Knowledge Management and Innovation

Interaction, Collaboration, Openness

Pierre Barbaroux, Amel Attour, Erik Schenk

• Publisher: Wiley-ISTE
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781848218819
• eBook ISBN: 9781119330219
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Electrical Engineering & Telecommunications
• Index: Technology & Engineering

This book explores the relationships between knowledge management (KM) processes and innovation management.

The geographical extension of markets and intensification of competition have led firms to experiment with novel approaches to innovation. New organizational forms emerged in which firms collaborate with various stakeholders to create, absorb, integrate and protect knowledge. This book explores how knowledge management processes evolve with firms' implementation of interactive, collaborative and open innovation models and it identifies the various knowledge types and processes involved throughout the different phases of the innovation process.

The authors provide operational typologies for understanding innovative firms' capabilities and knowledge management practices and also discuss the main properties of four models of interactive innovation, namely open innovation, user-centric innovation, community-based innovation and crowdsourcing.

1
Innovation Processes, Innovation Capabilities and Knowledge Management

Knowledge management can be defined as a set of processes, principles and techniques leading to the creation, organization, distribution, use and exploitation of the enterprise’s knowledge [LOP 11, PAL 09]. The knowledge management processes frequently discussed in the specialized literature are the generation, the transfer and the use of knowledge. Coombs and Hull [COO 98] suggest adding the processes of identification, capture, modification, validation, contextualization and knowledge closure, in order to enrich the traditional vision of knowledge management, deeply rooted in the practices of information management. In a broader sense, knowledge management depends on organizational practices that consist of articulating knowledge processes with knowledge domains, performance fields, and formalized and operational action models [COO 98]. The aim is to offer the firm the means for efficiently exploiting its intangible assets, but equally to access information and knowledge useful for its development.

Despite significant theoretical advances, the influence of knowledge management on the innovation capability of the firm is still unevenly understood by managers. The latter are relatively ignorant of practices and operational techniques that enable the exploitation of tangible and, mostly, intangible resources in view of developing the firm’s potential for innovation. The effects of knowledge management on the capability for innovation and the performance of firms have not been studied in a systematic way by researchers. What does the literature teach us about the relation between knowledge management, innovation and the performance of firms? The following section addresses the theoretical and empirical pertinence of this relationship.

1.1. Does knowledge management improve the performance of innovating enterprises?

More and more analysts, managers and researchers are envisioning that the performance of firms depends on their ability to efficiently manage their intellectual resources, and informational and knowledge assets [RAN 06]. Noruzy et al. [NOR 13], for example, show how knowledge management positively influences organizational innovation and, consequently, the performance of firms. In their study, the authors suggest that the capability of leaders to transform the systems of norms, rules, values and shared beliefs of a firm has a positive impact on organizational innovation through the moderating role played by organizational learning and knowledge management.

More generally, authors who deal with the question of performance defend the hypothesis that knowledge management has a direct positive impact on the innovation capability, and, indirectly, on the performance of firms. In their research papers, innovation is either considered as a moderating variable between knowledge management and performance, or as the main variable. The questions they deal with are as follows: How can knowledge management favor organizational performance? Does it have a direct impact on performance, or an indirect impact thanks to the improvement of the innovative potential of firms? Answering these questions supposes understanding how the activities of firms as a matter of knowledge management influence their capability for innovation.

1.1.1. Does empirical research confirm the existence of a connection between knowledge management and the performance of innovative enterprises?

For about the last 10 years, numerous scientific studies have proposed “testing” the empirical validity of the hypothesis of a direct or indirect relation between knowledge management strategies, innovation and the performance of firms [YAN 10, LAI 14, CAN 11].

Lopez-Nicolas et al. [LOP 11], for example, develop an econometric study dealing with a panel of 310 Spanish enterprises. Considering that the direct impact of knowledge management on performance depends on the type of strategy implemented by the firm, the authors divide the concept of performance into three dimensions: financial, processes and internal. In this context, the authors propose examining the existence of a direct relation between the personalization and codification strategies, on the one hand, and the performance dimensions, on the other hand [LOP 11]. They then study the indirect effects of each strategy on the performance of firms, by exploring their impact on their innovation capabilities. The results of their econometric study confirm the existence of a positive direct relationship between the implementation of a knowledge management strategy, the increase in the innovation capability and the performance of enterprises. More precisely, the results suggest that the personalization and codification strategies have an equivalent positive impact on innovation: there are no differences in nature or type regarding the impact of the knowledge management strategy deployed by the firm on innovation [LOP 11]. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of results shows that knowledge management strategies have a relatively higher impact on financial performance than on process and internal performance dimensions. Finally, the indirect effect of knowledge management strategies on the performance of firms via an increase in their innovation capability is empirically validated.

This result is confirmed by Yang [YAN 10]. This author also studies the variables susceptible of moderating the relation between knowledge management strategies and the strategic performance of firms. The author particularly explores the mediating role of the following variables: 1) the incentive and reward system (H1a), 2) process innovation (H1b), as well as the firm’s competencies in matter of 3) the integration of previous knowledge cumulated on preceding projects (H2a), 4) the market intelligence (H2b) and 5) the sharing of knowledge between organizations (H2c) [YAN 10, p. 218]. From a panel of 500 high-technology Chinese firms, the author tests the empirical validity of the aforementioned hypotheses. The results obtained confirm the existence of a positive relation between the variables and the performance of firms [YAN 10, p. 220].

Exploring the role of collaboration in matter of knowledge management, Cantner et al. [CAN 11] also study the influence of knowledge management processes on innovation and the performance of firms. The authors pay attention to the knowledge processes guided by demand, whose aim is to favor the sharing and the creation of knowledge. In this framework, the authors consider that the management of knowledge has a different impact on the performance of firms depending on the type of innovation that they develop. Three types are thus distinguished: incremental innovation, radical innovation and process innovation. The hypothesis formulated by the authors then concerns the existence of a positive relation between the display of a collaborative knowledge management strategy and the three types of innovation mentioned earlier (hypothesis named H1, H2 and H3). Building on an econometric study dealing with a panel of 1335 German enterprises, Cantner et al. [CAN 11] reveal, on the one hand, that the management of knowledge improves the success of firms in terms of product innovation and, on the other hand, that its influence differs according to the type of innovation (incremental or radical). Finally, the collaborative management of knowledge rests without effect on process innovation.

These papers clearly show that a positive relationship exists between knowledge management, innovation and the performance of firms. If we want to improve our understanding of how knowledge management technique practices and processes improve the performance of innovative firms, it is necessary to go beyond econometrics. What about the impact of knowledge management on the innovation projects carried by the firms? What is the real influence of the “contextual” variable on knowledge management and innovation?

1.1.2. Beyond the enterprise: knowledge management, innovative territories and innovation projects

In the academic literature, the firm is not always the unit of analysis of the relation between knowledge management and innovation. Researchers have studied the role of knowledge management in relation to project management, or to the innovation dynamics of a territory. In this way, considering an industrial cluster in Taiwan, Lai et al. [LAI 14] study the moderating role of knowledge management in performance, not of individual firms but of an industrial cluster. In this study, the authors underline the positive role of clusters in terms of information circulation and knowledge sharing among a great diversity of public and private stakeholders [LAI 14]. The sharing and knowledge exchange processes are here essential to innovation within clusters. In practice, the operational performance of the firm in terms of knowledge management and, by extension, of innovation is positively influenced by the collective dynamics boosted by the industrial cluster. It is the institutional and industrial localized context (the cluster) that favors the creation and sharing of knowledge, the two central processes in terms of knowledge management at the service of innovation. This result is confirmed by Silvestre et al. [SIL 14] in the case of industrial clusters localized in developing countries. The authors point out that the innovation capabilities of firms belonging to the mineral cluster (Granite) of the region of Padua (Brazil) are strongly constrained by the clusters’ properties in terms of knowledge management. Indeed, the cluster is characterized by a weak entrepreneurial culture associated with the absence of expertise and training connected to the firm’s activities, a high level of informality in the relationships between individuals, and the relative weakness of communication and knowledge sharing within the cluster and beyond, toward other industries [SIL 14]. Enlarging the perspective, the papers dealing with the localized systems of production [ASH 05, ASH 07] have shown how the properties of the institutional, industrial, technological and regulatory context, in which the interactions between actors operate, play a moderating role in the relation between the management of knowledge and the performance of innovative firms. The works of Moore [MOO 93, MOO 96, MOO 06] about business ecosystems have also highlighted the importance of knowledge processes in the development of innovative business ecosystems [ATT 16].

The theoretical framework of knowledge management has been equally mobilized by researchers specialized in the study of innovative project management [TOD 15]. Indeed, project management is therein perceived as a collaborative activity involving the combination of diffe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Title
• Copyright
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Innovation Processes, Innovation Capabilities and Knowledge Management
• Chapter 2: Knowledge Typology and Knowledge Processes at the Service of Innovation
• Chapter 3: Managing Knowledge to Innovate: Open and Distributed Innovation Models
• General Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index
• End User License Agreement