knowledge management in smes: a literature review
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Knowledge ManagementKnowledge management in SMEs: a literature reviewSusanne Durst Ingi Runar Edvardsson
Article information:To cite this document:Susanne Durst Ingi Runar Edvardsson, (2012),"Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature review", Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp. 879 - 903Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211276173
Downloaded on: 05 November 2014, At: 07:09 (PT)References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3131 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Kevin C. Desouza, Yukika Awazu, (2006),"Knowledge management at SMEs: five peculiarities", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10Iss 1 pp. 32-43Rodney McAdam, Renee Reid, (2001),"SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management: comparisons and contrasts",Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 231-241Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall, (2004),"Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment", Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 44-61
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 215518 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information abouthow 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.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additionalcustomer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) andalso works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Knowledge management in SMEs:a literature review
Susanne Durst and Ingi Runar Edvardsson
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to review research on knowledge management in small and
medium-sized enterprises to identify gaps in the current body of knowledge, which justify futureresearch directions.
Design/methodology/approach – The study consists of a systematic review of 36-refereed empirical
articles on knowledge management and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Findings – The areas of knowledge management implementation, knowledge management
perception, and knowledge transfer are relatively well researched topics; whereas those of
knowledge identification, knowledge storage/retention and knowledge utilisation are poorlyunderstood. Given the prevalence of small and medium-sized enterprises there is a strong need for
more research on this important topic. The future research directions proposed by the authors may helpto develop a greater understanding of knowledge management in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Research limitations/implications – By only using the ProQuest database this study may not have
allowed a complete coverage of all empirical articles in the field of knowledge management in small andmedium-sized enterprises. Yet, it is believed that the findings provide a valuable understanding of the
current situation in this research field. The study proposes a number of future research directions, whichmay stimulate more intensive research in this important field.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no systematic literature review on this topic
has previously been published in academic journals.
Keywords Knowledge management, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Systematic review,Entrepreneurship, Research
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Eleven years ago McAdam and Reid (2001) wrote that knowledge management (KM), like
other management practices, was invented and developed in large organizations to be
applied later on in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Has this been the case? Has
the knowledge management field directed its attention to small and medium-sized
enterprises as well? The paper’s intention is to delve into this matter and detect what has
happened in the field of KM in SMEs since 2001. This would help to highlight the current
understanding of the topic and to identify any gaps.
In the extant literature different approaches about how knowledge management may evolve
are available (e.g. Wong and Aspinwall, 2004; Egbu et al., 2005; Hutchinson and Quintas,
2008). However, as Beesley and Cooper (2008) rightly point out, uniform definitions of the
building blocks of KM are lacking. KM research has tended to focus on processes and
structures within organizations, such as knowledge transfer from tacit to explicit,
organizational culture and learning, and technologies for knowledge storage and sharing
to enhance productivity and sales, reduce cost, or increase innovation and quality (Kluge
et al., 2001; Quintas, 2002; O’Dell et al., 2003; Edvardsson, 2009; Jashapara, 2011). To
explore extant literature, in this paper KM is defined as the processes and structures
DOI 10.1108/13673271211276173 VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012, pp. 879-903, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 879
Susanne Durst is based at
the Institute for
Entrepreneurship,
University of Liechtenstein,
Vaduz, Principality of
Liechtenstein. Ingi Runar
Edvardsson is based in the
School of Business,
University of Iceland,
Reykjavik, Iceland.
Received: February 2012Revised: May 2012Accepted: May 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
provided in SMEs to support different knowledge processes, such as transfer, storage and
creation. In this paper, the definition of SMEs provided by the European Commission (2005)
is adopted which stipulates that micro enterprises have fewer than ten employees, a
maximum turnover of e2 million; small enterprises have 10-49 employees, a turnover of less
than e10 million, and medium-sized firms have 50-250 employees, and a turnover of no more
than e50 million.
Knowledge has become the most important strategic factor in corporate operations
(Spender, 1996), as it is associated with firms’ capabilities to achieve a competitive
advantage (Teece, 2001). Accordingly, companies have to find ways to adequately manage
this aspect, which poses a particular challenge for smaller firms as they usually lack the
resources needed to make full usage of their knowledge stock. Knowledge management
has been studied extensively. However, there is a tendency to focus on large businesses
and neglect SMEs. Against the background of SMEs’ significance to many countries, this
situation can be assessed as unsatisfactory. Previous studies have shown that in many
SMEs there is an absence of systematic knowledge management (McAdam and Reid, 2001;
Wong and Aspinwall, 2005) and if measures are implemented, they may be regarded as less
sophisticated. However, this does not mean that suitable approaches to tackle knowledge
management problems are less significant to SME success. Rather it may be argued that a
suitable handling of knowledge is a particularly important factor as to whether a firm survives
or not.
Keeping this in mind, the aim of this paper is to review research on KM within smaller firms to
identify gaps in the field justifying further research activities as well as to clarify areas where
no future research is needed for the time being. According to this aim, the following research
questions are formulated:
B Which KM topics are researched and which are not?
B Which were the main findings of the studies?
B Which methods were used?
B How does research handle the particular challenges small firms are facing regarding
knowledge management?
The paper is organised as follows: In section two the literature related to the research
objective is briefly discussed. Section three then describes the method employed to tackle
the research problem. Next, the results are presented, and in the final section, the
conclusion and implications of the study are laid out.
2. Knowledge management in small and medium-sized enterprises
Many smaller firms face resource constraints (Jarillo, 1989), and existing resources must
consequently be used with care, as erroneous decisions will have more serious
complications than would be the case in large businesses (Amelingmeyer and
Amelingmeyer, 2005). For example, small firms have a flat structure and an organic,
free-floatingmanagement style that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. They tend
to be informal, non-bureaucratic and there are few rules. Control tends to be based on the
owner’s personal supervision and formal policies tend to be absent in SMEs (Daft, 2007).
In addition, in many smaller firms the owner-managers take on a central position (Bridge
et al., 2003). In such an environment it is not uncommon that the processes of business
planning and decision-making are limited to only one person (Culkin and Smith, 2000). This
centrality also signifies that those people in particular are responsible for recognising the
benefits of knowledge management to support the firm’s operations. However, SMEs’
day-to-day business operations specifically require close attention (Hofer and Charan,
1984). This very often results in situations where insufficient time is available for strategic
issues. This in conjunction with a lack of financial resources and expertise (Bridge et al.,
2003) frequently results in most knowledge being kept in the minds of the owner and some
key employees rather than physically stored or shared through substitution arrangements
PAGE 880 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
(Wong and Aspinwall, 2004). Thus knowledge sharing in SMEs may happen in corridor
conversations (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004) or at organization members’ birthday parties
(Durst and Wilhelm, 2012).
With a view to the above, SMEs face unique KM challenges which are distinct from those of
their larger business counterparts. Reviewing the literature related to small businesses
suggests that scholars tend to apply approaches originally developed for larger firms rather
than SMEs. This procedure involves the risk that smaller firms may lose their distinct
characteristics and thus their capability to act. Previous research on KM in SMEs has shown
many differences compared to larger firms. Most SMEs have no explicit policy targeted at
strategic KM, and they tend to treat KM on an operational level – at the level of systems and
instruments. SMEs tend to place more emphasis on management of tacit knowledge than
larger firms, and communication channels in SMEs are more likely to be between firms,
rather than internal to the organisation. The SME sector appears to be less advanced in
terms of knowledge construction, having a more mechanistic approach to this concept and
relying less on social interaction. Also, the SME sector is weaker than larger firms on formal
and systematic discussion in order to share tacit knowledge, since larger firms are stronger
in the implementation of formal KM strategy. Most SMEs adopt short-term unstructured ways
towards organisational learning, andmanagers in smaller firms tend to prevent the outflow of
knowledge from the company and thereby block knowledge sharing (Beijerse, 2000; Matlay,
2000; McAdam and Reid, 2001; Corso et al., 2003; Bozbura, 2007; Hutchinson and Quintas,
2008).
Activities related to knowledge management, such as knowledge sharing, are
time-consuming and require a certain level of trust. Slow staff turnover, as found in many
SMEs (Durst and Wilhelm, 2011), can positively contribute to those efforts.
What is often overlooked when researching SMEs is the issue of heterogeneity (Curran and
Blackburn, 2001). SMEs are difficult to compare, making the notion of one single knowledge
management approach almost impossible.
In this paper it is asserted, as others have (e.g. Wiig, 1997; McAdam and Reid, 2001; Wong
and Aspinwall, 2004), that approaches to knowledge identification, knowledge creation,
knowledge storage, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge application have a profound
impact on the firm’s ability to address current and future business challenges and therefore
its survival. Figure 1 depicts this situation in relation to SME characteristics.
Knowledge identification focuses on activities that help to identify the knowledge necessary
for the company, as well as sources to acquire this knowledge. This activity also comprises
the identification of already existing knowledge (Egbu et al., 2005). Knowledge creation
refers to ways, which focus on the construction of new knowledge. Knowledge creation in
companies can be supported by, for instance, giving organizational members time to
experiment (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). Knowledge is not only internally produced,
external knowledge sources need to be considered as well. Given their natural limitations,
SMEs are often forced to make use of the latter (Egbu et al., 2005). Knowledge
storage/retention embraces processes such as the documentation and codification of
knowledge to build up an organizational knowledge base and to reduce any forms of
knowledge loss due to retirement, departures of organization members and so forth. This
KM task might pose a real challenge for SMEs, as most knowledge is kept in the minds of the
owner and some key employees rather than physically stored or shared through substitution
arrangements (Wong and Aspinwall, 2004).
‘‘ Three areas of KM seem to be relatively well researched inSMEs: KM implementation, KM perception, and knowledgetransfer. ’’
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 881
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Knowledge transfer comprises measures relating to knowledge transfer and knowledge
sharing (Egbu et al., 2005). The distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995) is useful regarding this KM process, as the nature of the two types of
knowledge is likely to influence the ease of the transfer process. Lack of absorptive capacity
and low quality relationships between the individuals concerned represent other possible
hindrances of knowledge transfer (Szulanski, 1996) that need to be considered. Finally, the
usage or application of knowledge (knowledge utilisation) has to follow, as it is the only way
to create value within the company (Comite Europeen de Normalisation, 2004).
3. Methodology of literature review
In the review process, the authors adopted the principles of a systematic review as
recommended by Jesson et al. (2011) namely:
B Mapping the field through a scoping review.
B Comprehensive search.
B Quality assessment.
B Data extraction.
B Synthesis.
B Write up.
First, a research plan was developed comprising the research questions of interest, the
keywords, and a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The paper’s aim was to determine the
Figure 1 Size and KM process factors influencing SME survival
Survival
Knowledgemanagement
processes
SMEcharacteristics
Lack of resources
Flexibility
Smallness
Less formal
Lower turnoverrates
Knowledgeidentification
Knowledgecreation
Knowledgestorage/retention
Knowledgetransfer
Knowledgeutilisation
PAGE 882 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
current status of research in knowledge management in SMEs. The research questions
formulated, as outlined above, were:
B Which KM topics are well researched and which are not?
B Which were the main findings of the studies?
B Which methods were used?
With regard to the specific challenges SMEs face as a consequence of their resource
limitations, an additional question was posed:
B How does the research handle the particular challenges small firms are facing regarding
knowledge management?
As keywords it was decided to use KM and SMEs. To help answer the research questions
inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified. The inclusion criteria were: publications in
the period 2001-2011, empirical research papers, peer reviewed, English language, SME
focus, focus on KM in general and the KM processes as depicted in Figure 1, and ProQuest
database. Papers published prior 2001, papers dealing with co-operation and (regional)
clusters, grey literature such as reports and non-academic research, other languages than
English, and other databases than ProQuest represented exclusion criteria. Additionally, an
excel data sheet was produced consisting of key aspects related to the research aim. In the
given case these were: name of author(s), year of publication, research aim/objectives,
theoretical perspective/framework, method, main findings, and name of the journal.
Second, once all relevant issues had been specified, both authors accessed ProQuest and
looked for suitable articles. The initial search using the keywords knowledge management
and SMEs resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome in terms of the number of publications. So it
was decided to replace ‘‘knowledge management’’ by ‘‘KM’’ which in combination with
SMEs resulted in 398 hits. In order to make sure that the review included all papers from
relevant journals, the highest ranked KM journals according to Serenko and Bontis (2009)
were also included. These were the Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of
Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management Research and Practice. In addition, three
international ISI-journals in the field of small businesses were reviewed. These were the
International Small Business Journal, Journal of Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. The inclusion of these journals resulted in
additional 697 hits.
Third, both authors individually worked through the abstracts and, if relevant, further
sections of the articles to make sure that they actually covered the pre-defined scope. This
procedure yielded a final selection of 36 articles, which fulfilled the criteria set and thus
represented the basis for analysis.
Fourth, the 36 papers were divided among the two authors; thus each author read 18
papers. Subsequently both authors entered the relevant data regarding the research aim in
the excel sheet. Then both authors jointly went through each data entry and discussed the
content. In the case of possible reservations on the part of the author who had not read the
paper, both authors went through the paper in question. This approach helped to reduce the
danger that the analysis and thus the conclusion drawn might not be consistent.
Fifth, then the final excel sheet was jointly discussed. This discussion enabled the authors to
categorize the findings under KM themes, which, in turn, helped to clarify what is known
‘‘ The [SME] body of knowledge regarding the topics ofknowledge identification, knowledge storage/retention, andknowledge utilisation is rather poor. ’’
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 883
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
about knowledge management in SMEs and to which KM areas the body of knowledge is
limited.
Sixth, the final stage of the review process was devoted to writing up the findings.
4. Presentation of findings
4.1 What we know about knowledge management perception
Knowledge management perception represents a KM topic of higher interest; a summary of
the literature in this area is in Table I. This is not surprising as the perception of the merits of
knowledge management will influence any implementation activities. The data material
given indicates that knowledge management is a topic of relevance to all types of firms. Yet,
due to resource constraints SMEs face, the actual design of knowledge management
among them is completely different from what is found in larger resource-rich companies.
The table clearly shows that after McAdam and Reid’s (2001) paper it took some time until
more research on knowledge management perception emerged. From 2005 there seemed
to be an increasing interest in the topic. Yet this interest appears to have ended in 2008.
Possibly scholars active in the field of KM in SMEs have recognized that there are not
enough opportunities to position this type of research in high-ranked journals. Given the
publication pressure many scholars are facing they may have turned to other more
‘‘promising’’ research fields.
The majority of studies reviewed signify that knowledge management is perceived positively
among SMEs. The study by Bozbura (2007) who analyzed knowledge management
practices in Turkish SMEs is, however, an exception. The results show that Turkish SMEs are
rather sceptical regarding knowledge sharing, regardless of whether it addresses the
external or the internal business environment. Knowledge sharing seems to be viewed more
as a threat than an advantage the individuals concerned could benefit from.
Pillania (2008a), who studied the strategic component of knowledge management in SMEs
from India, demonstrated an emphasis on customer-focused knowledge among Indian
automotive component manufacturers, underlying the close links between SMEs and their
customers as is often found with this category of firms (e.g. Mugler, 1998; Malinen and
Stenholm, 2002). Concerning SMEs‘ strategic approaches Phillina stressed that Indian
SMEs need to incorporate the benefits of KM more strongly in order to secure their
sustainable competitiveness.
Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews dominate the research field. Few authors
(e.g. McAdam and Reid, 2001; Salojarvi et al., 2005) used a mix of methods. Sources of
information were primarily professionals, technical staff, owners and managers of studied
organizations. In terms of the countries studied, a relatively broad mix can be found,
e.g. Turkey, Iran, India, Lithuania, Finland and Scotland.
4.2 What we know about knowledge management implementation
The subject of knowledge management implementation is another KM topic relatively widely
examined (Table II). The findings illustrate that the SMEs reviewed use different ways to
handle the aspect of knowledge management implementation. This raises the issue of
heterogeneity (Curran and Blackburn, 2001) which must be taken into consideration when
researching and discussing SMEs. Keeping this in mind eliminates the likelihood of a
general knowledge management implementation approach in SMEs.
‘‘ Existing empirical literature provides only fragmentedinsights into KM in SMEs. ’’
PAGE 884 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
ILiterature
onknowledgemanagementperception
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
McAdam
and
Reid
2001
Aim
edatcomparingperceptio
ns
ofKM
inboth
SMEsandlarge
organisatio
ns
Dim
ensionsofKM
Rese
archsu
rvey(resp
onse
sfrom
49SMEs,
46largeorganisatio
ns
andeightqualitativeworksh
ops)
invo
lvingamixture
ofSMEsand
largefirms,
and
facilitators/rese
archers
TheSMEse
ctorappearedto
beless
adva
ncedin
theKM
area,havingamore
mechanistic
approachto
knowledge
constructio
nandrelyingless
onso
cial
interactio
n
Egbu,Hariand
Renuka
ppa
2005
Inve
stigatedtheim
portanceof
knowledgeamongke
yemploye
es
inorganisatio
ns,
ofkn
owledge
with
inorganisatio
ns,andtheroleof
customercapita
landkn
owledge,
andtheim
pactofthese
issu
eson
thesu
stainable
competitive
adva
ntageofSMEs
Lite
rature
onKM
inSMEs
Pilotstudyinvo
lving12
profess
ionals
from
11constructio
norganisatio
nsin
Glasg
ow,base
donse
mi-structuredinterviews
Highlig
hts
therole
ofstrategies,
tools
and
techniqueswhichmightbeofassistance
Keogh,Mulvie
andCooper
2005
Aim
edatstudyingso
ftware-related
companies
N/a
Seriesofse
mi-structured
interviewswith
20company
owners/directors
Anumberoffactors
hinderthedeve
lopment
ofmanagerialtalentin
thesa
mple:sm
all
size
,lackofreso
urces,
ava
ilability
of
personnelneededto
undertake
deve
lopmentprogrammes,
andsh
ortageof
specialistHRM
exp
ertise
Salojarvi,Furu
andSve
iby
2005
Exa
minedtherelatio
nsh
ipbetween
sustainable
salesgrowth
andKM
activities
Lite
rature
onKM
andSMEs,
and
SMEgrowth
Combinatio
nofstandardized
questionnairefrom
108Finnish
SMEsandse
mi-structured
interviewswith
tenoutofthe108
companies
Higherleve
lsofKM
maturity
were
foundto
correlate
positively
with
long-term
sustainable
growth
Nunes,
Annansingh,
Eaglestoneand
Wake
field
2006
TobetterunderstandcurrentKM
awareness
,perceptio
nsand
requirements
inSMEs
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
ingeneral
Interpretivistapproach,
invo
lvementoftwokn
owledge
intensive
SMEs,
interviewswith
CEOs,
operatio
nalmanagers
and
technicalstaff
KM
inSMEstendsto
happenin
aninform
al
way,rarely
supportedbypurpose
lydesignedICTsy
stems
(contin
ued)
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 885
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
I
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Bozb
ura
2007
Aim
edatexa
miningse
nior
managers’perceptio
nsaboutthe
extentto
whichKM
components
contribute
tothesu
ccess
ofSMEs
inTu
rkey
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
todeve
lop
aframework
tobetested
Surveyapproach,questionnaire
sentto
150SMEs(76usa
ble
resp
onse
sreceived)
TurkishSMEsdonotliketo
share
knowledge
eve
nwith
inthecompany.Themanagers
are
afraid
oflosingcontrolofthekn
owledge.
Sincethemanagers
close
theinform
atio
nchannels,incomingkn
owledgeis
limite
das
well
Jafari,Fathian,
Akh
ava
nand
Hosn
avi
2007
Exp
loredKM
andlearningfeatures
inIraniansm
allandmedium-sized
enterprise
s
Lite
rature
onKM
inSMEs
Structuredsu
rvey,questionnaires
sentto
26IranianSMEs(senior
managers,departmentmanagers
andpersonnelinvo
lvedin
decision-m
aking),136resp
onse
sreceived
There
isnorelatio
nsh
ipbetween
organizatio
nalsize
andtheneedforKM.
Most
SMEsin
Iranare
stilltraditional.Their
schoolofthoughtbelongsto
theindustrial
ageandtheireffortsare
notalig
nedto
the
knowledgeera’srequirements
Radze
vicience
2008
Analyse
dtherole
ofKM
inSMEsin
Lith
uania
bylookinginto
ITand
knowledgeso
urces
Lite
rature
relatedto
innova
tionand
competitiveness
Questionnaires,
42SMEsin
Lith
uania
(Email,phone,anddirect
interviewing)
Companiesin
thestudyare
aware
ofKM,its
process
esandadva
ntages,
butapplicatio
nis
rare
Pillania
2008a
Studiedstrategic
issu
esin
KM
inSMEsin
India,with
particular
referenceto
theautomotive
componentse
ctor
Lite
rature
onKM
strategyandthe
role
oftopmanagement
Surveyapproach,three
questionnairesaddress
ing30
internatio
nalexp
erts,
30Indian
exp
ertsand36automotive
componentmanufacturers
(ACMs)
KM
strategyis
neith
erwelldefin
ednor
alig
nedwith
theove
rallfirm
strategyin
the
majority
ofthefirmsunderstudy.To
pmanagementis
more
activeandsu
pportive
inKM
initiativesin
internatio
nalACMs
PAGE 886 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
IILiterature
onknowledgemanagementim
plementation
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Shelto
n2001
Discuss
edhow
theowner
managerofasm
allcompany
introducedtheideaofKM
tothe
firm
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
(ingeneral
andin
SMEs)
Base
dontheprinciplesofactio
nrese
arch.Single
case
study,
ove
rallperiodofstudy:
January
1998to
July
1999,unstructured
andse
mi-structuredinterviews
with
managers
andstaff
Indicatedhow
tomake
betteruse
of
employe
es’
exp
ertise.Draws
conclusionsforthefacilitator/helperrole
inSMEs
Wongand
Asp
inwall
2005
Inve
stigatedcritic
alsu
ccess
factors
foradoptin
gKM
inSMEs
Lite
rature
relatedto
critic
al
success
factors
(CSFs)
Postalsu
rvey,questionnairesse
nt
to300SMEsin
theUKand100
contributors
(i.e.academics,
consu
ltants
andpractitioners
inthe
KM
field).Resp
onse
sreceived
from
72SMEsand18contributors.
Deve
lopedaprioritisedlistofCSFs;
ranking:
1.Managementleadership
andsu
pport
2.Cultu
re3.Strategyandpurpose
Sparrow
2005
Exa
minedtheexistenceofd
ifferent
approachestowardsKM
deve
lopmentin
SMEs.
Lite
rature
onKM
inSMEs
Surveyamong33firmsin
theUK
(West
Midlands),clusteranalysis
Fourdistin
ctconfig
uratio
nsofpractic
es
were
identified.These
were
theKM
practic
esof‘‘u
nengaged’’business
es,
‘‘comprehensive
KM
practic
e’’
business
es,
‘‘knowledgeownership
oriented’’business
esand‘‘learningand
co-productio
noriented’’business
es
Deso
uza
and
Awazu
2006
Discuss
edfiv
epeculiaritie
sabout
KM
practic
esatSMEs
N/A
Semi-structuredinterviewswith
owners
andmanagers
of25SMEs
SMEsdomanagekn
owledgedifferently
comparedto
largerbusiness
es.
SMEs
have
totake
theirreso
urceconstraints
into
consideratio
nandfin
dcreativeways
aroundthese
limita
tions
Merono-C
erdan,
Lopez-Nicolasand
Sabater-Sanchez
2007
Measu
redKM
implementatio
nand
determ
inedKM
strategy
Review
ofKM
instruments
andKM
strategies
Data
collectedfrom
Austrianand
SpanishSMEs(teneach)
Show
theappropriateness
ofusing
instruments
fortheanalysisofKM
strategies;
somefirm
characteristics,
i.e.industry,natio
nalcultu
re,size
and
ageactascontin
gentfactors.
Personalisatio
nstrategyispredominant
MassaandTe
sta
2009
Prese
ntedthreecase
studies
demonstratin
ghow
ItalianSMEs
apply
differentstrategic
optio
ns
Reso
urce-base
dtheory,Milesand
Snow’sstrategic
types
Semi-structuredinterviews,
fieldwork
inthreeItalianfirms
Highlig
htthedifferencesregarding
human,relatio
nalandstructuralcapita
lconcerningthreestrategies(defender,
analyse
randprosp
ectors)
FinkandPloder
2009a
Identificatio
nofmethodsandtools
supportingKM
inSMEs
Lite
rature
onkn
owledgeprocess
models
Exp
ertinterviewswith
36CIO
sand
CEOs
SMEsin
Austria,Switzerlandand
Liechtenstein
are
satisfie
dwith
four
knowledgeprocesses:
knowledge
identificatio
n;kn
owledgeacquisition;
knowledgedistributio
nandkn
owledge
prese
rvatio
n.Prese
ntabalanced
system
fortechnicalandso
cial
knowledgeapplicatio
n–TSSTModel
FinkandPloder
2009b
IdentifiedSMEs’
needsregarding
KM
toolkits
Lite
rature
onKM
andSMEs
Onlinequestionnaireamong219
SMEsin
Germ
ansp
eaking
countries;40percentresp
onse
rate
Sim
ilarfin
dingsasin
theotherpaper
(2009a)
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 887
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
The year 2005 seemed to represent the starting point for more intensive research into the
topic of knowledgemanagement implementation. An emphasis on structured interviews as a
method is perceptible; with the exception of Shelton (2001) who based his study on an action
research approach. Again, the main source of information stems from managers and
specialists, with only one study (Shelton, 2001) relying on contributions from staff members.
In terms of the countries the focus is onWestern Europe, i.e. the UK, Germany, Spain, Austria
and Italy.
Furthermore, three articles were identified that refer to both knowledge management
perception and knowledge management implementation (Table III).
The papers imply that SMEs are involved in KM activities, yet in order to better understand
and discuss these activities, researchers in the field may consider the application of a more
target group oriented language. This means that scholars should try to discuss KM with a
stronger reference to SME specific needs rather than from a prescriptive point of view.
Regarding the benefits of KM, Edvardsson’s (2009) study stressed the direct link between
KM activities and increased productivity and/or new product development.
4.3 What we know about knowledge identification
Concerning this topic only one paper was identified (Table IV). This is surprising, against the
background that in order to effectively manage company knowledge one needs to
understand what types of knowledge are provided and their respective relevance to the firm.
To turn the argument on its head, the paucity of sources would appear to indicate that the
focus of knowledge management should be limited to very specific knowledge.
The paper by Durst and Wilhelm (2011) was based on a research design involving only one
German firm. The findings are thus limited in terms of their transferability, yet the paper
addresses the relevant issue of making a distinction between specific knowledge which is
difficult to imitate or rare within the firm and knowledge that is easily accessible or
reproducible. In terms of the informants involved almost all were either members of the
management board or of the second level of management.
4.4 What we know about knowledge creation/acquisition
The topic of knowledge creation and/or acquisition refers to ways, which focus on the
construction of new knowledge. This new knowledge can be generated internally or
acquired from outside the firm. Due to their natural limitations, SMEs are particularly forced
to use external knowledge creation sources (Egbu et al., 2005). The findings underline the
meaning of learning within this process (Table V). Yet, Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst (2006)
draw particular attention to a firm’s ability of unlearning as critical precondition to new
knowledge.
This topic seems to be of ongoing interest among scholars. With regard to the methods,
questionnaires appear to be viewed as most suitable.
Another article was identified (Table VI) that covers the processes of knowledge creation,
knowledge transfer and knowledge utilisation. In the context of the implementation of an
e-business system, the authors stress that the three processes need to be addressed
holistically rather than separately.
4.5 What we know about knowledge storage/retention
The topic of knowledge storage/retention seems to be neglected in the field of KM in SMEs
confirming Hislop’s (2009) findings regarding KM in general. The literature search resulted in
only one article linked to the topic (Table VII). Even though the article by Durst and
Gueldenberg (2010) did not have a primary focus on knowledge management and
knowledge storage/retention, respectively, their study underlines the particular meaning of
knowledge retention in terms of keeping highly skilled individuals in the case of managerial
succession, thus highlighting the danger of knowledge attrition caused by this event.
PAGE 888 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
IIILiterature
onknowledgemanagementperceptionandim
plementation
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Edva
rdss
on
2006
Deve
lopmentofkn
owledgeonKM
inSMEs(focusingonIcelandic
SMEs)
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
inSMEs
Questionnairese
ntto
Chief
Exe
cutivesofIcelandic
SMEs,
n¼
265
Icelandic
firmsreve
alan
unsy
stematic
approachofsh
aring
andutilisingkn
owledge;few
have
aKM
strategy;
use
ofunso
phistic
ated
ICTtechnologies
Hutchinso
nand
Quintas
2008
Addressedtheissu
esofKM
inSMEs
andthedistin
ctio
nbetweenform
al
andinform
alKM
process
es
Lite
rature
relatedto
competitive
adva
ntageandKM
In-depth,se
mi-structuredinterviews
with
owner-managers/m
anaging
directors
of13SMEs
KM
managementis
nottheprese
rve
oflargebusiness
es.
SMEsdo
inform
alKM,butoftenin
structured
anddelib
erate
ways
.SomeSMEsdo
form
alK
M.C
oncepts
andvo
cabulary
ofKM
are
startingto
filterinto
SME
usa
ge
Edva
rdss
on
2009
Exa
minedwhetherthepopularity
of
KM
inSMEsin
Icelandhas
decrease
dordeclinedsince2004
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
inSMEs
Questionnairese
ntto
Chief
Exe
cutivesofIcelandic
SMEs(2007),
repetitionofaprevioussu
rvey
(2004),
n¼
224
KM
isnotlosinggroundamongSMEs
inIcelandin
2004-2007.Manymore
firmshave
noKM
strategycompared
to2004
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 889
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
IVLiterature
onknowledgeidentification
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Durstand
Wilhelm
2011
Exa
minedhow
amedium-sized
enterprise
characterise
dbyslow
turnove
ridentifiesandmanagesits
critic
alkn
owledge
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM
inSMEsand
knowledgeloss
Qualitativeapproach,ase
riesof
in-depth
interviewswith
seve
norganizatio
nmembers
Firm
members
are
aware
ofthe
potentia
ldangerofkn
owledge
attritio
n,ye
tcertain
constraints
(missingtim
e,organizatio
nalstructure
etc)apparently
hamperthem
from
changingthis
situatio
n
PAGE 890 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
VLiterature
onknowledgecreation/acquisition
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Hari,EgbuandKumar
2005
Focuse
donkn
owledgecapture
inSMEsin
theconstructio
nindustry
Lite
rature
ontacitandexp
licit
knowledge
Semi-structuredinterviewswith
51
profess
ionals
from
26different
constructio
nfirms
Lackofawareness
ofcomplex
issu
esassociatedwith
aneffective
knowledgecapture
process
Cegarra-N
ava
rroand
Dewhurst
2006
Exa
minedtherelativeim
portanceof
sharedorganisatio
nalcontext
on
unlearningandits
effectonthe
creatio
nofIC
Lite
rature
relatedto
unlearning,
sharedorganisatio
nalcontext
and
IC
Postalquestionnairesu
rveyto
inve
stigate
139SMEsin
the
Spanishoptometryse
ctor
Companiesneedto
support
unlearningasapriorstep,
otherw
iseunlearningdoesnothave
anysignificante
ffecto
nthecreatio
nofIC
Ambrosiniand
Bowman
2008
Analyse
dhow
causa
lmappingcan
help
tosu
rfacetacitkn
owledgein
akn
owledge-intensive
firm
Reso
urce-base
dtheory,theories
relatedto
tacitkn
owledge
Qualitativecase
studyin
one
company.Causa
lmapping
Thefirm
benefitedfrom
the
engagement;demonstrate
how
causa
lmappingcanbeause
ful
toolforcapturingkn
owledge
Pillania
2008b
Studiedkn
owledgecreatio
nand
categoriza
tionin
IndianSMEsin
the
automotivecomponents
sector
Lite
rature
onkn
owledge
categoriza
tionandkn
owledge
creatio
n
Surveyamong30internatio
nal
exp
erts,
30Indianexp
erts,
and48
auto
componentmanufacturers
inIndia
Theim
portanceofnew
knowledge
isackn
owledged.Indianand
internatio
nalautomotive
components
manufacturers
paid
little
attentio
nto
knowledge
ava
ilable
throughgove
rnment
institu
tionsandindustry
ass
ociatio
ns.
Thefirmsinve
stlittle
inR&D
SoonandZainol
2011
Exa
minedtheim
portanceofthe
knowledgecreatio
nprocess,by
lookinginto
KM
enablers
suchas
learningandT-sh
apedsk
ills
Lite
rature
relatedto
KM,learning
andinnova
tion
Questionnaire;110resp
onse
s(10.24percent);regression
analysis;
Malays
ia
LearningandT-sh
apedsk
illsare
positively
relatedto
thekn
owledge
creatio
nprocess;theycontribute
toorganizatio
nalcreativity
and
perform
ance
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 891
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
VILiterature
onknowledgecreation/acquisition,transferandutilisation
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Cegarra-N
ava
rroand
Martınez-Conesa
2007
Aim
edatdesc
ribingamodelthat
exa
mineshow
KM
influ
encesthe
adoptio
nofe-business
,particularlyin
SMEs
Lite
rature
onKM
phase
s(knowledgeacquisition,
knowledgesh
aringand
knowledgeapplicatio
n)and
e-business
Survey,107SMEsin
theSpanish
telecommunicatio
nsse
ctor
Toim
plemente-business
systems,
companiesneedto
provideand
supportkn
owledgeacquisition,
sharing,andapplicatio
nasprior
steps
PAGE 892 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
VII
Literature
onknowledgestorage/retention
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
tical
pers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Durstand
Gueldenberg
2010
Exp
loredthose
intangible
ass
ets
that
are
regardedasattractivefrom
the
viewpoints
ofexternalsu
ccess
ors
Lite
rature
oncompany
success
ionandIC
Mixedmethodsapproach:online
questionnaireandin
depth
interviews
Intangible
ass
ets
playanim
portant
role
inexternalsu
ccess
ors’
decision-m
aking.In
particular,fiv
efactors
are
crucial;ke
yemploye
es,
knowledgeretentio
n,brand,partners,
andto
aless
erdegreecorporate
cultu
re
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 893
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
This study was based on a mixed methods approach which allowed the authors to bring in
different perspectives.
4.6 What we know about knowledge transfer
Compared to the previous topic, the aspect of knowledge transfer has gathered some
research attention (Table VIII). The findings underline the critical relevance of this KM
process in terms of SME business operations and thus competitiveness.
Taking the nature of knowledge transfer into consideration, the research methods used
reveal a stronger emphasis on qualitative approaches. The topic appears to be of high
interest in the UK.
4.7 What we know about utilisation
Research on knowledge utilisation seems to be neglected (Table IX). This should be
regarded as unsatisfactory as only this process generates value within the firm. Knowledge
not used is thus lost knowledge. Both articles confirm the role of knowledge as a driver of
innovation, enhancing customer satisfaction as well as escalating profits and productivity.
These researches were based on a survey approach.
5. Discussion – what we do not know about knowledge management in small andmedium-sized enterprises
Based on the discussion above, it may be concluded that an initial understanding of
knowledge management in SMEs has been developed. The evidence provided above,
however, also reveals that this understanding is rather fragmented.
5.1 Knowledge management perception and knowledge management implementation
Both topics are highly researched, compared to the other issues analyzed. Yet what seems
missing is a distinction between the different types of SMEs, namely micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises. So far, both issues have been discussed from an overall SME
perspective; this approach, however is risky considering the heterogeneity found among
those firms (Curran and Blackburn, 2001). Thus future research should better incorporate
this aspect. Additionally, what sticks out is the lack of cross-country studies and the
prevalence of mono-country approaches instead. However, as there are different
country/region approaches to knowledge management (Takeuchi, 2001) those might be
useful to better understand how SMEs from different countries/regions of the world tackle the
challenges of KM.
5.2 Knowledge identification
Knowing what type of knowledge is provided in the firm and what type of knowledge is
needed to tackle present and future business challenges is vital. So the lack of research
activities in this area is surprising. Thus, the area of knowledge identification offers scholars
a variety of research avenues. For example, what actions are taken in SMEs to identify
existing knowledge? How do they determine knowledge needed to remain competitive? The
process used to distinguish between relevant and less relevant knowledge might be another
promising field of research.
5.3 Knowledge creation
The process of knowledge creation/acquisition is closely linked to learning. To learn
something new an organization, that is to say, its members, must possess the ability of
unlearning. The ways SMEs use to foster unlearning might be a useful field of intense
research. Here country-comparisons would be suitable as well. Due to resource constraints
SMEs need to identify external knowledge sources. How do SMEs proceed in this context?
How do SMEs identify suitable external knowledge sources?
In terms of methods, qualitative approaches should be used in prospective studies, since
the focus is on understanding.
PAGE 894 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
VIIILiterature
onknowledgetransfer
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/f
ram
ew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Levy,Loebbecke
andPowell
2003
Analyse
dtherole
ofIS/ITin
the
context
ofco-opetition;use
ofa
game-theoretic
modelto
identify
theeffects
ofkn
owledgesh
aring
Lite
rature
onKM
inSMEsand
gametheory
Case
studies,
data
from
37UK
SMES
SMEswith
acost-focuse
dstrategyare
likely
tohave
weaksy
nergyandleve
rage,and
henceanambiguousattitu
deto
knowledge
sharing.Forva
lue-addedSMEs,
the
analysissu
pportsthepropositio
nthatthose
inthecollaboratio
nquadrantexh
ibitstrong
synergyandweakleve
rage,while
repositio
ningSMEsexh
ibitboth
strong
synergyandleve
rage
Chen,Duan,
Edwardsand
Lehaney
2006
Exa
minedSMEs’
needsand
practic
esregarding
inter-organizatio
nalkn
owledge
transfer
Lite
rature
onKM
inSMEs
Postalquestionnaire,105
resp
onse
sfrom
UKSMEsin
the
servicese
ctor
Studyconfirmsthegeneralbeliefthat
externalkn
owledgeis
ofprimeim
portance
toSMEs,
anddemonstratesthatSMEshave
very
strongneedsforexternalkn
owledge
andinter-organizatio
nalkn
owledge
transfer
Perez-Araos,
Barber,
Munive-H
ernandez
andEldridge
2007
Prese
ntedaKM
toolwhichhas
beendesignedto
supportthe
creatio
nofvirtualkn
owledge
sharingnetworks(KSNs)
Review
ofKM
literature
Onlinesu
rvey,resp
onse
sfrom
24
manufacturingSMEsin
the
Northwest
oftheUK
TheKM
toolsu
pportsthecreatio
nofKSNs
throughanexp
licitKM
approachto
share
ideas,
exp
eriencesandkn
owledgerelatin
gto
theim
plementatio
nofbest
practic
esand
improve
menttools;helpingSMEsto
becomemore
competitive
Harris
2008
Reportedthedeve
lopmentofa
knowledgetransferproject
designedto
encourageinnova
tion
andto
improve
thecapability
of
SMEsin
theWest
Midlandsregion
oftheUK
N/A
Actio
nrese
archmethodology;12
university
anduniversity
college
partners
andSMEsin
theWest
Midlandsregion
Firmsthatefficiently
tapinto
allreleva
nt
sourcesofkn
owledgeare
likely
tothrive
,whilstthose
thatcannotmaystruggle
Chirico
2008
Exa
minedhow
knowledgecanbe
accumulatedin
family
business
es
toincrease
theirsu
rvivalrate
Lite
rature
onfamily
business
es
andsu
ccession
Fourcase
studies(m
ixed
methods)
inSwitzerlandandItaly
Thefamily
firmsuse
dva
riousmeansto
transferkn
owledgebetweengeneratio
ns:
Trust
betweenfamily
members,commitm
ent
tothefamily
business
,andse
eking
exp
eriencefrom
outsidethroughtrainingor
working
Fletcherand
Prash
antham
2011
Exp
loredthekn
owledge
assim
ilatio
nprocess
use
dby
rapidly
internatio
nalisingSMEs
Concepto
fknowledgeassim
ilatio
nandrelatedasp
ects
ofform
ality
exp
loredin
thecontext
ofrapidly
internatio
nalisingSMEs
Qualitative,longitu
dinalenquiry
conductedin
twostages:
1st
stage:fourlongitu
dinalcase
studies(threeye
ars),and2nd
stage:twofocusgroups
Knowledgesh
aringis
importantforrapidly
internatio
nalisingSMEs;
thefirmsinvo
lved
adoptedhighleve
lsofform
alityin
assim
ilatin
gkn
owledge
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 895
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
IXLiterature
onknowledgeutilisation
Auth
or(
s)Year
Rese
arc
haim
/ob
jectiv
es
Theore
ticalp
ers
pectiv
e/fra
mew
ork
Meth
od
(em
piric
al/t
heore
tical)
Main
find
ing
s
Gray
2006
Exp
loredSMEs’
capacity
toabso
rbandmanagekn
owledgeasaprior
conditionto
thesu
ccess
fuladoptio
nofinnova
tionsandentrepreneurial
growth
Abso
rptivecapacity
theory
Findingsfrom
natio
nalUKquarterly
surveys
(2003-2005)
Underlinetherole
oftheowners’
strategic
objectives,
andthe
conse
quentcultu
recreatedwith
inthesm
allfirm
regardingtheissu
es
infocus
Alegre,Sengupta
and
Lapiedra
2011
Exa
minedhow
KM
affects
innova
tionwith
inbiotechnology
firms
Knowledge-base
dtheory
ofthe
firm,dyn
amic
capabilitie
sSurveyamong132biotechnology
firmsin
France,se
ntto
R&D
directors
There
isapositiverelatio
nsh
ipbetweenKM
practic
eand
innova
tionthatis
strengthenedby
themediatin
geffectofKM
dyn
amic
capabilitie
s.Nosignificant
relatio
nsh
ipbetweeninnova
tionand
size
PAGE 896 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
5.4 Knowledge retention/storage
Although issues of not only creating and/or acquiring knowledge, but also retaining
knowledge are important, the review suggests that research on KM in SMEs does not yet
address aspects of knowledge retention. With the exemption of the study by Durst and
Gueldenberg (2010), the authors did not identify any study that looked into factors
influencing knowledge retention in small firms. The same was true for knowledge storage in
SMEs. What drives managers of SMEs regarding the issue of knowledge retention and
knowledge storage, respectively? What fosters or conversely hampers activities related to
knowledge retention?
With regard to the critical role of knowledge in terms of firms’ competitiveness, more
research is needed which emphasises the development and implementation of knowledge
retention measures in SMEs.
5.5 Knowledge transfer
Concerning knowledge transfer more research is needed addressing both sides of the
process: the sender and the receiver. So far the discussion is rather one-sided. To
understand this important KM process better, future research should incorporate both
perspectives more strongly. This lends itself to qualitative research approaches.
5.6 Knowledge utilisation
New knowledge, whether developed internally or acquired from outside the firm, needs to be
utilised. The outcome might be new products, higher productivity, or more innovative
activities (Edvardsson, 2009). Thus, this process is more or less the central aspect of all KM
activities. So far research in this area seems to be neglected, however, which can be ranked
as unsatisfactory, considering the aspect’s specific relevance. Consequently, more intensive
research in this area is needed. How is new knowledge utilised in SMEs? Are there any
differences in terms of country of origin? What hampers/fosters the utilisation of (new)
knowledge?
5.7 Additional observations
5.7.1 Scope and context of knowledge management research. The topic of knowledge
management is originally an Anglo-American discipline, with some Japanese influence
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The articles reviewed demonstrate that KM research in SMEs
has spread throughout the world. Although Western countries dominate the scene
(especially the UK), there are some studies from other parts of the world, e.g. India, Iran and
Malaysia. No empirical studies from China and Africa were, however, involved. Given the
relevance of SMEs on an international level (Greene and Mole, 2006), research in the area of
KM would definitely benefit from contributions from these parts of the world. In addition, it is
clear from the literature review that the papers reviewed consist of single-region or
single-country studies. Cross-country comparisons were not identified. The authors believe
that comparative research activities are urgently needed as this would provide an
opportunity to discuss and understand how culture, religion and gender relations affect KM
in SMEs, especially trust and knowledge sharing.
Concerning the industrial aspect, the literature review suggests a stronger use of
multi-industry approaches. This apparently takes into account the severe obstacles SME
researchers face when trying to gain access to this category of firms (Curran and Blackburn,
2001).
5.7.2 Perspective used to study knowledge management in SMEs. The studies reveal a
normative or prescriptive approach when discussing knowledge management in SMEs. It
would appear that many researchers in this field, consciously or unconsciously, compare KM
activities in large firms with those found in smaller firms, on the assumption that these firms
are comparable. This approach is dangerous as SMEs are not ‘‘merely a scaled-down
version of a large business’’ (Curran and Blackburn, 2001, p. 5). The work of Hutchinson and
Quintas (2008) represents an exception, highlighting that in order to understand KM
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 897
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
practice in SMEs researchers need a different approach. Consequently, more research is
needed towards putting a stronger emphasis on what is given in SMEs rather than what
should be given. This may help to reduce the gap between theory and practice.
Table X provides a summary of the analysis conducted.
6. Conclusions
This paper has reviewed existing empirical papers on knowledgemanagement in SMEs. In a
knowledge-driven economy the effective management of information is one of the main
challenges faced by SMEs. Yet, often founders or managers of SMEs are captured by
day-to-day business operations (Hofer and Charan, 1984) and thus prevented from actually
tackling this challenge. Prior research in the field of knowledge management has tended to
emphasise large firms. Assuming that SMEs are the drivers of most nations all over the
world, this situation is unsatisfactory.
The reviews conducted reveal that the body of knowledge regarding knowledge
management in SMEs is still limited. The analysis of papers has shown that three areas of
KM seem to be relatively well researched in SMEs. These are KM implementation, KM
perception, and knowledge transfer. Yet, the body of knowledge regarding the topics of
knowledge identification, knowledge storage/retention, and knowledge utilisation is rather
poor.
It can be thus concluded that the existing empirical literature provides only fragmented
insights into KM in SMEs. Given the importance of knowledge to company studies, the field
of knowledge management in small businesses is highly important. The present study
clearly underlines that the topic still calls for more research, which in turn offers scholars a
variety of research avenues.
The review of extant empirical studies has brought about a number of possible research
directions (Table X). The authors call for intensive research activities specifically in the three
neglected KM areas outlined above; as only this would enable a holistic understanding of KM
in SMEs. In addition to the research directions proposed in Table X, the following research
questions/areas might be of interest. Regarding knowledge identification: Do SMEs use any
KM tools, e.g. knowledge maps, in the process of knowledge identification? What type of
knowledge is of interest? What are the triggers that initiate knowledge identification activities?
Do SMEs mainly have an internal view when trying to identify existing firm knowledge or do
they refer to external partners as knowledge sources as well? Concerning knowledge
storage/retention a better understanding of the measures used by SMEs to reduce the danger
of knowledge attrition is needed. The aging workforce will soon lead to increasing voluntary
turnover that cannot be compensated for by the smaller number of succeeding
individuals/manpower. What can/should be done to handle this challenge in SMEs? How
can SMEs overcome a possible ‘‘knowing-doing gap’’ (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000)? Even
though managers of SMEs are aware of possible negative implications of departing
organization members, it seems that they accept this probability and that they risk the
consequences as well (Durst and Wilhelm, 2011). Finally, with regard to knowledge utilisation,
future research may examine how knowledge, whether new or existing, is actually used in
SMEs. What are the effects of knowledge utilisation on SME performance/competitiveness?
Besides, the authors see four general areas that need more attention and development:
1. Longitudinal studies. Issues related to knowledge management require a long-term
focus. Cross-sectional studies are only able to capture this focus to a limited extent.
Longitudinal studies would enable researchers to study whether KM activities change
over time as firms grow older or face new challenges, respectively.
2. Country-comparison. More studies are needed that discuss KM in SMEs, taking country
differences into consideration, since it is only natural to assume that KM activities will vary
from country to country.
PAGE 898 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Table
XSummary
ofempiricalstudiesonknowledgemanagementin
smallandmedium-sizedenterprises
Are
aQ
ualit
yof
rese
arc
hactiv
ities
Pro
mis
ing
rese
arc
hd
irectio
ns
KM
perceptio
nandKM
implementatio
nReprese
nttheareasofhighest
rese
arch
attentio
nto
date;SMEsare
activein
KM
Insights
into
differencesconcerningKM
perceptio
nandKM
implementatio
ndependingon
thetypeofSMEs(i.e.micro,sm
allandmedium-sizedenterprise
s)Knowledgeidentificatio
nUnder-rese
archedKM
area
Insights
into
approachespursuedregardingkn
owledgeidentificatio
nInsights
into
thetypeofkn
owledgeregardedasreleva
nt
Insights
into
ways
use
dto
determ
inethekn
owledgeneeded
Knowledgecreatio
nReprese
nts
anareaofongoingrese
arch
interest
Insights
into
unlearningactivitiesasameansto
new
knowledgegeneratio
nInsights
into
knowledgecreatio
nusingexternalkn
owledgeso
urces
Insights
into
capabilitie
sneededto
create/acquirekn
owledge
Knowledgeretentio
n/storage
Under-rese
archedKM
area
Insights
into
factors
thatfoster/hamperkn
owledgeretentio
n/storage
Insights
into
thedeve
lopmentandim
plementatio
nofmeasu
resrelatedto
knowledge
retentio
n/storage
Insights
into
meansuse
dto
codify
knowledge
Insights
into
handlingtacitkn
owledgein
thecontext
ofretentio
nKnowledgetransfer
Represe
nts
anareaofhigherrese
arch
attentio
n,sp
ecifically
intheUK
Insights
into
both
sidesofthekn
owledgetransferprocess;to
date
focusis
mainly
onthe
sender
Knowledgeutilisatio
nNeglectedareaofrese
arch
Insights
into
knowledgeutilisatio
nin
SMEs
Insights
into
factors
thatfoster/hamperkn
owledgeutilisatio
nin
SMEs
Insights
into
countrydifferencesregardingkn
owledgeutilisatio
nScopeandcontext
ofKM
rese
arch
Most
rese
archactivitieshave
been
conductedin
Western
countries
KM
studiesfrom
otherpartsoftheworld,e.g.ChinaandAfrica
Exe
cutio
nofcross
-countrystudies
Mono-industry
studies
Perspectiveuse
din
rese
arch
Studiesreve
ala
nemphasisonnorm
ativeor
presc
riptiveperspectives
StudiesconsideringSMEsp
ecificKM
issu
es/challenges
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 899
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
3. Mixed methods approaches. This direction in research would help to obtain a more
holistic understanding of KM in SMEs than is possible using mono method approaches.
4. Realistic lens. Future research should take more strongly into account that SMEs are not
comparable with large listed firms. Consequently, research should disengage from
discussing KM in SMEs from a large firm perspective towards a more realistic approach
taking the resource constraints SMEs are facing and the environments in which they are
operating into consideration. Also, the heterogeneity between SMEs needs to be
considered as small firms are hardly comparable with medium-sized firms. The same
refers to different industries, which also show size variations, making the comparison of
industries more challenging.
The present study is not without limitations. By restricting itself to the ProQuest database this
study may not have allowed complete coverage of all empirical articles in the field of
knowledge management in SMEs. Yet, it seems reasonable to assume that the review
process covered a large proportion of the studies available. In addition, reviewing the
literature was sometimes disconcerting, as many papers do not specify whether they are
discussing SMEs or large firms. Finally, this paper proposes some research directions,
which are not exhaustive but represent initial stages.
References
Alegre, J., Sengupta, K. and Lapiedra, R. (2011), ‘‘Knowledge management and innovation
performance in a high-tech SMEs industry’’, International Small Business Journal, available at: http://
isb.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/11/0266242611417472
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2008), ‘‘Surfacing tacit sources of success’’, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 403-31.
Amelingmeyer, J. and Amelingmeyer, G. (2005), ‘‘Wissensmanagement beim Fuhrungswechsel in
KMU’’, in Meyer, J.-A. (Ed.), Wissens- und Informationsmanagement in kleinen und mittleren
Unternehmen, Josef Eul Verlag, Lohmar, Cologne, pp. 479-88.
Beesley, L.G.A. and Cooper, C. (2008), ‘‘Defining knowledge management (KM) activities: towards
consensus’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 48-62.
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. 162-79.
Bozbura, F.T. (2007), ‘‘Knowledge management practices in Turkish SMEs’’, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-21.
Bridge, S., O’Neill, K. and Cromie, S. (2003), Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, NY.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Dewhurst, F.W. (2006), ‘‘Linking shared organisational context and relational
capital through unlearning: an initial empirical investigation in SMEs’’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Martınez-Conesa, E.A. (2007), ‘‘E-business through knowledge
management in Spanish telecommunications companies’’, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28
Nos 3/4, pp. 298-314.
‘‘ Research should disengage from discussing KM in SMEs froma large firm perspective towards a more realistic approachtaking the resource constraints SMEs are facing and theenvironments in which they are operating intoconsideration. ’’
PAGE 900 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Chen, S., Duan, Y., Edwards, J.S. and Lehaney, B. (2006), ‘‘Toward understanding inter-organizational
knowledge transfer needs in SMEs: insight from a UK investigation’’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 6-23.
Chirico, F. (2008), ‘‘Knowledge accumulation in family firms’’, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 26, pp. 433-62.
Comite Europeen de Normalisation (2004), ‘‘European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge
Management’’, available at: ftp://cenftp1.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/KM/German-text-KM-
CWAguide.pdf (accessed 19 November 2007).
Corso, M., Martini, A., Paolucci, E. and Pellegrini, L. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge management configurations in
Italian small-to-medium enterprises’’, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 46-57.
Culkin, N. and Smith, D. (2000), ‘‘An emotional business: a guide to understanding the motivations of
small business decision takers’’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 145-57.
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (2001), Researching the Small Enterprise, Sage, London.
Daft, R.F. (2007), Understanding the Theory and Design of Organizations, Thomson South-Western,
Mason, OH.
Desouza, K.C. and Awazu, Y. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge management at SMEs: five peculiarities’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Durst, S. and Gueldenberg, S. (2010), ‘‘What makes SMEs attractive to external successors?’’, VINE:
The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 108-35.
Durst, S. and Wilhelm, S. (2011), ‘‘Knowledge management in practice: insights into a medium-sized
enterprise’s exposure to knowledge loss’’, Prometheus, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Durst, S. and Wilhelm, S. (2012), ‘‘Knowledge management and succession planning in SMEs’’, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 637-49.
Edvardsson, I.R. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge management and SMEs: the case of Icelandic firms’’, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 275-82.
Edvardsson, I.R. (2009), ‘‘Is knowledge management losing ground? Developments among Icelandic
SMEs’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 91-9.
Egbu, C.O., Hari, S. and Renukappa, S.H. (2005), ‘‘Knowledge management for sustainable
competitiveness in small and medium surveying practices’’, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 7-21.
European Commission (2005), ‘‘The new SME definition: user guide and model declaration’’, available
at: www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf
(accessed 2 March 2006).
Fink, K. and Ploder, C. (2009a), ‘‘Balanced system for knowledge process management in SMEs’’,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 36-50.
Fink, K. and Ploder, C. (2009b), ‘‘Knowledge management toolkit for SMEs international’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 46-60.
Fletcher, M. and Prashantham, S. (2011), ‘ ‘Knowledge assimilation processes of rapidly
internationalising firms. Longitudinal case studies of Scottish SMEs’’, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 475-501.
Gray, C. (2006), ‘‘Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small
firms’’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 345-60.
Greene, F. and Mole, K. (2006), ‘‘Defining and measuring the small business’’, in Carter, S. and
Jones-Evans, D. (Eds), Enterprise and Small Business, Pearson, Harlow, pp. 7-29.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons from
Nucor Steel’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 Nos 1, Fall, pp. 71-80.
Hari, S., Egbu, C. and Kumar, B. (2005), ‘‘A knowledge capture awareness tool’’, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 533-67.
Harris, R.J. (2008), ‘‘Developing a collaborative learning environment through technology enhanced
education (TE3) support’’, Education þ Training, Vol. 50 Nos 8/9, pp. 674-86.
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 901
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Hislop, D. (2009), Knowledge Management in Organizations, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hofer, C. and Charan, R. (1984), ‘‘The transition to professional management: mission impossible?’’,
American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Hutchinson, V. and Quintas, P. (2008), ‘‘Do SMEs do knowledge management? Or simply manage what
they know?’’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 131-54.
Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Akhavan, P. and Hosnavi, R. (2007), ‘‘Exploring KM features and learning in
Iranian SMEs’’, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 207-18.
Jarillo, J.C. (1989), ‘‘Entrepreneurship and growth: the strategic use of external resources’’, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 133-47.
Jashapara, A. (2011), Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011), Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and
Systematic Techniques, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Keogh, W., Mulvie, A. and Cooper, S. (2005), ‘‘The identification and application of knowledge capital
within small firms’’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Kluge, J., Wolfram, S. and Licht, T. (2001), Knowledge Unplugged. The McKinsey & Company Global
Survey on Knowledge Management, Palgrave, Houndsmills.
Levy, M., Loebbecke, C. and Powell, P. (2003), ‘‘SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of
information systems’’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 3-17.
Malinen, P. and Stenholm, P. (2002), ‘‘Like father like son? Transfer of entrepreneurship in the Finnish
small family business succession context’’, Proceedings of the Family Business Network Annual World
Conference 2002, Helsinki, Finland, 14 September.
Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2009), ‘‘How do Miles and Snow’s strategic types differ in their knowledge
assets? Evidence from Italian SMEs’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 377-86.
Matlay, H. (2000), ‘‘Organisational learning in small learning organisations: an empirical overview’’,
Education þ Training, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 202-11.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R. (2001), ‘‘SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledgemanagement:
comparisons and contrasts’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 231-41.
Merono-Cerdan, A.L., Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Sabater-Sanchez, R. (2007), ‘‘Knowledge management
strategy diagnosis from KM instruments use’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 60-72.
Mugler, J. (1998), Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Klein- und Mittelbetriebe, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, Springer, Vienna
and New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Nunes, M.B., Annansingh, F., Eaglestone, B. andWakefield, R. (2006), ‘‘Knowledge management issues
in knowledge-intensive SMEs’’, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 101-19.
O’Dell, C., Hubert, C., Lopez, K., Odem, P. and Raybourn, C. (2003), ‘‘Successful KM implementations:
a study of best-practice organizations’’, in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge
Management, Vol. 2, Springer, Berlin, pp. 411-41.
Perez-Araos, A., Barber, K.D., Munive-Hernandez, J.E. and Eldridge, S. (2007), ‘‘Designing a
knowledge management tool to support knowledge sharing networks’’, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 153-68.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000), The Knowing-doing Gap. How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into
Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pillania, R.K. (2008a), ‘‘Strategic issues in knowledge management in small and medium enterprises’’,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 334-8.
Pillania, R.K. (2008b), ‘‘Creation and categorization of knowledge in automotive components SMEs in
India’’, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 1452-64.
PAGE 902 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Quintas, P. (2002), ‘‘Managing knowledge in a new century’’, in Little, S., Quintas, P. and Ray, T. (Eds),
Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, The Open University of Sage Publications, London,
pp. 1-14.
Radzevicience, D. (2008), ‘‘Developing small and medium enterprises using knowledge management
frameworks’’, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 672-85.
Salojarvi, S., Furu, P. and Sveiby, K.-E. (2005), ‘‘Knowledge management and growth in Finnish SMEs’’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 103-22.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2009), ‘‘Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital
academic journals’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Shelton, R. (2001), ‘‘Helping a small business owner to share knowledge’’, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 429-50.
Soon, T.T. and Zainol, F.A. (2011), ‘‘Knowledge management enablers, process and organizational
performance: evidence from Malaysian enterprises’’, Asian Social Science, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 186-202.
Sparrow, J. (2005), ‘‘Classification of different knowledge management development approaches of
SMEs’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 136-45.
Spender, J.-C. (1996), ‘‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Szulanski, G. (1996), ‘‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 27-44.
Takeuchi, H. (2001), ‘‘Towards a universal management concept of knowledge’’, in Nonaka, I. and
Teece, D.J. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage, London,
pp. 315-29.
Teece, D.J. (2001), ‘‘Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial
context’’, in Nonaka, I. and Teece, D.J. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and
Utilization, Sage, London, pp. 125-44.
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2005), ‘ ‘An empirical study of the important factors for
knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 64-82.
Wong, K.Y. and Aspinwall, E. (2004), ‘‘Characterizing knowledge management in the small business
environment’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 44-61.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), ‘‘Knowledge management: an introduction and perspective’’, The Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
About the authors
Susanne Durst is Assistant Professor at the Chair in International Management, Institute forEntrepreneurship, at the University of Liechtenstein. Her research interests includeknowledge management, entrepreneurship, and corporate governance. Susanne Durst isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Ingi Runar Edvardsson is a Professor of Management at the University of Iceland. Hisresearch interests focus on the interplay between knowledge management and humanresource management, outsourcing as well as on regional innovation and learningstrategies.
VOL. 16 NO. 6 2012 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 903
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial Management & DataSystems 114:9, 1415-1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Tobias Schoenherr, David A. Griffith, Aruna Chandra. 2014. Intangible capital, knowledge and new product developmentcompetence in supply chains: process, interaction and contingency effects among SMEs. International Journal of ProductionResearch 52, 4916-4929. [CrossRef]
3. Wu He, Feng-Kwei Wang, Shenghua Zha. 2014. Enhancing social media competitiveness of small businesses: insights fromsmall pizzerias. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 20, 225-250. [CrossRef]
4. Amel Chaabouni, Imene Ben Yahia. 2014. Contribution of ERP to the decision-making process through knowledge management.Journal of Decision Systems 23, 303-317. [CrossRef]
5. Rodrigo Valio Dominguez Gonzalez, Manoel Fernando Martins, Jose Carlos Toledo. 2014. Managing knowledge in a serviceprovider: a network structure-based model. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:3, 611-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Tobias Schoenherr, David A. Griffith, Aruna Chandra. 2014. Knowledge Management in Supply Chains: The Role of Explicitand Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Business Logistics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
7. Rodrigo Valio Dominguez Gonzalez, Manoel Fernando Martins. 2014. Mapping the organizational factors that supportknowledge management in the Brazilian automotive industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:1, 152-176. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]
8. Cristina Villar, Joaquín Alegre, José Pla-Barber. 2014. Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: Adynamic capabilities view. International Business Review 23, 38-44. [CrossRef]
9. Janet C.N. Wee, Alton Y.K. Chua. 2013. The peculiarities of knowledge management processes in SMEs: the case of Singapore.Journal of Knowledge Management 17:6, 958-972. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Susanne Durst, Stefan Wilhelm. 2013. Do you know your knowledge at risk?. Measuring Business Excellence 17:3, 28-39.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Ingi Runar Edvardsson, Susanne Durst. 2013. The Benefits of Knowledge Management in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81, 351-354. [CrossRef]
12. Ajay K. Jain, Hans Jeppe Jeppesen. 2013. Knowledge management practices in a public sector organisation: the role of leaders'cognitive styles. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:3, 347-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Knowledge Management on Job Satisfaction: 104-127. [CrossRef]14. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Data Mining for Business Intelligence in Knowledge Management 12-33. [CrossRef]15. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Knowledge Sharing on Organisational Innovation 247-271. [CrossRef]16. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Social Media in the Knowledge-Based Organizations 254-275. [CrossRef]17. Kijpokin KasemsapDeveloping a Framework of Human Resource Management, Organizational Learning, Knowledge
Management Capability, and Organizational Performance 164-193. [CrossRef]Dow
nloa
ded
by S
telle
nbos
ch U
nive
rsity
At 0
7:09
05
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)