Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How knowledge management processes can create and capture value for firms?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Knowledge has become the main competitive tool for firms. Just as knowledge is considered as the most important strategic resource, knowledge management (KM) is considered to be critical to a firm’s success. Several attempts have been undertaken to identify and define the different KM processes. From the literature review, four key dimensions stand out as affecting KM processes: knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage/retrieval, and knowledge application. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the KM and value literature by determining the importance of the different processes of KM for increasing value creation and value capture in firms. The context for the research hypotheses is the Spanish banking industry in 2010. The results support a positive relationship between KM and value creation, and between value creation and value capture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay D, Higgins C and Thompson R (1995) The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies 2(2), 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R and Dulipovici A (2006) The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 4(2), 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R (2001) Organizational knowledge management: a contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 40(3), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D (2012) Assessing the links between knowledge assets and value creation in organisations. Measuring Business Excellence 16(2), 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D, Marr B and Schiuma G (2004) The knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital impacts on business performance. International Journal of Technology Management 27(6/7), 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines EG and Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chang Lee K, Lee S and Kang IW (2005) KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance. Information & Management 42(3), 469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-J and Huang J-W (2009) Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance – The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research 62(1), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou S-W (2005) Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms, and knowledge storage/retrieval capabilities. Journal of Information Science 31(6), 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou T-C, Chang P-L, Cheng Y-P and Tsai C-T (2007) A path model linking organizational knowledge attributes, information processing capabilities, and perceived usability. Information & Management 44(4), 408–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries RE, Van den Hooff B and De Ridder JA (2006) Explaining knowledge sharing: the role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research 33(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denford JS and Chan YE (2011) Knowledge strategy typologies: defining dimensions and relationships. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9(2), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A and Winklhofer H (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research 38(2), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone JM and McElroy MW (2003) Key Issues in The New Knowledge Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebert H, Geib M, Kolbe L and Brenner W (2003) Knowledge-enabled customer relationship management: integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts[1]. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(5), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold AH, Malhotra A and Segars AH (2001) Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 185–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Ringle C and Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han JK, Kim N and Srivastava RK (1998) Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing 62(4), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple CW and Wu J (2008) In search of a missing link. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooley GJ, Greenley GE, Cadogan JW and Fahy J (2005) The performance impact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research 58(1), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipe M (2003) Knowledge sharing on organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review 2(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ and Volberda HW (2005) Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal 48(6), 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantunen A (2005) Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative performance: an empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management 8(3), 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Käpylä J, Laihonen H, Lönnqvist A and Carlucci D (2011) Knowledge-intensity as an organisational characteristic. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9(4), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiessling TS, Richey RG, Meng J and Dabic M (2009) Exploring knowledge management to organizational performance outcomes in a transitional economy. Journal of World Business 44(4), 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane PJ, Koka BR and Pathak S (2006) The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 31(4), 833–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee D-J and Ahn J-H (2007) Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing. European Journal of Operational Research 180(2), 938–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin H-F and Lee G-G (2005) Impact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors on e-business adoption. Management Decision 43(2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra NK and Birks DF (2006) Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Updated Secondary European Edition, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marr B, Schiuma G and Neely A (2004) The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(2), 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson K, Peacock E and Chin WW (2001) Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 32(3), 86–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy MW (2000) Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management 4(3), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mckenzie B (2008) Customer relationship management and customer recovery and retention: the case of the 407 express toll route. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6(2), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik N and Jacobson R (2003) Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing 67(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mocciaro A and Dagnino GB (2005) The development of the resource-based firm between value appropriation and value creation. Advances in Strategic Management 22, 153–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moustaghfir K (2009) How knowledge assets lead to a sustainable competitive advantage: are organizational capabilities a missing link? Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7(4), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newey LR and Zahra SA (2009) The evolving firm: how dynamic and operating capabilities interact to enable entrepreneurship. British Journal of Management 20(s1), S81–S100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilakanta S, Miller LL and Zhu D (2006) Organizational memory management: technological and research issues. Journal of Database Management 17(1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Toyama R (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial & Corporate Change 11(5), 995–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne A and Holt S (2001) Diagnosing customer value: integrating the value process and relationship marketing. British Journal of Management 12(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi S, Briggs RO and Hlupic V (2006) Value creation from intellectual capital: convergence of knowledge management and collaboration in the intellectual bandwidth model. Group Decision and Negotiation 15(3), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli G, Mura M, Spiller N and Lettieri E (2011) Intellectual capital and knowledge sharing: the mediating role of organisational knowledge-sharing climate. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9(4), 342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezgui Y (2007) Knowledge systems and value creation. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107(2), 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R and Iniesta MA (2006) Consumer perception of value: literature review and a new conceptual framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 19, 40–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Iniesta MA and Holbrook MB (2009) The conceptualisation and measurement of consumer value in services. International Journal of Market Research 51(1), 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma G (2009) The managerial foundations of knowledge assets dynamics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7(4), 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma G, Carlucci D and Lerro A (2012) Managing knowledge processes for value creation. VINE 42(1), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater SF (1997) Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(2), 162–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater SF and Narver JC (1998) Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal 19(10), 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowden D (2003) The knowledge you need, right when you need it. Knowledge Management Review 5(6), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G and Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuominen M (2004) Channel collaboration and firm value proposition. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32(4), 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulaga W (2001) Customer value in business markets: an agenda for inquiry. Industrial Marketing Management 30(4), 315–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman S and Sarasvathy SD (2001) Strategy and entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Strategic Management (Hitt MA, Freeman RE and Harrison JS, Eds), pp 650–668, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorakulpipat C and Rezgui Y (2008) Value creation: the future of knowledge management. The Knowledge Engineering Review 23(3), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales WJ, Parida V and Patel PC (2013) Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal 34(5), 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP and Ungson GR (1991) Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 16(1), 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiig KM (2007) Effective societal knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(5), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall T (2003) Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: an attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review 12, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff RB (1997) Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA and George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out, thanks to a research programme supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (REF: ECO2013-49352-EXP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Administración de Empresas y Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

    Silvia Martelo-Landroguez & Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión

Authors
  1. Silvia Martelo-Landroguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Martelo-Landroguez.

Appendix

Appendix

Questionnaire items

PACAP

Acquisition

ACQ_1: Our unit has frequent interactions with corporate headquarters to acquire new knowledge.

ACQ_2: Employees of our unit regularly visit other branches.

ACQ_3: We collect industry information through informal means (e.g., lunch with industry friends, talks with trade partners).

ACQ_4: Other divisions of our company are hardly visited (reverse-coded).

ACQ_5: Our unit periodically organizes special meetings with customers or third parties to acquire new knowledge.

ACQ_6: Employees regularly approach third parties such as accountants, consultants or tax consultants.

Assimilation

ASS_1: We are slow to recognize shifts in our market (e.g., competition, regulation, demography) (reverse-coded).

ASS_2: Ne opportunities to serve our clients are quickly understood.

ASS_3: We quickly analyse and interpret changing market demands.

RACAP

Transformation

TRA_1: Our unit regularly considers the consequences of changing market demands in terms of new products and services.

TRA_2: Employees record and store newly acquired knowledge for future reference.

TRA_3: Our unit quickly recognizes the usefulness of new external knowledge to existing knowledge.

TRA_4: Employees hardly share practical experiences (reverse-coded)

TRA_5: We laboriously grasp the opportunities for our unit from new external knowledge (reverse-coded).

TRA_6: Our unit periodically meets to discuss consequences of market trends and new product development.

Exploitation

EXP_1: It is clearly known how activities within our unit should be performed.

EXP_2: Client complaints fall on deaf ears in our unit (reverse-coded).

EXP_3: Our unit has a clear division of roles and responsibilities.

EXP_4: We constantly consider how to better exploit knowledge.

EXP_5: Our unit has difficulty implementing new products and services (reverse-coded).

EXP_6: Employees have a common language regarding our products and services.

Knowledge transfer

My organization has processes for:

KT_1: converting knowledge into the design of new services.

KT_2: converting competitive intelligence into plans of action.

KT_3: filtering knowledge.

KT_4: transferring organizational knowledge to individuals.

KT_5: absorbing knowledge from individuals into the organization.

KT_6: absorbing knowledge from business partners into the organization.

KT_7: distributing knowledge throughout the organization.

KT_8: integrating different sources and types of knowledge.

KT_9: organizing knowledge.

KT_10: replacing outdated knowledge.

Knowledge storage and retrieval

KSR_1: Organizational conversation keeps the lessons learned from service development history at the front of our minds.

KSR_2: We always audit unsuccessful service development endeavours and communicate the lessons learned.

KSR_3: We have specific mechanisms for sharing lessons learned in the service development process.

KSR_4: Formal routines exist to uncover faulty assumptions about the service development process.

Knowledge application

KA_1: My organization has processes for applying knowledge learned from mistakes.

KA_2: My organization has processes for applying knowledge learned from experiences.

KA_3: My organization has processes for using knowledge in the development of new services.

KA_4: My organization has processes for using knowledge to solve problems.

KA_5: My organization matches sources of knowledge to problems and challenges.

KA_6: My organization uses knowledge to improve efficiency.

KA_7: My organization uses knowledge to adjust strategic direction.

KA_8: My organization is able to locate and apply knowledge to changing competitive conditions.

KA_9: My organization makes knowledge accessible to those who need it.

KA_10: My organization takes advantage of new knowledge.

KA_11: My organization quickly applies knowledge to critical competitive needs.

KA_12: My organization quickly links sources of knowledge in solving problems.

Customer value creation

CV_1: Levels of customer loyalty compared to competitors.

CV_2: Levels of customer satisfaction compared to last year.

CV_3: Levels of customer loyalty compared to last year.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martelo-Landroguez, S., Cepeda-Carrión, G. How knowledge management processes can create and capture value for firms?. Knowl Manage Res Pract 14, 423–433 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.26

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.26

Keywords

Search

Navigation