The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm
BPMJ
27,2
590
Received 19 July 2020
Revised 5 December 2020
19 December 2020
Accepted 24 December 2020
Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 27 No. 2, 2021
pp. 590-614
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-07-2020-0333
The spinner innovation model:
understanding the knowledge
creation, knowledge transfer and
innovation process in SMEs
Pedro Mota Veiga
Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Viseu, Portugal and
Research Center in Business Sciences (NECE), University of Beira Interior,
Covilh~a, Portugal
Ronnie Figueiredo
School of Business and Social Science, Universidade Europeia, Lisboa, Portugal and
Research Center in Business Sciences (NECE), University of Beira Interior,
Covilh~a, Portugal
Jo~ao J. M. Ferreira
Research Center in Business Sciences (NECE), University of Beira Interior,
Covilh~a, Portugal, and
Filipe Ambrosio
Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Viseu, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this article is to empirically study the influence of the characteristics of small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and innovation in
conjunction with the utilisation of private and public knowledge (KM) in accordance with the “spinner
innovation model” (SIM).
Design/methodology/approach – The article deploys a sample of primary data generated by a
questionnaire applied to the managers of hotel SMEs in Portugal. This involved the application of the
covariance and multiple regression analytical methods.
Findings – The results demonstrate that some of the SME characteristics return significant impacts on private
and public KM: the processes of knowledge creation, transfers of knowledge and innovation. The results also
identify how private KM statistically predicts the processes of knowledge creation and transfer and innovation
while public KM shapes and influences the creation of knowledge.
Research limitations/implications – As with any other such study, the key limitation stems from the
sample made up of 82 hotel directors, which represents only a low rate of response even though the project
deployed all of the procedures available to avoid such an outcome.
Practical implications – The SIM approach to the innovation process may assist strategic decision-makers
to improve their tools and relations, avoid repeated working overlaps in existing processes as well as enabling
more competitive approaches in terms of innovation.
Social implications – Furthermore, the responses ascertained reflect only the universe of study, conditioned
by the context that produced them; hence, any generalisation of the results requires due caution.
Originality/value – This is the first study to empirically analyse the influence of the characteristics of SMEs
over the processes of creating and transferring knowledge and innovation based upon applying the SIM and
observing the extent of public and private knowledge in the hotel sector of Europe, more specifically, Portugal.
Keywords SMEs, Innovation process, Small- and medium-sized enterprises, Knowledge transfer, Knowledge
creation, Spinner innovation model
Paper type Research paper
Funding: This study received financing from national funding through the FCT – the Foundation for
Science and Technology – under the auspices of project UID/GES/04630/2020.
1. Introduction The spinner
For last few decades, the prominence of the knowledge management and innovation process innovation
has been increased even for small firms due to the importance of people’s resilience
(Rahman and Mendy, 2019). Although this is more important in international markets, the
model
resource-constrained SMEs are facing both economic and technological challenges (Rahman
et al., 2020).
Based on this, Figueiredo and de Matos Ferreira (2020) first proposed the spinner
innovation model (SIM) as a new approach to the management of innovation and 591
internationalisation in knowledge-intensive business services (KIBSs). The application of the
SIM model focuses on the relationships ongoing between three variables defined for these
processes, knowledge creation, transfer of knowledge and innovation, supported by the
interactions ongoing between the internal and external environments of the company. This
enables the acceleration of processes designed to change mindsets and bring about
organisational transformation in addition to helping better understand the interactions
between professional intelligence and technology (Figueiredo et al., 2019).
SIM has gradually received growing attention in the scientific literature (e.g Figueiredo
and de Matos Ferreira, 2020; Figueiredo et al., 2019), making recourse to approaches involving
machine learning and applied econometrics in large business consultancy firms. These
studies have indicated the need to develop applications in smaller-scale firms (SMEs)
deploying new and open approaches to public and private knowledge.
To the best of our knowledge, open approach studies, also known as “open innovation”
studies, came about to undertake broad studies of the trends, motives and challenges to
managing SMEs. For example, van de Vrande et al. (2009) applied their study to SMEs in the
Netherlands. In turn, Rosenbusch et al. (2011) sought to determine the direction and strength
of the effects of innovations on SME performance levels.
Furthermore, Secundo et al. (2019) explored how knowledge gets transferred and flows
between the different actors in healthcare ecosystems in order to provide support for open
innovation processes and conclude by presenting four classification scenarios based on the
levels of influence and the motivations of the core actors involved in open innovations.
In addition, Zeng et al. (2010) studied the relationships between different networks of
cooperation and the innovation performances of SMEs through the application of structural
equation modelling techniques.
The influence of the amplitude of the open innovation strategy on the performance of the
products and services of SMEs in the United Kingdom was also subjected to research by
Uduma et al. (2015) with Suh and Kim (2012) approaching the effects of four types of
collaboration activities on the research and development (R&D) performance of service SMEs
in the context of open innovation within the general innovation ecosystem perspective.
Furthermore, the effects of the bonds formed among SMEs engaging in open innovation was
the subject of the study by Mei et al. (2019), again within the innovation ecosystem
perspective.
According to Santoro et al. (2018), SMEs primarily take closed approaches to innovation
and depend on internal sources to develop new products and services. Furthermore, de
Oliveira et al. (2019) analysed the critical factors to the success of implementing open
innovation in companies participating in regional innovation systems before reporting that
people and culture are the factors generating the greatest impact.
The deepening of the compensatory relationship between control and innovation in
complex and knowledge-intensive organisations was the target of the study by Spano et al.
(2017) that adopted a medium-term theoretical perspective to explore how control systems
and innovation dynamics interact and evolve in contexts characterised by high complexity
and intense knowledge creation. Within this context, this article seeks to offset the
BPMJ shortcoming identified in the literature by extending its scope through studying private
27,2 knowledge and public knowledge within the context of SMEs.
Thus, this study has the objective of testing SIM in terms of measuring the influence of
SME characteristics on the processes of knowledge creation, knowledge transfers and
innovation. Furthermore, this also examines the mediating role of private knowledge
(internal) and public knowledge (external) and their respective results.
The subsequent structure of this article is the following: Section 2 sets out the theoretical
592 background and develops the hypotheses. Section 3 defines the research methodology and
data analysis before the next sections present the results of the study and their respective
discussion. Finally, Section 6 puts forward the conclusions, limitations and future research
trends.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Spinner innovation model, SMEs and knowledge
The SIM incorporates a perspective of companies as promoters of interactions with the sector
that provides knowledge-intensive services, within the scope of processes for the creation of
new knowledge, knowledge transfers and innovation (Figueiredo and de Matos Ferreira,
2020; Figueiredo et al., 2019). These interactions are undertaken through public knowledge
(external environment) and private knowledge (internal environment) and seek to deliver
knowledge-intensive solutions based on professional and/or technological intelligence and
for developing dynamics of agility, changes in mindsets and organisational transformation
for SMEs (Figure 1).
SMEs come with a diverse range of definitions that have undergone different applications
over time, spanning different scales of size and countries, such as China (Zeng et al., 2010),
India (Ahmed et al., 2018), the USA (Brudney and Gazley, 2002) and Europe (Chesbrough and
Vanhaverbeke, 2011).
One means of SMEs overcoming the restrictions on their innovation activities is to
complement their resources and internal capacities (private KM) with external knowledge
(public KM) (Mirkovski et al., 2016).
In addition to analysis of the tacit knowledge acquired in markets, the scope and
implications of explicitly managing both internal (private KM) and external (public KM)
knowledge duly require evaluation (Valdez-Juarez et al., 2018).
Furthermore, companies that do undertake closed innovation, with recourse to private
KM, also believe that whenever they do produce better ideas and while they might dominate
the sector whenever the owners of these innovation processes, their competitors also end up
benefiting from their ideas (Ahmed et al., 2018).
Hence, companies commonly imagine their gaining success through the means of
innovation at the international level. Some of the core factors influencing the success and
innovations of companies include R&D and commercial approaches based on their internal
resources (Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006).
In addition, the importance of the characteristics of partners for promoting their
propensity to share information holds importance within the context of SMEs. In developing
countries, SME managers attempt to develop the new practices, processes, norms and
techniques that enable them to acquire knowledge, resources and the capacities necessary for
successful transfers of new technologies from developed countries (G€ unsel et al., 2019).
With a heightened awareness of the eventual results and benefits that companies
experience from recourse to open innovation and networking, engagement in bilateral
collaboration is on the agenda of high technology firms, as they go about examining their
interactions with the external environment (Woods et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, in recent decades, innovations have become increasingly complex and
demanding the incorporation of external ideas, emphasising the importance of companies
 The spinner
innovation
model

Firms 593

ve Busi
ensi ne
Int ss
e
g

Se
ed
es Knowl

rvic
Spinner

es Knowl
Model
rvic
Se

ed
g
s

s e
Int
ensiv Busine
e

Sector SMEs

Figure 1.
Spinner innovation
model (SIM)
Source(s): Figueiredo and de Matos Ferreira (2020)

being open to the acquisition of new knowledge beyond their organisation’s limitations in
developing innovations (Martınez-Costa et al., 2019).
The literature conveys how open innovations in SMEs also interlink with external sources
and public knowledge. However, in contrast to the large organisations concentrating on open
innovation in R&D, SMEs focus more on the processes inherent to commercialising the
products and services generated by such interactions (Ahmed et al., 2018). In addition, Rossi
et al. (2019) describe an external source in terms of non-financial corporation invest as
corporate venture capital (CVC), constituting a strategic way for the corporation obtaining
access to new technologies and innovations based on financing entrepreneurial initiates to
external collaboration. As regards this facet, external collaboration requires various
organisational conditions to achieve success. Contacts with external companies require the
management and members of staff of the company to be sensitive and motivated for such
collaboration. In turn, this depends in part on the type of organisational culture prevailing in
the company (Martınez-Costa et al., 2019).
Thus, external knowledge may take on various forms in keeping with newly emerging
changes in the business environment. The commitment of staff with the knowledge acquired
through means of contractual agreements, inter-learning or the desire and will to gain new
knowledge and abilities ensures that such organisational relationships, alliances and joint
ventures are attractive to the business (Ben Arfi et al., 2018)
BPMJ Therefore, Corral de Zubielqui et al. (2019) highlight the need to distinguish between
27,2 knowledge transfers ongoing between specific actors to understand the influence of the
quality of knowledge involved in external knowledge transfers and innovation and
advancing the research on the conditions under which external transfers of knowledge
contribute towards innovation and company levels of performance.
We correspondingly arrive at our first two hypotheses (H1 and H2):
594 H1. SME characteristics have an impact on private knowledge management.
H2. SME characteristics have an impact on public knowledge management.

2.2 SMEs, knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and innovation

Ever since the early 1970s, within the advancing context of globalisation, there has been the
substitution of commercial rivalries by better-established partnerships with the capacity to
integrate knowledge into products and services in more open approaches (Rosa et al., 2020).
Within this framework, we may consider the open innovation strategy as a central focus for
openness and sharing in innovation processes.
According to this perspective, strategy seeks to exploit the deployment of internal and
external knowledge to accelerate the innovation processes and enable companies to improve
their performance and levels of effectiveness in innovation, creating and capturing value
through means of advancing knowledge and cooperation with actors in external knowledge
networks (de Oliveira et al., 2019).
Empirical studies on external sources have attempted to measure this openness through
two parameters: the number of external sources applied in the innovation development
process and the intensity of the relationship with each source in terms of the creation of
knowledge (Santoro et al., 2018). However, van de Vrande et al. (2009) analyse the incidence of
open innovation in a broad sample of SMEs to report that open innovation not only not only
represents a trend in the case of high technology SMEs but also for a broader range of
businesses and firms.
From the perspective of Garcia-Perez-de-Lema et al. (2017), the different styles of
university–company governance impact and shape the innovation and performance of SMEs
while also considering that university–company contractual relations have a direct and
significant effect on innovation.
While the “mobility of knowledge” presents a significantly different challenge to SMEs,
this remains strongly influenced by two common factors: the type of knowledge for
integration and the configuration of the operational network (Harrington et al., 2019).
Beckmann et al. (2016) identify other challenges for SMEs that encapsulate how they are
traditionally unable to make the levels of investment necessary to access complex software
tools for advanced analysis in terms of knowledge creation. Therefore, a geographic and
sector specific focus is also significant in terms of aligning with the understanding of
localised initiatives for economic development (Vidmar, 2019).
Rosenbusch et al. (2011) argue that the new companies hold unique capacities for the
creation and appropriation of value through innovation with internal innovation projects able
to substantially boost performance even while innovation projects that involve external
collaborations do not generate significant effects in terms of the SME performance levels.
Hence, the acquisition of technology is the most efficient type of R&D collaboration for
service sector SMEs. More specifically, internal R&D, the acquisition of technology and R&D
collaboration positively interrelate with innovations in products/services, patenting activities
and process innovations, respectively, (Suh and Kim, 2012).
In turn, Ahmed et al. (2018) maintain that SMEs improve their performances all around the
world through the adoption of innovative techniques, including new technological
knowledge, knowledge about the market and the business models able to generate new The spinner
products, services, products or services tailored to or with a greater value for their clients. A innovation
successful business model creates a heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the
realisation of economic value (Chesbrough et al., 2002).
model
In general, recourse to external partners, such as scientific research establishments and
commercial consultancies, influences the SME performance levels (Chege and Wang, 2019).
Thus, innovation is essential to the knowledge economy and drives organisations for opening
up to external markets (Martınez-Roman et al., 2019). 595
According to Grama-Vigouroux et al. (2019), companies that adopt a public management
relationship obtain greater success in their innovation processes than those taking the private
and traditionally closed knowledge-based approach.
A review of knowledge transfer practices in manufacturing environments indicates how
informal processes of “on-the-job” training, whether by colleagues or supervisors, are
generally limited, especially in SMEs (Michalakoudis et al., 2018). The green sector has also
seen the application of the transfer of knowledge concept to encapsulate the relationships
among the risks inherent to innovation and performance (Ben Arfi et al., 2018). Furthermore,
many past studies have demonstrated that knowledge needs effectively transferring and
sharing among individuals and units (Xuan, 2020). According to Rossi (2015), the innovation
process and in the process of transferring technology to businesses, an important role is
realised by both formal and informal investors such as banks, venture capitalists and angel
investors.
In turn, Poorkavoos et al., (2016) reflect on the impact of inter-organisational networks on
the transfer of knowledge and the internal capacities of organisations engaging in different
types of innovation in high technology SMEs.
Currently, Horizon 2020, the new European Union Research and Innovation Program,
focuses on closer bonds between the research community, industry, users and SMEs as the
means to drive economic growth in Europe (Jaekel et al., 2015), leading to an increase in the
global competition within the current business environment in conjunction with the creation
of sustainable competitive advantage for SMEs.
The capacities for innovating and managing inter-organisational relationships represent
two critical factors that have received widespread recognition for the role they played in the
business success of SMEs (Poorkavoos et al., 2016). These factors, and collaboration among
companies over developing innovation, need not only the sharing of a series of resources but
also a clear orientation towards innovation able to promote organisational learning
processes.
The literature identifies a considerable number of types and models of innovation within
the scope of describing its nature, such as the innovation of products and of processes, radical
innovation and incremental innovation, systemic innovation and innovations in components,
technology as a driver and the attractions of markets and, more recently, closed innovation
and open innovation (Lee et al., 2010). These models may also be divided in accordance with
either their innovation processes (linear models, interlinked models, etcetera) or their
appropriateness for developed or for developing countries.
Research on open innovation has primarily concentrated on large high technology firms
and tended to adopt organisation-centred approaches to examine their external links (Woods
et al., 2019). In the case of technological innovations, these generally lead to the redesign of the
business models of established companies in keeping with the needs to incorporate new
external knowledge into their internal activities (M€ uller et al., 2020).
Furthermore, small- and medium-sized companies have successfully applied recent
innovation practices, such as open innovation, across the manufacturing and service sectors
and correspondingly perceived as useful tools for improving the performance of companies
(Ahmed et al., 2018).
BPMJ While open innovation has attracted increasing attention within the scope of innovation
27,2 management, even at the SME level, there is still a lack of heterogeneous explanations about
how smaller-scale companies engage in open innovation and which sources of knowledge
they make the greatest usage of (Santoro et al., 2018).
For those SMEs facing up to the restricted resources and capacities that limit the extent
of their innovation activities (Mirkovski et al., 2016), they become aware of the complexity of
innovation processes for growth and the scope for recourse to external networks. This is of
596 particular relevance as SMEs represent a vital part of any national economy in keeping with
how they account for the bulk of companies and employment in any country worldwide
(Manville et al., 2019).
According to Thom€a and Zimmermann (2020), policymakers frequently deem SMEs to
perform only basic roles in the technological progress of an economy, and this significantly
raises their chances of receiving public financial support whenever participating in
knowledge-based clusters (Crass et al., 2019).
Hence, Rosenbusch et al. (2011) maintain that when emerging entrepreneurs launch their
business ideas, a very commonly deployed argument states that nobody is currently doing
what we are about to do with our knowledge: identifying, acquiring and transferring
knowledge to create perfect competition (Vu, 2019).
We may thus formulate our third hypothesis (H3):
H3. SME characteristics have an impact on (a) knowledge creation, (b) knowledge
transfer and (c) innovation.

2.3 Private KM
The internal perspective accounts for only one dimension of the capacity for companies to
innovate (de Vasconcelos and de Oliveira, 2018). The proposal made by Grama-Vigouroux
et al. (2019) reflects an analytical structure for implementing a strategic process of open
innovation through developing the levels of engagement with interested parties, both internal
and external to the company. Factors such as the absence of internal information technology
(IT) infrastructures, staff motivation levels, problems around Internet connectivity, trust and
especially knowledge rank among the barriers identified to the adoption of information and
communications technologies (ICTs) by SMEs (Athapaththu and Nishantha, 2018).
Thus, we arrive at our fourth hypothesis (H4):
H4. Private KM has a positive impact on (a) knowledge creation, (b) knowledge transfer
and (c) innovation

2.4 Public KM
Lejpras (2019) argues that the external supply of knowledge returns a positive impact on the
development of the internal knowledge base of companies. The extent to which they are then
able to benefit from the repercussions of such knowledge greatly depend on the absorption
capacities of their employees. Malca et al. (2019) analyse the impacts of a set of external
factors to SMEs, such as export promotion programs, interrelated with internal factors for
SMEs and conclude that there is a need to review the effectiveness and design of export
promotion programs, recognising the resources available to SMEs as well as business
internationalisation theories to boost their influence within the context of international
development and the export performance of SMEs.
According to Ben Arfi et al. (2018), organisational relationships with external partners
represent a source of learning and enable the establishment of new knowledge. Through
these exchanges, organisations combine their abilities with the distinct and complementary
competences provided by other actors in the network. We thus arrive at our fifth
hypothesis (H5):
 H5. Public KM has a positive impact on (a) knowledge creation, (b) knowledge transfer The spinner
and (c) innovation innovation
Hence, and given the literature review undertaken, we can set out our conceptual research model
model with the respective research hypotheses (Figure 2).

3. Methodology 597
3.1 Data and method
This research study correspondingly deploys a correlational design to examine the
relationships between the characteristics of hotels and their internal and external KM, their
creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation. This also explores the potential impact of
Internal and external KM on the creation and transfer of knowledge and on the information.
To test these relationships, we set out a research instrument and develop scales of
measurement.
The questionnaire measurement scales depict the practices for internal and external KM,
the creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation. To define this questionnaire, we
made recourse to already existing scales then subject to prior adaptation and validation by
three hotel sector specialists, who assisted with tailoring them to this context and their
written form in Portuguese. All the items applied to measure these variables and their
respective scales are subject to discussion in the following sections. To implement this study,
we identified the target sample as the directors and managers of hotels. We consider SMEs
(hotels) because according to European Commission, “small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) represent 99% of all businesses in the EU,” and the definition of an SME is important
for access to finance and EU support programs targeted, specifically at these enterprises
(Wong, 2005).
In terms of the sampling strategy, for the data collection instrument, we sent out emails,
highlighting the guarantee of anonymity to the addresses featuring in a database made up of
1,000 contacts of Portuguese hotel managers/directors. The data collection process took place
between February and May 2019 and taking receipt of 82 valid responses from hotel
managers, a response rate of 8.2%. The sample contained three two-star hotels, twelve three-
star hotels, 39 four-star hotels and 29 five-star hotels. The probabilistic cluster sample was
configured as random due to the similarity formed by the groups analysed by quality
ranking, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stars in relation to the study population not configuring the need to
determine a minimum number of firms. Such a cluster-sample design is the only practical
solution for most surveys, where the idea of taking a simple random sample of individuals
across the country would be practically impossible (Bennett et al., 1991).

Private KM Knowledge Creation

H4
H1

H3
SMEs Knowledge Transfer

H2
H5
Figure 2.
Public KM Innovation
Research
conceptual model
BPMJ Furthermore, certain characteristics of the hotels (region and star classification) served to
27,2 compare the responses obtained in the first two months with those obtained in the last two
months (chi-squared test) with the findings not reporting any statistically significant
difference between those who responded in the first half against those who responded in the
second half of this period.
This evaluated whether the distribution of these sample characteristics followed the same
pattern as in the population with the chi-squared test results not encountering any
598 statistically significant differences. These results provide evidence for the non-existence of
any chronological or non-response biases.
To describe this hotel sample, we calculated the descriptive statistics (frequencies, means
and standard deviations) of the variables included for study.
As regards the testing of the respective hypotheses for evaluating the impact of the hotel
characteristics on the public KM and private KM, the creation and transfer of knowledge and
innovation (INN) variables; and to find the impact of the hotel characteristics and the internal
and external KM on the creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation, we deployed
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and the respective multiple linear regression models.
The data analysis process made recourse to the IBM –SPSS software version 25.0 (IBM
Corporation, New York, USA).

3.2 Measures
The measurement of all of these constructs involved the application of Likert type scales with
a range of between 1 and 7. In total, there were 51 questions that, except for questions on the
demographics of the respective hotel, covered every variable included in the hypotheses
above. As regards the sources of private (internal) and public (external) knowledge, the
exterior and interior knowledge-focused scales (four items apiece) stemmed from the
measurements proposed and developed by Choi et al. (2008) and Wang et al. (2016).
At the external level, this questionnaire incorporated items on the establishment of
alliances and collaborations with specialist external R&D institutions, organisations and the
collection of knowledge from clients. In internal terms, the information gathered related to the
existence of R&D, incentives for staff for resolving problems and suggesting improvements
and a culture of professional development. We deployed Cronbach’s alpha to examine the
reliability of these instruments. These scales returned Cronbach’s alpha results of 0.85 and
0.79, respectively, reporting the existence of high levels of reliability.
As regards measuring transfers of knowledge, this included 13 items relating to tacit
knowledge and explicit knowledge based on the scales proposed by Wang et al. (2014). The
items collate information on the sharing of past failings, official reports, documents,
experience, knowledge or know-how with members of the same organisation, incentive
mechanisms for knowledge sharing, training programs and IT systems for sharing
knowledge. This scale returned a Cronbach’s alpha result of 0.81 and again reflecting a robust
level of reliability.
As regards the process of knowledge creation, we deployed a scale validated by (Lee and
Choi, 2003), which spans 19 items dealing with socialisation (gathering information on
suppliers, clients, competitors and specialist sites), externalisation (utilisation of deductive
and inductive thinking, metaphors, dialogues and exchanges of ideas for the creation of
concepts), combination (utilisation of forecasting systems, setting up databases, publishing
manuals and documents on the products and services) and internalisation (training of staff,
sharing of values and internal communication). This scale also returns high levels of
reliability (alpha 5 0.86).
To evaluate innovation, we turned to the 12 items extracted from those validated by
(Fainshmidt et al., 2019; Wilden et al., 2013), including the analytical capacity to identify
segments in the target market and general solutions within the scope of resolving client The spinner
needs, applying the best practices prevailing in the sector, implementing management innovation
methods and new or substantially altered marketing approaches and renewing the business
processes. This construct resulted in an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha result (0.75).
model
The demographic characteristics gathered on each hotel were the age, location,
membership of a group, the proportion of international clients and the category (stars).
The Appendix (Table A1) contains a description of the items featuring in the data collection
instrument and their respective measurement results. 599

3.3 Common method bias

As the questionnaire applied to collect the data was self-response with the same time
allocated given to each participant, common method variance bias might pose a problem.
This issue raises questions as regards whether the dependent and independent variables
derived from the perceptions of the respondent with the same type of scale deployed
throughout the questionnaire and in addition to different constructs subject to evaluation in
the same questionnaire.
As some of the procedures utilised in this study may bring about common method
variance bias, we furthermore applied Harman’s single factor test and a common latent factor.
Following the Harman test, a single factor explained 18.9% of the variance accounted for,
with seven factors existing with their values more than 1 and explaining 69% of the total
variation. The analysis results convey how there is no evidence for common method variance
bias; hence, this does not influence the results.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The characterisation of the 82 hotels included in this study features in Table 1. The
predominant locations in this sample thus correspond to the regions of Grande Lisboa

No %

Region Alentejo 3 3.7

Algarve 20 23.8
Centro 9 11.0
Grande Lisboa 30 36.0
Norte 9 11.0
Regi~ao Autonoma da Madeira 11 12.8
Regi~ao Autonoma dos Açores 2 1.8
Category (stars) 2 3 3.7
3 12 14.0
4 39 47.6
5 29 34.8
Hotel uptime, years [Mean ± SD (Range)] 20.24 ± 18.16 (0.00–76.00)
Integrated in a group No 42 62.7
Yes 25 37.3
Foreign market, % [Mean ± SD (Range)] 66.13 ± 25.12 (0.00–
100.00)
Constructs Public KM [Mean ± SD (Range)] 4.68 ± 0.99 (3.25–6.50)
Private KM [Mean ± SD (Range)] 5.22 ± 1.06 (3.50–6.75)
Innovation [Mean ± SD (Range)] 4.52 ± 1.34 (1.00–6.33)
Knowledge transfer [Mean ± SD (Range)] 4.85 ± 0.91 (3.31–6.00)
Knowledge creation [Mean ± SD (Range)] 4.69 ± 1.25 (1.00–6.12) Table 1.
Note(s): SD – standard deviation Descriptive statistics
BPMJ (36.0%), Algarve (23.8%) and Regi~ao Autonoma da Madeira (12.8%), which also represent
27,2 Portugal’s leading tourism regions. In terms of category, 47.6% were four-star hotels and
with 34.8% classed as five-star hotels. The average length of time of hotel operations stood at
20.24 years, 37.3% of these establishments belonged to groups and an average of 66.13% of
revenues came from non-national guests.

600 4.2 Testing of hypotheses

We ran two ANCOVA tests to explain the effects of region, category, years of hotel operation,
membership of a group and the proportion of turnover from international arrivals on public
KM and private KM. Table 2 details the respective results.
The results identify how the region, the fact of belonging to a group and the proportion of
turnover generated by international arrivals return statistically significant impacts on public
KM. The post-hoc least significant difference (LSD) test allowed for the performance of
pairwise comparisons both between regions and between hotels integrated and not
integrated into groups based on the adjusted values of public KM after accounting for the
covariate effects (Table 2).
These results convey how hotels located in the leading tourism regions, Regi~ao Autonoma
da Madeira (3.86), Grande Lisboa, (3.89) and Algarve (3.97), report average scores
significantly lower than their counterparts located in the other regions (Alentejo – 6.00;
Regi~ao Autonoma dos Açores – 5.77; Norte – 5.07 and Centro – 4.99), as well as those hotels
that do not belong to any group (4.67) returning average scores significantly lower than those
that are hotel group members (5.49) (results detailed in Table A2 in the Appendix). As regards
the external market as a percentage of turn over, this factor generated a statistically
significant and positive influence on public KM. The variables accounting for the strongest
impact on the public KM score are the region (η2p 5 0.264) and international guests as a
percentage of the business turnover (η2p 5 0.152).
In the case of private KM, our findings identify how region, category, whether or not
belonging to a group, and the proportion of turnover derived from international arrivals all
return statistically significant impacts on private KM. The pairwise comparison results
demonstrate how hotels located in the Algarve (4.14) and Grande Lisboa (4.41) return
significantly lower average private KM scores than hotels located in the Alentejo (6.25), the
Regi~ao Autonoma dos Açores (5.87) and Centro (5.32) regions (see Table A2 in the
Appendix).
The two-star (3.81) and three-star (4.91) hotels obtain statistically lower average private
KM scores than four-star (6.44) and five-star (6.05) hotels. Hotels that are not group members
(5.16) return significantly lower average scores than hotel group members (5.89) (for the
results, see Table A2 in the Appendix). Furthermore, the proportion of turnover resulting
from international guests holds a statistically significant positive influence on the private KM
scores. As in the case with public KM, the variables generating the greatest impact on the
private KM scores are the region (η2p 5 0.242) and the international market percentage of the
hotel’s turnover (η2p 5 0.146).
Following analysis of the results, we may report that the factors returning the highest
levels of impact on both public KM and on private KM are the regions (those that do not make
up the leading tourism destinations), membership of a hotel group (national or international)
and the revenues received from arrivals from international markets (EU and other countries).
Additionally, the hotel category results in a significant impact on private KM.
Within the framework of explaining the effects of region, category, length of operations,
group membership, the proportion of turnover from international markets and public KM
and private KM on the creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation, we calculated
three ANCOVA tests (Table 3).
Dependent
variable Public KM Private KM
Type III sum of Mean Partial Eta Type III sum of Mean Partial Eta
Source squares df square F p squared squares df square F p squared

Corrected model 28.59 12 2.383 2.961 0.002 0.319 36.70 12 3.058 3.607 0.000 0.363
Intercept 101.254 1 101.254 125.814 0.000 0.623 112.502 1 112.502 132.696 0.000 0.636
Region 21.887 6 3.648 4.533 0.001* 0.264 20.596 6 3.433 4.049 0.001* 0.242
Category (stars) 5.035 3 1.678 2.085 0.109 0.076 7.120 3 2.373 2.799 0.046* 0.100
Integrated in a 4.833 1 4.833 6.005 0.017* 0.073 3.851 1 3.851 4.542 0.036* 0.056
group
Hotel uptime 0.003 1 0.003 0.003 0.956 0.000 3.244 1 3.244 3.827 0.054 0.048
International 10.943 1 10.943 13.597 0.000* 0.152 10.986 1 10.986 12.958 0.001* 0.146
market
Error 61.164 76 0.805 64.434 76 0.848
Total 2001.625 89 2447.750 89
Corrected total 89.757 88 101.132 88
R squared 0.319 0.363
Adjusted R 0.211 0.262
squared
Note(s): *p < 0.05; df – degrees of freedom; F – F-statistic
The spinner

601
model

ANCOVA of public and

innovation

private KM
Table 2.
BPMJ As regards the transfer of knowledge, we may report that category, group membership and
27,2 public and private KM provide a statistically significant impact on the transfer of knowledge.
The two-star (4.42) and three-star (4.79) hotels return statistically lower average scores for
transfer of knowledge than their peer four-star (5.39) and five-star (5.47) establishments and
with hotels that are not integrated into any group (4.53) presenting average transfer of
knowledge scores significantly lower than hotels that are group members (5.25) (the results
feature in Table A3 in the Appendix).
602 The private KM and public KM scores generate a statistically positive impact on the
transfer of knowledge scores. The variables reporting the greatest impact on the knowledge
transfer scores are private KM (η2p 5 0.379) and hotel category (η2p 5 0.216).
As regards the factors predicting the creation of knowledge, we may observe how the
proportion of turnover received from international guests and the scores attributed to private
KM emerged as those with a significant and positive impact.
There was a similar result to the above in the case of innovation in which the international
market proportion of turnover and the private KM scores are statistically significant
predictors.
The factors with the greatest impact, whether on the creation of knowledge or on
innovation, were those relating to sales derived from international target markets (EU and
others) and private KM. In terms of the transfer of knowledge, the leading indicators were
category (equal to or higher than four stars), membership of a hotel group and public KM and
private KM. The latter factor represents the indicator with a statistically significant impact
on the creation and transfer of knowledge and on innovation.
According to the research model, hotel units display particular characteristics that have a
statistically significant impact not only on the creation of knowledge but also on the transfer
of knowledge and on innovation (H3), as well as on private KM (H1) and on public KM (H2). In
turn, the processes of knowledge creation, the transfer of knowledge and innovation are
subject to the influence of private KM [H4þ(a), H4þ(b) and H4þ(c)] and public KM [H5þ(a),
H5þ(b) and H5þ(c)].

5. Discussion
This study sought to empirically research how the characteristics of SMEs may influence the
creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation in conjunction with recourse to private
and public KM through applying the SIM (Figueiredo and de Matos Ferreira, 2020; Figueiredo
et al., 2019). In addition to helping better understand the interactions between professional
intelligence and technology, this model enables the acceleration of processes designed to
change mindsets and bring about organisational transformation.
Recourse to private KM enables the improvement of the innovation-related processes
and procedures that are only ever going to be complete when incorporating external ideas
that extend beyond the company’s limitations. To this end, the organisational culture needs
to be aware and motivated for the discussion of ideas and sharing experiences with third
parties.
However, companies that strive for closed innovation in the belief that this generates
better ideas also perceive their competitors as benefitting from them (Ahmed et al., 2018).
Thus, Valdez-Juarez et al. (2018) consider that the explicit management of internal and
external knowledge requires appropriate evaluation. Furthermore, innovation and success
closely interrelate with R&D based on internal resources (Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006).
Within this context, as regards the first hypothesis (H1): “SME characteristics have an
impact on private knowledge management”, we may report that private KM was subject to
the influence of regions that are not the leading tourist destinations, membership of hotel
groups (whether national or international) and by the earnings generated by guests arriving
Dependent
variable Knowledge transfer process Knowledge creation process Innovation process
Type III Partial Type III Partial Type III Partial
sum of Mean Eta sum of Mean Eta sum of Mean Eta
Source squares Df square F Sig squared squares df square F Sig squared squares df square F Sig squared

Corrected 49.16 14 3.512 3.406 0.000 0.419 41.77 14 2.983 8.650 0.000 0.661 62.57 14 4.469 4.226 0.000 0.473
Model
Intercept 11.237 1 11.237 10.897 0.002 0.142 10.733 1 10.733 31.121 0.000 0.334 4.419 1 4.419 4.179 0.045 0.060
Region 7.763 6 1.294 1.255 0.290 0.062 1.890 6 0.315 0.913 0.491 0.081 6.461 6 1.077 1.018 0.421 0.065
Category 1.018 3 0.339 0.329 0.804 0.015 5.896 3 1.965 5.698 0.002* 0.216 0.858 3 0.286 0.270 0.847 0.012
(stars)
Integrated 0.072 1 0.072 0.070 0.792 0.001 2.947 1 2.947 8.547 0.005* 0.121 0.253 1 0.253 0.240 0.626 0.004
in a group
Hotel 0.376 1 0.376 0.365 0.548 0.005 0.011 1 0.011 0.032 0.859 0.001 0.049 1 0.049 0.046 0.830 0.001
uptime
Foreign 3.810 1 3.810 3.895 0.049* 0.093 0.009 1 0.009 0.027 0.870 0.000 3.507 1 3.507 3.817 0.043* 0.088
market
*
Public KM 0.118 1 0.118 0.115 0.736 0.002 1.530 1 1.530 3.900 0.044 0.095 0.074 1 0.074 0.070 0.792 0.001
Private KM 14.214 1 14.214 13.785 0.000* 0.173 13.073 1 13.073 37.908 0.000* 0.379 15.115 1 15.115 14.293 0.000* 0.178
Error 68.054 66 1.031 21.382 62 0.345 69.796 66 1.058
Total 1885.612 81 1860.343 77 1777.868 81
Corrected 117.218 80 63.148 76 132.364 80
total
R squared 0.419 0.661 0.473
Adjusted R 0.296 0.585 0.361
squared
Note(s): *p < 0.05; df – degrees of freedom; F – Fstatistic
The spinner

603
model

ANCOVA of
innovation

Table 3.

knowledge creation,

and innovation process

knowledge transfer
BPMJ from international markets (EU and others). In effect, having available the information not
27,2 only on the respective tourism unit and its immediate surroundings but also that provided by
membership of the hotel group enables access to far broader sources of knowledge, which
bears consequences not only for the organisation of services but also their actual quality
through ensuring that hotel groups present equal levels of quality of service in whatever the
hotel unit that the respective guest visits.
Furthermore, the preponderance of reviews generated by guests arriving from
604 international markets enables direct contact with persons holding different cultures and
visions, which may represent an important source of knowledge, especially as regards their
desires and tastes and the quality and levels of service that they seek. As stated by Ahmed
et al. (2018), the influence of SME characteristics is especially important to companies striving
for closed innovation within the scope of how deploying private KM may empower distinctive
processes of innovation that lead to success.
These findings also identify how the characteristics of a location outside of the main
tourism destinations, belonging to a hotel group and the revenues provided by guests
arriving from international markets were factors impacting on public KM and thereby
confirming hypothesis 2 (H2): “SME characteristics have an impact on public knowledge
management”. We are thus able to report that certain SME characteristics provide a
significant impact on private and public KM.
As Martınez-Costa et al. (2019) state, we may thus grasp how contact with external
companies ensures access to new knowledge beyond the organisation’s innovation
limitations. Both the number of external sources applied in the innovation development
process, and the intensity of the relationships ongoing with each source are also key factors to
the creation of knowledge (Santoro et al., 2018; Woods et al., 2019). Within the scope of
interactions with the external environment, this conveys the importance of open innovation
and working in networks. We may consider the open innovation strategy as the central focus
for opening and sharing innovation processes (Rosa et al., 2020). The approach applied by the
study of (van de Vrande et al., 2009) analyses the incidence of open innovation and report how
open innovation is not only an exclusive trend to high technology SMEs but also for a broader
range of firms and business sectors.
Hence, there is a clear need for preparing the organisational culture and ensuring its
meaningful involvement in the organisation. As (Ben Arfi et al., 2018) maintain, the desire to
acquire new knowledge, abilities and skills and the commitment of members of staff towards
the knowledge acquired within a framework of ensuring that the organisational
relationships, alliances and joint-ventures are beneficial to the business. The hotels that
display a greater cultural orientation towards knowledge, which correspondingly adopt the
best management practices and socially manage the internal organisation environment to
return better business results, are more efficient and competitive. There is thus the need to
understand just how both external knowledge transfers and innovation contribute towards
the results of innovation and performance as Corral de Zubielqui et al. (2019) proposed.
Companies that engage in public knowledge relationships attain success in their
innovation processes while those opting for private knowledge are not able to obtain the same
level of results (Grama-Vigouroux et al., 2019).
As regards hypothesis (H3), SME characteristics have an impact on knowledge creation,
knowledge transfer and innovation, and we may report the existence of factors with impact,
such as the proportion of sales to international target markets (EU and others). Innovation,
therefore, requires organisations to open up to international markets (Martınez-Roman et al.,
2019). The capacity for the employee absorption of knowledge shapes the level of benefit
returned to companies (Malca et al., 2019). The region and the level of sales to international
guest arrivals (EU and others) relative both to private KM and to public KM generate
significant impacts on knowledge creation and correspondingly verifying [H4þ (a)] “Private
KM has an impact on knowledge creation” and [H5þ (a)] “Public KM has a positive impact on The spinner
knowledge creation”. innovation
As Lejpras (2019) states, the supply of external knowledge impacts on the development of
the internal knowledge base. We may therefore state that the utilisation of internal and
model
external knowledge focused on developing innovation processes that extend beyond the
creation of knowledge boosts the efficiency and effectiveness of organisations (de Oliveira
et al., 2019). The relationship between companies and the external environments provides a
source of learning that nurtures the creation of new knowledge (Ben Arfi et al., 2018). The 605
exchange of knowledge enables the combination of inhouse skills with the distinctive and
complementary competences of actors elsewhere in these networks. According to (Ahmed
et al., 2018), the deployment of open innovation has taken place successfully in small and
medium-sized companies in the manufacturing and service sectors and correspondingly
perceived as useful tools for improving the performance of companies.
However, knowledge needs transferring and sharing (Xuan, 2020). The participation in
inter-organisational transfer of knowledge networks influences the resulting capacity for
innovation (Poorkavoos et al., 2016). We may report that factors such as the tourism unit
category and whether or not belonging to a hotel group generate significant impacts on the
transfer of knowledge and enabling us to confirm (H4): “SME characteristics have an impact
on knowledge transfer”. Membership of a hotel group implies belonging to a decentralised
structure in which knowledge transfers form part of daily company routines ensuring each
individual venture can develop processes of innovation that are then disseminated throughout
the group and potentially becoming an important factor of motivation for members of staff.
While presenting significantly different challenges for SMEs, the “mobility of knowledge”
is strongly influenced by two interrelated factors: the type of knowledge for integration and
the configuration of the operating network (Harrington et al., 2019).
Similar to that verified as regards knowledge creation, both private KM and public KM
also return indicators demonstrating their significant impact on the transfer of knowledge
scores and thus verifying [H4þ (b)] “Private KM has an impact on knowledge transfer” and
[H5þ (b)] “Public KM has a positive impact on knowledge transfer”]. The variables
generating the greatest effect on the knowledge transfer scores are private KM and the hotel
category.
While on the one hand, private KM explains only a proportion of the innovation capacity
of companies (de Vasconcelos and de Oliveira, 2018), on the other hand, the open innovation
process implementation takes place through the deploying of efforts combining private KM
and public KM (Grama-Vigouroux et al., 2019). The non-existence of support infrastructures
may lead to problems, such as failings in information and communication technologies, poor
employee motivation, trust and, especially, knowledge (Athapaththu and Nishantha, 2018).
The impact of innovation on the SMEs characteristics receive confirmation in accordance
with the results of the indicator encapsulating the level of sales to international arrivals. This
indicator similarly contributes to confirming the hypotheses [H4þ (c)] “Private KM has an
impact on innovation” and [H5þ (c)] “Public KM has a positive impact on innovation”]. Hence,
the proportion of business turnover derived from international markets and the scores for
private KM provide statistically significant predictors. The establishment of partnerships
enabling the sharing and creation of knowledge is steadily changing the formerly existing
scenarios of business competition. The internal perspective represents only one part of the
capacity to innovate (de Vasconcelos and de Oliveira, 2018). Balancing this with an external
perspective fosters a holistic vision and improvements to innovation processes.
SMEs constitute the majority of business firms, as well as the most significant source of
employment, in any country worldwide (Manville et al., 2019). For such reason, policymakers
frequently consider that SMEs perform a fundamental role in the technological progress of
the broader economy (Thom€a and Zimmermann, 2020) and therefore the greater their
BPMJ emphasis on knowledge, the greater their likelihood of gaining access to public financial
27,2 support (Crass et al., 2019).
In keeping with the above-mentioned findings, we may identify private KM as the
indicator with the greatest significant impact on the processes involved in the creation and
transfer of knowledge and innovation, thus highlighting the importance of companies
investing in the creation and acquisition of knowledge as well as the sharing and construction
of organisational memory. However, the findings of this study run partially counter to other
606 research that states the importance of considering external ideas in processes for creating and
transferring knowledge and innovation (Corral de Zubielqui et al., 2019; Martınez-Costa
et al., 2019).
Clearly, private KM holds relevance even while it remains unusual that public KM is not
also one of the indicators positively impacting on the knowledge processes analysed. This
fact may derive from the sector of activity and more specifically from the characteristics of
these hotel businesses, their managers and workers. The sector of activity, based on the
provision of services, contain a great number of specific characteristics that may, in one form
or another, influence these results. Almost two-thirds of the units participating in this study
(and in accordance with national statistics) are independent units, and many are family
owned, which clearly endow them with certain peculiar characteristics. Their managers and
hotel directors are undergoing a period of renewal with the tendency for their replacement by
qualified professionals but perhaps not yet in sufficient numbers to signify the advent of a
new business cycle in the sector.
As regards the employees, while there is also a new generation in the market with higher
education qualifications, the bulk of the knowledge, competences and skills still stem from
experience. Hence, there is great relevance in extending this study to other sectors of activity
or even to other company typologies within this same national tourism sector.

6. Conclusion, limitations and future research trends

There is a generalised perception of SMEs as making the single greatest contribution to the
economic development of European countries and especially when related to the hotel
services sector that requires improvements in its innovation capacities to remain competitive.
The capacity to innovate emerges as an important factor for the performance levels of
both organisations and their economic sector of activity as this enables markets to emerge
from states of stagnation (de Vasconcelos and de Oliveira, 2018). According to de Vasconcelos
and de Oliveira (2018), large organisations have greater opportunities to do business and find
it easier to innovate as they run higher-level management structures while SMEs
correspondingly lack the same ease and facilities. Hence, the importance of this study
becomes clear as the research challenges involved empirically studying the influences of the
characteristics of SMEs in the hotel services sector on the creation and transfer of knowledge
and on innovation.
We, here, provide a broad vision of the leading concepts of SIM, SMEs, private KM, public
KM and innovation with their independent application to this economic sector. The results
demonstrate the importance of SIM to the processes of innovation within the scope of this
gathering together significant data for testing in accordance with the model design.
We believe this study may assist in guiding researchers and market professionals towards
taking better-informed decisions when choosing among the parties interested in their internal
and external knowledge related actions within the framework of innovation.
Furthermore, the SIM approach may assist strategic decision-makers in improving their
tools and relationships, avoiding repeating work already done and overlapping positions
when designing more competitive approaches.
As practical implications, SMEs managers wishing to improve a company’s innovation
capacity and, consequently, a company’s performance, should pay special attention to
knowledge creation and transfer activities. Thus, SMEs must develop knowledge The spinner
repositories, shared knowledge bases, projects, regulations, patents, licences, products and innovation
employee qualifications.
In addition to building knowledge repositories, SMEs must promote knowledge creation
model
and transfer within and outside the organisation’s borders. Managers must create adequate
conditions for formal and informal meetings to share employee experiences. Managers must
also encourage employees to absorb external knowledge. SMEs should introduce practices
for acquiring knowledge with customers, suppliers, competitors and partners to monitor and 607
evaluate their products and services.
To increase their innovative propensity, SMEs should encourage employees to look for
original and unconventional solutions, to experience different ways of doing things and to use
new or unexpected events and situations for learning. SME managers are primarily
responsible for how many employees are willing and eager to share knowledge and are
motivated to acquire knowledge and learn.
This study inevitably contains limitations. As mentioned above, the study sample
constituted only 82 hotel directors, which reflects a low response rate. Furthermore, the valid
responses received convey only this universe of study, shaped by the context they were
completed in; thus, any generalisation of results requires the taking of extreme caution. It
would thus be of relevance to apply the study to other stakeholders present in this industry,
such as the owners of hotel capital holdings or their representatives, among others.
Another limiting factor stems from sourcing the entirety of the hotel sample from the same
geographic context (Portugal), even while around two-thirds of the hotels analysed belong to
hotel chains. The hotel units belonging to international chains reflect a standard of quality
that may not prevail elsewhere in the sector, especially among many of the independent hotel
chains, hence the interest in comparing these results with those for other countries.
Others limitations of the study are due to the sampling method used, and the single use of
survey research such as the tendency, by the respondents, to leniency (the tendency to
evaluate too high or too low), central tendency (reluctance to evaluate extremes) and
proximity (the tendency to evaluate similarly for questions that occur close to each other). It
would be important to expand the sample to improve the validity and reliability of the
constructs included in the survey. The research literature on managing the knowledge
produced in the tourism sector has grown, with a particular focus on certain tourism sectors,
leisure and hotels but not to such an extent on the area of knowledge applicable to restaurants
or other tourism-related activities.
The results obtained report that private KM is the indicator with the most significant
impact on processes around the creation and transfer of knowledge and innovation, to the
contrary of the propositions of various authors after having studied either other sectors of
activity and/or other types of company in the sector.
To gain a holistic vision of knowledge management in the sector and especially for the
study of the research model applied here, there is an important need to expand this research to
restaurant, congress, tourism animation and event companies, among others in the sector.
Through such studies, this would enable an analysis of the similarities and differences in
the knowledge management of those companies and identifying explanations as regards
which different factors influence private and public KM alongside the processes leading to
the creation, transfer and innovation of knowledge.

References
Ahmed, S., Halim, H.A. and Ahmad, N.H. (2018), “Open and closed innovation and enhanced
performance of SME hospitals—a conceptual model”, Business Perspectives and Research, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
BPMJ Athapaththu, J.C. and Nishantha, B. (2018), “Information and communication technology adoption in
SMEs in Sri Lanka; current level of ICT usage and perceived barriers”, International Journal of
27,2 E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Beckmann, B., Giani, A., Carbone, J., Koudal, P., Salvo, J. and Barkley, J. (2016), “Developing the digital
manufacturing commons: a national initiative for US manufacturing innovation”, Procedia
Manufacturing, The Author(s), Vol. 5, pp. 182-194.
Ben Arfi, W., Hikkerova, L. and Sahut, J.M. (2018), “External knowledge sources, green innovation
608 and performance”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 129 January 2017,
pp. 210-220.
Bennett, S., Woods, T., Liyanage, W.M. and Smith, D.L. (1991), “A simplified general method for
cluster-sample surveys of health in developing countries”, World Health Statistics Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 98-106.
Brudney, J.L. and Gazley, B. (2002), “Testing the conventional wisdom regarding volunteer programs:
a longitudinal analysis of the service corps of retired executives and the U.S. Small business
administration”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 525-548.
Chege, S.M.H. and Wang, D. (2019), “The influence of the entrepreneur’s open innovation strategy on
firm performance: empirical evidence from SMEs in Kenya”, Information Resources
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 20-41.
Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A.K. (2006), “Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in
other industries”, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 229-236.
Chesbrough, H. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011), Annual Report on European SMEs 2014 / 2015,
Research Report. doi: 10.2873/886211.
Chesbrough, H., Richard, S. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002), “The role of the business model in capturing
value from innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 529-555.
Choi, B., Poon, S.K. and Davis, J.G. (2008), “Effects of knowledge management strategy on
organizational performance: a complementarity theory-based approach”, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 235-251.
Corral de Zubielqui, G., Lindsay, N., Lindsay, W. and Jones, J. (2019), “Knowledge quality, innovation
and firm performance: a study of knowledge transfer in SMEs”, Small Business Economics,
Small Business Economics, pp. 145-164.
Crass, D., Rammer, C. and Aschhoff, B. (2019), “Geographical clustering and the effectiveness of public
innovation programs”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer US, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1784-1815.
de Oliveira, L.S., Soares Echeveste, M.E., Cortimiglia, M.N. and Gularte, A.C. (2019), “Open innovation
in regional innovation systems: assessment of critical success factors for implementation in
SMEs”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1597-1619.
de Vasconcelos, R.B.B. and de Oliveira, M.R.G. (2018), “Determinants of innovation in micro and small
enterprises: a management approach”, RAE Revista de Administracao de Empresas, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 349-364.
Fainshmidt, S., Wenger, L., Pezeshkan, A. and Mallon, M.R. (2019), “When do dynamic capabilities
lead to competitive advantage? The importance of strategic fit”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 758-787.
Figueiredo, R. and de Matos Ferreira, J.J. (2020), “Spinner model: prediction of propensity to innovate
based on knowledge-intensive business services”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 11,
pp. 1316-1335, doi: 10.1007/s13132-019-00607-2.
Figueiredo, R., Ferreira, J.J.M., Silveira, R.G. and Villarinho, A.T. (2019), “Innovation and co-creation in
knowledge intensive business services: the spinner model”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 909-923, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0424.
Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, D., Madrid-Guijarro, A. and Martin, D.P. (2017), “Influence of university–firm The spinner
governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 123, pp. 250-261. innovation
Grama-Vigouroux, S., Saidi, S., Berthinier-Poncet, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Madanamoothoo, A.
model
(2019), “From closed to open: a comparative stakeholder approach for developing open
innovation activities in SMEs”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, August, pp. 0-1.
G€
unsel, A., Dodourova, M., T€ ukel Erg€un, A. and Gerni, C. (2019), “Research on effectiveness of
technology transfer in technology alliances: evidence from Turkish SMEs”, Technology Analysis 609
and Strategic Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 279-291.
Harrington, T.S., Srai, J.S. and Kumar, M. (2019), “Knowledge management in SMEs and MNCs:
matching knowledge mobility mechanisms to supply network configuration profiles”,
Production Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 30 Nos 10-12, pp. 971-994.
Jaekel, M., Wallin, A. and Isomursu, M. (2015), “Guiding networked innovation projects towards
commercial success—a case study of an EU innovation programme with implications for
targeted open innovation”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 625-639.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. and Park, J. (2010), “Open innovation in SMEs-an intermediated network
model”, Research Policy, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 290-300.
Lejpras, A. (2019), “Determinants of export performance: differences between service and
manufacturing SMEs”, Service Business, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 171-198.
na-Vinces, J. and Acedo, F.J. (2019), “Export promotion programmes as export
Malca, O., Pe~
performance catalysts for SMEs: insights from an emerging economy”, Small Business
Economics, Small Business Economics, No. 1, doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00185-2.
Manville, G., Karakas, F., Polkinghorne, M. and Petford, N. (2019), “Supporting open innovation with
the use of a balanced scorecard approach: a study on deep smarts and effective knowledge
transfer to SMEs”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 30 Nos 10-12,
pp. 842-853.
Martınez-Costa, M., Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Dine Rabeh, H.A. (2019), “The effect of organisational
learning on interorganisational collaborations in innovation: an empirical study in SMEs”,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Martınez-Roman, J.A., Gamero, J., de Delgado-Gonzalez, M.L. and Tamayo, J.A. (2019), “Innovativeness
and internationalization in SMEs: an empirical analysis in European countries”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, Vol. 148 August, p. 119716.
Mei, L., Zhang, T. and Chen, J. (2019), “Exploring the effects of inter-firm linkages on SMEs’ open
innovation from an ecosystem perspective: an empirical study of Chinese manufacturing
SMEs”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, Vol. 144 April, pp. 118-128.
Michalakoudis, I., Aurisicchio, M., Childs, P., Koutlidis, A. and Harding, J. (2018), “Empowering
manufacturing personnel through functional understanding”, Production Planning and Control,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 688-703.
Mirkovski, K., Von Briel, F. and Lowry, P.B. (2016), “Semantic learning-based innovation framework
for social media”, IT Professional, IEEE, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 26-32.
uller, J.M., Buliga, O. and Voigt, K.I. (2020), “The role of absorptive capacity and innovation strategy
M€
in the design of industry 4.0 business models-a comparison between SMEs and large
enterprises”, European Management Journal, Elsevier, No. xxxx, pp. 1-11.
Poorkavoos, M., Duan, Y., Edwards, J.S. and Ramanathan, R. (2016), “Identifying the configurational
paths to innovation in SMEs: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis”, Journal of Business
Research, Elsevier, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5843-5854.
BPMJ Rahman, M. and Mendy, J. (2019), “Evaluating people-related resilience and non-resilience barriers of
SMEs’ internationalisation”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 2,
27,2 pp. 225-240.
Rahman, M., Akter, M., Odunukan, K. and Haque, S.E. (2020), “Examining economic and technology-
related barriers of small-and medium-sized enterprises internationalisation: an emerging
economy context”, Business Strategy and Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Rosa, A.C.M., Mellohenrique, C.P., Chimendes, V.C.G. and Amorim, G.F. (2020), “Measuring open
610 innovation practices in small companies at important Brazilian industrial centers”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, Vol. 151 October 2019, p. 119805.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-
analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Elsevier, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-457.
Rossi, M. (2015), “The role of venture capital funds in financing innovation in Italy. Constraints and
challenges for innovative small firms”, International Journal of Globalisation and Small
Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 162-180.
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Fiano, F. and Giacobbe, R. (2019), “To invest or to harvest? Corporate venture
capital ambidexterity for exploiting/exploring innovation in technological business”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1157-1181.
Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., Giacosa, E. and Giovando, G. (2018), “How SMEs engage in open innovation:
a survey”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 561-574.
Secundo, G., Toma, A., Schiuma, G. and Passiante, G. (2019), “Knowledge transfer in open innovation:
a classification framework for healthcare ecosystems”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 144-163.
Spano, R., Allini, A., Caldarelli, A. and Zampella, A. (2017), “Controlling innovation and innovating
control: insights from a knowledge intensive network”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1359-1384.
Suh, Y. and Kim, M.S. (2012), “Effects of SME collaboration on R&D in the service sector in open
innovation”, Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 349-362.
Thom€a, J. and Zimmermann, V. (2020), “Interactive learning—the key to innovation in
non-R&D-intensive SMEs? A cluster analysis approach”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 747-776.
Uduma, I.A., Wali, A.F. and Wright, L.T. (2015), “A quantitative study on the influence of breadth of
open innovation on SMEs product-service performance: the moderating effect of type of
innovation”, Cogent Business and Management, Cogent, Vol. 2 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/23311975.
2015.1120421.
Valdez-Juarez, L.E., Solano-Rodrıguez, O.J. and Martin, D.P. (2018), “Modes of learning and
profitability in Colombian and Mexican SMEs”, Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Elsevier, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and de Rochemont, M. (2009), “Open innovation in
SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 29 Nos 6–7,
pp. 423-437.
Vidmar, M. (2019), “Agile space living lab – the emergence of a new high-tech innovation paradigm”,
Space Policy, Elsevier, Vol. 49, p. 101324.
Vu, N.X. (2019), “Knowledge management in business and education: evidence from Vietnam
companies and universities”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 9 No. 12, pp. 2063-2072.
Wang, Z., Wang, N. and Liang, H. (2014), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm
performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Wang, Z., Wang, N., Cao, J. and Ye, X. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital - knowledge The spinner
management strategy fit on firm performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 8,
pp. 1861-1885. innovation
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S.P., Nielsen, B.B. and Lings, I. (2013), “Dynamic capabilities and performance:
model
strategy, structure and environment”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1–2, pp. 72-96.
Wong, K.Y. (2005), “Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 261-279.
611
Woods, J., Galbraith, B. and Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2019), “Network centrality and open innovation: a
social network analysis of an SME manufacturing cluster”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, IEEE, pp. 1-14.
Xuan, V.N. (2020), “Factors affecting knowledge sharing in enterprises: evidence from small and
medium enterprises in Vietnam”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 469-478.
Zeng, S.X., Xie, X.M. and Tam, C.M. (2010), “Relationship between cooperation networks and
innovation performance of SMEs”, Technovation, Elsevier, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 181-194.

Further reading
Baima, G., Santoro, G., Busso, D. and Quaglia, R. (2020), “Exploring the outcomes of the external
revealing of knowledge: a case study in the craft beer industry”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1183-1201, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0138.
BPMJ Appendix
27,2
Private knowledge management Authors

Our company collaborates with external institutions or organisations in Choi et al. (2008), Wang et al.
R&D (2016)
612 Our company tends to solve problem with the help of external experts
Our company prefers acquiring new knowledge from outside media such as
Internet
Our company emphasises gaining new knowledge from customers and
alliance
Public knowledge management
Our company prefers internal knowledge in R&D Choi et al. (2008), Wang et al.
Our company trusts internal knowledge when faced with troubles (2016)
Our company encourages employees to bring forwards work-related
suggestions
Our company cultivates professionals from inside
Knowledge transfer
Employees in my organisation frequently share knowledge based on their Wang et al. (2014)
experience
Employees in my organisation frequently collect knowledge from others
based on their experience
Employees in my organisation frequently share knowledge of know-where
or know-whom with others
Employees in my organisation frequently collect knowledge of know-where
or know-whom with others
Employees in my organisation frequently share knowledge based on their
expertise
Employees in my organisation frequently collect knowledge from others
based on their expertise
Employees in my organisation will share lessons from past failures when
they feel that it is necessary
Employees in my organisation frequently share existing reports and official
documents with members of my organisation
Employees in my organisation frequently share reports and official
documents that they prepare by themselves with members of my
organisation
Employees in my organisation frequently collect reports and official
documents from others in their work
Employees in my organisation are frequently encouraged by knowledge
sharing mechanisms
Employees in my organisation are frequently offered a variety of training
and development programs
Employees in my organisation are facilitated by IT systems invested for
knowledge sharing
Table A1.
Measurement items (continued )
Private knowledge management Authors
The spinner
innovation
Knowledge creation Lee and Choi (2003) model
Gathering information from sales and production sites
Sharing experience with suppliers and customers
Engaging in dialogue with competitors
Finding new strategies and market opportunities by wandering inside the
firm 613
Creating a work environment that allows peers to understand the
craftsmanship and expertise
Creative and essential dialogues
The use of deductive and inductive thinking
The use of metaphors in dialogue for concept creation
Exchanging various ideas and dialogues. KCE5: subjective opinions
Planning strategies by using the published literature, computer simulation
and forecasting
Creating manuals and documents on products and services
Building databases on products and services
Building up materials by gathering management figures and technical
information. KCC5: transmitting newly created concepts
Enactive liaising activities with functional departments by cross-functional
development teams
Forming teams as a model and conducting experiments and sharing results
with entire departments
Searching and sharing new values and thoughts
Sharing and trying to understand management visions through
communications with fellows
Innovation
People participate in professional association activities Wilden et al. (2013), Fainshmidt
We use established processes to identify target market segments, changing et al. (2019)
customer needs and customer innovation
We observe best practices in our sector
We gather economic information on our operations and operational
environment
We invest in finding solutions for our customers
We adopt the best practices in our sector
We respond to defects pointed out by employees
We change our practices when customer feedback gives us a reason to
change
Implementation of new kinds of management methods
New or substantially changed marketing method or strategy
Substantial renewal of business processes
New or substantially changed ways of achieving our targets and objectives Table A1.
BPMJ Public KM Private KM
27,2 95% CI 95% CI
Dependent variable Mean SE LB UB Mean SE LB UB

Alentejo 6.00 0.55 4.90 7.10 6.25 0.57 5.12 7.07

Algarve 3.97 0.32 3.33 4.60 4.41 0.33 3.76 5.06
Centro 4.99 0.46 4.08 5.90 5.32 0.47 4.39 6.25
614 Grande Lisboa 3.89 0.29 3.31 4.47 4.14 0.30 3.55 4.74
Norte 5.07 0.42 4.24 5.90 4.73 0.43 3.88 5.58
Regi~ao Autonoma da Madeira 3.86 0.51 2.84 4.88 4.95 0.53 3.91 6.00
Regi~ao Autonoma dos Açores 5.77 0.99 4.80 6.74 5.87 1.02 4.85 6.90
Two -star hotels 3.65 0.76 2.13 5.16 3.81 0.78 2.35 5.46
Three-star hotels 5.64 0.31 5.03 6.26 4.91 0.32 4.27 5.54
Four-star hotels 5.71 0.34 5.03 6.39 6.44 0.35 5.75 7.14
Table A2.
Adjusted values of Five-star hotels 5.31 0.32 4.68 5.95 6.05 0.33 5.40 6.70
public and private KM Not integrated in a group 4.67 0.18 4.32 5.02 5.16 0.18 4.80 5.52
after accounting for the Integrated in a group 5.49 0.29 4.90 6.07 5.89 0.30 5.29 6.49
effects of covariates Note(s): SE – standard error; CI – confidence interval; LB – lower boundary; UB – upper boundary

95% CI
Mean SE LB UB

Two -star hotels 4.42 0.51 3.39 5.44

Three -star hotels 4.79 0.22 4.45 5.23
Table A3. Four-star hotels 5.39 0.25 4.89 5.89
Adjusted values of Five-star hotels 5.47 0.23 5.02 5.93
knowledge transfer Not integrated in a group 4.53 0.13 4.27 4.78
after accounting for the Integrated in a group 5.25 0.21 4.83 5.67
effects of covariates Note(s): SE – standard error; CI – confidence interval; LB – lower boundary; UB – upper boundary

Corresponding author
Ronnie Figueiredo can be contacted at: figueiredo.ronnie@gmail.com

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