only for tutor mitchelle

1

Knowledge Management Capability and Organizational Performance: A Theoretical

Foundation

Satyendra Singh Yolande E Chan* James D McKeen*

Queen’s School of Business Queen’s University Kingston, Canada

Submitted to OLKC 2006 Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry on 20th - 22nd March 2006

* Both authors have contributed equally. They are listed in alphabetical order.

2

1. Introduction

Despite the fact that interest in the source, nature, and quality of knowledge has been

expressed since the times of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), the idea

of knowledge management (KM) is very recent (Alvesson and Karreman, 2001; Davenport and

Prusak, 1998). However in a very short time, managers and academics from a variety of

disciplines have come to view KM as a legitimate business issue. Hull (2000) suggests that the

phenomenon of KM is “not merely some passing fad, but is in the process of establishing itself

as a new aspect of management and organization, and as a new form of expertise” (p.49). To

some extent, KM has gained this legitimacy in academia as a result of Nonaka’s work, and in

practice because of consulting companies who have sought to capitalize on the enormous

potential of information technology (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003).

The academic interest in KM has grown considerably, as evidenced by the proliferation of

books, articles and special issues recently published on the topic (Argote, et al., 2003). The

investment in KM has grown too as it is considered a competitive necessity (Brusoni, et al.,

2001; McAdam and McCreedy, 2000), a strategic resource (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002), and the

source of competitive advantage (Chakravarthy, et al., 2003; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus,

the development of KM has been rapid, but at the same time it has been equally chaotic

(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003). There is much debate in the literature on (a) what constitutes

KM and (b) how does KM affect organizational performance.

There are a variety of KM definitions (Hlupic, et al., 2002), classification schemes, methods,

models and approaches (Earl, 2001) in the literature. The majority of work that has appeared on

KM has been in the IS literature. For example, nearly 70% of KM articles in 1998 and 50% of all

the KM articles over the 1993 and 1999 period appeared in IS journals (Scarbrough and Swan,

2003). However, much of the literature that has appeared in IS (or elsewhere) is practice driven,

rather than theory driven, with many articles appearing in practitioner-oriented journals

(Scarbrough and Swan, 2003). Given the scarcity of studies on the underlying paradigms of KM,

there is a need for more comprehensive studies that look at the theoretical underpinnings of what

constitutes KM (Alvesson and Karreman, 2001; Hazlett, et al., 2005).

3

Further, based on the notion that knowledge is the key organizational asset, researchers have

argued that KM leads to positive organizational performance. However, the impact has not been

carefully demonstrated (Chakravarthy, et al., 2003; Foss and Mahnke, 2003). Numerous

organizations have experimented with KM to improve their performance but have not fully

succeeded (Leidner, 2000; Nidumolu, et al., 2001). Researchers have written about “knowledge

management as a double edged sword” (Schultze and Leidner, 2002), the “deadliest sins of

knowledge management” (Fahey and Prusak, 1998), the “vicious circle” of knowledge

management (Garud and Kumaraswamy, 2005) and “knowledge traps” (Soo, et al., 2002). There

is a challenge in the field to demonstrate how to manage organizational knowledge for

performance (Argote, 2005).

In this paper, an attempt is made to build a theoretically rigorous and practically relevant

framework for understanding KM and its impact on organizational performance. Hazlett et al.

(2005) suggest that we need to build theories in KM. We engage this call by attempting to build

a theory that explicates KM and its effect on performance. As a theory, it integrates and builds

upon prior research to propose specific constructs, and relationship among those constructs. We

believe our work will contribute to the development of deep and rich theories in the field of KM.

The next section briefly reviews the existing literature on KM.

2. Knowledge Management: A Field Looking for a Theory

2.1 What constitutes KM

The literature has been unable to agree on a definition or the concepts behind KM (Bhatt,

2001; Hlupic, et al., 2002; Neef, 1999). For instance, Snowden (1998) defines KM as the

identification, optimization and active management of intellectual assets, either in the form of

explicit knowledge held in artifacts or tacit knowledge possessed by individuals or communities;

Hedlund (1994) suggests that KM addresses the generation, representation, storage, transfer,

transformation, application, embedding, and protecting of organizational knowledge; Brooking

(1997) suggests that KM is the activity which is concerned with strategy and tactics to manage

human centered assets; De Jarnet (1996) defines KM as knowledge creation, which is followed

by knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention and

4

refinement; and Laudon and Laudon (1999) suggest that KM is the process of systematically and

actively managing and leveraging the stores of knowledge in an organization. From these

definitions, it appears that KM is regarded as the set of various processes to manage

organizational knowledge.

There is another set of definitions where KM has been defined primarily in terms of its

assumed relationship with an organizational objective. For instance, Bassi (1999) defines it as

“the process of creating, capturing, and using knowledge to enhance organizational

performance” (p. 423); Van der Spek and Spijkervet (1997) define it as “the explicit control and

management of knowledge within an organization aimed at achieving the company’s objectives”

(p. 43); Davenport and Prusak (1998) define KM as an attempt to do something useful with

knowledge, to accomplish organizational objectives through the structuring of people,

technology and knowledge content; von Krogh (1998) refers to KM as identifying and

leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete; Wiig

(1998) argues that KM is the systematic, explicit and deliberate building, renewal and

application of knowledge to maximize an enterprise’s knowledge-related effectiveness and

returns on its knowledge assets and to renew them constantly; Scarbrough and Swan (1999)

define KM as any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using

knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organizations. From

these definitions, KM is largely regarded as a set of various processes that manage organizational

knowledge to attain performance1.

The literature offers many more definitions of KM. An exhaustive list of KM definitions is

beyond the scope of this paper but these definitions highlight the lack of convergence and rigor

in the field of KM. Hlupic et al. (2002) argues that this lack of rigor arises from the fact that the

KM field is emerging, subjective and eclectic in nature. The vagueness and ambiguity in the KM

field also arises from the word “knowledge” because it means different things to different people.

There are two dominant and distinct approaches to knowledge – knowledge as an action and

knowledge as a belief and a value (Hargadon and Fanelli, 2002). The approaches that focus on

1 Management of organizational knowledge is not always about the performance improvement. There are four discourses in KM – normative, critical, dialogical and interpretive (Schultze and Leidner, (2002)). Only normative discourse assumes that KM could be about organizational performance.

5

action deem that knowledge exists in the organization’s actions such as the physical and social

artifacts of the organization including, for example, technologies, routines and databases (Cohen

and Bacdayan, 1994; Huber, 1991; Levitt and March, 1988; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Here the

phenomenon of interest is how organizations and their participants acquire, store, retrieve,

process, distribute, learn, unlearn, encode and replicate existing knowledge. On the other hand,

approaches that focus on beliefs and values deem that knowledge exists as the possibility for

generating novel organizational artifacts (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995;

Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Here the phenomena of interest involve how organizations and

their participants generate, create, innovate, deviate, and in other ways produce new knowledge

where it had not existed before.

Due to the dissonance of views, opinions, and ideas, various authors have proposed that it is

necessary to identify a set of structures with which to make sense of the KM field. One of the

most frequently cited structures is provided by Earl (2001). He proposed seven schools of

knowledge management: systems, cartographic, engineering, commercial, organizational, spatial

and strategic. These schools identify the types of KM undertaken by organizations. An

alternative structure for understanding KM is provided by McAdam and McCreedy (1999). The

authors propose three models of KM – intellectual capital models in which knowledge is seen as

a tangible asset, knowledge category models in which knowledge is identified through categories,

and social constructionist models in which knowledge is intrinsically linked to social and

learning processes.

2.2 How does KM affect organizational performance

The relationship between KM and organizational performance is implicit in some KM definitions

(as described earlier). The assumption that KM is needed for knowledge accumulation to result

in improved organizational performance possibly arises from the fact that researchers have

opposing views about the impact of knowledge on organizational performance (McEvily and

Chakravarthy, 2002; Vera and Crossan, 2003). From the perspective of the knowledge based

view, a positive link between knowledge and performance is stressed. It is expected that a

particular category of knowledge, which is valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable

6

(Barney, 1991), would lead to performance. On the other side of the discussion are authors who

do not see a direct relationship between knowledge and performance. Organizations can always

attain knowledge that may not lead to intelligent behavior. Complementary to this view is

Leonard’s (1992) description of how core rigidities due to deeply embedded knowledge sets

hinder innovation. Arthur’s (1989) law of increasing returns also supports the equivocal link

between knowledge and performance. Although recent empirical studies have found support for

the direct impact of knowledge on performance (e.g., Appleyard, 1996; Decarolis and Deeds,

1999; Yeoh and Roth, 1999), Vera and Crossan (2003) suggest that the conclusion from these

studies is not that more knowledge leads to greater performance, but the knowledge that is

relevant may have positive effects on organization performance. Since knowledge may have an

equivocal impact on organizational performance, the management of organizational knowledge

(or KM) is assumed to have a positive impact on organizational performance. A careful review

of literature shows that only a few articles have attempted to investigate the link between KM

and performance (Appendix A). As shown in the appendix, of these articles most are conceptual

in nature and many lack strong theoretical foundations.

Despite this assumed link, it is still possible for KM to negatively affect organizational

performance, according to Chakravarthy et al. (2003). The authors explain by suggesting that

that KM has three important processes – knowledge accumulation (activities through which an

organization gains new understanding), knowledge protection (activities that maintain the

proprietary nature of an organization’s knowledge) and knowledge leverage (activities to use

existing knowledge for commercial ends). While each process is important, there may be

tensions among these three KM processes. For instance, aggressive attempts at leveraging

knowledge can inhibit knowledge accumulation because the latter may typically not offer

financial returns in the short run whereas the former often does. Similarly to encourage effective

knowledge accumulation, organizations need to shake up existing patterns of behavior, values,

and tacit mindsets. Since this typically requires articulation of tacit knowledge, it sacrifices some

protection of that knowledge. Further, effective protection of knowledge often requires

segregating or embedding knowledge within the organization, while leverage demands

integration and articulation. Thus, if a delicate balance among KM processes is not maintained,

KM can lead to negative organizational performance. This suggests that we need to

7

conceptualize the relationship between KM and organizational performance differently.

One way to make sense of KM and its relationship with organizational performance is to try

to build an applied theory. An applied theory guides empirical research. Just as Wheeler (2002)

explains, “Adaptive Structuration Theory (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994) is an applied version of

the molar theory of Structuration (Giddens, 1979) or the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,

1989) is an applied version of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)”

(p.129) that guides empirical research. Given the current ambiguous nature of the KM field, it

very much needs an applied theory. Theory building is an essential part of research (Van de Ven,

1989; Huber, 1990; Wheeler 2002). The purpose of a theory is to impose order on unordered

experiences and observations to increase understanding and prediction. Williamson (1999)

asserts that “sooner or later, a would-be theory must be asked to show its hand…there is a need

to sort the wheat from the chaff. Predictions, data, and empirical tests provide the requisite

screen” (p.1093). Dubin (1978) argues that the purpose of theory is to generate testable

hypotheses. Thus, in this paper, we attempt to articulate what constitutes KM and how it impacts

organizational performance in ways that can be empirically tested.

3. Theory Foundation

Recent developments in the resource based view (RBV) suggest that capabilities are an

important contributor to organizational performance (e.g., Bharadwaj, 2000; Teece, et al., 1997;

Tippins and Sohi, 2003). Capabilities refer to an organization's ability to assemble, integrate, and

deploy valued resources (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). They are rooted in processes and

business routines. Grant (1995) describes a hierarchy of organizational capabilities, where

specialized capabilities are integrated into broader functional capabilities such as marketing,

manufacturing, and IT capabilities. Functional capabilities in turn integrate to form cross-

functional capabilities such as new product development capability, customer support capability,

etc. Extending the notion of capability we propose a notion of “KM as capability”. We refer to

KM capability as an organizational capability to manage the organization’s knowledge with

efficacy (efficiently and effectively), and assert:

8

“KM capability enables an organization to improve its performance relative to its

competitors.”

The link is not direct. An organization’s KM capability allows it to achieve innovation agility

(i.e., to explore and exploit market opportunities). This agility further allows the organization to

take competitive actions in its market, which in turn results in a better relative performance. See

Figure 1. The following section elaborates on the key concepts of our theory and builds testable

hypotheses.

Before we illustrate our theory it is vital that we bring clarity to what we mean by KM. In

order to understand the concept, we turn our attention to evolutionary theory (Nelson and Winter,

1982). Evolutionary theories have been applied to understand dynamic and complex processes

such as the emergence of new organizations and new forms of organizations, changes in

organizations, and the life cycles of industries. Evolutionary approaches imply that the dynamic

processes we observe have an element of change in them. The theory implies uncertainty,

learning, a permanent race for competitive advantage, and the possibility of sub-optimal

outcomes (Barron, 2003). Since KM is a dynamic and complex concept, evolutionary theory can

provide a solid foundation. In addition, evolutionary theory accounts for managerial actions (see

Barron, 2003; Volberda and Lewin, 2003). These authors suggest that managerial intentionality

within the context of evolutionary theory is not passive but it is limited. Managers can learn from

their past experiences and organizations may develop routines or mechanisms that help them

take decisions. Thus when managers make decisions, they embody a certain wisdom about the

KM Capability

Innovation Agility

Competitive Actions

Relative Performance

Figure 1: KM Capability and Organizational Performance

9

environment. The logic is aligned with how we perceive KM. KM is affected by managers’

intentionality but at the same time a few things about KM are beyond managers’ control (or else

all organizations would be able to copy the best practices of KM). This allows us to use Zollo

and Winter’s (2002) work on the evolution of knowledge that has been built by applying

evolutionary theory. The authors suggest that there are four main stages in the evolution of

knowledge within an organization – variation, selection, replication and retention (see Figure 2).

The authors suggest that organizational knowledge evolves through a series of stages, chained in

a recursive cycle.

At the variation stage, an organization uses knowledge scanning process to scan for new

knowledge in its environment to assist with addressing new and old challenges. According to

evolutionary theory, this process acts as a mechanism by which external knowledge is introduced

into an organization. The scanning may happen due to external stimuli (i.e., competitors’

initiatives, normative changes, scientific discoveries, etc.) or internal stimuli (e.g., performance

monitoring) or a combination of external and internal stimuli (Huber, 1991; Zollo and Winter,

2002).

The knowledge from the variation stage is in embryonic form. It is then subjected to an

internal selection mechanism in which the new knowledge is exposed to experimentation to

determine its potential for enhancing the existing knowledge or the opportunity to create new

Variation Stage (Knowledge

Scanning Process)

Replication Stage (Knowledge Transfer

Process)

Retention Stage (Knowledge

Integration Process)

Selection Stage (Knowledge

Experimentation Process)

Figure 2: The evolution of knowledge (adapted from Zollo and Winter (2002))

10

knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). The new knowledge is considered in relation to the prior knowledge

that is shared among individuals, as well as in the context of established power structures and

existing legitimization processes. The expected advantages from the new knowledge are probed

through articulation, analysis and debate of the merits and risks connected to the knowledge. The

process used to evaluate the knowledge is referred as a knowledge experimentation process.

The third stage of the cycle is about transferring the new knowledge to the relevant parties

within the organization. The transfer requires the spatial replication of the knowledge to leverage

the newly found knowledge in different places and times where it is needed. The application of

the new knowledge in diverse contexts generates new information about the performance

implications of the new knowledge. The process used to transfer the new knowledge is referred

as a knowledge transfer process.

Following the replication stage, at the retention stage, the organization uses knowledge

integration processes to embed the knowledge within organizational routines. The central theme

during this phase is to integrate the new external knowledge with knowledge that already exists

within the organization. Once retained, the knowledge becomes routine as it gets highly

embedded in the behavior of the individuals.

All the processes from different stages – scanning, experimentation, transfer and integration

– are collectively referred to as knowledge processes. As shown in the model (Figure 2), both the

external and internal environments provide stimuli to scan for new knowledge.

Regardless of the method of production, it is generally accepted that organization knowledge

is embedded in organization memory (OM) infrastructures that do not disappear as individuals

come and go. Rather than belonging to individual members, organizational knowledge is a

distinct attribute of the organization (Martin De Holan and Phillips, 2003). Levitt and March

(1988), for example, claim that as organizations learn, their knowledge is codified into rules

procedures, technologies, beliefs, and cultures that guide future behavior, and the details of the

behavior depend significantly on the processes by which the memory is maintained and

consulted. Nelson and Winter (1982) suggest that these rules that organizations create are the

11

crystallization of organizational knowledge.

OM infrastructures act as the central organization system involved in the storage of the

knowledge produced by processes of knowledge evolution. Thus, the evolution of organizational

knowledge and OM infrastructures are intrinsically related, and OM infrastructures are essential

for the successful evolution of knowledge within an organization (Figure 3). This

conceptualization of OM infrastructures is based on Walsh and Ungson’s (1991) seminal work.

They defined OM infrastructures as sources of stored information from an organization’s history

that can be brought to bear on present decisions.

The model in Figure 3 has two-way arrows between OM infrastructures and each

evolutionary stage. This is meant to suggest that what is learned at each stage is retained (at least

in part) and also that what is done at each stage is informed by what has already been learned by

the organization. It is this two-way interplay of OM infrastructures and evolving knowledge that

enables the organization to learn effectively and to make progress.

This integrated model (Figure 3) of knowledge processes and OM infrastructures allows us to

make an important observation. It can be argued that organizations must build an overall ability

Knowledge Scanning Process

Knowledge Transfer Process

Knowledge Integration

Process

Knowledge Experimentation

Process

Figure 3: The relationship between evolution of knowledge and organizational memory

OM Infrastructures

12

to engage in managing organizational knowledge with efficacy through knowledge processes and

OM infrastructures. Thus, we propose KM as a capability that is a higher-order aggregation of

knowledge processes and OM infrastructures.

4. Knowledge Management Capability

The notion of “KM as capability” is consistent with how capability is perceived in the

strategic management literature, where it is viewed in terms of processes and infrastructures that

an organization uses to convert its inputs into desired outputs (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993;

Dutta, et al., 2005). Below we explain processes and infrastructures associated with KM

capability

4.1 Knowledge Process

From our knowledge evolution cycle (Figure 3), we identify the following four knowledge

processes.

Knowledge Scanning Process

The external environments of organizations change. If the lack of fit between an organization

and its environment becomes too great, the organization fails to survive or undergoes costly

transformation. Thus, organizations must scan their external environment for new knowledge.

Huber (1991) suggests that organizations can either scan a wide range of external environments

or scan a narrow segment of the external environment. Of the two scanning behaviors,

organizations usually tend to scan a narrow segment of their environment that is in the

neighborhood of its current activities (Cyert and March, 1963). This makes radical change within

an organization less likely. The literature on organization learning suggests the same regarding

search for new knowledge (see Cyert and March, 1963; March and Simon, 1958). It suggests that

boundedly rational decision makers rely on established organizational practices to drive the

search for knowledge. Organizational theorists see learning as a process that involves trial,

feedback, and evaluation. If too many parameters in the learning process are changed

simultaneously, the ability of the firm to engage in meaningful learning is attenuated (Teece,

13

1988). Further, organizational routines that also drive organizational scanning behavior are

relatively stable and greatly influenced by the experience and history of the firm (Baum, et al.,

2000; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Organizations thus recognize and absorb external knowledge

close to their existing knowledge base (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Consequently as

organizations seek to expand their knowledge, their search processes get restricted to familiar

and proximate areas of knowledge and geography (Almeida, et al., 2003).

Another reason for organizations to scan a narrow segment of the environment is that it

restricts the breadth and therefore the cost of the scan process (Cyert and March, 1963). A

proximate search also results in the acquisition of knowledge that can be more easily recognized

and managed within the organization. However, local search restricts the possibilities for

innovation through more distant knowledge. Levitt and March (1988) warn of competence traps

and suggests that core capabilities associated with existing routines can become core rigidities as

environments change. Given the dynamic nature of competition, firms must move beyond local

scans to compete successfully over time. Leonard-Barton (1995) suggests that organizations

must balance local scans with more distant scans. Thus, organizations must design processes that

will allow them to scan the environment and to recognize potentially useful knowledge in both

local and distant contexts. Almeida et al. (2003) argue that an organization’s scanning capability

is an outcome of the interaction between the scale and the scope of its knowledge. Organizations

typically focus on the scale of their knowledge that results in the possession of a large volume of

proximate knowledge, which in turn limits the organization’s scanning process only to proximate

areas. When the scope of knowledge is increased, an organization becomes more aware of distant

knowledge. This not only enhances scanning processes of the organization but it also improves

the breadth of its innovative activity. An emphasis on scale and scope of the scanning process

assists organizations to recognize novel knowledge that subsequently can enhance the

organization’s innovations.

Knowledge Experimentation Process

Arrow (1974) argued that the essence of organizational decisions involves two types of acts-

terminal and evaluative. Terminal acts are decisions made using existing knowledge and

evaluation acts are decisions made when experimenting with new knowledge. Both decision

14

types have implications for resource utilization. Terminal acts are based on knowledge that is

already possessed and, thus, are less costly. However, such acts make organizations more rigid,

rather than responsive to environmental changes. Thus, organizations must look toward the

future and explicitly experiment with new knowledge (Fahey and Prusak, 1998). Experiments

can include trying new approaches to problems, initiating pilot projects, doing things on a trial-

and-error basis and allowing individuals to assume additional tasks and responsibilities. Pisano

(1996) and Pisano (1994) suggest that usage of new knowledge requires “learning by doing”

(which entails the resolution of unexpected problems that arise when new knowledge is put to

use) or “learning before doing” (experimenting in a controlled setting before knowledge is

actually put to use by the recipient) or both. In all three cases, experimentation is an important

step.

Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) argue that experimenting “into the future” can include four

tactics. First, organizations must be able to quickly experiment with the knowledge to see if it is

useful. Second, the organizations should have a group of futurists, whose primary task is to think

in the future. Third, organizations must be in a position to form partnerships with others to probe

and anticipate the future, and finally, they should hold frequent meetings to ponder the future.

Knowledge Transfer Process

Once the external knowledge has been evaluated through experimentation, it must be

transferred to the relevant parties within an organization. At this stage of knowledge evolution, it

is possible that knowledge is either within the organization or outside the organization. This idea

is consistent with the existence of knowledge markets within and outside an organization (Lin, et

al., 2005). However, in either case the organizations must develop processes to transfer the new

knowledge. To facilitate the transfer process, organizations must develop linkages to the source

of knowledge that can act as conduits for knowledge transfer. There are three important

mechanisms that create conduits to sources of knowledge (Almeida, et al., 2003). The

mechanisms include the forming of alliances, mobility of people, and the appropriation of

informal networks. Although Almeida et al. (2003) suggest these mechanisms within the context

of the knowledge market outside the firm, the logic can as well be applied to the knowledge

market inside the firm.

15

One of the main ideas in the literature on alliances is that they are useful mechanisms for

transferring knowledge that exists outside the organization (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). In-depth

case studies provide us with rich illustrations of knowledge transfer between alliance or network

partners demonstrating overall knowledge flows across networks (Doz, 1996). Although, the

focus of alliances is inter-organizational collaboration, the idea of alliances is also applicable to

intra-organizational associations (Salk and Simonin, 2003). In a multinational enterprise, for

instance, foreign subsidiaries or research teams from different strategic business units collaborate

with one another on specific projects. Best practices and global campaigns need to be shared

within a network of affiliates. In this way, we argue that the knowledge transfer processes within

the context of intra-organizational collaboration are not very different (see Makino and Inkpen,

2003). In fact, an alliance is viewed as a purposive linkage between independent units (Kale, et

al., 2000), or as an independently initiated linkage that covers any intentional informal or formal

collaboration involving exchange, sharing or co-development (Gulati, 1995). These units can be

inside or outside an organizational boundary.

Knowledge is also transferred across organizations through the mobility of people. Several

studies suggest that people are an important conduit of inter-firm knowledge transfer. For

instance, in technology industries there are numerous descriptive studies of people carrying

knowledge across firms (Hanson, 1982; Rogers and Larsen, 1984; Saxenian, 1990). The idea of

inter-organization mobility is also applicable within the intra-organization context. Personnel

transfers within organizations can be considered a process of organizational reflection and a

means of mobilizing knowledge (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). Transfers and rotation of personnel

help members of an organization to understand the business from a multiplicity of perspectives,

which in turn makes knowledge more fluid and easier to put into practice (Nonaka, 1994).

Finally the research also points out the importance of geographically clustered social

networks in facilitating the informal diffusion of knowledge across organizations (Rogers and

Larsen, 1984). There is a greater knowledge transfer between organizations in clusters due to the

similarity in their knowledge bases and due to the extensive linkages that develop within a region.

Though linkages between firms could develop across geographic distances, proximity enhances

the knowledge transfer. Locational proximity reduces the cost and increases the frequency of

16

contacts which serve to build social relations between players in a network that is useful for

diffusion of knowledge (Almeida, et al., 2003). Organizations can also encourage such informal

networks within an organization for knowledge transfer, given that every organization is

essentially a social network (Lincoln, 1982). Strengthening of the informal network facilitates

knowledge transfer (Reagans and McEvily, 2003).

Knowledge Integration Process

The final stage in gainfully using the knowledge that has been determined to be useful and

transferred is its integration with knowledge existing in parts of the organization for innovation

(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995). It was

Schumpeter (1934) who first pointed out that innovation takes place by “carrying out new

combinations.” Henderson and Clark’s (1992) concept of architectural knowledge reinforces this

idea, suggesting that a critical feature of a firm’s innovative ability may be its broader

managerial capability to combine or link together knowledge within the firm. Thus, integration

appears to be an important stage in the evolution of organizational knowledge since it results in

value creation. The literature suggests that there are two mechanisms for knowledge integration –

direction and routinization (Grant, 1996a; Hislop, 2003).

Direction refers to the principle means by which specific knowledge can be communicated at

low cost between specialists and non-specialists. One way is to embody such knowledge in

standard operating rules. Direction involves codifying tacit knowledge into explicit rules and

instructions. But since a characteristic of tacit knowledge is that “we can know more than we can

tell” (Polanyi, 1966), converting tacit knowledge into explicit information to form rules,

directives, formulae, expert systems and the like inevitably involves substantial knowledge loss.

In addition, sometimes the context in which knowledge is developed is also important.

Routinization provides a mechanism for coordination which is not dependent upon the need for

communication of knowledge in an explicit form. Routinization here refers to the development

of a sequence of individual or organizational actions that require relatively little attention

(Nelson and Winter, 1982). A fixed and simplified response pattern is created which permits the

integration of specialized knowledge without the need for communicating the knowledge. This

may involve closely coordinated working arrangements where each team member applies his or

17

her knowledge, but where the patterns of interaction appear automatic. This coordination relies

heavily upon informal procedures in the form of commonly understood roles and interactions

established through training and constant repetition, supported by a series of explicit and tacit

signals.

4.2 Organizational Memory

In order to manage organizational knowledge effectively, it is necessary that organizations

also manage their organizational memory infrastructure which is comprised of five retention

mechanisms (Walsh and Ungson, 1991): culture which stores knowledge in language shared

frameworks, symbols, and stories; structure which stores the organization’s expectations of

various roles played within the organization; business logic which stores procedures and

operational rules which include knowledge to guide the conversion of inputs (such as raw

materials) into outputs (such as finished products); individuals who store knowledge in their

memories, beliefs, values, and assumptions; and the physical environment which stores

knowledge in the layout of the workplace. Below we look at all the infrastructure components in

detail.

Culture

Through social and collaborative processes as well as individuals’ cognitive processes (e.g.,

reflection), knowledge is created, shared, amplified, enlarged, and justified in organizational

settings (Nonaka, 1994). While a great deal of knowledge is created through formalized

mechanisms (e.g., surveys, R&D, performance reviews), others suggest that unarticulated

knowledge – consisting of expertise, ideas, and latent insights – is the very basis of innovation,

and is not easily captured or codified (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). It can be argued that KM is

rather a socially constructed process that occurs over time largely though informal human

networks (Brown and Duguid, 2000; Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Wenger and Snyder, 2000).

Culture is the most significant input that shapes the informal human networks through shared

values, beliefs, and work systems. Therefore, an organization’s culture should provide support

and incentives as well as encourage knowledge-related activities by creating an environment for

knowledge exchange and accessibility.

18

Walsh and Ungson (1991) also suggest that since knowledge is collectively retained, it is

important that individuals proactively interact to seek and offer knowledge. Such interactions

between individuals or groups are essential as it facilitates active interpretation of knowledge at

every stage of knowledge evolution. This interpretation will be facilitated by the organizational

culture because it provides uniformity in cognitive maps among individuals. Daft and Weick

(1984) defined interpretation as the process through which information is given meaning, thus,

organizational culture can create the context (through values, norms and practices) for

individuals to share a common interpretation. Another important aspect of interaction is that of

knowledge sharing. Organizational culture will influence what knowledge is viewed as a

personal possession or as an organizational asset (Leidner, 1999) and will hence be shared. This

view is supported by a wealth of KM literature that consistently argues that firms need to foster

the right cultures in order to successfully leverage their knowledge resources (Kayworth and

Leidner, 2003).

Some authors argue that formalization may actually stifle knowledge creation activities

(Hansen, et al., 1999; Hargadon, 1998; von Krogh, 1998). Huber (1991) supports this idea noting

that “units capable of learning may not have access to knowledge because of existing routines for

message routing or organizational politics” (p.95). In this vein, Hargadon (1998) draws a

distinction between the use of formalized versus cultural control as a means for fostering

knowledge brokering activities. He argues against the formalized controls stating that cultural

controls are a much more effective means for managing organizational knowledge particularly in

non-routine situations that require initiative, flexibility, and innovation.

Kayworth and Leidner (2003) also make an interesting observation - by definition, culture

consists of certain underlying values, norms, and practices that are manifested through various

symbols, languages, ideologies, myths and rituals within organizational contexts. This

characterization is consistent with prevailing definitions of organization knowledge as relevant,

high value information that is dependent on the context that is linked to meaningful behavior,

and is embodied in language, stories, concepts, rules, and tools. In essence we suggest that

culture plays a very important role in KM, as also suggested by others (see Davenport and

19

Prusak, 1998; Davenport, et al., 1998; Gold, et al., 2001).

Structures

Structures are viewed as roles that are given to individuals that influence their behavior. The

role explains behavior in respect to organizational expectations. The roles are guided by

collectively recognized and publicly available rules, which represent formal and informal

codifications of correct behavior.

Business Logic

Business logic refers to the logic that guides conversion of an input into an output. The logic

could be standardized procedures for routine tasks (where there are known ways of solving a

problem) or just a set of broad guidelines for the non-routine tasks (where experience, judgment,

wisdom and intuition direct problem solving). In either case, the knowledge is retrieved for

conversion processes.

Individuals

Individuals in organizations retain information based on their own direct experiences and

observations. This information can be retained in their own memory stores or more subtly in

their belief structures, cause maps, assumptions, values and articulated beliefs. Individuals store

the organization’s memory in their own capacity to remember and articulate experience and in

the cognitive orientations they employ to facilitate knowledge processing.

The role of individuals is emphasized in Nonaka’s (1994) model of knowledge conversion. In

the model there are four conversion processes - socialization referring to the transmission of tacit

knowledge between individuals; combination involving the transmission of explicit knowledge

between individuals; articulation referring to the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit

knowledge between individuals; and finally, internalization which is represented by the

conversion of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge between individuals. However, all these

processes depend on the willingness of individuals (Bock, et al., 2005), which is in turn shaped

by personal belief structures (Szulanski, 1996).

20

Kelloway and Barling (2000) argue that use of knowledge in organizations is a discretionary

behavior and individuals are likely to engage in using knowledge to the extent that they have the

ability, opportunity and motivation to do so. Thus, organizations must train individuals and

provide them with opportunities to engage in the management of organizational knowledge.

These activities must be backed by an incentive system which is structured in such a way that

workers are motivated and rewarded for the management of organizational knowledge

Physical Environment

Organization’s physical environment artifacts (such as, blueprints, assembly line layouts,

products, equipment) embody knowledge, which can facilitate the management of organizational

knowledge (Hargadon and Fanelli, 2002). This applies, for example, to knowledge that has clear

cause and effect relationships, is codifiable, and is easily transferred through training. However

knowledge which is ambiguous, incompletely codified, and complex requires the use of artifacts

(Clark, 1996; Star and Griesemer, 1989). These artifacts convey contextual information about the

knowledge being shared, helping to clarify the meaning underlying ambiguous knowledge.

Physical artifacts also play a particularly important role in the reuse of knowledge for innovation

(Majchrzak, et al., 2004). Organizational members take cues from these artifacts and invoke

particular schema which in turn shape their interpretations and actions.

Imai et al. (1985) identify other artifacts such as “a special corner within the factory where

workers could experiment,” “holding meetings in a large room with glass walls,” and the use of a

system in which “all the team members are located in one large room” (p.354-358).

Based on our discussion, Figure 4 depicts KM capability.

21

5. Innovation Agility

Innovation agility is the ability to explore and exploit (Sambamurthy, et al., 2003).

Exploration is experimentation with new ideas, paradigms, technologies, strategies, and

knowledge in pursuit of finding new opportunities that are superior to obsolete opportunities,

whereas exploitation involves improving existing ideas, paradigms, technologies, strategies, and

knowledge in pursuit of old certainties (March, 1991). Exploration is associated with complex

searches, variation, risk taking, relaxed control, loose discipline, and flexibility. In contrast

exploitation is associated with systematic reasoning, risk aversion, defining, refining and stability.

In addition, the returns associated with exploration and exploitation are different. Exploration

results in returns that are distant in time and highly variable, while the returns associated with

exploitation are proximate in time and predictable. March (1991) thus concluded that “the

KM Capability

Knowledge Processes

Organizational Memory

Infrastructures

Figure 4: KM Capability

Knowledge Scanning

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge Experimentation

Knowledge Integration

Culture

Structure

Business Logic

Individuals

Physical Environment

22

distance in time and space between the locus of learning and locus for realization of returns is

generally greater in case of exploration than in the case of exploitation” (p.85). Levinthal and

March (1993) defined exploration as “the pursuit of knowledge, of things that might come to be

known,” and exploitation as “the use and development of things already known” (p.105)

Levinthal and March (1993) assert that the long term survival of an organization depends on

its ability to “engage in enough exploitation to ensure the organization’s current viability and

engage in enough exploration to ensure its future viability” (p.105). Exploration at the expense of,

or to the exclusion of, exploitation leads to “too many undeveloped ideas and too little distinctive

competence” (p.105). Exploitation pursued to the extreme jeopardizes the organization’s survival

by creating a competency trap. Thus, it is widely argued in the literature that a balance between

exploration and exploitation is required (e.g., Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Hendry, 1981;

Levinthal, 1997). However, often in organizations exploitation tends to drive out exploration as

organizations develop core capabilities. Core capabilities are path dependent (Cohen and

Levinthal, 1989; Cohen and Levinthal, 1994; Collis, 1991; Mahoney, 1995) and as their

exploitation brings success to the organization it reinforces the exploitation of capabilities further

(McNamara and Baden-Fuller, 1999).

From an innovation perspective, knowledge provides the organization with the potential for

novel action, and the process of constructing novel actions often entails finding new uses of new

knowledge (exploration) or new uses of existing knowledge (exploitation) (Hargadon and Sutton,

1997; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Schumpeter, 1934). KM capability can enable organizations to

balance exploration and exploitation. Zollo and Winter (2002) make an interesting observation

from the knowledge evolution cycle. The cycle proceeds from an exploration phase to an

exploitation phase and then feeds back into a new exploration phase Exploration activities are

primarily carried out through knowledge scanning and knowledge evaluation processes through

which the necessary and appropriate knowledge is selected. Exploitation activities, by contrast,

rely more on knowledge transfer processes to replicate knowledge in diverse contexts, and

knowledge integration processes to absorb transferred knowledge into the existing knowledge for

the execution of a particular task. Zollo and Winter (2002) suggest that this recursive relationship

indicates that organizations can handle both exploration and exploitation simultaneously in a

23

balanced fashion (Figure 5). In more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 1: KM Capability has a positive influence on innovation agility.

6. Competitive Actions and Performance

Competitive action is defined as a set of well-defined, ordered, uninterrupted sequence of

repeatable competitive activities (Ferrier, 2001). Competitive actions are externally directed,

specific, and observable competitive moves initiated by a firm to enhance its competitive

position (Ferrier, 2001; Ferrier, et al., 1999; Sambamurthy, et al., 2003; Smith, et al., 1992;

Young, et al., 1996). These actions can be categorized into pricing actions, marketing actions,

new product actions, capacity actions, service actions and signaling actions (Ferrier, 2001).

Organizations with innovative agility will be capable of taking more of these actions because

they not only can explore new market opportunities but they can also exploit existing market

opportunities. This agility will allow organizations to take competitive actions across multiple

dimensions – action volume, action duration, action complexity and action unpredictability

(Ferrier, 2001). Action volume refers to the total number of competitive actions; action duration

refers to the time elapsed from the beginning to the end of a sequence of action events; action

complexity refers to the extent to which a sequence of actions is composed of actions of many

Knowledge Scanning

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge Integration

Knowledge Experimentation

Figure 5: Exploration and Exploitation

Exploration

Exploitation

24

different categories; and action unpredictability refers to the extent to which a firm’s order of

competitive actions is dissimilar from one action period to the next. Further, since the

organizations that explore new opportunities will also navigate the competitive landscape, they

know about possible competitive actions as well as the particular combination and order of such

actions that could be undertaken (O'Driscoll and Rizzo, 1985). Thus, in more formal terms, we

propose,

Proposition 2: Innovation agility has a positive influence on an organization’s

competitive actions.

Organizations that are aggressive in taking competitive actions will also face competitive

responses from their rivals (Chen and Hambrick, 1995). If the rivals are confronted with a less

aggressive, simple, or familiar competitive challenge, rivals quickly learn how to respond to the

action using rigidly structured yet highly efficient and simple problem solving mechanisms and

decision making processes (Ferrier, 2001). However, higher levels of focal firm competitive

aggressiveness, complexity, and unpredictability will preemptively beat rivals. Since it will

likely require rivals to engage in greater levels of decision comprehensiveness and complexity in

an effort to conceive of and carry out an appropriate competitive response. The likely

consequence is a slower competitive response (D'Aveni, 1994). Much of the research suggests

that firms that carry out more actions and respond to competitive challenges more quickly

experience better performance (Ferrier, 2001; Ferrier, et al., 1999; Lee, et al., 2000; Miller and

Chen, 1996; Young, et al., 1996). Thus, in more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 3: Competitive actions will improve an organization’s relative performance.

7. Boundary Conditions and Assumptions

Dubin (1978) advocates that theory builders facilitate understanding of a theory by sharing

the logic employed in its construction. The logic of our theory is built upon the assumption that

environmental turbulence, organization’s aggressiveness and IT capability have important

impacts on KM capability and other proposed relationships described in our theory.

25

Organizations are interpretation systems, where interpretation is a process of translating

environmental events to develop models for understanding and bringing out meaning (Daft and

Weick, 1984). Based on this meaning, organizations are subsequently able to take action. The

two variables that Daft and Weick (1984) propose affect organizational interpretation are

organizational intrusiveness and environmental analyzability. KM capability can be seen as a

capability that encompasses interpretation and action taking. Organizations with KM capability

not only are able to interpret data through knowledge scanning and knowledge evaluation but are

also able to take action through knowledge transfer and knowledge integration. Thus, based on

the Daft and Weick (1984) seminal work, we believe that organizational intrusiveness and

environmental analyzability are important boundary variables that will affect KM capability and

other important relationships described in our theory.

Organizational intrusiveness refers to “the extent to which organizations actively intrude into

the environment” (Daft and Weick, 1984, p.288). The authors suggest that some organizations

actively search the environment. They allocate resources for search activities, they test, change

or manipulate the environment and its rules, and they perform trials in order to learn what an

error is and to discover what is feasible. In the literature, the idea of organizational intrusiveness

is captured by entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation reflects how a firm

operates rather than what it does (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). An organization with

entrepreneurial orientation engages in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky

ventures, and is the first to come up with proactive innovations (Miller, 1983).

Environmental analyzability refers to the extent to which the environment is “subjective,

difficult to penetrate, or changing” (Daft and Weick, 1984, p.287). In such environments,

systematic data collection and analysis that apply to stable environments are not possible (Daft

and Weick, 1984). In the current literature, the idea of environmental analyzability is captured by

environmental turbulence. Turbulent environments have been described as having high levels of

change that creates uncertainty and unpredictability (Bourgeois and Eisenhardt, 1988; Dess and

Beard, 1984), dynamic and volatile conditions with sharp discontinuities in demand and growth

rates (Glazer and Weiss, 1993), temporary competitive advantages that continually are created or

eroded (Chakravarthy, 1997), and low barriers to entry/exit that continuously change the

26

competitive structure of the industry (Chakravarthy, 1997). Many characteristics have been used

to describe these types of environments – unfamiliar (Souder and Song, 1998), hostile (Covin

and Slevin, 1989; Khandwalla, 1977; Miller, 1987), heterogeneous (Khandwalla, 1977; Miller,

1987), uncertain (Khandwalla, 1977; Thompson, 1967), complex (Duncan, 1972; Emery and

Trist, 1965), dynamic (Dess and Beard, 1984; Duncan, 1972; Emery and Trist, 1965; Miller,

1987), and volatile (Bourgeois, 1985).

One other variable that has a significant effect on KM is information technology; thus an

associated variable referred as IT capability is also included in our boundary conditions.

7.1 Role of IT capability

IT capability is the ability to acquire, deploy, and leverage IT functionality in combination or

co-present with other resources to shape and support business processes in value-adding ways

(Bharadwaj, 2000; Sambamurthy, et al., 2003). IT capability has often been defined to include

the level of IT investments, IT infrastructure, IT human capital, and the nature of IS/business

partnerships (Feeny and Wilcocks, 1998; Henderson, 1990; Ross, et al., 1996; Weill and

Broadbent, 1998). Since there is no single accepted definition of IT capability, we accept the

definition by Tippins and Sohi (2003) who state that IT capability is the “extent to which an

organization is knowledgeable about and effectively utilizes IT to manage information within the

organization” (p.748). Included in this definition are IT objects, IT knowledge, and IT operations.

IT objects refer to software, hardware and IT personnel; IT knowledge refers to information

combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection; and IT processes refer to

activities or steps that are undertaken in order to achieve a particular objective, e.g., a finished

product. The authors further suggest that IT objects, IT knowledge and IT operations are all

independent of each other but all are required to be present in order to achieve IT capability. For

example, while many organizations possess large stores of IT objects, these organizations may

not achieve IT capability because they lack the knowledge necessary to utilize the objects

effectively.

Previous research on IT capability has found that it has a significant and direct positive

27

impact on organizational learning (Tippins and Sohi, 2003), firm performance (Bharadwaj, 2000;

Santhanam and Hartono, 2003) and dynamic capabilities (Pavlou and El Sawy, 2005). Extending

these research findings, we consider IT capability as a critical antecedent for KM capability

(Tanriverdi, 2005). It can enable KM capability in several ways.

As discussed before, knowledge is variously defined in literature and it has different

meanings for different people. In their literature review of KM systems, Alavi and Leidner

(2001) show that even if different perspectives on knowledge (and consequently on KM) are held,

IT still has a significant role to play in various knowledge processes such as knowledge creation,

storage/retrieval, transfer and application. As an example, consider the following illustration.

Knowledge originates within individuals or social systems (groups of individuals) (Alavi, 2000).

At the individual level, knowledge is created through cognitive processes such as reflection and

learning, and social systems generate knowledge through collaborative interactions and joint

problem solving. IT can enable this process through its support of the individuals’ learning

processes as well as support of collaborative interactions among individuals (Alavi and Tiwana,

2003). A knowledge management technology such as collaboration support systems is a good

example of IT that enables knowledge creation. Collaboration support systems refer to integrated

information and communication technologies designed to facilitate interactions and connectivity

among individuals in support of organizational collaboration during task performance (Bhatt, et

al., 2005). New knowledge is created through collaboration – by combining and amplifying the

individual group members’ knowledge. This joint creation of knowledge is usually accomplished

through the group members’ exposure to each other’s thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, while also

obtaining and providing feedback from others for clarification and comprehension. Collaboration

support systems aim at improving group collaborative interactions by providing techniques for

structuring task interactions and systematically directing the pattern, timing, content, and recall

of group discussions. Salazar et al. (2003) illustrate that IT-enabled virtual networks are

permitting even small pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations to enhance their

knowledge processes. Similarly, communication support systems enable the transfer of

knowledge among individuals, where knowledge transfer involves the transmission of

knowledge from the initial location to where it is needed and applied (Alavi and Tiwana, 2003).

28

IT can also enable knowledge application (Alavi and Tiwana, 2003). Knowledge application

is about the use of knowledge for decision making and problem solving by individuals and

groups in organizations. Knowledge in and of itself does not produce organizational value but its

application does. However, application of new knowledge by individuals is a complex task.

Work in the area of individual cognition and knowledge structures has demonstrated that, in

most cases, individuals in organizational settings enact cognitive processes (decision making and

problem solving) with little attention and by invoking only pre-existing knowledge and cognitive

routines (Gioia and Pool, 1984). While this tendency leads to a reduction in cognitive loads and

is therefore an effective strategy for dealing with cognitive limitations, it creates a barrier to the

search for and application of new knowledge in organizations. IT tools such as expert systems

and decision support systems have been shown to play important roles in reducing individuals’

cognitive limits, thus improving the knowledge application (Alavi and Tiwana, 2003).

In the study of multi-business organizations, Tanriverdi (2005) showed that IT-based

coordination mechanisms can connect business units to each other, open up opportunities for

collaboration, and increase the organization’s knowledge resources. IT enables business units to

learn about knowledge sharing opportunities with each other and exploit knowledge. Tanriverdi

also argues that in the absence of such a mechanism, some business units may remain isolated,

making it difficult for other business units to reach them and exchange knowledge with them.

Tippins and Sohi (2003) demonstrate that IT capability also enhances organizational

memory. As organizations create knowledge at each stage, both declarative and procedural

“memory bins” accumulate valuable information. IT provides the necessary mechanism for

storage of this information. In order to be useful, however, information must be accessible to

firm members and must be in a form that will enable each member to interpret it in a similar

manner, thereby becoming a part of the whole firm’s knowledge base. IT provides an ideal

mechanism for connecting widely dispersed individuals, who are also considered part of

organizational memory.

Thus, consistent with these authors and others (e.g., Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Moffett, et

al., 2004; Ramesh and Tiwana, 1999; Sher and Lee, 2004; Zack, 1999), we contend that KM

29

capability can be enhanced and supported through IT capability. Thus, in more formal terms, we

propose,

Proposition 4: IT capability positively influences KM capability.

7.2 Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation

Entrepreneurial orientation is defined as an organization’s propensity to innovate to

rejuvenate market offerings, take risks to try out new and uncertain products, services, and

markets, and be more proactive than competitors toward new marketplace opportunities

(Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). The idea is distinct from having the ability or capacity to take

risks, innovate and proceed proactively. As Penrose (1959) proposed, the capacity to realize

certain goals is distinct from the willingness to pursue those particular goals. Researchers have

agreed that entrepreneurial orientation is a combination of three dimensions – innovativeness,

proactiveness and risk taking (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). Innovativeness reflects a tendency

to support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative processes, thereby departing from

established practices and technologies. Proactiveness refers to a posture of anticipating and

acting on future wants and needs in the marketplace. Risk-taking is associated with a willingness

to commit large amounts of resources to projects where the cost of failure may be high. It largely

reflects the organization’s willingness to break away from the tried-and-true and venture into the

unknown. From this perspective it appears that entrepreneurial orientation will have a positive

influence on KM capability. Proactiveness will make organizations use their knowledge scanning

processes to understand future needs of their environment. Risk-taking propensity will encourage

organizations to experiment with new knowledge. Innovativeness will make organizations

explore and exploit opportunities. In more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 5: Entrepreneurial orientation positively influences KM capability.

Entrepreneurial orientation will facilitate the conversion of IT capability into KM capability.

Although IT capability is an important prerequisite for building KM capability, innovativeness

with IT capability (objects, processes, knowledge), particularly with a proliferation of IT and

30

continuous emergence, is very important. At the same time, innovativeness and risk-taking will

be required to recognize the complementarities among IT capability, knowledge processes and

organizational memory infrastructures. Therefore, we propose that entrepreneurial orientation

will facilitate the leveraging of IT capability into KM capability. In more formal terms, we

propose,

Proposition 6: Entrepreneurial orientation positively moderates the relationship between

IT capability and KM capability.

An organization endowed with KM capability will explore and exploit even more if it has an

entrepreneurial orientation. The organization will be more willing to capitalize on its ability by

engaging in exploration and exploitation. Organizations with considerable entrepreneurial

orientation know where to look for opportunities, can more accurately assess the value of

potential opportunities, and thus explore and exploit more. However, if the organization is not

willing to grasp and enthusiastically pursue these opportunities, the KM capability is likely to be

underutilized. Thus, in more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 7: Entrepreneurial orientation positively moderates the relationship between

KM capability and innovation agility.

Organizations with entrepreneurial orientation proactively anticipate and act on future needs

in order to create first mover advantages as this is the best strategy for capitalizing on a market

opportunity (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). By exploiting the market place, the first mover can

capture unusually high profits and get recognition. In addition, such organizations also have a

tendency to be competitively aggressive. The innovativeness of these organizations will make

them creatively destructive as they will think of new ways of doing things (Schumpeter, 1934).

They will not rely on head-to-head competition with competitors. Thus, organizations with high

levels of entrepreneurial orientation will use their innovation agility to launch more competitive

actions in the market. In more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 8: Entrepreneurial orientation positively moderates the relationship between

31

innovation agility and competitive actions.

7.3 Role of Environmental Turbulence

Environmental turbulence describes the general condition of uncertainty and unpredictability

due to high levels of knowledge turnover in markets and/or technologies (Glazer, 1991;

Mendelson and Pillia, 1998). The extent of market and technological uncertainty within an

environment reflects the amount of uncertainty faced by organizations as they try to understand

and make sense of it in order to respond to the environmental conditions. Since the knowledge

requirements in the turbulent environment are continuously changing, higher KM capability will

be much more needed as these organizations will require efficient knowledge processes and

organizational memory to monitor and react to opportunities. In contrast, the organizations in

stable environments will find lesser need for efficient knowledge processes and organizational

memory. The cost of building and maintaining efficient KM capability may outweigh the

benefits since KM capability is resource intensive. Thus, in more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 9: Environmental turbulence positively influences KM capability.

In turbulent environments, a lot of technical and market information emerges very rapidly

which needs to be efficiently and effectively managed (Grant, 1996b). In addition, in such

environments, organizations also need more information to make decisions because of higher

uncertainty (Eisenhardt, 1989; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993). Thus, the role of IT to manage

information in such environments will be more pronounced. There will be more emphasis on IT

to support rapid information flows (Mendelson and Pillia, 1998) and experimentation with the

information (Sambamurthy, et al., 2003). Thus, in more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 10: Environmental turbulence positively moderates the relationship between

IT capability and KM capability.

Turbulent environments reward flexibility since success in such environments involves

expecting the unexpected and competing in uncertain conditions (Volberda, 1996).

Environmental turbulence increases the advantages of KM capability because organizations in

32

such environments need to be able to quickly explore and exploit opportunities since the window

of opportunity often will be very small. Organizations will maximize exploration and

exploitation of opportunities through whatever level of KM capability they possess. In contrast,

in stable environments where market and technical demands are fairly stable, there may not be

many opportunities for exploration. Thus, information agility may not be rewarded. In more

formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 11: Environmental turbulence positively moderates the relationship between

KM capability and innovation agility.

A turbulent environment has numerous emerging market needs that can be taken advantage

of (Miller, 1987), thus the market will be inundated with competitive actions from various

organizations. Under such conditions, an organization with higher innovative agility is expected

to be launching more competitive actions because of its ability to explore and exploit more

market opportunities. In more formal terms, we propose,

Proposition 12: Environmental turbulence positively moderates the relationship between

innovation agility and competitive actions.

The research model derived from this KM theory is shown in Figure 6.

7.4 Assumptions

The predictions and explanations of our theory are proposed for profit-oriented firms,

particularly large firms. Just because of the geographic dispersion, size and complexity, larger

organizations have a greater need to manage their knowledge. Their growth and expansion

largely depend on how good they are in exploring and exploiting market opportunities. KM is

also important in smaller organizations but such organizations have simple structures and often

compete in niche market opportunities through knowledge exploitation.

Another assumption that we make in proposing our theory is that KM is adopted to promote

33

innovativeness within organizations. Thus the emphasis of our theory has been on being able to

explore and exploit market opportunities.

34

IT Capability KM Capability Innovative Agility

Competitive Actions

Relative Performance

Entrepreneurial Orientation

Environmental Turbulence

P10

P1 P2 P3

P5

P4

P9 P11

Main Variables

Important Boundary Variables

Figure 6: The Research Model Derived from a KM Theory of Organizational Performance

P6 P7 P8

P12

35

8. Conclusion

Our intent is that our research will help to bring conceptual clarity to KM and improve our

understanding of the connections between KM and organizational performance. There are a few

significant implications of our work. First, this inquiry into KM suggests that future research in

this area should pay equal attention to knowledge processes and organizational memory

infrastructures. Often organizations will build knowledge processes but will not invest in the

infrastructure where the knowledge resides and which facilitates the knowledge processes, or

vice versa.

Second, the theory is based on how organizations learn over time through knowledge

evolution. Thus an identification of knowledge processes in the knowledge evolution cycle will

enable researchers to offer prescriptions to managers that can improve organizations’ overall

learning capabilities. Better management of learning is an important concern of most

organizations.

Third, our theory shows how evolutionary theory and managerial intentionality can be

combined together. Most of the research that has been done on knowledge management has

used the resource based view. However, in this study we use a different theoretical foundation,

which helps us bring further clarity to what KM is or should be. Our focus has been more on

learning.

Fourth, our article provides insights into the literature on knowledge management and

innovation. We believe our theory “opens up the box” by positioning KM within the context of

innovations.

Fifth, our model also highlights the rich and enabling role of IT capability in positively

enforcing KM capability. Initially, it was thought that IT capability was directly related to

organizational performance (e.g., Bharadwaj, 2000; Santhanam and Hartono, 2003). However,

recent studies have started to open up the link between IT capability and organizational

performance. Pavlou and El Sawy (2005) show that IT capability affects dynamic capabilities

36

which in turn affect performance; Tippins and Sohi (2003) show IT capability affects

organizational learning which in turn affects performance; Tanriverdi (2005) shows that KM

capability mediates the relationship between IT capability and organizational performance; and

Sambamurthy et al. (2003) develop a theory to show that IT capability affects agility, which in

turn affects performance. Thus, our study is one of a few studies that offer another perspective

on how IT capability also affects KM capability, which in turn affects performance through

innovation agility and competitive actions.

Finally, we encourage other investigators to empirically test our research model. Although

the focus of this paper has been to derive a variance model, process models could be derived too.

A process perspective on KM theory could be employed to look at the interactions between all

the constructs. Figure 1 posits both sequences of relationships among constructs and arrows

describing the communication processes between constructs. As a process model, the focus of

the investigation could be on these sequences. A process perspective could also be used to

investigate KM capability, especially KM processes and their interaction with organizational

memory. Another extension of a process perspective could be applied to investigation of a co-

evolution model. Researchers could examine how, over time, organizational performance

affects competitive actions, competitive actions affect innovation agility, and innovation agility

affects KM capability. The variance model (as shown in Figure 5) in this research could also be

tested. There are scales available for IT capability (e.g., Tippins and Sohi, 2003), environmental

turbulence (e.g., Pavlou and El Sawy, 2005), entrepreneurial orientation (Wiklund and Shepherd,

2005) and competitive actions (Ferrier, et al., 1999). However, scales for the other constructs

may need to be created. Further, the model proposed is very generic.

37

Appendix

Article Nature of Study

Method of Study

School of KM (see Earl, 2001)

Performance Type

Theoretical Foundation

Key Finding(s)

(Allard and Holsapple, 2002)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering, Competitive advantage, Innovation

I/O economics

Taking a KM view, a knowledge chain model is suggested to gain competitive advantage in e- commerce.

(Beckett, et al., 2000)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering, Competitive advantage

Develops a framework with three KM strategies – acquisition, retention, exploitation, to gain competitive advantage.

(Berawi, 2004) Non empirical

N/A Engineering, Organizational

Competitive advantage

KM affects competitive advantage through its effect on quality management.

(Bhatt, 2001) Non empirical

N/A Organizational Competitive advantage

In order to gain competitive advantage from KM, organization ought to treat KM within the context of technological and social system.

(Braganza, et al., 1999)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering Competitive advantage

KM affects competitiveness through innovation

(Chakravarthy, et al., 2003)

Non empirical

N/A Strategic, Commercial

Competitive advantage

Identifies that there are three KM activities –knowledge protection, knowledge leverage and knowledge accumulation. No knowledge base can lead to sustainable advantage unless organizations continuously create new knowledge. There is also a paradox associated with the three KM activities. For instance aggressive attempts at leveraging knowledge can inhibit knowledge accumulation because the later may typically not offer financial returns in the short run whereas the former often does.

(Choi and Lee, 2003)

Empirical Survey Organizational, System

General performance

There are four style of KM – human oriented, passive, system oriented and dynamic. The dynamic style of KM leads to better corporate performance

(Chuang, 2004) Empirical Survey Strategic Competitive advantage

Resource based view

The study builds KM capability from four KM resources – technical, human, cultural, and structural. The KM capability is related to competitive advantage.

(Civi, 2000) Non empirical

N/A Strategic, Commercial

Competitive advantage

Organizations must build a strategy around their KM so that it is reflects their competitive strategy.

(Clarke and Turner, 2004)

Empirical Case study Strategic Competitive advantage

I/O economics

It is argued that the RBV view of KM is limited because it emphasizes knowledge that must be protected and unique. But some organizations in Australia build competitive advantage by building alliances and relationships. Thus, KM needs a broader perspective then just RBV.

(Darroch and McNaughton, 2003)

Empirical Survey, Secondary

Strategic Market and Internal

RBV Organizations with KM orientation outperformed organizations with market orientation.

38

Article Nature of Study

Method of Study

School of KM (see Earl, 2001)

Performance Type

Theoretical Foundation

Key Finding(s)

(DeTienne and Jackson, 2001)

Non empirical

N/A Commercial, Organizational

General performance

Organization learning

KM will provide performance benefits only if organizations develop strategies for filtering knowledge, strengthening corporate philosophy, and facilitating effective communication.

(Francisco and Guadamillas, 2002)

Empirical Case study Strategic Innovation KM allows Irizar (a company in Spain) to continuously innovate. Firm culture plays a significant role at the company.

(Gloet and Terziovski, 2004)

Empirical Survey Organizational, Systems

Innovation KM when implemented with human resource management practices and IT practices lead to higher innovation within an organization.

(Gold, et al., 2001)

Empirical Survey Engineering, Organizational, Strategic

General performance

A capability model of KM is built and it is shown that knowledge infrastructure capabilities and knowledge processes capabilities impact organizational performance.

(Gupta and Govindrajan, 2000)

Empirical Case study Organizational Competitive advantage

Organizations must mobilize new knowledge faster and efficiently to gain advantage.

(Holsapple and Jones, 2004)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering, Competitive advantage

I/O economics

Develops an idea of KM value chain. The focus of the paper is on primary activities of the value chain.

(Holsapple and Jones, 2005)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering, Competitive advantage

I/O economics

The idea of KM value chain is extended with a focus on the secondary activities of the chain.

(Kalling, 2003) Empirical Case study Systems General performance

The effect of KM on organizational performance is contingent upon various firm level and organizational level contingencies. KM is divided into three processes – knowledge development, knowledge utilization and knowledge capitalization. Each process has its own contingencies factors and performance outcomes

(Lee and Choi, 2003)

Empirical Survey Organizational, Engineering

Market and financial

The study shows that KM enablers effect KM processes, which in turn effect organizational performance through intermediate impacts

(Lee and Yang, 2000)

Non empirical

N/A Engineering Competitive advantage

I/O economics

Develops an idea of knowledge value chain (KVC) and suggests that competitive advantage comes from the way organization performs each knowledge activity in the (KVC)

(Liu, et al., 2004) Empirical Survey Engineering General performance

KM is positively correlated to performance.

(Massey, et al., 2002)

Empirical Case study Commercial, Engineering, Organizational, Strategic

Product innovation

KM should be applied within a defined context. At Nortel, KM was applied to new product development process which led to significant improvements in product innovation.

(McAdam, 2000) Empirical Survey Organizational, Systems

Innovation A theoretical model is developed and tested show that KM allows organizations to innovate

39

Article Nature of Study

Method of Study

School of KM (see Earl, 2001)

Performance Type

Theoretical Foundation

Key Finding(s)

(Sabeherwal and Becerra- Fernandex, 2003)

Empirical Survey Organizational Perceived Effectiveness measures at individual, group and organizational levels

Organization learning

Using Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI model, the study shows that socialization and combination effects organizational effectiveness. The study also shows individual effectiveness affects group effectiveness, which in turn effects organizational effectiveness

(Salazar, et al., 2003)

Empirical Case study Systems Competitive advantage

KM has enabled smaller pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms to compete and gain competitive advantage.

(Schulz and Jobe, 2001)

Empirical Survey Systems, Strategic

General performance

The paper develops four strategies for KM – codification, tacitness, focused and unfocused. The results suggest that focused strategy results in superior firm performance.

(Sher and Lee, 2004)

Empirical Survey Strategy Dynamic capabilities

KM affects dynamic capabilities, which in turn effects firm’s competitive advantage

(Tsai and Shih, 2004)

Empirical Survey Strategy Market and financial

The relationship between marketing KM and business performance is mediated by marketing capabilities.

(Turner and Bettis, 2002)

Empirical Experimental Strategic Effectiveness and efficiency

Knowledge integration strategy outperforms knowledge redundancy strategy

40

Bibliography

Alavi, M. "Managin organizational knowledge," In Framing the Domains of IT Management, R. W. Zmud (ed.) Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati, OH., 2000. Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. "Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues," MIS Quarterly (25:1), 2001, pp. 107-136. Alavi, M., and Tiwana, A. "Knowledge management: The information technology dimension," In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, 2003, pp. 104-121. Allard, S., and Holsapple, C.W. "Knowledge management as a key for e-business competitiveness: From the knowledge chain to KM Audits," The Journal of Computer Information Systems (42:5), 2002, pp. 19-25. Almeida, P., Phene, A., and Grant, R. "Innovation and knowledge management: Scanning, souring and integration," In The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, M. Easterby-smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK., 2003. Alvesson, M., and Karreman, D. "Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management," Journal of Management Studies (38:7), 2001, pp. 995-1016. Amit, R., and Schoemaker, P.J.H. "Strategic assets and organizational rent," Strategic Management Journal (14:1), 1993, pp. 33-46. Appleyard, M. "How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the Semiconductor industry," Strategic Management Journal (17), 1996, pp. 137-154. Argote, L. "Reflections on two views of managing learning and knowledge in organizations," Journal of Management Inquiry (14:1), 2005, pp. 43-48. Argote, L., McEvily, B., and Regans, R. "Introduction to the especial issue on Managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge," Management Science (49:4), 2003, pp. v-viii. Arrow, K.J. The Limits of Organization, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1974. Arthur, W. "competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events," Economic Journal (99:116-131), 1989. Barney, J.B. "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage," Journal of Management (17), 1991, pp. 99-120.

41

Barron, D. "Evolutionary Theory," In The Oxford Handbook of Strategy Volume 1: A Strategy Overview and Competitive Strategy, D. Faulkner and A. Campbell (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2003. Bassi, L. "Harnessing the power of intellectual capital," In The knowledge management year book 1999-2000, J. Cortada and J. Woods (eds.), Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, 1999, pp. 422-431. Baum, J., Calabrese, T., and Silverman, B. "Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in the Canadian Biotechnology Industry," Strategic Management Journal (21:3), 2000, pp. 267-294. Beckett, A.J., Wainwright, C.E.R., and Bance, D. "Knowledge management: Strategy or software?," Management Decision (38:9), 2000, pp. 601-606. Berawi, M.A. "Quality revolution: Leading the innovation and competitive advantage," International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management (21:4), 2004, pp. 425-438. Bharadwaj, A.S. "A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation," MIS Quarterly (24:1), 2000, pp. 169-196. Bhatt, G.D. "Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people," Journal of Knowledge Management (5:1), 2001, pp. 68- 75. Bhatt, G.D., Gupta, J.N.D., and Kitchens, F. "An exploratory study of groupware use in the knowledge management process," Journal of Enterprise Information Management (18:1), 2005, pp. 28-46. Bock, G., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y., and Lee, J. "Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social psychological forces, and organizational climate," MIS Quarterly (29:2), 2005, pp. 87-111. Boland, R.J., and Tenkasi, R.V. "Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing," Organization Science (6:4), 1995, pp. 350-372. Bourgeois, L.J. "Strategic goals, environmental uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments," Academy of Management Journal (28:3), 1985, pp. 548-573. Bourgeois, L.J., and Eisenhardt, K.M. "Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry," Management Science (34:7), 1988, pp. 816-835. Braganza, A., Edwards, C., and Lambert, R. "A taxonomy of knowledge projects to underpin organizational innovation and competitiveness," Knowledge and process management (6:2), 1999, pp. 83-90.

42

Brooking, A. "The management of intellectual capital," Long Range Planning (30:3), 1997, pp. 364-365. Brown, J.S., and Duguid, P. "Balancing act: how to capture knowledge without killing it," Harvard Business Review (78:3), 2000, pp. 73-80. Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt, K.M. "The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-pased evolution in relentless shifting organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly (42:1), 1997, pp. 1-34. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., and Pavitt, K. "Knowledge specialization and organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make?," Administrative Science Quarterly (46:3), 2001, pp. 597-625. Cabrera, A., and Cabrera, E. "Knowledge sharing dilemmas," Organizational Studies (23:4), 2002, pp. 687-712. Chakravarthy, B. "A new strategy framework for coping with turbulence," Sloan Management Reivew (38:2), 1997, pp. 69-82. Chakravarthy, B., McEvily, S., Doz, Y., and Rau, D. "Knowledge management and competitive advantage," In The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, M. Easterby-smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK., 2003. Chen, M., and Hambrick, D.C. "Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior," Academy of Management Journal (38:2), 1995, pp. 453-482. Choi, B., and Lee, B. "An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance," Information and Management (40), 2003, pp. 403-417. Chuang, S. "A resource based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: An empirical investigation," Expert Systems with Application (27), 2004, pp. 459-465. Civi, E. "Knowledge management as a competitive asset: A review," Marketing Intelligence and Planning (18:4), 2000, pp. 166-174. Clark, H. Using Language, Cambridge University Press, New York., 1996. Clarke, J., and Turner, P. "Global competition and the Australian Biotechnology industry: Developing a model of SMEs Knowledge Management Strategies," Knowledge and Process Management (11:1), 2004, pp. 38-46. Cohen, M.D., and Bacdayan, P. "Organizational routines as stored procedural memory: Evidenced from a laboratory study," Organization Science (5:4), 1994, pp. 554-568.

43

Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. "Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D," The Economic Journal (99:397), 1989, pp. 569-596. Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovations," Administrative Science Quarterly (35:1), 1990, pp. 128-152. Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. "Fortune favors the prepared firm," Management Science (40:2), 1994, pp. 227-251. Collis, D. "A resource based analysis of global competition: The analysis of the global bearings industry," Strategic Management Journal (12:Summer), 1991, pp. 49-68. Covin, J., and Slevin, D.P. "Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments," Strategic Management Journal (10:1), 1989, pp. 75-87. Cyert, R., and March, J.G. A behavioral theory of the firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963. Daft, R.L., and Weick, K.E. "Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems," Academy of Management Journal (9:2), 1984, pp. 284-295. Darroch, J., and McNaughton, R. "Beyond market orientation: Knowledge management and the innovativeness of New Zealand firms," European Journal of Marketing (37:3/4), 2003, pp. 572- 593. D'Aveni, R. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, Free Press, New York, 1994. Davenport, T., and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What they Know., Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1998. Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W., and Beers, M.C. "Successful knowledge management projects.," Sloan Management Review 43-57 (39:2), 1998, pp. 43-57. Davis, F.D. "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology," MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 319-339. De Jarnet, L. "Knowledge, the latest thing," Information Strategy: The Executives Journal (12:2), 1996, pp. 3-5. Decarolis, D.M., and Deeds, D. "The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the Biotechnology industry," Strategic Management Journal (20), 1999, pp. 953-968. DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M.S. "Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory," Organization Science (5:2), 1994, pp. 121-147.

44

Dess, G.D., and Beard, D.W. "Dimension of organizational task environments," Administrative Science Quarterly (29:1), 1984, pp. 52-73. DeTienne, K.B., and Jackson, L.A. "Knowledge management; Understanding theory and developing strategy," Competitiveness Review (11:1), 2001, pp. 1-11. Doz, Y. "The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes?," Strategic Management Journal (17:Special issue), 1996, pp. 55-83. Dubin, R. Theory Building, Free Press, New York, 1978. Duncan, R.B. "Perceived environmental characteristics of operational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty," Administrative Science Quarterly (17:2), 1972, pp. 313- 327. Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., and Rajiv, S. "Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: methodologies and empirical application," Strategic Management Journal (26), 2005, pp. 277- 285. Earl, M. "Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy," Journal of Management Information Systems (18:1), 2001, pp. 215-233. Easterby-Smith, M., and Lyles, M.A. "Introduction: Watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge management," In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, 2003, pp. 1-15. Eisenhardt, K.M. "Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environment," Academy of Management Journal (32:3), 1989, pp. 543-. Emery, F., and Trist, E. "The casual texture of organizational environments," Human Relations (18), 1965, pp. 21-32. Fahey, L., and Prusak, L. "The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management," California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 265-276. Feeny, D.F., and Wilcocks, L.P. "Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology," Sloan Management Review (39:3), 1998, pp. 9-21. Ferrier, W.J. "Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness," Academy of Management Journal (44:4), 2001, pp. 858-877. Ferrier, W.J., Smith, K.G., and Grimm, C. "The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers," Academy of Management Journal (42:372-388), 1999.

45

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975. Foss, N.J., and Mahnke, V. "Knowledge management: What can organizational economics contribute?," In The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, M. Easterby-smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK., 2003, pp. 78-103. Francisco, J.F., and Guadamillas, F. "A case study on the implementation of a knowledge management strategy oriented to innovation," Knowledge and Process Management (9:3), 2002, pp. 162-171. Garud, R., and Kumaraswamy, A. "Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies," MIS Quarterly (29:1), 2005, pp. 9-33. Giddens, A. Central Problems in Social Theory, MacMillan Press, London, U.K., 1979. Gioia, D.A., and Pool, P.P. "Scripts in Organizational Behavior," Academy of Management Review (9:3), 1984, pp. 449-459. Glazer, R. "Marketing in an information intensive environment: Strategic implications of knowledge as an asset," Journal of Marketing (55), 1991, pp. 1-19. Glazer, R., and Weiss, A.M. "Marketing in turbulent environments: decision processes and the time sensitivity of information," Journal of Marketing Research (30:4), 1993, pp. 509-521. Gloet, M., and Terziovski, M. "Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance," Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (15:5), 2004, pp. 402-409. Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A.H. "Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective," Journal of Management Information Systems (18:1), 2001, pp. 185- 214. Grant, R.M. "The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage," California Management Review (33:3), 1995, pp. 114-135. Grant, R.M. "Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration," Organization Science (7:4), 1996a, pp. 375-387. Grant, R.M. "Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal (17), 1996b, pp. 109-122. Gulati, R. "Structure and alliance formation patterns: A Longitudinal analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly (40:4), 1995, pp. 619-652.

46

Gupta, A.K., and Govindrajan, V. "Knowledge management's social dimension: Lessons form Nucor Steel," Sloan Management Review (42:1), 2000, pp. 71-80. Haleblian, J., and Finkelstein, S. "Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion," Academy of Management Journal (36:4), 1993, pp. 844-863. Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., and Tierney, T. "What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?" Harvard Business Review (77:2), 1999, pp. 106-116. Hanson, D. The new Alchemist: Silicon Valley and the Microelectronics Revolution, Little Brown, Boston, MA, 1982. Hargadon, A., and Fanelli, A. "Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science (13:3), 2002. Hargadon, A.B. "Firms as Knowledge Brokers: Lessons in Pursuing Continuous Innovation," California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 209-227. Hargadon, A.B., and Sutton, R.I. "Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm," Administrative Science Quarterly (42:4), 1997, pp. 716-749. Hazlett, S., McAdam, R., and Gallagher, S. "Theory building in knowledge management: In search of paradigms," Journal of Management Inquiry (14:1), 2005, pp. 31-42. Hedlund, G. "A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation," Strategic Management Journal (15), 1994, pp. 73-90. Henderson, J.C. "Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection," Sloan Management Review (31:3), 1990, pp. 7-18. Henderson, R., and Clark, K. "Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing competencies," Administrative Science Quarterly (35), 1992, pp. 9-31. Hendry, B. "How organizations learn and unlearn," In Handbook of Organizational Design, P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 1981, pp. 3-27. Hislop, D. "Knowledge integration processes and the appropriation of innovations," European Journal of Innovation Management (6:3), 2003, pp. 159-172. Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A., and Rzevski, G. "Towards an integrated approach to knowledge management: 'hard', 'soft' and 'abstract' issues," Knowledge and Process Management (9:2), 2002, pp. 90-102. Holsapple, C.W., and Jones, K. "Exploring primary activities of the knowledge chain," Knowledge and Process Management (11:3), 2004, pp. 155-174.

47

Holsapple, C.W., and Jones, K. "Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain," Knowledge and Process Management (12:1), 2005, pp. 3-31. Huber, G.P. "A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making," Academy of Management Review (15:1), 1990, pp. 47-71. Huber, G.P. "Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures," Organization Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 88-115. Hull, R. "Knowledge management and the conduct of expert labor," In Managing Knowledge, C. Pritchard (ed.) Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000. Imai, K., Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. "Managing the new product development process: How Japanese firms learn and unlearn," In The Uneasy Alliance, K. Clark, R. Hayes and C. Lorenz (eds.), Harvard Business School, Boston, 1985, pp. 337-376. Inkpen, A.C., and Dinur, A. "Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures," Organization Science (9:4), 1998, pp. 454-468. Kale, P., Singh, H., and Perlmutter, H. "Learning and the protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal (21), 2000, pp. 217-237. Kalling, T. "Knowledge management and the occasional links with performance," Journal of Knowledge Management (7:3), 2003, pp. 67-81. Kayworth, T., and Leidner, D. "Organizational culture as a knowledge resource," In Handbook of Knowledge Management, C. W. Holsapple (ed.) 1, Springer, New York, 2003, pp. 235-252. Kelloway, E.K., and Barling, J. "Knowledge work as organizational behavior," International Journal of Management Review (2:3), 2000, pp. 287-304. Khandwalla, P.N. The Design of Organizations, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, 1977. Kogut, B., and Zander, U. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science (3:3), 1992, pp. 383-397. Laudon, K.C., and Laudon, J.P. Management Information Systems: Organization and Technology in the Networked Enterprise, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1999. Lee, C.C., and Yang, J. "Knowledge value chain," The Journal of Management Development (19:9/10), 2000, pp. 783-793.

48

Lee, H., and Choi, B. "Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An Integrative view and empirical examination," Journal of Management Information Systems (20:1), 2003, pp. 179-228. Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C., and Schomburg, A. "Timing, order, and durability of new product advantages with imitation," Strategic Management Journal (21), 2000, pp. 23-30. Leidner, D. "Understanding information culture: Integrating knowledge management systems into organizations," In Strategic Information Management, R. Galliers, D. Leidner and B. Baker (eds.), Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 1999, pp. 523-550. Leidner, D. "Editorial," Journal of Strategic Information Systems (9), 2000, pp. 101-105. Leonard, D. "Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development," Strategic Management Journal (13), 1992, pp. 111-125. Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S. "The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation," California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 112-132. Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation., Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA., 1995., 1995. Levinthal, D. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes'," Management Science (43:7), 1997, pp. 934- 950. Levinthal, D., and March, J.G. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal (14:Winter Special Issue), 1993, pp. 95-112. Levitt, B., and March, J.G. "Organizational learning," Annual Review of Sociology (14), 1988, pp. 319-340. Lin, L., Geng, X., and Whinston, A.B. "A sender-receiver framework for knowledge transfer," MIS Quarterly (29:2), 2005, pp. 197-219. Lincoln, J.R. "Intra- (and Inter-) organizational networks," In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, S. B. Bacharach (ed.) 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1982, pp. 1-38. Liu, P., Chen, W., and Tsai, C. "An empirical study on the correlation between knowledge management capability and competitiveness in Taiwan's industries," Technovation (24), 2004, pp. 971-977. Lumpkin, G.T., and Dess, G.G. "Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance," Academy of Management Review (21), 1996, pp. 135-172. Mahoney, J. "The management of resoruces and the resoruce of managment," Journal of Business Reserach (33:2), 1995, pp. 91-101.

49

Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L.P., and Neece, O.E. "Knowledge reuse for innovation," Management Science (50:2), 2004, pp. 174-189. Makino, S., and Inkpen, A.C. "Knowledge seeking FDI and learning across borders," In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management,, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, 2003, pp. 233-252. March, J.G. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 71-87. March, J.G., and Simon, H. Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1958. Martin De Holan, P., and Phillips, N. "Organizational forgetting," In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2003. Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., and O'Driscoll, T.M. "Knowledge Management in Pursuit of Performance: Insights from Nortel Networks," MIS Quarterly (26:3), 2002. McAdam, R. "Knowledge management as a catalyst for innovation within organizations: A Qualitative study," Knowledge and process management (7:4), 2000, pp. 233-242. McAdam, R., and McCreedy, S. "A critical review of knowledge management models," The Learning Organization: An International Journal (Vol. 6:3), 1999, pp. pp. 91-101. McAdam, R., and McCreedy, S. "A critique of knowledge management: Using a social constructionist model," Journal of New Technology Work and Employment (15:2), 2000, pp. 155-168. McEvily, S.K., and Chakravarthy, B. "The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal (23:4), 2002, pp. 285-305. McNamara, P., and Baden-Fuller, C. "Lessons from the Celltech case: Balancing knowledge exploraiton and exploitation in organizational renewal," British Journal of Management (10), 1999, pp. 291-307. Mendelson, H., and Pillia, R.R. "Clockspeed and informational response: Evidence from the information technology industry," Information Systems Research (9:4), 1998, pp. 415-433. Miller, D. "The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms," Management Science (29), 1983, pp. 770-791. Miller, D. "The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy," Strategic Management Journal (8:1), 1987, pp. 55-76.

50

Miller, D., and Chen, M. "The simplicity of competitive repertoires: An empirical analysis," Strategic Management Journal (17), 1996, pp. 419-440. Moffett, S., McAdam, R., and Parkinson, S. "Technological utilization for knowledge management," Knowledge and Process Management (11:3), 2004, pp. 175-184. Neef, D. "Making the case for knowledge management: the bigger picture," Management Decision (Vol. 37:1), 1999, pp. pp. 72-78. Nelson, R., and Winter, S.G. The evolutionary theory of the firm, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982. Nidumolu, S.R., Subramani, M., and Aldrich, A. "Situated learning and the situated knowledge web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management," Journal of Management Information Systems (18:1), 2001, pp. 115-150. Nonaka, I. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science (5:1), 1994, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. O'Driscoll, G., and Rizzo, M. The Economics of Time and Ignorance, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1985. Pavlou, P.A., and El Sawy, O.A. "From IT competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: A dynamic capabilities model (forthcoming in ISR),"), 2005. Pisano, G. "Learning before doing in the development of new process technology," Research Policy (25:7), 1996, pp. 1097-1119. Pisano, G.P. "Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empirical analysis of process development," Strategic Management Journal (15), 1994, pp. 85-100. Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966. Ramesh, B., and Tiwana, A. "Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams," Decision Support Systems (27), 1999, pp. 213-235. Reagans, R., and McEvily, B. "Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range," Administrative Science Quarterly (48:2), 2003, pp. 240-267. Rogers, E., and Larsen, J. Silicon Valley Fever, Basic Books, New York, 1984. Ross, J.W., Beath, C.M., and Goodhue, D.L. "Develop Long Term Competitiveness through IT Assets," Sloan Management Review (38:1), 1996, pp. 31-42.

51

Sabeherwal, R., and Becerra-Fernandex, I. "An empirical study of the effect of knowledge management process at individual, groups, and organizational levels," Decision Science (34:2), 2003, pp. 225-260. Salazar, A., Hackney, R., and Howells, J. "The strategic impact of internet technology in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical firms: Insights from a knowledge management perspective," Information Technology and Management (4), 2003, pp. 289-301. Salk, J.E., and Simonin, B.L. "Beyond Alliances: Towards a meta theory of collaborative learning," In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management,, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), 253-277, Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, 2003. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., and Grover, V. "Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms," MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 237-263. Santhanam, R., and Hartono, E. "Issues in Linking Information Technology Capability to Firm Performance," MIS Quarterly (27:1), 2003, pp. 125-153. Saxenian, A. "Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon valley," California Management Review (Fall), 1990, pp. 39-112. Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. "Knowledge management: A literature review," London, Institute of Personal and Development), 1999. Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. "Discourses of knowledge management and the learning organization: Their productin and consumption," In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, 2003, pp. 495-512. Schultze, U., and Leidner, D.E. "Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions," MIS Quarterly (26:3), 2002. Schulz, M., and Jobe, L.A. "Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies: An empirical exploration," Journal of High Technology Management Research (12), 2001, pp. 139- 165. Schumpeter, J. The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA, 1934. Sher, P.J., and Lee, V.C. "Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management," Information and Management (41), 2004, pp. 933-945. Simon, H. "Bounded rationality and organizational learning," Organization Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 125-134.

52

Smith, K.G., Grimm, C., and Gannon, M. Dynamics of Competitive Strategy, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1992. Snowden, D. "A framework for creating a sustainable knowledge management program.," In The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000, J. W. Cortada and J. E. Woods (eds.), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, 1998. Soo, C., Devinney, T., Midgley, D., and Deering, A. "Knowledge management: Philosophy process and pitfalls," California Management Review (44:4), 2002, pp. 129-150. Souder, W.E., and Song, X.M. "Analyses of US and Japanese management processes associated with new product success and failure in high and low familiarity markets," Journal of Product innovation Management (15:3), 1998, pp. 208-233. Star, S.L., and Griesemer, J.R. "Institutional ecology, "translations," and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology," Social Studies Sciences (18), 1989, pp. 387-420. Szulanski, G. "Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to The Transfer of Best Practice Within The Firm," Strategic Management Journal (17), 1996, pp. 27-44. Tanriverdi, H. "Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms," MIS Quarterly (29:2), 2005, pp. 311-334. Teece, D. "Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic partnering and licensing decisions," Interfaces (18:3), 1988, pp. 46-62. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal (18:7), 1997, pp. 509-533. Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action, McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. Tippins, M.J., and Sohi, R.S. "IT Competency and Firm Performance: IS Organizational Learning a Missing Link?," Strategic Management Journal (24), 2003, pp. 745-761. Tsai, M., and Shih, C. "The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on marketing capabilities and business performance," International Journal of Management (21:4), 2004, pp. 524-530. Turner, S.F., and Bettis, R.A. "Exploring depth versus breadth in knowledge management strategies," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory (8:1), 2002, pp. 49-73. Van de Ven, A. "Nothing quite so practical as a good theory," Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp. 486-489.

53

Van der Spek, R., and Spijkervet, A. "Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with knowledge," In Knowledge management and its integrative elements, J. Liebowitz and L. Wilcox (eds.), 31-59, CRC press, Boca Raton, 1997. Vera, D., and Crossan, M. "Organizational learning and knowledge management: Toward an integrative framework," In The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, M. Easterby-Smith and M. A. Lyles (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2003, pp. 122-141. Volberda, H.W. "Toward the flexible form: how to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments," Organization Science (7), 1996, pp. 359-374. Volberda, H.W., and Lewin, A.Y. "Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution," Journal of Management Studies (40:8), 2003, pp. 2111-2136. von Krogh, G. "Care in knowledge creation," California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 133-153. Walsh, J.P., and Ungson, G.R. "Organizational Memory," Academy of management review (16:1), 1991, pp. 57-91. Weill, P., and Broadbent, M. Leveraging the New Infrastructure: How Market Leaders Capitalize on Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. "Communities of practice: The organizational frontier," Harvard Business Review (78:1), 2000, pp. 139-145. Wheeler, B.C. "NEBIC: A dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement," Information Systems Research (13:2), 2002, pp. 125-146. Wiig, K. Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking. How People and Organizations, Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge, Schema Press, Arlington, Texas, 1998. Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. "Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses," Strategic Management Journal (24), 2003, pp. 1307-1314. Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. "Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach," Journal of Business Venturing (20), 2005, pp. 71-91. Williamson, O.E. "Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives," Strategic Management Journal (20:12), 1999, pp. 1087-1108. Yeoh, P., and Roth, K. "An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the US Pharmaceutical industry: Impact of firm resources and capabilities," Strategic Management Journal (20), 1999, pp. 637-653.

54

Young, G., Smith, K.G., and Grimm, C. ""Austrian" and industrial organization perspectives on firm-level competitive activity and performances," Organization Science (7:243-254), 1996. Zack, M.H. "Managing Codified Knowledge," Sloan Management Review , (Volume 40:Number 4), 1999, pp. pp. 45-58. Zollo, M., and Winter, S.G. "Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities," Organization Science (13:3), 2002, pp. 339-351.

assignments combined/old assignment/Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance 3.pdf

• Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Theoretical framework
• 2.1. Transactional leadership and transformational leadership
• 2.2. KM process
• 3. Hypotheses
• 3.1. Transformational leadership and organizational performance beyond the effects of transactional leadership
• 3.2. Transformational leadership and KM process beyond the effects of transactional leadership
• 3.3. Mediator role of KM process beyond transactional leadership effects
• 4. Methodology
• 4.1. Sample
• 4.2. Measures
• 4.2.1. Transformational and transactional leadership
• 4.2.2. Tactical KM process
• 4.2.3. Organizational performance
• 4.2.4. Control variables
• 5. Results
• 6. Discussions
• 7. Limitations
• 8. Implications for theory
• 9. Implications for practice
• 10. Directions for future research
• 11. Conclusions
• Acknowledgements
• References