International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 1(1), 71–89
The Relationship between
Knowledge Management Practices
and Technological Innovation:
A Conceptual Framework
Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee,
Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia
This research paper aims to establish a conceptual framework that links the
different dimensions of knowledge management, namely knowledge acqui-
sition, knowledge dissemination and knowledge application, with innovation
performance, particularly focusing on technological innovation (i. e. product
and process innovation). This study seeks to benefit the top management
team of any organization that desires to enhance and improve their level of
technological innovation through the effective implementation of the relevant
KM dimensions The findings of this study conclude that the effectual use
of knowledge management practices is believed to unlock the technological
innovation of a firm.
Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge acquisition, knowledge
dissemination, knowledge application, technological innovation, process
innovation, product innovation
Introduction
Organizations today operate in a competitive and globalized business en-
vironment. In order to compete with their rivals, many organizations have
turned to the use of Information Technologies (IT) to improve their business
operations (Vaccaro, Parente, & Veloso, 2010). However, it is no longer
sufficient for organizations to solely improve on their business operations
and reduce costs (Chong, Chan, Ooi, & Sim, 2011). Organizations nowa-
days are increasingly focusing their attention on improving their innovation
performances – new product performances or the ability of a company to
develop new products/services as a response to market needs (Vaccaro et
al., 2010). Innovation is one of the key business strategies for companies
in the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industries have tradition-
ally competed on operating with lower costs. However, operating at a lower
cost is not a long term sustainable business strategy (Chong & Ooi, 2008).
Instead, organizations such as Apple Computers have shown that innova-
tion is the way to move forward. Innovation in manufacturing companies has
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/1_71-89.pdf
72 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
been studied by past researchers such as Prajogo and Sohal (2003) and
Singh and Smith (2004).
Given that the research on the topics of innovation is increasing, many
researchers and practitioners are now looking at some ways in which orga-
nizations are able to improve their innovation performances. Past studies
in the manufacturing sectors have focused on whether the implementation
of Total Quality Management (TQM) practices is able to improve the inno-
vation of organizations (Hoang, Igel, & Laosirihongthong, 2006; Lorente,
Dewhurst, & Dale, 1999; Prajogo & Sohal, 2001, 2003; Singh & Smith,
2004; Lee, Ooi, Tan, & Chong, 2010). However, more recent studies have
also focused on other operation management areas such as Supply Chain
Management (SCM), and looked at whether a better SCM can lead to im-
proved innovation performances. One key finding from Chong et al. (2011)
revealed that it is the implementation of Information Technology (IT) tools
in the SCM that have a significant relationship with the innovation perfor-
mances of organizations. Cantner, Joel, and Schmidt (2009) also found that
IT is able to facilitate innovations in organizations in the context of inter-firm
collaborative relationships. Such collaborative relationship brought by IT is
also proposed by Chong, Ooi, Lin, and Teh (2010). Knowledge Management
(KM) tools are also one of the key IT tools that are able to improve orga-
nizations’ innovation performances through increasing research and quality
collaborations in companies, and facilitating the exchange of knowledge.
The ability to share and store knowledge by KM tools provides the poten-
tials to improve the innovation performances of organizations.
Although the idea of KM implementation and its influence on innovation
performances of organizations have been proposed (Chong et al., 2010),
there are limited empirical examinations that investigate the relationships
between an organization’s KM process and its innovation performance, in
particular technological innovation (i. e. product and process innovation). Al-
though Vaccaro et al. (2010) conducted an empirical examination on KM
tools and innovation performance of organizations, their study focused on
an organization’s reliance on KM, and neglected the actual KM practices
implemented by the organizations. Understanding this relationship will help
organizations better plan their KM implementations which may improve their
innovation performances. Furthermore, most studies on innovation perfor-
mances have focused on product innovation, neglecting process innovation.
Companies are now paying more attention to both product and process
innovations, also known as technological innovation. The implementation
of technological innovation is believed improve a company’s competitive
advantage (Chuang, 2005; Cooper, 1998; Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan,
2001). Therefore, it would be important to investigate technological innova-
tion from the perspectives of both product and process innovations. In order
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 73
to bridge the gap in existing literatures, this study aims to examine the re-
lationships between the KM processes implemented by organizations (e. g.
knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge application), and
their relationships with technological innovation (e. g. product and process
innovations) of firms.
Literature Review
Knowledge Management
Ways of managing knowledge in the organization are very important for sur-
vival in today’s competitive environment, and in that the concept of knowl-
edge management is created. The term knowledge management is still
vague, as revealed in the literature (Tiago, Couto, Tiago, & Vieira, 2007).
Different researches have interpreted knowledge management differently
as shown in Table I. According to Beckman (1999), definitions of knowledge
management are very subjective. He further went on to relate knowledge
management to experience.
Knowledge management is a process of managing information within
the company for the company’s gain (Roy, 2002). According to Wen (2009),
knowledge management is creating, acquiring, sharing and utilizing knowl-
edge in the organization to enhance performance. Darroch and McNaughton
(2001) as cited in Darroch and McNaughton (2002, p. 11) defined knowl-
edge management as
The management function that creates or locates knowledge, man-
ages the flow of knowledge within the organization and ensures that
the knowledge is used effectively and efficiently for the long term ben-
efit of the organization.
Schulz and Jobe (2001) defined KM as the transformation of tacit to
explicit knowledge to enhance the flow of organizational knowledge. Knowl-
edge derived from human sources is circulated within the organization.
Knowledge can be categorized as tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge
according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Tacit knowledge serves as the
base to develop organizational knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and
cannot be easily explained; while explicit knowledge is structured in nature
(Mårtensson, 2000). Explicit knowledge can be easily codified and commu-
nicated (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
In this study, three most important processes consisting of knowledge
acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge application will be the central
element of the knowledge management process (Darroch & McNaughton,
2003; Liao & Wu, 2010). Lin and Lee (2005) revealed that these knowl-
edge management processes are vital for the adoption of new technology.
Furthermore, Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, & Sabherwal (2004) share a
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
74 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
Table 1 Previous Literatures That Have Defined the Knowledge Management Process
in Different Approaches
Past literatures Definition
Awad and Ghaziri (2004) Capturing, organizing, refining, transferring
Darroch and McNaughton (2003) Knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, knowledge
application
Shankar, Singh, Gupta, and
Narain (2003)
Knowledge responsiveness, knowledge acquisition,
knowledge dissemination, knowledge application
Hlupic, Pouloudi, and Rzevski
(2002)
Knowledge generation, knowledge codification,
knowledge transfer
Oluic-Vukovic (2001) Gathering, organizing, refining, representing,
dissemination
Schwartz and Te’eni (2000) Acquisition, organization, distribution
Nonaka and Takuechi (1995) Socialization, Externalization, Combination,
Internalization
similar perception in which knowledge management and innovation is re-
lated, particularly process innovation. First of all, knowledge acquisition is
important because gathering knowledge from suppliers, internal employees
and customers remains the top priority for organizations to ensure continu-
ous improvement. This accumulation of information can increase an organi-
sation’s understanding of their employees’ skills and experiences, enabling
the firm to better produce products that can meet customers’ satisfaction
(Yang, 2008). This step is particularly important as the knowledge of cus-
tomers’ needs and wants, which are in terms of tacit knowledge, can be
accumulated, thus ensuring that quality assurance is met in every aspect.
Secondly, knowledge dissemination also plays an important role in the
KM process. Employees’ participation is believed to enhance the transfor-
mation of knowledge to organizational level, ensuring that quality is main-
tained within the organization (Yang, 2008). Primarily, organizational knowl-
edge is acquired through individuals. Through the dissemination and trans-
fer of knowledge, organizational capabilities can be developed (Kogut & Zan-
der, 1993; Endres, Endres, Chowdhury, & Alam, 2007). Only when employ-
ees participate and contribute to the sharing of knowledge can the quality
improvement in a firm be maximized (Hsu & Shen, 2005).
Lastly, knowledge application is facilitated by knowledge dissemination.
The higher activity of knowledge dissemination or sharing in an organization
will enhance the utilization (application) of knowledge. Darroch (2003) em-
phasized that the application of knowledge goes along the line of being re-
sponsive to knowledge collected and shared. For example, as organizations
gather knowledge from customers and respond to it by producing products
according to their customers’ preferences, such knowledge application will
help improve the overall company processes. Schwartz and Te’eni (2000)
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 75
also stressed that knowledge application contributes to the way the organi-
zations manage their KM. Besides, as stated by Alavi and Leidner (2001),
knowledge application is a crucial process that enhances organizational
performance, in which knowledge is effectively transformed into action. Fur-
thermore, the time taken to respond to such knowledge is essential, as
knowledge that is applied quickly improves a firm’s competitiveness (Dar-
roch, 2003). Therefore, due to the ambiguity and uniqueness of knowledge
dissemination and application to a firm, and the fact that knowledge has be-
come integrated into the company processes, this will impact upon a firm’s
creation of sustainable competitive advantages (Day 1994; Grant, 1996;
Fahey & Prusak, 1998; Teece, 1998, 2000).
In the words of Darroch (2005), a firm that can manage these three
knowledge management components well is more innovative. As knowledge
is an intangible asset that is close to impossible for competitors to access
and copy, it the provides company with a greater potential to develop its
own competitive advantage (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995; Foss, 1996).
Technological Innovation
Innovations promote changes. According to Lagrosen (2005), it is the key
that unlocks growth possibilities, creating new markets, ensuring organiza-
tional long-term success and crafting out a competitive edge that is unbeat-
able (Corso, Martini, Paolucci, & Pellegrini, 2001; Du Plessis, 2007). Non-
aka (1994) describes innovation as a process of generating new knowledge
to solve problems. Innovation is defined by Lundvall and Nielson (2007) as
an addition of new knowledge. Chen and Tsou (2007) defined innovation
as the initiation, adoption, and implementation of new ideas or activities,
and it ‘entails identifying and using opportunities to create new products,
services, or work practices’ (Chen & Tsou, 2007).
Three categories of innovations that have received most consideration
(Damanpour, 1991) are administrative and technical, product and process
as well as radical and incremental (Damanpour, 1991; Wan, Ong, & Lee,
2005). Technical innovations refer to improvement towards the products,
services or processes; administrative innovations refer to improvement in
the organizational structure and administrative processes within the organi-
zation which are directly related to management (Damanpour & Evan, 1984;
Lund & Gjerding, 1996).
Product innovations portray new products to the consumer in the mar-
ketplace; while process innovations depict new aspects of the production
or service operations, for instance, materials or equipments used in the op-
eration (Laursen & Foss, 2003; Laursen & Salter, 2006). In this research
study, these two common forms of innovations, also known as technological
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
76 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
innovation (TI) have been adopted (Chuang, 2005; Cooper, 1998; Daman-
pour & Gopalakrishnan, 2001) as the dependent variable for the research
model. The rationales for adopting TI are threefold. Firstly, according to
Cooper (1998), these two forms of innovations have the capability to solve
problems, improve performance, add value and develop the competitive ad-
vantage of a firm; hence it is recognized as the most significant form of
innovation. Secondly, in the creation of new high-end products, many man-
ufacturing firms have been relying heavily on technological innovation to
achieve great results (Bi, Sun, Zheng, & Li, 2006). Thirdly, these two types
of innovations have been related to the changes in the current products and
processes in accordance with the technologies that are available (Roberts,
2007; Bi et al., 2006). Therefore, this research will measure technological
innovation by looking at both the product and process innovations of firms.
Hypothesis Development
Relationship between Knowledge Management
and Technological Innovation
Knowledge or tacit knowledge is an intangible asset – hence is difficult
for the competitors to duplicate – serving as a competitive advantage
for the innovating organizations (Darroch & McNaughton, 2003). Effective
use of knowledge management will produce several advantages, such as
enhancing the firms’ ability to produce more knowledgeable products or
services to the marketplace and introducing new products or services as
well as increasing the firms’ ability to produce. Therefore, knowledge man-
agement plays a pivotal role in promoting innovative performance (Johan-
nessen, Olsen, & Olaisen, 1999; Wiig, 1999; Scarbrough, 2003; Lin & Lee,
2005).
According to Darroch and McNaughton (2003), the relationship between
KM and innovative performance is not well proven. As a result, Darroch
(2005) initiated an empirical study in New Zealand, gathering 443 samples
from medium-to-large organizations. The result turned out to be favourable
with the previous conceptual writings, in that a positive association between
KM and innovation is found. The additional finding, however, failed to justify
a link between innovation and firm’s financial performance.
Another study has been done by Huang and Li (2009) in the attempt to
understand the mediating relationships among social interaction, knowl-
edge management, and innovation performance by conducting a survey
among 176 Taiwanese firms. The finding revealed a positive relationship be-
tween KM with administrative and technical innovation. KM is also preceded
by social interaction, and the authors believe that these two constructs have
an impact towards innovation.
A firm practising KM is said to be a learning organization, in which this
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 77
learning capacity is proven to be more innovative than in average firms
(Lundvall & Nielsen, 2007). Based on the large collection of Danish sam-
ples size (n = 2007), it is found that product innovation increases in prob-
ability as the firms organize themselves to become a higher level learning
organization.
In fact, KM and innovation are well explored but, as pointed out by Dar-
roch and McNaughton (2003), are ‘not well proven’ due to loosely defined
KM; and also, different types of innovation were captured, e. g. product
and service innovation. Therefore, interpretation of the effective knowledge
management towards innovation performance should be taken with caution.
For example, the innovation study by Darroch (2005) includes both radical
and incremental innovation; meanwhile Tseng (2009) utilized a number of
patents registered as the way to measure the firm’s innovation. Another
problem is that most empirical studies do not reveal the types of firms
investigated.
Though such distinction somehow creates inconsistency in comparing
previous studies, it should nevertheless not deter one from making a pos-
sible link between KM and innovation. Instead, using different KM and in-
novation measures will provide greater generalizability. For the purpose of
this study, KM is represented by knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and
application. Extant literature in the light of KM elements towards innovation
is further explored in the next section.
Relationship between Knowledge Acquisition and Technological Innovation
Knowledge acquisition is the process of obtaining knowledge externally and
making it appropriately for succeeding use (Holsapple, 2003). Hence, the
knowledge generated externally will serve as the firm’s competitive advan-
tage. The acquired knowledge will combine with the existing knowledge
to create new knowledge, for instance, new processes (Aranda & Molina-
Fernandez, 2002).
It was proven in many research studies that knowledge acquisition has
a positive relationship with innovations (Li & Calantone, 1998; Darroch &
McNaughton, 2002). Tsai (2001) and Caloghirou, Kastelli, and Tsakanikas
(2004) revealed that absorptive capacity has a positive relationship with the
creation of new products, in which it incorporates knowledge acquisition.
Absorptive capacity indicates the ability of the organization to acquire, in-
corporate information and make use of the information (Cohen & Levinthal,
1990). Organizations which are involved in absorptive capacity will possibly
be able to enhance knowledge acquisition (Jantunen, 2005).
Caloghirou et al. (2004) also examined the relationship between internal
capabilities and sources of external knowledge towards innovative perfor-
mance of the organizations. The result has shown that internal capabilities,
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
78 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
absorptive capacity and sources of external knowledge are essential to in-
crease innovative performance.
However, knowledge acquisition alone may be secondary in promoting in-
novation activities. Studies have proven that knowledge acquisition has an
indirect role in generating innovation performance (Darroch & McNaughton,
2002; Jantunen, 2005). Jantunen (2005) has concluded in his research
that knowledge acquisition and innovative performance do not have a signif-
icant relationship. However, it is believed that firms that practice knowledge
acquisition are predicted to have a positive relationship with innovative per-
formance. Thus, the formulated proposition is as follows:
P1 Knowledge acquisition will positively affect technological innovation.
Relationship between Knowledge Dissemination
and Technological Innovation
Knowledge dissemination, also known as the sharing and transferring of
knowledge, represents the exchange of information, expertise or knowledge
between members within the firm (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002, Lin, 2007).
In other words, knowledge sharing represents the convenience of access-
ing knowledge among the employees. Knowledge sharing contains two por-
tions: knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. Knowledge donating
indicates offering knowledge; whilst knowledge collecting refers to the pro-
cess of collecting knowledge among the employees (Van den Hooff & Van
Weenen, 2004; Lin, 2007). Literatures have identified knowledge sharing as
an important factor to enhance innovation performance (Calantone, Cavus-
gil, & Zhao, 2002; Scarbrough, 2003) since the knowledge sharing process
increases the accessibility of knowledge within the firm.
Good communication and interaction between organizational members
can enhance knowledge sharing (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Hence, the suc-
cess of knowledge sharing depends on the individual’s willingness to share
knowledge (Chen & Huang, 2009), which is used to generate mutual learn-
ing and value creation. Consequently, effective conversion of organizational
members’ knowledge and expertise into explicit products or services (Non-
aka & Konno, 1998; Yang, 2008) stimulates innovations (Chen & Huang,
2009). Firms with effective knowledge gathering and integration will be more
distinctive in nature and pose a greater difficulty for competitors to dupli-
cate, thus upholding the higher firm innovation performance potential (Lin,
2007).
Previous studies of knowledge dissemination and innovations demon-
strate a mixture of results. For example, Hong, Doll, Nahm, and Li (2004)
concluded in their study of the automotive industry that knowledge shar-
ing enhances process performance. Furthermore, studies also found that
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 79
knowledge sharing is positively related to the firms’ capability to innovate
(Calantone et al., 2002; Lin, 2007). However, Inkpen and Dikur (1998)
pointed out that the distance between organizational members may inhibit
the process of learning and sharing knowledge. Thus, network expansion
is necessary for individuals to expose themselves to new ideas. Employ-
ing IT does increase knowledge transfer and sharing among organizational
members, in particular those beyond the formal interaction process (Alavi
& Leidner, 2001).
A study was conducted in the United States involving US manufactur-
ers and services that examines the link between the transferring of tacit
knowledge to the innovation capability. The researchers highlighted that
tacit knowledge transfer is positively related to innovation capability of the
firms. Increase in this capability will increase the innovative performance of
the firms (Cavusgil, Calantone, & Zhao, 2003). In another study focusing
on the flat panel display industries, Spencer (2003) revealed that firms that
practices knowledge sharing have higher innovative performance. These
firms will be able to generate more value to the firm when they share R&D
knowledge together with the innovation system. Lin (2007) concluded that
both components of knowledge sharing, which were knowledge collecting
and donating were positively related to the firm’s innovative capability which
contributed towards innovative performance.
In another survey conducted in New Zealand, involving 443 firms that
contain more than 50 employees, the relationship between knowledge man-
agement and types of innovation are examined, which are radical and incre-
mental innovations. Three components of knowledge management, namely
knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to
knowledge are examined together with innovation. However, knowledge dis-
semination was found to provide indirect support towards innovation (Dar-
roch & McNaughton, 2002). This is further proven by Jantunen’s (2005)
study that surveyed 217 Finnish firms, which concluded that knowledge dis-
semination does not have a significant relationship with innovation perfor-
mance. It was further argued that organizations which implement all the el-
ements in the knowledge management processes will be able to utilize that
knowledge for innovation activities. Besides, Moorman and Miner (1997)
revealed that high memory dispersion, which represents sharing of orga-
nizational knowledge among members, distracts creativity or inhibits new
ideas during a high degree of changes in technological environment. Thus,
knowledge dissemination is expected as one of the knowledge manage-
ment processes that can enhance innovative performance. The following
proposition is formulated:
P2 Knowledge dissemination will positively affect technological innovation.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
80 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
Relationship between Knowledge Application and Technological Innovation
Knowledge application is described as developing the knowledge acquired,
enabling knowledge to be more effective so to increase its worth. According
to Cegarra-Navarro and Martínez-Conesa (2007), it incorporates the infor-
mation acquired from both the acquisition and distribution stages, which
are then integrated into the daily business processes, which will then lead
to an increase in the economic effectiveness and efficiency of a firm’s oper-
ations. In other words, the knowledge that resides in the organization will be
exploited to generate products, services or processes. Hence, knowledge
application will be useful and significant to generate value for the organiza-
tion (Bhatt, 2001).
The application of the knowledge provides a more powerful distinctive
competency for the firms (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Firms that engage in
knowledge application can realize superior performance. Application of the
specialized knowledge can enhance organizational competency by reducing
the possibility of imitation (Grant, 1996). In other words, knowledge appli-
cation produces superior value for the firms, such as firms’ innovation or
profitability (Johannessen et al., 1999; Lin & Lee, 2005).
Darroch (2005) did a business case study in New Zealand for the role of
knowledge management within firms. The purpose of the study is to empir-
ically investigate the linkage between knowledge management, innovation
and the performance of firms. 443 survey data were collected from the
CEOs coming from firms with more than 50 employees. Using structural
equation modelling analysis, the results confirmed that knowledge manage-
ment – one aspect of which is responsiveness to knowledge – positively
predicted innovation, which is defined as resources, routines and capabili-
ties that underpin outputs. This study has thus provided empirical evidence
in that firms with efficient knowledge management ability will utilize their
resources more effectively, and as a result become more innovative and
perform better.
Apart from that, Lin and Lee (2005) revealed that out of three knowl-
edge management processes, only knowledge acquisition and knowledge
application are positively related to innovative performance; that is, tech-
nological innovation. The researchers indicated that knowledge acquisition
and knowledge application have a positive relationship with the adoption
level of e-business. Jantunen (2005) also obtained a similar result in that
the researcher proved that knowledge application plays an important role
in supporting innovative performance. Hence, it can be concluded that the
firms that practices knowledge application are better at promoting innova-
tion performance. The following proposition is formulated:
P3 Knowledge application will positively affect technological innovation.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 81
Conceptual Framework
Given the thorough discussion in the literature review section, we develop a
theoretical framework that examines KM’s influence on technological inno-
vation. Figure 1 describes the relationship between KM practices and tech-
nological innovation. KM, which is the independent variable, is represented
by three dimensions (i. e. knowledge acquisition, dissemination and appli-
cation); while technological innovation, measured from the perspectives of
process and product innovations, is the dependent variable. According to
this model, it is suggested that the greater the presence of KM practices
in organizations, the higher the level of technological innovation is in the
firms.
Implications
Theoretical implication
Given the significance of innovation performance in the research field, there
is an increasing research focusing on the most effective processes that
can enhance the innovative capability of a firm. Although past studies have
proven that there is a relation between KM processes towards innovation
performance, there is inadequate research to prove that a relationship does
exist from the perspective of a developing nation. Hence, a revised model
based on the three KM processes has been suggested in this study to ex-
amine if such processes do contribute to the technological innovation of an
organization. The significance of the three knowledge management dimen-
sions, which are knowledge acquisition, dissemination as well as applica-
tion, have been highlighted and emphasized regarding how such practices
can influence the technological innovation, in particular the product and pro-
cess innovation of a company. It can be concluded that the proposed model
serves as an essential framework for both researchers and practices to
comprehend the impact the knowledge management practices can have on
a firm’s technological innovation.
Practical Implications
From the managerial perspective, this paper provides useful insights to
managers, in particularly for those firms that have initiated the knowledge
management practices. The significance of the three processes of knowl-
edge management has been highlighted regarding how they can influence
a firm’s product and process innovation. First and foremost, knowledge ac-
quired internally or externally, combined with existing knowledge, can help a
firm create new processes and new products. Secondly, knowledge dissem-
ination, which represents the exchanging and sharing of knowledge, does
increase the accessibility of knowledge within a firm and has been recog-
nized in the literature as an important factor to improve a firm’s innovative
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
82 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
capability. Thirdly, the application of knowledge also aims to improve the
technological innovation of a firm, as the utilization of knowledge enables
a firm to generate new products, processes and services that are of signifi-
cant value to a company. The industry can benefit much from this study, as
the practitioners will know precisely which KM practices to focus on and to
apply at the organizational level to enhance the rate of technological inno-
vation. By incorporating an effective set of KM processes, the organizations
can indeed achieve a more desirable outcome in terms of technological
innovation.
Conclusion
As a summary, the proposed research framework of this study demon-
strates the relationship between the contribution of the knowledge man-
agement process and its effect towards an effective technological innova-
tion. Despite this, it is important to note that the extant literature generally
depicts two groups of thinking (as cited in Andreeva & Kianto, 2011), i. e.
knowledge processes directly impacting on innovation, or the nature of in-
novation as part of knowledge-based processes.
The conceptual model can be useful only if the external moderating fac-
tors were identified and addressed, however such effort may be confusing
when the moderating factors exist even within the proposed constructs. For
instance, Andreeva and Kianto (2011) highlighted knowledge creation as
one of the four main knowledge processes in predicting innovation, in which
its innovation is measured as innovation in products/services, processes,
management and marketing. Additionally, knowledge creation appears to
mediate the relationship between other knowledge processes (knowledge
sharing, knowledge acquisition, documentation) and innovation.
In addition to that, other constructs related to knowledge, such as the
knowledge value chain model developed by Holsapple and Singh (2001)
may be considered for future model development as it recognizes five ma-
jor classes of knowledge manipulation activities that take place in a vari-
ety of patterns within KM episodes. The knowledge chain model is divided
into five primary (i. e. knowledge acquisition, selection, generation, assim-
ilation, and emission) and four secondary activity classes (i. e. knowledge
measurement, control, coordination, and leadership), in which they can lead
to changes in a firm’s state of knowledge (Holsapple & Jones, 2004). Fur-
thermore, knowledge selection, as proposed by Hosapple and Jones (2004)
can also be incorporated as a separate predictor variable when developing
a future conceptual model so as to improve on the present model. Knowl-
edge selection is plainly defined as choosing the required knowledge from
internal sources and making it suitable for future use (Hosapple & Jones,
2004). When firms have acquired knowledge internally and externally, cou-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 83
pled with the current knowledge, this can assist the firm in the creation of
new products and processes.
From past literature, the effectual use of knowledge management prac-
tices is the key that unlocks the innovativeness in a firm. The suggested
model is deemed valuable to both practitioners as well as managers as
it will prepare them towards improving the firms’ technological innovation
capability. It is proposed that this framework is to be tested with empiri-
cal data to find out which KM practices contribute the most to the tech-
nological innovation activities of a firm. Possible instruments that can be
used to operationalize the constructs may be obtained from Martinez-Costa
and Jimenez-Jimenez (2009) and Perez Lopez, Peon, and Ordas (2006) for
knowledge management, and Prajogo and Sohal (2003) for technological
innovation. Such findings are expected to provide us with more insights and
deepen our understanding on the relationship between KM processes and
technological innovation. Essentially, such findings can further be used to
gauge the effectiveness of KM in enhancing a firm’s technological innova-
tion level, which are vital elements of an unbeatable firm in the new era.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues [Re-
view]. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2011). Knowledge processes, knowledge-intensity
and innovation: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15(6), 1016–1034.
Aranda, D. A., & Molina-Fernandez, L. M. (2002). Determinants of innovation
through a knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 102(5), 289–296.
Awad, E., & Ghaziri, H. (2004). Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Bartol, K., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role
of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization
Studies, 19(1), 64–76.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A. & Sabherwal, R. (2004). Knowledge man-
agement: Challenges, solutions, and technologies. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Beckman, T. J. (1999). The current state of knowledge management. In J.
Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge management handbook (pp. 1–22). Boca Ra-
ton: CRC Press.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: Examining
the interactions between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68–75.
Bi, K. X., Sun, D. H., Zheng, R. F., & Li, B. Z. (2006). The construction of
a synergetic development system of product innovation and process inno-
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
84 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
vation in manufacturing enterprises. Paper presented at the 13th Inter-
national Conference on Management Science and Engineering (ICMSE),
Lille, France.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm
innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 31(6), 515–524.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and
external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative
performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29–39.
Cantner, U., Joel, K., & Schmidt, T. (2009). The use of knowledge manage-
ment by German innovators. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4),
187–203.
Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer
and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
18(1), 6–21.
Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Martínez-Conesa, E. A. (2007). E-business through
knowledge management in Spanish telecommunications companies. In-
ternational Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 298–314.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practice and
innovation performance – the mediating role of knowledge management
capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104–114.
Chen, J. S., & Tsou, H. T. (2007). Information technology adoption for ser-
vice innovation practices and competitive advantage: The case of financial
firms. Information Research, 12(3). Retrieved from http://InformationR
.net/ir/12-3/paper314.html
Chong, A. Y. L., Chan, F. T. S., Ooi, K. B., & Sim, J. J. (2011). Can Malaysian
firms improve organizational/innovation performance via SCM? Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 111(3), 410–431.
Chong, A. Y. L., & Ooi, K. B. (2008). Adoption of interorganizational system
standards in supply chains: An empirical analysis of RosettaNet stan-
dards. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 529–547.
Chong, A. Y. L., Ooi, K. B., Lin, B., & Teh, P. L. (2010). TQM, knowledge
management and collaborative commerce adoption: A literature review
and research framework. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
21(5), 457–473.
Chuang, L. M. (2005). An empirical study of the construction of measuring
model for organizational innovation in Taiwanese high-tech enterprises.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, 9(2), 299–304.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspec-
tive on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),
128–152.
Cooper, J. R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innova-
tion. Management Decision, 36(8), 493–502.
Corso, M., Martini, A., Paolucci, E., & Pellegrini, L. (2001). Knowledge man-
agement in product innovation: An interpretative review. International Jour-
nal of Management Review, 3(4), 341–352.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 85
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovations: A meta-analysis of effects
of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3),
555–590.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and perfor-
mance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29(3), 392–409.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the product
and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,
38(1), 45–65.
Darroch, J. (2003). Developing a measure of knowledge management be-
haviours and practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 41–54.
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115.
Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2001). Developing a measure of knowledge
management. In N. Bontis (Ed.), Organizational intelligence: The cutting
edge of intellectual capital and knowledge management (pp. 226–242).
Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann/KMCI Press.
Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge
management practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Cap-
ital, 3(3), 210–222.
Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2003). Beyond market orientation: Knowl-
edge management and the innovativeness of New Zealand firms. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 572–593.
Day, G. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29.
Endres, M. L., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K., & Alam, I. (2007). Tacit knowl-
edge sharing, self-efficacy theory, and application to the open source com-
munity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 92–103.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The 11 deadliest sins of knowledge manage-
ment. California Management Review, 40(3), 265–276.
Foss, N. J. (1996). Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm:
Some critical comments. Organization Science, 7(5), 470–476.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(7), 109–122.
Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A., & Rzevski, G. (2002). Towards an integrated approach
to knowledge management: ‘Hard,’ ‘soft’ and ‘abstract’ issues. Knowl-
edge and Process Management, 9(2), 90–102.
Hoang, D. T., Igel, B., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2006). The impact of total
quality management on innovation: Findings from a developing country.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(9), 1092–
1117.
Holsapple, C. (2003). Knowledge and its attributes. In C. Holsapple (Ed.),
Handbook on knowledge management (pp. 165–188). Berlin: Springer.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
86 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2004). Exploring primary activities of the knowl-
edge chain. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 155–174.
Holsapple, C. W., & Singh, M. (2001). The knowledge chain model: Activities
for competitiveness. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 77–98.
Hong, P., Doll, W. J., Nahm, A. Y., & Li, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing in inte-
grated product development. European Journal of Innovation Management,
7(2), 102–112.
Hsu, S. H., & Shen, H. P. (2005). Knowledge management and its relationship
with TQM. Total Quality Management, 16(3), 351–361.
Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2009). The mediating effect of knowledge man-
agement on social interaction and innovation performance. International
Journal of Manpower, 30(3), 285–301.
Inkpen, A., & Dikur, I. (1998). Knowledge management processes and inter-
national joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4), 454–468.
Jantunen, A. (2005). Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative perfor-
mance: An empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management,
8(3), 336–349.
Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Olaisen, J. (1999). Aspects of innovation the-
ory based on knowledge management. International Journal of Information
Management, 19(2), 121–139.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabil-
ities and the replication of technology. Organisation Science, 3(3), 383–
397.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary
theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business
Studies, 24(4), 625–646.
Lagrosen, S. (2005). Customer involvement in new product development, a
relationship marketing perspective. European Journal of Innovation, 8(4),
424–436.
Laursen, K., & Foss, N. (2003). New human resource management practices,
complementarities, and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243–263.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in
explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., Tan, B. I., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2010). A structural analysis
of the relationship between TQM practices and product innovation. Asian
Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(1), 73–96.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence
on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination.
Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.
Liao, S. H., & Wu, C. C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge manage-
ment, organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Sys-
tems with Applications, 37(2), 1096–1103.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empir-
ical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 87
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2005). Impact of organizational learning and knowl-
edge management factors on e-business adoption. Management Decision,
43(2), 171–188.
Lorente, A. R. M., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1999). TQM and business
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2(1), 12–19.
Lund, R., & Gjerding, A. N. (1996). The flexible company, innovation, work
organization and human resource management (DRUID Working Paper No.
96–17). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University, Department of Business
Studies.
Lundvall, B. A., & Nielsen, P. (2007). Knowledge management and innovation
performance. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 207–223.
Mårtensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowledge management as a
management tool. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 204–216.
Martinez-Costa, M., & Jimenez-Jimenez, D. (2009). The effectiveness of TQM,
the key role of organizational learning in small business. International
Small Business Journal, 27(1), 98–125.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on
new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(1), 91–106.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organizational Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘ba:’ Building a foundation
for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Oluic-Vukovic, V. (2001). From information to knowledge: Some reflections on
the origin of the current shifting towards knowledge processing and further
perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 52(1), 54–61.
Perez Lopez, S., Peon, J. M. M., & Ordas, C. J. V. (2006). Human resource
management as a determining factor in organizational learning. Manage-
ment Learning, 3(2), 215–239.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2001). TQM and innovation: A literature review
and research framework. Technovation, 21(9), 539–558.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices,
quality performance, and innovation performance. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.
Roberts, E. B. (2007). Managing invention and innovation. Research-Technolo-
gy Management, 50(1), 35–54.
Roy, P. (2002). Tacit KM in organizations. Journal of American Academy of
Business, 2(1), 28.
Scarbrough, H. (2003). Knowledge management, HRM and innovation pro-
cess. International Journal of Manpower, 42(3), 25–30.
Schulz, M., & Jobe, L. A. (2001). Codification and tacitness as knowledge
management strategies: an empirical exploration. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 12(1), 139–165.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
88 Yin-Kuan Ng, Voon-Hsien Lee, Alex Tun-Lee Foo, and Pei-Lee Gan
Schwartz, D. G., & Te’eni, D. (2000). Tying knowledge to action with kMail.
Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 15(3), 33–39.
Shankar, R., Singh, M. D., Gupta, A., & Narain, R. (2003). Strategic planning
for knowledge management implementation in engineering firms. Work
Study, 52(4), 190–200.
Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. J. R. (2004). Relationship between TQM and inno-
vation: An empirical study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Manage-
ment, 15(5), 394–401.
Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global in-
novation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217–233.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new econ-
omy, markets for know-how and intangible assets. California Management
Review, 40(3), 55–79.
Teece, D. J. (2000). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of
firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 35–54.
Tiago, M. T. B., Couto, J. P. A., Tiago, F. G., & Vieira, A. C. (2007). Knowledge
management: An overview of European reality. Management Research
News, 30(2), 100–114.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects
of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation
and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4(5), 996–1004.
Tseng, C. Y. (2009). Technological innovation and knowledge network in Asia:
Evidence from comparison of information and communication technolo-
gies among six countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
76(5), 654–663.
Vaccaro, A., Parente, R., & Veloso, F. M. (2010). Knowledge management
tools, inter-organizational relationships, innovation and firm performance.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1076–1089.
Van den Hooff, B., & Van Weenen, F. D. L. (2004). Committed to share: Com-
mitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge
and Process Management, 11(1), 13–24.
Wan, D., Ong, C. H., & Lee, F. (2005). Determinants of firm innovation in
Singapore. Technovation, 25(3), 261–268.
Wen, Y. F. (2009). An effectiveness measurement model for knowledge man-
agement. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(5), 363–367.
Wiig, K. M. (1999). What future knowledge management users may expect.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 155–165.
Yang, J. (2008). Managing knowledge for quality assurance: An empirical
study. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 25(2),
109–124.
Yin-Kuan Ng is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Finance (FBF), Uni-
versiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Malaysia. She obtained her master de-
gree in Business Administration (International Business) from the Graduate
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge Management Practices and Technological Innovation 89
School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Her research interest in-
cludes Knowledge Management, Culture, Human Resources Management,
and International Business. ngyinkuan@gmail.com
Voon-Hsien Lee is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Finance (FBF),
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Malaysia. She received her Bachelor’s
degree in Business & Commerce in Monash University Malaysia, majoring in
both Accounting and Economics. She later obtained her Master’s in Business
(Accounting) at Monash University, Australia. Her current research includes
the area of Total Quality Management, Human Resource Management, Orga-
nizational Learning and Knowledge Management. leevoonhsien@gmail.com,
leevh@utar.edu.my
Alex Tun-Lee Foo is a Tutor at the Faculty of Business and Finance (FBF),
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Malaysia. He is currently pursuing
his Master of Philosophy (Social Science) at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,
Malaysia. His research interest includes Accounting Education, and Organiza-
tional Learning. alexfoo@utar.edu.my
Pei-Lee Gan is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FAS),
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Malaysia. She received her BA in
Public Relations from Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia majoring in
Public Relations and minor in Advertising. She later obtained her Master of
Arts (International Communications) at the University of Nottingham Ningbo,
China. Her current research includes the area of Social Media and Non-
Profit Organization, Web 2.0 and Learning, and Positive Youth Development.
ganpl@utar.edu.my
This paper is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012