Journal of Knowledge Management

Knowledge, learning, and innovation: research and perspectives

Karim Moustaghfir Giovanni Schiuma
Article information:
To cite this document:
Karim Moustaghfir Giovanni Schiuma, (2013),"Knowledge, learning, and innovation: research and perspectives", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 495 - 510
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0141
Downloaded on: 20 February 2017, At: 15:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 133 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3065 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"An evaluation of knowledge management tools: Part 1 managing knowledge resources", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
18 Iss 6 pp. 1075-1100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2013-0449
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

(2013),"Knowledge management: a key determinant in advancing technological innovation?", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17
Iss 6 pp. 848-872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2013-0315

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581112 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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

 Guest editorial
Knowledge, learning, and innovation:
research and perspectives
Karim Moustaghfir and Giovanni Schiuma
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)
Karim Moustaghfir is a
Professor at the
Department of Human
Resource Development,
Al Akhawayn University in
Ifrane, Ifrane, Morocco.
Giovanni Schiuma is
Director of the Innovation
Insights Hub, University of
Arts London, London, UK,
and a Professor at the
University of Basilicata,
Potenza, Italy.
Received: 10 April 2013
Accepted: 10 April 2013
DOI 10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0141
Abstract
Purpose This introduction paper to the special issue on The twenty-first century knowledge-based
value drivers of innovation and sustainable development aims to focus on such relationships between
knowledge, learning, capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage in different forms of
organization: businesses, clusters and regions. The purpose is to point out the conceptual pillars and
contribute to the ongoing debate on: how knowledge assets impact organizational performance, what
are the characteristics of such value-generating processes, what factors affect the process of building
organizational capabilities and distinctive competences, and how organizations translate specific
capabilities into sustainable competitive advantages.
Design/methodology/approach The article is based on a thorough analysis of the management
literature addressing the nature, role and relevance of knowledge, organizational capabilities, learning
and knowledge management for organization competitiveness. The conceptual background sets the
foundations for a better understanding of the strategic importance of knowledge-based value drivers for
innovation and sustainable organizational value creation.
Findings As knowledge management is establishing itself as a research discipline, it is fundamental
to define the conceptual pillars grounding the application of knowledge management initiatives for
innovation and business performance improvements. This paper provides a framework summarizing the
key assumptions at the basis of understanding the strategic relevance of knowledge-based value
drivers for growth and competitiveness.
Research limitations/implications In addressing some of the questions posed, this article provides
some implications for future research that build on different perspectives and emphasize the importance
of adopting multi-disciplinary approaches to disentangle the complexities of how organizations convert
knowledge resources to a long-lasting competitive advantage.
Originality/value This editorial presents the key conceptual pillars explicating the role of knowledge
resources as building blocks of organizational capabilities and how firms can develop and maintain their
competences by promoting and nurturing learning processes. The value of this paper is the definition of
a conceptual framework outlining the relationships between knowledge management, organizational
capabilities, organizational learning and competitiveness.
Keywords Knowledge management, Organizational capabilities and competences,
Learning organizations, Innovation
Paper type General review
1. Introduction
Knowledge has always existed and the co-existence of knowledge and humanity is shown in
different human-made exploits. The Egyptian pyramids and the Great Wall of China are
evidence of human creativity, imagination, managerial and organizational capabilities, and
efforts that were undertaken well before modern times. The achievements of the
Renaissance Artist Michelangelo when he painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling, carved the
marble tombs in the Medici Chapel in Florence, and built the Laurentian Library in Florence
are historical examples that demonstrate that performance and value generation driven by
knowledge-based capabilities has been with us since before the Industrial and Information
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013, pp. 495-510, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 495
 ages (Robbins and DeCenzo, 2008). Early apprenticeship programs in small shops
operated by skilled artisans also illustrate the role of knowledge sharing, transfer and
application in developing apprentices know-how and producing handicrafts (Werner and
DeSimone, 2009). However, the advent of machine power and mass production in the
eighteenth century and information and communication technologies combined with
globalization dynamics in the nineteenth century created a breakthrough in the way work is
done and in the process of how value is generated and maximized. Such discontinuities
have increased the importance of knowledge and intangible resources and accelerated the
pace of innovation to support firms competitiveness in an ever-changing business
environment (Lipsey, 1999). This is not just because of the importance of knowledge itself,
but because of the rapid expansion of goods and factor markets, leaving intangible assets
as the main basis of competitive differentiation in many sectors (Teece, 1998).
A virtuous cycle of creativity, research and development, knowledge generation,
application, and innovation has accentuated the rate of competition and change.
Knowledge, competences and related intangibles have emerged as the key drivers of
competitive advantage which made organizations rethink the way they do business and
remain profitable. This has also affected customers behaviors and made production
processes more demand- and market- driven which consequently gave rise to new,
intelligent and smart business models based on customization and personalization. Drucker
noted as early as 1959 that productive work in todays society and economy is work that
applies vision, knowledge and concepts work that is based on the mind rather than the
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

hand (Drucker, 1959). Indeed, Drucker (1959, 1973)first pointed out the relevance of
concepts such as: knowledge economy, knowledge worker and knowledge
organization.
This special issue dedicated to the twenty first century knowledge-based value drivers of
innovation and sustainable development focuses on such relationships between knowledge,
learning, capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage in different forms of
organization: businesses, clusters and regions. The purpose is to share some relevant
practices and contribute to the ongoing debate on: how knowledge assets impact
organizational performance, what are the characteristics of such value generating
processes, what factors affect the process of building organizational capabilities and
distinctive competences, and how organizations translate specific capabilities into
sustainable competitive advantages. In addressing some of these questions, this special
issue intends to provide some directions for future research that build on different
perspectives and emphasize the importance of adopting multi-disciplinary approaches to
disentangle the complexities of how organizations convert knowledge resources to a
long-lasting competitive advantage.
In this introduction to the special issue we will first discuss the relationship between
knowledge resources and organizational capabilities and how knowledge resources and
capabilities support innovation and lead to competitive advantage. Next, we will draw some
perspectives on how to move the field of knowledge management forward. Finally, we will
present the genesis of this special issue and outline the article selection process
summarizing the key elements of each of the included articles.

2. Knowledge, organizational capabilities and competitive advantage

Knowledge resources are recognized as key strategic assets for organizational
performance and their management is critical for the competitiveness of organizations
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Griffiths et al., 1998; Peteraf, 1993; Grant, 1996a, 1997; Boisot,
1998; Spender, 1996; Roos and Roos, 1997; Henderson and Cockburn, 1994). Competitive
advantage is achieved through the bundling and revitalizing of multiple, distinctive
firm-specific resources and competencies in order to create valued outputs (Penrose, 1959;
Andrews, 1971; Wernerfelt, 1984; Rumelt, 1984; Galunic and Rodan, 1998; Kaplan and
Norton, 2004b). Knowledge can be analyzed through many interpretative lenses:
codified/tacit, observable/non-observable in use, positive/negative knowledge
(i.e. knowledge of failures and successes), autonomous/systematic knowledge

j j
PAGE 496 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 (knowledge that yields value without major modifications of systems or requires modification
to other sub-systems), intellectual property (Teece, 1998). Other taxonomies suggest three
main types, namely declarative knowledge (asset perspective), procedural knowledge
(process perspective) and causal knowledge (why something occurs) (Zack, 1999b; Kogut
and Zander, 1992).
In todays business landscape it is widely acknowledged that the long-term viability of any
firm operating in dynamic and complex environments will ultimately be determined by its
ability to learn and innovate successfully (DAveni, 1994; Teece et al., 1997). Learning is the
process through which new knowledge is generated and existing one is renovated,
combined and updated. Garvin (1993) defines the learning organization as an organization
skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and modifying its behavior to
reflect new knowledge and insights. Learning organizations are evolutionary by nature and
deploy different learning mechanisms and processes to produce a new higher knowledge
base that strengthens their adaptability and responsiveness, and prepare them for new
cycles of growth (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000). Organizational learning mechanisms
impact on firms competences. The core competences of a learning organization stem from
its integrated learning capabilities (Ghoshal and Butler, 1992). Organizations convert such
learning capabilities into core and distinctive competencies such as product and process
innovation, through the active application and utilization of the principles of transformative
and absorptive capacities (Adams and Lamont, 2003; Bhatt, 2000). The absorptive capacity
refers to an organizations ability to recognize the value of new, external information,
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

assimilate the information, and then apply the learned knowledge to its own internal product
and service outputs (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990); while the transformative capacity is
defined as an organizations ability to gather, assimilate, synthesize and re-deploy relevant
knowledge and technology previously developed internally into new technologies and
processes designed to meet the organizations specific and current needs (Garud and
Nayyar, 1994).
According to Teece et al. (1997) the key to the establishment of sustainable competitive
advantage relates to firms abilities to bundle competencies and resources in order to build
competitive advantage while exploiting existing internal and external firm-specific
competencies to address changing environments. Each company needs to look inward to
understand its own specific capabilities, and outward to identify its specific opportunities in
the world around it (Long and Vickers-Koch, 1995; Sanchez, 1995). Capabilities emerge,
grow, mature, and decline and such a lifecycle is determined by its effects on the markets
(Bhatt, 2000). The foremost and the most critical organizational capability can be considered
as the ability of an organization to quickly reassess changing market realities, and,
accordingly, develop new capabilities to respond to changing market conditions (Sanchez,
1995; Dosi et al., 2000; Iansiti and Clark, 1994).

Building organizational capabilities

The original use of the term capabilities as a strategic driver of competitiveness was made
by Richardson (1972) in his article the organization of industry and he argues that
organizations will tend to specialize in activities for which their capabilities offer some
competitive advantage. Grant (1991) distinguishes resources from capabilities. While
resources are considered as inputs of the productive process, capabilities translate the
firms capacity to manage and exploit the owned resources and transform them into valuable
outputs. The capability of any company to produce outputs can be considered as integration
and application of the specialized knowledge held by employees individually and
collectively in the organization (Grant, 1996b).
Organizational capabilities are investigated by the competence-based view as well as by
the resource-based view of the firm (Foss, 1997). Prahalad and Hamel (1990) have
proposed the term core competencies pointing out that firms competitiveness resides in
the creation and the development of competencies that are unique and distinctive for a firm.
They contribute to the realization of a strategy able to create a link between aims, resources,
and competencies (Prahalad and Hamel, 1993). Stalk et al. (1992) and Long and

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 497
 Vickers-Koch (1995) consider this alignment between strategy and competencies as the
major source of capabilities based-competition. Kogut and Zander (1992) introduce the
concept of combinative capabilities to emphasize the firms ability to handle change by
transforming old capabilities into new ones. Such concept relates to Schumpeters argument
that, in general, innovations are new combinations of existing knowledge and learning
mechanisms.
The development of capabilities is cumulative and is constrained by past experience (Marsh
and Stock, 2003). Such development requires itself other capabilities that are dynamic in
nature which Zollo and Winter (2002) define as learned and stable patterns of collective
activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating
routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness. The main building blocks of capabilities are
organizational routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) that represent units of organized activity
within a repetitive character and have the major function of coordinating the skills of the
organization and turning the collectivity of skills to useful effect (Dosi et al., 2000). Routines
can be considered as stable patterns of behavior that characterize organizational reactions
to variegated, internal and external stimuli (Zollo and Winter, 2002).
Three factors underpin the development process of organizational capabilities which make
them critical to the attainment of a competitive advantage (April, 2002):
1. asset asymmetry when the company is either lucky in acquiring rare assets, or has
worked hard to make those assets rare;
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

2. social complexity when the source of advantage is known, but the method of replicating
the advantage is unclear (Lippman and Rumelt, 1982; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Turvani,
2001); and
3. causal ambiguity (Dierickx and Cool, 1989) that refers to uncertainty regarding the
causes of efficiency and effectiveness differences among companies and which
resource combinations are enabling strategic capabilities.
Such factors make organizational capabilities valuable, rare, not perfectly reproducible, not
transferable, and not replaceable, and hence the foundations of sustainable competitive
advantage and superior performance (Barney, 1991).
Capabilities are developed and deployed based on interactions between foreground and
background knowledge (Bhatt, 2000). Background knowledge is based on organizational
history, culture, and interactions patterns (Barney, 1986), and foreground knowledge is
based on organizational repertories or routines (March and Simons, 1958). Background
knowledge is elusive to capture and imitate, while foreground knowledge can be captured,
codified, and imitated. Capabilities are not simple accumulation of know-how or skills rather
they are the integration of knowledge and skills which describe the process of capability
building (Bhatt, 2000). Some important properties of capabilities are their tacitness (Polanyi,
1966; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), context specificity being idiosyncratic in nature (Nelson
and Winter, 1982; Barney, 1986; Galunic and Rodan, 1998), and temporality (Dierickx and
Cool, 1989). These properties have important consequences in developing, deploying, and
renewing capabilities within the organization (Bhatt, 2000).
Organizational learning is also built on the coordinated performances of organizational
capabilities (Dosi et al., 2000). Accordingly, it can be interpreted as increasing an
organizations capability to take effective action (Kim, 1993). In any case at the basis of
organizational learning resides the capacity of generating and combining knowledge.
Nonaka (1991) points out that organizational learning emanates from the iterative process of
knowledge articulation and internalization.
The primary aim of organizational learning is the continuous development of new
knowledge, as well as the more efficient and effective management of the resulting
organizational assets (March and Simons, 1958; Senge, 1990; Argyris and Schon, 1996;
Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000). In this perspective, knowledge- and learning-based
mechanisms guide the development of dynamic capabilities and underlie path dependence
in acquiring, reconfiguring, and integrating resources (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). In

j j
PAGE 498 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 particular, Zollo and Winter (2002) propose that dynamic capabilities develop through the
coevolution of three mechanisms: tacit accumulation of past experience, knowledge
articulation, and knowledge codification processes. However, the process whereby
organizational capabilities evolve remains unclear as neither the knowledge embedded in
the current individual relationships and organizing principles is well understood, nor the
social fabric required to support the new learning known (Kogut and Zander, 1992).

Learning and knowledge management

Individuals create knowledge and learn in contexts thanks to their cognitive capabilities and
models which they use and renew through reciprocal interaction (Turvani, 2001). Knowledge
creation is the final result of the learning process and conversely, learning occurs when
knowledge is created, shared, and used (Loermans, 2002). Knowledge assets are the
inputs, outputs and moderating factors of the knowledge-creating process (Nonaka et al.,
2000). The knowledge creation represents one of specific knowledge management
processes. Some authors even consider knowledge management as concerned with the
improvement of capabilities through learning (Dosi et al., 2000). Indeed, knowledge
management and learning are twisted. The knowledge management takes the output from
the learning process, manages it and ensures that an appropriate environment to perpetuate
the generation and management of knowledge capital is being properly maintained
(Loermans, 2002).
In the management literature three major schools of thought can be identified on what
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

knowledge management is (Poynder, 1998):

1. one school suggests that knowledge management is primarily an information technology
issue;
2. a second school suggests that knowledge management is more a human resource issue;
and
3. the third school promotes the development processes to measure and capture the
organizations know-how.
A further school of thought interprets knowledge management as knowledge engineering
and it is focused on how to build intelligent systems that can replicate human cognitive
capabilities.
Many different interpretations of the notion of knowledge management have been proposed
in the literature. Generally, knowledge management can be defined as all sets of processes,
approaches, practices and systems used to generate, develop, renew and integrate
knowledge-based resources into capabilities that the organization can leverage to seize
opportunities quickly and proficiently, to create market value and increase and sustain
competitive advantage (Wiig, 1997; Teece, 2000; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Sveiby,
2001; Lee and Yang, 2000; Quintas et al., 1997; Beijerse, 2000; Ruggles, 1998). While
knowledge assets are grounded in the experience and expertise of individuals, firms
provide the physical, social, and the resource allocation structure so that knowledge can be
shaped into competences (Teece, 1998).
Knowledge management processes are difficult to repeat, because knowledge activities are
unstructured, intuitive and often result in intangible products (Davenport et al., 1996). Within
the knowledge management field, it is accepted that processes, people, and technology
tend to come together to increase organizational effectiveness through learning (Armistead,
1999). These elements support the dynamic process whereby capabilities evolve in
organizations (Bhatt, 2000). Strategic organizational capabilities have then to be
maintained, recombined, and renovated trough different learning processes
(Leonard-Barton, 1995; Hamel, 1994; Nelson, 1991).
Knowledge management is not only about managing knowledge but also about changing
culture to one that values learning and sharing, and facilitates consequently the learning
process (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002). Knowledge management is first and foremost
about the acknowledgement of the strategic relevance of knowledge as a key resource and

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 499
 source of success and wealth creation; and it points out the fundamental centrality of
learning as the process of generating new knowledge. In this perspective, Teece (2000)
recognizes the importance of different managerial and organizational mechanisms to favor
the nurturing of specialized knowledge and rapid response, namely, flexible boundaries,
high powered incentives, decentralized decision making, shallow hierarchies and innovative
and entrepreneurial culture. Turvani (2001) also finds out that the flow of directives made up
of knowledge, cognitive models and visions as expressed by the managerial team is crucial
to support the evolution of individual and collective knowledge.

Knowledge management and innovation

Two major seminal schools of thought have pointed out the links between knowledge and
innovation management (Dankbaar, 2003; Hidalgo and Albors, 2008): that one of Drucker
(1969) which suggests that innovation management involves the application of knowledge to
the work of knowledge workers within a clear and defined context, and alternatively, that one
of Burns and Stalker (1961) which outlines a context of more blurred organic and flexible
structures that foster creativity by limiting bureaucracy.
The first and seminal definition of innovation was proposed by Schumpeter (1934) who
associated it to economic development and defined it as a new combination of productive
resources. Indeed, innovation is often the recombination of existing capabilities and
resources (Pennings and Harianto, 1992). Nowadays in a knowledge-driven economy
innovation is no longer conceived as a specific result of individual actions, but more as
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

(Hidalgo and Albors, 2008): a problem-solving process (Dosi, 1982), an interactive

process involving relationships between firms with different actors (Kline and Rosenberg,
1986), a diversified learning process (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Dogson, 1991), a
process involving the exchange of codified and tacit knowledge (Patel and Pavitt, 1994),
and an interactive process of learning and exchange where interdependence between
actors generates an innovative system or an innovative cluster (Edquist, 1997).
Accordingly, knowledge management as a dynamic capability is not in itself a source of
long-term competitive advantage, but it is a means to achieving resource configurations
that provide advantage, though possibly short term, in the marketplace based on
Schumpeterian rents as market opportunities emerge, collide, evolve, and die (Teece et al.,
1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). This is supported by different studies that have
explored the transfer of knowledge and its impact on innovation (Teece et al., 1997). In this
perspective, knowledge management represents mainly the process of capturing the
collective expertise and intelligence in an organization and using them to foster innovation
through continued organizational learning (Nonaka, 1991; Quinn et al., 1996; Meso and
Smith, 2000; Wang and Pervaiz, 2003). To achieve such results, firms should also consider
the factors impacting knowledge management, including demand logic (network effects),
cost logic, technological opportunity/uncertainty, and appropriability regimes (Teece,
2000).
Research conducted by different scholars demonstrates how knowledge asset
management supports innovation capabilities. For instance, Chesbrough (2003)
considers the importance of accessing and exploiting outside knowledge while
liberating internal expertise for others use as a good strategy to support open
innovation. Other scholars define new product development process as a dynamic and
iterative problem-solving process in which complex interactions and inter-temporal
integration activities are required to build new capabilities that meet market demand
(Marsh and Stock, 2003; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995). Gardner et al. (2012) examine how
teams can develop a knowledge-integration capability to dynamically integrate members
resources into higher performance, and distinguish among three sets of resources
relational, experiential, and structural that differentially influence a teams knowledge
integration capability. Miles et al. (2009) suggest an innovation form of organizations
designed to enhance knowledge sharing and capable of generating economic wealth
through collaborative entrepreneurship within networks and communities. Besides, usually
innovation at the architectural level is more demanding and takes place with less frequency
than at the component level, but it has greater impact (Teece, 1998). Acha et al. (2007)

j j
PAGE 500 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 through their study in the aeronautics industry find out that knowledge base is complex and
multidisciplinary, and that firms acting as system integrators have to hold the broadest
knowledge bases to co-ordinate design and production. At the national and regional level,
a study conducted by Carlsson et al. (2009) reveals the positive relationship between
knowledge creation through R&D activities, entrepreneurship and economic growth in the
USA during and after the Second World War.

Knowledge-based value drivers and competitive advantage

Knowledge as a building block of organizational capabilities and driver of innovation has
been recognized as a strategic resource for firms competitiveness, and consequently
knowledge management and learning as key fundamental mechanisms for organizational
development (Zack, 1999a). Teece (1998) argues that the competitive advantage of
companies in todays economy stems not from market position, but from difficult to replicate
knowledge assets and the manner in which they are deployed. The essence of a firm
resides in its ability to create, transfer, assemble, integrate, and exploit knowledge assets
(Teece, 1998, 2000). Organizations attempt to manage knowledge in order to create and
maintain superior organizational routines that reproduce competitive advantage (Dodgson,
1993). As a consequence of the processing of information and the development,
application, and transfer of new knowledge, diminishing returns activities have been
replaced by activities characterized by increasing returns (Teece, 1998). Such activities
require new corporate and knowledge management strategies aiming at capturing value
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

from innovative activities (Teece, 1998). Bogner and Bansal (2007) find out that a firms
growth rate is positively associated with its ability to generate rare and valuable knowledge,
and to build on that knowledge.
Knowledge management helps organizations become more competitive by using new
knowledge to reduce costs, increase speed, and meet customer needs (Grayson and
ODell, 1998). Organizations that wish to remain competitive should develop mechanisms for
capturing relevant knowledge, and disseminating it accurately, consistently, concisely and
in timely manner to all who need it (Wiig, 1997; Bollinger and Smith, 2001). For instance, in
their study Nag and Gioia (2012) develop an inductive, process model of the relationships
among top managers beliefs about knowledge as a resource, the ways that executives
search or scan for knowledge, and how they use that knowledge in practice to transform
common knowledge into distinctive, uncommon knowledge as a way of achieving
competitive advantage. However, it is not always possible to identify cause-effect links
between knowledge management initiatives and one specific dimension of performance
(Carlucci et al., 2004). In fact an investment in knowledge, even if intended to improve a
single dimension of performance, usually produces multiple effects throughout the
organization.
Since knowledge processes of all organizations are continually evolving, partly in response
to rapid changes in the external environment, these knowledge capabilities must be highly
dynamic in order to maintain and advance the organizations competitiveness (Dawson,
2000). Such knowledge capabilities are seen as meta-capabilities, in the sense of
developing other lower-order organizational capabilities (Liedtka and Rosenblum, 1996).
Such meta-capabilities represent another set of firms dynamic capabilities (Teece et al.,
1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) and reflect the firms ability and capacity to sense and
seize opportunities, to reconfigure its knowledge assets, competencies, and
complementary assets, to select appropriate forms, and to allocate resources astutely
and price strategically (Teece, 1998).

3. Knowledge management at the crossroads

The bibliometric data show that after its explosive growth phase in the 1990s, use of the
knowledge management literature in the business world has grown steadily and continues to
do so (Ponzi and Koenig, 2002; Koenig, 2008). The examination of existing definitions and
classifications of knowledge management shows a wide spectrum of viewpoints that range
from the more mechanistic (knowledge viewed as asset) to more socially oriented (McAdam

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 501
 and McCreedy, 1999). Similarly, Marr and Spender (2004) suggest three approaches to
managing knowledge:
1. positivistic view that focuses on assigning an economic value to the stock of
knowledge-assets;
2. interpretive view that emphasizes the relationships of how knowledge is an input and a
factor of production; and
3. organic view that brings a dynamic perspective that implies embedded skills,
organizational routines and a susceptibility to path dependency (Dosi, 1988; Teece
et al., 1997; Leonard-Barton, 1992).
We can also find panoply of taxonomies of knowledge assets (e.g. Nonaka et al., 2000;
Guthrie, 2001; Edvinsson, 1997; Zhou and Fink, 2003; Dawson, 2000), of knowledge
management definitions (e.g. Dalkir, 2011; Carlucci et al., 2004), and a wide range of
literature and research on knowledge management strategies (e.g. Zack, 1999a, b;
Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002; Brooking, 1997; Wiig, 1997), knowledge management
processes (e.g. Boisot, 1995; Wiig, 1997; Huang et al., 1999; Mertins et al., 2003),
knowledge management measurement (e.g. Mouritsen et al., 2001; Marr and Schiuma,
2001), and knowledge management technologies (e.g. Meso and Smith, 2000; Wheeler,
2002; Tiwana, 2002; Maier, 2007).
Different perspectives were also adopted to understand the interplay between knowledge
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

management practices and innovation in business organizations through the lens of the
learning organization framework and decision support systems, in communities of practices
as a way to promote interactive learning processes (Lave and Wenger, 1991), and in
clusters, regions and nations to support economic development and growth.
However, the process of how knowledge management affects organizational performance
remains unclear. Little guidance is provided on how knowledge assets are identified,
nurtured, enriched, revitalized, bundled, converted and integrated into strategic and
distinctive capabilities and how these idiosyncratic resources which are socially complex,
causally ambiguous and path dependent are in turn used to generate superior performance
and impact on business performance.
Part of such limitations stems from the proliferation of knowledge management initiatives that
are primarily viewed as information systems projects (Zack, 1999a). However, as Teece
(1998) points out productive knowledge is typically embodied and competitive advantage
through redeploying competences and capabilities in different economic settings cannot be
accomplished by simply handling information.
There is no doubt that knowledge management is now at the crossroads and needs to look to
new research and practice horizons and advance new thinking in relation to the essence of
knowledge and the drivers of performance and growth. Such a new blood is needed to
prevent that knowledge management becomes just a buzzword or a sales pitch (Ruggles,
1998) and to deny the questioning of whether knowledge management can survive into the
future (Liebowitz, 2011).
We already know that none has clear answers to address such a paradoxical situation but as
in any other social science, we can still make choices on how to move the field of knowledge
management forward. In our view, a potential venue would be to consider how existing
research in other disciplines can inform knowledge management practice. Besides strategic
management, economics, accounting, and information technology more attention should be
paid to psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and neurosciences. Some
scholars also recognize the importance of such a multi-disciplinary approach and some
others already made attempts to apply such principles while conducting their research
studies. For instance, Nonaka (1994) was the first to suggest a spiral model that shows the
relationship between the epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge
creation. Also, Nonaka et al. (2000) stress the importance of shared context for knowledge
creation where individuals share experiences, feelings, emotions and mental models and
identify leadership as a determinant factor to facilitate the knowledge-creating process.

j j
PAGE 502 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 Similarly, Zack (1999b) recognizes the importance of organizational context as a primarily
determinant that influences how knowledge management affects organizational
performance. This context reflects the organization roles and structure as well as the
socio-cultural processes such as culture, power relations, norms, rewards systems, and
management philosophy. In the same perspective, Meso and Smith (2000) consider that
under a socio-technical perspective, knowledge management activities are seen as being
complex combinations of technology and organizational infrastructure, corporate culture,
knowledge and people. Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2002) argue that alternative views to
knowledge management for innovation that are more contingent and contextualized need to
be explored. Phipps and Prieto (2012) develop a model showing the relationship between
knowledge management and creativity, and stressing the moderating effect of
entrepreneurial mindset to seek, identify, pursue, and exploit opportunities. According to
Bontis and Fitz-enz (2002), knowledge management initiatives can decrease turnover rates
and support business performance, if they are coupled with HR policies that focus on
employee sentiment, satisfaction, motivation, and commitment. Dawson (2000) recognizes
as potential field for developing knowledge capabilities individual and organizational skills
and behaviors. Demarest (1997) also considers the source of a firms competitive advantage
as being strictly related to its commercial knowledge or an explicitly developed and
managed network of imperatives, patterns, rules and scripts, embodied in aspects of the
firm, and distributed throughout the firm, that creates marketplace performances. Schiuma
(2011) explains how art-based initiatives can drive behaviors, engagement and passion and
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

enhance the business value creation capacity. Beesley (2004) using the case of a
collaborative research project, demonstrates the interrelatedness of cognitive, social,
affective, and communication influences inherent, not only in the process of knowledge
production, but also in the eventual utility of research output. Finally Marr et al.(2003)
suggest an epistemological view to better understand different value creation pathways and
knowledge transformations.
All these contributions show awareness of the importance of considering concepts and
integrating models from other social science disciplines. But we highlight the particular
relevance of turning the attention to the investigation and inquiry of the centrality of people
behavior in the dynamics and success of knowledge management initiatives. This requires
that new conceptual dimensions need to be added to the paraphernalia of models,
approaches and tools already characterizing the knowledge management discipline. In
particular attention has to be paid to those soft aspects such as experiences, emotions,
energy, and ethics that affect people behavior. The knowledge management discipline has
to shed light on the role and relevance of these knowledge-based drivers for the innovation
and sustainable development of twenty first century organizations.

4. The genesis of the special issue

The special issue is an outcome of the IFKAD 2012 Conference on Knowledge, Innovation,
and Sustainability: Integrating Micro and Macro Perspectives, held in Matera Italy from
June 13 through June 15, 2012. The organization of this conference stems from IFKADs
mission to create a Vicinato, i.e. an ideal social cognitive platform catalyzing and
facilitating the sharing of ideas and practices and promoting a scientific debate on the role of
knowledge assets as value drivers for business performance and economic growth.
The rationale of this special issue is grounded in the relationship between knowledge
resources, innovation processes and sustainable value creation. The selection process took
into consideration our interest in publishing articles that examine, conceptually and
empirically, knowledge-based innovation and performance outcomes. The topics of interest
included, but were not limited to:
B How critical knowledge assets and knowledge-based development principles and
frameworks significantly affect value creation mechanisms and development of firms,
organizations and cities.

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 503
 B How to embed creativity and innovation in the planning, development and management
processes of firms, organizations and cities to become more competitive in the era of
global knowledge economy.
B How to shape knowledge-based and sustainable firm, organization and city development
models to achieve economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, equitable
socio-spatial order and good governance.

In total we received almost 200 submissions mostly from Europe. All the articles were
subjected to a double review process. On the basis of the comments of the reviewers and
the guest editors, eight articles were finally accepted for publication and these represent a
sample of knowledge-driven innovation models and practices.
The articles fall into two groups. First there are five articles that provide conceptual models
and empirical evidence on knowledge practices and their relationship with learning and
innovation in business environments. The other three articles focus on knowledge
management approaches for cluster and regional development. The articles collected in this
special issue represent a milestone in the process of building assumptions and bringing
better clarifications to knowledge-based innovation. However, they remain an attempt to
define the critical factors underpinning innovation dynamics and the role of knowledge
assets to build distinctive organizational capabilities and contribute to sustainable superior
performance and economic growth.
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

In the first article, Silvia Karkoulian, Leila Canaan Messara, and Richard McCarthy provide
empirical extension of what had previously been mostly anecdotal observation of the
relationship between knowledge management processes and the learning organization and
show the positive relationship between formal and informal knowledge management
processes and the learning organization dimensions. In their article, Matteo Mura, Emanuele
Lettieri, Giovanni Radaelli, and Nicola Spiller suggest and test a theoretical model linking
knowledge sharing to employees innovative behaviors using social capital as a moderating
factor. The authors consider on one hand two different contents of knowledge sharing
namely best practices and mistakes and on the other hand two peculiar aspects of
innovative work behaviors: idea promotion and idea implementation. The article by Miikka
Palvalin, Antti Lonnqvist, and Maiju Vuolle offers new insights on how information and
communication technology (ICT) can be used to eliminate non-value-adding tasks and
contribute to improving employee welfare. The authors also explain how the effects of ICT on
knowledge work productivity can be analyzed in an empirical context. In their article,
Barbara Scozzi, Nicola Bellantuono, and Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo propose a detailed
assessment of open innovation practices and suggest a framework linking such practices to
diverse innovation contexts. The article by Valentina De Marchi and Roberto Grandinetti
suggests that developing environmental innovations entails a higher recourse to external
knowledge strategies through the use of external sources of information, the R&D outcomes
from external firms and through cooperation. This research also demonstrates how proactive
environmental innovators have very different knowledge strategies than reactive ones which
resemble non-green innovators. In their article Henna Salonius and Jonna Kapyla present
and test a method for evaluating the requirements of knowledge-based management in a
region. Their study suggests that regions decide on different knowledge-based
management activities and investments based on their performance in the cycle of the
extended SECI model and the available intellectual capital of regional developers. The
article by Blanca Martins and Francesc Sole Parellada suggests that misalignments in the
triad roles-purpose-culture among cluster partners could bring about dysfunctions and lead
the cluster to an undesirable prolonged projectism and early degeneration. Finally, in her
article Giovanna Testa provides a useful framework to understand both industrial district
dynamics and the ways knowledge transfer can be promoted among all the firms that are
related along a district value production chain. This research also suggests that hub and
spoke theory provides better fit than the Marshallian district model to understand how the
firms positions in the value chain affect knowledge transfer processes in a production
district.

j j
PAGE 504 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 References
Acha, V., Brusoni, S. and Prencipe, A. (2007), Exploring the miracle: strategy and management of the
knowledge base in the Aeronautics industry, International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1.

Adams, G.L. and Lamont, B.T. (2003), Knowlege management systems and developing sustainable
competitive advantage, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 142-154.

Andrews, K.R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.

April, K.A. (2002), Guidelines for developing a k-strategy, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6
No. 5, pp. 445-456.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Armistead, C. (1999), Knowledge management and process performance, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 143-157.

Barney, J.B. (1986), Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-665.

Barney, J.B. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Beesley, L. (2004), Multi-level complexity in the management of knowledge networks, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 71-100.
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

Beijerse, R.P. (2000), Knowledge management in small and medium-sized companies: knowledge
management for entrepreneurs, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 162-179.

Bhatt, G.D. (2000), A resource-based perspective of developing organizational capabilities for

business transformation, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119-129.

Bogner, W.C. and Bansal, P. (2007), Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high
performance, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 165-188.

Boisot, M.H. (1995), Information Space, International Thompson Business, London.

Boisot, M.H. (1998), Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001), Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-18.

Bontis, N. and Fitz-enz, J. (2002), Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents
and consequents, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-247.

Brooking, A. (1997), The management of intellectual capital, Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 364-365.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995), Product development: past research, present findings, and
future directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-378.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.

Carlsson, B., Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Braunerhjelm, P. (2009), Knowledge creation,
entrepreneurship, and economic growth: a historical review, Industrial and Corporate Change,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1193-1229.

Carlucci, D., Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2004), The knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital
impacts business performance, Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 27 Nos 6/7, pp. 575-590.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), A better way to innovate, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 7, pp. 12-14.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-152.

DAveni, R.A. (1994), Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Manoeuvring, Free Press,
New York, NY.

Dalkir, K. (2011), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 505
 Dankbaar, B. (2003), Innovation management in the knowledge economy: some preliminary
reflections, in Dankbaar, B. (Ed.), Innovation Management in the Knowledge Economy, Imperial
College Press, London.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What they
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Davenport, T.H., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Beers, M.C. (1996), Improving knowledge work processes,
Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 53-65.

Dawson, R. (2000), Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organizational development and strategy,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 320-327.

Demarest, M. (1997), Understanding knowledge management, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 374-384.

Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-1511.

Dodgson, M. (1993), Organizational learning: a review of some literatures, Organization Studies,

Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-394.

Dogson, M. (1991), Technology, learning, technology strategy and competitive pressures, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 132-149.

Dosi, G. (1982), Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 147-162.
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

Dosi, G. (1988), Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation, Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1120-1171.

Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2000), Introduction, in Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G.
(Eds), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Drucker, P.E. (1973), Management, Harper, New York, NY.

Drucker, P.F. (1959), Challenges to management science, Long Range Planning, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 238-249.

Drucker, P.F. (1969), The Age of Discontinuity Guidelines to our Changing Society, Heinemann,
London.

Edquist, D. (1997), Systems of Innovation Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London.

Edvinsson, L. (1997), Developing intellectual capital at Skandia, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 366-373.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1122.

Foss, N. (1997), Resources and strategy: a brief overview of themes and contributions, in Foss, N.
(Ed.), Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-based Perspective, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Galunic, C.D. and Rodan, S. (1998), Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and
the potential for Schumpeterian innovation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 12,
pp. 1193-1201.

Gardner, H.K., Gino, F. and Staats, B.R. (2012), Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams:
transforming resources into performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp. 988-1022.

Garud, R. and Nayyar, P. (1994), Transformative capacity: continual structuring by intertemporal

technology transfer, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 365-385.

Garvin, D. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 4, July-August,
pp. 78-91.

Ghoshal, S. and Butler, C. (1992), Kao Corporation, INSEAD-EAC, Fontainebleau.

Grant, R.M. (1991), The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-136.

j j
PAGE 506 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 Grant, R.M. (1996a), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 109-122.

Grant, R.M. (1996b), Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational capability as

knowledge integration, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 357-387.

Grant, R.M. (1997), The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practice,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 450-454.

Grayson, C.J. and ODell, C.S. (1998), Mining your hidden resources, Across the Board, April,
pp. 23-28.

Griffiths, D., Boisot, M.H. and Mole, V. (1998), Strategies for managing knowledge assets: a tale of two
companies, Technovation, Vol. 18 Nos 8/9, pp. 529-539.

Guthrie, J. (2001), The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 155-176.

Hamel, G. (1994), The concept of core competence, in Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (Eds),
Competence-based Competition, Wiley, New York, NY.

Henderson, R. and Cockburn, I. (1994), Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in

pharmaceutical research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, Winter, pp. 63-84.

Hidalgo, A. and Albors, J. (2008), Innovation management techniques and tools: a review from theory
and practice, R&D Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 113-127.

Huang, K., Lee, Y. and Wang, R. (1999), Quality Information and Knowledge, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

Cliffs, NJ.

Iansiti, M. and Clark, K.B. (1994), Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product
development in automobiles and mainframe computers, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 557-605.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004), Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 52-63.

Kim, D. (1993), The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-50.

Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy
Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Koenig, M.E.D. (2008), KM is here to stay, in Srikantaiah, K. and Koenig, M.E.D. (Eds), Knowledge
Management in Practice: Connections and Context, Information Today for the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Medford, NJ.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-397.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse, A. (2002), Knowledge management: strategic

change capacity or the attempted routinization of professionals?, Strategic Change, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 59-69.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

Lee, C.C. and Yang, J. (2000), Knowledge value chain, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19
No. 9, pp. 783-794.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product
development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, Summer, pp. 111-125.

Liebowitz, J. (2011), Foreword, in Dalkir, K. (Ed.), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Liedtka, L.M. and Rosenblum, J.W. (1996), Shaping conversations: making strategy, managing
change, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 141-157.

Lippman, S.A. and Rumelt, R.P. (1982), Uncertain imitability: an analysis of interfirm differences in
efficiency under competition, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 418-438.

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 507
 Lipsey, R.G. (1999), Sources of continued long-run economic dynamism in the twenty-first century,
OECD Observer, The Future of the Global Economy: Towards a Long Boom?, OECD, Paris.
Loermans, J. (2002), Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 285-294.
Long, C. and Vickers-Koch, M. (1995), Using core capabilities to create competitive advantage,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999), A critical review of knowledge management models, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 91-100.
Maier, R. (2007), Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for
Knowledge Management, Springer, New York, NY.
March, J.O. and Simons, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Marr, B. and Schiuma, G. (2001), Measuring and managing intellectual capital and knowledge assets in
new economy organisations, in Bourne, M. (Ed.), Performance Measurement Handbook, GEE
Publishing, London.
Marr, B. and Spender, J.C. (2004), Measuring knowledge assets: implications of knowledge economy
on performance measurement, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
Marr, B., Gupta, O., Pike, S. and Roos, G. (2003), Intellectual capital and knowledge management
effectiveness, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 771-781.
Marsh, S.J. and Stock, G.N. (2003), Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

intertemporal integration, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 136-148.
Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and Vorbeck, J. (2003), Knowledge Management: Concepts and Practices,
Springer, New York, NY.
Meso, P. and Smith, R. (2000), A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management
systems, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 224-234.
Miles, R.E., Miles, G., Snow, C.C., Blomqvist, K. and Rocha, H. (2009), The I-form organization,
California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 61-76.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T. and Bukh, P.N.D. (2001), Intellectual capital and the capable firm: narrating,
visualising and numbering for managing knowledge, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26
Nos 7-8, pp. 735-762.
Nag, R. and Gioia, D.A. (2012), From common to uncommon knowledge: foundations of firm-specific
use of knowledge as a resource, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 421-457.

Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard Business Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Nelson, R.R. (1991), Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 12, Winter, pp. 61-74.

Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 6,
November-December, pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How the Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 1, February, pp. 5-34.

Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. (1994), National innovation systems: why they are important and how they might
be measured and compared, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H. (2000), Organizational learning and knowledge assets an
essential partnership, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 184-193.

Pennings, J.M. and Harianto, F. (1992), The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial
banking industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-46.
Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

j j
PAGE 508 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 Peteraf, M.A. (1993), The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.

Phipps, S.T.A. and Prieto, L.C. (2012), Knowledge is power: an inquiry into knowledge management, its
effects on individual creativity, and the moderating role of an entrepreneurial mindset, Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1.

Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Ponzi, L. and Koenig, M.E.D. (2002), Knowledge management: another management fad?,
Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1.

Poynder, R. (1998), Getting to the nuts and bolts of knowledge management, Information World
Review, Vol. 135 No. 135, p. 20.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1993), Strategy as stretch and leverage, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 75-84.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.

Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), Managing professional intellect: making the most
of the best, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, March-April, pp. 71-80.

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), Knowledge management: a strategic agenda, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-391.

Richardson, G.B. (1972), The organization of industry, Economic Journal, Vol. 82 No. 327,
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

pp. 883-896.

Robbins, S.P. and DeCenzo, D.A. (2008), Fundamentals of Management Essential Concepts and
Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), Measuring your companys intellectual performance, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 413-426.

Ruggles, R. (1998), The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-89.

Rumelt, R.P. (1984), Towards a strategic theory of the firm, in Lamb, B. (Ed.), Competitive Strategic
Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Sanchez, R. (1995), Strategic flexibility in product competition, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16,
Summer, pp. 135-159.

Schiuma, G. (2011), The Value of Arts for Business, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development An inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit,
Interest, and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday
Currency, New York, NY.

Spender, J.C. (1996), Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 45-62.

Stalk, G., Evans, P. and Shulman, L.E. (1992), Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corporate
strategy, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 57-70.

Sveiby, K.E. (2001), A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 344-358.

Teece, D.J. (1998), Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how,
and intangible assets, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.

Teece, D.J. (2000), Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial
context, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 35-54.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.

Tiwana, A. (2002), Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge
Platforms, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 509
 Turvani, M. (2001), Microfoundations of knowledge dynamics within the firm, Industry and Innovation,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 309-323.
Wang, C.L. and Pervaiz, K.A. (2003), Organizational learning: a critical review, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Werner, J.M. and DeSimone, R.L. (2009), Human Resource Development, Cengage Learning, Stamford,
CT.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), A resource based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 171-180.
Wheeler, B.C. (2002), NEBIC: a dynamic capabilities theory for assessing web enablement,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 125-146.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 399-405.
Zack, M.H. (1999a), Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 125-145.
Zack, M.H. (1999b), Managing codified knowledge, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 45-58.
Zhou, A.Z. and Fink, D. (2003), The intellectual capital web: a systematic linking of intellectual capital
and knowledge management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities,
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.

About the authors

Professor Karim Moustaghfir is Program Coordinator of Human Resource Development at Al
Akhawayn University in Ifrane (Morocco). He is also Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre
for Business Performance Cranfield School of Management (UK), and Visiting Professor at
the International School for Business and Social Studies (Slovenia). After completing his
Masters and PhD degrees, he worked as Researcher at the Universita del Salento (Italy). He
researches on the topics of knowledge asset management, strategic human resource
development, entrepreneurial learning, organizational behavior and organizational
performance. Prior to his academic career, he held management positions in the banking
and management consulting fields. Karim Moustaghfir is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: K.Moustaghfir@aui.ma
Professor Giovanni Schiuma is Director of the Innovation Insights Hub at the University of
Arts London and Professor at Universita della Basilicata (Italy) where he teaches
management innovation. Giovanni is Chairman of the not-for-profit organization Arts for
Business Institute and is Visiting Fellow at the Cambridge Service Alliance at IfM, University
of Cambridge (UK), Visiting Fellow at Cranfield School of Management (UK), Visiting
Professor at Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg University (Russia), Visiting
Professor of Performance Management at University of Kozminski (Poland), Visiting
Professor at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane (Morocco), Associate Lecturer at the University
of Bradford, and Adjunct Professor at Tampere University of Technology (Finland).
Giovannis research, teaching, and consulting focus on linking knowledge assets and
organization behavior to performance management and organization value creation. His
primary research interests focus on the following areas: knowledge asset and intellectual
capital management, performance management systems, innovation and change
management, organizational behavior, organizational learning, and arts for business.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 510 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 4 2013
 This article has been cited by:

1. Andrew L. Cooper Operational Sciences Department, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, Ohio, USA Joseph R
Huscroft Operational Sciences Department, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, Ohio, USA Robert E. Overstreet
Operational Sciences Department, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, Ohio, USA Benjamin T Hazen Marketing
and Supply Chain Management Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA . 2016. Knowledge
management for logistics service providers: the role of learning culture. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116:3,
584-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Giustina Secundo Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy John Dumay Department
of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Giovanni Schiuma Department of
Economics, University of Basilicata, Matera, Italy Giuseppina Passiante Department of Innovation Engineering, University
of Salento, Lecce, Italy . 2016. Managing intellectual capital through a collective intelligence approach. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 17:2, 298-319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Mohammad Hossein Imani Khoshkhoo University of Science and Culture Tehran Iran, Islamic Republic of zahra Nadalipour
University of Science and Culture Tehran Iran, Islamic Republic of Francis Tuggle Pamplin College of Business, Virginia
Tech Blacksburg United States Jeffrey Hsu Fairleigh Dickinson University Madison United States . 2016. Tourism SMEs
and organizational learning in a competitive environment: a longitudinal research on organizational learning in travel and
tourism agencies located in the city of Ahvaz, Iran. The Learning Organization 23:2/3. . [Abstract] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 15:45 20 February 2017 (PT)

4. Giustina Secundo Department of Engineering for Innovation, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy Remy Magnier-Watanabe
Graduate School of Business Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan Peter Heisig Leeds University Business School,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK . 2015. Engineering knowledge and information needs in Italy and Japan: bridging the gap
between theory and practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:6, 1310-1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Professor Vesna Bosilj Vuki and Professor Mirjana Peji Bach Henri Tapio Inkinen School of Business and Management,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland Aino Kianto LUT School of Business, Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland Mika Vanhala School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland . 2015. Knowledge management practices and innovation performance in
Finland. Baltic Journal of Management 10:4, 432-455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Professor James Guthrie and Associate Professor John Dumay Giustina Secundo Department of Innovation Engineering,
University of Salento, Lecce, Italy Susana Elena- Perez Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission
- JRC, Seville, Spain ilvinas Martinaitis Visionary Analytics, Vilnius, Lithuania Karl-Heinz Leitner Innovation Systems
Department, Austrian Institute of Technology. Vienna, Austria . 2015. An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to
improve strategic management in European universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:2, 419-442. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
7. Chris Cooper. 2015. Managing tourism knowledge. Tourism Recreation Research 40:1, 107-119. [CrossRef]
8. Leonor Pais, Nuno Rebelo dos SantosKnowledge-Sharing, Cooperation, and Personal Development 278-302. [CrossRef]
9. Arash Najmaei Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia Jo Rhodes Macquarie Graduate School of
Management, Sydney, Australia Peter Lok University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia .
2014. Exploring the dynamism of complementarities in executives business modelling knowledge structures. Journal of
Strategy and Management 7:4, 398-421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Chin-Fu Ho Department of Chains and Franchising Management, College of Informatics, Takming University of Science
and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan Pei-Hsuan Hsieh Institute of Information Management, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan Wei-Hsi Hung Department of Information Management, Advanced Institute of Manufacturing with High-
tech Innovations (AIM-HI), National Chung Cheng University, Chia Yi, Taiwan . 2014. Enablers and processes for effective
knowledge management. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:5, 734-754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Krishna Venkitachalam Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Rachelle Bosua Department of Computing
and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VictoriaAustralia . 2014. Roles enabling the mobilization
of organizational knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:2, 396-410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]