See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261358209

Knowledge Management in Supply Chains: The Role of Explicit and Tacit

Knowledge

Article  in  Journal of Business Logistics · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

8 1,103

1 author:

Tobias Schoenherr
Michigan State University
97 PUBLICATIONS   5,137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

e-commerce busines models View project

Sustainable Supply Chain Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tobias Schoenherr on 04 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Knowledge Management in Supply Chains: The Role of Explicit and Tacit Knowledge

Tobias Schoenherr*
Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management
Department of Supply Chain Management, Broad College of Business
Michigan State University, North Business College Complex
632 Bogue St., Room N370, East Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: 517-432-6437, Fax: 517-432-1112, e-mail: schoenherr@broad.msu.edu

David A. Griffith
Department Chair and Professor of Marketing
Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics
Rauch Business Center, 365, Lehigh University
621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015-3117
Phone: 610-758-6530, Fax: 610-758-6941, e-mail: david.a.griffith@lehigh.edu

Aruna Chandra
Professor of Management
Scott College of Business, 312 Federal Hall Indiana State University
30 North 7th Street, Terre Haute, IN 47809
Phone: 812-237-2105, Fax: 812-237-8129, e-mail: Aruna.Chandrasekaran@indstate.edu

Accepted for publication in the Journal of Business Logistics

April 4, 2014

Citation:
Schoenherr, T., Griffith, D.A., and Chandra, A. “Knowledge Management in Supply Chains: The
Role of Explicit and Tacit Knowledge.” Journal of Business Logistics forthcoming.

*Corresponding author

1
 Knowledge Management in Supply Chains: The Role of Explicit and Tacit Knowledge

ABSTRACT
We theorize, building on the knowledge-based view and the theoretical distinction between
explicit and tacit knowledge, that knowledge management capability across the supply chain
manifests itself in explicit and tacit knowledge, which in turn effectuates supply chain
performance. The model is tested with survey data from 195 small- and medium-sized
enterprises reporting on their primary supply chain. The results indicate that the supply chain’s
knowledge management capability manifests itself in both explicit and tacit knowledge, with the
latter being influenced more strongly. Moreover, it was found that while both explicit and tacit
knowledge influence supply chain performance, the latter exerts a significantly greater impact
than the former. Exploratory post-hoc analyses add robustness to these findings and investigate
mechanisms inherent to the transformation of tacit into explicit knowledge. Overall, this research
contributes to academic theory development in logistics and supply chain management by the
dichotomization of knowledge types and the demonstration of their differential magnitude of
effects, and to managerial practice by providing important guidance for logistics managers
structuring their knowledge management efforts across supply chains.

Keywords: supply chain knowledge management; knowledge-based view; explicit and tacit
knowledge; supply chain performance

INTRODUCTION

In today’s competitive and dynamic marketplace firms need to leverage the strengths of their

supply chains to remain competitive (e.g., Kahn et al. 2006). This has led to the adage of supply

chains competing against supply chains. Within this setting, key aspects of competitiveness are

encapsulated within the knowledge of logistics and supply chain partners, making knowledge

management within the supply chain an important area of study (Craighead et al. 2009).

Knowledge management is crucial for managerial decision making in logistics and supply chain

management due to the fundamental nature of knowledge for problem solving and ensuing

strategy development (e.g., Kahn et al. 2006). Despite considerable research on the creation and

management of knowledge (e.g., Fugate et al. 2009; Anand et al. 2010), the field has been

described as still being in an embryonic stage (Linderman et al. 2010) within the domains of

logistics and supply chain management (Grawe et al. 2011). Within this context, supply chain

knowledge can be defined as the use of knowledge resources obtained from supply chain

members for economic gain (Craighead et al. 2009). It is the objective of the present research to

2
contribute to this emerging and increasingly important domain so as to advance academic theory

and provide substantive managerial guidance.

Specifically, employing the literature on knowledge generation (Alavi and Leidner 2001)

and the knowledge-based view (KBV) (Grant 1996), we contend that the presence of supply

chain knowledge management capability manifests itself in the two knowledge types of explicit

and tacit knowledge. Drawing from Gold et al. (2001), supply chain knowledge management

capability (SCKMC) is conceptualized as a comprehensive and integrative set of knowledge

management competencies consisting of knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion,

knowledge application and knowledge protection. We further theorize the impact of explicit and

tacit knowledge on supply chain performance, with tacit knowledge exerting a stronger influence

than explicit knowledge. Our contentions are tested with a sample of small- and medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs), a context which provides a unique opportunity to study knowledge

management dynamics (Durst and Edvardsson 2012). SCKMC may be especially valuable for

SMEs (Narula 2004), due to their often limited resources in developing specialized expertise in-

house (Lu and Beamish 2001).

While both explicit and tacit knowledge generated among supply chain members are

important, the distinction between knowledge types is critical as they may have varying effects

on key supply chain outcomes. Grawe et al. (2011) therefore encouraged researchers to examine

various knowledge types, and Anand et al. (2010) called for investigations into the “missed

opportunities that may result from ignoring tacit knowledge” (p. 304). Given the need for a

further understanding of knowledge in the supply chain, and particularly the types of explicit and

tacit knowledge, the present study works to provide a deeper understanding of these two types of

knowledge generated within a supply chain setting. As such, we contribute to logistics and

supply chain management research and practice in three specific ways.

Our first contribution lies in the investigation of how supply chain knowledge

management capability manifests itself in two types of knowledge, an area left uninvestigated in

3
extant research. While prior studies emphasize an evolutionary view of knowledge generation

(Alavi and Leidner 2001), past empirical research has seldom conceptualized this framework

consisting of knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge application and

knowledge protection, as forwarded by Gold et al. (2001); rather, literature provides a limited

perspective of this important aspect in logistics and supply chain management (Molina et al.

2007). By viewing SCKMC as a set of interconnected, operant resources (Smith et al. 2005), this

work responds to calls for such extensions of knowledge management as indicated by

Madhavaram and Hunt (2008). Furthermore, while other operationalizations of knowledge

management capability exist (Wong and Wong 2011), they seldom have been subject to

empirical testing, thereby not answering prior research calls (Freeze and Kulkarni 2007). By

capturing the knowledge management construct with such an encompassing conceptualization,

based on the seminal work of Gold et al. (2001), we are able to better understand how knowledge

management manifests itself in different types of knowledge. Further, this contribution moves us

from viewing knowledge on a continuum ranging from tacit to explicit (cf., Craighead et al.

2009), to a conceptualization that accounts for the simultaneous existence of both types of

knowledge.

Second, by conceptualizing explicit and tacit knowledge independently we are able to

theorize and test the differential effects of knowledge types on supply chain performance, and

contribute to extant research by the empirical investigation of these relationships via a large-

scale survey. Supply chain performance, which assesses the supply chain’s competitiveness,

business volume, profitability and competitive growth (Gunasekaran et al. 2004), was chosen

due to its theoretical and practical relevance in today’s supply chain environment (cf., Griffis et

al. 2007), and since it offers an integrative assessment of a supply chain’s competitiveness (e.g.,

Kahn et al. 2006). By theorizing and demonstrating the effects of knowledge types on supply

chain performance we specifically address a limitation of the literature identified by Craighead et

al. (2009, p. 405), who stated that “little is known about the performance enhancement offered

4
by supply chain knowledge.” The implications of our findings thus provide important guidance

for practitioners, optimizing various knowledge generation and management aspects of their

organizations, and illustrate the ensuing influences on supply chain performance.

Third, by conducting a series of exploratory post-hoc analyses we are able to scrutinize

our theoretical model to alternate configurations, adding further insight and robustness to this

work. Specifically, we investigate the differential influence of SCKMC on explicit and tacit

knowledge, with the results suggesting a stronger influence on the latter knowledge type. We

further assess the robustness of the SCKMC construct by considering the influence of its

individual dimensions on knowledge, rather than in its hypothesized aggregate form. The results

provide support for a dynamic capabilities view of SCKMC. In addition, we explore the

conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge, also considering the moderating roles of the

investigated knowledge management competencies.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Supply chain knowledge management capability

Unlike prior research, which focused on single knowledge management elements within an

individual organization (e.g., Cui et al. 2005), we consider knowledge management capability

across a specific set of supply chain partners, as perceived by the focal firm. It is our belief that

knowledge management, viewed at the level of a supply chain, can lead to an increased

understanding of knowledge as a competitive resource, as under this view a supplier is not only

relied upon to provide products and services, but is viewed as a key repository for knowledge

and the source of unique capabilities. This is in line with arguments in Cohen and Levinthal

(1990) who consider outside knowledge (i.e., from supply chain partners in our context) critical

to innovation, as well as the concept of knowledge-sharing networks (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000).

Drawing from cognitive psychology (Neisser 1967), we argue that this approach

facilitates the unique combination of stimuli emanating from individual supply chain members,

realizing synergies and benefits in the processing of the stimuli that would not have been

5
possible otherwise. In this view, each supply chain member can be regarded both as contributing

to the knowledge of the supply chain, and as scaffolding and elevating it to a potentially

unprecedented level of sophistication (cf., Brown and Duguid 2001). As such, supply chain

knowledge management capability can serve as a dynamic capability, contributing to a specific

supply chain’s “ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to

address rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al. 1997, p. 516). Within this context,

SCKMC can provide for a valuable dynamic capability facilitating managerial decision making

in turbulent environments. Such capability can be particularly valuable when knowledge is

obtained through weak ties in the firm’s supply network, which should make the knowledge less

redundant (Levin and Cross 2004). In these instances, SCKMC should be especially valuable due

to its ability to harness disparate external knowledge and transform it to be used internally. This

parallels the notion in cognitive psychology that new stimuli need to be processed into

knowledge via appropriate mechanisms. As such, SCKMC represents an organizational routine

able to generate organizational memory (Linderman et al. 2010) from external supply chain

partners, with explicit and tacit knowledge then representing the actionable manifestations of

SCKMC. In addition, following the approach in Smith et al. (2005), SCKMC can be classified as

interconnected, operant resources.

To conceptualize SCKMC we draw on the aspects of knowledge acquisition, knowledge

conversion, knowledge application and knowledge protection developed by Gold et al. (2001).

Knowledge acquisition refers to approaches aimed at knowledge accumulation (Lyles and Salk

1996), which is the basis for the enhancement of core capabilities (Leonard 1995). Knowledge

conversion considers the processing of the acquired knowledge into usable formats, which is

especially crucial in a supply chain relationship due to the disparate structure of knowledge

among supply chain members (Roy et al. 2004). Knowledge application refers to approaches

charged with the utilization of such supply chain knowledge to solve problems or develop

strategies, which requires the active sharing of knowledge between supply chain partners (Kogut

6
and Zander 1992). Knowledge protection concerns the approaches dealing with shielding the

obtained knowledge from outside dissemination (Norman 2004), an issue especially relevant in a

supply chain setting due to its multiple touchpoints. Together, these integrative aspects can be

referred to as a capability (Amit and Schoemaker 1993), and we therefore refer to it as supply

chain knowledge management capability.

Explicit and tacit knowledge

Research contends that knowledge can be present in the form of both explicit and tacit

knowledge (Polanyi 1966). Explicit knowledge is codified and can be easily communicated and

transferred (Nonaka 1994; Anand et al. 2010). Explicit knowledge can be in the form of manuals,

blueprints, procedures, policies, forecasts, inventory levels, production schedules, market

intelligence data, etc. In contrast, tacit knowledge is implicit, hard-to-conceptualize and

subjective, and is part of an individual’s experiences; it is evidenced in behavior or actions, and

is often highly ambiguous (Venkitachalam and Busch 2012). This type of knowledge has an

important cognitive dimension, and includes mental models, beliefs and perspectives. It develops

interactively over time through shared experience, and the inherent “know how” is reflected in

individual skills that result from learning by doing (Mooradian 2005). The philosopher Polanyi

(1966) described tacit knowledge as “knowing more than we can tell” or as “knowing how to do

something without thinking about it.”

The knowledge-based view

The KBV (Grant 1996) rests on the idea that firms should be analyzed based on their knowledge

resources. Drawing on the KBV’s foundation in the resource-based view, if knowledge is

valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable, it can be considered a resource capable of

establishing a competitive advantage (Grant 1996). A commonly applied theoretical framework

in logistics and supply chain management (Defee et al. 2010), this firm level view of resources

has been extended to include external actors, such as suppliers and buyers (Dyer 1996). We thus

7
contend that knowledge generated through the interaction of specific supply chain members has

the potential to improve the interface between parties via better integration, enabling more

efficient and effective supply chain processes. This perspective of knowledge as a resource for a

supply chain is consistent with extant supply chain literature (Defee et al. 2010). In fact, the

generation and exploitation of such knowledge has been considered by some to be a driver for

the pursuit of supply chain relationships themselves (Lanier et al. 2010). Especially when

knowledge is not merely copied (which may make it redundant), but when it is elevated to new

levels, can it serve as a valuable resource (Hamel 1991); SCKMC as a dynamic capability can

aid in this endeavor. The next section builds on these theoretical foundations to develop our

hypotheses, which are summarized in Figure 1.

----------- Insert Figure 1 about here -----------

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Supply chain knowledge management capability, and explicit and tacit knowledge

Based on the prior discourse and tenets inherent to the KBV, SCKMC may be described as a

valuable (the generation of explicit and tacit knowledge ensues from SCKMC), rare (the

structured and comprehensive approach is unique to each supply chain), in-imitable (a special

company climate may be needed to successfully implement the approach) and non-substitutable

(the distinctive result may not be able to be replicated by alternate mechanisms) resource. As

such, SCKMC’s four aspects can be viewed as a cohesive cognitive development in a sequence

of states (Ericsson and Hastie 1994). That is to say, SCKMC provides a mental model (Johnson-

Laird 1983; Gorman 2001) and structure, serving as a foundation for the generation of explicit

and tacit knowledge across a specified set of supply chain members. SCKMC thus serves as an

evolving capability, dynamically transforming external knowledge into a useable internal

resource (cf., Hamel 1991).

Past research showed that explicit knowledge has the potential to be generated when

available knowledge among members to understand each other’s requirements is exchanged

8
(Samuel et al. 2011), relationships and procedures are formalized, and existing knowledge

repositories are shared and reused (Voelpel et al. 2005). Within this context, SCKMC can

effectuate the effective accumulation, conversion and application of knowledge among supply

chain members, yielding easily-understood explicit knowledge. The structured approach may aid

especially in the formalization and documentation of knowledge among supply chain members,

which may possess unique, non-redundant intelligence for the benefit of the firm. Common

activities constituting SCKMC to generate such explicit knowledge include the conduct of

structured meetings, the definition of contract specifications, and the archiving of documents

(Dyer and Hatch 2004; Roy et al. 2004; Samuel et al. 2011). These initiatives have the potential

to capture, structure, codify and institutionalize knowledge across the supply chain, leading to

the generation of explicit knowledge (Lee and van den Steen 2010). Outcomes can consist of

joint forecasts, consolidated market data, and production schedules. As such, we expect SCKMC

to manifest itself in explicit knowledge.

The multitude of parties involved, as well as their respective unique knowledge

repositories, backgrounds and insights into the specific supply chain, also provide great potential

for tacit knowledge to be developed (Li and Tsai 2009). Tacit knowledge can be facilitated by

methods such as brainstorming and the nominal group technique (Anand et al. 2010), aspects

involved in knowledge acquisition and conversion of SCKMC, which seek to create an

environment in which negative psychology is avoided (all supply chain partners can voice their

ideas freely first, enabling higher levels of thinking) and positive synergies are generated (ideas

can be built on by other supply chain members). These methods are consistent with arguments by

Hamel (1991) and Badaracco (1991), who attribute tacit knowledge to social relations, and Zack

(1999), who refer to communities of practice (consistent with the SCKMC element of knowledge

application). As such, SCKMC may provide the structure necessary to tease out this type of

knowledge resident in supply chain members. Formally:

9
 H1: Supply chain knowledge management capability is positively associated
with explicit knowledge in a supply chain.
H2: Supply chain knowledge management capability is positively associated
with tacit knowledge in a supply chain.

The impact of explicit and tacit knowledge on supply chain performance

Explicit knowledge represents the knowledge within the supply chain that can be easily

articulated. The effective exchange and usage of this readily-available explicit knowledge in a

supply chain promises great potential for enhancing the efficiency of the supply chain, since

codified knowledge at one supply chain entity can be easily shared with another supply chain

member (Dyer and Hatch 2004), yielding performance improvements. As such, the collaborative

use of knowledge can improve the interface between supply chain members resulting in

enhanced supply chain integration and its associated benefits (Song and Swink 2009). For

example, the formal specification of the manners of acting and operating within a supply chain,

as well as the open sharing of knowledge (without much elaboration and loss of integrity (Dyer

and Hatch 2004)) resulting in enhanced visibility, allows for an increase in the overall

performance of the supply chain. Theoretical substantiation offers the KBV and the notion that

explicit knowledge can be a valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resource. This is

especially true when such knowledge is derived from a firm’s supply chain members, enabling

managers to develop competitiveness-enhancing strategies. We therefore contend that the ease of

communication and transfer of explicit knowledge among supply chain members is associated

with supply chain performance (reflected in H3a).

Tacit knowledge is not only difficult to transfer among members of the supply chain, but

may be unique to the specific supply chain and difficult for others to replicate (Grant 1996;

Dooley 2000), due to its propensity to develop in relational interactions (Kahn et al. 2006). Tacit

knowledge focuses on cognitive elements, or what Johnson-Laird (1983) calls “mental models,”

in which individuals construct analogies, schemata, paradigms, viewpoints, beliefs and

perspectives in their minds to make sense of available information in complex realities; in this

10
setting, new meanings can be created (Nonaka 1994). It is because of these aspects that Nonaka

and Takeuchi (1995) label tacit knowledge as the primary source for innovation, new product

development, and the conception of new business models. This proposed connection between

tacit knowledge and supply chain performance is further grounded in KBV’s notion of tacit

knowledge derived from supply chain members serving as a valuable, rare, inimitable and non-

substitutable resource. Parallels can be seen in Hall (1999) and Spekman et al. (2002), who

describe tacit knowledge as the resident fabric of the firm (or in this case a specific supply

chain). We therefore expect a positive association of tacit knowledge with supply chain

performance (reflected in H3b).

We further believe there to be differential effects of the knowledge types on supply chain

performance. Specifically, we suggest the association of tacit knowledge with supply chain

performance to be greater than the association of explicit knowledge with supply chain

performance (reflected in H3c), based on the following theoretical notions derived from the

KBV. While explicit knowledge is likely to benefit performance benchmarks, the codified nature

of this type of knowledge might allow competitive differentiation to only a limited degree (as

explicit knowledge might transfer to competitors easily, due to its codified state). While explicit

knowledge is valuable, one could argue that the inimitability property of explicit knowledge is

threatened due to the ease with which such knowledge can be transferred, and therefore

copied/imitated by competitors, and thus be made redundant. Consequently, while explicit

knowledge is certainly expected to be beneficial, what may be observed is that this type of

knowledge allows for a smaller enhancement of a supply chain’s performance. Support for this

argumentation is also found in Gorman (2001), who notes that explicit and documented

knowledge alone does not suffice for the complex task of technology transfer, a key element for

competitive advantage.

In contrast, since tacit knowledge is socially complex, usually requiring significant

organizational learning, the tacit knowledge-base developed can be expected to serve as a source

11
of sustainable competitive advantage, thus leading to enhanced supply chain performance

(assessed relative to the competition). It is tacit knowledge, which is difficult to imitate by

competitors, that yields competitive differentiation. Parallels can be seen in the work by Swink

(2006) on the development of collaborative innovation capability grounded in knowledge, and

the literature in new product development that stresses the importance of tacit knowledge (Goffin

and Koners 2011). Further, the differential impact of explicit and tacit knowledge on supply

chain performance comports well with the KBV’s view of resources being heterogeneous and

imperfectly mobile, decreasing their tendency to become redundant. Within this context it can be

argued that tacit knowledge is characterized by being more imperfectly mobile, thus offering a

more valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resource. These properties are enhanced by

knowledge’s generation from supply chain members, who may offer additional intelligence for

the firm’s enhanced competitive performance. Therefore, while a positive impact of both explicit

and tacit knowledge on supply chain performance is expected, we theorize that it is the hard-to-

conceptualize property of tacit knowledge that can generate greater supply chain performance.

This contention is due to the learning-by-doing component of tacit knowledge, which provides a

greater application foundation for supply chain performance as conceptualized in this study.

H3: Explicit (a) and tacit (b) knowledge in the supply chain are positively
associated with supply chain performance, with the impact of tacit
knowledge on supply chain performance being greater than the impact of
explicit knowledge on supply chain performance (c).

METHODOLOGY

Data collection and sample

The hypotheses were tested with data collected from importers operating in the manufacturing

industry. Importers were chosen due their coordinating role in supply chains, yielding

respondents that are familiar with both suppliers and customers. Respondents were asked to

report on a single specific supply chain relationship encompassing their primary supplier and the

corresponding key customer receiving outputs from the supplier relationship. As such, the unit of

12
analysis in our survey was the focal firm reporting on its primary supply chain. We restricted our

sample to firms with 50 employees or less so as to enhance key informant quality, as smaller

firms usually have a general manager responsible for a majority of the firm’s activities (key

informant quality was enhanced due to these general managers possessing intimate knowledge of

the firm’s primary linkages with critical suppliers and customers). Borrowing this approach from

the marketing literature (e.g., Lusch and Brown 1996), we suggest its value also for logistics and

supply chain management research in aiding in respondent expertise. At the same time, the

sampling approach enabled us to focus on a key but often neglected sector of the worldwide

economy, small- and medium-sized enterprises, which provided a unique opportunity to study

knowledge management dynamics.

Firm contact information was drawn from the Journal of Commerce database. We started

with a systematic random sample of 3,000 U.S. addresses in 19 four-digit standard industrial

classification codes in manufacturing. The sample was then restricted to firms with fewer than 50

employees, resulting in a final sample size of 900 firms to whom the survey package was sent

following Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method; an executive summary of the results was

offered to motivate participation. A total of four additional mailings were conducted to increase

the response rate. In addition, phone calls were made to the non-responding firms, resulting in a

sample of 204 survey responses. Upon close examination of the data, nine records were deleted

due to missing values. The final sample thus consisted of 195 records, representing a response

rate of 21.7%.

Respondents were senior executives (71.7%), followed by general managers (17.3%),

owners of the company (7.5%), and front-line management of the firm (3.5%). Producer goods

were the most commonly reported on product (58.8%), followed by consumer durables (18.2%),

capital goods (13.3%) and consumer non-durables (9.7%). On average, respondents had 25 years

of experience. Sales revenue for the majority of the respondents’ firms ranged between $1.01 and

13
$5 million (36.80%), between $5.01 and $10 million (22.40%), and between $10.01 and $20

million (20.00%).

We estimated nonresponse bias by comparing early (first 50) and late (last 50)

respondents on the key variables utilized in this study, with the late respondents serving as a

proxy for non-respondents (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Since our research approach involved

a total of five mailings to each addressee, as well as phone calls to the non-responding firms with

an encouragement to respond to our survey, we believe that the responses received later in the

data collection represent a valid proxy for non-respondents. Independent sample t tests yielded

non-significant results (p>.05), suggesting that early and late respondents do not differ on the key

constructs under study. As such, nonresponse bias was considered to not be of serious concern.

Construct measures

To ensure content validity, measures were developed based on established scales following

guidelines by Spector (1992), and adapted to our supply chain context. Refinement took place in

pilot tests involving practitioners and academics, confirming the content domain of each

construct and its corresponding measurements, as well as the cohesiveness, precision and logic

of our definitions. Questions consisted of statements to which the respondent was asked to

indicate their degree of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale, anchored at strongly disagree

(value=1) and strongly agree (value=7) (Appendix).

Supply chain knowledge management capability was modeled as a formative second-

order construct (cf. Johnson et al. 2006; Ruiz et al. 2008) consisting of four first-order reflective

constructs drawn from Gold et al. (2001), adapted to the supply chain context: knowledge

acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge application and knowledge protection. This

formulation is based on theoretical considerations and criteria for the choice of formative versus

reflective second-order models provided in Jarvis et al. (2003), Podsakoff et al. (2003b), and

Gligor et al. (2013). Specifically, we consider the four knowledge management aspects as

forming the underlying SCKMC construct (i.e., greater knowledge acquisition, conversion,

14
application and protection generate greater overall SCKMC, and not the reverse

(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006)).

Explicit knowledge was measured by items adapted from Zander (1991) and Bresman et

al. (1999), and tap into the notion of formalization of processes via manuals and documents (cf.,

Smith 2001). Tacit knowledge was measured by items drawn from Simonin (1999), and tap into

the importance of first-hand experience for tacit knowledge (cf., Lord and Ranft 2000). Both

knowledge dimensions were adapted to the supply chain context (Schoenherr et al. in press).

Supply chain performance measurement items were drawn from Zou et al. (1998) and were

adapted to the supply chain context.

MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS TESTS

Measurement model

The measurement model consists of seven multi-item constructs, four of which are used in a later

step to constitute supply chain knowledge management capability. For the assessment of the

psychometric properties the seven constructs were considered individually (cf., Fugate et al.

2009). All constructs were modeled with reflective measurement items. To refine the

measurement model, the constructs were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Items were

removed in an iterative process, one at a time, based on cross-loadings and weak loadings on the

underlying construct (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Final measurement items, including their

mean, standard deviation, completely standardized loading, t-value, standard error and R2 are

summarized in Table 1.

----------- Insert Table 1 about here -----------

Validity and reliability of the constructs were assessed based on recommendations by

Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Specifically, content validity was provided by the structured and

literature-based development and design of the questionnaire and its measurement items,

benefitting from the involvement of practitioners and academics knowledgeable in the content

domain. Convergent validity was assured by each indicator’s estimated standardized coefficient

15
loading on its associated construct; as can be seen from Table 1, each coefficient is greater than

twice its standard error. Discriminant validity was assessed by examining the square roots of the

average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct, which was greater than the corresponding

correlation coefficient, establishing discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Some of

the four constructs associated with SCKMC did not fulfill this criterion, suggesting a weak

discrimination between each other, which was expected due to their second-order

conceptualization. The uni-dimensionality of the constructs was established by confirmatory

factor analysis, with all items loading well above the suggested threshold of .30 (O’Leary-Kelly

and Vokurka 1998). Reliability was ensured by Cronbach alpha values above .70 (Table 1).

Finally, construct validity was established by satisfactory content validity, uni-dimensionality,

reliability, convergent and discriminant validity (O’Leary-Kelly and Vokurka 1998).

Correlations and the AVE values are provided in Table 2.

The measurement model exhibited good fit to the data (CFI=.981; IFI=.982). Further

support was provided by the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA=.049) and the

Χ2/df ratio (332.979/209=1.593). Based on these evaluations, the measurement of the constructs

was judged to be acceptable.

----------- Insert Table 2 about here -----------

We aimed to minimize the potential for common method bias in the questionnaire

administration via several means. First, we interspersed the dependent and independent variables,

which may have an impact on the retrieval cues minimizing common method bias (Podsakoff et

al. 2003a). Second, we followed a rigorous approach for informant selection, and restricted our

sample to firms with 50 employees or less. This enhanced key informant quality, as smaller firms

usually have a general manager responsible for a majority of the firm’s activities, who therefore

possess intimate knowledge of the firm’s primary linkages with critical suppliers and customers.

Thus, our respondents were credible (Phillips 1981). And third, while common method bias is of

greater importance in research related to issues of social desirability, our research focuses on

16
specifics and does not have social desirability components attached to it, further minimizing the

potential for common method bias.

In addition, following recommendations provided in Podsakoff et al. (2003a), common-

method bias was empirically assessed. First, Harman’s one factor test was conducted (McFarlin

and Sweeney 1992). The one-factor model exhibited significantly worse fit than the

measurement model, suggesting that common method bias is not of serious concern (Podsakoff

and Organ 1986). Second, we employed the marker-variable approach (Malhotra et al. 2006),

where a marker variable is included in the model that is not theoretically expected to be related

to the constructs under study. The marker variable (gender) did not have significant influences

on the model constructs, providing further evidence of the minimization of common method

concerns. Third, to ensure that halo effects were not influential in our data (e.g., respondents

anchoring their responses on performance and thus rating all independent variables highly), we

used cross-tabs to examine the dispersion of the dependent performance variables across the

range of independent variables in the raw data. Our analysis showed considerable dispersion

among the independent and dependent variables.

Structural model

The hypotheses were tested with partial least squares (Hair et al. 2013). The partial least squares

approach was chosen, since it has been commonly employed when testing second-order

formative constructs (Diamantopoulos et al. 2008; Oh et al. 2012; Peng and Lai 2012). Three

control variables were included in the model: firm size, to account for different resource

endowments of firms due to their size; years of experience with the supply chain relationship, to

account for greater knowledge that may have been accumulated over a longer period of time; and

industry type, to account for different dynamics inherent in industries. The controls were not

found to have a significant influence (firm size: β=.013, p>.1; years of experience with the

supply chain relationship: β=-.025, p>.1; industry type: β=.214; p>.05).

17
 The model explained 24.3% in the variance of supply chain performance, 25.5% in the

variance of tacit knowledge, and 13.2% in the variance of explicit knowledge. Since the partial

least squares approach does not provide a commonly accepted measure to assess the

appropriateness of the model (Chin 1998; Wetzels et al. 2009), we computed a number of fit

indices for robustness. Specifically, we calculated Tenenhaus et al.’s (2005) ‘goodness of fit’

(GoF) criterion to assess the model’s global fit. This measure has received application and

confirmation in recent research (e.g., Perols et al. 2013; Sawhney 2013). The criterion can take

on values between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating better fit. Applying the formula GoF =

, we receive a value of 0.576. This is greater than the suggested cut-off

value of 0.36 for large effect sizes of R2 (Perols et al. 2013), indicating our model to be of very

good fit.

Hypothesis tests

Hypothesis 1 argued that supply chain knowledge management capability is positively associated

with explicit knowledge in the supply chain. The results support H1 (β=.363; p<.001).

Hypothesis 2 theorized that supply chain knowledge management capability is positively

associated with tacit knowledge in the supply chain. The results support H2 (β=.505; p<.001).

Hypothesis 3a theorized that explicit knowledge is positively associated with supply

chain performance. The results support H3a (β=.281; p<.01). Hypothesis 3b theorized that tacit

knowledge is positively associated with supply chain performance. The results support H3b

(β=.317; p<.001). Hypothesis H3c suggested the impact of tacit knowledge on supply chain

performance being greater than the impact of explicit knowledge on supply chain performance.

To assess whether a significant difference exists, we conducted a Z-test. The results confirmed a

stronger link between tacit knowledge and supply chain performance than the link between

explicit knowledge and supply chain performance (Z=-2.025; p<.01), providing support for H3c.

18
To supplement these findings, a series of exploratory post-hoc analyses were conducted, which

are described next.

Post-hoc analyses

The differential influence of SCKMC on explicit and tacit knowledge

We aimed to bring greater specificity and insight into the differential influence of SCKMC on

the two knowledge types in an exploratory post-hoc test. Specifically, we assessed whether the

impact of supply chain knowledge management capability on tacit knowledge is greater than the

impact of supply chain knowledge management capability on explicit knowledge. We conducted

this test based on the belief that the supply chain setting provides an environment that is

especially amenable for tacit knowledge to be created. Tacit knowledge has been said to provide

great promise (Dooley 2000), but due to its more subtle state, has been underutilized in many

instances. While explicit knowledge is also an outcome of the approach underlying SCKMC,

based on each supply chain member contributing to the specific and codified knowledge of the

supply chain, we believe that the interaction between supply chain members is especially prone

to generate tacit knowledge.

Our arguments rely on the properties of tacit knowledge, which can be described as

complex, context-dependent, difficult to imitate and codify, and not easily transferable (Kogut

and Zander 1992). It represents the type of knowledge that may be known, but which cannot be

readily expressed verbally or in writing (Polanyi 1966). As such, the methodical approach

inherent in SCKMC may be able to provide structure, and thus facilitate this more elusive type of

knowledge. This is in line with arguments underlying the KBV, specifically when considering

SCKMC as a valuable bundle of resources offering unique advantages for the firm. Such

differentiation may be more likely to be derived from tacit knowledge, due to its more intangible

nature, its greater difficulty for transfer, and its likely property of being less redundant. In

contrast, explicit knowledge, due to its more transferrable nature, is likely to be generated also

via less complex approaches, and may be more prone to becoming redundant. Our reasoning

19
builds on Nonaka’s (1991) notion of the supply chain representing a complex “living organism”

through which more elevated and sophisticated knowledge can be developed. Based on the

multiple interactions among supply chain partners, the synergies likely to ensue are suggested to

elevate tacit knowledge to a greater degree. This contention is also supported by organizational

theorists (Granovetter 1973), who view explicit knowledge as the outcome of arms-length

transactions, whereas tacit knowledge is more susceptible to be created in collaborative

relationships. To assess whether a significant difference exists, we conducted a Z-test. The

results confirm a stronger association of SCKMC with tacit knowledge than with explicit

knowledge (Z=-2.120; p<.01), providing support for our theoretical arguments.

The robustness of the SCKMC construct

To assess the robustness of our model conceptualizing SCKMC as a second-order formative

construct, we constructed a competing model that removes SCKMC entirely and tests the direct

relationships of the individual first-order constructs on explicit and tacit knowledge. The

calculation of Tenenhaus et al.’s (2005) ‘goodness of fit’ criterion yielded a value of 0.417 for

the model’s global fit. This is smaller than the GoF value derived for our proposed model

(0.576), suggesting the competing model to be inferior (Perols et al. 2013).

This finding bolsters our conceptualization of SCKMC as a second-order formative

construct, and by implication, the theoretical disposition of SCKMC as a valuable bundle of

complex operant resources offering unique advantages for the firm. Considering the four aspects

of knowledge acquisition, conversion, application and protection, and the continued evolution of

these capabilities, the result is suggestive of our arguments of SCKMC as constituting a dynamic

capability able to combine, transform or renew resources as markets evolve. In addition, the

notion of SCKMC being greater than the sum of its parts was supported. We thus substantiated,

also from a statistical viewpoint, SCKMC as representing a comprehensive and integrative set of

knowledge management competencies as part of the KBV.

20
The conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge

The domain of converting tacit into explicit knowledge has been gaining increasing attention,

especially with heightened employee mobility. In an exploratory post-hoc analysis we

investigated whether SCKMC helps firms convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge by

including a path between these two constructs in a competing model. The path turned out to not

be statistically significant (β=-.068, p>.1). In a further competing model we assessed the

moderating role of SCKMC on the relationship between explicit and tacit knowledge. The

interaction term was also not supported by our data (β=-.061, p>.1).

While SCKMC did not significantly moderate this relationship, we explored whether one

of its underlying dimensions did. In a last set of exploratory post-hoc analyses we thus tested the

potential individual moderating impact of the four constructs constituting SCKMC on the link

between tacit and explicit knowledge. To do so, we considered the prior model which linked all

four individual knowledge management competencies to both tacit and explicit knowledge, and

added the link between tacit and explicit knowledge. The four ensuing interaction terms, testing

for the moderating role of each of the four dimensions on the relationship between tacit and

explicit knowledge, were not significant. This suggests that the transformation of tacit into

explicit knowledge follows different pathways than the ones specified herein. While the data did

not support our knowledge transformational expectations, we have brought greater clarity to the

interworkings of SCKMC in its ability to influence both tacit and explicit knowledge.

While our data did not support these relationships, the results have to be treated with

caution. Data collection was conducted without the objective to test these relationships in mind,

and was therefore exploratory. Nevertheless, we thought it important to investigate the

conversion of knowledge types in this exploratory post-hoc analysis. Future research is

encouraged in this domain, to specifically study the dynamics inherent in knowledge conversion

(Nonaka 1994), and to extend the studies by Kahn et al. (2006) and Anand et al. (2010).

21
DISCUSSION

This research contributes to extant literature in logistics and supply chain management by

enhancing our understanding of the ability of supply chain knowledge management capability to

influence explicit and tacit knowledge, and by the investigation of the differential outcome

effects resulting from explicit and tacit knowledge. Our findings offer significant insights into

knowledge within supply chains, advance academic understanding, and provide important

implications for managers. Overall, our study is important from both a theoretical and a practical

perspective, enhancing the value of our research (Fawcett et al. 2011).

Theoretical implications

The findings offer important insight for logistics and supply chain management scholars

interested in the investigation of knowledge and its potential within a supply chain context.

Specifically, we demonstrate that SCKMC is positively associated with knowledge present

within a supply chain. We introduced the concept of SCKMC, and conceptualized it as a

comprehensive approach consisting of knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion,

knowledge application, and knowledge protection, representing a set of interconnected, operant

resources. Our work demonstrates the value of this framework, borrowed from the information

systems literature, in the domain of supply chain management. By operationalizing knowledge

management capability within a supply chain setting, we work to address the calls by Freeze and

Kulkarni (2007) and Wong and Wong (2011), who encouraged a greater understanding of

knowledge. Our findings show that supply chain knowledge management capability manifests

itself in explicit and tacit knowledge within the supply chain. This is an important extension to

literature as it demonstrates not only the importance of knowledge management capability as a

bundle of valuable resources, but its ability to generate both explicit and tacit knowledge among

supply chain partners. We have thus effectively tied the SCKMC construct to the KBV and its

value propositions inherent in valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources. Since

the generation of explicit and tacit knowledge ensues from SCKMC, it can be viewed as

22
valuable, and since a structured and comprehensive approach for SCKMC occurs within a unique

supply chain context, it can be considered as rare. The in-imitability property derives from a

special climate that may be needed to successfully implement the approach, and the non-

substitutability property rests in the distinctive result of SCKMC that may not be replicated by

alternate mechanisms.

In our dichotomization of the two knowledge types we relied on the most prominent

classifications in the knowledge management literature. The importance of this distinction and

the potential ensuing differential effects were recently noted and encouraged in the logistics and

supply chain management literature (e.g., Anand et al. 2010; Grawe et al. 2011). In addition, the

results provide evidence for the value of a formal approach in facilitating cognitive processing,

and demonstrate the value of interconnected, operant resources. SCKMC can thus be viewed as

an inter-organizational routine and a dynamic capability able to yield beneficial outputs.

We further found in an exploratory post-hoc analysis that SCKMC was more effective in

influencing tacit knowledge than it was in influencing explicit knowledge within a supply chain.

This result substantiates our theorization of the differential influence, specifically our view of

SCKMC as a valuable bundle of resources offering unique advantages for the firm. Support was

found for tacit knowledge’s more intangible nature and greater difficulty for transfer, as was for

explicit knowledge’s more transferrable nature, and its likelihood to be more redundant and to be

generated also via less complex approaches. We demonstrated the conduciveness and potential

of a collaborative supply chain to generate the more elusive type of tacit knowledge. Our

rationale, which argued for the unique pairing of partners and their respective skills, yielding a

higher and more holistic type of knowledge, was confirmed, as was Nonaka’s (1991) notion of

viewing supply chains as living organisms.

Our results further advance the literature by not only conceptualizing explicit and tacit

knowledge as outcomes of SCKMC separately, but more importantly by demonstrating the

effects of each knowledge type on supply chain performance. Specifically, the data supported

23
our KBV-based arguments for the impact of explicit and tacit knowledge on supply chain

performance, recognizing the two knowledge types as valuable, rare, inimitable and non-

substitutable resources. The collaborative development of explicit and tacit knowledge via

interactions with supply chain partners is an asset that can yield competitive differentiation for

the firm. More importantly, while prior research has established the value of knowledge for

performance (e.g., Craighead et al. 2009; Fugate et al. 2009; Grawe et al. 2011), we demonstrate

that it is only when explicit and tacit knowledge are separately considered that the intricacies of

their effects are understood. This contention was derived based on the KBV’s interpretation of

resources as being heterogeneous and imperfectly mobile, and the notion that different types of

resources exist that possess differing degrees of ability in effectuating an outcome. At this point

it is worth noting that a mere copying and internalizing of knowledge from supply chain partners

already present within their organizations may yield redundant resources, reducing their overall

effectiveness in influencing competitive performance (Hamel 1991; Levin and Cross 2004). Our

conceptualization of SCKMC as a dynamic capability elevates external resources to higher

levels, demonstrating their ability to generate explicit and tacit knowledge for the firm, which in

turn enables competitive performance.

In this research we considered different types of knowledge resources. Specifically, our

results indicate that it is tacit knowledge, characterized by applied skills and learning-by-doing

that exhibits a greater impact on a supply chain’s competitive performance. The findings provide

substantiation for our contention that due to its more elusive and complex nature, tacit

knowledge represents a resource that is more imperfectly mobile, thus offering a more valuable,

rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resource for the firm under the KBV. Tacit knowledge was

shown to also provide a greater application foundation for supply chain performance as

conceptualized in this study, and as such was confirmed to be more effective.

In contrast, explicit knowledge, due to its ease of communication and transfer, exhibits a

lesser ability to impact supply chain performance (although it is important to note that we did

24
find support for the codified nature of this type of knowledge to allow for competitive

differentiation to a degree). We note here that our performance measure was designed to test for

this specific outcome, in that it assesses competitive performance (Kahn et al. 2006). As such, we

do not postulate that explicit knowledge is less valuable per se, but that it is less valuable to

differentiate the firm from competition. Explicit knowledge is less able to retain the

characteristics needed to meet the requirements for being a resource under the KBV, since, due

to its codified nature, this knowledge may be easily transferred to competitors. This observation

is indicative of the more obvious disposition of explicit knowledge, being less context dependent

and more easily to transfer among competitors.

No support was found in our exploratory post-hoc analyses for the link between tacit and

explicit knowledge, as was for the moderating role of SCKMC and its individual elements.

Knowledge conversion (i.e., the conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge) follows different

pathways than specified in this research, and future studies are encouraged to delve deeper into

this domain.

Overall, through the specification of differential knowledge effects on supply chain

performance, this work contributes to our understanding of the complex influence of explicit and

tacit knowledge within supply chain relationships. As such, it answers calls in the literature for a

greater understanding of knowledge management dynamics (Craighead et al. 2009). For

example, Hult et al. (2004) stress the lack of attention that has been paid to the link between

knowledge and supply chain outcomes, Ferdows (2006) encourages supply chain management to

not take a passive role in knowledge management research, and Craighead et al. (2009) argue

that there is still much to be learned about performance improvement possible via supply chain

knowledge. Most recently, Grawe et al. (2011) encouraged the study of knowledge synthesis

mechanisms, as well as the consideration of different knowledge types. This research answers

these calls while extending one of the most prominent classifications in the knowledge

25
management literature, i.e., the differentiation between explicit and tacit knowledge, a distinction

also fundamental to the theory of knowledge creation (Polanyi 1966).

This research further contributes to the field via its contextual focus on SMEs. Limited

research exists within the domains of logistics and supply chain management research that taps

into this sector (Tokman et al. 2007; Bode et al. 2011). We focused on SMEs since SCKMC may

be especially valuable for them (Narula 2004), due to their often limited resources in developing

specialized expertise in-house (Lu and Beamish 2001). By investigating knowledge management

in an SME setting, we also answered the call by Durst and Edvardsson (2012) for more specific

insight in this context.

Managerial implications

As competition increases, the importance of knowledge management capability for logistics and

supply chain management as a competitive foundation is likely to increase as well. Against this

reality, managerially, the results provide important insights, especially for SMEs. First, our

findings clearly demonstrate the importance of supply chain knowledge management capability.

We confirmed that it is the establishment of SCKMC that leads to knowledge within a specific

supply chain, and the ultimate enhancement of supply chain performance. As such, our results

provide a stimulus for managers to invest in SCKMC incorporating specific key supply chain

partners. Our concept of SCKMC drew on its encapsulation in the four supply chain knowledge

management aspects identified, to which managerial attention should be devoted. This finding

should be especially valuable for SMEs, which have been described as lagging behind in

knowledge management endeavors (McAdam and Reid 2001). This observation may be

attributed to the short distance between executive and functional levels in SMEs, and the ensuing

perception that a formal knowledge management system may not be necessary. As such,

knowledge sharing in SMEs primarily occurs informally (Durst and Edvardsson 2012). The more

formal approach, as presented herein, was demonstrated to be effective in SMEs, and can thus

provide a template for SMEs to enhance their knowledge management capability.

26
 Second, pursuing SCKMC promises the generation of internal knowledge, which has

been said to be limited in SMEs (Lu and Beamish 2001). The structured approach can thus

provide guidance for SMEs on how to harness knowledge distributed across the supply chain,

strengthening internal expertise. While SCKMC is certainly able to influence both explicit and

tacit knowledge, it is the finding that the approach is especially amenable to create tacit

knowledge that has implications for practicing managers. As such, this result provides further

impetus for firms to focus on what they can do best, i.e., their core competencies, and to rely on

outside partners for the remaining tasks. The findings point to the fact that besides the physical

product that the firm is receiving from suppliers, the potential for knowledge transfer and

generation cannot be neglected, and can be, in some instances, even more valuable than the

physical product. Similar value can be placed on knowledge obtained through customers, which

may provide the firm unique insight into market developments, trends, and changing preferences.

Managers are thus provided with the advice to nurture the supply chain knowledge capability

among suppliers and customers, as it is through this process that higher levels of knowledge

within the supply chain can be achieved, which will benefit the firm. These findings illustrate

that all knowledge does not have to be generated internal to the firm (which may consume

significant resources), but can be harnessed from interactions with suppliers and customers in the

supply chain. This offers SMEs a unique opportunity to enhance their knowledge repositories by

tapping into these entities.

Third, the findings of this study suggest that managers must carefully consider the type of

knowledge fostered within a specific supply chain. While both explicit and tacit knowledge are

important, it is tacit knowledge that can provide greater competitive differentiation. If the

improvement of such performance metric is the objective, the generation of tacit knowledge

should be emphasized, due to its greater impact in influencing competitive performance. The

distinctive intelligence derived from supply chain members, especially the insights that are

imperfectly mobile, as encapsulated in tacit knowledge, represent a more valuable asset in

27
generating competitive disparity. This provides valuable guidance for SMEs, which are often

constrained in their resources devoted to knowledge management.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although this study made several advances to the literature, limitations must be noted. While our

approach to focus on firms with 50 employees or less is consistent with prior research (e.g.,

Lusch and Brown 1996), provides advantages for the identification of the key informant, and

offers unique insight into the context of SMEs, our study is limited as it may not generalizable to

larger firms and the supply chains in which they may operate. Future research should thus seek

the replication of the present study among a sample of larger companies. We also restricted our

survey to firms in the manufacturing industry. Although this is a frequent practice in empirical

logistics and supply chain management research, it also limits the generalizability of our results,

suggesting a need for future research to expand this work to other industries. Our research is

further limited by a single respondent completing the survey. An alternative approach would

have involved multiple respondents in the supply chain relationship, including the focal firm as

well as their most important supplier and customer (a dyadic or even triadic survey design). In

addition, our questions asked for the respondent to focus on their primary supply chain,

averaging the potentially different knowledge processes across the two partners. An alternate

approach would have involved the measuring of the knowledge processes with both customers

and suppliers separately.

Further, although our model is theoretically and empirically supported, the employment

of a cross-sectional design does not allow for fully discerning causality. It could be argued that

knowledge is both an antecedent and a consequence of knowledge management capability. In

fact, in an on-going supply chain relationship, SCKMC generates knowledge which can then

serve as an input to SCKMC to generate additional knowledge. While we took the theoretical

approach of SCKMC generating knowledge, the specificity of this relationship in terms of

causation would provide further insights into this important area. Future research employing

28
longitudinal data collection is needed to overcome these shortcomings. We also note that while

we pilot-tested our questionnaire with knowledgeable practitioners and academics for the

refinement of our scales, we did not conduct a formal pre-test with a smaller subsample of our

population. Future research is encouraged to not omit this important step, to be able to afford a

more rigorous survey methodology. We also did not address non-response bias directly, but

rather used late respondents as a proxy for non-respondents. While commonly done, a more

rigorous approach would have involved the comparison of respondents to actual non-

respondents. Data from these could have been obtained by approaching them after the end of the

survey administration, with the request to answer a shorter survey. Lastly, while our

operationalization and ensuing measurement of our two knowledge dimensions as separate

constructs is an extension to current literature, future research is encouraged to refine and

improve upon our measurement. Specifically, recent theoretical and conceptual advances,

published after the data collection for this work (Venkitachalam and Busch 2012), could be taken

into consideration in further advancing the measurement of explicit and tacit knowledge. We

provide a first step towards this undertaking. The same applies to our SCKMC construct, which

we based on the seminal work of Gold et al. (2001). Besides the aspects of knowledge

acquisition, conversion, application and protection, additional aspects, such as knowledge

exchange and dissemination across the supply chain, could be considered.

While this study has limitations, the findings suggest several exciting avenues to extend

this research. First, future work should conceptualize explicit and tacit knowledge as two

separate constructs, rather than a uni-dimensional measure. In this vein, one could investigate

how the length of the supply chain relationship influences the resource stocks of both explicit

and tacit knowledge. Our expectation would be that the more mature the relationship becomes,

the less explicit and the more tacit knowledge exists within the supply chain due to the nature of

SCKMC building on prior knowledge to generate new knowledge and the development of

implicit routines.

29
 Second, the creation of explicit and tacit knowledge could also be examined from the

theory of knowledge creation (Nonaka 1994). Specific measures for each of the four mechanisms

of combination, internalization, socialization and externalization could be developed, similar to

Kahn et al. (2006) and Anand et al. (2010), and their influence on types of knowledge could be

examined. In addition, research is needed that provides greater specificity into what may

constitute explicit and tacit knowledge in a supply chain context, such as the knowledge about

supplier capabilities and capacities.

Third, we found that supply chain knowledge management capability influences tacit

knowledge to a greater degree than it influences explicit knowledge. We suggested that this

result may stem from our setting of a collaborative supply chain, in which the unique interplay

between the various supply chain members as part of SCKMC, can provide such potential. In-

depth, longitudinal case studies tracking the development of both explicit and tacit knowledge

generated from SCKMC in a specific supply chain could help to better understand this issue.

Fourth, while we contributed to the literature by differentiating explicit and tacit

knowledge and their unique influences on performance, we did not consider how the different

knowledge types influence performance. Future research is therefore encouraged to identify and

assess intermediate processes that are created by the two knowledge types, through which

knowledge impacts performance. In addition, while we focused on one of the most prominent

knowledge classifications in the literature and differentiated between explicit and tacit

knowledge, other aspects of knowledge could be investigated, such as market or technological

knowledge, and their differential impact on performance.

Fifth, while our choice of supply chain performance as a dependent variable was

theoretically substantiated and is managerially meaningful, the influence of the two knowledge

types on other performance measures is needed, which will lead to a more holistic view of our

framework; for example, cycle time could be examined.

30
 Lastly, researchers could also look at the diversity of the supply chain in terms of the

unique knowledge assets and resources that individual members bring to the table. Our

expectation would be that the more diverse and unique individual supply chain entities are within

a specific supply chain, the greater the potential for knowledge generation, especially in terms of

tacit knowledge.

REFERENCES
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. 2001. “Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues.” MIS Quarterly 25(1):107-36.
Amit, R., and Schoemaker, P.J.H. 1993. “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent.” Strategic
Management Journal 14(1):33-46.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., and Tatikonda, M.V. 2010. “Role of Explicit and Tacit Knowledge in Six
Sigma Projects: An Empirical Examination of Differential Project Success.” Journal of
Operations Management 28(4):303-15.
Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3):411-23.
Armstrong, J.S., and Overton, T.S. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of
Marketing Research 14(3):396-402.
Badaracco, J.L. 1991. The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliances.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barney, J.B. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management
17(1):99-120.
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. 2001. “Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective.”
Organization Science 12(2):198-213.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., and Nobel, R. 1999. “Knowledge Transfer in International
Acquisitions.” Journal of International Business Studies 30(3):439-62.
Bode, C., Lindemann, E., and Wagner, S.M. 2011. “Driving Trucks and Driving Sales? The Impact
of Delivery Personnel on Customer Purchase Behavior.” Journal of Business Logistics 32(1):99-
114.
Chin, W.W. 1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.” In:
Marcoulides, G.A. (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp. 295-336.
Cohen, W.M., and Levinthal, D.A. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A new Perspective on Learning and
Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1):128-52.
Craighead, C.W., Hult, G.T.M., and Ketchen, Jr., D.J. 2009. “The Effects of Innovation-Cost
Strategy, Knowledge, and Action in the Supply Chain on Firm Performance.” Journal of
Operations Management 27(5):405-21.
Cui, A.S., Griffith, D.A., and Cavusgil, S.T. 2005. “The Influence of Competitive Intensity and
Market Dynamism on Knowledge Management Capabilities of Multinational Corporation
Subsidiaries.” Journal of International Marketing 13(3):32-53.
Defee, C.C., Williams, B., Randall, W.S., and Thomas, R. 2010. “An Inventory of Theory in
Logistics and SCM Research.” International Journal of Logistics Management 21(3):404-89.

31
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., and Roth, K.P. 2008. “Advancing Formative Measurement Models.”
Journal of Business Research 61(12): 1203-18.
______, and Siguaw, J.A. 2006. “Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure
Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration.” British Journal of Management 17(4):
263-82.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed. New York,
NY: Wiley & Sons.
Dooley, K.J. 2000. “The Paradigms of Quality: Evolution and Revolution in the History of the
Discipline.” Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality 5:1-28.
Durst, S., and Edvardsson, I.R. 2012. “Knowledge Management in SMEs: A Literature Review.”
Journal of Knowledge Management 16(6): 879-903.
Dyer, J. H. 1996. “Specialized Supplier Networks as a Source of Competitive Advantage: Evidence
from the Auto Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 17(4):271-91.
______, and Hatch, N.W. 2004. “Relation-Specific Capabilities and Barriers to Knowledge
Transfers: Creating Advantage through Network Relationships. Strategic Management Journal
27(8):701-19.
______, and Nobeoka, K. 2000. “Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing
Network: The Toyota Case.” Strategic Management Journal 21(3):345-67.
Ericsson, K.A., and Hastie, R. 1994. “Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Thinking and
Problem Solving.” In Thinking and Problem Solving, edited by Sternberg, R.J., 37-79. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.
Fawcett, S.E., and Waller, M.A., and Bowersox, D.J. 2011. “Cinderella in the C-Suite: Conducting
Influential Research to Advance the Logistics and Supply Chain Disciplines.” Journal of
Business Logistics 32(2):115-21.
Ferdows, K. 2006. “Transfer of Changing Product Know-How.” Production and Operations
Management 15(1):1-9.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39-50.
Freeze, R.D., and Kulkarni, U. 2007. “Knowledge Management Capability: Defining Knowledge
Assets.” Journal of Knowledge Management 11(6):94-109.
Fugate, B.S., Stank, T.P., and Mentzer, J.T. 2009. “Linking improved Knowledge Management to
Operational and Organizational Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 27(4):247-64.
Gligor, D.M., Holcomb, M.C., and Stank, T.P. 2013. “A Multidisciplinary Approach to Supply Chain
Agility: Conceptualization and Scale Development.” Journal of Business Logistics 34(2):94-108.
Goffin, K., and Koners, U. 2011. “Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learned, and New Product
Development.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2): 300-18.
Gold, A., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A.H. 2001. “Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities Perspective.” Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1):185-214.
Gorman, M.E. 2001. “Types of Knowledge and their Roles in Technology Transfer.” Journal of
Technology Transfer 27(3):219-31.
Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360-
1380.
Grant, R.M. 1996. “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational
Capability as Knowledge Integration.” Organization Science 7(4):375-88.
Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., and Roath, A.S. 2011. “Knowledge Synthesis and Innovative Logistics
Processes: Enhancing Operational Flexibility and Performance.” Journal of Business Logistics
32(1):69-80.
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J., Cooper, M., and Closs, D.J. 2007. “Aligning Logistics Performance
Measures to the Information Needs of the Firm.” Journal of Business Logistics 28(2):35-56.

32
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and McGaughey, E. 2004. “A Framework for Supply Chain Performance
Measurement.” International Journal of Production Economics 87(3):333-47.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., and Sarstedt, M. 2013. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, R. 1999. “Rearranging Risks and Rewards in Supply Chain Management.” Journal of General
Management 24(3):22-32.
Hamel, G. 1991. “Competition for Competence and Interpartner Learning within International
Strategic Alliances.” Strategic Management Journal 12(Special Issue):83-103.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, Jr., D. J., and Slater, S. F. 2004. “Information Processing, Knowledge
Development, and Strategic Supply Chain Performance.” Academy of Management Journal
47(2):241-53.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., and Podsakoff, P.M. 2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators
and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research.” Journal of
Consumer Research 30(2):199-218.
Johnson, G.J., Bruner II, G.C., and Kumar, A. 2006.” Interactivity and its Facets Revisited: Theory
and Empirical Test.” Journal of Advertising 35(4): 35-52.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press.
Kahn, K.B., Maltz, E.N., and Mentzer, J.T. 2006. “Demand Collaboration: Effects on Knowledge
Creation, Relationships, and Supply Chain Performance.” Journal of Business Logistics
27(2):191-221.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1992. “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology.” Organization Science 3(3):383-97.
Lanier, Jr., D., Wempe, W.F., and Zacharia, Z.G. 2010. “Concentrated Supply Chain Membership
and Financial Performance: Chain- and Firm-Level Perspectives.” Journal of Operations
Management 28(1):1-16.
Lee, D., and Van den Steen, E. 2010. “Managing Know-How.” Management Science 56(2):270-85.
Leonard, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Source of Innovation.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Levin, D.Z., and Cross, R. 2004. “The Strength of Weak Ties you can Trust: The Mediating Role of
Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer.” Management Science 50(11):1477-90.
Li, S.-T., and Tsai, F.-C. 2009. “Concept-Guided Query Expansion for Knowledge Management with
Semi-Automated Knowledge Capturing.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 49(4):53-65.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., and Sanders, J. 2010. “A Knowledge Framework underlying
Knowledge Management.” Decision Sciences 41(4):689-719.
Lord, M.D., and Ranft, A.L. 2000. “Organizational Learning about New International Markets:
Exploring the Internal Transfer of Local Market Knowledge Studies.” Journal of International
Business Studies 31(4):573-89.
Lu, J.W., and Beamish, P.W. 2001. “The Internationalization and Performance of SMEs.” Strategic
Management Journal 22(6-7):565-586.
Lusch, R.F., and Brown, J.R. 1996. “Interdependency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior in
Marketing Channels.” Journal of Marketing 60(4):19-38.
Lyles, M.A., and Salk, J.E. 1996. “Knowledge Acquisition from Foreign Parents in International
Joint Ventures: An Empirical Examination in the Hungarian Context.” Journal of International
Business Studies 27(5):877-903.
Madhavaram, S., and Hunt, S.D. 2008. “The Service-Dominant Logic and a Hierarchy of Operant
Resources: Developing Masterful Operant Resources and Implications for Marketing Strategy.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1):67-82.

33
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., and Patil, A. 2006. “Common Method Variance in IS Research: A
Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research.” Management Science
52(12):1865-83.
McAdam, R., and Reid, R. 2001. “SME and Large Organisation Perceptions of Knowledge
Management: Comparisons and Contrasts.” Journal of Knowledge Management 5(3):231-41.
McFarlin, D.B., and Sweeney, P.D. 1992. “Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of
Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal
35(3):626-37.
Molina, L.M., Lloréns-Montes, J., and Ruiz-Moreno, A. 2007. “Relationship between Quality
Management Practices and Knowledge Transfer.” Journal of Operations Management 25(3):682-
701.
Mooradian, N. 2005. “Tacit Knowledge: Philosophic Roots and Role in KM.” Journal of Knowledge
Management 9(6):104-13.
Narula, R. 2004. “R&D Collaboration by SMEs: New Opportunities and Limitations in the Face of
Globalisation.” Technovation 24(2): 153-161.
Neisser, U. 1967. Cognitive Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nonaka, I. 1991. “The Knowledge-Creating Company.” Harvard Business Review 69(November-
December):96-104.
Nonaka, I. 1994. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” Organization Science
5(1):14-37.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Norman, P.M. 2004. “Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Loss, and Satisfaction in High
Technology Alliances.” Journal of Business Research 57(6):610-19.
Oh, L.B., Teo, H.H., and Sambamurthy, V. 2012. “The Effects of Retail Channel Integration through
the Use of Information Technologies on Firm Performance.” Journal of Operations Management
30(5):368-81.
O’Leary-Kelly, S.W., and Vokurka, R.J. 1998. “The Empirical Assessment of Construct Validity.”
Journal of Operations Management 16(4):387-405.
Peng, D.X., and Lai, F. 2012. “Using Partial Least Squares in Operations Management Research: A
Practical Guideline and Summary of Past Research.” Journal of Operations Management 30(6):
467-80.
Perols, J., Zimmermann, C., and Kortmann, S. 2013. “On the Relationship between Supplier
Integration and Time-to-Market.” Journal of Operations Management 31(3):153-67.
Phillips, L.W. 1981. “Assessing Measurement Error in Key Informant Reports: A Methodological
Note on Organizational Analysis in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(4):395-415.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N.P. 2003a. “Common Method Biases
in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5):879-903.
______, ______, Podsakoff, N.P., and Lee, J.Y. 2003b. “The Mismeasure of Man(agement) and its
Implication for Leadership Research.” Leadership Quarterly 14(6):615-56.
______, and Organ, D.W. 1986. “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects.”
Journal of Management 12(4):531-44.
Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Roy, S., Sivakumar, K., and Wilkinson, I.F. 2004. “Innovation Generation in Supply Chain
Relationships: A Conceptual Model and Research Propositions.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 32(1):61-79.
Ruiz, D.M., Gremler, D.D., Washburn, J.H., and Carrión, G.C. 2008. “Service Value Revisited
Specifying a Higher-Order, Formative Measure.” Journal of Business Research 61(12):1278-91.

34
Samuel, K.E., Goury, M.-L., Gunasekaran, A., and Spalanzani, A. 2011. “Knowledge Management
in Supply Chain: An Empirical Study from France.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems
20(3):283-306.
Sawhney, R. 2013. “Implementing Labor Flexibility: A Missing Link between Acquired Labor
Flexibility and Plant Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 31(1-2):98-108.
Schoenherr, T., Griffith, D.A., and Chandra, A. In press. “Intangible Capital, Knowledge and New
Product Development Competence in Supply Chains: Process, Interaction and Contingency
Effects among SMEs.” International Journal of Production Research DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2014.894258.
Simonin, B.L. 1999. “Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances.”
Strategic Management Journal 20(7):595-623.
Smith, E. A. 2001. “The Role of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge in the Workplace.” Journal of
Knowledge Management 5(4):311-21.
Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J., and Clark, K.D. 2005. “Existing Knowledge, Knowledge Creation
Capability, and the Rate of New Product Introduction in High-Technology Firms.” Academy of
Management Journal 48(2):346-57.
Song, M., and Swink, M. 2009. “Marketing-Manufacturing Integration across Stages of New Product
Development: Effects on the Success of High- and Low-Innovativeness Products.” IEEE
Transactions on Innovation Management 56(1):31-44.
Spector, P.E. 1992. Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Spekman, R.E., Spear, J., and Kamauff, J. 2002. “Supply Chain Competency: Learning as a Key
Concept.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 7(1):41-55.
Swink, M. 2006. “Building Collaborative Innovation Capability.” Research Technology Management
49(2):37-47.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G.P., and Shuen, A. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.”
Strategic Management Journal 18(7):509-33.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M., and Lauro, C. 2005. “PLS Path Modeling.”
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48(1): 159-205.
Tokman, M., Richey, R.G., Marino, L.D., and Weaver, K.M. 2007. “Exploration, Exploitation and
Satisfaction in Supply Chain Portfolio Strategy.” Journal of Business Logistics 28(1):25-56.
Venkitachalam, K., and Busch, P. 2012. “Tacit Knowledge: Review and Possible Research
Directions.” Journal of Knowledge Management 16(2):356-71.
Voelpel, S., Dous, M., and Davenport, T. 2005. “Five Steps to Creating a Global Knowledge-Sharing
System: Siemens Share-Net.” Academy of Management Executive 19(2):9-23.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., van Oppen, C. 2009. “Using PLS Path Modeling for
Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. Management
Information Systems Quarterly 33(1):177-95.
Wong, W.P., and Wong, K.Y. 2011. “Supply Chain Management, Knowledge Management
Capability, and their Linkages toward Firm Performance.” Business Process Management 17(6):
940-64.
Zack, M.H. 1999. “Managing Codified Knowledge.” Sloan Management Review 40(4):45-58.
Zander, U. 1991. Exploiting a Technological Edge: Voluntary and Involuntary Dissemination of
Technology. Stockholm: Institute of International Business.
Zou, S., Taylor, C.R., and Osland, G.E. 1998. “The EXPERF Scale: A Cross-National Generalized
Export Performance Measure.” Journal of International Marketing 6(3):37-58.

35
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
In answering the questionnaire, respondents were asked to focus on one of their primary supply chains, involving
the firm’s primary supplier and the corresponding key customer in that supply chain. Respondents were asked to
keep this supply chain in mind when completing the survey.

Knowledge Acquisition
Working with my supply chain partners, we have developed processes for…
… acquiring knowledge about new products/services within our industry (acqk1).
… generating new knowledge from existing knowledge (acqk2).
… collaborating (acqk3).

Knowledge Conversion
Working with my supply chain partners, we have developed processes for…
… integrating different sources and types of knowledge (convk1).
… organizing knowledge (convk2).
… replacing outdated knowledge (convk3).
… filtering knowledge (convk4).

Knowledge Application
Working with my supply chain partners, we have developed processes for…
… using knowledge to solve new problems (appk1).
… taking advantage of new knowledge (appk2).
… locating and apply knowledge to changing competitive conditions (appk3).

Knowledge Protection
Working with my supply chain partners, we have developed processes for…
… protecting knowledge from inappropriate use outside the organization (protk1).
… encouraging the protection of knowledge (protk2).
… restricting access to some sources of knowledge (protk3).

Tacit Knowledge
Considering the supply chain, would you agree that:
The market knowledge in our supply chain can only be learned through first-hand experience (tactk1).
New employees in our supply chain could only learn their job by first hand experience (tactk2).
The knowledge used in our supply chain is highly complex and can only be gained through first hand experiences
(tactk3).

Explicit Knowledge
Considering the supply chain, would you agree that:
The market knowledge in our supply chain is easily documented (explk1).
New employees in our supply chain could easily learn their entire job from work manuals (explk2).
A competitor would have relatively little difficulty copying the routines and processes that we use in our supply
chain because they are straightforward and easily documented (explk3).

Supply Chain Performance

Considering the supply chain, would you agree that the supply chain relationship has:
… been very profitable (p1).
… generated a high volume of business (p2).
… helped us achieve rapid growth (p3).
… improved our competitiveness (p4).

36
TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Final construct measurement items

Std. Std.
Construct Variable Mean Loading t-value R2
Dev. Error
Knowledge Acquisition acqk1 4.815 1.402 .665 9.786 .095 .443
α=.710 acqk2 4.897 1.335 .635 9.239 .092 .403
acqk3 4.979 1.432 .716 10.719 .096 .513
Knowledge Conversion convk1 4.600 1.419 .845 14.276 .084 .714
α=.887 convk2 4.533 1.451 .871 14.966 .084 .758
convk3 4.821 1.390 .840 14.129 .083 .705
convk4 4.472 1.337 .703 10.933 .086 .495
Knowledge Application appk1 5.241 1.192 .822 13.487 .073 .676
α=.819 appk2 5.103 1.243 .805 13.078 .077 .648
appk3 4.836 1.333 .716 11.087 .086 .513
Knowledge Protection protk1 4.600 1.581 .824 13.584 .096 .680
α=.892 protk2 4.713 1.482 .886 15.152 .087 .785
protk3 4.821 1.426 .865 14.596 .085 .748
Tacit Knowledge tactk1 4.908 1.301 .710 9.928 .093 .504
α=.739 tactk2 4.769 1.386 .626 8.578 .101 .392
tactk3 4.692 1.319 .762 10.768 .093 .580
Explicit Knowledge explk1 4.113 1.365 .576 7.534 .096 .332
α=.711 explk2 3.338 1.546 .877 11.017 .087 .769
explk3 4.056 1.534 .576 7.530 .085 .332
Supply Chain Performance p1 4.949 1.157 .752 11.767 .074 .565
α=.868 p2 4.785 1.278 .877 14.739 .076 .769
p3 4.651 1.277 .783 12.472 .080 .613
p4 4.928 1.216 .745 11.630 .078 .556

Table 2: Correlations and average variance extracted

KAC KCO KAP KPR EK TK SCP

Knowledge Acquisition (KAC) .453
Knowledge Conversion (KCO) .862 .668
Knowledge Application (KAP) .899 .864 .612
Knowledge Protection (KPR) .530 .577 .673 .738
Explicit Knowledge (EK) .176 .353 .185 .115 .478
Tacit Knowledge (TK) .609 .460 .552 .552 -.021 .492
Supply Chain Performance (SCP) .664 .516 .622 .367 .246 .435 .626
Values for the average variance extracted are printed in the diagonal.

37
 Knowledge
Acquisition
Explicit
Knowledge H3a
H1
Knowledge
Conversion
Supply Chain Supply Chain
Knowledge Performance
Management
Knowledge Capability
H2 H3b
Application

Tacit
Knowledge
Knowledge
Protection

Figure 1: Research model

38

View publication stats