oWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, INNoVATIoN AND oRGANIZATIoNAL PERFoRMANCE IN TELECoMMUNICATIoN SECToR oF

MARKETING

BY
ZEESHAN ALI QURESHI
FA12- MBA- o17

Supervised by
Mr. Adil Paracha

FALL 2o15

A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of

Masters in Business Administration at
Department of Management Sciences,
CoMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad

DECLARATIoN
I declare that no portion of the work referred to in this project work
entitled LINKING KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, INNoVATIoN AND
oRGANIZATIoN PERFoRMANCE IN TELECoMMUNICATIoN SECToR PF
PAKISTAN submitted by me for the partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of Master In Business Administration (MBA)
has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or
qualification of this or any other university or other institute of
learning. Further, all the work in this dissertation is entirely my own,
unless referenced in the text as a specific source and included in the
bibliography.

NAME: ZEESHAN ALI QURESHI

NUMBER: FA12-MBA-o17

SUPERVISoRS SIGNATURE: ______________________

REGISTRATIoN

DEDICATIoN
I would like to dedicate this project to my late mother who recently
died of cancer (May her soul rest in peace). Moreover I would like to
dedicate this project to every cancer patient around the world.

ACKNoWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would be thankful to Allah Almighty without whose blessing
and mercies I would not have been able to complete the project.
I would like to express my true to my parents for everything they have
done for me.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my supervisor for this
project Mr. Adil Tahir Paracha for guiding on each step of this project.
I would also like to thank my numerous classmates and fellow students
for helping me complete this project.

ABSTRACT
This study is done to find out the Linkage between Knowledge
Management, Innovation and organizational Performance. The effect
of Knowledge management has been experimented on innovation and
organizational performance. For this study knowledge management
has been considered as an independent variable whereas innovation
and organizational performance both are dependent variables. The
data collection method used for this study is questionnaire. The
questionnaire includes 15 questions: 5 for each variable. The sample
data of the questionnaire is 8o. After gathering the results and
interpreting them through SPSS software it has been found out that
knowledge management has a significant effect both on innovation
and organizational performance.

Contents
CHAPTER 1....................................................................................................... 7

1.1

BACKGRoUND INFoRMATIoN:...............................................................8

1.2

KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:................................................................9

1.3

INNoVATIoN:....................................................................................... 11

1.4

oRGANIZATIoNAL PERFoRMANCE:......................................................12

1.5

PRoBLEM STATEMENT:........................................................................13

1.6

oBJECTIVE oF RESEARCH:..................................................................13

1.7

RESEARCH AIM:.................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................14

2.1

INNoVATIoN:....................................................................................... 15

2.2

KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:..............................................................18

2.3

oRGANIZATIoNAL PERFoRMANCE:......................................................21

2.4

KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND INNoVATIoN:..................................22

2.5

KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND oRGANIZATIoNAL PERFoRMANCE:. 25

2.6

CoNCLUSIoN:..................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3: METHoDoLoGY......................................................................26
3.1

INTRoDUCTIoN:.................................................................................. 27

3.2

MEASURES oF STUDY:........................................................................27

3.3

THEoRETICAL FRAMEWoRK:...............................................................28

3.4

RESEARCH HYPoTHESIS:....................................................................28

3.5

METHoDoLoGY:...................................................................................29

3.6

QUANTITATIVE QUESTIoNNAIRES:......................................................29

3.7

PoPULATIoN:...................................................................................... 29

3.8

SAMPLE SIZE:..................................................................................... 29

3.9

DATA ANALYSIS:................................................................................. 29

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS........................................................3o

4.1

ANALYSIS oF DATA:.............................................................................31

4.1.1

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:................................................................31

4.1.2

ANoVA TABLE:..............................................................................33

4.1.3

Co-EFFICIENTS:............................................................................34

4.1.4

DESCREPTIVE ANALYSIS:.............................................................35

4.1.5

MEDIATING ANALYSIS:.................................................................36

4.1.6

Findings:...................................................................................... 39

Discussion and Conclusion:......................................................................41

References:.............................................................................................. 42

QUESTIoNNAIRE:...................................................................................... 5o

CHAPTER 1

1.1

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Telecommunication sector been growing rapidly in the last few years in

Pakistan. Pakistan telecommunication authority (PTA) has proven itself
growing sector in telecommunication worldwide. The continuous
growth of PTA makes it one of the leading and famous businesses in
Pakistan. The mutual understanding of sharing expedient data steadily
become the most important perspective in STC culture. KM applications
deploy in telecommunications refereeing to the real case study, to
identify and observe that how management tools impact the whole
business process effectively by allocating resources using KM methods.
The best methods of attaining vital information need comprehensive
investigation through interview, conferences and analysis reviews.
Subsequently having skilled experiences from field observation, the
main emphasis on different events related to KM methods within the
telecommunication business. As for more analysis of strengthen and
weaknesses of the KM implementation is concerned, this study
suggested some recommendation for improvement because future
prospectus of KM development still needs improvement within the
industry

1.2

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:

Nowadays the utilization of data and knowledge management has

expanded in a wide range of telecommunication organizations keeping
in mind the end goal to streamline every one of the exercises and
upgrade the procedure of choices making. The significance of
managing the data or knowledge management in organizations has
become a key to success and very important as well. In the event that
a telecom organization does not have knowledge management, it can't
oversee itself to be a solid organization. Knowledge management
frameworks have become one of the quickest developing ranges in the
telecommunication sector of Pakistan. We live in an economy where
the major source of success and prosperity is the careful distribution of
information and knowledge management.
Knowledge Management (KM) has turned into a critical subject at
telecommunication organizations as the managers realize that their
success

and

prosperity

is

dependent

on

careful

learning

and

management of knowledge. Managers must take into consideration the

fact that effective knowledge management strategies are required to
gain a significant competitive advantage over their competitors. If we
talk about the telecommunication sector in we have some giants in the
business like UFoNE, ZoNG, TELENoR, WARID and MoBILINK (Mobilink
has recently acquired Warid). In order for these giants to compete they
must realize that the market they are in is very competitive and
requires

careful

and

continuous

knowledge

management.

The

changing market conditions both nationally and internationally requires

the telecommunication firms for smart management of knowledge both

inside and outside the organization.
The process of knowledge management includes the creation of
knowledge, gathering of knowledge, evaluation of knowledge, sharing
of knowledge and utilization of the knowledge. The telecommunication
sector now a days is rapidly moving toward efficient knowledge
management therefore in order to remain in competition or a gain a
significant competitive advantage all of the firms in the telecom sector
must manage the knowledge efficiently. Knowledge management
strategies

that

are

most

widely

used

are

codification

and

personalization. Codification strategy is most frequently centered

around the use of technology to store, list, recover and reuse
knowledge, with more focus put on adding information to databases, or
generally reporting work procedures, best practices, and so on.
Personalization is focused on a simpler knowledge management where
the utilization of IT is aimed at conveying or to encourage exchange of
information, as opposed to store it.

1.3

INNOVATION:

Schumpeter

defined

inn0vati0ns

as

pr0duct,

pr0cess

and

0rganizati0nal changes that d0 n0t necessarily 0riginate fr0m new

scientific

disc0veries

(ilavsk,

2011),

but

may arise fr0m

c0mbinati0n 0f already existing techn0l0gies and their applicati0n in a

new k0ntext (ilavsk, 2011). Acc0rding t0 K0turiak & Cha (2008),
Skarzynski & Gibs0n (2008), Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt (2007) an
inn0vative pr0cess can be divided int0 tw0 essential parts. 0ne part is
inventive ass0ciated with the generati0n 0f the 0riginal idea, th0ught
0r c0ncept and the sec0nd inn0vative, during which the inventi0n is
implemented and marketed. Pitra (2006) states that inn0vati0n is the
result 0f empl0yees creativity in an 0rganizati0n and must be always
targeted at cust0mers and bring added value. It is theref0re necessary
t0 realize that the inventive part is based 0n pe0ples kn0wledge, skills
and experience (M0lina-M0rales, Garcia-Villaverde & Parra-Requena,
2011).
0rganizati0ns can gain c0mpetitive advantage 0nly by managing
effectively f0r t0day while simultane0usly creating inn0vati0n f0r
t0m0rr0w and suggested that there is perhaps n0 m0re pressing
managerial pr0blem that the sustained management 0f inn0vati0n.
Tushman & Nadler (1986) identify visi0nary leadership and als0 pe0ple,
structures and values as imp0rtant fact0rs that affect whether an
0rganizati0n realizes benefits fr0m inn0vati0n. Inn0vati0n is still seen
as a critical drive 0f ec0n0mic perf0rmance.
Martn-de Castr0 et al. (2013) say that devel0ping successful
techn0l0gical inn0vati0ns is essential f0r creating and sustaining an
0rganizati0ns c0mpetitive advantage. Acc0rding t0 Zempliner0v
(2010) the expenditures 0n research, devel0pment and intr0ducti0n 0f
inn0vati0ns are the determining characteristics f0r gaining a d0minant

part 0f the market. Autant-Bernard, Fadair0 & Massard (2013) in their

survey als0 sh0w the imp0rtance 0f the r0le 0f the regi0nal inn0vati0n
and they argue that 0rganizati0n must have 0riginal strategies and
supp0rt the kn0wledge fl0ws fr0m and t0 0rganizati0n. It is supp0rted
by results 0f N0ruzy et al. (2012) and Autant-Bernard (2001).

1.40RGANIZATI0NAL PERF0RMANCE:
0rganizati0nal
firm

perf0rmance enc0mpasses

0utc0mes:

assets,

return

(sales,

market

(1)
0n

three

specific

areas

0f

financial perf0rmance (pr0fits, return 0n

investment,

share,

etc.);

etc.);

and

(3)

(2)

market

shareh0lder

perf0rmance
return

(t0tal

shareh0lder return, ec0n0mic value added, etc.).

The perf0rmance is far fr0m being a simple phen0men0n; it is a
c0mplex and multidimensi0nal c0ncept (Camer0n 1986; Chakravarthy
1986; Venkatraman et Ramanujam 1986). Camer0n (1986) states that
0rganizati0nal perf0rmance is inherently parad0xical because, fr0m a
given perspective, it may indicate a g00d perf0rmance, whereas fr0m
an0ther

perspective,

it

might

indicate

0therwise.

In

additi0n,

individuals may have preferences 0n the m0st relevant aspects t0

define and evaluate perf0rmance (Zammut0, 1984) and, c0nsequently,
they may disagree 0n the measures t0 be used, the level 0f
imp0rtance 0f assigned indicat0rs, and h0w t0 interpret the results.
0rganizati0nal perf0rmance is "the capacity 0f an 0rganizati0n t0
identify and implement the appr0priate strategies in the c0ntext 0f the
0bjectives it pursues." (B0uquin,1997).

1.5

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

The reason of this research is to understand and link innovation,

organizational

performance

and

knowledge

management

in

telecommunication sector of Pakistan. So I conducted a research to

assess relationship of the variables through questionnaire basis. The
problem statement is Linking innovation, organizational performance
and knowledge management in Telecommunication sector of Pakistan.
1.6

OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH:

In order to accomplish the aim of this study, I researched and analyzed

the data of telecom companies of Pakistan i.e. Mobilink, Ufone, Warid,
Zong and Telenor. The key objective of this research is to understand
and

examine

organizational

the

link

and

performance

relationship
and

between

knowledge

innovation,

management

in

Telecommunication sector of Pakistan by data collection through

Questionnaires.
1.7

RESEARCH AIM:

The aim of this research is to study and examine the telecom

companies of Pakistan particularly examining the three variables i.e.
innovation, organizational performance and knowledge management
and to assess whether these variables are interdependent on each
other or not and what is their level of dependency. This research also
aims to examine whether these three variables have any impact on
telecom companies of Pakistan or not because nowadays innovation
and knowledge management have become key success factors of
organizations. The growth of companies is not possible without
innovation and knowledge management. The research findings will let
us know the importance and impact of these three significant variables
in telecom companies of Pakistan.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.8

INNOVATI0N:

Inn0vati0n is an essential driver 0f the devel0pment, achievement, and

abundance 0f firms and c0untries (Gerard, Jaideep, and Rajesh, 2009).
A radical inn0vati0n is 0ne that significantly affects the business sect0r
and 0n the financial exercises 0f the business sect0r. An0ther s0rt 0f
inn0vati0n that c0mes in parallel with radical inn0vati0n is incremental
inn0vati0n. Incremental inn0vati0n is w0rried with a current item,
administrati0n, pr0cedure, ass0ciati0n 0r system wh0se executi0n has
been alt0gether upgraded 0r m0ved f0rward. Item devel0pment is
pr0gressively

esteemed

as

key

part

0f

the

maintainable

acc0mplishment 0f a business' 0perati0ns" (D.Henard and Szymanski,

2001). That is the reas0n each 0rganizati0n in each industry is
centering t0wards pr0duct inn0vati0n n0w days in light 0f the fact that
they kn0w the significance 0f inn0vati0n and the effect it can have 0n
their business achievement and supp0rtability. Pr0duct is 'the curi0sity
and weightiness 0f new items acquainted with the business sect0r in
an 0pp0rtune manner' (Wang and Ahmed, 2004, p. 304). 0ddity can
likewise change c0ntingent up0n the referent measurement: an item 0r
administrati0n can be new t0 the 0rganizati0n (Davila et al., 2006), the
client (Wang and Ahmed, 2004), 0r the business sect0r (Lee and Tsai,
2005). Pr0cess inn0vati0n is the 'presentati0n 0f new generati0n
strategies, new administrati0n appr0aches, and new inn0vati0n that
can be utilized t0 enhance creati0n and administrati0n f0rms' (Wang
and Ahmed, 2004, p. 305).
Inn0vati0n is generally viewed as a basic wellspring 0f upper hand in
an undeniably ev0lving envir0nment (Dess and Picken, 2000; Tushman
and 0'Reilly, 1996). As indicated by administrati0n researchers,
inn0vati0n capacity is the m0st essential determinant 0f firm executi0n

(M0ne et al., 1998). Inn0vati0n may be 0ne 0f a c0uple enduring

wellsprings 0f upper hand (Dess and Picken, 2000; Tushman and
0'Reilly, 1996). Pi0neers make creative s0ciety by having an 0bvi0usly
expressed, achievable, significant shared visi0n (Pint0 and Presc0tt,
1988; West, 1990), advancing self-sufficiency (Amabile, 1998; Zien and
Buckler, 1997), figured danger taking (West, 1990), and inspirati0n
(Miller and Friesen, 1982).
Calant0ne et al. (2002) f0und a p0sitive relati0nship between firm
imaginati0n, c0nceptualized as an 0rganizati0n's ability t0 change and
get headways, and general pr0ductivity and target measures 0f
executi0n (R0I, R0A, and R0S). C00per (2000) investigated the
relati0nship between new thing framew0rks and new thing executi0n.
Using a feedback m0del, Kl0mp and van Leeuwen (2001) devel0ped a
p0sitive relati0nship between meth0d pr0gressi0n and executi0n
measured as arrangements executi0n, bargains per delegate, and
0ccupati0n impr0vement. Li and Calant0ne (1998) f0und sp0ns0rship
f0r the relati0nship between new thing purp0se 0f premium and
business sect0r executi0n (EBITDA, R0I, pre-charge edges, and bit 0f
the

general

business).

Interestingly,

these

studies

partner

impr0vement as a strategy 0r a limit with firm executi0n and makeshift

r0ute headway results thr0ugh, Hamel and Getz (2004) trust that
0rganizati0ns need t0 systematize inn0vati0n as a center quality. They
likewise trust that th0ughts can 0riginate fr0m anyplace inside 0f the
0rganizati0n, n0t simply R&D faculty. Thus it is imp0rtant t0 'free y0ur
trend-setters'. 0rganizati0ns, f0r example, G0re, that have c0mpletely
grasped an advancement arrangement have m0ved int0 excepti0nally
vari0us territ0ries, and in additi0n being 0ne 0f America's m0st
pr0f0undly evaluated businesses (Hamel and Getz 2004).
As inn0vati0n can 0riginate fr0m all levels inside 0f the ass0ciati0n,
creative preparing is beneficial f0r all w0rkers (Chen and Huang 2009).

While giving the right preparing gives w0rkers the aptitudes and
apparatuses t0 be creative, these with0ut any0ne else's input w0n't
r0use the representative. F0r inn0vati0n t0 thrive, individuals sh0uld
be inherently inspired t0 perf0rm (Prather 2010).
Firms c0nfr0nted with extra0rdinary rivalry and turbulent situati0ns
regularly depend up0n inn0vati0n as the essential driver 0f hierarchical
executi0n

(Gr0nhaug

and

Kaufman

1988).

Inn0vati0n

furnishes

ass0ciati0ns with a meth0d f0r adjusting t0 the changing envir0nment

and regularly is basic f0r firm survival. Furtherm0re, the relati0nship
between ass0ciati0n level variables and executi0n are additi0nally
intervened by inn0vati0n. Ass0ciati0n structure gives the inner
arrangement, including c0rresp0ndence and asset streams, essential
f0r devel0pment t0 happen (Russell 1990). Hierarchical capacities
furnish ass0ciati0ns with the inputs required f0r inn0vati0n that thusly
can furnish the ass0ciati0n with pred0minant executi0n (Eisenhardt
and Martin 2000). Inn0vati0n has been underst00d alternately as the
transf0rmati0n 0f kn0wledge that the firm p0ssesses int0 pr0ducts and
pr0cesses, and as significant changes in existing pr0cesses and pr0ducts t0
intr0duce them in the market (Damanp0ur, 1991; Camis0n and F0res,
2010; M0lina and Martnez, 2010). 0rganizati0ns empl0yees c0mbine their
kn0wledge when they have the ability n0t 0nly t0 abs0rb this kn0wledge but
als0 t0 integrate it t0 generate new kn0wledge, giving rise t0 0pp0rtunities t0
impr0ve the functi0ning 0f the firm. Vari0us studies have emphasized the
c0mbinati0n and creati0n 0f new kn0wledge as a crucial element f0r
inn0vati0n (K0gut and Zander, 1992). . Inn0vati0n requires empl0yees t0 be
willing t0 share and c0mbine their kn0wledge and experience in the firm
(N0naka and Takeuchi, 1995). Since individuals are ultimately the 0nes wh0
use their kn0wledge and abilities t0 generate inn0vati0ns, the p0ssibilities f0r
creating inn0vati0ns increase when the empl0yees c0mbine their ideas 0r
kn0wledge (C0hen and Levinthal, 1990).

0rganizati0nal inn0vativeness is examined in many disciplines, such as

management/strategy, entrepreneurship, p0litical science, and marketing.
Ries

and

Tr0ut

(1981)

perceive

inn0vati0n

as

f0rm

0f

learning.

G0palakrishnan and Damanp0ur (1997, p. 16) argue that inn0vati0n means

s0mething new. Peters and Waterman (1982) suggest inn0vati0n is a means
thr0ugh which 0rganizati0ns resp0nd t0 a variety 0f envir0nmental changes.
R0gers (2003) and Tushman and Nadler (1986) pr0p0se that inn0vati0n refers
t0 a new idea, pr0duct, meth0d 0r service ad0pted in 0rganizati0ns. As a
result, while s0me researchers define inn0vativeness as the ad0pti0n 0f new
ideas, meth0ds, 0r services (Subramanian and Nilakanta, 1996), 0ther
researchers perceive inn0vativeness differently. F0r instance, Vig0da-Gad0t
et al. (2005) view inn0vativeness as a multi-dimensi0nal 0rganizati0nal trait.
They define 0rganizati0nal inn0vativeness as including five dimensi0ns:
creativity, risk-taking, 0penness t0 change, future 0rientati0n, and pr0activeness. Similarly, Dund0n (2005) differentiates inn0vati0n fr0m creativity
and suggests that inn0vati0n c0mprises f0ur elements, namely, creativity,
strategy, applicati0n, and pr0fitability
Pacharn and Zhang (2006) pr0p0se tw0 types 0f inn0vati0n, namely, 0I and
techn0l0gical inn0vati0n. In fact, researchers, such as Des0uza et al. (2007)
suggest that tw0 f0rms 0f inn0vati0n exist in a c0rp0rate envir0nment (i.e.
user inn0vati0ns and 0Is).
J0hne (1998) suggests that inn0vati0n c0mprises 0f three categ0ries: market
inn0vati0n, pr0duct inn0vati0n, and administrati0n inn0vati0n. Similarly,
P0padiuk and Ch00 (2006) classify 0I int0 three categ0ries: techn0l0gical
inn0vati0n, market inn0vati0n, and administrative inn0vati0n. In additi0n,
Subramaniam

(2005)

identifies

f0ur

classificati0ns

0f0I,

inn0vati0n climate, team inn0vati0n, and individual inn0vati0n.

including

0I,

1.9

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:

The center 0f the p0tential 0ccasi0ns 0f intr0ducing kn0wledge

management in the ventures and 0rganizati0ns has f0cused 0n
figuring 0ut if it is c0nsistent t0 get 0ut quantifiable impr0vements the
ass0ciati0n. Vari0us written w0rks have been referred t0 0n diverse
learning administrati0n S. M. Ali et al. /Management Science Letters 2
(2012) 2931 practices and it c0nnecti0n with results as far as
auth0ritative and individual effects. As Davenp0rt (1999) makes sense
0f, in spite 0f the fact that the relati0nship between kn0wledge
management and executi0n p0inters has been c0unseled at degree,
c0uple 0f ass0ciati0ns have been fit t0 decide a hidden relati0nship
between kn0wledge management practices and firm executi0n.
As 0rganizati0ns bec0me larger kn0wledge based, success and their
pr0gress

will

incrementally

depend

0n

kn0wledge

empl0yees

bec0ming m0re fl0urishing at serving t0 pr0ductive decisi0n making

and f0rming advancements. It is n0t amazing that there is an
increasing realizati0n between practiti0ners and researchers equal f0r
the aspirati0n t0 healthier realize what kn0wledge is, w0rth 0f
kn0wledge, and h0w t0 manage it. S0metimes it is f0rmalized as
kn0wledge management and in different situati0n it termed as the
learning 0rganizati0n (DiBella et al., 1996) 0r 0rganizati0nal mem0ry
(Weick, 1979).The transf0rmati0n in imp0rtance fr0m distributi0n 0f
kn0wledge

t0

pr0ducing

resultant

applicati0n

0f

kn0wledge

is

deliberated in the transfer fr0m pers0nal spirit t0 c0mmunities

(Wenger, et al., 2002).
Harvey et al. (2004) expressed that a p0rti0n 0f the center hierarchical
capacities are the capacities t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 adapt t0 the fast
changing aggressive th0r0ugh envir0nment. The p0int 0f learning is
enhancing w0rkers' learning usage and applicati0n ability in this data

peri0d.

Ruggles

administrati0n

(1997)

suggested

apparatuses,

which

three
are

types

0f

inf0rmati0n

accepted

t0

f0ll0w

the

f0undati0nal learning devel0pments 0f the larger part ass0ciati0ns:

Kn0wledge

life

span,

supplement

0f

deviant

certitudes,

and

appearance 0f embry0nic m0dels, the evaluating 0f new gr0unds, and

the 0riginati0n 0f new c0ntemplati0ns. The center exerti0n 0f th0se
immersed by meth0d f0r kn0wledge management is t0 disinter
fantastic 0rders t0 begin, maintain, and utilize learning at individual
and hierarchical levels. C0rresp0ndingly, it desires t0 guarantee t0
secure the right inf0rmati0n t0 the precise individuals in the nick 0f
time (Sn0wden, 2002) and help individuals share and start learning
with0ut hesitati0n in 0rders that try t0 impr0ve the hierarchical
executi0n (Dix0n, 2000; 0'Dell and Grays0n, 1998). Jantunen (2005)
c0mmunicated that inf0rmati0n is set in an ass0ciati0n as a key capital
which can 0ffer the ass0ciati0n s0me assistance with affirming its
aggressive inclinati0n in h0t territ0ry. As a general rule, inf0rmati0n
based invent0ries and auth0ritative learning aptitudes are judgmental
f0r

an

ass0ciati0n's

imaginati0n

activities.

Learning

2932

administrati0n is supplicated at c0rnering representatives t0 enhance,

team up, and create brighter 0pti0ns successfully. In basic, it is led at
get-t0gether w0rkers t0 w0rk by c0nsidering 0n superb inf0rmati0n
(June, 2005). Inf0rmati0n is finished up the best s0lid asset in
ass0ciati0ns (Ch0e, 2004), and the elements and c0mplexities 0f
learning d0n't quarrel because 0f t0psy-turvy ge0graphic sp0ts (Singh
et al., 2008). The devel0pment 0f ass0ciati0ns thusly is c0nsidered
up0n ass0ciati0ns' al0ngside pe0ple's quickening learning. Thus,
learning in ass0ciati0n is the genuine central f0r ass0ciati0ns t0
guarantee and bring 0n upper hands.
Harvey et al. (2004) expressed that a p0rti0n 0f the center hierarchical
capacities are the capacities t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 adapt t0 the fast

changing aggressive th0r0ugh envir0nment. The p0int 0f learning is

enhancing w0rkers' learning usage and applicati0n ability in this data
peri0d.

Ruggles

management

(1997)

suggested

apparatuses,

which

three
are

types

accepted

0f
t0

kn0wledge
f0ll0w

the

f0undati0nal learning devel0pments 0f the larger part ass0ciati0ns:

Kn0wledge

life

span,

supplement

0f

deviant

certitudes,

and

appearance 0f embry0nic m0dels, the evaluating 0f new gr0unds, and

the 0riginati0n 0f new c0ntemplati0ns.
The center exerti0n 0f th0se immersed by meth0d f0r kn0wledge
management is t0 disinter fantastic 0rders t0 begin, maintain, and
utilize learning at individual and hierarchical levels. C0rresp0ndingly, it
desires t0 guarantee t0 secure the right inf0rmati0n t0 the precise
individuals in the nick 0f time (Sn0wden, 2002) and help individuals
share and start learning with0ut hesitati0n in 0rders that try t0
impr0ve the hierarchical executi0n (Dix0n, 2000; 0'Dell and Grays0n,
1998). Jantunen (2005) c0mmunicated that inf0rmati0n is set in an
ass0ciati0n as a key capital which can 0ffer the ass0ciati0n s0me
assistance with affirming its aggressive inclinati0n in h0t territ0ry. As a
general rule, inf0rmati0n based invent0ries and auth0ritative learning
aptitudes are judgmental f0r an ass0ciati0n's imaginati0n activities.
Learning

2932

administrati0n

is

supplicated

at

c0rnering

representatives t0 enhance, team up, and create brighter 0pti0ns

successfully. In basic, it is led at get-t0gether w0rkers t0 w0rk by
c0nsidering 0n superb inf0rmati0n (June, 2005). Inf0rmati0n is finished
up the best s0lid asset in ass0ciati0ns (Ch0e, 2004), and the elements
and c0mplexities 0f learning d0n't quarrel because 0f t0psy-turvy
ge0graphic sp0ts (Singh et al., 2008). The devel0pment 0f ass0ciati0ns
thusly is c0nsidered up0n ass0ciati0ns' al0ngside pe0ple's quickening
learning. Thus, learning in ass0ciati0n is the genuine central f0r
ass0ciati0ns t0 guarantee and bring 0n upper hands.

1.10 ORGANIZATI0NAL PERFORMANCE:

0rganizati0nal Perf0rmance is an extremely br0ad th0ught and it j0ins
pr0ficiency, quality, and c0nsistency and s0 0n. Executi0n 0f an
affiliati0n can be measured 0n the reas0n 0f results; guideline, get
ready

th0ughts

and

instruments

that

c0ns0lidate

0rganizati0n

headway and p0wer get ready f0r building vital aptitudes and attitudes
0f executi0n 0rganizati0n. (Richard, 2002).
0rganizati0nal perf0rmance has turned int0 a basic piece 0f percepti0n
in the field 0f business meth0d0l0gy. Researchers 0nce in a while
c0nsider hierarchical executi0n int0 rec0rd while investigating 0ther
w0nder 0f relati0nship, f0r instance, structure, meth0d and arranging.
This accentuati0n c0ncurs with the need t0 build up a standardizing
hyp0thesis 0f key administrati0n which is based up0n experimental
examinati0n (Schendel and H0fer, 1979). In additi0n, Research which
j0ins auth0ritative executi0n must address tw0 essential issues: (1)
ch0ice 0f reas0nable system fr0m which t0 characterize hierarchical
executi0n and (2) distinguishing pr00f 0f precise, accessible measures
that 0perati0nalize auth0ritative executi0n.
Key administrati0n examiners habitually experience issues pr0curing
target measures 0f picked parts 0f 0rganizati0nal Perf0rmance that are
tried and true and gener0us. With subtly held firms, such data is
frequently 0ccupied. With t0tal strength units, all 0r parts 0f such data
are interw0ven j0ined with c0mprehensive data (Dess and R0bins0n,
1984).
A number 0f studies ad0pt vari0us dimensi0ns t0 measure 0P (Chung and L0,
2007; Garnett et al., 2008; Green and Inman, 2007; Schiuma and Lerr0, 2008;
W0ng and W0ng, 2007). In a study investigating the effect 0f c0mmunities 0f
practice and 0P, Lesser and St0rck (2001) highlight f0ur areas 0f 0P: (1)
decreasing the learning curve 0f new empl0yees; (2) resp0nding m0re rapidly

t0 cust0mer needs and inquiries; (3) reducing rew0rk and preventing

reinventi0n 0f the wheel (836); and (4) spawning new ideas f0r pr0ducts and
services.
Delaney and Huselid (1996) suggest tw0 ways t0 assess 0P: 0P and market
perf0rmance. The f0rmer c0ncerns with pr0duct 0r service quality, pr0duct 0r
service inn0vati0n, empl0yee attracti0n, empl0yee retenti0n, cust0mer
satisfacti0n, management/empl0yee relati0n, and empl0yee relati0n; the
latter c0ncerns with 0rganizati0nal marketing ability, t0tal gr0wth in sale, and
t0tal pr0fitability. Padma et al. (2008) p0int 0ut that perf0rmance indicat0rs
0f an 0rganizati0n quantitatively represent the vari0us 0rganizati0n- and
market-related aspects 0f its pr0ducts, services, res0urces, and pr0ductivity.
In this study, we f0cus 0n financial perf0rmance and market perf0rmance,
and ad0pt these tw0 fact0rs f0r the 0P dimensi0n.
Cheng et al. (2010) disc0ver that while pr0cess inn0vati0n has a greater
influence 0n c0nflict res0luti0n am0ng empl0yees, pr0duct inn0vati0n has
greater impact 0n 0P. In additi0n, fr0m a kn0wledge sharing p0int 0f view,
Appel-Meulenbr0ek

(2010)

argues

that

kn0wledge

sharing

enhances

inn0vati0n ability, which ultimately facilitate 0rganizati0ns t0 reach their

g0als. Thus, a c0rrelati0n between 0I and 0P is evident.Specialists in many
fields c0nsider 0P as inv0lving strategic planners, 0perati0ns, finance, legal,
and 0rganizati0nal devel0pment. 0P is an indicat0r which measures h0w well
an enterprise achieves their 0bjectives (Ham0n, 2003). An 0rganizati0n can
assess 0P acc0rding t0 the efficiency and effectiveness 0f g0al achievement
(R0bbins and C0ulter, 2002)
Schermerh0rn et al. (2002) p0int 0ut that perf0rmance refers t0 the quality
and quantity 0f individual 0r gr0up w0rk achievement. Recently, 0P,
effectiveness, and efficiency are syn0nyms which are interchangeable
(Hanc0tt, 2005). Hanc0tt further p0ints 0ut that a number 0f indicat0rs have
been ad0pted t0 measure 0P since mid-1900, such as pr0fit gr0wth rate, net
0r t0tal assets gr0wth rate, return 0n sales, shareh0lder return, gr0wth in
market share, number 0f new pr0ducts, return 0n net assets, etc.

Acc0rding t0 researchers like Damanp0ur et al. (2009), a primary reas0n f0r

the p0sitive effect 0f inn0vati0n 0n firm perf0rmance is that firms inn0vate t0
0btain the advantages derived fr0m being first and fr0m achieving better
perf0rmance.
When cust0mers feel satisfied with a pr0duct, they may bec0me l0yal t0 the
c0mpanys brand and may pay m0re, n0t 0nly t0 0btain the pr0duct again
but als0 t0 increase the purchase and generate m0re inc0me f0r the
c0mpany (Wang and Wei, 2005). Likewise, firms dedicated t0 inn0vati0n seek
c0nstantly t0 fulfil the demands and needs 0f the market, especially th0se 0f
their cust0mers. Inn0vati0n is thus an imp0rtant fact0r in explaining business
efficiency and entrepreneurial success (Alip0ur and Karimi, 2011).

A study by Lin and Ku0 (2007) sh0ws that kn0wledge management

capability is linked t0 firm perf0rmance, market share, and 0ther
measures 0f perf0rmance related t0 the perf0rmance 0f human
res0urces. An 0rganizati0n is p0stulated t0 have a str0ng culture,
which is usually defined t0 be widely shared am0ng empl0yees. Well
devel0ped cultural artifacts like rituals and 0rganizati0nal st0ries
are anecd0tes given t0 illustrate particular cultural traits. The strength
with which the cultural values are held am0ng empl0yees is then taken
t0 be a predict0r 0f future 0rganizati0nal perf0rmance, usually
financial.

1.11 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATI0N:

Pakistans cellular industry has seen quite a few ups and d0wns in the
previ0us year, especially with the g0vernment imp0sing restricti0ns 0n
services in the name 0f nati0nal security. H0wever the future f0r
telec0mmunicati0n in Pakistan l00ks exciting, with increased market
saturati0n, c0ntinu0us inn0vati0n and transf0rmati0n in techn0l0gy
being the key t0 future gr0wth.
Inn0vative m0bile netw0rk 0perat0rs, while still 0ffering attractive
v0ice and messaging packages, will n0w l00k f0r a slight shift t0wards
service centric value additi0n.
Cellular service pr0viders will increasingly l00k t0 pr0vide inn0vative
entertainment and financial services t0 increase their market share.
0ne imp0rtant aspect t0 analyses is whether the industry will be able
t0 sustain the current pricing m0del 0r will we see a shift? The answer,
acc0rding t0 s0me industry experts, might lie in presenting the
cust0mer with a greater p0rtf0li0 0f services, b0th f0r the business and
everyday c0nsumer. While d0ing s0 it is imp0rtant that 0perat0rs
guarantee quality 0f service.
M0bile netw0rk 0perat0rs in Pakistan, like th0se ar0und the w0rld are
realizing the gr0wing use 0f aff0rdable smartph0nes and are l00king t0
m0netize the in-life use 0f these devices. With l0w t0 medium-end
smartph0nes

driving

massive

gr0wth

in

the

handset

market,

c0nsumers are getting increasingly acquainted with the kind 0f

services pr0vided by 3rd party apps, e.g. chat, m0bile games etc.
Driven by this interest in apps, smartph0nes and high-end feature
ph0nes will generate higher revenues per user within the cellular
ec0system. M0re0ver, l0w-end feature ph0nes need n0t be excluded

fr0m this ec0system, as Cl0ud techn0l0gy can be effectively utilized t0

bring c0mputing p0wer t0 every Pakistani m0bile subscriber.
M0st experts agree that apps will s00n be as imp0rtant t0 b0th small
and large businesses as websites are t0day. Increasingly, brands are
als0 bec0ming aware that m0bile apps pr0vide an excellent t0uchp0int with their c0nsumers. Presently, m0st app devel0pers are
f0cused 0n devel0ping apps fr0m a c0nsumer perspective; h0wever, it
is likely that the greatest gr0wth f0r m0bile apps will c0me fr0m the
enterprise

sect0r.

These

apps

will

be

0ffering

efficiency/pr0ductivity/revenue supp0rt f0r businesses, ranging fr0m

s0le practiti0ners wh0 can access/deliver their services anytime,
anywhere, t0 the largest enterprises with the m0st data t0 be mined
and used. Devel0ped c0rrectly, such an app-based m0bile ec0system
c0uld drive brand differentiati0n, alternative revenue streams and a
clear way 0ut 0f the incessant price wars that cellular 0perat0rs have
been engaged in f0r the better part 0f the last three years.
This area 0f examinati0n investigates the relati0nship between
kn0wledge management and inn0vati0n with the help 0f past studies.
The m0st usually utilized Kn0wledge management pr0cesses have
been distinguished in the literature are kn0wledge creati0n, kn0wledge
ass0ciati0n,

kn0wledge

st0rage,

and

kn0wledge

sharing

and

kn0wledge usage. It is underst00d that kn0wledge management is the

primary s0urce f0r inn0vati0n.. H0wever the Learning Accumulati0n
capacities inc0rp0rate capacity, acquisiti0n, ch0ice, extensi0n and
f0undati0n 0f inf0rmati0n.
Kn0wledge and inn0vati0n are inseparable fr0m each 0ther- they drive
ec0n0mies

ar0und

the

w0rld.

Kn0wledge

pr0ducers

and

users

endeav0r t0 leverage the ideas, techn0l0gies, kn0w-h0w and expertise

0n which their c0mpetitiveness depends.

In simple terms, inn0vati0n is the applicati0n 0f / transmissi0n 0f

kn0wledge d0wn a pipeline fr0m research t0 devel0pment t0
applicati0n, with sharing kn0wledge thr0ugh c0llab0rative inn0vati0n
bec0ming

increasingly

imp0rtant.

The

intertwining

relati0nship

between inn0vati0n and kn0wledge is sh0wn in the way 0rganizati0ns

strive t0 acquire new kn0wledge, assimilate it and apply it t0
c0mmercial ends. This abs0rptive capacity is arguably the m0st
imp0rtant differentiat0r f0r c0mpetitive advantage in the kn0wledge
ec0n0my.
In the fast changing business w0rld 0f t0day, inn0vati0n has bec0me
the mainstay 0f 0rganizati0ns. The nature 0f gl0bal ec0n0mic gr0wth
has been changed by the speed 0f inn0vati0n, which has been made
p0ssible by rapidly ev0lving techn0l0gy, sh0rter pr0duct lifecycles and
a higher rate 0f new pr0duct devel0pment. The c0mplexity 0f
inn0vati0n has been increased by gr0wth in the am0unt 0f kn0wledge
available t0 0rganizati0ns.

1.12 KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE:

AND

ORGANIZATIONAL

0ne 0f the key benefits 0f intr0ducing KM practices in 0rganizati0ns is

its p0sitive impact 0n 0rganizati0nal perf0rmance. The research
c0nducted in Cr0atia suggests that KM p0sitively affects 0rganizati0nal
0utc0mes 0f c0mpany inn0vati0n, pr0duct impr0vement and empl0yee
impr0vement. Acc0rding t0 Fugate et al., results c0llected in a l0gistics
0perati0ns

c0ntext

pr0ve

the

existence

0f

str0ng

p0sitive

relati0nship between a KM pr0cess and 0perati0nal and 0rganizati0nal

perf0rmance. Still, it is n0t well underst00d h0w different KM strategies
affect 0rganizati0nal perf0rmance. Ch0i et al sh0w that c0mbining the
tacit-internal-0riented and explicit-external-0riented KM strategies
indicates a c0mplementary relati0nship, which implies synergistic
effects 0f KM strategies 0n perf0rmance. The results 0f the study
c0nducted by Zheng et al suggested that KM fully mediates the impact
0f 0rganizati0nal culture 0n 0rganizati0nal effectiveness, and partially
mediates the impact 0f 0rganizati0nal structure and strategy 0n
0rganizati0nal effectiveness. The results 0f numer0us researches sh0w
that KM affects 0rganizati0nal perf0rmance in a p0sitive manner, but
this relati0nship is very difficult t0 pr0ve. Researchers 0ften imply this
p0sitive

effect

0f

kn0wledge

management

0n

0rganizati0nal

perf0rmance.

1.13 CONCLUSION:
After viewing different researchers and their studies it has been found
out that knowledge management and innovation has a significant
impact on organizational performance.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

1.14 INTRODUCTION:
The previous chapters elaborated the three main variables of this
research

which

are

innovation,

knowledge

management

and

organizational performance. Moreover, a critical evaluation of the

literature review was carried out with the purpose of understanding
and analyzing the importance and relationship between the variables.
This chapter proposes a theoretical framework which integrates the
three main variables of this research. The theoretical framework
represents a relationship between knowledge management, innovation
and organizational performance.
The chapter outlines the hypotheses to be tested, variables to be
analyzed, the methodological approach selected, and finally the
research design employed to analyze the relationship of the three
variables and their impact on each other.

1.15 MEASURES OF STUDY:

For the purpose of this research, Questionnaires were used as a tool to
gather data from the respondents. The respondents were employees
from various telecom companies of Pakistan. The questionnaire
included questions from the three basic variables under study.

1.16 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

Innovation

Knowledge
managemen
t

Independent variable
Dependent variable

organization
al
Performance

mediating variable

In the above theoretical framework, Knowledge Management is the

independent variable, Innovation is the mediating variable and
organizational performance is the dependent variable. Knowledge
management influences the mediating variable i.e. innovation, which
in turn influences the organizational performance.
1.17 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:
H1: Knowledge management has a significant effect on organizational
performance.
Ho: Knowledge management does not have a significant effect on
organizational performance.
H2: Knowledge management influences innovation.
Ho: Knowledge management does not influence innovation.

H3: Innovation has a significant impact on organizational

performance.
Ho: Innovation does not have a significant impact on organizational
performance.
1.18 METHODOLOGY:
The research methodology used in this research is Quantitative in
nature and statistical analysis is conducted on the basis of responses
collected through questionnaires from the employees of telecom
companies of Pakistan.

1.19 QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRES:

The questionnaire comprises 15 questions, five questions for each
variable i.e. knowledge management, innovation and organizational
performance. Five LIKERT scale is used for each question which is 1=
strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4=agree and 5=strongly
agree. For the purpose of results and analysis SPSS software is used.
Data is entered from the filled questionnaires to the statistical package
for social scientist (SPSS) software and results are generated.
1.20 POPULATION:
The data was collected from employees of telecom companies of
Pakistan i.e. Mobilink, Warid, Ufone, Zong and Telenor.
1.21 SAMPLE SIZE:
The sample size for this research is 5o.
1.22 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:
The sampling technique used for this study is Convenience Sampling.

Reason being, convenience sampling aims to collect data from the

respondents with convenience and in a simple and easy manner.

1.23 SOURCE OF QUESTIONNAIRE:

The questionnaire used in this study has been derived from the study
Knowledge combination, innovation and organizational performance in
technological firms which was done by Jenny Mar a Ruiz-Jime nez and Mar
a del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes (Department of Business Administration,
University of Granada, Granada, Spain). Reference of which has been
provided at the very end of the reference section.

1.24 DATA ANALYSIS:

For the analysis of data and variables, SPSS software is used. Data is
entered from the filled questionnaires to the statistical package for
social scientist (SPSS) software and results are generated.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

1.25 ANALYSIS OF DATA:

1.25.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:

Reliability Statistics
CRONBACH'S Alpha

No. of Items
.758

15

In order to check out the reliability of the questionnaire and the

variables, a reliability test has been carried out on the variables and
questions. The value of CRONBACHs ALPHA is .758 which is
acceptable.

Model Summary
Model

R Square

.509a

.259

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

.247

.48006

a. Predictors: (Constant), KM

1.25.1.1

REGRESSION OR R2:

R-square is very important statistical measure and it explains that how a data
is fitted inside the regression line. The value of R-square always lies between
the ranges 0-1. In my research the value of R-square is .259 which shows that
25.9 % of the variation in OP (Dependent Variable) is because of KM

(Independent Variable) and the remaining variation is because of other

factors.

1.25.1.2

ADJUSTED R2:

In multiple regression analysis our aim is to focus more an adjusted value of

R-square rather than just the value of R-square because the adjusted values
balances over any more addition of the variables in the date. The value Rsquare is always greater than the value of adjusted R-square. Here in my
research the value of adjusted R-square is .247 which explains that 24.7% of
the variations in OP (Dependent Variable) are because of KM (Independent
Variable).

1.25.1.3

STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE:

Standard error of estimate is calculated to find out the accuracy of

predictions and it is calculated by applying square root to the average
squared deviations. In case of standard error the lesser the value is the
better will be the accuracy of the research. In my research the value of
standard error of estimate is .48006 or 1-.48006=.5199 or 51.99%,
which shows that the accuracy of my results is 51.99%.

1.25.2 ANoVA TABLE:

AN0VAa
M0del

Sum 0f Squares

Regression

df

Mean Square

4.683

4.683

Residual

13.367

58

.230

T0tal

18.050

59

20.322

a. Dependent Variable: OP
b. Predict0rs: (C0nstant), KM

In ANOVA TABLE we aim to observe the value of Frequency or F. If

the value of F is less than 4 then null hypothesis is accepted, if it is
greater than 4 then alternate hypothesis is accepted. In my results the
value of F is 20.322 which means that alternate hypothesis is
accepted.

Sig.

.000b

1.25.3 Co-EFFICIENTS:

C0efficients
M0del

Unstandardized

Standardized

C0efficients

C0efficients

B
1

(C0nstant

Std. Err0r

1.870

.378

.467

.104

Sig.

Beta
4.952

.000

4.508

.000

)
KM

.509

a. Dependent Variable: 0P

1.25.3.1

Bo:

In statistics Bo is the value of dependent variable i.e. organizational

performance (OP) when the value of all the independent variables is
zero. In case of my research OP has a value of 1.87o when the value of
KM is zero.
1.25.3.2

B1:

B1 is the value of Independent variable or KM and in my research the

value of B1 is .467.
1.25.3.3

STANDARD ERROR:

Standard error is calculated to examine that how much the data is

dispersed from mean. It is also calculated to find out the reliability of
mean. It is necessary to have a small standard error in order to accept
the alternative hypothesis, therefore some researcher increase the
sample size of their research to decrease the standard error. In my
results the standard error is .104 for KM which is highly acceptable.

1.25.3.4

T-TEST:

T-test is done for either the acceptance of alternate hypothesis or the

acceptance of null hypothesis. If t-test is greater than 2 or equal to 2
then alternative hypothesis is accepted. If it is less than 2 then null
hypothesis is accepted and alternative is rejected. In my results the
value of t-test is 4.952 in case of OP which means that alternative
hypothesis should be accepted. And also in case of KM the value of ttest is 4.5o8 that approves the acceptance of t-test.
1.25.4 DESCREPTIVE ANALYSIS:
Descriptive Statistics
N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviati0n

KM

60

2.00

4.80

3.5933

.60278

IN

60

2.00

4.40

3.4100

.56379

0P

60

2.00

4.60

3.5500

.55311

Valid N (list wise)

60

The ab0ve table sh0ws the descriptive analysis 0f the 3 variables inv0lved in
the research that are Kn0wledge management, Inn0vati0n and 0rganizati0nal
Perf0rmance. KM has a mean 0f 3.5933 and a standard deviati0n 0f .60278.
Inn0vati0n has a mean 0f 3.4100 and a standard deviati0n 0f .56379. And 0P
has a mean 0f 3.5500 and a standard deviati0n 0f .55311. The standard
deviati0n sh0ws that h0w much the mean deviates fr0m the center value.

1.25.5 MEDIATING ANALYSIS:

1.25.5.1

STEP 1:

There are three variables involved in this research knowledge

management (KM), Innovation (IN) and organizational performance
(OP). Here KM is independent variable, Innovation is the mediating
variable and OP is the dependent variable. First of all in order to
calculate the mediating effect we have to calculate the values of a, b
and c.

INNOVATIoN

KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION
AL
PERFORMANCE

Value of a:
Coefficients
M0del

Unstandardized C0efficients

Standardized

Sig.

C0efficients
B
1

(C0nstant

Std. Err0r

2.149

.415

.351

.114

Beta
5.182

.000

3.083

.003

)
KM
a. Dependent Variable: IN

.375

Value of b and c:
Coefficients
M0del

Unstandardized C0efficients

Standardized

Sig.

C0efficients
B
1

(C0nstant

Std. Err0r
.901

.400

KM

.309

.098

IN

.451

.105

Beta
2.250

.028

.337

3.153

.003

.460

4.308

.000

a. Dependent Variable: OP

1.25.5.2

STEP 2:

Step 2 in order to find the mediating effect is to calculate the value of

KM that is B1 and it is denoted by c.

d
ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE

KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT

VALUE OF d:
Coefficients
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
1

(Constant

Std. Error

1.870

.378

.467

.104

Beta
4.952

.000

4.508

.000

)
KM
a. Dependent Variable: OP

.509

1.25.5.3

STEP 3:

Calculation of Mediating Effect:

a*b=cd
.351 * .451 = .467 - .3o9
.158 = .158
The mediating effect for this research is .158.

1.25.6 FINDINGS:
Following are the main findings of this research:

In

order to check out the reliability of the questionnaire and the

variables, a reliability test has been carried out on the variables

and questions. The value of CRONBACHs ALPHA is .758 which is
acceptable.

R-square is very important statistical measure and it explains that how

a data is fitted inside the regression line. The value of R-square always
lies between the ranges o-1. In my research the value of R-square is .
259 which shows that 25.9 % of the variation in oP (Dependent
Variable) is because of KM (Independent Variable) and the remaining

variation is because of other factors.

Here in my research the value of adjusted R-square is .247 which
explains that 24.7% of the variations in OP (Dependent Variable) are
because of KM (Independent Variable).

In case of standard error the lesser the value is the better will be
the accuracy of the research. In my research the value of
standard error of estimate is .48oo6 or 1-.48oo6=.5199 or

51.99%, which shows that the accuracy of my results is 51.99%.

In my results the value of F in ANOVA table is 2o.322 which

means that alternate hypothesis is accepted.

Standard error is calculated to examine that how much the data
is dispersed from mean. It is also calculated to find out the
reliability of mean. In my results the standard error is .1o4 for KM

which is highly acceptable.

T-test is done for either the acceptance of alternate hypothesis
or the acceptance of null hypothesis. In my results the value of ttest is 4.952 in case of oP which means that alternative
hypothesis should be accepted. And also in case of KM the value

of t-test is 4.5o8 that approve the acceptance of t-test.

In descriptive analysis, KM has a mean of 3.5933 and a standard
deviation of .6o278. Innovation has a mean of 3.41oo and a standard

deviation of .56379. And oP has a mean of 3.55oo and a standard

deviation of .55311.

In order to analyze the impact of the mediating variable i.e.

innovation on the independent and dependent variables i.e. KM
and OP, I conducted a mediation analysis. In our findings the
mediating effect is 0.158 which indicates that there is a
significant impact of mediator on independent and dependent
variables.

Discussion and Conclusion:

The topic of this study was Linking Knowledge Management,
Innovation and organizational performance in telecommunication
sector of Pakistan. For this study we had assumed KM as independent
variable, OP as dependent variable and IN as a mediating variable. We
used questionnaire method for data collection from a sample size of
5o. The collected is then interpreted by using different procedures in
SPSS such as Regression analysis, Descriptive analysis, T-test, Anova
table test, Standard deviation etc. We also conducted a mediating
analysis on the data in order to find out the mediating effect of IN. The
findings indicate that Innovation: the mediating variable has a
significant mediating effect on the dependent and independent
variable.

References:
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2oo9). Radical innovation
across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of
Marketing, 73(1), 3-23.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2ooo). The incumbents curse?
Incumbency,

size,

and

radical

product

innovation. Journal

of

marketing, 64(3), 1-17.

David H. Henard, David M. Szymanski (2oo1) Why Some New Products
Are More Successful Than others. Journal of Marketing Research:
August 2oo1, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 362-375.
Harald J. Van Heerde, Carl F. Mela, Puneet Manchanda (2oo4) The
Dynamic Effect of Innovation on Market Structure. Journal of Marketing
Research: May 2oo4, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 166-183.
Richard C. (2oo2). Experiments With New Teaching Models And
Methods International Public Management Review.
Schendel, D And C. Hofer. Strategic Management: A New View of
Business Policy And Planning, Little Brown & Co, Boston. 1979.
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational
performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the
privatelyheld

firm

and

conglomerate

business

unit. Strategic

management journal, 5(3), 265-273.

Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship
between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal
of Management Studies, 26(6), 587-6o2.

Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2oo4). Review: Information

technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT
business value. MIS quarterly, 28(2), 283-322.
Dess, G. G. and Picken, J. C. (2ooo). Changing roles: leadership in the
21st century. organizational Dynamics, 28, 1834.
Mone, M. A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V. L. (1998). organizational
decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 11532.
Wang, C. L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2oo4). Leveraging knowledge in the
innovation and learning process at GKN. International Journal of
Technology Management, 27, 67488
Davila, T., Epstein, M. J. and Shelton, R. (2oo6). Making Innovation
Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It. New Jersey:
Wharton School Publishing, Pearson Education Inc
Damanpour,

F.

innovations:

and

Aravind,

review

of

D.

(2oo6).

Product

organizational

and

and

process

environmental

determinants. In Hage, J. and Meeus, M. (Eds), Innovation, Science,

and Industrial Change: A Research Handbook. oxford: oxford University
Press, 3866
Lee, T. S. and Tsai, H. J. (2oo5). The effects of business operation mode
on market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness.
Industrial Management and Data Systems, 1o5, 3.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review,
Sept/oct, 7787
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and
entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic
Management Journal, 3, 124

Cebon, P. and Newton, P. (1999). Innovation in Firms: Towards a

Framework

for

Indicator

Development.

Working

Paper

99-1o9,

Melbourne Business School.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the input of
market orientation on new product performance: a contingency
approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 27593.
oliver, N., Dewberry, E. and Dostaler, I. (1999). New Product
Development

Performance

and

Practice:

An

International

Benchmarking Study in the Consumer Electronics Industry. 6th

International

Product

Development

Management

Conference,

Cambridge. Brussels: European Institute for Advanced Studies in

Management.
Regnr, P. (2oo3). Strategy creation in the periphery: inductive versus
deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 4o, 5782.
Jansen, J., Vera, D. and Crossan, M. M. (2oo9). Strategic leadership for
exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of environmental
dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, Special Issue on Leadership and
organizational Learning, 2o, 518
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2oo6). Innovation management
measurement: a review. International Journal of Management Reviews,
8, 2147.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation
research in economics, sociology and technology management.
omega International Journal of Management Science, 25, 1528.
Saren, M. A. (1984). A classification and review of process models of
innovation. R&D Management, 14, 1124.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.**

Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y. and Zahra, S. A. (2oo9). Corporate venturing

and value creation: a review and proposed framework. Research
Policy, 38, 5876
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T. and Zhao, Y. (2oo2). Learning
orientation,

firm

innovation

capability,

and

firm

performance.

Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 51524

Klomp, L. and van Leeuwen, G. (2oo1). Linking innovation and firm
performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics
of Business, 8, 34364.
Li, T. and Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge
competence

on

new

product

advantage:

conceptualization

and

empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1329.

Prather C. 2o1o. Managers guide to fostering innovation and creativity
in teams. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hansen MT and Birkinshaw J. 2oo7. The innovation value chain.
Harvard Business Review, 85(6):121 13o.
Hamel G. 2oo6. The why, what, and how of management innovation.
Harvard Business Review, 84(2):72 84.
Hamel G and Getz G. 2oo4. Funding growth in an age of austerity,
Harvard Business Review, 82(7/8):76 84
Chen CJ and Huang JW. 2oo9. Strategic human resource practices and
innovation

performance

the

mediating

role

of

knowledge

management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1):1o4114.

Geroski P, Machin S, Reenen J. 1993. The Profitability of Innovating
Firms. RAND Journal of Economics 24(2): 198-211

Conner KR. 1991. A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory

and

Five

Schools

of

Thought

Within

Industrial

organizational

Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? Journal of

Management 17(1): 121-154.
Gronhaug K, Kaufmann G. 1988. Innovation: A Cross-Disciplinary
Perspective. Norwegian University Press: oslo
Russell R. 199o. Innovation in organizations: Toward an Integrated
Model. Review of Business 12(2): 19-25.
Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. 2ooo. Dynamic Capabilities: What are They?
Strategic Management Journal 21: 11o5-1121
Palmer, TB, Danforth, GW, Clark SM. 1995. Strategic Responses to Poor
Performance in the Health Care Industry: A Test of Competing
Predictions. Academy of Management Journal Special Issue: 125-135.
Wolfe, R. A. 1994, organisational innovation: Review, Critique and
Suggested Research Directions, Journal of Management Studies, vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 4o5-431.
Zhuang, L., Williamson, D. & Carter, M. 1999, Innovate or Liquidate
Are All organisations Convinced: A Two-phased Study into the
Innovation Process, Management Decision, [online], vol. 37, no. 1,
(n.p.),

Available:

http://www.emeraldlibrary.com/brev/oo137ag1.htm,

[Accessed 28 July 1999].

Kim, W. C., and Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value Innovation: The Strategic
Logic of High Growth. Havard Business Review: 1o3-112.
Garca-Morales, V. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., and Verd-Jover, A. J. (2oo6).
Antecedents and Consequences of organizational Innovation and
organizational Learning in Entrepreneurship. Industrial Management
and Data Systems 1o6 (1): 21-42.

Jain,

R.

(2o1o).

Innovation

in

organizations:

Comprehensive

Conceptual Framework for Future Research. South Asian Journal of

Management 17 (2): 81-111.
Neely, A., Filippini, R., Forza, C., Vinelli, A., and Hii, J. (2oo1). A
Framework for Analysing Business Performance, Firm Innovation and
Related Contextual Factors: Perceptions of Managers and Policy Makers
in Two European Regions. Intergrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (2):
114-124.
Gopalakrishnan, S., and Damanpour, F. (1997). A Review of Innovation
Research in Economics, Sociology and Technology Management. [doi:
1o.1o16/So3o5-

o483(96)ooo43-6].

omega,

International

Journal

Management Science 25 (1): 15-28.

Knight, K. E. (1967). A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovation
Process. The Journal of Business 4o (4): 478-496.
Neely, A., Filippini, R., Forza, C., Vinelli, A., and Hii, J. (2oo1). A
Framework for Analysing Business Performance, Firm Innovation and
Related Contextual Factors: Perceptions of Managers and Policy Makers
in Two European Regions. Intergrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (2):
114-124.
Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., and Taylor, M. S. (2oo7). Innovation At and
Across Multiple Levels of Analysis. organization Science 18 (6): 8851o23.
Dervitsiotis, K. N. (2o1o). A Framework for the Assessment of an
organisations Innovation Excellence. Total Quality Management 21 (9):
9o3-918.

Jin, Z., Hewitt-Dundas, N., and Thompson, N. J. (2oo4). Innovativeness

and Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Sectors. [Article].
Journal of Strategic Marketing 12 (4): 255-266.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., and Alpkan, L. (2o11). Effects of
Innovation

Types

on

Firm

Performance.

International

Journal

of

Production Economics.

ilavsk, o. (2o11). Zapojen zkaznk do inovanho procesu jako

prostedek

vedouc

ke

zvyovn

vkonnosti

podniku.

Journal

of

Competitiveness, 3(1), 15-24.

Koturiak, J. & Cha, J. (2oo8). Inovace: Vae konkurenn vhoda. Brno:
Computer Press
Skarzynski, P. & Gibson, R. (2oo8). Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for
Transforming the Way Your Company Innovates. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Tidd, J.,

Bessant,

J. & Pavitt,

K. (2oo7). zen inovac zavdn

technologickch, trnch a organizanch zmn. Brno: Computer Press.

Molina-Morales, F. X., Garcia-Villaverde, P. M. & Parra-Requena, G. (2o11).
Geographical and cognitive proximity effects on innovation performance in
SMEs: a way through knowledge acquisition. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 1-21. http:// dx.doi.org/1o.1oo7/s11365-o11-o214z.
Tushman, M. & Nadler, D. (1986). organizing for innovation. California
Management Review, 28(3), 74-92. http://dx.doi.org/1o.23o7/411652o3.
Martn-de Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M. Navas-Lpez, J. E. & Cruz-Gonzlez, J.
(2o13). The moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between
knowledge assets and product innovation. Technological Forecasting and

Social

Change,

8o(2),

351-363.

http://

dx.doi.org/1o.1o16/j.techfore.2o12.o8.o12.
Zemplinerov, A. (2o1o). Inovan aktivita firem a konkurence. Politick
ekonomie, 58(6), 747-76o.
Autant-Bernard, C. (2oo1). Science and knowledge flows: Evidence from the
French

case.

Research

Policy,

3o(7),

1o69-1o78.

http://dx.doi.org/1o.1o16/Soo48-7333(oo)oo131-1
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. & Rezazadeh, A.
(2o13).
leasing,

Relations

between

knowledge

transformational

management,

leadership,

organizational

organizational

innovation

and

organizational performance: an empirici investigation of manufactruing firms.

The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technolog y, 64(5-8),
1o73-1o85. http://dx.doi.org/1o.1oo7/soo17o-o12-4o38-y
Autant-Bernard, C. (2oo1). Science and knowledge flows: Evidence from the
French

case.

Research

Policy,

3o(7),

1o69-1o78.

http://dx.doi.org/1o.1o16/Soo48-7333(oo)oo131-1
Cameron K. (1986) Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in
conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science. Vol.539,
pp53-32.
Zammuto, R. (1984) "A comparison of multiple constituency models of
organizational effectiveness". Academic Management Review, vol. 6o6, pp169.
Chakravarthy

B.

(1986)

Measuring

strategic

performance",

Strategic

(1986) "Measurement of

business

Management Journal, vol.437, pp58-7

Venkatraman

N et Ramanujam V.

performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches". Academy of

Management Review. Vol.8o1, pp814-11.

https://innovation.govspace.gov.au/2o13/o5/22/knowledge-andinnovation-how-do-they-relate/
Choi, B., Poon, S.K. & Davis, J.G. (2oo8). Effects of knowledge management
strategy on organizational performance: A complementary theory-based

approach. omega the International Journal of Management Science, (36),

235-251.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. & McLean, G.N. (2oo9). Linking organizational culture,
structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness. Mediating role of
knowledge management, article in press.
Damanpour, F. and Evan, W.M. (1984), Organizational innovation and
performance: the problem of organizational lag, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 392-4o9.
Ries, K. and Trout, N. (1981), Dimensions of innovation in the hospitality
industry, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol.
9 No. 7, pp. 273-86.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997), A review of innovation
research in economics, sociology and technology management, Omega,
International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (2oo3), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1986), Organizing for innovation, California
Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 74-92.
Subramanian, A. and Nilakanta, S. (1996), Organizational innovativeness:
exploring the relationship between organizational determinant of innovation,
types of innovations, IMDS 111,1 13o Downloaded by COMSATS INSTITUTE OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY At o5:39 17 December 2o15 (PT) and measures
of organizational performance, Omega, International Journal of Management
Science, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 631-47.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Ruvio, A. and Schwabsky, N. (2oo5), Innovation
in the Public Sector, The University of Haifa and NIFU STEP, Oslo

Dundon, E. (2oo5), Innovation triangle, Leadership Excellence, Vol. 22 No.

3, p. 16.
Pacharn, P. and Zhang, L. (2oo6), Accounting, innovation, and incentives,
Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 11429.
Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y. and Ramaprasad, A. (2oo7), Modifications and
innovations to technology artifacts, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 2o4-2o
Johne, A. (1998), Using mark vision to steer innovation, Technovation, Vol.
19, pp. 2o3-7
Popadiuk, S. and Choo, C.W. (2oo6), Innovation and knowledge creation: how
are

these

concepts

related?,

International

Journal

of

Information

Management, Vol. 26, pp. 3o2-12

Subramaniam, R. (2oo5), A multivariate study of the relationship between
organizational learning, organizational innovation and organizational climate
in the Australian hotel industry, doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University
of Technology, Melbourne.
Chung, R.-G. and Lo, C.-L. (2oo7), The relationship between leadership
behavior and organizational performance in non-profit organizations, using
social welfare charity foundations as an example, Journal of American
Academy of Business Cambridge, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 83-7.
Green, K.W. and Inman, R.A. (2oo7), The impact of JIT-II-selling on
organizational performance, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.
1o7 No. 7, pp. 1o18-35.
Wong, W.P. and Wong, K.Y. (2oo7), Supply chain performance measurement
system using DEA modeling, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.
1o7 No. 3, pp. 361-81.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996), The impact of human resource
management practices on perceptions of organizational performance,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 949-69.

Padma, P., Ganesh, L.S. and Rajendran, C. (2oo8), An exploratory study of

the

impact

of

the

capability

maturity

model

on

the

organizational

performance of Indian software firms, The Quality Management Journal, Vol.

15 No. 2, pp. 2o-34
Cheng, C., Lai, M. and Wu, W. (2o1o), Exploring the impact of innovation
strategy on R&D employees job satisfaction: a mathematical model and
empirical research, Technovation, Vol. 3o Nos 7/8, pp. 459-7o.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R. (2o1o), Knowledge sharing through co-presence:
added value of facilities, Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 189-2o5.
Hamon, T.T. (2oo3), Organizational effectiveness as explained by social
structure in a faith-based business network organization, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (2oo2), Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr, Hunt, J.M. and Osborn, R.N. (2oo2), Organizational
Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hancott, D.E. (2oo5), The relationship between transformational leadership
and organizational performance in the largest public companies in Canada,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
Jenny Mara Ruiz-Jimnez Mara del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, (2013),"Knowledge
combination, innovation, organizational performance in technology firms",
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 113 Iss 4 pp. 523 540.

QUESTIoNNAIRE:
The following questionnaire is set up to find out the linkage between
Knowledge Management, Innovation and organizational Performance.
Kindly fill it with concentration and the tick the answer of your choice.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statements?
1 =Strongly Disagree, 2 =Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4 =Agree,
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongl
y
Disagr
Disagr ee
ee

Statements

No.

KNoWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management
1

practices

influences

telecom

companys

performance positively.
Knowledge management
2

enhances

telecom

companys growth.
Advancements

in

the

telecom operations are

3

mainly

because

of

knowledge
management.
4

Knowledge management
is an appropriate tool for

Neutr
al

Agre
e

Strong
ly
Agree

introducing innovation in
telecom industry.
Knowledge management
5

generates

innovative

ideas in a firm.

INNoVATIoN

Knowledge management
6

is

the

best

improve

way

to

technological

innovation.
Innovation
7

creativity

brings
in

telecom

companies.
organizational
8

innovation
because

occurs

of

knowledge

management.
Innovation
9

has

the

potential and capability

to

improve

Telecom

Companys performance.
Innovation
1o

companies

in

Telecom

results

in

more efficient services.

oRGANIZATIoNAL PERFoRMANCE

11

Efficient performance of

telecom

companies

mainly

due

is
to

innovation.
Knowledge management
12

is an important driver of
firms performance.
Without innovation, the
performance

13

of

telecommunication
companies

cannot

improve.
In

14

telecommunication

companies

innovation

is

essential for success and

growth.,

organizational
15

innovation
high

results

in

organizational

performance.