Advertisement

LISS 2012 pp 763-769 | Cite as

The Linkage Between Knowledge Management Practices and Company Performance: Empirical Evidence

  • Nausheen Syed
  • Lin Xiaoyan
Conference paper

Abstract

This study explores the linkage between Knowledge management practices and company performance. Keeping in view the theoretical and empirical importance, the present study examines the predicting linkage of Knowledge management practices (sharing of best practices and building of consistent process, continues employee learning, effective management of knowledge, innovative culture development, and management of core competencies) with company performance. The study was carried out on purposively selected sample of 412 employees at different managerial positions. They were administered questionnaires including Knowledge Management Practices and company performance. Data was operated by using SPSS version 20. Correlation and regression analysis was done to establish the relationship between various Knowledge management practices and company performance. Results of this study illustrated that all selected Knowledge management were positively related to company performance. Based on the findings, and management of core competencies was the strongest predictor of company performance, followed by innovative culture development, effective management of knowledge and sharing of best practices and building of consistent process, continues employee learning.

Keywords

Knowledge management practices Company performance Pakistan Innovative culture Core competencies 

References

  1. 1.
    Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Review, knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25:107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appelbaum S, Reichart W (1998) How to measure an organizations’ learning ability: the facilitating factors – Part II. J Workplace Learn 10:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becerra-Fernandez I, Gonzalez A, Sabherwal R (2004) Knowledge management: challenges, solution, and technologies. Prentice –Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Earl M (2001) Knowledge management strategies: towards taxonomy. J Manag Inf Syst 18:215–233Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feng K, Chen ET, Liou W (2004) Implementation of knowledge management systems and firm performance: an empirical investigation. J Comput Inf Syst 45:92–104Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiol CM, Lyles MA (1985) Organizational learning. Acad Manage Rev 10:803–813Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamel G, Prahalad C (1994) The concept of core competence. In: Hamel G, Heene A (eds) Competence-based competition. Wiley, New York, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harlow H (2008) The effect of tacit knowledge on firm performance. J Knowl Manag 12:148–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Javidan M (1998) Core competence: what does it mean in practice? Long Range Plann 31:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaul VK (2002) Knowledge management and innovation in technology based small and medium sized enterprises. Manag Res News 25:8–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee KC, Lee S, Kang IW (2005) KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance. Inf Manag 42:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mansell R, Wehn U (1998) Knowledge societies: information technology for sustainable development. Oxford University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maria Leticia Santos-Vijande, Maria Jose Sanzo-Perez, Luis I. Alvarez-Gonzalez, Rodolfo Vazquez-Casielles (2005) Organizational learning and market orientation: interface and effects on performance. Ind Mark Manag 34:187Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McKeen JD, Zack MH, Singh S (2006) Knowledge management and organizational performance: an exploratory survey. In: Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Computer Society Press, Hawaii, p 9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5:14–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryu S, Hee HS, Han I (2003) Knowledge sharing behavior of physician in hospitals. Exp Syst Appl 25:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santos-Vijande ML, Alvarez-Gonzalez LI (2007) Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: the moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation J 27:514–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of learning organization. Currency/Double Day, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srivastava S (2005) Managing core competence of the organization. Vikalpa 30:49–68Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stewart T (2001) The wealth of knowledge: intellectual capital and the twenty-first century organization. Random House Inc, DoubledayGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tat LW, Stewart H (2007) Knowledge management in the Malaysian aerospace industry. J Knowl Manag 11:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke T, Rollo C (2001) Corporate initiatives in knowledge management. Educ + Train 43(4/5):206–214Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van den Hooff B, Elving WJL, Meeuwsen JM, Dumoulin CM (2003) Knowledge sharing in knowledge communities. In: Huysman MH, Wulf V, Wenger E (eds) Communities and technologies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Deventer, pp 119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sung-Ho Yu, Young-Gul Kim, Min-Yong Kim (2007) Do we know what really drives KM performance? Knowl Manage 11(6):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations