Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm
JEIM
27,2
The effect of knowledge
management capability and
dynamic capability on
158 organizational performance
Received 6 June 2012
Revised 17 August 2012
Shu-Mei Tseng and Pei-Shan Lee
Accepted 8 September 2012 Department of Information Management, I-Shou University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – The current conventional strategic management model is incapable of dealing with
various questions on organizational management in a dynamically discontinuous environment. Hence,
how an enterprise can effectively apply its knowledge management (KM) capability and develop a
uniquely dynamic capability in order to provide quick response to a dynamic environment has become
an urgent need. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above-mentioned issues.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to gain best exploration on KM capability, dynamic
capability, and organizational performance, the questionnaire and statistical analytical techniques
were used.
Findings – The results indicate that dynamic capability is an important intermediate organizational
mechanism through which the benefits of KM capability are converted into performance effects at the
corporate level. That is, KM capability enhances the dynamic capability of organizations. While dynamic
capability, in turn, increases organizational performance and provides competitive advantages.
Research limitations/implications – This research applied a purposive sampling method and
obtained a slightly inadequate number of respondents. Therefore, it is suggested that future research
should apply a random sampling method to collect more responses and increase the generalizability.
Practical implications – This research aims to investigate KM capability, dynamic capability, and
organizational performance, as well as establish and verify the patterns of the aforementioned
relationships based on how enterprises implement their KM capabilities and dynamic capabilities to
enhance organizational performance.
Originality/value – There is still little related literature investigating the relationships among KM
capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance. Hence, this study applies
questionnaire methods as the main research tools in order to conduct an in-depth investigation into
the influence of KM capability and dynamic capability on organizational performance. Furthermore,
this research is expected to provide enterprises with valuable suggestions for management practices.
Keywords Organizational performance, Dynamic capability, Knowledge management capability
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Knowledge is the most important intangible asset, therefore business managers strive
in many ways to use this asset to create the highest value (Quintas, 2002). However,
how to efficiently control, apply, and develop knowledge in order to effectively
generate and reuse knowledge is determined by enterprises’ knowledge management
Journal of Enterprise Information (KM) capabilities (Davenport et al., 1998; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Soo et al., 2002). In
Management
Vol. 27 No. 2, 2014
other words, it is important to investigate how an enterprise effectively develops its
pp. 158-179 KM capability in order to provide and share intangible assets to win market
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0398
competition. Furthermore, the rapid development of technology and the internet not
DOI 10.1108/JEIM-05-2012-0025 only accelerates the changes of external environments, but also pressures enterprises
to recognize that they need to evolve along with the market trends and environmental Organizational
changes. Due to the fact that the basic perspectives on traditional resources lack performance
a mechanism for transforming resources into competitive advantages, an enterprise
may be unable to identify the middle- and long-term dynamic changes in the
environment in order to immediately respond to market changes. Therefore, the only
solution for an enterprise to enhance organizational performance is through enhancing
its corporate dynamic capability (Afuah, 2001). 159
Based on the World Competitive Yearbook 2010-2011 by the World Economic Forum,
Taiwan ranked 13th in the world and fourth in Asia, which is one position lower than
2009-2010. Based on this reality and a highly competitive environment, the difficult task
for Taiwan’s business managers is how to enhance competitive advantage in order to
integrate, establish, and reconfigure the dynamic capabilities to provide immediate
response toward the dynamic environment. Furthermore, in previous studies, many
scholars have confirmed that KM capability and dynamic capability influence
organizational performance (Hasan and Al-hawari, 2003; Bassie, 1997; Wiig, 1997).
However, most studies merely focussed on the influence of KM capability on
organizational performance or the influence of dynamic capability on organizational
performance. There are currently few studies that investigate the relationships among
KM capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance. Hence, this research
aims to investigate KM capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance,
as well as establish and verify the patterns of the aforementioned relationships based on
how enterprises implement their KM capabilities and dynamic capabilities to enhance
organizational performance.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 KM capability
Capability refers to the ability to implement and integrate resources to achieve
corporate goals, as well as results acquired from long-term accumulation of interaction
among various resources (Grant, 1995). KM capability is the ability of an enterprise to
leverage existing knowledge through continuous learning to create new knowledge
(Bose, 2003). Liu et al. (2004) stated that KM capability not only refers to the ability to
acquire knowledge and information, but also to the organizational capability to protect
knowledge and information in order to encourage staff to use this ability as a tool to
work more efficiently. Freeze and Kulkarni (2007) further indicate that effective
leverage of different knowledge capabilities can be done through differing strategies,
processes, and technologies. Due to the fact that knowledge is a key strategic resource
to create corporate value (Drucker, 1993; Zack, 1999; Bhatt et al., 2005), enterprises
strive to develop knowledge resources to the maximum in order to achieve corporate
goals. Furthermore, whether an enterprise can effectively utilize knowledge resources
and develop knowledge determines the pros and cons of KM capability. Hence, it can
be understood that KM capability has become a significant attribute of competitive
advantage (Andrew, 2005).
Gold et al. (2001) pointed out that KM capability consists of knowledge
infrastructures and KM processes. The knowledge infrastructure includes technology,
structure, and culture; while KM processes include the organizational capabilities
of knowledge acquisition, conversion, application, and protection. Simultaneously, in
order to effectively leverage knowledge infrastructure, it is crucial to rely on KM
processes, which makes it possible to store, transform, and transfer knowledge.
Tanriverdi (2005) investigated the influence of KM capability on the corporate
JEIM performance of multi-business-unit corporations and divided KM capability into
27,2 product KM capability, customer KM capability, and managerial KM capability.
Furthermore, Tanriverdi also described knowledge creation, transfer, integration, and
leverage as the four main dimensions to measure the influence of three kinds of KM
capability on corporate performance. Fan et al. (2009) further combined knowledge
infrastructure and KM processes and proposed seven attributes (i.e. technology,
160 structure, culture, acquisition, conversion, application, and protection) to be
applied in a fuzzy multiple decision-making method to measure organizational KM
capability. On the other hand, Aujirapongpan et al. (2010) explained corporate
KM capability based on the perspectives of resource-based and knowledge-based
capabilities. Resource-based capability refers to different angles of resources to
investigate KM capability and an assumption that possessing different resources will
result in different KM capabilities and influence the infrastructure capability of KM
capability, including technology, organizational structure, and culture. Furthermore,
the knowledge-based capability perspective particularly emphasizes intangible assets,
KM process, and managing different kinds of knowledge. Aspects that influence KM
capability based on the knowledge-based perspective are expertise, learning, and
information capabilities.
As above-mentioned, this study defined that KM capability is the ability of an
enterprise to leverage existing knowledge to create and protect new knowledge.
Furthermore, an enterprise should combine personal skills and knowledge, physical
and technical resources, structure and culture to stimulate the ongoing knowledge
dynamism (Prieto and Easterby-Smith, 2006).
H1 H2
Figure 1.
Basic research model Dynamic capability
enable knowledge to generate effects or effectively implement KM to facilitate Organizational
an enterprise’s smooth operation. Zahra and George (2002) further divided knowledge performance
absorptive capacity into potential knowledge absorptive capacity and realized
knowledge absorptive capacity. Potential knowledge absorptive capacity includes
knowledge acquisition and assimilation capability; while realized absorptive capacity
includes transformation and exploitation capabilities of new knowledge. Potential
knowledge absorptive capacity provides enterprises with strategic flexibility and 163
freedom to grasp the trends of external environments in order to quickly adjust and
evolve into the changing market that eventually enhances dynamic capabilities. On the
other hand, realized knowledge absorptive capacity aims to systematically integrate
knowledge into the organization in order to enhance organizational performance. Zollo
and Winter (2002) considered that an organization should transform knowledge owned
by individuals into organizational knowledge, as well as maintain the learning process,
knowledge sharing, and reusing in order to enhance dynamic capability to adapt and
respond to the changing environment. Many studies have further explained that
dynamic capability is the ability of an enterprise to innovate, integrate, reconfigure,
and liberate internal and external resources. These processes of transformation
are related to the capabilities of utilizing and managing organizational knowledge
resources (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2003; Iansiti and Clark, 1994; Cepeda and Vera,
2007). Shuen (1994) also pointed out that dynamic capability is generated from a
learning mechanism consisting of the three following processes – accumulation of
experience, knowledge linking, and knowledge coding – therefore, organizational
management and knowledge learning are crucial sources of dynamic capability. Sher
and Lee (2004) assumed that KM capability could be seen as a way to improve products
and processes, improve decision-making strategy, and adjust and refresh
organizational core capabilities, which is also the key of an organization to establish
and maintain dynamic capability. Therefore, if an enterprise is equipped with excellent
KM capability, it is possible to strengthen its dynamic capability. Iris and Vikas (2011)
also pointed out that there is a close relationship among e-learning, KM, and dynamic
capability. An organization can promote knowledge sharing through e-learning to
enhance KM capabilities, as well as to positively influence the dynamic capability.
Hence, it is known that KM capability is an important source for organizational
dynamic capability. Based on this fact, this research further investigates the influence
of KM capability to enhance dynamic capability. Therefore, this study proposes the
following hypothesis:
H1. The degree of KM capability will have a positive effect on dynamic capability.
H2. The degree of dynamic capability will have a positive effect on organizational
performance.
4. Method
4.1 Sample and measures
As the objective of this research was to investigate the influence of KM capability and
dynamic capability on organizational performance, this study was aimed at small-
medium enterprises that have implemented KM as a sampling frame. The sampling
method applied in this research was purposive sampling. As for questionnaire
respondents, the main target subjects were the senior managers in the service,
technology, and manufacturing industries. The questionnaire was anonymous, mainly
distributed on-site and online through e-mails. Simultaneously, in order to facilitate the
questionnaire distribution and high responsiveness, the enterprises were contacted via
telephone and e-mails to be informed of the research objective in order to ease their
suspicions of the questionnaire. Finally, the statistical results obtained from the
questionnaire were analyzed.
The measurement items of the questionnaire were based on relevant literature and
verified by a panel discussion with some experts. The language used in explaining
questions was plain Chinese and easily understood. Therefore, content and construct
validities of this research design were fulfilled. The final questionnaire comprised four
parts. It included KM capability, dynamic capability, organizational performance, and
the demographics of the sample. A seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (neutral) to 7 (strongly agree), was used to measure the research
variables. Moreover, the Pearson’s correlation analysis and regression analyses were
conducted based on the summated scores.
on the relation of the questionnaire items for each factor. From the results of
factor analysis, this research eventually divided KM capability into knowledge transfer
and knowledge protect; dynamic capability was divided into sensing capability
and integrating capability; and, organizational performance was divided into financial
performance and non-financial performance. The final questionnaire items are shown in
the tables below. Measurements of KM capability are listed in Table II, measurements
of dynamic capability in Table III, and measurements of organizational performance in
Table IV. Table V outlines the results of the reliability and validity tests performed
on the final questionnaire items. Internal consistency measures (Cronbach’s a) were
obtained in order to assess the reliability of the measurement instruments. The item-to-
total correlation, which was calculated between each individual item and the sum of the
remaining items, was used to determine the convergent validity. When the item-to-total
correlation score was lower than 0.4, the case was eliminated from further analysis. The
reliability level is acceptable if the value is at least 0.8 for the basic research and 0.7 for the
exploratory research (Nunnally, 1978). The content validity of the instruments was
established by adopting the constructs that have already been validated by other scholars
and experts. From the analyses mentioned above, it was found that the questionnaire
items on each factor met the requirements of reliability and validity.
KM capability
Knowledge transfer 14 0.770;0.774;0.738;0.807;0.758; 0.960 0.962
0.793;0.798;0.799;0.743;0.696;
170 0.769;0.766;0.776;0.772
Knowledge protect 7 0.693;0.822;0.850;0.928;0.923; 0.953
0.898;0.733
Dynamic capability
Sensing capability 4 0.825;0.855;0.847;0.791 0.921 0.957
Integrating
capability 12 0.712;0.752;0.745;0.726;0.752; 0.950
0.690;0.777;0.820;0.662;0.728;
0.683;0.788
Organizational performance
Financial
performance 4 0.853;0.908;0.879;0.801 0.944 0.965
Non-financial
Table V. performance 12 0.745;0.798;0.777;0.789;0.747; 0.963
Reliability results 0.683;0.815;0.775;0.776;0.791;
for each construct 0.811;0.827
capability will have a positive effect on the degree of organizational performance. Hence,
H2 is proven valid. The b values, p-value, and adjusted R2 for KM capability on
organizational performance are 0.817, 0.000 (**po0.01), and 0.467, respectively, and shows
that KM capability has a significant effect on organizational performance. Consequently,
the research result favored H3, which means that the degree of KM capability will have a
positive effect on the degree of organizational performance. Hence, H3 is proven valid.
5.3 Multiple-regression analysis
The multiple-regression analyses for knowledge transfer and knowledge protect on
dynamic capability, sensing capability, and integrating capability on organizational
performance, and knowledge transfer and knowledge protect on organizational
performance are shown in Table VIII. The b values for knowledge transfer
and knowledge protect on dynamic capability are 0.627 and 0.218, respectively.
Variable b SE Beta t-value p-value
Organizational
performance
Dynamic capability
KM capability 0.834 0.039 0.815 21.308 0.000**
Adjusted R2 0.662
Organizational performance
Dynamic capability 0.897 0.049 0.770 18.321 0.000** 171
Adjusted R2 0.592
Organizational performance
KM capability 0.817 0.057 0.685 14.255 0.000**
Adjusted R2 0.467 Table VII.
The simple-regression
Note: **po0.01 analysis
Dynamic capability
KM capability
Knowledge transfer 0.627 0.048 0.618 12.948 0.000**
Knowledge protect 0.218 0.037 0.280 5.869 0.000**
Adjusted R2 0.668
Organizational performance
Dynamic capability
Sensing capability 0.363 0.059 0.373 6.188 0.000**
Integrating capability 0.530 0.069 0.463 7.676 0.000**
Adjusted R2 0.604
Organizational performance
KM capability
Knowledge transfer 0.459 0.071 0.388 6.464 0.000**
Knowledge protect 0.345 0.054 0.381 6.340 0.000**
Adjusted R2 0.474 Table VIII.
The multiple-regression
Note: **po0.01 analysis
JEIM 5.4 Testing the mediating effects of dynamic capabilities
27,2 The simple-regression analysis for KM capability on organizational performance and
dynamic capabilities are shown in Table VII. The multiple-regression analysis for KM
capability and dynamic capabilities on organizational performance is shown in Table IX.
As indicated in these tables, the b value, Beta value, t-value and all other values achieved
a positive level. Based on Tables VII and IX, it was found that the standardized coefficient
172 of KM capability on organizational performance was 0.685. The standardized coefficient of
KM capability and dynamic capabilities on organizational performance was 0.203 and
0.735. The path coefficient for KM capability on organizational performance decreased
from 0.685 to 0.203, showing that dynamic capabilities had a partial mediating effect on
KM capability and organizational performance. Furthermore, this implies that the
influence of KM capability on organizational performance during the process will
partially affect dynamic capabilities and then in turn, will affect the organizational
performance.
Organizational performance
Table IX. Variables b SE Beta t-value p-value
Multiple-regression
analysis for KM KM capability 0.203 0.086 0.170 2.374 0.018**
capability and dynamic Dynamic capability 0.735 0.084 0.631 8.796 0.000**
capability on Adjusted R2 0.600
organizational
performance Note: **po0.05
it can significantly enhance dynamic capability and organizational performance. This Organizational
study further found that the b value of knowledge transfer is more than the knowledge performance
protection, particularly shown in Table VIII. This implies that the knowledge transfer
can effectively enhance dynamic capability and organizational performance than
knowledge protection. Thus, an enterprise endeavor to attract and encourage their
employees to participate in knowledge transfer and knowledge protection activities, as
well as enhance their dynamic capability and organizational performance, particularly 173
knowledge transfer. For example, in knowledge transfer, an enterprise should
encourage their employees to proactively retrieve, filter, store, transfer, and share
knowledge from individuals to the organization (Coakes et al., 2010). Furthermore, a
firm should allow their employees to equip themselves with the ability to apply their
knowledge to develop new products/services, solve problems, and improve work
efficiency; while in knowledge protection, an enterprise should established an incentive
scheme as an effective policy to protect knowledge and prevent any inappropriate
access and usage.
On the other hand, this study also found that dynamic capability is significantly
associated with the degree of organizational performance. According to the result of
the Pearson’s correlation analysis (Table VI), there is a significant positive correlation
between dynamic capability and organizational performance. This implies that if the
dynamic capability factors – sensing capability and integrating capability – are
superior, organizational performance is significantly enhanced. This study further
found that the b value of integrating capability is more than sensing capability,
particularly shown in Table VIII. This means that the integrating capability has
the potential to significantly enhance organizational performance than sensing
capability. Thus, an enterprise should strive to enhance employees’ sensing capability
and integrating capability, as well as increase organizational performance, and
particularly integrating capability. For example, regarding sensing capability, an
enterprise should frequently survey market trends and new technologies to seize new
opportunities and dedicate resources toward the functions of new and existing
products/service to reassure that their products/service can fulfill customer
requirements. For integrating capability, an enterprise should clearly understand
who possesses techniques and knowledge relevant to their work and incorporate
individual knowledge into the unit’s new operational capabilities, as well as orchestrate
and deploy tasks, resources, and activities.
Based on the results of the path analysis, it was found that KM capability
possesses direct influence to enhance organizational performance; moreover,
dynamic capability is also indirectly interrelated in terms of enhancing
organizational performance. This shows that when a firm possesses better KM
capability, it is enabled to rapidly generate new production processes which lead
to new products and services in order to cope with changes in the external
environment, as well as enhance the firm’s market value and organizational
performance. In other words, valuable, rare resources, and capabilities do not assure
a firm’s ability to develop a competitive advantage or create value; rather, firms
should be able to manage them effectively. This means that a firm can create
value by recombining existing resources and capabilities (Landroguez et al., 2011).
Thus, a firm should rely on its KM capability to enhance dynamic capability so
that it can eventually enhance its overall performance. On the contrary, if a firm
lacks KM and dynamic capabilities, it will be difficult to acquire and maintain
stable, high profits.
JEIM 7. Conclusions
27,2 Despite the widespread belief that KM capability enhances organizational performance
and dynamic capability increases organizational performance, researchers have attempted
very little theoretical work on the development of nomological relationships among KM
capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance (Cui and Jiao, 2011; Liyun
et al., 2008; Weerawardena et al., 2007). In other words, systematic empirical investigations
174 of these relationships are scarce. As such, this study investigated the relationships among
KM capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance. The results indicate
that dynamic capability is an important intermediate organizational mechanism through
which the benefits of KM capability are converted into performance effects at the
corporate level. That is, KM capability enhances the dynamic capability of organizations.
While dynamic capability, in turn, increases organizational performance and provides
competitive advantages.
Grant (1996b) indicated that if firms want to enhance organizational performance, it
is not knowledge itself that is important, but rather the firms’ capacity to apply this
knowledge effectively in order to create new knowledge. That is to say that knowledge,
along with the ability to create and utilize it, is the primary source for firms to establish
and enhance sustainable competitive advantage (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). On the
other hand, Evers (2011) assumed that an enterprise is required to establish unique and
dynamic competencies which are generated through unique knowledge-intensive
assets. Zheng et al. (2011) further explained that a firm can continually renew their
knowledge base through its dynamic capabilities so that it is possible to respond to
changing environments. As mentioned above, in order to enhance organizational
performance, enterprises would benefit from implementing KM capability and
dynamic capability simultaneously.
This research applied a purposive sampling method and obtained a slightly
inadequate number of respondents. Therefore, it is suggested that future research
should apply a random sampling method to collect more responses and increase the
generalizability. On the other hand, a regression analysis method was applied to
simplify the research framework and to investigate the relationship among KM
capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance. Hence, it might be
more difficult to explain the overall model of this research. It is suggested that future
researchers should apply the structural equation model to further verify the model in
order to simplify the elaboration of the research structure.
References
Afuah, A. (1998), Innovation Management- Strategies, Implementation, and Profits, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Afuah, A. (2001), “Dynamic boundaries of the firm: are firms better off being vertically integrated
in the face of a technological change?”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1211-1228.
Andrew, L.S.G. (2005), “Harnessing knowledge for innovation: an integrated management
framework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 6-18.
Aujirapongpan, S., Vadhanasindhu, P., Chandrachai, A. and Cooparat p. (2010), “Indicators of
knowledge management capability for KM effectiveness”, The Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 183-203.
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.
Bassie, L.J. (1997), “Harnessing the power of intellectual capital”, Training and Development, Organizational
Vol. 51 No. 12, pp. 25-30.
performance
Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology and firm
performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.
Bhatt, G., Gupta, J.N.D. and Kitchens, F. (2005), “An exploratory study of groupware use in the
knowledge management process”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18
Nos 1/2, pp. 28-46. 175
Bolat, T. and Yilmaz, O. (2009), “The relationship between outsourcing and organizational
performance: is it myth or reality for the hotel sector?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001), “Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-18.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance”, in Schmidt, N., Borman, W.C., Howard, A., Kraut, A., Ilgen, D.,
Schneider, B. and Zedeck, S. (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
Bose, R. (2003), “Knowledge management-enabled health care management systems: capabilities,
infrastructure, and decision-support”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2003), “How the resource-based and the dynamic capability
views of the firm inform competitive and corporate-level strategy”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 289-303.
Cepeda, G. and Vera, D. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: a knowledge
management perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 426-437.
Chih, W.H., Chen, J.L. and Perng, M.K. (2008), “The influences of knowledge management
infrastructure, knowledge management capability upon the organizational performance – an
empirical study of Taipower company”, Journal of e-business, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 595-624.
Coakes, E., Amar, A.D. and Granados, M.L. (2010), “Knowledge management, strategy, and
technology: a global snapshot”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 282-304.
Cui, Y. and Jiao, H. (2011), “Dynamic capabilities, strategic stakeholder alliances and sustainable
competitive advantage: evidence from China”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 386-398.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management
projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
de Geus, A.P. (1988), “Planning as learning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 70-74.
Dosi, G., Hobday, M., Marengo, L. and Prencipe, A. (2003), “The economics of systems integration:
towards an evolutionary interpretation”, in Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (Eds),
The Business of Systems Integration, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 95-113.
Drucker, P.F. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), “Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: an
integrative role for learning?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-249.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capability: what are they?”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1105-1121.
Evers, N. (2011), “International new ventures in ‘low tech’ sectors: a dynamic capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 502-528.
Fan, Z.P., Feng, Bo., Sun, Y.H. and Ou, W. (2009), “Evaluating knowledge management capability
of organizations: a fuzzy linguistic method”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 3346-3354.
JEIM Felin, T. and Hesterly, W.S. (2007), “The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new
value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge”, Academic of
27,2 Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 195-218.
Freeze, R.D. and Kulkarni, U. (2007), “Knowledge management capability: defining knowledge
assets”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 94-109.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
176 capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “Resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Grant, R.M. (1995), Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.
Grant, R.M. (1996a), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 109-122.
Grant, R.M. (1996b), “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational
capability as knowledge integration”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-387.
Hasan, H. and Al-hawari, M. (2003), “Management styles and performance: a knowledge space
framework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 15-28.
Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H. and Teece, D. (2007), DC:
Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1996), “The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics,
path dependencies and evolutionary dimensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 107-114.
Iansiti, M. and Clark, K.B. (1994), “Integration and dynamic capabilities: evidence from product
development in automobiles and mainframe computers”, Industrial and Corporate Change,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 557-605.
Im, S. and Workman, J.P Jr (2004), “Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance
in high-technology firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 114-132.
Iris, R. and Vikas, A. (2011), “E-learning technologies: a key to dynamic capabilities”, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1868-1874.
Ivancevich, J.M. (1977), “Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and
job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 406-419.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Keats, B.W. (1988), “The vertical construct validity of selected business economic performance
measures”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 22-28.
Kiessling, T.S., Richey, R.G., Meng, J. and Dabic, M. (2009), “Exploring knowledge management
to organizational performance outcomes in a transitional economy”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 421-433.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? coordination, identity and learning”,
Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
Landroguez, S.M., Castro, C.B. and Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2011), “Creating dynamic
capabilities to increase customer value”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7,
pp. 1141-1159.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-288.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building & Sustaining the Source of
Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lin, M.Q. (2005), “Intellectual capital, sharing organizational culture and organization managerial Organizational
performance: an empirical investigation”, Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-81.
performance
Liu, H.Y. and Hsu, C.W. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of corporate diversification:
a dynamic capabilities perspective”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1510-1534.
Liu, P.L., Chen, W.C. and Tsai, C.H. (2004), “An empirical study on the correlation between
knowledge management capability and competitiveness in Taiwan’s industries”,
Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 971-977. 177
Liyun, Q., Keyi, W., Xiaoshu, W. and Fangfang, Z. (2008), “Research on the relationship
among market orientation, customer relationship management, customer knowledge
management and business performance”, Management Science and Engineering, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 31-37.
Luo, Y. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities in international expansion”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 355-378.
Maltz, A.C., Shenhar, A.J. and Reilly, R.R. (2003), “Beyond the balanced scorecard: refining
the search for organizational success measures”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 187-204.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2011), “Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic
capabilities”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 239-273.
Petroni, A. (1998), “The analysis of dynamic capabilities in a competence-oriented organization”,
Technovation, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 179-189.
Prieto, I.M. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2006), “Dynamic capabilities and the role of organizational
knowledge: an exploration”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 500-510.
Quinn, J.B. (1999), “Strategic outsourcing: leveraging knowledge capabilities”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 9-21.
Quintas, P. (2002), “Managing knowledge in a new century”, in Little, S., Quintas, P. and Ray, T.
(Eds), Managing Knowledge, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 1-14.
Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (1996), Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr and Roering, K.J. (1985), “The organization of marketing activities:
a contingency theory of structure and performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 13-25.
Scherer, E. (2000), “The knowledge network: knowledge generation during implementation of
application software packages”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 210-217.
Shang, K.C. and Marlow, P.B. (2005), “Logistics capability and performance in Taiwan’s major
manufacturing firms”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 217-234.
Sher, P.J. and Lee, V.C. (2004), “Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic
capabilities through knowledge management”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 8,
pp. 933-945.
Shuen, A. (1994), “Technology sourcing and learning strategies in the semiconductor industry”,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Sloma, R.S. (1980), How to Measure Managerial Performance, Macmillan, New York, NY.
JEIM Soo, C., Devinney, T., Midgley, D. and Deering, A. (2002), “Knowledge management: philosophy,
processes and pitfalls”, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 129-150.
27,2
Talisayon, S.D. (2002), “Knowledge and people”, Business World, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005), “Information technology relatedness, knowledge management
capability, and performance of multibusiness firms”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 311-334.
178 Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teece, D.J. (1998), “Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets
for know-how, and intangible assets”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 55-79.
Tippins, M.J. and Sohi, R.S. (2003), “IT competency and firm performance: is organizational
learning a missing link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-761.
Tripsas, M. (1997), “Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability:
evidence from the typesetter industry”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 341-377.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 801-814.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda,
international”, Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Weerawardena, J., Sullivan Mort, G., Liesch, P. and Knight, G. (2007), “Conceptualizing
accelerated internationalization in the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities
perspective”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 294-306.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), “Knowledge management: where did it come from & where will it go?”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Wu, L.Y. (2006), “Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment:
perceptions in Taiwan IT enterprises”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 447-454.
Wu, L.Y. (2007), “Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up performance of
Taiwan0 s high-tech firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 549-555.
Zack, H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 125-145.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), “Absorptive capability: a review, reconceptualization, and
extension”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Zheng, S., Zhang, W., Wu, X. and Du, J. (2011), “Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and
innovation in networked environments”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 1035-1051.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.
Zott, C. (2003), “Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of industry differential firm
performance: insights from a simulation study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 97-125.
Further reading
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing on organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
About the authors Organizational
Dr Shu-Mei Tseng is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Management at
the I-Shou University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Her works have been published in International Journal of
performance
Information Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Expert Systems with Applications,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, and Management Research News. Her current research
interests include knowledge management, customer relationship management, information
technology management, and service quality management. Dr Shu-Mei Tseng is corresponding 179
author and can be contacted at: y97576@isu.edu.tw
Pei-Shan Lee is a Graduate Student at the Department of Information Management, I-Shou
University in Taiwan.