Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10997-012-9211-z
1 Introduction
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
It is now quite a long time since knowledge emerged as a major concept within the
business debate and organizations started to view knowledge as one of their most
valuable strategic resources, one which had to be managed effectively to generate a
sustainable competitive advantage. Perhaps the most significant response has been
the proliferation of knowledge management initiatives: infrastructures and pro-
cesses for locating, capturing, and sharing the knowledge held by members of an
organization. The initial focus was on applications of ICT such as groupware,
document repositories, and portals (Bohn 1994). Others scholars, in contrast,
believed that the most valuable knowledge was the tacit knowledge existing inside
peoples’ heads, augmented or shared via interpersonal interaction and social
relationships. Therefore, knowledge management initiatives had to deal with new
organizational cultures, forms, and reward systems to enhance those social
relationships (De Long 1997; Swan et al. 2000). Others scholars advocated a
metrical approach to knowledge management, suggesting the use of performance
123
The impact of knowledge management
indicators (e.g., those expressive of the intellectual capital) as a way to facilitate the
use and growth of knowledge (Sveiby 1997; Stewart 1997).
Technical, organizational and measurement initiatives, when aligned and
integrated, can provide a comprehensive infrastructure to support an effective
management of knowledge. However, the actual benefits of such knowledge
management initiatives, while often advocated, remain largely uncertain. Empirical
research trying to link knowledge management to firm performance, in fact,
provides rather inconsistent results (Kalling 2003). Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996)
found a relationship between the knowledge management approach of 21 large US
pharmaceutical firms and financial performance (ROS and ROA), while De Pablos
(2002)—using the same typology to classify knowledge management approaches on
a sample of 123 medium-sized Spanish manufacturing firms—found a significant
relationship with organizational performance if it was measured through a set of 10
variables (increase in profits, increase in sales, etc.) but not if it was measured
through a unique comprehensive variable such as ROA. Inconclusive results are
provided also by Choi and Lee (2003), studying the organizational performance
impact of a human versus a technical approach to knowledge management, and by
Zhu et al. (2006), addressing the impact of knowledge management approach on the
firms’ core competencies and organizational performance.
More stable results are offered by the studies that focus on the impact of specific
knowledge management mechanisms on organizational performance (Gold et al.
2001; Lee and Choi 2003; Liu et al. 2004; Chuang 2004). The characteristics of
specific knowledge management infrastructure (i.e., technology, structure and
culture) or processes (i.e., acquisition, socialization, combination, externalization,
etc.) seem to be associated with organizational performance.
To our knowledge, only two studies have addressed the consequences of effective
knowledge management on innovation performance. In her analysis of medium to
large-sized New Zealand firms in various industries, Darroch (2005) found that
effective management of knowledge has a positive impact on innovation perfor-
mance (incremental innovative products, etc.) but not on organizational perfor-
mance. Analysing large manufacturing firms in Australia and New Zealand, Gloet
and Terziovski (2004) found that the human and technical knowledge management
approaches should be combined to have a positive impact on innovation
performance.
All the aforementioned studies, however, link knowledge management initiatives
directly to the firm’s performance. Other contributors believe, in contrast, that the
appropriate reference for evaluating knowledge management initiatives is the
strategy that they enable. ‘‘While performance is a useful metric, the ultimate
measure of value is the ability to support an organization’s competitive strategy’’
(McKeen et al. 2006, p. 1). According to Zack (1999) knowledge management
should be grounded in the context of strategy, which is the most important frame for
delineating the knowledge management approach. O’Dell and Grayson (1998) point
out that knowledge management should be driven by one of the three value
disciplines (Treacy and Wiersema 1993): customer intimacy, operational excellence
and product leadership. Firms focused on customer intimacy should invest in
systems—including CRM, data mining, BI, etc.—to collect information about their
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
1
Analyzers combine the characteristics of defenders and prospectors.
123
The impact of knowledge management
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
3 Methodology
This research was carried out in 2005 on a sample of 60 manufacturing SMEs from
Carnia, the mountain area around Udine, Italy. The research was part of a project on
entrepreneurial development commissioned by the local agency for economic
development. For the selection of the sample we first identified the 698
manufacturing SMEs in the local Chamber of Commerce database with a number
123
The impact of knowledge management
2
The use of perceived measures also for financial performance is due to the limited reliability of the
financial reports of SMEs.
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
123
The impact of knowledge management
items and those with factor loading values lower than 0.45 were eliminated.3 The
eliminated items have been struck through in the Appendix.
3
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) cite .32 as a good rule of thumb for the minimum loading of an item.
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
and Shook 1996). The validity of obtained results was tested by checking whether
the means of the variables—both individually (ANOVA) and collectively
(MANOVA)—used for the clustering was significantly different between groups.
Moreover, a similar test was performed on variables potentially relevant to describe
the groups but not employed in the cluster procedure.
To investigate the existence of a coherent link between knowledge management
and strategy configurations and thus to test hypothesis 1, the independence among
the different groups identified at the level of knowledge management and those
identified at the level of strategy was tested. In view of the fact that all the variables
above are nominal, their independence was verified by computing a Chi-Square Test
(v2). Given that the Chi-Square Test requires a large number of samples,
contingency coefficients and Cramer’s Pi and V were also computed to further
confirm independence. The following directional measures were also calculated: k
and the uncertainty coefficient. Finally, to test whether the firms showing a
coherence between knowledge management and strategy obtain better organiza-
tional and innovation performance than others, and thus to test to the second and
third hypotheses, we tested whether the mean in such measures is significantly
different in the various categories obtained matching the groups within the
knowledge management and strategy configurations.
4 Results
The cluster analysis led us to identify 2 groups both in the strategy and knowledge
management perspectives (Tables 12 and 14). The 2 ? 2 groups show significantly
different means in many of the considered variables (Tables 1 and 2), as well as
overall (Tables 13 and 14), thus supporting the validity of obtained results.
The small- to- medium-size of the firms in our sample limits the competitive
scope so that of the three generic strategies identified by Porter (1985), only the
focus strategy seems feasible (Lee et al. 1999). In fact, the two strategy groups do
not show significant differences in their strategic policies outside-in, with the
exception of the higher relevance assumed by differentiated customer care in Group
1. Nevertheless, in relative terms and with the limits due to the characteristics of our
sample, the firms in Groups 1 and 2 can be respectively associated with the
integrative strategic typologies previously labelled prospectors and defenders.
The firms in Group 1 in fact show a strategic focus with a higher emphasis on
improvement (continuous and especially radical, on process and especially on
products). Coherently, they show a more risk-prone attitude and a longer-term
orientation. They also show a greater degree of attention to social and environmental
sustainability. Accordingly the firms in Group 1, compared to firms in Group 2, are
more oriented towards external communication and collaboration, which are vital in
order to propose new products to customers and to develop them despite the limited
resources typical of SMEs (Freel 2000). They also show a stronger orientation towards
internal communication and collaboration, which are crucial to support the integration
123
The impact of knowledge management
A. Strategic focus
1 Focus on the continuous improvement of products*** 4.4 3.7 8.608 0.005
2 Focus on the continuous improvement of processes**** 4.3 3.6 14.815 0.000
3 Focus on radical changes in the products**** 3.6 1.5 59.033 0.000
4 Focus on radical changes in the processes**** 3.3 1.6 36.271 0.000
5 Risk-propensity**** 3.5 2.4 17.104 0.000
6 Focus on adopting a long-term orientation*** 4.2 3.4 11.151 0.001
7 Focus on collaboration*** 3.9 3.1 9.617 0.003
8 Focus on communication*** 4.1 3.4 9.164 0.004
9 Focus on business reputation 4.3 4.3 0.066 0.798
10 Focus on social sustainability*** 3.9 3.0 8.168 0.006
11 Focus on environmental sustainability*** 4.0 3.1 10.178 0.002
B. Strategic policies inside-out
1 Relevance of financial resources 3.0 2.6 1.815 0.183
2 Relevance of technological resources*** 3.8 2.9 10.469 0.002
3 Relevance of human resources 3.3 2.8 2.424 0.125
4 Relevance of organizational resources** 3.2 2.6 5.300 0.025
5 Relevance of relational resources 4.3 4.0 1.305 0.258
C. Strategic policiesoutside-in
1 Relevance of cost leadership 2.9 2.9 0.040 0.842
2 Relevance of technical differentiation 4.3 4.0 1.249 0.268
3 Relevance of aesthetic differentiation 3.5 3.6 0.142 0.708
4 Relevance of logistical differentiation 3.9 4.1 0.538 0.466
5 Relevance of customer-care differentiation* 4.2 3.6 3.386 0.071
D. Strategic internal structure
1 Age of the Firm 1.9 2.1 1.340 0.252
2 Role of family owners in corporate governance 2.0 2.4 0.595 0.443
3 Dimension 1.5 1.4 0.236 0.629
4 Geographic extension 1.7 1.5 0.511 0.478
5 Breadth of delegation*** 2.5 1.8 8.888 0.004
E. Strategic external structure
1 Customers’ bargaining power 2.3 2.7 1.306 0.258
2 Suppliers’ bargaining power 2.2 2.4 0.219 0.641
3 Competitive intensity 3.6 3.2 1.703 0.197
4 Increase in competitive intensity during the last 3 years 4.1 3.9 1.016 0.318
5 Industry maturity** 2.7 3.3 5.592 0.021
F. Strategic activities
1 Inbound logistics 2.9 3.0 0.043 0.836
2 Transformation 4.2 4.1 0.045 0.833
3 Outbound logistics 3.5 3.3 0.418 0.520
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 1 continued
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 2 The average responses for the two knowledge management groups
Group (firms) A(34) B ANOVA
(26)
Variables Statistical results l l F Sig.
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 2 continued
Group 1 firms in our study obtain significantly better organizational and innovation
performance.
The small- to- medium-size of the firms in our sample also limits the presence of
differentiated organizational cultures and subcultures and thus the possibility of
pursuing both new knowledge creation (exploration) and existing knowledge
leverage (exploitation) (Levinthal and March 1993). In fact, the two groups do not
show significant differences as regards their internal structures, with the limited
exception of higher skills credited to the employees of the firms in Group B.
Nevertheless, in relative terms and with the limits due to the characteristics of our
sample, the firms in Groups A and B can be respectively associated with the
integrative knowledge management approach typologies previously labelled
conservative and aggressive.
The knowledge focus of firms in Group B in fact shows a higher motivation
toward new knowledge creation independently of its aims (Russ et al. 2006). At the
same time, however, they put higher emphasis than firms in Group A on all the
123
The impact of knowledge management
primary and secondary activities in the knowledge chain whether the aim is to create
new knowledge (acquisition and generation) or to utilize existing knowledge
(selection and assimilation). The similar relevance attributed by firms in Group B to
acquisition and generation activities suggests that a similar relevance is attributed to
external environment and internal organization as knowledge sources. The
analogous relevance accredited to knowledge emission finally suggests how the
firms in Group B attribute strategic relevance to knowledge, and their openness to
external sources, especially suppliers and customers (Tapscott and Ticoll 2003),
which are graded as relevant also as targets of knowledge emission. The firms in
Group B, moreover, also attribute higher relevance than the firms in Group A to
research actors both for knowledge acquisition and emission. Coherently, they show
a higher, though still modest, frequency of relationship with such centres. They also
assign greater relevance to competitors as a source of knowledge, but without a
higher frequency of relationship. This may be related to a stronger need for
benchmarking, also coherent with the higher relevance attributed to the measure-
ment activity. The reliance on internal knowledge sources of the firms in Group B
can also be noted considering the higher relevance attributed to entrepreneurs and
employees for knowledge management, starting from employees with ICT
competencies, also showing greater reliance on knowledge codification. Coherently,
the firms in Group B attribute greater relevance than firms in Group A to policies for
knowledge need identification and for knowledge training and learning.
Analyzing New Zealand firms, Darroch (2005) found that effective management
of knowledge has a positive impact on innovation performance but not on
organizationalperformance. Analyzing U.S. manufacturing SMEs, Bierly and Daly
(2007) found a linear and positive impact on organizational performance (increase
in profits, increase in sales, etc.) of a knowledge management approach oriented
toward exploration, but a concave impact (first positive and then negative) of a
knowledge management approach oriented toward exploitation. Additionally, they
found that in stable and high-tech environments a knowledge management approach
oriented toward exploitation has a stronger impact on organizational performance.
At least partially coherently with these results, the firms in Group B show better
performance on innovation processes but not significantly higher organizational
performance.
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 3 Knowledge
Knowledge management groups Total
management and strategy
groups: contingency table Group A Group B
Strategy groups
Group 1 9 (17.6) 22 (13.4) 31
Group 2 25 (16.4) 4 (12.6) 29
Total 34 26 60
Expected frequency in brackets
Lambda
Symmetric 0.527 0.130 3.492 0.000
Var1 dependent 0.552 0.135 2.934 0.003
Var2 dependent 0.500 0.151 2.449 0.014
Uncertainty coefficient
Symmetric 0.260 0.100 2.598 0.000
Var1 dependent 0.259 0.099 2.598 0.000
Var2 dependent 0.262 0.100 2.598 0.000
knowledge management approach while firms with a defender strategy most likely
adopt a conservative knowledge management approach.
Previous studies have not found the existence of a strong coherent link between
knowledge management and strategy. Zack (2005, p. 2) claims that: ‘‘… one area
still seriously lacking is the ability to link knowledge management to strategy and
competitive advantage’’. One possible explanation for our results could be the fact
that the coherence between knowledge management and strategy seems to vary
among firms according to the degree of alignment between the personnel
responsible for knowledge management and those responsible for strategy (Zack
2002), and in SMEs the alignment is maximum since their tendency is to have only
one key strategic decision maker: the owner-manager (Feltham et al. 2005).
123
The impact of knowledge management
Organizational performance
1 Profits increase in the last 3 years* 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.8 2.280 0.085
2 Sales increase in the last 3 years* 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.691 0.056
3 Number of employees increase in the last 3 years 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.025 0.125
Innovation performance
1 Ability to introduce innovations in the last 3 years*** 2.0 2.5 1.8 1.8 6.405 0.002
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
5 Conclusions
123
The impact of knowledge management
Appendix
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 6 continued
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 7 continued
5.6 The institutional skills required from employees is … (factor loading = 0.780)
6 The relevance of policies to identify knowledge needs is …
7 The relevance of training and learning policies is …
8 The relevance of job-rotation policies is …
9 The relevance of innovation-based employee incentive policies is …
10 The relevance of policies to create an environment of trust and collaboration is …
I. KM policies outside-in- from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)
1 The relevance of research actors for knowledge acquisition is … the construct was measured using 3
items (Cronbach = 0.82):
1.1 The relevance of research centres for knowledge acquisition is … (factor loading = 0.906)
1.2 The relevance of universities for knowledge acquisition is … (factor loading = 0.861)
1.3 The rel. of technology transfer centres for knowledge acquisition is … (factor loading = 0.795)
2 The relevance of firm associations for knowledge acquisition is … the construct was measured using
2 items (Cronbach a = 0.76):
2.1 The relevance of trade unions for knowledge acquisition is … (factor loading = 0.898)
2.2 The relevance of chambers of commerce for knowledge acquisition is … (factor
loading = 0.898)
3 The relevance of competitors for knowledge acquisition is …
4 The relevance of suppliers for knowledge acquisition is …
5 The relevance of customers for knowledge acquisition is …
6 The relevance of research actors for knowledge emission is …
7 The relevance of firm associations for knowledge emission is … the construct was measured using 2
items (Cronbach = 0.82):
7.1 The relevance of trade unions for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.920)
7.2 The relevance of chambers of commerce for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.920)
8 The relevance of competitors for knowledge emission is …
9 The relevance of suppliers for knowledge emission is … the construct was measured using 2 items
(Cronbach = 0.77):
9.1 The relevance of raw materials suppliers for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.902)
9.2 The relevance of equipment suppliers for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.902)
10 The relevance of customers for knowledge emission is …
L. KM internal structure—from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)
1 The average age of employees is …
2 The level of education of employees is …
3 The level of skills of employees is … the construct was measured using 6 items (Cronbach = 0.73):
3.1 The experience of employees is … (factor loading = 0.332)
3.2 The analytical ability of employees is … (factor loading = 0.795)
3.3 The synthetical ability of employees is … (factor loading = 0.774)
3.4 The experimental skills of employees is … (factor loading = 0.761)
3.5 The interaction skills of employees is … (factor loading = 0.762)
3.6 The structural and institutional skills of employees is … (factor loading = 0.496)
4 The attitude of employees is … the construct was measured using 8 items (Cronbach = 0.88):
4.1 The level of ‘‘feeling’’ among employees is … (factor loading = 0.740)
4.2 The level of mutual trust is … (factor loading = 0.696)
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 7 continued
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 7 continued
2.2 The relevance of generic action to advise organizational members on existing knowledge for
knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.535)
2.3 The relevance specific action to advise organizational members on existing knowledge for
knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.210)
2.4 The relevance of formal events for knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.720)
2.5 The relevance of internal tutoring for knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.564)
2.6 The relevance of internal training for knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.656)
2.7 The relevance of team creation for knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.647)
2.8 The relevance of collaboration learning for knowledge selection is … (factor loading = 0.655)
2.9 The relevance of direct access to databases in paper format for knowledge selection is … (factor
loading = 0.826)
2.10 The relevance of direct access to databases in electronic format for knowledge selection is …
(factor loading = 0.808)
3 The relevance of knowledge generation activity is … the construct was measured using 9 items
(Cronbach = 0.73)
3.1 The relevance of individual knowledge re-elaboration by direct observation is… (factor
loading = 0.386)
3.2 The relevance of individual knowledge re-elaboration by studying documentation is… (factor
loading = 0.432)
3.3 The relevance of face-to-face meeting for knowledge generation is … (factor loading = 0.606)
3.4 The relevance of electronic forums for knowledge generation is … (factor loading = 0.452)
3.5 The relevance of team-creation for knowledge generation is … (factor loading = 0.767)
3.6 The relevance of collective knowledge re-elaboration for knowledge improvement is … (factor
loading = 0.676)
3.7 The relevance of collective knowledge re-elaboration for knowledge transfer is … (factor
loading = 0.588)
3.8 The relevance of collective knowledge re-elaboration in a virtual environment for knowledge
generation is … (factor loading = 0.661)
3.9 The relevance of controlled experiments for knowledge generation is..(factor loading = 0.565)
4 The relevance of knowledge assimilation activity is—the construct was measured using 10 items
(Cronbach = 0.8):
4.1 The relevance of generic formalization for knowledge assimilation is … (factor
loading = 0.732)
4.2 The relevance of internal training for knowledge assimilation is … (factor loading = 0.712)
4.3 The relevance of internal tutoring for knowledge assimilation is … (factor loading = 0.523)
4.4 The relevance of collaborative learning for knowledge assimilation is … (factor
loading = 0.514)
4.5 The relevance of sporadic best-practice standardization for knowledge assimilation is… (factor
loading = 0.016)
4.6 The relevance of systematic best-practice standardization on databases in paper format for
knowledge assimilation is … (factor loading = 0.715)
4.7 The relevance of systematic best-practice standardization on locally-accessible databases in
electronic format for knowledge assimilation is … (factor loading = 0.414)
4.8 The relevance of systematic best-practice standardization on globally-accessible databases in
electronic format for knowledge assimilation is … (factor loading = 0.816)
4.9 The relevance of balance sheet of human resource competencies for knowledge assimilation is
… (factor loading = 0.548)
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 7 continued
4.10 The relevance of knowledge yellow pages for knowledge assimilation is … (factor
loading = 0.813)
5 The relevance of knowledge emission activity is … the construct was measured using 9 items
(Cronbach = 0.72):
5.1 The relevance of product handbooks and maintenance manuals for knowledge emission is …
(factor loading = 0.748)
5.2 The relevance of technical reports for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.768)
5.3 The relevance of catalogues/company magazine for knowledge emission is … (factor
loading = 0.550)
5.4 The relevance of databases in paper format for knowledge emission is … (factor
loading = 0.723)
5.5 The relevance of databases in electronic format for knowledge emission is … (factor
loading = 0.753)
5.6 The relevance of sampling for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.352)
5.7 The relevance of customer consulting and assistance for knowledge emission is … (factor
loading = 0.575)
5.8 The relevance of conferences and talks for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.222)
5.9 The relevance of training events for knowledge emission is … (factor loading = 0.214)
6 The relevance of coordination activity is …
7 The relevance of control activity is … the construct was measured using 7 items (Cronbach = 0.77):
7.1 The relevance of financial results analysis is … (factor loading = 0.699)
7.6 The relevance of employees’ competencies analysis is … (factor loading = 0.490)
7.2 The relevance of organizational climate analysis is … (factor loading = 0.636)
7.4 The relevance of organizational asset analysis is … (factor loading = 0.787)
7.3 The relevance of R&D department analysis is … (factor loading = 0.731)
7.5 The relevance of supply chain analysis is … (factor loading = 0.473)
7.7 The relevance of sales network analysis is … (factor loading = 0.727)
8 The relevance of leadership activity is … the construct was measured using 3 items
(Cronbach = 0.69):):
8.1 The relevance of technology scenario-analysis is … (factor loading = 0.0461)
8.2 The relevance of accessing patents databases is … (factor loading = 0.904)
8.3 The relevance of accessing technological licences is … (factor loading = 0.924)
9 The relevance of measurement activity is - the construct was measured using 3 items
(Cronbach = 0.71):
9.1 The relevance of comparison with competitors is … (factor loading = 0.810)
9.2 The relevance of comparison with leading firms in other industries is … (factor
loading = 0.792)
9.3 The relevance of comparison with leading people in cultural, social and political field is …
(factor loading = 0.779)
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
A. Strategic focus
1 Focus on the continuous improvement of products 4.07 5.00 1.02
2 Focus on the continuous improvement of processes 3.97 4.00 0.82
3 Focus on radical changes in the products 2.57 1.00 1.49
4 Focus on radical changes in the processes 2.45 1.00 1.36
5 Risk-propensity 2.98 4.00 1.11
6 Focus on adopting a long-term orientation 3.80 4.00 1.02
7 Focus on collaboration 3.53 3.00 1.11
8 Focus on communication 3.78 3.00 0.88
9 Focus on business reputation 4.30 4.00 0.70
10 Focus on social sustainability 3.47 4.00 1.20
11 Focus on environmental sustainability 3.58 4.00 1.21
B. Strategic policies inside-out
1 Relevance of financial resources 2.78 2.00 1.17
2 Relevance of technological resources 3.37 3.00 1.08
3 Relevance of human resources 3.08 3.00 1.25
4 Relevance of organizational resources 2.88 3.00 1.02
5 Relevance of relational resources 4.13 5.00 0.97
C. Strategic policies outside-in
1 Relevance of cost leadership 2.90 3.00 1.41
2 Relevance of technical differentiation 4.18 4.00 1.00
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 9 continued
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Table 10 continued
11 Focus on new knowledge to increase the number of partnerships aiming to develop 3.53 3.00 1.12
new products, processes, and materials
H. Knowledge management policies inside-out
1 Relevance of entrepreneur for knowledge management 4.05 5.00 0.87
2 Relevance of employees with strong experience for know. management 2.66 4.00 1.15
3 Relevance of employees with external relationships for know. management 2.27 2.00 1.14
4 Relevance of employees with ICT competencies for know. management 2.24 1.00 1.21
5 Level of ability required from employees 3.67 3.00 0.95
6 Relevance of policies to identify knowledge needs 3.23 3.00 1.17
7 Relevance of training and learning policies 3.10 3.00 1.46
8 Relevance of job-rotation policies 2.50 3.00 0.87
9 Relevance of innovation-based employees incentive policies 2.93 3.00 1.56
10 Relevance of policies to create an environment of trust & collaboration 4.93 5.00 0.37
I. Knowledge management policies outside-in
1 Relevance of research actors for knowledge acquisition 3.07 3.00 1.10
2 Relevance of firm associations for knowledge acquisition 2.95 3.00 1.08
3 Relevance of competitors for knowledge acquisition 3.25 3.00 1.09
4 Relevance of suppliers for knowledge acquisition 3.77 4.00 0.79
5 Relevance of customers for knowledge acquisition 4.03 4.00 0.88
6 Relevance of research actors for knowledge emission 1.98 1.00 1.27
7 Relevance of firm associations for knowledge emission 2.25 1.00 1.11
8 Relevance of competitors for knowledge emission 1.91 1.00 1.13
9 Relevance of suppliers for knowledge emission 2.97 3.00 1.25
10 Relevance of customers for knowledge emission 4.31 5.00 0.93
L. Knowledge management internal structure
1 Average age of employees 3.39 3.00 1.00
2 Level of education of employees 3.22 3.00 0.90
3 Level of skills of employees 2.86 3.00 0.70
4 Attitude of employees 3.00 3.00 0.81
5 Level of attention of employees 2.89 3.00 0.85
M. Knowledge management external structure
1 Frequency of knowledge-based relationships with research actors 1.53 1.00 0.85
2 Frequency of knowledge-based relationships with firm associations 2.47 2.00 0.95
3 Frequency of knowledge-based relationships with competitors 2.29 2.00 0.91
4 Frequency of knowledge-based relationships with suppliers 3.80 4.00 0.90
5 Frequency of knowledge-based relationships with customers 4.03 5.00 1.02
N. Knowledge management activities
1 Relevance of knowledge acquisition activity 2.35 2.00 0.78
2 Relevance of knowledge selection activity 2.32 2.00 0.81
3 Relevance of knowledge generation activity 2.27 2.00 0.80
4 Relevance of knowledge assimilation activity 2.40 2.00 0.91
5 Relevance of knowledge emission activity 2.38 2.00 0.99
6 Relevance of coordination activity 2.51 1.00 1.25
123
The impact of knowledge management
Table 10 continued
O. Organizational performance
1 Profits increase in the last 3 years 2.19 2.00 0.75
2 Sales increase in the last 3 years 2.32 3.00 0.71
3 Number of employees increase in the last 3 years 2.16 2.00 0.67
P. Innovation performance
1 Ability to introduce innovations in the last 3 years 2.05 2.00 0.68
Agglomeration Schedule
Stage Cluster First
Cluster Combined Appears
Stage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Coefficients Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Next Stage
1 27 49 15,000 0 0 2
2 27 40 35,333 1 0 8
3 35 59 55,833 0 0 10
4 44 50 76,833 0 0 24
5 1 10 97,833 0 0 17
6 3 14 119,333 0 0 11
7 34 56 141,833 0 0 20
8 27 31 165,000 2 0 23
9 13 20 190,000 0 0 30
10 24 35 215,500 0 3 14
11 3 57 241,333 6 0 29
12 9 38 267,333 0 0 26
13 19 43 294,333 0 0 25
14 24 26 323,083 10 0 27
15 11 39 352,083 0 0 26
16 37 60 381,583 0 0 37
17 1 45 411,917 5 0 32
18 5 21 442,417 0 0 23
19 30 58 474,417 0 0 42
20 34 48 507,250 7 0 40
21 41 51 540,250 0 0 31
22 12 32 574,750 0 0 38
23 5 27 609,250 18 8 38
24 44 46 648,917 4 0 34
25 19 25 689,250 13 0 39
26 9 11 730,750 12 15 34
27 24 36 774,000 14 0 33
28 17 29 817,500 0 0 31
29 3 16 862,167 11 0 35
30 13 23 913,833 9 0 36
31 17 41 966,083 28 21 37
32 1 28 1018,750 17 0 35
33 24 54 1074,417 27 0 43
34 9 44 1130,107 26 24 42
35 1 3 1192,357 32 29 43
36 13 52 1257,440 30 0 44
37 17 37 1324,857 31 16 40
38 5 12 1393,857 23 22 41
39 18 19 1467,524 0 25 41
40 17 34 1550,968 37 20 45
41 5 18 1638,468 38 39 44
42 9 30 1728,944 34 19 45
43 1 24 1828,885 35 33 46
44 5 13 1933,822 41 36 46
45 9 17 2079,489 42 40 47
46 1 5 2258,144 43 44 47
47 1 9 2477,813 46 45 0
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Intercept
Pillai’s trace 1.000 389.882 40.000 7.000 .000 1.000
Wilks’ lambda .000 389.882 40.000 7.000 .000 1.000
Hotelling’s trace 2,227.898 389.882 40.000 7.000 .000 1.000
Roy’s largest root 2,227.898 389.882 40.000 7.000 .000 1.000
QCL_1
Pillai’s trace .950 3.323 40.000 7.000 .051 .950
Wilks’ lambda .050 3.323 40.000 7.000 .051 .950
Hotelling’s trace 18.986 3.323 40.000 7.000 .051 .950
Roy’s largest root 18.986 3.323 40.000 7.000 .051 .950
Table 14 The agglomeration schedule and the dendrogram for knowledge management
Agglomeration Schedule
Stage Cluster First
Cluster Combined Appears
Stage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Coefficients Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Next Stage
1 38 50 16,000 0 0 9
2 42 59 33,500 0 0 18
3 5 6 52,000 0 0 14
4 24 56 74,500 0 0 11
5 8 10 99,000 0 0 15
6 19 30 124,000 0 0 16
7 1 31 149,500 0 0 13
8 27 44 176,000 0 0 25
9 11 38 204,000 0 1 17
10 26 35 232,500 0 0 25
11 13 24 261,333 0 4 20
12 29 57 290,333 0 0 32
13 1 34 319,500 7 0 26
14 5 49 349,667 3 0 22
15 8 20 379,833 5 0 37
16 19 41 410,833 6 0 20
17 4 11 443,083 0 9 24
18 42 58 478,250 2 0 24
19 23 43 514,250 0 0 36
20 13 19 550,750 11 16 21
21 13 39 588,345 20 0 28
22 5 46 627,179 14 0 35
23 3 33 666,179 0 0 26
24 4 42 705,548 17 18 39
25 26 27 747,048 10 8 35
26 1 3 790,581 13 23 37
27 9 60 834,581 0 0 39
28 13 48 880,152 21 0 32
29 14 36 926,652 0 0 33
30 16 54 974,152 0 0 34
31 21 45 1021,652 0 0 38
32 13 29 1073,452 28 12 40
33 14 25 1126,286 29 0 38
34 16 52 1181,452 30 0 40
35 5 26 1239,452 22 25 42
36 23 32 1298,786 19 0 42
37 1 8 1359,544 26 15 41
38 14 21 1431,911 33 31 41
39 4 9 1510,514 24 27 43
40 13 16 1589,432 32 34 45
41 1 14 1685,299 37 38 44
42 5 23 1785,784 35 36 43
43 4 5 1905,027 39 42 44
44 1 4 2041,748 41 43 45
45 1 13 2365,804 44 40 0
123
The impact of knowledge management
Intercept
Pillai’s trace .999 44.038 44.000 1.000 .119 .999
Wilks’ lambda .001 44.038 44.000 1.000 .119 .999
Hotelling’s trace 1937.672 44.038 44.000 1.000 .119 .999
Roy’s largest root 1937.672 44.038 44.000 1.000 .119 .999
QCL_1
Pillai’s trace .995 4.132 44.000 1.000 .375 .995
Wilks’ lambda .005 4.132 44.000 1.000 .375 .995
Hotelling’s trace 181.821 4.132 44.000 1.000 .375 .995
Roy’s largest root 181.821 4.132 44.000 1.000 .375 .995
References
Aragón-Sánchez, A., & Sánchez-Marı́n, G. (2005). Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and
performance: A study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 287–308.
Bierly, P. E., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 123–135.
Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and
organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurships Theory & Practice,
31(4), 493–516.
Bohn, R. (1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 36(3),
61–73.
Carson, D. J. (1985). The evolution of marketing in small firms. European Journal of Marketing, 19(5),
7–16.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM and their effect on corporate performance.
Information & Management, 40(5), 403–417.
Chuang, S. (2004). A resource-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive
advantage: An empirical investigation. Expert Systems with Applications, 27(3), 459–465.
Coda, V. (1988). L’orientamento strategico dell’impresa. Torino: Utet.
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(3), 101–115.
De Long, D. (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: how culture drives knowledge
behaviors. Working paper, Ernst and Young’s Center for business innovation, Boston.
De Pablos, P. O. (2002). Knowledge management and organizational learning: Typologies of knowledge
strategies in the Spanish manufacturing industry from 1995 to 1999. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 6(1), 52–62.
Dess, G. G., Newport, S., & Rasheed, A. (1993). Configuration research in strategic management: Key
issues and suggestions. Journal of Management, 19(4), 775–795.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514–539.
Dvir, D., Segev, E., & Shenhar, A. (1993). Technology’s varying impact on the success of strategic
business units within the miles and snow typology. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 155–161.
Feltham, T. S., Feltham, G., & Barnett, J. J. (2005). The dependence of family businesses on a single
decision-maker. Journal of Small Business Management, 43, 1–15.
Freel, M. S. (2000). Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing SMEs: The case of an English
region. Small Business Economics, 15(1), 27–45.
Freel, M. S. (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research
Policy, 32(5), 751–770.
123
C. Bagnoli, M. Vedovato
Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between management practices and
innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402–409.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Edgars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
Grant, R. B. (2005). Contemporary strategy analysis. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Halawi, L. A., McCarthy, R. V., & Aronson, J. E. (2006). Knowledge management and the competitive
strategy of the firm. The Learning Organization, 13(4), 384–397.
Hambrick, D. C. (1983). Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of miles and snow’s
strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 5–26.
Hambrick, D. C. (2003). On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors. Academy of
Management Executive, 17(4), 115–118.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2004). Exploring primary activities of the knowledge chain. Knowledge
and Process Management, 11(3), 155–174.
Holsapple, C., & Jones, K. (2005). Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge chain. Knowledge
and Process Management, 12(1), 3–31.
Kalling, T. (2003). Knowledge management and the occasional links with performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7(3), 67–81.
Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management
research: an analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 441–458.
Langfield-Smith, K. (1997). Management control systems and strategy: A critical review. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 22(2), 207–232.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 20(1), 179–228.
Lee, K. S., Lim, G. H., & Tan, S. J. (1999). Dealing with resource disadvantage: Generic strategies for
SMEs. Small Business Economics, 12(4), 299–311.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14,
95–112.
Liu, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2004). An empirical study on the correlation between knowledge
management capability and competitiveness in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation, 24(12), 971–977.
Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research:
Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision process. Journal of Management, 26(5),
1055–1085.
Maclaran, P., & McGowan, P. (1999). Managing service quality for competitive advantage in small
engineering firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(2), 35–47.
McDaniel, S. W., & Kolari, J. W. (1987). Marketing strategy implications of the miles and snow strategic
typology. The Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 19–30.
McKeen, J. D., Zack, M. H., \& Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge management and organizational
performance: An exploratory survey. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii international conference on
system sciences (pp. 1–9), Kauai, HI, USA.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational
Dynamics, 13(1), 36–52.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and
process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.
Miller, D. (1981). Toward a new contingency approach: The search for organizational gestalts. Journal of
Management Studies, 18(1), 1–26.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of
strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science,
30(10), 1161–1184.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Nath, D., & Sudharshan, D. (1994). Measuring strategy coherence through patterns of strategic choices.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 43–61.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
123
The impact of knowledge management
O’Donnell, A., Gilmore, A., Carson, D., & Cummins, D. (2002). Competitive advantage in small to
medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 10(3), 205–223.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of
internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154–174.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, London: Free Press.
Russ, M., Jones, J. K., & Fineman, R. (2006). Toward a taxonomy of knowledge-based strategies: early
findings. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 2(1/2), 1–40.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1993). Product-market strategy and performance: An analysis of the Miles
and Snow strategy types. European Journal of Marketing, 27(10), 33–51.
Smith, A. D. (2004). Knowledge management strategies: A multi-case study. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8(3), 6–16.
Smith, H., \& McKeen, J. (2003). Knowledge management in organizations: The state of current practice.
In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management. New York: Springer.
Smith, K. G., Guthrie, J. P., & Chen, M.-J. (1989). Strategy, size and performance. Organization studies,
10(1), 63–81.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. London: Doubleday.
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swan, J., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2000). Limits of IT-driven knowledge management for interactive
innovation processes: Towards a community-based approach. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii
international conference on system sciences (pp. 1013–1024). IEEE Computer Society, Washington
DC, USA.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolutionize
business. New York: Free Press.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business
Review, 71(1), 84–93.
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Aben, M. (2001). Making the most of your company’s knowledge: A
strategic framework. Long Range Planning, 34, 421–439.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the
performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13),
1307–1314.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145.
Zack, M. H. (2002). Developing a knowledge strategy: Epilogue. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The
strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge: A collection of readings
(pp. 277–295). UK: Oxford University Press.
Zack, M. H. (2005). The strategic advantage of knowledge and learning. International Journal of
Learning and Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 1–20.
Zhu, Y., Wang, Y.-F., & Lan, H.-l. (2006). Empirical study on interaction among knowledge management
strategy, core competence and organizational performance. In International conference on
management science and engineering, 2006 (pp. 1269–1273). Lille: ICMSE.
Author Biographies
Carlo Bagnoli is Associate Professor in Business Administration at the University Ca’ Foscari Venice.
His main research interests are focused in the area of strategic management and financial accounting, with
a closer look to business model reconfiguration and communication. He authored and co-authored several
books and articles on these topics.
Marco Vedovato is Assistant Professor in Business Administration at the University Ca’ Foscari Venice.
His research focuses on the role of performance measures, management controls and visual
representations in shaping business strategy and promoting (or preventing) innovation. His interests
include Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management, Innovation Management, Creativity Manage-
ment, Small Firms Management, Private Equity. He has served as director of the Master in Strategic
Innovation and particularly enjoys his engagement with practitioners.
123