International Journal of Innovation Science

Developing a conceptual framework of knowledge management

Rayees Farooq,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rayees Farooq, (2018) "Developing a conceptual framework of knowledge management",
International Journal of Innovation Science, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2018-0068
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2018-0068
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 10 December 2018, At: 06:52 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17 times since 2018*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:428790 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-2223.htm

Knowledge
Developing a management
conceptual framework of
knowledge management
Rayees Farooq
Mittal School of Business, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India
Received 4 July 2018
Revised 3 October 2018
Accepted 2 November 2018
Abstract
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Purpose – Knowledge management is a function of learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational

memory and knowledge reuse. This paper aims to endeavor to explore a link between knowledge
management and value creation which seem to be fragmented in the literature due to various
conceptualizations and meanings. The study hypothesized a moderating role of social capital on the
relationship between knowledge management and value creation.
Design/methodology/approach – The study was approached from the theoretical perspective. Study
thoroughly reviews and analyzes the literature by developing a link between knowledge management and
value creation. The studies were explored from selected databases including “Google scholar”, “Emerald” and
“ProQuest” using the keyword search, namely, “Knowledge Sharing”, “Learning Orientation”, “Organizational
Memory”, “Knowledge Re-use”, “Knowledge Management”, “Knowledge-based View”, “Competitive
Advantage”, “Value Creation” and “Social Capital” to reduce the interpretation bias.
Findings – Knowledge management is an important predictor of value creation which can be strengthened
by developing strong interpersonal relationships with all stakeholders. Organizations can create competitive
advantage by managing social capital through knowledge management processes including learning
orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational memory and knowledge reuse.
Research limitations/implications – The study is based on a theoretical model and an apparent
limitation is the non-existence here of contributions and discussions that have been based on empirical data.
Future study may use other moderating and mediating variables such as industry type, market orientation,
human capital and organizational climate to know whether knowledge management directly affects the value
creation or indirectly through these variables. The hypotheses emerged from the model can be operationalized
by generating the items from the review of the literature.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the knowledge management literature by developing a
theoretical model of knowledge management based on underlying dimensions of learning orientation,
knowledge sharing, organizational memory and knowledge re-use.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Knowledge management, Social capital, Value creation,
Learning orientation, Organizational memory, Knowledge reuse
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) as a discipline would appear to be somewhere between five
and fifteen years old. It evolved from the thinking of academicians and pioneers such as
Peter Drucker in the 1970s, Karl-Erik Sveiby in the late 1980s, and Nonaka and Takeuchi in
the 1990s (Brun, 2005). There is no consensus among the researchers about KM as a distinct
field and some consider KM as akin to information management and failed to observe the
true significance of KM in their profession (Kebede, 2010). One of the primary reasons that
researchers and practitioners have taken such an interest in KM is that knowledge is viewed International Journal of Innovation
Science
as a resource with significant potential of contributing to firm’s positions of competitive © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-2223
advantage (Paswan and Wittmann, 2009). DOI 10.1108/IJIS-07-2018-0068
 IJIS Until a definition is widely accepted, measuring KM and identifying its effect on
outcomes such as innovation and firm performance will be difficult to determine (Darroch
and McNaughton, 2003). The term KM has been defined in a number of ways in the
literature, but we have adopted the definition of Wang and Ahmed (2003), “KM orientation
is defined here as an organization’s distinctive capability of managing organizational
memory, knowledge sharing, and creating a learning culture”.
KM seems to be fragmented due to lack of underlying procedures and methods to
measure knowledge. The nature of the relationship between KM and value creation has
received considerable attention in the academic literature. Organizations failed to develop
improved measures due to lack of consensus on the measurement of KM. Developing and
maintaining KM is vital to firm’s long-term survival and success (Lin, 2015). Knowledge is
increasingly recognized as a critical resource that can be managed to enhance competitive
position and financial performance of a firm (Darroch, 2005). Researchers emphasize the
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

importance of developing unique knowledge within firms to deliver new products and
services and to distinguish it from competitors for achieving advantage (Birasnav, 2013).
The present study proposes KM as a higher-order construct with learning orientation,
knowledge sharing, organizational memory, and knowledge reuse as its dimensions.
Learning orientation stands for the tendency towards a strong commitment to learning,
shared vision, and open-mindedness. Learning orientation is one of the important aspects of
KM which focuses on how firms respond to rapidly changing environments. Learning
occurs when the knowledge workers interact in different communities of practices. A
learning orientation is organized in such a way that it scans for information in its
environment, creates information by itself, and encourages individuals to transfer
knowledge between the individuals in the team. The knowledge learned is often shared
within or outside the organization to improve performance. Knowledge sharing is the ability
of an organization to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Knowledge sharing is
defined as the belief towards exchanging knowledge, insights and skills in an organization
(Lin, 2015).
The lack of support from the top management, unwillingness to spending time on
sharing knowledge and avoidance of revealing leads to the competitive disadvantage. The
knowledge shared must be stored in the form of documents, databases, and worksheets
which are often referred to as codification strategy. Codification strategy emphasizes on how
the firm acquires stores and disseminates the knowledge. Organizational memory is a kind
of codification strategy where explicit knowledge is being stored and memorized at an
organizational level (Hensen et al., 1999; Farooq, 2017). Organizational Memory can be
defined as the way an organization stores organizational knowledge and applies it to present
activities (Jennex and Croasdell, 2004). Organizational memory is defined as the set of
repositories of information and knowledge that the firms have acquired and retained
(Croasdell et al., 2003).
Organizational memory is not an end of KM as the knowledge is being reused in many
instances. The knowledge reuse process starts with the creation of knowledge, storing of
knowledge and dissemination of knowledge. According to Markus (2001), each type of
knowledge reuser has different requirements for knowledge repositories. Owing to how
repositories are created, reuser’s requirements often remain unmet. But the knowledge
stored in human memories is meaningful and effective only in some context, and for
knowledge exercised in an organizational role that context is an organizational context
(Nelson and Winter, 1982).
The objective of the paper is to propose a theoretical model of KM which seems to be
poorly defined in the academic literature. The present study proposes KM as a multi-
 dimensional construct with learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational Knowledge
memory and knowledge reuse as its dimensions. The study develops a link between KM and management
value creation. The study hypothesized the moderating role of social capital on the
relationship between KM and value creation. The study highlights the importance of
knowledge-based theory in gaining competitive advantage.
The rest of the paper is summarized as follows: Research methodology, literature review
and formulation of hypotheses, KM as an organizational perspective, major gaps identified
in the literature, dimensions of KM, knowledge-based view, competitive advantage, value
creation followed by discussion, conclusion, managerial implications, limitations and
suggestions for future research.

Research methodology
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

The review of the literature was based on following criteria: For identifying the studies
related to KM, value creation, competitive advantage, knowledge-based view and social
capital, studies were selected based on the procedure suggested by Tranfield et al. (2003).
Undertaking a review of the literature to provide the best evidence for informing policy and
practice in any discipline is a key research objective for the respective academic and
practitioner communities (Tranfield et al., 2003). A procedure was followed whereby studies
were explored from selected databases including Google scholar, Emerald, ProQuest using
the keyword search, namely, “Knowledge Sharing”, “Learning Orientation”, “Organizational
Memory”, “Knowledge Re-use”, “KM”, “Knowledge-based View”, “Competitive Advantage”,
“Value creation” and “Social Capital”. The inclusion and exclusion criteria suggested by
Tranfield et al. (2003) was adopted whereby studies were included based on full-text
availability and keyword search. The studies were excluded based on non-availability of full
texts and doctoral dissertations.
The review of the literature included the studies from 1986 to 2018. The first phase
includes the studies from 1986 to 1997 with some seminal studies, namely, Barney (1986,
1991), Nonaka (1994), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Grant(1996) as shown in Table I.
The study explores seven studies during this period. The second phase explores the studies
from 1998 to 2008 with a total number of 34 studies. The period includes some of the seminal
work in the field of KM, namely, Alavi and Leidner (1998), Drucker (1999), Hensen et al.
(1999), Baker and Sinkula (1999), Gold et al. (2001) and Darroch and McNaughton (2003). The
last phase includes the studies from 2009 to 2017 with a total number of 28 studies. The
study found 69 studies from 1986 to 2017 which were finally used for the analysis.

Literature review and formulation of hypotheses

KM as an organizational perspective has strong foundations, embedded in the resource-
based view (Barney, 1986, 1991) and the knowledge-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991;
Conner, 1991). Organizational perspective views knowledge as an important resource for
gaining competitive advantage. However, knowledge-based view considers knowledge as
an important resource for the firm. Knowledge-based resources including knowledge, skills
and capabilities are difficult to imitate and heterogeneous resources are the major
contributing factors of sustainable competitive advantage. The knowledge-based view was
first proposed by Grant (1996) and was explained by others including (Conner, 1991). The
majority of the research in this area has focused on the necessity to exploit knowledge in
organizations. A detailed summary of the KM from an organizational perspective and
dimensions of KM are given below.
 IJIS
Period Year Study Nature of study

1986-1997 (n = 7)
1986 (1) 1986 Barney (1986) Conceptual
1991 (2) 1991 Barney (1991) Conceptual
1991 Conner (1991) Conceptual
1993 (1) 1993 Garvin (1993) Conceptual
1994 (1) 1994 Nonaka (1994) Conceptual
1995 (1) 1995 Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) Conceptual
1996 (1) 1996 Grant (1996) Conceptual
1998-2008 (n = 34)
1998 (1) 1998 Alavi and Leidner (1998) Empirical
1999 (3) 1999 Drucker (1999) Conceptual
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

1999 Hensen et al. (1999) Conceptual

1999 Baker and Sinkula (1999) Empirical
2001 (5) 2001 Alavi and Leidner (2001) Conceptual
2001 Clarke (2001) Conceptual
2001 Gold et al. (2001) Empirical
2001 Lowendahl et al. (2001) Empirical
2001 Markus (2001) Conceptual
2002 (3) 2002 Calantone et al. (2002) Empirical
2002 Darroch and McNaughton (2002) Empirical
2002 Kamara et al. (2002) Empirical
2003 (4) 2003 Croasdell et al. (2003) Empirical
2003 Darroch and McNaughton (2003) Empirical
2003 Stenmark (2003) Empirical
2003 Wang and Ahmed (2003) Empirical
2004 (2) 2004 Firestone and McElroy (2004) Conceptual
004 Jennex and Croasdell (2004) Conceptual
2005 (5) 2005 Brun (2005) Conceptual
2005 Darroch (2005) Empirical
2005 Halawi et al. (2005) Conceptual
2005 Hislop (2005) Conceptual
2005 Hoffman et al. (2005) Empirical
2006 (2) 2006 McElroy et al. (2006) Conceptual
2006 Watson and Hewett (2006) Empirical
2007 (5) 2007 Chen and Mohamed (2007) Empirical
2007 Du plessis (2007) Empirical
2007 Harsh (2007) Conceptual
2007 Lee and Sukoco (2007) Empirical
2007 Rao and Osei-bryson (2007) Empirical
2008 (4) 2008 Boumarafi and Jabnoun (2008) Empirical
2008 Gao et al. (2008) Conceptual
2008 Smedlund (2008) Empirical
2008 Wang et al. (2008) Empirical
2009-2017 (n = 28)
2009 (2) 2009 Paswan and Wittmann (2009) Conceptual
2009 Wang et al. (2009) Empirical
2010 (4) 2010 Bagorogoza and Waal (2010) Empirical
2010 Daud and Yusoff (2010) Empirical
Table I. 2010 Kebede (2010) Conceptual
Knowledge 2010 Liao and Wu (2010) Conceptual
management studies (continued)
per period
 Knowledge
Period Year Study Nature of study management
2011 (3) 2011 Edvardsson and Oskarsson (2011) Empirical
2011 Marquardt (2011) Conceptual
2011 Kankanhalli et al., 2011 Empirical
2012 (3) 2012 Farooq (2012) Empirical
2012 Xu and Quaddus (2012) Empirical
2012 Yusof and Bakar (2012) Empirical
2013 (2) 2013 Birasnav (2013) Empirical
2013 Yazhou and Jian (2013) Empirical
2014 (3) 2014 Aghamirzaee et al. (2014) Empirical
2014 Vij and Farooq (2014a) Empirical
2014 Vij and Farooq (2014b) Empirical
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

2015 (3) 2015 Bharati et al. (2015) Empirical

2015 Lin (2015) Empirical
2015 Vij and Farooq (2015) Empirical
2016 (5) 2016 Chirumalla and Parida (2016) Empirical
2016 Farooq (2016a) Conceptual
2016 Farooq (2016b) Conceptual
2016 Ha et al. (2016) Empirical
2016 Vij and Farooq (2016) Empirical
2017 (2) 2017 Farooq (2017) Conceptual
2017 Tuan (2017) Empirical
Total= 68 Table I.

Knowledge management- an organizational perspective

The area of KM gained a lot of prominences when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden
as the world’s first chief knowledge officer, later on, KM idea was taken up by researchers
like Nonaka and Ikujiro Takeuchi. They refined the field of KM with the introduction of SECI
model, i.e. socialization, externalization, combination and internationalization. Which
emphasizes knowledge creation by converting the tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge?
These conversion modes capture the idea that tacit and explicit knowledge are
complementary and can expand over time through a process of mutual interaction. The
intention to include KM as a strategy is to prioritize the creation and dissemination of
knowledge in an organization. This approach starts with the identification of the knowledge
assets of the firm that are required to accomplish the organizational objectives and then
leverage these assets to create competitive advantage.
KM is defined as an organizational optimization of knowledge to achieve enhanced
performance, increased value, competitive advantage and return on investment, through the use
of various tools, processes, methods, and techniques (Kamara et al., 2002). Tseng (2008) concludes
that managers are usually confronted with the difficulty of decisions of what and how to
implement KM for attaining the required performance in a turbulent world. The goal of KM is to
deliver the right knowledge to the right members at the right time, which can help members, take
the right actions and further improve the performance of circulation processes in an organization
(Ho, 2009). Following paragraphs provide the detailed summary of the dimensions of KM.

Major gaps identified in the literature

The study identifies the major gaps from the literature as shown in Table II. KM has been
studied from different perspectives including resource-based view by Barney (1991) and
knowledge-based view by Grant (1996). The overemphasis of RBV in KM studies (Wang and
 IJIS S. No. Gaps identified Source (s)

1 Various conceptualizations and measurements of Darroch and McNaughton (2002),

knowledge management, with little consensus
towards the dimensions of knowledge management
2 Future research is needed on the relationship
between knowledge management and value creation
3 Need to develop alternative measures for knowledge
management
4 Overemphasis of RBV in knowledge management
studies
5 Lack of consensus on the outcomes of knowledge
management
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)
Wang et al. (2008), Wang et al. (2009),
Lin (2015)
Edvardsson and Oskarsson (2011)
Darroch (2005), Wang et al. (2008)
Wang and Ahmed (2003), Darroch
(2005)
Darroch (2005), Wang et al. (2008),
Edvardsson and Oskarsson (2011), Lin
(2015)

6 The dimensionality of knowledge management Current Study

construct is measured using knowledge acquisition,
knowledge dissemination and responsiveness which
coincide with the behavioral perspective of market
orientation, namely, intelligence generation,
Table II. dissemination and responsiveness proposed by
Major gaps identified Kohli and Jaworski (1990)

Ahmed, 2003; Darroch, 2005) shifted the focus of researchers to the knowledge-based view of
the firm. The resource-based view is often discussed as a theoretical foundation in KM
studies. However, RBV considers knowledge as a generic resource rather than having special
attributes. A knowledge-based view is an extension of RBV proposed by Grant (1996. The
present study emphasizes on knowledge-based view as the theoretical foundation.
There are various conceptualizations and measurements of KM, with little consensus
towards the dimensions of KM. KM is a measure of knowledge sharing, organizational
memory and learning culture (Wang and Ahmed, 2003). Darroch and McNaughton (2003)
measure KM orientation with knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and
responsiveness to knowledge. Lin (2015) proposes KM orientation as a multi-dimensional
construct with organizational memory, knowledge sharing, knowledge absorption and
knowledge receptivity. The lack of consensus on the measures of KM and the need to
develop effective measures including learning orientation, knowledge sharing,
organizational memory and knowledge reuse is highly anticipated. The previous studies
widely examined the relationship between KM and performance (Wang et al., 2008, 2009).
However, there is lack of consensus on the consequences of KM (Darroch, 2005; Wang et al.,
2008; Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2011; Lin, 2015). KM is an important predictor of value
creation (Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2011).
The measures of KM including knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and
responsiveness proposed in the previous studies (Darroch and McNaughton, 2003; Darroch,
2005) overlap with the behavioral perspective (intelligence generation, dissemination and
responsiveness) of market orientation proposed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990).

Dimensions of knowledge management

There is no consensus among researchers toward the dimensions of KM because KM is
multifaceted and multidimensional in nature as shown in Table III. Different frameworks of
KM exist; one proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996) is the seminal work in the field of
 Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

S. No. Construct Definition Source Dimensions Findings

1. Knowledge Knowledge management is the
management capability to acquiring the knowledge,
converting it into new strategy,
applying and protecting it
2. Knowledge Knowledge management orientation is a
management broader term covering both market and
orientation non- market factors including
performance and innovation
3. Knowledge Knowledge management is defined as
management the process of identification,
optimization and active management of
assets which create value and enhances
business performance
4. Knowledge Knowledge management is defines as
management the creation, codification, distribution
and applications of knowledge in an
organization
5. Knowledge Knowledge management is the
management capability of an organization to store,
codify and process the knowledge
6. Knowledge Knowledge management is a group of
management well-defined process used to explore and (2012)
exploit the knowledge among different
knowledge management operations
7. Knowledge Knowledge management is the
management capability of an organization to
effectively manage knowledge which
enables the firms to extract more from
all resources available to it
Ha et al. (2016) Knowledge acquisition, knowledge
conversion, knowledge application and
knowledge protection
Darroch and Knowledge acquisition, knowledge
McNaughton dissemination and knowledge
(2003) responsiveness
Yusof and Knowledge acquisition, knowledge
Bakar (2012) conversion, knowledge application and
knowledge protection
Alavi and Knowledge creation, knowledge storage,
Leidner (1998) knowledge distribution and knowledge
application
Gold et al. Knowledge infrastructure capability
(2001) (technology, structure and culture) and
knowledge process capability (Acquisition,
conversion, application and protection)
Zaied et al. Knowledge infrastructure capability
(technology, structure and culture) and
knowledge process capability (Acquisition,
conversion, application and protection)
Darroch (2005) Knowledge acquisition, knowledge
dissemination and knowledge
responsiveness
Knowledge management positively affected both
financial and non-financial performance
Knowledge management orientation affects the
innovation and performance and is a broader term
than market orientation
Knowledge management plays a significant role
in the growth of construction companies.
Organizations ineffective in managing the
knowledge makes the knowledge irrelevant
Proposed a framework of knowledge management
and how this knowledge is being codified in order
to create competitive advantage
The results have suggested that knowledge
infrastructure capability (technology, structure
and culture) and knowledge process capability
(Acquisition, conversion, application and
protection) can provide a useful benchmark for
managing the knowledge in an organization
The results have suggested that knowledge
management positively affects organizational
performance
The study has concluded that only knowledge
responsiveness affects performance: however
knowledge acquisition and knowledge
dissemination does not affect performance.
Innovation is an important predictor of knowledge
management-performance relationship
(continued)

management
knowledge
Table III.

conceptualization of
Knowledge

Measurement and
management
 Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

IJIS

Table III.
S. No. Construct Definition Source Dimensions Findings

8. Knowledge Knowledge management orientation is Wang et al. Organizational memory, knowledge sharing, The results have suggested that knowledge
management the firms relative propensity to build (2009) knowledge absorption and knowledge management orientation affects the performance
orientation organizational memory as well as receptivity and market orientation mediates the relationship
propensity to share, assimilate and be between knowledge management orientation and
receptive to new wisdom performance
9. Knowledge Knowledge management is the process Wang et al. Organizational memory, knowledge sharing, Knowledge management orientation positively
management of codifying, sharing the knowledge, (2008) knowledge absorption and knowledge affects firm performance
orientation propensity to absorb and knowledge receptivity
receptivity
10. Knowledge Knowledge management orientation can Lin (2015) Organizational memory, knowledge sharing, Knowledge management orientation positively
management be defined as the relative propensity of a knowledge absorption and knowledge affects performance
orientation firm to build on receptivity
existing knowledge, as well as to share
knowledge, assimilate external
knowledge within the existing
framework of internal knowledge, and
be receptive to new knowledge
11. Knowledge Knowledge management is defined as Current study Learning orientation, knowledge sharing, Knowledge management is an important predictor
management the capability to create learning culture, organizational memory and knowledge reuse of value creation. Social capital moderates the
facilitate knowledge sharing, store relationship between knowledge management and
productive knowledge and reuse the value creation
existing knowledge
12. Knowledge Knowledge management orientation is Darroch and Knowledge acquisition and responsiveness Knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination
management the management function that creates or McNaughton to knowledge are significant for innovation and responsiveness to knowledge
orientation locates knowledge, manages the flow of (2002) than knowledge dissemination
knowledge within the organization
13. Knowledge Knowledge management orientation is Yazhou and Organizational memory, knowledge sharing, Knowledge management orientation positively
management the ability to share, store, assimilate and Jian (2013) knowledge absorption and knowledge affects organizational performance
orientation be receptive to new knowledge receptivity
14. Knowledge Knowledge management is defined as Boumarafi and Organizational culture, organizational Knowledge management positively affects
management the organizations ability to engage in Jabnoun (2008) infrastructure, technical infrastructure, organizational performance
activities specifically designed to management support, reward and vision
facilitate the creation and sharing of clarity
knowledge
(continued)
 Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

S. No. Construct Definition Source Dimensions Findings

15. Knowledge Knowledge management refers to the
management process to develop and use knowledge
within the firm
16. Knowledge Knowledge management is defined as
management the organizational capability to organize
and making available important
knowledge wherever and whenever it is
needed
17. Knowledge Knowledge management is simply the
management process of leveraging organizational
knowledge to deliver a long-term
competitive advantage
18. Knowledge Knowledge management is a
management systematic, organized, explicit and
deliberate ongoing process of creating,
disseminating, applying, renewing and
updating the knowledge for achieving
organizational objectives
Liao and Wu Knowledge acquisition, knowledge Organizational learning mediate the relationship
(2010) conversion and knowledge application between knowledge management and
organizational innovation
Daud and Knowledge acquisition, knowledge Social capital mediates the relationship between
Yusoff (2010) conversion and knowledge application knowledge management and firm performance
Chen and Knowledge acquisition, knowledge Knowledge acquisition and utilization play
Mohamed dissemination, knowledge utilization and significant roles in the development of the
(2007) responsiveness to knowledge organizational knowledge assets which in turn
demands greater knowledge dissemination
capacity to improve business performance
Bagorogoza Knowledge acquisition, knowledge The study found that high performance
and Waal dissemination and responsiveness to organization framework is an important predictor
(2010) knowledge of knowledge management, competitive
advantage and performance

Table III.
Knowledge
management
 IJIS KM, which emphasizes on converting tacit into explicit knowledge. KM researchers suggest
different models of KM with varied conceptualizations and measurements.
A number of frameworks exist in the KM literature including KM orientation model
(Wang and Ahmed, 2003), KM process capability model (Gold et al., 2001) and KM
orientation model (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002). Wang and Ahmed (2003) suggest KM
orientation as a multi-dimensional construct with knowledge sharing, organizational
memory and learning the culture as its dimensions. Wang et al. (2008) operationalize KM
orientation as a higher-order construct with organizational memory, knowledge sharing,
knowledge receptivity and knowledge absorption as its dimensions. Darroch and
McNaughton (2002) identify three dimensions of KM orientation including knowledge
acquisition, knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge. Similarly, Gold
et al. (2001) validate KM process capability model with knowledge acquisition, conversion,
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

application, and protection. In the light of above discussion, KM is proposed as a multi-

dimensional construct with learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational
memory and knowledge reuse as its dimensions as shown in Figure 1.

Learning orientation (LO)

The new organization that emerges will need to possess greater knowledge, flexibility,
speed, power, and learning ability so as to better confront the shifting needs of a new
environment, more demanding customers, and smarter knowledge workers (Marquardt,
2011, p. 2). Majority of the scholars view organizational learning as a process that unfolds
over time and link it with knowledge acquisition and improved performance (Garvin, 1993).
Learning orientation has proved to be elusive over the past few decades because of several
meanings and conceptualizations. Learning orientation is an organizational characteristic
that reflects the value that a firm places not only on adroitly responding to changes in the
environment but also on constantly challenging the assumptions that frame the
organization’s relationship with the environment (Baker and Sinkula, 1999). Learning
orientation (LO) stands for the tendency of the organization to create and apply knowledge
in an organization (Vij and Farooq, 2015).
Vij and Farooq (2015) found that LO is an important predictor of business performance
which is more pronounced in smaller firms than larger firms. The successes are obvious.
Organizations that learn faster will be able to adapt more quickly and thereby achieve

Figure 1.
Theoretical model of
knowledge
management
 significant strategic advantages in the global world of business (Marquardt, 2011). Knowledge
Calantone et al. (2002) conclude that learning orientation affects firm performance and firm management
innovation capability mediates the relationship between learning orientation and business
performance. However, organization age moderate the relationship between learning
orientation and firm performance. Baker and Sinkula (1999) conclude that effect of learning
orientation on organizational performance is mediated by market orientation.
LO is the tendency towards a strong commitment to knowledge, open-mindedness and
shared vision. Organizations believe that learning is only a matter of shared vision,
optimism and providing training to their work-force. This statement is equivocal in nature
as it may change the preferences of the customers. The organizations need to shift their
focus from organizational learning to learning organization by conducting training and
development programs, workshops and seminars so that these organizations will be able to
adapt themselves to this knowledge-based economy. Learning provides the scope for
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

development of knowledge, skills and abilities to stay ahead in this competitive

environment.
There are several ways to conceptualize the relationship between learning orientation
and KM. King (2009) opines that organizational learning focuses on the process, and KM
focuses on the content of the knowledge that an organization acquires, disseminates,
processes and uses. KM has an organizational form that corresponds, at least loosely, to the
idea of the idealized learning organization (Firestone and McElroy, 2004). The literature
suggests that learning orientation is the determinant of KM (Garvin, 1993; Baker and
Sinkula, 1999; Vij and Farooq, 2015). Therefore, following hypothesis was formulated:

H1. Learning orientation is positively related to KM which leads to value creation.

Knowledge sharing (KS)

Knowledge sharing orientation is defined as the “tendency in the organization to facilitate,
encourage and reward knowledge exchange with the motive of capturing tacit and explicit
learning gained by the employees (Vij and Farooq, 2014b). Knowledge sharing is defined as
the belief towards exchanging knowledge, insights, and skills in an organization (Lin, 2015).
Knowledge sharing is an important predictor of KM (Farooq, 2012). Knowledge sharing is
one of the major challenges faced by many organizations in the field of KM as the majority
of the work-force tends to hoard the knowledge with the rest of an organization. However,
knowledge sharing activities are sustained by knowledge-based systems including
organizational memory. Organizational memory, organizational culture and reward, and
trust are one of the critical success factors that encourage and motivate the employees from
bottom to top and vice versa to share the knowledge. However, knowledge can be both
subjective as well as objective, the former is personal, context-specific and not so easy to
communicate to others which are often referred to as tacit knowledge which cannot be easily
codified while as later is objective in nature, not so difficult to process with computers which
are referred to as explicit knowledge. Knowledge sharing is an important predictor of
business performance and knowledge sharing is equally important for both manufacturing
and service organizations. The study further concludes that organizational culture,
structure, reward systems, motivation, trust, management support and ICT are the
significant determinants of knowledge sharing (Farooq, 2018).
The integration of both tacit and explicit knowledge creates the knowledge spiral which
is referred to as knowledge sharing. According to Vij and Farooq (2014a) “knowledge
sharing orientation is the critical means through which employees can contribute to
knowledge application, innovation and ultimately the competitive advantage”. It is the
 IJIS sharing of knowledge that will allow the generation and transfer of ideas that enable
resources to be used efficiently and benefit the organization (Boumarafi and Jabnoun, 2008).
Wang et al. (2009) conclude that knowledge sharing is an important dimension of KM
orientation. The quintessence of knowledge sharing is to mobilize knowledge because
effective KM requires a constant flow of knowledge (Wang et al., 2008). Lin (2015) suggests
that knowledge sharing positively affects KM orientation. Tuan (2016) argues that
knowledge sharing is a means to make an organization knowledgeable, leading to its
superior performance and external positioning.
The question arises which strategy organization should use to share the knowledge in an
organization. The firms adopt two types of strategies to manage the knowledge, in some
firms; the strategy focuses on the systems or computers. Where knowledge is easily codified
and stored in the form of documents so that it can be easily available for use in the firm
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

which is often referred to as codification strategy. In other firms, the knowledge which
resides in the minds of the people and is difficult to codify is known as personalization
strategy. According to Hansen et al. (1999):
[. . .] a company’s choice of strategy is far from arbitrary-it depends on the way the company
serves its clients, the economics of its business, and the people it hires. Emphasizing the wrong
strategy or trying to pursue both at the same time can, as some consulting firms have found,
quickly undermine a business.
The studies found that knowledge sharing is an important predictor of KM (Boumarafi and
Jabnoun, 2008; Wang et al., 2008, 2009; Farooq, 2012; Vij and Farooq, 2014a, 2014b).
Therefore, following hypothesis was formulated:

H2. Knowledge sharing is positively related to KM which leads to value creation.

Organizational memory
Organizational memory is an organizational mechanism that captures, stores, and
disseminates knowledge learned from previous experience that can be brought to bear on
decisions (Wang et al., 2008). Organizational memory is a kind of codification strategy where
explicit knowledge is being stored and memorized on an organizational level. Organizations
gather the knowledge and then knowledge is being stored in the form of databases and
documents and decision-making is taken into consideration. Organizational memory is
defined as the acquisition, storing, dissemination and retrieval of information by
individuals. Organizational memory operates in the same way as the human mind.
Chirumalla and Parida (2016) opine that many organizations consider knowledge reuse
as a major justification for KM and effective business performance. Watson and Hewett
(2006) suggest that firms can leverage knowledge by reusing the existing knowledge that is
codified in a knowledge repository to gain competitive advantage.
According to Jennex and Croasdell (2004), organizational memory can be defined as the
way an organization stores organizational knowledge and applies it to present activities.
The knowledge which is created or which resides in the minds of the people so-called tacit
knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge also called codification strategy.
Organizations cannot store all the knowledge which has been created rather they have to be
selective in their approach to retaining important knowledge and ignoring other redundant
knowledge which can create the value in the long run. Firms which consider information
technology as a valuable resource can gain a competitive advantage by adopting and
implementing the information technology systems which can reinforce the structures and
 processes and which ultimately enhances the performance of an organization (Farooq, Knowledge
2016b). management
Hansen et al. (1999) opine that companies that use knowledge effectively pursue one
strategy predominantly and use the second strategy to support the first. We think of this as
an 80–20 split: 80 per cent of their knowledge sharing follows one strategy, 20 per cent the
other. Hence, the firms with robust organizational memory can enhance their business
performance by adopting the codification strategy. The literature suggests that
organizational memory is positively related to KM (Jennex and Croasdell, 2004; Wang et al.,
2008, 2009; Vij and Farooq, 2016). Hence, following hypothesis was proposed:

H3. Organizational memory is positively related to KM which leads to value creation.

Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Knowledge reuse
One of the important themes in KM is the use of information systems in the sharing of
knowledge between users and non-users. Each type of reuse may have different
requirements for knowledge repositories and reuser’s requirements often remain unmet. If
quality dimensions are associated with these repositories it may help reusers to identify the
repositories that best suit their needs (Rao and Osei-bryson, 2007, p. 370). By reconfiguring
and reusing foreground and background knowledge and reusing the available assets and
different sets of interaction, an organization can build a new asset of knowledge (Harsh,
2007). Markus (2001) identifies four types of knowledge reuse situations including shared
work producers, shared work practitioners, expertize-seeking novices and secondary
knowledge miners. Knowledge creation is regarded as significant and difficult to manage
and knowledge reuse is also a matter of great concern that leads to the better organizational
performance. The researchers are equivocal about the findings of the knowledge reuse. The
knowledge reuse process starts with the creation of knowledge, storing of knowledge and
dissemination of knowledge. Knowledge creation is the more important and vital aspect of
whole KM process. Knowledge creation is not an easy task as different communities of
practices are formed by a group of people who participates in a process of collective
learning. Knowledge reuse is considered as an intermediate outcome that enhances work
performance. The outcomes include faster, better and less costly service, as the reuser does
not have to reinvent solutions already present in the repository (Kankanhalli et al., 2011,
p. 108).
Capturing and documenting knowledge can happen in four ways: First, it involves the
different communities to learn and share their knowledge which can be later searched.
Second, documenting knowledge for possible re-use can happen with a structure using
brainstorming facilitated by the use of electronic meeting systems. Third, documenting
knowledge needs the technical infrastructure and fourth documentation involves the
purifying, indexing, packaging and sanitizing knowledge for later re-use (Markus, 2001).
Storing knowledge in the form of documents or objects requires a lot of effort and resources.
Knowledge gained by individuals, converted into documented or electronic form, stored in a
repository for public access and knowledge seekers search and explore this knowledge from
the repository. Knowledge dissemination involves the sharing of knowledge which is stored
in the form of databases as it involves the willingness to share the knowledge.
There is a lot of time and resources involved in organizing, storing and retrieving the
knowledge, the cost involved in capturing and retrieving and reusing the knowledge.
Knowledge reuse requires the support from the top management including the availability
of technical infrastructure which serves as the backbone for explicit knowledge. Majority of
 IJIS the studies developed a positive link between knowledge reuse and KM (Markus, 2001;
Harsh, 2007). On the basis of above discussion, following hypothesis was proposed:

H4. Knowledge reuse is positively related to KM which leads to value creation.

Knowledge-based view
A knowledge-based view of the firm evolved in the strategic management literature
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The knowledge-based view was first proposed by Grant
(1996), the knowledge-based view is an extension of resource-based view proposed by
Barney (1991 and was later on extended by others including Alavi and Leidner (1998. The
emerging knowledge-based view is not, as yet, a theory of the firm. There is an insufficient
consensus as to its precepts or purpose, let alone its analysis and predictions, for it to be
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

recognized as a theory (Grant, 1996). Knowledge is the important resource to gain and
sustain competitive advantage. However, knowledge-based view raises many questions:
What is knowledge, what are the different types of knowledge, how different types of
knowledge improve the business performance? Knowledge is embedded in and carried
through multiple entities including organizational culture and identity, routines, policies,
systems and documents, as well as individual employees (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Even
though resource-based view considers knowledge as a generic resource to gain competitive
advantage but knowledge-based view contends that resource-based view considers
knowledge as a generic resource rather than having special attributes.
It does not emphasize different KM capabilities including organizational memory,
knowledge sharing, learning orientation and knowledge reuse. Knowledge-based resources
including knowledge, skills and capabilities are difficult to imitate due to immobility and
heterogeneity of resources. According to Lin (2015, p. 4), it is recognized that firm ability to
exploit existing knowledge (knowledge stocks) and explore new knowledge (knowledge
flows) are the main source of firm sustainable competitive advantage. Knowledge-based
resources are difficult to copy and imitate as these knowledge assets may produce long-term
benefits. These knowledge resources need to be explored and exploited for creating, storing
and disseminating the knowledge. Technical infrastructure (e.g. internet, intranet, databases
and decision support systems) can play a vital in managing and enhancing knowledge
within and outside the organization. Hence, following hypothesis was formulated:

H5. The knowledge-based view is related to competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage
The term competitive advantage refers to capability gained through resources including
knowledge skills and abilities to perform at a higher level than its competitors. The
concept of competitive advantage was introduced by Michael Porter (1980 based on lower
cost and differentiation. Porter published a book in 1985 titled, “Competitive advantage:
Creating and sustaining superior performance”, which emphasized three strategies
including cost leadership strategy, differential strategy, and focus strategy. The book
gained a lot of prominence in the 20th century. The major focus of Porter’s strategy is the
productivity growth. Knowledge is itself a generic resource which cannot be copied or
imitated for gaining the sustainable competitive advantage. In an economy where the
only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is
knowledge (Nonaka, 1991).
 In the present era of knowledge economy, organizations are continuously striving to Knowledge
create mechanisms for distinguishing themselves from their competitors. The four management
dimensions of the model described above should be viewed as a source of competitive
advantage. Different research questions can be formulated, namely, Does knowledge
sharing lead to the sustainable competitive advantage? Does learning orientation lead to
the sustainable competitive advantage? Does organizational memory lead to the sustainable
competitive advantage? Does knowledge reuse lead to the sustainable competitive
advantage? Which dimension of KM leads to the sustainable competitive advantage?
The KM process starts with the learning through communities of practices, sharing the
tacit as well as explicit knowledge and then storing the knowledge in the form of databases
and then re-using the knowledge which ultimately creates the sustainable competitive
advantage. Knowledge is often regarded as a resource which is difficult to imitate and a
major contributing factor towards sustainable competitive advantage. According to Halawi
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

(2005, p. 75), the sustainable competitive advantage is no longer rooted in physical assets
and financial capital but in the effective channelling of intellectual capital. Knowledge is
seen as a strategic asset to create a sustainable competitive advantage for the firm. The
knowledge-based view of organizations extends the resource-based view of the firm
proposed by Penrose (1959). One of the major apprehensions for the organizations is to
sustain the competitive advantage. Halawi (2005) defines competitive advantage as the
capability to earn returns on investment constantly above the average of the industry.
Sustained competitive advantage can be created by following the value creating strategy
which is not being implemented simultaneously by others. Therefore, following hypothesis
was framed:

H6. Competitive advantage is positively related to value creation.

Value creation
Knowledge-worker productivity requires that the knowledge worker is both seen and
treated as an “asset” rather than a “cost.” It requires that knowledge workers want to work
for the organization in preference to all other opportunities (Drucker, 1999). The view that
knowledge embodied in new products and services has become the primary source of wealth
creation and the source of sustainable competitive advantage is driven by a number of inter-
related, apparently irresistible impulses of the new economy (Clarke, 2001). Organizations
ability to create new knowledge is regarded as a primary source of a competitive advantage
already today and increasingly so in the future and finding ways to actively support the
process of organizational knowledge creation is, therefore, an activity that should be
prioritized (Stebmark, 2003). Smedlund (2008) suggests that intellectual capital including
social capital, human capital and financial capital forms the knowledge which offers the
organization its value and the organizations uses this knowledge to make a profit. Value
creation is knowledge-intensive and delivered by highly educated employees, who are
frequently closely linked with research and scientific development within their area of
expertise (Lowendahl et al., 2001).
Research which focuses on knowledge as a possible source of innovation and value
creation can enhance their organizational performance. It is not the stock of knowledge that
provides the organizations with a competitive advantage, but the way knowledge is applied
in creating value. When both tacit and explicit knowledge is combined into unique processes
at an organizational level, core competencies may be developed which creates the
sustainable competitive advantage (Lowendahl et al., 2001). Value creation process in KM
starts with input-process-output. Employees and their contributions as input in knowledge
 IJIS value creation, the knowledge created by the employees also called tacit knowledge is
processed by retaining the necessary knowledge and excluding the other insignificant stock
of knowledge. The knowledge which is processed is often converted into explicit knowledge
whereby knowledge is stored and codified. Therefore, the knowledge value creation cycle
continues.
KM is an important predictor of value creation. Value creation process starts with an
organizational learning whereby individuals and groups develop a shared vision, strong
commitment to learning and open-mindedness to capture knowledge and make sense out of
it. However, knowledge sharing is the critical success factor in improving the business
performance by motivating and encouraging the employees to share their knowledge to
create superior value and improve performance. Organizational memory facilitates
connection and collaboration from any place and location to improve the access to new and
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

existing knowledge. Knowledge stored or codified is often reused for creating meaningful
products and services in order to gain a sustainable competitive advantage. The integration
of learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational memory and knowledge reuse
enhances the value creation and creates the superior business performance. Therefore,
managing knowledge without improving the business performance and value creation can
be problematic and may lead to competitive disadvantage.

Moderating role of social capital

Social capital consists of knowledge and organizational resources that enhance the potential
for individual and collective action in human social systems (McElroy et al., 2006). Social
capital focuses on the social networks, inter and intra-relationship between different
communities of practices, customers and vendors. Social capital deals with the social
interactions and networks which ultimately adds the value to the economy. According to
Daud and Yusoff (2010, p. 136) “firms can create competitive advantage by managing social
capital systematically through KM processes, which include knowledge acquisition,
knowledge conversion, and knowledge application”.
Social capital is multi-dimensional in nature with structural, relational and cognitive
capital as its dimensions. Structural capital deals with the interaction pattern between
organizations, relational capital focus on the relationship between customers, suppliers and
vendors and cognitive capital are defined as the degree to which the firms share a common
understanding evolving from these interactions. Bharati et al. (2015) conclude that social
media and the improved social capital helps in promoting organizational efforts in KM,
which leads to higher level of organizational knowledge quality.
Hoffman et al. (2005) found that social capital moderates the relationship between KM
and performance. Organizations with high levels of social capital have more KM capabilities
than organizations with low levels of social capital. Lee and Sukoco (2007) conclude that
social capital moderates the relationship between KM capability, entrepreneurial
orientation, competence improvement, and organizational effectiveness. The results suggest
that organizations could develop a feeling of trust and a strong commitment among their
employees to effectively manage the knowledge to add value to its organization. If an
organization is able to increase effective interactions among its staffs, groups and
organizational units, there will be new knowledge creation within the organization, transfer,
and exchange among individuals and the effect of organizational KM will be increased
(Aghamirzaee et al., 2014, p. 2469).
In terms of knowledge creation, social capital helps to facilitate the development of
collective intellectual capital by affecting the conditions necessary for exchange and
combination to occur (Hoffman et al., 2005). Social capital plays a significant role in value
 creation that is vital to KM. The presence of social capital improves learning orientation, Knowledge
knowledge sharing, organizational memory and knowledge reuse. Social capital improves management
these KM capabilities, as it contributes to organizations ability to create a superior business
performance. Therefore, following hypothesis was formulated:

H7. Social capital moderates the relationship between KM and value creation.

Discussion and conclusion

The study aims to develop a valid measure of KM using learning orientation, knowledge
sharing, organizational memory and knowledge reuse as its dimensions. The need to develop
an improved measure of KM is due to various conceptualizations and measurements
available in the KM literature. The dimensionality of KM construct is measured using
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and responsiveness which coincide with

the behavioral perspective of market orientation (intelligence generation, dissemination and
responsiveness) proposed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990). Darroch and McNaughton (2002)
operationalize KM orientation with knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and
responsiveness to knowledge. The KM orientation conceptualized by Wang and Ahmed
(2003) is a function of knowledge sharing, organizational memory and learning the culture.
The present study defines “KM” as the capability to create a learning culture, facilitate
knowledge sharing, store productive knowledge and reuse the existing knowledge.
The relationship between KM and business performance is widely examined in the
literature (Wang et al., 2009; Lin, 2015). The relationship between KM and value creation is
fragmented or incomplete. Therefore, the present study extends the dynamic capability
perspective of KM to improve the value creation in knowledge-intensive firms. The study
hypothesized the moderating effect of social capital on the relationship between KM and
value creation. KM brings together the multiple dimensions including learning orientation,
knowledge sharing, organizational memory and knowledge reuse and their implementation
requires a systematic approach to organizational effectiveness and value creation. Therefore
it is important to link KM to value creation, without managing the knowledge using these
dimensions; it is unlikely that it will add value to the organization.
The relationship between KM and value creation has a logical explanation. If the KM is
lacking in a firm, it will be problematic to create a good learning organization, facilitate the
exchange of productive knowledge, the codification of explicit knowledge and reusing the
knowledge. The integration of these dimensions to measure KM can be a key competency to
sustain the competitive advantage. Learning orientation is not enough to ensure the
successful implementation of KM practices. The use of other capabilities such as knowledge
sharing, organizational memory, and knowledge reuse is needed to effectively measure KM
across firms. Wang and Ahmed (2003) suggest that KM orientation is a function of
knowledge sharing, organizational memory and learning the culture. However, the need to
include knowledge reuse as a part of KM is required to develop a valid measure of KM. By
reconfiguring and reusing foreground and background knowledge and reusing the available
assets and different sets of interaction, an organization can build a new asset of knowledge
(Harsh, 2007). Merely investing in organizational memory to manage knowledge may
be useful in the short run; however, learning orientation, knowledge sharing and knowledge
reuse are required to realize the benefits in the long run.
KM plays a vital role in the development of the social capital in organizations. McElroy
et al. (2006) suggest that trust, beliefs, norms, rules and networks are the significant
determinants of social capital and which improves the KM capabilities of organizations.
Organizations can create competitive advantage by managing social capital through KM
 IJIS processes including learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational memory and
knowledge reuse. Organizations can use inter-organizational relationships, namely,
customers, buyers and suppliers to create new knowledge. The new knowledge created can
be converted into meaningful products and services. The study contributes to the
knowledge-based view of the firm by considering learning orientation, knowledge sharing,
organizational memory and knowledge reuse as the important strategic asset to achieve
superior business performance. The study provides the rationale for empirically validating
these propositions emerged from each dimension to operationalize the KM model.

Managerial implications
KM can be used as a tool to measure KM capabilities. The lack of effective measures for KM
can be a bottleneck to improve business performance. The present study suggests that
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

merely focusing on knowledge sharing as a part of KM is not sufficient. However, the value
creation lies in KM capabilities, namely, learning orientation, knowledge sharing,
organizational memory and knowledge reuse that are difficult to copy and imitate. The
study proposes a new taxonomy to classify different KM capabilities into four dimensions of
KM.
Managers should frame the policies for successful implementation of KM capabilities:
first, executives should provide the employees with good organizational culture, feeling of
trust and top management support for a strong commitment to learning, open-mindedness
and shared vision to have better learning orientation. Second, they should provide the
organizational rewards for sharing the tacit knowledge as a valuable addition to their
products and services. Third, they should overcome the problem of strategic choice between
personalization and codification and should follow them in 80:20 proportions according to
Hansen et al. (1999). Deciding the ideal strategy mix between personalization and
codification strategy can improve the business performance (Farooq, 2017).
The idea that social capital is a determinant of an organizations capacity for KM has
practical implications for managers of businesses in general and specifically for
managers of organizations that are trying to enhance their ability to manage knowledge
(Hoffman et al., 2005, p. 98). Organizations should develop strong ties with customers,
buyers and employees to help them in creating, storing and disseminating the
knowledge. Organizations will perform better if they have good social capital. Social
media and the improved social capital helps in promoting organizational efforts in KM,
which eventually leads to higher level of organizational knowledge quality (Baharati
et al., 2015). Social capital can help organizations improve their value creation by
enhancing knowledge sharing activities and social interactions to gain the sustainable
competitive advantage. Firms that operate under high social capital enable their
employees to create a good learning culture and knowledge sharing in the long run.

Limitations and scope for future research

This is only a conceptual model and an apparent limitation is the non-existence here of
contributions and discussions that have been based on empirical data. The KM model
proposed and hypotheses developed can be empirically validated using exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The study discusses the moderating role of social
capital in the relationship between KM and value creation. However, this was based on a
prior assumption which can be further strengthened by empirically validating the same.
Future study may use other moderating and mediating variables such as industry type,
market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, human capital and organizational climate to
know whether KM directly affects the value creation or indirectly through these variables.
 Future study needs to operationalize the theoretical model using the updated scale Knowledge
development procedures suggested by Farooq (2016a). Hypotheses developed for each management
dimension can be empirically validated by identifying the statements for each proposed
dimensions, namely, learning orientation, knowledge sharing, organizational memory and
knowledge reuse. Value creation construct can be measured and validated by identifying the
items from the literature. The theoretical model proposed can be tested for construct
validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and composite reliability to validate the
model. However, model development using structural equation modelling (SEM) is least
prominent among researchers and academicians developing the scale. Application and
reporting of SEM in scale development are underdeveloped (Farooq, 2016a).

References
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Aghamirzaee, T., Tabari, M. and Paydar, F. (2014), “The relationship between social capital and
knowledge management in knowledge-based organizations”, Management Science Letters,
Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 2469-2478.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (1998), “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and an agenda for research”, INSEAD.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Bagorogoza, J. and Waal, A.D. (2010), “The role of knowledge management in creating and sustaining
high-performance organizations: the case of financial institutions in Uganda”, World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning
orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-427.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy”, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1231-1241.
Bharati, P., Zhang, W. and Chaudhury, A. (2015), “Better knowledge with social media? Exploring the
roles of social Capital and organizational knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 456-475.
Birasnav, M. (2013), “Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry:
the role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1622-1629.
Boumarafi, B. and Jabnoun, N. (2008), “Knowledge management and performance in UAE business
organizations”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 6, pp. 233-238.
Brun, C.D. (2005), “ABC of knowledge management, NHS national library for health: knowledge
management specialist library”, available at www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/knowledge/
docs/ABC_of_KM.pdf (accessed 20 February 2013).
Calantone, R., Cavusgil, T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation, firm innovation capability and
firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-524.
Chen, L. and Mohamed, S. (2007), “Empirical study of interactions between knowledge management
activities”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 242-260.
Chirumalla, K. and Parida, A. (2016), “Understanding knowledge reuse process: a case study in a
production maintenance organization”, IUP Journal of Computer Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 25-42.
Clarke, T. (2001), “The knowledge economy”, Education and Training, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 189-196.
 IJIS Conner, K.R. (1991), “A historical comparison of the resource-based theory and five schools of thought
within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-154.
Croasdell, D.T. Jennex, M. Yu, Z. and Christianson, T. (2003), “A meta-analysis of methodologies for
research in knowledge management, organizational learning and organizational memory: five
years at HICSS”, available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1174253/ (accessed 13
June 2015).
Darroch, J. (2005), “Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 101-115.
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), “Examining the link between knowledge management practices
and types of innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-222.
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2003), “Beyond market orientation: knowledge management and the
innovativeness of New Zealand firms”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 572-593.
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Daud, S. and Yusoff, W.F.W. (2010), “Knowledge management and firm performance in SMEs: the role
of social capital as a mediating variable”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 135-155.
Drucker, P.F. (1999), “Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest challenge”, California Management
Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 79-94.
Du Plessis, M. (2007), “The role of knowledge management in innovation”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 20-29.
Edvardsson, I.R. and Oskarsson, G.K. (2011), “Knowledge management and value creation in service
firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
Farooq, R. (2012), “Impact of knowledge sharing and information technology on knowledge
management and performance”, Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Lovely Professional University.
Farooq, R. (2016a), “Role of structural equation modeling in scale development”, Journal of Advances in
Management Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Farooq, R. (2016b), “Does information technology really matter”, Changing Dynamics in Global Markets,
Bloomsbury, London.
Farooq, R. (2017), “Knowledge management strategies: evidence from the past”, International Journal of
Applied Business and Economic Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 413-420.
Farooq, R. (2018), “A conceptual model of knowledge sharing”, International Journal of Innovation
Science, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 238-260.
Firestone, J.M. and McElroy, M.W. (2004), “Organizational learning and knowledge management: the
relationship”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-184.
Gao, F., Li, M. and Clarke, S. (2008), “Knowledge, management, and knowledge management in
business operations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 3-17.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122.
Ha, S.T., Lo, M.C. and Wang, Y.C. (2016), “Relationship between knowledge management and
organizational performance: a test on SMEs in Malaysia”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 224, pp. 184-189.
Halawi, L., Aronson, J. and McCarthy, R. (2005), “Resource-based view of knowledge management for
competitive advantage”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 75-86.
 Harsh, O.K. (2007), “Data, information and knowledge and reuse management techniques”, World Knowledge
Congress on Engineering, pp. 195-200.
management
Hensen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T.J. (1999), “What is your strategy for managing knowledge?”,
Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/1999/03/whats-your-strategy-for-
managing-knowledge (accessed 19 January 2014).
Hislop, D. (2005), Knowledge Management in Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Hoffman, J.J., Hoelscher, M.L. and Sherif, K. (2005), “Social capital, knowledge management, and
sustained superior performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 93-100.
Jennex, M. and Croasdell, D.T. (2004), “Knowledge management, organizational memory and
organizational learning cluster”, available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfe1/
bcdeca82515aaf218ff2f5a41458fa7d8810.pdf (accessed 11 June 2015).
Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. (2002), “A clever approach to selecting a knowledge
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

management strategy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 205-211.
Kankanhalli, A., Lee, O.K.D. and Lim, K.H. (2011), “Knowledge reuse through electronic repositories: a
study in the context of customer service support”, Information and Management, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 106-113.
Kebede, G. (2010), “Knowledge management: an information science perspective”, International Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 416-424.
King, W.R. (2009), “Knowledge management and organizational learning”, Knowledge Management
and Organizational Learning, Springer US, pp. 3-13.
Lee, L.T.S. and Sukoco, B.M. (2007), “The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge
management capability on organizational effectiveness in Taiwan: the moderating role of social
Capital”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 549.
Liao, S.-H. and Wu, C.-C. (2010), “System perspective of knowledge management, organizational
learning, and organizational innovation”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 1096-1103.
Lin, H.-F. (2015), “Linking knowledge management orientation to balanced score card outcomes”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1-53.
Lowendahl, B.R., Revang, O. and Fosstenlokken, S.M. (2001), “Knowledge and value creation in
professional service firms: a framework for analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 7,
pp. 911-931.
Markus, L.M. (2001), “Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and
factors in reuse success”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-93.
Marquardt, M.J. (2011), “Building the Learning Organization: Mastering the Five Elements for Corporate
Learning, Hachette.
McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J. and Engelen, J.V. (2006), “Rethinking social capital theory: a knowledge
management perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 124-136.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard university
press.
Nonaka, I. (1991), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Harvard Business Review Press. pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Paswan, A.K. and Wittmann, C.M. (2009), “Knowledge management and franchise systems”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-180.
Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, London.
 IJIS Rao, L. and Osei-Bryson, K.M. (2007), “Towards defining dimensions of knowledge systems quality”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 368-378.
Smedlund, A. (2008), “The knowledge system of a firm: social capital for explicit, tacit and potential
knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Stenmark, D. (2003), “Knowledge creation and the web: factors indicating why some intranets succeed
where others fail”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tuan, T.L. (2017), “Knowledge sharing in public organizations: the roles of servant leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 361-373.
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

Vij, S. and Farooq, R. (2014a), “Knowledge sharing orientation and its relationship with business
performance: a structural equation modeling approach”, The IUP Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 17-41.
Vij, S. and Farooq, R. (2014b), “Multi-group moderation analysis for relationship between knowledge
sharing orientation and business performance”, International Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 36-53.
Vij, S. and Farooq, R. (2015), “The relationship between learning orientation and business performance:
Do smaller firms gain more from learning orientation?”, The IUP Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Vij, S. and Farooq, R. (2016), “Moderating effect of firm size on the relationship between IT orientation
and business performance”, IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2003), “Knowledge management orientation and organizational
performance”, available at www.wlv.ac.uk/PDF/uwbs_WP004-03%20Wang%20%20Ahmed.
pdf (accessed 11 October 2014).
Wang, C.L., Ahmed, P.K. and Rafiq, M. (2008), “Knowledge management orientation: construct development
and empirical validation”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 219-235.
Wang, L.C., Hult, M.T.G. Jr, Ketchen, J.D. and Ahmed, K.P. (2009), “Knowledge management
orientation, market orientation, and firm performance: an integration and empirical
examination”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 99-122.
Watson, S. and Hewett, K. (2006), “A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations:
determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 141-173.
Yazhou, W. and Jian, L. (2013), “An empirical research on knowledge management orientation and
organizational performance: the mediating role of organizational innovation”, African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 604-612.
Yusof, M.N. and Bakar, A.H.A. (2012), “Knowledge management and growth performance in construction
companies: a framework”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62, pp. 128-134.

Further reading
Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. and Senoo, D. (1996), “From information processing to knowledge creation: a
paradigm shift in business management”, Technology in Society, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 203-218.

About the author

Rayees Farooq is currently working as an Assistant Professor at the Mittal School of Business,
Lovely Professional University, Phagwara. He has recently submitted his PhD thesis (Knowledge
Management) which investigated the relationship between knowledge management orientation and
business performance. He has completed his MBA from Punjab Technical University. He has
 completed his MPhil from Lovely Professional University in 2013. His research interests are Knowledge
knowledge management, Business Performance Management, Scale Development and Frugal
Innovation. He participated in the 2nd IIM-A Summer School, 2013, at the Indian Institute of management
Management, Ahmedabad, and attended the Doctoral Students Colloquium at IIM, Kozhikode, during
the XVI Annual Convention of the Strategic Management Forum (SMF) in May 2013. He has 15
publications in peer-reviewed journals and has a good command of multivariate data analysis tools.
He has also presented his work at 22 international conferences held at some of the top-notch institutes
of the country. In addition to this, he is also reviewer for International Journal of Innovation Science
(Emerald), Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Outsourcing (Emerald) and International
Journal of Knowledge Management (Web of Science). Rayees Farooq can be contacted at:
rayeesfarooq@rediffmail.com
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 06:52 10 December 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com