. For example, it might transpire that larger firms
or firms in knowledge intensive industries need to manage knowledge more effectively given
a greater number of people, divisions or locations or abundance of complex knowledge.
However, larger firms might also find dissemination and responsiveness activities more
difficult. Along with possible sample biases, one should also note that New Zealand firms are
characteristically small by world standards (there are approximately only 3,000 firms with
more than 50 employees and of those, only 30 have more than 1,000 employees). Clearly,
there is a need to replicate the study in different contexts.
Future research
This research found that firms effectively managing knowledge were also more innovative
and performed better. The study also found knowledge management positively affected
innovation and responsiveness to knowledge positively affected performance. One of the
central tenets of this paper is that effective knowledge management enables good quality
services to be extracted from other resources. Future research is required to firmly establish
this assertion by further examining the supporting role of knowledge management. Lastly,
given the importance of knowledge management to knowledge-based societies, it is hoped
that a stream of research will emerge that provides further confirmation of the results
reported in this study and identifies other consequences, and of course antecedents, of
effective knowledge management.
Note
1. This categorization has been widely accepted in the extant literature. However, explicit information
such as databases, market research reports, financial data and reports and patents are best
categorized as tangible assets since, theoretically, they can be bought or sold. This paper suggests
that the term intangible assets is reserved for assets that have a significant tacit knowledge
component, such as organizational culture, relationships with suppliers and customers and the
experience and intellectual capital of employees. This reclassification then enables intangible
assets to more rightly lay claim to being difficult to measure and therefore manage. By contrast,
tangible assets are generally easier to measure and manage.
References
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), ‘‘Assessing the work environment
for creativity’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-84.
Anderson, N. and West, M.A. (1996), ‘‘The team climate inventory: development of the TCI and its
applications in teambuilding for innovativeness’’, European Journal of Work and Organisational
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-66.
Antonelli, C. (1999), ‘‘The evolution of the industrial organization of the production of knowledge’’,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 243-60.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996), ‘‘Market orientation and innovation’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35,
pp. 93-103.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1999), ‘‘Market orientation and its determinants: an empirical
analysis’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 11/12, pp. 1003-37.
Booz Allen Hamilton (1982), New Products for the 1980s, Booz Allen Hamilton, New York, NY.
Buckley, P.J. and Carter, M.J. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management in global technology markets’’, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 55-71.
Capon, N., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R. and Hulbert, J.M. (1992), ‘‘Profiles of product innovators among
large US manufacturers’’, Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 157-68.
j j
Carneiro, A. (2000), ‘‘How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?’’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 87-98.
Clarke, R. and McGuiness, T. (1987), The Economics of the Firm, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Coase, R.H. (1937), ‘‘The nature of the firm’’, Economica, Vol. 32, pp. 386-405.
Connor, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), ‘‘A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus
opportunism’’, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.
Darroch, J. (2003), ‘‘Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviours and practices’’,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 41-54.
Day, G. (1994), ‘‘The capabilities of market-driven organizations’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October,
pp. 37-52.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), ‘‘Corporate culture, customer orientation, and
innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January,
pp. 23-37.
Dove, R. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), ‘‘The 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management’’, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.
Fernández, E., Montes, J.M. and Vázquez, C.J. (2000), ‘‘Typology and strategic analysis of intangible
resources: a resource-based approach’’, Technovation, Vol. 20, pp. 81-92.
Foss, N.J. (1996), ‘‘Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: some critical comments’’,
Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 470-6.
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), ‘‘A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review’’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 110-32.
Grant, R.M. (1996), ‘‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter special issue, pp. 109-22.
Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996), ‘‘Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of the
literature’’, Journal of Product and Innovation Management, Vol. 13, pp. 191-215.
Hall, R. (1993), ‘‘A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive
advantage’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 607-18.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), ‘‘Market orientation and organizational performance:
is innovation a missing link?’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, October, pp. 30-45.
Henard, D.H. and Szymanksi, D.M. (2001), ‘‘Why some new products are more successful than others’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 362-75.
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), ‘‘A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organisational culture:
measurement issues and performance outcomes’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, November,
pp. 449-62.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), ‘‘Market-orientation: antecedents and consequences’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of
technology’’, Organisation Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.
Li, T. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), ‘‘The impact of market knowledge competence on new product
advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, October,
pp. 13-29.
Manu, F.A. and Sriram, V. (1996), ‘‘Innovation, marketing strategy, environment and performance’’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, pp. 79-91.
Mavondo, F.T. (1999), ‘‘Environment and strategy as antecedents for marketing effectiveness and
organizational performance’’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 237-50.
j j
Nelson, R.R. (1991), ‘‘Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 12, pp. 61-74.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Preiss, K. (1999), ‘‘Modeling of knowledge flows and their impact’’, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 36-46.
Sautet, F.E. (2000), An Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm, Routledge, New York, NY.
Tang, H. (1999), ‘‘An inventory of organisational innovativeness’’, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 41-51.
Teece, D.J. (1998), ‘‘Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how
and intangible assets’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Teece, D.J. (2000), ‘‘Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial
context’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 35-54.
Tushman, M. and Anderson, P. (1986), ‘‘Technological discontinuities and organisational environments’’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 439-65.
Vázquez, R., Santos, M.L. and Álvarez, L.I. (2001), ‘‘Market orientation, innovation and competitive
strategies in industrial firms’’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 69-90.
Veryzer, R.W. Jr (1998), ‘‘Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process’’, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, pp. 304-21.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘‘From critical resources to corporate strategy’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), ‘‘Knowledge management: an introduction and perspective’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
j j
This article has been cited by:
1. Md Anwarul Islam, Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Mitsuru Ikeda. 2017. Effect of knowledge management on service innovation
in academic libraries. IFLA Journal 43:3, 266-281. [Crossref]
2. CaniëlsMarjolein C.J., Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, NeghinaCarmen, Carmen Neghina, SchaetsaertNico, Nico Schaetsaert. 2017.
Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:5,
1098-1119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Henri Tapio Inkinen, Aino Kianto, Mika Vanhala, Paavo Ritala. Assessing the universality of knowledge management
practices. Journal of Knowledge Management 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
4. Yuting Xiao, Xi Zhang, Patricia Ordonez de Pablos. How does individuals’ exchange orientation moderate the relationship
between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing?. Journal of Knowledge Management 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
5. Angelo Natalicchio, Lorenzo Ardito, Tommaso Savino, Vito Albino. Managing knowledge assets for open innovation: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
6. Veronica Scuotto, Gabriele Santoro, Stefano Bresciani, Manlio Del Giudice. 2017. Shifting intra- and inter-organizational
innovation processes towards digital business: An empirical analysis of SMEs. Creativity and Innovation Management 26:3,
247-255. [Crossref]
7. Eugenie Byukusenge, John C. Munene. 2017. Knowledge management and business performance: Does innovation matter?.
Cogent Business & Management, ahead of print. [Crossref]

8. ChatzoglouProdromos, Prodromos Chatzoglou, ChatzoudesDimitrios, Dimitrios Chatzoudes. The role of innovation in
building competitive advantages: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Innovation Management, ahead of print.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. FalascaMauro, Mauro Falasca, ZhangJiemei, Jiemei Zhang, ConcharMargy, Margy Conchar, LiLike, Like Li. 2017. The
impact of customer knowledge and marketing dynamic capability on innovation performance: an empirical analysis. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 32:7, 901-912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. YusrMaha Mohammed, Maha Mohammed Yusr, MokhtarSany Sanuri Mohd, Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtar, OthmanAbdul
Rahim, Abdul Rahim Othman, SulaimanYaty, Yaty Sulaiman. 2017. Does interaction between TQM practices and knowledge
management processes enhance the innovation performance?. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 34:7,
11. María Sanzo, Luis Álvarez, Marta Rey. 2017. Lights and Shadows of Business-Nonprofit Partnerships: The Role of Nonprofit
Learning and Empowerment in this Ethical Puzzle. Sustainability 9:8, 1410. [Crossref]
12. . Bibliography 119-135. [Crossref]
13. Poonam Veer Ramjeawon, Jenny Rowley. 2017. Knowledge management in higher education institutions: enablers and barriers
in Mauritius. The Learning Organization 24:5. . [Abstract] [PDF]
14. Eren Durmuş-Özdemir, Khamroz Abdukhoshimov. 2017. Exploring the mediating role of innovation in the effect of the
knowledge management process on performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12, 1-13. [Crossref]
15. WibowoSantoso, Santoso Wibowo, GrandhiSrimannarayana, Srimannarayana Grandhi. 2017. Benchmarking knowledge
management practices in small and medium enterprises. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:5, 1215-1233. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
16. Carlos Devece, Daniel Palacios-Marqués, Miguel-Ángel Galindo-Martín, Carlos Llopis-Albert. 2017. Information Systems
Strategy and its Relationship With Innovation Differentiation and Organizational Performance. Information Systems
Management 34:3, 250-264. [Crossref]
17. Young Won Rhee, Jin Nam Choi. 2017. Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity: Goal orientations as
antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38:6, 813-832. [Crossref]
18. Yu-Hsien Lin, Yu-Shan Chen. 2017. Determinants of green competitive advantage: the roles of green knowledge sharing,
green dynamic capabilities, and green service innovation. Quality & Quantity 51:4, 1663-1685. [Crossref]
19. GUILLERMO ANTONIO DÁVILA, SUSANNE DURST, GREGORIO VARVAKIS. 2017. KNOWLEDGE
ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY, INNOVATION, AND FIRM’s PERFORMANCE: INSIGHTS FROM THE SOUTH OF
BRAZIL. International Journal of Innovation Management 8, 1850013. [Crossref]
20. LiuGuangqiang, Guangqiang Liu, PangLirang, Lirang Pang, KongDongmin, Dongmin Kong. 2017. Effects of human capital
on the relationship between export and firm innovation. Chinese Management Studies 11:2, 322-345. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
21. FerrarisAlberto, Alberto Ferraris, SantoroGabriele, Gabriele Santoro, DeziLuca, Luca Dezi. 2017. How MNC’s subsidiaries
may improve their innovative performance? The role of external sources and knowledge management capabilities. Journal of
Knowledge Management 21:3, 540-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. ScuottoVeronica, Veronica Scuotto, Del GiudiceManlio, Manlio Del Giudice, BrescianiStefano, Stefano Bresciani,
MeissnerDirk, Dirk Meissner. 2017. Knowledge-driven preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An
explorative view on small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:3, 640-655. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
23. Uma MageswariS.D., S.D. Uma Mageswari, SivasubramanianR. Chitra, R. Chitra Sivasubramanian, DathT.N. Srikantha,
T.N. Srikantha Dath. 2017. A comprehensive analysis of knowledge management in Indian manufacturing companies. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management 28:4, 506-530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. KokanuchAnchalee, Anchalee Kokanuch, TuntrabunditKhwanruedee, Khwanruedee Tuntrabundit. 2017. Knowledge sharing
capability in healthcare organizations. Journal of Asia Business Studies 11:2, 135-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Antti Lönnqvist. 2017. Embedded knowledge management: towards improved managerial relevance. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 15:2, 184-191. [Crossref]
26. Giuseppe Calabrese, Piero Mastroberardino. 2017. How do Knowledge and Innovation Work within Organizations: The
Situationist View of the Firm (SVF). International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 242, 1750029. [Crossref]
27. AgostiniLara, Lara Agostini, NosellaAnna, Anna Nosella, FilippiniRoberto, Roberto Filippini. 2017. Does intellectual capital
allow improving innovation performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18:2,
28. AhmedAllam, Allam Ahmed, ElhagMohamed, Mohamed Elhag. 2017. SMART KM model. World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable Development 14:2/3, 172-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Al-Sa’diAhmad Fathi, Ahmad Fathi Al-Sa’di, AbdallahAyman Bahjat, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, DahiyatSamer Eid, Samer Eid
Dahiyat. 2017. The mediating role of product and process innovations on the relationship between knowledge management
and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan. Business Process Management Journal 23:2, 349-376.
30. AyoubHeba Fawzi, Heba Fawzi Ayoub, AbdallahAyman Bahjat, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, SuifanTaghreed S., Taghreed S.
Suifan. 2017. The effect of supply chain integration on technical innovation in Jordan. Benchmarking: An International Journal
24:3, 594-616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. GiampaoliDaniele, Daniele Giampaoli, CiambottiMassimo, Massimo Ciambotti, BontisNick, Nick Bontis. 2017. Knowledge
management, problem solving and performance in top Italian firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:2, 355-375.
32. DayanRony, Rony Dayan, HeisigPeter, Peter Heisig, MatosFlorinda, Florinda Matos. 2017. Knowledge management as a
factor for the formulation and implementation of organization strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:2, 308-329.
33. Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa, Daniel Palacios-Marqués. 2017. Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance
in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. The Journal of Technology Transfer 42:2, 425-440. [Crossref]
34. Fabiana Besen, Edivandro Tecchio, Francisco Antônio Pereira Fialho. 2017. Liderança autêntica e a gestão do conhecimento.
Gestão & Produção 24:1, 2-14. [Crossref]
35. Stefano Bresciani, Alberto Ferraris, Manlio Del Giudice. 2017. The management of organizational ambidexterity through
alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
. [Crossref]
36. Mahmoud M. Migdadi, Mohammed K. Abu Zaid, Mohammed Yousif, Ra’d Almestarihi, Khalil Al-Hyari. 2017. An Empirical
Examination of Knowledge Management Processes and Market Orientation, Innovation Capability, and Organisational
Performance: Insights from Jordan. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 16:01, 1750002. [Crossref]
37. Gabriele Santoro, Demetris Vrontis, Alkis Thrassou, Luca Dezi. 2017. The Internet of Things: Building a knowledge
management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
. [Crossref]
38. ShujahatMuhammad, Muhammad Shujahat, HussainSaddam, Saddam Hussain, JavedSammar, Sammar Javed,
MalikMuhammad Imran, Muhammad Imran Malik, ThurasamyRamayah, Ramayah Thurasamy, AliJunaid, Junaid Ali. 2017.
Strategic management model with lens of knowledge management and competitive intelligence. VINE Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management Systems 47:1, 55-93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Martina Battisti, David Deakins. 2017. The relationship between dynamic capabilities, the firm’s resource base and
performance in a post-disaster environment. International Small Business Journal 35:1, 78-98. [Crossref]
40. Amir Honarpour, Ahmad Jusoh, Khalil Md Nor. 2017. Total quality management, knowledge management, and innovation:
an empirical study in R&D units. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-19. [Crossref]
41. HonarpourAmir, Amir Honarpour, JusohAhmad, Ahmad Jusoh, LongChoi Sang, Choi Sang Long. 2017. Knowledge
management and total quality management: a reciprocal relationship. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 34:1, 91-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Encarnación García-Sánchez, Víctor Jesús García-Morales, María Teresa Bolívar-Ramos. 2017. The influence of top
management support for ICTs on organisational performance through knowledge acquisition, transfer, and utilisation. Review
of Managerial Science 11:1, 19-51. [Crossref]
43. Manlio Del Giudice, Maria Rosaria Della Peruta. Definition and Evolution of the Variables in the Model in Marketing Studies
and Research 13-60. [Crossref]
44. Andrew Thomas, Peter Dorrington, Filipa Costa, Gareth Loudon, Mark Francis, Ron Fisher. 2017. Organisational learning
capability in SMEs: An empirical development of innovation in the supply chain. Cogent Business & Management 4:1. .
[Crossref]
45. Teresa Kraśnicka, Wojciech Głód, Martyna Wronka-Pośpiech. 2017. Management innovation, pro-innovation organisational
culture and enterprise performance: testing the mediation effect. Review of Managerial Science . [Crossref]
46. Benito Yáñez-Araque, Felipe Hernández-Perlines, Juan Moreno-Garcia. 2017. From Training to Organizational Behavior: A
Mediation Model through Absorptive and Innovative Capacities. Frontiers in Psychology 8. . [Crossref]
47. B. Hartono, N. Indarti, K. H. Chai, S. R. Sulistyo. Knowledge management maturity and firm's performance: Firm's size
as a moderating variable 1156-1160. [Crossref]
48. Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, Lai-Ying Leong, Keng-Boon Ooi. 2016. Can competitive advantage be achieved
through knowledge management? A case study on SMEs. Expert Systems with Applications 65, 136-151. [Crossref]
49. Kherbouche Asma, Megnounif Abdellatif. 2016. A New Model for the Impact of Knowledge Management on University
Performance. Part 1: Theoretical Development. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 1650041. [Crossref]
50. Maria Luisa Farnese, Stefano Livi. 2016. How reflexivity enhances organizational innovativeness: the mediation role of team
support for innovation and individual commitment. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 14:4, 525-536. [Crossref]
51. Oluwafemi Oyemomi, Shaofeng Liu, Irina Neaga, Ali Alkhuraiji. 2016. How knowledge sharing and business process
contribute to organizational performance: Using the fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 5222-5227.
[Crossref]
52. Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa, Daniel Palacios-Marqués. 2016. E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance
in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22:6, 885-904.
[Crossref]
53. HeisigPeter, Peter Heisig, SurajOlunifesi Adekunle, Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, KiantoAino, Aino Kianto, KemboiCosmas,
Cosmas Kemboi, Perez ArrauGregorio, Gregorio Perez Arrau, Fathi EasaNasser, Nasser Fathi Easa. 2016. Knowledge
management and business performance: global experts’ views on future research needs. Journal of Knowledge Management
54. McMillanCharles J., Charles J. McMillan. 2016. Old wine in new bottles: docility, attention scarcity and knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6, 1353-1372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Carla Susana Marques, Carmem Leal, Carlos Peixeira Marques, Ana Rita Cardoso. 2016. Strategic Knowledge Management,
Innovation and Performance: A Qualitative Study of the Footwear Industry. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 7:3, 659-675.
[Crossref]
56. CostaVítor, Vítor Costa, MonteiroSamuel, Samuel Monteiro. 2016. Key knowledge management processes for innovation:
a systematic literature review. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 46:3, 386-410. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
57. Rifat Kamasak, Meltem Yavuz, Gultekin Altuntas. 2016. Is the relationship between innovation performance and knowledge
management contingent on environmental dynamism and learning capability? Evidence from a turbulent market. Business
Research 9:2, 229-253. [Crossref]
58. GUILLERMO JAVIER DIAZ-VILLAVICENCIO, SIMONE DIDONET, ALEXANDER DODD. 2016.
PERSPECTIVES ON INNOVATION MANAGEMENT OF ECUADORIAN COMPANIES — EMPIRICAL
EVIDENCE. International Journal of Innovation Management 20:06, 1650048. [Crossref]
59. Gongmin Bao, Bixiang Xu, Zhongyuan Zhang. 2016. Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration: the
mediating roles of organizational identification and organization-based self-esteem. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 14:3, 362-375. [Crossref]
60. AljuwaiberAbobakr, Abobakr Aljuwaiber. 2016. Communities of practice as an initiative for knowledge sharing in business
organisations: a literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:4, 731-748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. KiantoAino, Aino Kianto, VanhalaMika, Mika Vanhala, HeilmannPia, Pia Heilmann. 2016. The impact of knowledge
management on job satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:4, 621-636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. RajRahul, Rahul Raj, SrivastavaKailash B.L., Kailash B.L. Srivastava. 2016. Mediating role of organizational learning on
the relationship between market orientation and innovativeness. The Learning Organization 23:5, 370-384. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
63. Anna Sankowska. 2016. How Organizational Trust Affects the Market Position: The Mediating Role of Innovativeness,
and Operational Efficiency. Empirical Results. Revista Innovar Journal Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales 26:61,
9. [Crossref]
64. Kong Seng Lai, Nor'Aini Yusof, Ernawati Mustafa Kamal. 2016. Organizational culture of the architectural firm: a case in a
developing country. International Journal of Construction Management 16:3, 197-208. [Crossref]
65. Louise Rasmussen, Hazel Hall. 2016. The adoption process in management innovation: A Knowledge Management case
study. Journal of Information Science 42:3, 356-368. [Crossref]
66. VătămănescuElena-Mădălina, Elena-Mădălina Vătămănescu, AndreiAndreia Gabriela, Andreia Gabriela Andrei,
DumitriuDiana-Luiza, Diana-Luiza Dumitriu, LeovaridisCristina, Cristina Leovaridis. 2016. Harnessing network-based
intellectual capital in online academic networks. From the organizational policies and practices towards competitiveness.
Journal of Knowledge Management 20:3, 594-619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Steven A. Stewart, Robert C. Hoell. 2016. Hire someone like me, or hire someone I need: entrepreneur identity and early-
stage hiring in small firms. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 28:3, 187-201. [Crossref]
68. Gary Castrogiovanni, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, Alicia Mas-Tur, Norat Roig-Tierno. 2016. Where to acquire knowledge:
Adapting knowledge management to financial institutions. Journal of Business Research 69:5, 1812-1816. [Crossref]
69. Carlos M. F-Jardon, Regina Negri Pagani. 2016. Is collective efficiency in subsistence clusters a growth strategy? The case
of the wood industry in Oberá, Argentina. International Journal of Emerging Markets 11:2, 232-255. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
70. Carlos María Fernández-Jardón, María Susana Martos. 2016. Capital intelectual y ventajas competitivas en pymes basadas en
recursos naturales de Latinoamérica. Revista Innovar Journal Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales 26:60, 117-132.
[Crossref]
71. DIMITRIOS KAFETZOPOULOS, EVANGELOS PSOMAS. 2016. ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING, NON-
TECHNICAL INNOVATION AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF SMEs. International Journal of Innovation
Management 20:03, 1650041. [Crossref]
72. Jong Beom Jin, Choon Seong Leem, Choong Hyun Lee. 2016. Research issues and trends in industrial productivity over 44
years. International Journal of Production Research 54:5, 1273-1284. [Crossref]
73. Jose Albors-Garrigos, Jose Carlos Ramos-Carrasco, Angel Peiro-Signes. 2016. Actional Intelligence, a Key Element for
Actioning Knowledge. A Field Study Analysis. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 15:01, 1650006. [Crossref]
74. Beatriz Forés, César Camisón. 2016. Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of
knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?. Journal of Business Research 69:2, 831-848. [Crossref]
75. HYO MIN SEO, MIN CHEOL KIM, KYUNGRO CHANG, TAEHEE KIM. 2016. INFLUENCE OF INTERPERSONAL
TRUST ON INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF SERVICE WORKERS: MEDIATING EFFECTS OF KNOWLEDGE
SHARING. International Journal of Innovation Management 20:02, 1650026. [Crossref]
76. Peyman Akhavan, S. Mahdi Hosseini. 2016. Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: an empirical study
of R&D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28:1, 96-113. [Crossref]
77. Laith Ali Al-Hakim, Shahizan Hassan. 2016. Core requirements of knowledge management implementation, innovation and
organizational performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management 17:1, 109-124. [Crossref]
78. Tereza Raquel Merlo. 2016. Factors Influencing Knowledge Management Use in Technology Enterprises in Southern United
States. Procedia Computer Science 99, 15-35. [Crossref]
79. B. Hartono, V. S. Ramadhani, Y. Ratnadilla, N. Indarti, K. H. Chai. Knowledge management maturity and organizational
performance in project-based organizations: Initial evidence from Indonesia 656-660. [Crossref]
80. Claudio Giachetti, Carlo Bagnoli. 2015. The effect of openness to external knowledge sources for innovation on smes' financial
performance. MERCATI E COMPETITIVITÀ :4, 65-86. [Crossref]
81. Carlos M Jardon. 2015. The use of intellectual capital to obtain competitive advantages in regional small and medium
enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 13:4, 486-496. [Crossref]
82. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2015. Linking knowledge management orientation to balanced scorecard outcomes. Journal of Knowledge
83. Victor Martin-Perez, Natalia Martin-Cruz. 2015. The mediating role of affective commitment in the rewards–knowledge
transfer relation. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:6, 1167-1185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Tatjana Stanovcic, Sanja Pekovic, Amira Bouziri. 2015. The effect of knowledge management on environmental innovation.
Baltic Journal of Management 10:4, 413-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Dimitrios Chatzoudes, Prodromos Chatzoglou, Eftichia Vraimaki. 2015. The central role of knowledge management in
business operations. Business Process Management Journal 21:5, 1117-1139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Antonio Aragón Sánchez, Gregorio Sánchez Marín, Arleen Mueses Morales. 2015. The mediating effect of strategic human
resource practices on knowledge management and firm performance. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa
24:3, 138-148. [Crossref]
87. Ramita Abdul Rahim, Nik Hasnaa Nik Mahmood, Maslin Masrom. The role of knowledge management in facilitating
innovation for sustainable SMEs performance 64-70. [Crossref]
88. Shin-Yuan Hung, Jacob Chia-An Tsai, Wen-Ting Lee, Patrick Y.K. Chau. 2015. Knowledge management implementation,
business process, and market relationship outcomes. Information Technology & People 28:3, 500-528. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
89. Gongmin Bao, Zhongyuan Zhang, Jin Chen. 2015. The mediation of in-group identification between collectivism and
knowledge sharing. Innovation 17:3, 341-363. [Crossref]
90. Shabnam Ozlati. 2015. The Moderating Effect of Trust on the Relationship between Autonomy and Knowledge Sharing: A
National Multi-industry Survey of Knowledge Workers. Knowledge and Process Management 22:3, 191-205. [Crossref]
91. Sumant Kumar Bishwas. 2015. Achieving Organization Vitality through Innovation and Flexibility: An Empirical Study.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 16:2, 145-156. [Crossref]
92. Maria do Rosário Cabrita, Virginia Helena Machado, Ana Paula Barroso, Virgilio Cruz-Machado. 2015. Diffusion of
innovation concepts in Portuguese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
93. Haim Hilman, Narentheren Kaliappen. 2015. Innovation strategies and performance: are they truly linked?. World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 11:1, 48-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Marianne Gloet, Danny Samson. Capturing Value through Knowledge and Innovation Management: Comparisons across the
Manufacturing and Services Sectors 3730-3739. [Crossref]
95. Silvio M Brondoni. 2015. Global Networks, Outside-In Capabilities and Smart Innovation. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in
Management :1. . [Crossref]
96. Sabina Riboldazzi. 2015. R and D and Product Engineering in Global Pharmaceutical Companies. Symphonya. Emerging Issues
in Management :2. . [Crossref]
97. Bilal Afsar, Yuosre Badir, Muhammad Muddassar Khan. 2015. Person–job fit, person–organization fit and innovative work
behavior: The mediating role of innovation trust. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 26:2, 105-116.
[Crossref]
98. Carlos M F-Jardon, María Susana Martos. 2014. Capital intelectual y competencias distintivas en pymes madereras de
Argentina. Revista de Administração de Empresas 54:6, 634-646. [Crossref]
99. Banjo Roxas, Martina Battisti, David Deakins. 2014. Learning, innovation and firm performance: knowledge management
in small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12:4, 443-453. [Crossref]
100. Doo Hun Lim, Ji Hoon Song, Seung Won Yoon. Trends and Issues in Integrating Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning for Workplace Performance Improvement 369-385. [Crossref]
101. Ing-Long Wu, Jian-Liang Chen. 2014. Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of business process
capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:6, 1141-1164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Ben Q. Honyenuga, Ronald S. J. Tuninga, Paul W. Th. Ghijsen. 2014. High Performance Organizations Framework as a
Predictor of Firm Performance in the Insurance Industry in Ghana. Journal of Transnational Management 19:4, 261-278.
[Crossref]
103. Alexia Mary Tzortzaki. 2014. Knowledge-based strategies for managers in the service sector. Management Research Review
104. Daniel Jiménez-Jiménez, Micaela Martínez-Costa, Raquel Sanz-Valle. 2014. Knowledge management practices for innovation:
a multinational corporation’s perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:5, 905-918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Aino Kianto, Paavo Ritala, John-Christopher Spender, Mika Vanhala. 2014. The interaction of intellectual capital assets and
knowledge management practices in organizational value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:3, 362-375. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]

106. M. Birasnav. 2014. Relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and manufacturing strategy. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 22:2, 205-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Nastaran Taherparvar, Reza Esmaeilpour, Mohammad Dostar. 2014. Customer knowledge management, innovation capability
and business performance: a case study of the banking industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:3, 591-610. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
108. Carlo Bagnoli, Marco Vedovato. 2014. The impact of knowledge management and strategy configuration coherence on SME
performance. Journal of Management & Governance 18:2, 615-647. [Crossref]
109. Greg Simons. 2014. The International Crisis Group and the manufacturing and communicating of crises. Third World
Quarterly 35:4, 581-597. [Crossref]
110. Sangmi Choi. 2014. Learning Orientation and Market Orientation as Catalysts for Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43:2, 393-413. [Crossref]
111. Alex Antonio Ferraresi, Silvio Aparecido dos Santos, José Roberto Frega, Carlos Olavo Quandt. 2014. Os impactos da gestão do
conhecimento na orientação estratégica, na inovatividade e nos resultados organizacionais: uma survey com empresas instaladas
no Brasil. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 15:2, 199-231. [Crossref]
112. Suk Bong Choi, Christopher Williams. 2014. The impact of innovation intensity, scope, and spillovers on sales growth in
Chinese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 31:1, 25-46. [Crossref]
113. Arwa Yousuf Al-Aama. 2014. Technology knowledge management (TKM) taxonomy. VINE 44:1, 2-21. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
114. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. A multi-stage analysis of antecedents and consequences of knowledge management evolution. Journal
of Knowledge Management 18:1, 52-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Pedro Soto-Acosta, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, Simona Popa. 2014. Web knowledge sharing and its effect on innovation: an
empirical investigation in SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12:1, 103-113. [Crossref]
116. Luxmi. 2014. Organizational Learning Act as a Mediator between the Relationship of Knowledge Management and
Organizational Performance. Management and Labour Studies 39:1, 31-41. [Crossref]
117. Marianne Gloet, Danny Samson. Managing Knowledge and Innovation for Performance 3574-3583. [Crossref]
118. Simon S. Torp, Stefan Linder. The “Soft” Side of Strategic Risk Management: How Top Managers’ Leadership Style Affects
Volatility in Performance 116-140. [Crossref]
119. Voon-Hsien Lee, Lai-Ying Leong, Teck-Soon Hew, Keng-Boon Ooi. 2013. Knowledge management: a key determinant in
advancing technological innovation?. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:6, 848-872. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. CAROLINA CASTALDI, JAN FABER, MAIKEL J. KISHNA. 2013. CO-INNOVATION BY KIBS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES — A KNOWLEDGE-BASED PERSPECTIVE. International Journal of Innovation
Management 17:05, 1350020. [Crossref]
121. Angel L. Meroño-Cerdan, Carolina López-Nicolas. 2013. Understanding the drivers of organizational innovations. The Service
Industries Journal 33:13-14, 1312-1325. [Crossref]
122. Tsu-Te (Andrew) Huang, Le Chen, Rodney A. Stewart, Kriengsak Panuwatwanich. 2013. Leveraging power of learning
capability upon manufacturing operations. International Journal of Production Economics 145:1, 233-252. [Crossref]
123. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A Ansari, T Ramayah, Muhamad Jantan. 2013. Knowledge management practices and
performance: are they truly linked?. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 11:3, 255-264. [Crossref]
124. CEVAHIR UZKURT, RACHNA KUMAR, NURCAN ENSARI. 2013. ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS
FOR INNOVATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
INNOVATIVENESS. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 10:04, 1350018. [Crossref]
125. M. Birasnav, M. Albufalasa, Y. Bader. 2013. The role of transformational leadership and knowledge management processes
on predicting product and process innovation: An empirical study developed in Kingdom of Bahrain. Tékhne 11:2, 64-75.
[Crossref]
126. Athar Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi, Nina Evans. The Role of Trust in Absorptive Capacity Operationalization 1812-1816.
[Crossref]
127. Maria João Santos, Raky Wane. Knowledge Management Fostering Innovation: Balancing Practices and Enabling Contexts
155-178. [Crossref]
128. F. Xavier Molina-Morales, Luis Martínez-Cháfer. 2013. Structure patterns in cluster knowledge networks: the case of the
Spanish ceramic tile cluster. Global Business Perspectives 1:2, 144-163. [Crossref]
129. Laith Ali Yousif Al‐Hakim, Shahizan Hassan. 2013. Knowledge management strategies, innovation, and organisational
performance. Journal of Advances in Management Research 10:1, 58-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Mojtaba Naghavi, Amir Hossein Dastaviz, Hossein Nezakati. 2013. Relationships among Critical Success Factors of
Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance. Journal of Applied Sciences 13:5, 755-759. [Crossref]
131. Anabel Fernández‐Mesa, Joaquín Alegre‐Vidal, Ricardo Chiva‐Gómez, Antonio Gutiérrez‐Gracia. 2013. Design management
capability and product innovation in SMEs. Management Decision 51:3, 547-565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
132. Paulo Henrique de Oliveira, Carlos Alberto Gonçalves, Edmar Aderson Mendes de Paula, Vivian Coelho Assis. 2013. Um
estudo sobre gestão do conhecimento e inovação em uma empresa multinacional do setor de fast-food: o caso da Subway.
Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação 18:1, 86-105. [Crossref]
133. Fakhraddin Maroofi. 2013. Effects of Organizational Learning on Firm's Flexibility, Competitive Strategy and Performance.
Trends in Applied Sciences Research 8:2, 73-91. [Crossref]
134. Ali Noruzy, Vahid Majazi Dalfard, Behnaz Azhdari, Salman Nazari-Shirkouhi, Aliasghar Rezazadeh. 2013. Relations between
transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational
performance: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 64:5-8, 1073-1085. [Crossref]
135. Marianne Gloet, Danny Samson. Knowledge Management to Support Systematic Innovation Capability 3685-3694. [Crossref]
136. Chi-Chuan Wu, Fang Chia Hsieh, Chien-Wei Ho. The exploration of transform leadership and organizational performance
— Two mediators' model 2346-2350. [Crossref]
137. María Leticia Santos-Vijande, José Ángel López-Sánchez, Celina González-Mieres. 2012. Organizational learning, innovation,
and performance in KIBS. Journal of Management & Organization 18:6, 870-904. [Crossref]
138. Carlos M. Jardon, Maria Susana Martos. 2012. Intellectual capital as competitive advantage in emerging clusters in Latin
America. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:4, 462-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. Doren Chadee, Revti Raman. 2012. External knowledge and performance of offshore IT service providers in India: the
mediating role of talent management. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50:4, 459-482. [Crossref]
140. María Leticia Santos-Vijande, José Ángel López-Sánchez, Celina González-Mieres. 2012. ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING, INNOVATION, AND PERFORMANCE IN KIBS. Journal of Management & Organization 1390-1447.
[Crossref]
141. Alex A. Ferraresi, Carlos O. Quandt, Silvio A. dos Santos, José R. Frega. 2012. Knowledge management and strategic
orientation: leveraging innovativeness and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:5, 688-701. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
142. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2012. Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of organizational enablers. Journal of
Knowledge Management 16:5, 808-828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Antonella Padova, Enrico Scarso. 2012. Managing large amounts of knowledge objects: cognitive and organisational problems.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice 10:3, 287-295. [Crossref]
144. Zhining Wang, Nianxin Wang. 2012. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications
39:10, 8899-8908. [Crossref]
145. D. Esterhuizen, C.S.L. Schutte, A.S.A. du Toit. 2012. Knowledge creation processes as critical enablers for innovation.
International Journal of Information Management 32:4, 354-364. [Crossref]
146. María Leticia Santos-Vijande, José Ángel López-Sánchez, Juan Antonio Trespalacios. 2012. How organizational learning
affects a firm's flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. Journal of Business Research 65:8, 1079-1089. [Crossref]
147. Tatiana Andreeva, Aino Kianto. 2012. Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices,
competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:4, 617-636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. Johan Frishammar, Ulrich Lichtenthaler, Jonas Rundquist. 2012. Identifying Technology Commercialization Opportunities:
The Importance of Integrating Product Development Knowledge. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29:4, 573-589.
[Crossref]
149. Alexia Mary Tzortzaki, Athanassios Mihiotis. 2012. A three dimensional knowledge management framework for hospitality
and tourism. foresight 14:3, 242-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
150. Petra Andries, Annelies Wastyn. 2012. Disentangling value‐enhancing and cost‐increasing effects of knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management 16:3, 387-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
151. Roman Kmieciak, Anna Michna, Anna Meczynska. 2012. Innovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from
SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:5, 707-728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
152. Ramita Abdul Rahim, Nor Fazalina Salleh, Sharifah Fazirah Syed Ahmad, Raja Suzana Raja Kassim. The relationship between
knowledge management strategies and innovation performance among electronics, foods and beverages organizations 112-117.
[Crossref]
153. Rosa M. Mariz-Perez, M. Mercedes Teijeiro-Alvarez, M. Teresa Garcìa-Alvarez. 2012. The relevance of human capital as a
driver for innovation. Cuadernos de Economía 35:98, 68-76. [Crossref]
154. Maria R. Lee, Tsung Teng Chen. 2012. Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to
2010. Knowledge-Based Systems 28, 47-58. [Crossref]
155. JONAS RUNDQUIST. 2012. THE ABILITY TO INTEGRATE DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE AND
ITS EFFECT ON INNOVATION PERFORMANCE. International Journal of Innovation Management 16:02, 1250014.
[Crossref]
156. Fariza H. Rusly, James L. Corner, Peter Sun. 2012. Positioning change readiness in knowledge management research. Journal
157. Matej Černe, Marko Jaklič, Miha Škerlavaj, Arzu Ülgen Aydinlik, Dilek Dönmez Polat. 2012. Organizational learning culture
and innovativeness in Turkish firms. Journal of Management & Organization 18:2, 193-219. [Crossref]
158. Matej Černe, Marko Jaklič, Miha Škerlavaj, Arzu Ülgen Aydınlık, Dilek Donmez. 2012. Organizational learning culture and
innovativeness in Turkish firms. Journal of Management & Organization 888-935. [Crossref]
159. Samuel Mafabi, John Munene, Joseph Ntayi. 2012. Knowledge management and organisational resilience. Journal of Strategy
and Management 5:1, 57-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Denéle Esterhuizen, Corne Schutte, Adeline Du Toit. 2012. A knowledge management framework to grow innovation
capability maturity. SA Journal of Information Management 14:1. . [Crossref]
161. L.J. Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, O.F. Bustinza, V. Barrales Molina. 2012. Six sigma, absorptive capacity and organisational learning
orientation. International Journal of Production Research 50:3, 661-675. [Crossref]
162. JASNA PRESTER, MARLI GONAN BOZAC. 2012. ARE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPTS
ENOUGH FOR FOSTERING INNOVATION?. International Journal of Innovation Management 16:01, 1250005. [Crossref]
163. Silvio M. Brondoni. 2012. Ouverture de ‘Innovation Management in Global Markets – 1’. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in
Management :1. . [Crossref]
164. Silvio M. Brondoni. 2012. Innovation and Imitation: Corporate Strategies for Global Competition. Symphonya. Emerging
Issues in Management :1. . [Crossref]
165. Edgar Julián Gálvez Albarracín, Domingo García Pérez De Lema. 2012. Impacto de la innovación sobre el rendimiento de la
mipyme: Un estudio empírico en Colombia. Estudios Gerenciales 28:122, 11-27. [Crossref]
166. Suzanne Zyngier. Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation: What Makes a Difference? 4052-4061. [Crossref]
167. Margherita Corniani. 2012. Innovation, Imitation and Competitive Value Analysis. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management
:1. . [Crossref]
168. Johann Fuller, Julia Muller, Katja Hutter, Kurt Matzler, Julia Hautz. Virtual Worlds as Collaborative Innovation and
Knowledge Platform 1003-1012. [Crossref]
169. Carolina López-Nicolás, Ángel L. Meroño-Cerdán. 2011. Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance.
International Journal of Information Management 31:6, 502-509. [Crossref]
170. Clyde W. Holsapple, Jiming Wu. 2011. An elusive antecedent of superior firm performance: The knowledge management
factor. Decision Support Systems 52:1, 271-283. [Crossref]
171. Uwe Cantner, Kristin Joel, Tobias Schmidt. 2011. The effects of knowledge management on innovative success – An empirical
analysis of German firms. Research Policy 40:10, 1453-1462. [Crossref]

172. Jeevan Jyoti, Pooja Gupta, Sindhu Kotwal. 2011. Impact of Knowledge Management Practices on Innovative Capacity. Vision:
The Journal of Business Perspective 15:4, 315-330. [Crossref]
173. Silvia Massa, Stefania Testa. 2011. Knowledge domain and innovation behaviour. VINE 41:4, 483-504. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
174. Raquel Sanz‐Valle, Julia C. Naranjo‐Valencia, Daniel Jiménez‐Jiménez, Laureano Perez‐Caballero. 2011. Linking
organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management 15:6,
175. Tatiana Andreeva, Aino Kianto. 2011. Knowledge processes, knowledge‐intensity and innovation: a moderated mediation
analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management 15:6, 1016-1034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
176. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2011. The effects of employee motivation, social interaction, and knowledge management strategy on KM
implementation level. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9:3, 263-275. [Crossref]
177. Helena Santos-Rodrigues, Pedro Figueroa Dorrego, Carlos Fernández Jardón. 2011. EL CAPITAL ESTRUCTURAL Y
LA CAPACIDAD INNOVADORA DE LA EMPRESA. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 17:3,
69-89. [Crossref]
178. Yung‐Chang Hsiao, Chung‐Jen Chen, Shao‐Chi Chang. 2011. Knowledge management capacity and organizational
performance: the social interaction view. International Journal of Manpower 32:5/6, 645-660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
179. Doren Chadee, Revti Raman, Snejina Michailova. 2011. Sources of Competitiveness of Offshore IT Service Providers in
India: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Competition & Change 15:3, 196-220. [Crossref]
180. Craig Standing, Sarah Kiniti. 2011. How can organizations use wikis for innovation?. Technovation 31:7, 287-295. [Crossref]
181. John E. Ettlie, Stephen R. Rosenthal. 2011. Service versus Manufacturing Innovation*. Journal of Product Innovation
182. Mustafa Eid, Nuraddeen Abubakar Nuhu. 2011. Impact of learning culture and information technology use on knowledge
sharing of Saudi students. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9:1, 48-57. [Crossref]
183. Aytaç Gökmen, Ahmet Buğra Hamşioğlu. 2011. The Effect of Knowledge Management, Technological Capability and
Innovation on the Enterprise Performance: A Comprehensive Emperical Study of the Turkish Textile Sector. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management 10:01, 1-10. [Crossref]
184. LUCIANO CIRAVEGNA, GIULIANO MAIELLI. 2011. OUTSOURCING OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
AND THE OPENING OF INNOVATION IN MATURE INDUSTRIES: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FIAT
DURING CRISIS AND RECOVERY. International Journal of Innovation Management 15:01, 69-93. [Crossref]
185. Miriam Delgado‐Verde, Gregorio Martín‐de Castro, José Emilio Navas‐López. 2011. Organizational knowledge assets and
innovation capability. Journal of Intellectual Capital 12:1, 5-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
186. YangCheng Hu. Knowledge Management Capability of Library: Scale Development and Validation 507-512. [Crossref]
187. David A. Marca. The Three Fundamental e-Business Models 37-52. [Crossref]
188. Chien-Chang Yang, Chen-chung Ma, Yung-Yu Su, Patricia Moulton. 2011. Evidence-Based Investigation for Determining
the Characteristics of Knowledge Management on Organizational Innovation within Taiwanese Teaching Hospitals. iBusiness
03:01, 30-34. [Crossref]
189. Varintorn Supyuenyong, Fredric William Swierczek. 2011. Knowledge Management Process and Organizational Performance
in SMEs. International Journal of Knowledge Management 7:2, 1-21. [Crossref]
190. C. C. Wu, S. H. Liao, W. J. Chang, Retno Widowati, D.C. Hu. Missing link between knowledge management and
organizational performance—Empirical evidence in Taiwan 1052-1056. [Crossref]
191. Tsu-Te Huang, Le Chen, Rodney A Stewart. 2010. The moderating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between
manufacturing activities and business performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8:4, 285-306. [Crossref]
192. Ferhan Cebi, Onur Feray Aydin, Sitki Gozlu. 2010. Benefits of Knowledge Management in Banking. Journal of Transnational
193. C.C. Wu, S.H. Liao, C.W. Ho. Does Innovation Matter? The Effect of Knowledge Management a Comparison Study of
Taiwan's Two Industries 159-162. [Crossref]
194. Jenny Meyer. 2010. Does Social Software Support Service Innovation?. International Journal of the Economics of Business 17:3,
289-311. [Crossref]
195. Anders Richtnér, Pär Åhlström. 2010. Top management control and knowledge creation in new product development.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:10, 1006-1031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
196. Janet Bagorogoza, André de Waal. 2010. The role of knowledge management in creating and sustaining high performance
organisations: The case of financial institutions in Uganda. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development 6:4, 307-324. [Abstract] [PDF]
197. Moustafa Battor, Mohamed Battor. 2010. The impact of customer relationship management capability on innovation and
performance advantages: testing a mediated model. Journal of Marketing Management 26:9-10, 842-857. [Crossref]
198. Emad M. Kamhawi. 2010. The three tiers architecture of knowledge flow and management activities. Information and
Organization 20:3-4, 169-186. [Crossref]
199. Somnuk Aujirapongpan, Pakpachong Vadhanasindhu, Achara Chandrachai, Pracob Cooparat. 2010. Indicators of knowledge
management capability for KM effectiveness. VINE 40:2, 183-203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
200. Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Keng-Boon Ooi, Binshan Lin, Pei-Lee Teh. 2010. TQM, knowledge management and collaborative
commerce adoption: A literature review and research framework. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21:5,
457-473. [Crossref]
201. A. García-Pintos Escuder, J.M. García Vázquez, P. Piñeiro García. 2010. INCIDENCIA DE LAS POLÍTICAS
DE RECURSOS HUMANOS EN LA TRANSFERENCIA DE CONOCIMIENTO Y SU EFECTO SOBRE LA
INNOVACIÓN. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 16:1, 149-163. [Crossref]
202. Shu-Hsien Liao, Chi-chuan Wu. 2010. System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and
organizational innovation. Expert Systems with Applications 37:2, 1096-1103. [Crossref]
203. Mamoun N. Akroush, Samer M. Al‐Mohammad. 2010. The effect of marketing knowledge management on organizational
performance. International Journal of Emerging Markets 5:1, 38-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
204. S. H. Liao, C. C. Wu. Knowledge management and innovation: The mediating effects of organizational learning 1850-1854.
[Crossref]
205. Carlos Maria F‐Jardón, Maria Susana Martos. 2009. Intellectual capital and performance in wood industries of Argentina.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:4, 600-616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
206. Hong-Jae Lee. 2009. A Study on the Structural Relationships between the Antecedents of Knowledge Management and
Performance in Public Enterprise: Focus on the KORAIL. Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 26:3,
189-211. [Crossref]
207. Dan-ming Lin, Zong-ling Xu, Qiang Liang. What affect the contribution of it to firm performance? an exploratory study
in China 81-94. [Crossref]
208. Ing-Long Wu, Han-Chang Lin. 2009. A strategy-based process for implementing knowledge management: An integrative
view and empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:4, 789-802. [Crossref]
209. Charles R. Gowen, Stephanie C. Henagan, Kathleen L. McFadden. 2009. Knowledge management as a mediator for the
efficacy of transformational leadership and quality management initiatives in U.S. health care. Health Care Management
Review 34:2, 129-140. [Crossref]
210. Daniel Palacios, Ignacio Gil, Fernando Garrigos. 2009. The impact of knowledge management on innovation and
entrepreneurship in the biotechnology and telecommunications industries. Small Business Economics 32:3, 291-301. [Crossref]
211. Ingo Forstenlechner, Fiona Lettice, Mike Bourne. 2009. Knowledge pays: evidence from a law firm. Journal of Knowledge
212. C. R. Gowen III, G. N. Stock, K. L. Mcfadden. 2008. Simultaneous implementation of Six Sigma and knowledge management
in hospitals. International Journal of Production Research 46:23, 6781-6795. [Crossref]
213. Danming Lin, Qiang Liang, Zongling Xu, Runtian Li, Weimin Xie. 2008. Does knowledge management matter for
information technology applications in China?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 25:3, 489-507. [Crossref]
214. Martyn Pitt, Jason MacVaugh. 2008. Knowledge management for new product development. Journal of Knowledge Management
215. Siu Loon Hoe. 2008. Benefiting from customer and competitor knowledge. The Learning Organization 15:3, 240-250.
216. Carolina L, Mero. Strategic KM, Innovation and Performance 811-816. [Crossref]
217. Uwe V Riss, Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle, Stefan Martin. 2007. Knowledge transfer by sharing task templates: two
approaches and their psychological requirements. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 5:4, 287-296. [Crossref]
218. Halil Zaim, Ekrem Tatoglu, Selim Zaim. 2007. Performance of knowledge management practices: a causal analysis. Journal
219. Daniel Jiménez‐Jiménez, Raquel Sanz‐Valle. 2007. Managing Human Resources in Order to Promote Knowledge Management
and Technical Innovation. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 5:2, 83-100. [Abstract]
[PDF]
220. David Zhang, Subramanian Sivaramakrishnan, Marjorie Delbaere, Edward Bruning. The Mediating Role of Knowledge
Management in Translating the Firm's Learning Orientation and Market Orientation to Business Performance 194c-194c.
[Crossref]
221. ANDERS RICHTNÉR, PÄR ÅHLSTRÖM. 2006. INFLUENCES ON ORGANISATIONAL SLACK IN NEW
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. International Journal of Innovation Management 10:04, 375-406. [Crossref]
222. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2006. Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice 4:1, 26-35. [Crossref]
223. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Strategic Innovation Management: 86-101. [Crossref]
224. Özgür Külcü. Contextual Analysis of the Organizational Knowledge Systems in Turkey 182-199. [Crossref]
225. . The Basic Principles of Competitive Strategy 30-56. [Crossref]
226. Mark E. Nissen. Harnessing Knowledge Power for Competitive Advantage 20-34. [Crossref]
227. . Knowledge Power 1-13. [Crossref]
228. Marjorie Delbaere, David Di Zhang, Edward R. Bruning, Subramanian Sivaramakrishnan. Knowledge Management and the
Roles it Plays in Achieving Superior Performance 1475-1495. [Crossref]
229. Nabyla Daidj. The Evolution of KM Practices 190-213. [Crossref]
230. . From Cooperation to Coopetition and Business Ecosystems 124-155. [Crossref]
231. Fakhraddin Maroofi. Strategic Knowledge Management, Innovation, and Performance 4709-4719. [Crossref]
232. Leonor Cardoso, A. Duarte Gomes. Knowledge Management and Innovation 237-266. [Crossref]
233. Varintorn Supyuenyong, Fredric William Swierczek. Knowledge Management Process and Organizational Performance in
SMEs 77-98. [Crossref]
234. Özgür Külcü. Contextual Analysis of the Organizational Knowledge Systems in Turkey 608-627. [Crossref]
235. Marjorie Delbaere, David Di Zhang, Edward R. Bruning, Subramanian Sivaramakrishnan. Knowledge Management and the
Roles it Plays in Achieving Superior Performance 90-108. [Crossref]
236. Nabyla Daidj. The Evolution of KM Practices 194-217. [Crossref]
237. Ashish Kumar Jha, Varun Jain. Managing Social Knowledge Management: 210-229. [Crossref]
238. Nabyla Daidj. The Basic Principles of Competitive Strategy: 693-718. [Crossref]
239. Jiming Wu, Hongwei Du, Xun Li, Pengtao Li. Creating and Delivering a Successful Knowledge Management Strategy
2056-2071. [Crossref]
240. Androniki Kavoura, Leszek Koziol. Polish Firms' Innovation Capability for Competitiveness via Information Technologies
and Social Media Implementation 191-222. [Crossref]
241. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Strategic Innovation Management 102-116. [Crossref]
242. Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa. Antecedents and Consequences of Adopting Social Networking Technologies for
Knowledge Sharing in Small Firms: 207-227. [Crossref]
243. Ana Martins, Isabel Martins, Orlando Pereira. Embracing Innovation and Creativity through the Capacity of Unlearning
128-147. [Crossref]
244. Sandeep Vij, Rayees Farooq. Multi-Group Moderation Analysis for Relationship between Knowledge Sharing Orientation
and Business Performance 1463-1481. [Crossref]

Knowledge Management

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Knowledge Management

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Knowledge Management

Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance

pp. 156-171 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756">https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756</a>

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

of knowledge and knowledge management is difficult given the tacitness of much

‘‘ Simply owning resources is not necessarily going to provide any

organizations with 50 or more employees (see www.Kompass.com for a description of the

Results and discussion

Table I Correlations of knowledge management scales with innovation types

We have launched products that are the first of

on-the-job – 0.22* 0.22* 0.27* – 0.16*

Table III Correlation of knowledge management scales with performance types

Comparative performance measures

international customers 0.18* – 0.17* – 0.13* 0.15* 0.21*

dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge behaviours and practices. Similarly, a firm

Figure 2 The measurement model

Table V Results of structural equation modelling

H2 KA ! KD 1.22** 1.12** 0.00 Yes

Implications for theory

Implications for managers

‘‘ A firm capable in knowledge acquisition, knowledge

Darroch, J. (2003), ‘‘Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviours and practices’’,

Cogent Business & Management, ahead of print. [Crossref]

[Full Text] [PDF]

analysis of German firms. Research Policy 40:10, 1453-1462. [Crossref]

Вам также может понравиться

H2 KA ! KD 1.22 1.12 0.00 Yes