Chapter V lays out conclusions and implications based on findings of the study. Research limitations and directions for future research are also presented.
Research Conclusions
The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between KM strategies, innovation, and business performance in the IT industry. Data was gathered from employees currently working for an IT company, and total 219 responses were used for data analysis. Methods of analysis were CFA and SEM. Software tools utilized for the study were SPSS 23.0 and Amos 23.0. A theoretical model has been established to offer insights into relationships among variables. The result showed that there are significant relationships among the KM strategies, Innovation, and BP.
Research Implications
The study’s findings provide both scholarly and practical implications. KM strategies centering Innovation will help a company grow successfully. Managers should build an organizational culture that seeks and rewards innovation, a trusting environment that members feel relaxed and comfortable exchanging their knowledge, ideas, opinions which are the foundation for innovations.
Theoretical Implications
The findings empirically support the notion that higher levels of KM strategies result in higher levels of innovation in terms of new products, processes, and a better business performance. In addition, innovation has a positive impact on business performance and partially transfers the effects of KM strategies to business performance. These results may help strengthen previous researchers’ confidence in what they have found. Besides adding empirical evidence to the literature, the study’s finding also suggest some new questions for research. For example, what factors help enhance the success of converting knowledge into Innovation? What factors that make up a culture of facilitating creation and development of new ideas? As Innovation, in terms of new products and processes, successfully mediates a portion of KM’s effects to Business performance, what does this imply for other types of innovations such as new business models, new organizational structures, new marketing strategies, etc. Since Innovation doesn’t fully mediate the effects of KM strategies to Business performance, is there any mediator that
will do? If not, what are other mediators that help transfer more effects of KM strategies to Business performance? And why these mediators might explain better the underlying nature of KM strategies – Business performance relationship? If Innovation play an importance role in IT industry, will it has the same importance in other industries? If not, what might the causes of differences be?
Practical Implications
The findings suggest a starting point for companies to improve their business performance by building policies for KM strategies implementation which should favor development of Innovation. Companies’ policies are often formed through complex processes involving a range of stakeholders such as employees, mid-level managers, high-level managers, board of directors, customers, suppliers, and so on. The results of the study may serve as statistics illustration to convince stakeholders of benefits of building KM strategies that focus on Innovation and get everyone involved in the process. Communicating clearly the benefits and the purposes of implemented KM strategies will help avoid misunderstandings and potential objection and uncooperativeness from stakeholders as they understand why the strategies are needed and what’s in it for them or the company. Both human-oriented and system-oriented KM strategies play importance roles in developing Innovation and driving business performance to success. Resources should be allocated in align with each strategy’s distinct nature to achieve optimal results. For system-oriented strategies, the system should be constantly updated to keep up with newest technologies. Besides efficiency, software, platforms, or mobile apps being used should have user-friendly interfaces, and high cyber security levels. To keep information current, old or unnecessary information need editing or eliminating periodically. To promote the effective use of system and encourage employees’ contributions, users who actively participate and contribute to the company’s knowledge database should be recognized and rewarded. Resources allocated for system-oriented strategies are likely to be spent on system maintenances, updates, technology software and hardware. Companies should measure the effectiveness of the system to balance budgets because some technologies can be excessively expensive and still don’t bring expected results due to many reasons such as operation being complex, interfaces being unfriendly, or functions not aligning with a company’s purposes of usage. For human-oriented strategy, HR department can be involved by hiring and nurturing IT talents for companies, training every employee to have deeper understanding of technologies and be the experts of their
own. HR staff can participate in designing online courses or mobile apps that enhance companies’
employees’ capabilities of performing complex tasks with computers and other technology-related tasks.
Recommendations for Future Research
Some recommendations can be offered for future studies. First, since this study was only conducted in IT industry, the theoretical model and the questionnaire can be re-examined in other settings, not only bound to ICT industry.
Second, the result of R2 for the business performance variable was only 42.2%. That R2 was not so high may be due to the fact that there are other variables besides KM strategies and Innovation that affect business performance such as business strategies, employees’ competence, management practice, and so on. Therefore, it is recommended for future studies to extend the model in order to improve the percentage of variance explained of business performance.
Third, this study adopted the quantitative approach with CFA and SEM statistical methods to test the theoretical model. Future studies are encouraged to employ the qualitative approach in order to get more in-depth information in regard to the underlying nature of the variables’ inter-relations.
REFERENCES
Accenture. (2015). 2015 US Innovation Survey: Clear Vision, Cloudy Execution. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com
Alan, E., & Lorna, U. (2011). Innovative knowledge management: Concepts for organizational creativity and collaborative design. New York, Pennsylvania: Hershey.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management, 43(3), 502-517.
Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. (2002). Aligning human resource management practices and knowledge strategies: A theoretical framework. In C. W. Choo, & N. Bontis, The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 277-295). New York City, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2008). Coping with continuous change in the business environment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology (1st ed.).
Oxford, England: Chandos Publishing.
Braganza, A., Edwards, C., & Lambe, R. (1999). A taxonomy of knowledge projects to underpin organizational innovation and competitiveness. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 83-90.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models. Cambridge, England: Academic Press.
Cardinal, L. B., Allessandri, T. M., & Turner, S. F. (2001). Knowledge codifiability, resources and science based innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 195-204.
Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18(1), 6-21.
Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: A new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195-212.
Cho, H. J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market Value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information and Management, 40(5), 403-417.
Choi, B., Poon, S. K., & Davis, J. G. (2008). Effects of knowledge management strategy on organizational performance: A complementarity theory-based approach. Omega, Elsevier, 36(2), 235-251.
Choy, C. S., Yew, W. K., & Lin, B. (2006). Criteria for measuring KM performance outcomes in organisations. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(7), 917-936.
Daft, R. L. (1982). Bureaucratic versus non-bureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 129-166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392-409.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations.
Journal of Management Studies, 46, 650–675.
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101-115.
Debowski, S. (2007). Knowledge Management. New Delhi, India: Wiley India Private Ltd.
Denning, S. (2000). The spring board: How storytelling ignites action in knowledge-era
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann.
du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20-29.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realising your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York City, New York: HarperCollins.
Ellingsen, G. (2003). The role of trust in knowledge management: A case study of physicians at work at the University Hospital of Northern Norway. Informing Science, 6, 193-207.
Enkel, E., Gilbert, M., Makarevitch, A., & Vassiliadis, S. (2002). Innovation/knowledge creation, customer integration and entering. Knowledge Source Discussion Paper, 44. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net
Forcadell, F. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2002). A case study on the implementation of a knowledge management strategy oriented to innovation. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(3), 162-171.
Garavelli, C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. (2004). Knowledge management strategy and organization: A perspective of analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(4), 273-282.
Geroski, P., Machin, S., & Reenen, J. V. (1993). The profitability of innovating firms. The RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 198-211.
Gillingham, H., & Roberts, B. (2006). Implementing knowledge management: A practical approach. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.tlainc.com
Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402-409.
Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Chabowski, B. R., Hult, G. T., & Ketchen Jr., D. J. (2010). Knowledge management and balanced scorecard outcomes: Exploring the importance of interpretation, learning and internationality. British Journal of Management, 21, 967-982.
Gopalakrishnan, S., Bierly, P., & Kessler, E. (1999). A reexamination of product and process innovations using a knowledge-based view. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(1), 147-166.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2007). Intellectual capital reporting: Lessons from Hong Kong and Australia. Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge?
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Harkema, S. (2003). A complex adaptive perspective on learning within innovation projects. The Learning Organization, 10(6), 340-346.
Hayton, J. C. (2005). Competing in the new economy: The effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures. R&D Management, 35(2), 137-154.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117.
Kennedy, P. (1985). A guide to econometrics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York City, New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41-58.
Cambridge, England: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2006). Analysing the value of knowledge management leading to innovation. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 1(1-2), 79-89.
Minor, D., Brook, P., & Bernoff, J. (2017). Are Innovative Companies More Profitable?
MITSloan Management Review. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 6-26.
Mohrman, S. A., Finegold, D., & Mohrman Jr., A. M. (2003). An empirical model of the organization knowledge system in new product development firms. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2), 7-38.
Mouritsen, J. (2004). Measuring and intervening: how do we theorise intellectual capital management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 257-267.
Mukherjee, A. S., Lapré, M. A., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1998). Knowledge driven quality improvement. Management Science, 44(11), 35-49.
Neill, J. (2007). Qualitative versus quantitative research: Key points in a classic debate.
Retrieved from http://wilderdom.com/research
Newsom, J. (2015). Some clarifications and recommendations on fit indices. Psy Structural Equation Modeling, 510. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu
Nielsen. (2015). Looking to achieve new product success? Listen to your customers. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849-1864.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York City, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pol, E., & Carroll, P. J. (2006). An introduction to economics with emphasis on innovation (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N. (2006). Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 867-893.
Roberts, P. W. (1999). Product innovation, product-market competition and persistent profitability in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 655-670.
Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu Šakalytė, E., & Bartuševičienė, I. (2013). Theoretical aspects of innovation development. STICS.
Retrieved from http://stics.mruni.eu
Say, J. B. (1880). A treatise on political economy or the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth (2nd ed., Vol. I). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Claxton, Kemsen &
Haffelfinger.
Schendel, D., & Hofer, C. W. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. Eagan, Minnesota: West Group.
Schulz, M., & Jobe, L. A. (2001). Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, 139-165.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
Shani, A., Sena, J. A., & Stebbins, M. W. (2000). Knowledge work teams and groupware technology: learning from Seagate’s experience. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 111-124.
Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, firm size and innovation: An empirical analysis.
Technovation, 25(1), 25-32.
Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. London, England: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
Statista. (2015). The Pokémon effect. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/chart
Statista. (2017a). Leading mobile game titles worldwide in 2017, by revenue (in million U.S. innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.
Swan, J., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2000). Limits of IT-driven knowledge management for interactive innovation processes: Towards a community-based approach. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document
Tapscott, D. (1996). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence.
New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York City, New York: Portfolio.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organisational change. London, England: Wiley.
Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st Century.
New York City, New York: Bantam Books.
Vaccaro, A., Parente, R., & Veloso, F. (2010). Knowledge management tools, inter-organizational relationships, innovation and firm performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1076-1089.
Van Auken, H., Madrid, A., & Gracia, D. (2008). Innovation and SME performance in Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(1), 36-56.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-814.
Wickramasinghe, N., Bali, R. K., & Geisler, E. (2007). The major barriers and facilitators for the adoption and implementation of knowledge management in healthcare operations.
International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, 3(3), 367-381.
Williams-Grut, O. (2015). Apple's iPhone: The most profitable product in history. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business
Yildiz, S. (2010). A research in banking sector on measurement of business performance.
Erciyes University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 36, 179-193.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125-145.
APPENDIX A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH &
CHINESE)
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear participants:
This is a questionnaire that studies how different factors affect information technology companies’ business performance. The answers you provide will be completely anonymous and will be used for the purpose of this study only.
If you have any concern, you can contact me via the email address provided below. Thank you so much for your participation!
親愛的參加者：
這是一份探討各個不同因素對科技公司營運績效影響的問卷。本問卷採匿名方式，您所填 答的資料僅供研究參考，不會轉至其他用途，請您安心填答。
如果有任何問題的話，請您用下面的 e-mail 跟我聯絡。感謝您的協助，使得本研究能順 利進行。
National Taiwan Normal University (國立台灣師範大學) Researcher's Name: Truong Thu Thao (Sarah)
E-mail: thuthao.283@gmail.com
第 一 部 分 Part I Knowledge Management
4. 我在製程部門內，可藉由一對一的師徒
Knowledge (know-how, technical skill, or problem solving methods) is well codified.
Results of projects and meetings should be documented.
1 2 3 4 5
第二部分 Part II Innovation
請閱讀下列文字並根據您個人的想法選取一 個 最 適 合 的 答 案 。Please read the following statements and choose the answer you find most appropriate.
PRODUCT INNOVATION
The speed of our new product development.
1 2 3 4 5
PROCESS INNOVATION
11. 我們在製程流程中採用最新技術的速度。
The speed we adopt the latest technologies in our process.
The rate of change in our process, technique, and technology.
1 = 非常不同意 Strongly disagree
Part IV Demographic Information
1. 您目前在資訊科技公司工作嗎 (例如電腦硬體、軟體、網站、半導體、智慧手機 app 開 發 、 電 子 、 網 路 、 電 信 設 備 、 電 子 商 務 公司 ) ？ Are you working for an information technology company (e.g. computer hardware, software, websites, mobile apps, electronics, semiconductors, internet, telecom equipment, and e-commerce)?
□ 是 Yes
□ 否 No (If participants choose “No”, the survey stops here)
2. Your gender?
□ 男 Male
□ 女 Female
3. Your marital status?
□ 未婚 Single
□ 已婚 Married
□ 其他 Other