A contingency model for knowledge management capability and innovation
| Pages | 855-877 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610671524 |
| Published date | 01 July 2006 |
| Date | 01 July 2006 |
| Author | Teresa L. Ju,Chia‐Ying Li,Tien‐Shiang Lee |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
A contingency model for
knowledge management
capability and innovation
Teresa L. Ju
Department of Information Management, Shu-Te University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan, Republic of China
Chia-Ying Li
Department of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China, and
Tien-Shiang Lee
Department of International Trade, Kun-Shan University of Technology,
Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose – Based on theories of organizational learning and strategy, the purpose of this study is to
develop a strategic contingency model to identify the interrelationships among knowledge
characteristics, knowledge management (KM) strategy, knowledge integration, organizational
learning, KM capability and innovation.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was conducted using the survey method. A total of
800 survey questionnaires were sent to KM managers from the semiconductor, LED, precision
machinery, communication, and biotech industries. ANOVA and LISREL were adopted to test 11
hypotheses as developed in this study.
Findings – The research results concludedthat: knowledge characteristicswith higher modularityand
explicitness could enhance organizational learning and knowledge integration; levels of organizational
learning, knowledgeintegration, and KM capability had significant impact on a firm’s innovation; the
interactioneffects of human oriented KM strategyand organizational learning,and system oriented KM
strategy and knowledge integrationwere found to significantly impact KMcapability.
Research limitations/implications – To further confirm the results of this cross-sectional
research, more longitudinal research is suggested. To identify the scope of generalization of this study,
future research may use the same questionnaire or an abbreviated one to conduct surveys across
different industries or different international settings.
Originality/value – The interrelationships among knowledge characteristics, KM capability and
innovation have been evaluated extensively in previous studies. However, the interaction effects
between organizational learning and KM strategy and between system oriented KM strategy and
knowledge integration on KM capability have been largely ignored. The results of this study provide
very important references for academics and practitioners to implement the effectiveness of KM.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge management systems, Knowledgeprocesses,
Learning organizations, Innovation
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) has become a very important concept in the
business world. In many firms, KM has become the top investment priority. It is
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm
A contingency
model for KM
855
Industrial Management & Data
Systems
Vol. 106 No. 6, 2006
pp. 855-877
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635570610671524
recognized that the performance of KM is highly associated with the intellectual
capital of the firm, which in turn affects its innovation and financial achievement
(Wong, 2005). However, previous studies about how to improve KM capability
efficiently are still controversial (Birkinshaw et al., 2002). First, the characteristics
of knowledge have been categorized from many perspectives. However, no one
agreed set of definitions has been identified. For example, Polanyi (1962) classifies
knowledge into two categories: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit
knowledge can be codified and shared in the form of hard data, manuals, codified
procedures or universal principles, while tacit knowledge results from an
individual’s experience and is only revealed through its application. Spender (1996)
proposes that knowledge can be held by individuals or collectivity. Collective
knowledge comes from knowledge integration: it is the combination of the
coordinated efforts of several individuals who hold different but complementary
skills (Grant, 1995).
Second, many studies have suggested that KM is a business process consisting
of sub-processes such as organizational learning, knowledge integration, and
knowledge distribution, among others (Gold et al., 2001; Nevis et al., 1995; Sarvary,
1999; Wilkens et al., 2004). Most previous studies suggest that the activities of KM
sub-processes will enhance KM capability (Lee and Hong, 2002; Lin and Tseng,
2005). For example, organizational learning and knowledge integration will
influence KM capability. Knowledge distribution will affect innovation. However,
the interactions among these research variables are ignored in previous studies
and so require further research.
Third, previous studies have argued that KM should be closely linked to KM
strategy and goals (Davenport and Prusak, 1997). For example, Zack (1999a)
suggests that companies oriented toward exploiting internal knowledge exhibit the
most conservative knowledge strategies, while unbounded innovators (firms that
closely integrate knowl edge exploration and ex ploitation without rega rd to
organizational boundaries) have the most aggressive knowledge strategy. While
organizational learning and KM have generated a great deal of attention, relatively
few related studies have investigated the interactive effects of KM strategy and
organizational learning on KM. Thus, further research on the relationship among
these factors is needed.
Fourth, knowledge-based theory concerning knowledge characteristics and
knowledge integration have been extensively applied for organizations (Bonache
and Brewster, 2001; Huang and Newell, 2003; McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002; Wang
et al., 2004). Since, firms can to some extent be seen as distributed knowledge systems
(Blackler et al., 2000; Grant, 1996b), in order to acquire sustainable competitiveness, a
firm needs to have the capabilities to integrate different kinds of knowledge in an
effective manner. Along with others, Grant (1996a) proposes that different types of
knowledge require different patterns of integration. Through the knowledge
integration process, firms could transform the specialized knowledge base of a
number of individuals into applicable knowledge which directly or indirectly relates to
an organization’s knowledge capability (Huang and Newell, 2003). In other words,
according to knowledge characteristics, firms with better knowledge integration
processes will enhance their KM capability. However, using KM strategy as a
IMDS
106,6
856
To continue reading
Request your trial