The Role Of Knowledge
Management In Product Development Performance: A Review
¹ Poh Kiat Ng, ¹ Gerald Guan Gan Goh, ² Uchenna Cyril Eze
¹ Multimedia University, Melaka , Malaysia , ² Monash
University, Selangor , Malaysia
ABSTRACT:
The advancement towards knowledge-driven competition based on innovation and product quality, have redefined the strategy space and competitive nature of many industries. However, researchers believe that although employee motivation in knowledge sharing is important, it is often neglected. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the role of knowledge management in product development performance. In this study, findings from the literature review are used to develop a conceptual relation on how knowledge management influences product development performance. Based on the review of the extant literature, it was found that socialization and internalization play a more essential role in enhancing product development performance due to their more practical and convenient implementations in product development. Managers and engineers should work together to create more platforms that can harness socialization activities such as coffee klatches, technical sharing and team building activities. Apart from that, management should organize training programmes to internalize the explicit knowledge and actualize concepts about strategy, tactics, innovation or improvement.
Keywords: Knowledge management, Innovation, Product development
1. Introduction
In the development of new businesses today, initiatives that spur knowledge-based competitions amplify the importance of boundary spanning activities and tactical coalitions, which cause organizations to focus more on institutional knowledge, system improvement and knowledge management (Quah, 2001). From an innovative strategizing standpoint, companies face difficulties in organizing resources, codes and the development of accessible knowledge management resources for the maximization and sustainability of innovations (Love and Roper, 2009). Thus, the superiority of knowledge management as a new and sustainable competitive advantage for many organizations is evidently well acknowledged and requires serious attention especially when it comes to organizing project resources.
Liu et al. (2005) theorize that organizations with good knowledge management approaches will have encouraging new product development performance. They also conceive that knowledge shared within communities enable engineers to employ process enhancement and assume new measures and new products, making communities of practice (COP) a helpful formation for technology and knowledge management. Ostensibly, the capability and flexibility of knowledge management practices and applications increases the efficiency and speed of new product development in engineering projects.
Focuses on project management capabilities have urged companies to progress in terms of project management know-how, which are mostly subjective according to combined industrialist views on of project personnel knowledge requirements and competence (Crawford, 2005). Therefore, the need to improve project management potential motivates the need for knowledge management practices and initiatives in an organization as well.
On the applications of knowledge management, Gardoni and Dudezert (2005) posit that knowledge management systems (KMS) have been developed in engineering design activities to advance the productivity of these activities. Nevertheless, they found that identifying the influences of these systems in the engineering design performance is complicated. Hence, although the importance of knowledge management in the areas of product development performance is well-documented, there is still a need for improving the applications and implementations of knowledge management in product development projects and activities.
In
recent years, many countries including
2. Literature Review
Many previous research publications that examined product development performance and the distinctiveness that impinge on such performance are simple, and demonstrate the link between product development performance and some influencing characteristics (Cho et al. 2009). Qureshi, et al. (2009) suggest that since the ‘best survivor’ idea most appropriately describes the current industrial situation, a superior means in evaluating product development performance will be required. Therefore, there is the need to identify the characteristics that influence product development performance in organizations.
Thamhain (2004) explains that achievement in projects comes from effective knowledge sharing among project team members in extremely complicated, difficult and hectic interactions. Thamhain (2004) further elaborates that this calls for pragmatic knowledge management to integrate technology, knowledge and elements of every project phase. According to Faniel and Majchrzak (2007), an engineer is apt in using facts sourced from supplementary areas once these facts are obtainable by summary and thorough levels so that they can further understand and use the knowledge to solve existing problems. From the aforementioned discussion, there is no denying that knowledge management could be one of the major industrial practices with the capability of enhancing product development performance in projects.
Knowledge management refers to processes in generating importance using an organization’s indefinable advantages, uniting conceptions of practical artificial intelligence, computer technology, industrial re-engineering, organizational performance and other information technology related areas (Liebowitz, 1999). To this end, Lee and Chang (2006) conclude that knowledge sharing is the groundwork of continuous improvement in information technology and manufacturing processes. Since knowledge management approaches are capable of ensuring the efficiency of engineering project management, the practice of knowledge management is important for engineers who measure their performance according to their project success.
For this study,
the knowledge management elements that are further discussed in the next
section comprises socialization, externalization, combination and
internalization (SEC!). These knowledge management variables are based on the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p. 72) in Figure 1, which
broadly categorises knowledge into four conversion
modes (socialization, externalization,
combination and internalization) as an organization’s knowledge assets are
converted from tacit to explicit knowledge and vice versa. Subsequently, the literature on product
development performance shall
also be discussed.
Figure
1: Knowledge Conversion Modes (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995, p. 72)
2.1. Socialization
Socialization is the construction of new-fangled tacit knowledge through trusting
in tacit knowledge resources in the course of social communication (Vaccaro et al., 2009). Socialization changes innovative tacit
knowledge like collective mind-mapping representations, technological expertise
plus know-how, generally taking place through training more willingly as
compared to documentations (Choi and Lee, 2002).
Thus, socialization presents a more subjective form of knowledge capture
through the means of social communication, experience sharing and guidance or
apprenticeship.
Socialization
results in ‘sympathized knowledge’, such as common intellectual models and
technological expertise (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995, p. 71). According to Lee and Choi (2003), socialization
modifies tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social relations with
members. Through socialization, experiences are shared and in so doing tacit
knowledge is created (Salmador and Bueno, 2007). In brief, the progress in socialization
integrates tacit knowledge into a more combined and comprehensive form of tacit
knowledge as a result of knowledge sharing among teams or communities from a
more informal way of sharing.
Socialization
methods like group conferences, multifunctional teams as well as joint
workshops helps in connecting people together, by means of resultant patterns
in intimate communications generating networks in inter-reliant societal
relations (Lawson et al., 2009). Lawson et al. (2009) continue to explain that this
improves common confidence levels and value through new product development groups. These
assertions are sensible because new product development teams often consist of
cross-functional team members, which rely on knowledge sharing among different
fields of experience in order to progress in their projects (Lawson et al.,
2009).
At the
organizational level, socialization comes to effect through each communal and
cultural procedures connected to the continuing organizational actions (Martın-de-Castro et al., 2008). Lin (2008)
explains that workers intensify services, figures, news, commemorations,
regulations as well as principles, transferring the rudiments into domestic
activities and attitudes by picking up on values as well as rules from internal
organizational cultures in socialization. Therefore, the intensity of
implementing socialization at the organizational level is very much dependent
on the social and cultural aspects of the organization itself.
Persaud (2005) reiterates that the degree of socialization in the midst of internationally discrete
research and development units is decided by the intensity of cultural mix in
the organization and
trust among the units. According to Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), organizational knowledge creation processes start from tacit
knowledge distribution that communicates more or less with socialization,
because compact and unexploited information residing within people is required
for augmented distribution in an organization. Hence, since socialization acts
based on the social and cultural aspects of the organization, it would only be
normal for the organization to hold as many direct or indirect forms of
knowledge sharing mechanisms such as meetings, technical sharings
and communications in order to capitalize in capturing invaluable knowledge
residing within the employees of the organization (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995; Persaud, 2005).
Socialization is one means through which project teams can improve
collaboration throughout a project lifecycle (Oshri
et al., 2007). Socialization enables workers to
construct communication to liberally trade really personal or specialized
knowledge (Li et al., 2009). Bolloju et al.
(2002) support this idea by suggesting that through socialization, executives
can obtain tacit knowledge by observation, imitation and practice. Therefore,
socialization among project team members can benefit their performance in terms
of the knowledge sharing of expertise and skill sets, which could save time in
investigating this particular knowledge during the project lifecycle.
With
the acknowledgment that not all knowledge can effortlessly be captured,
codified and kept, academics and practitioners have explored managerial
characteristics regarding tacit, soft, implicit or less-structured knowledge
(Kimble and Hildreth, 2005). However, tacit knowledge
is often a result of implicit learning, which is context-specific, personal and
difficult to communicate (Mittendorff et al., 2006). Senoo et al. (2007) explain that tacit knowledge refers to
subjective knowledge, making it difficult to express through figures; for
instance, philosophies, viewpoints, technological expertise as well as
experiences consist of tacit knowledge.
Generally
speaking, the difficulties in socialization and the key influences in reducing
these difficulties are still being researched. According to Gold et al. (2001),
organizations must carefully transform aspects of tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge to avoid the loss of efficiencies in production and innovation. With
this in mind, the following section discusses the key aspects of the SECI
model, which is externalization (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995).
2.2. Externalization
Externalization is a process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit notions and often occurs in the conceptual stage generated by discussion or brainstorming (Choi and Lee, 2002). Externalization results in the creation of ‘conceptual knowledge’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p. 71). In short, externalization involves the conversion of knowledge that cannot be easily codified (tacit knowledge) into knowledge that can be easily codified (explicit knowledge).
The externalization process aims at reducing an organisation’s reliance on individual team members, thus making knowledge independent from individuals (Berends, et al., 2007). According to Salmador and Bueno (2007), externalization is a practice of elucidating the knowledge obtained from know-how into concepts, hypotheses, models, metaphors or analogies via communication. Hence, with externalization, the problem of having to depend on a single individual’s expertise in a project team can be resolved by the conversion of these expertises into more tangible and generic forms of knowledge (Berends et al., 2007; Salmador and Bueno, 2007).
Externalization happens when the organization conveys formally its internal rules of performance or when it unequivocally sets goals or targets (Martın-de-Castro et al., 2008). Bolloju et al. (2002) state that knowledge externalization refers to the use of existing knowledge to produce organizational yields. They elaborate that it occurs once people utilize descriptions in articulating standpoints on revealing concealed and hard-to-communicate tacit knowledge. Therefore, externalization can also be driven by organizational policies or strategies in addition to the practice of the employees in codifying their knowledge and information for the benefit of the project as well as the organization.
Externalization also assists staff to convey pictorial information or thoughts as considerable conceptions and ideas that are desired for new product development and improvement (Tsai and Li, 2007). In externalization, the employment of metaphors in discussions is fundamental at a conceptual stage of a project (Li et al., 2009). In other words, externalization is beneficial to new product development and continuous quality improvement initiatives due to the convenience and easily comprehensible methods available from forming explicit knowledge.
Nevertheless, according to Vaccaro et al. (2009), the externalization process is challenging due to tight schedules. This therefore necessitates the use of manual knowledge compilation processes or other methods deemed appropriate. On the whole, even with the successful conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, it would still not be easy for the expertise or technological knowledge to be maintained for a long period of time. Hence, another stage of development is required in the knowledge management process that involves the integration of various explicit notions to form a cluster of new and organized knowledge. These actions are referred to as combination, which is discussed in the next section.
2.3. Combination
Combination involves the establishment of innovative knowledge by substitutions and integrations in explicit knowledge possessed by employees (Bolloju et al., 2002). Vaccaro et al. (2009) suggest that the combination process results in novel explicit knowledge via the integration, classification, reclassification and synthesis of current explicit knowledge. Thus, combination initiatives are mechanized in order to efficiently manage explicit knowledge such that it is in a more systematic and structured condition to be reviewed by employees.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p. 71) posit that combination gives way to ‘systemic knowledge’, for instance prototypes or new constituent technologies. Combination converts explicit knowledge gathered from indoors or outdoors into further intricate and organized explicit knowledge that possibly will materialize into action and practice (Li et al., 2009). Hence, combination gives birth to new products or technologies that can benefit new product development and is more likely to produce outcomes that are more applicable to be put in practice.
Connection, reconfiguration and alternative expression of explicit elements will result in an organizational combination process (Martın-de-Castro et al., 2008). However, it may not be certain whether knowledge combination leads to improved product development or continuous improvement and marketing processes (Sapienza, et al., 2004). Combination efforts may be one level ahead of externalization processes in terms of system and control, but it may not be easy for every employee to put this into practice and hence improve the organization’s product development or continuous improvement efforts in a flash. Therefore, the last mode of the SECI model known as internalization is required in order to efficiently manage the overall fine tuned knowledge that has been developed and bring it to an even more pragmatic form of use to the organization.
2.4. Internalization
Internalization facilitates the conversion of the organization’s explicit knowledge into personal and team level tacit knowledge (Vaccaro et al., 2009). Bolloju et al. (2002) suggest that internalization occurs once explicit knowledge becomes tacit, whereby organization members put together collective explicit knowledge by means of previous information for updating mental representations and producing new tacit knowledge. Thus, it is apparent that internalization is a process of converting the combined and structured explicit ideas into a more action oriented form of knowledge that can be shared effectively among various levels of employees in an organization (Bolloju et al., 2002; Vaccaro et al., 2009).
Internalization produces ‘operational knowledge’ about managing projects,
production, new product development and policy implementation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p. 71). Once an organization
goes through moments that call for decisiveness, shifting its norm of
deciphering and executing, knowledge creation appears through internalization (Martın-de-Castro et al., 2008). Li et al.
(2009) suggest that the internalization upholds the
actualization of new product development or continuous improvement within the organization. Hence, it is evident that the final stage of the SECI
model which is internalization, is the most complete stage in knowledge
management because it involves a more functional and realistic outcome for
organizational performance.
However, Li and Hsieh (2009) believe that
knowledge stickiness (incapability in transferring knowledge) in project teams
may generate negative impacts towards internalization, if deliberately
transferring knowledge to supplementary firms turns out to be costly and
tedious. Therefore, the level of internalization also can become more difficult
and complicated if the vast knowledge and information that needs to be
converted to tacit knowledge is increasingly complex.
In a nutshell, the SECI model illustrates a competitive approach in knowledge management for salvaging and containing valuable knowledge in an organization. Each conversion mode allows for the improvement of new product development made possible through enhancements in the knowledge creation process.. The following section will review the various findings and viewpoints concerning product development performance.
2.5. Product Development
Performance
Knowledge from many different consultants with wide-ranging learning experience and skills is desirable to construct and create a novel product with added composite character similar to unique novel creations or systems (Schmickl and Kieser, 2008). Pheng and Chuan (2006) believe that although achievement in managing projects is centred upon procedures and the accomplishments in time, cost and quality goals, an achievement in a product concerns the outcomes in a project in addition to completing the products and the objectives of the project. Therefore, a successful product development would be one that not only was able to accomplish cost, time and quality requirements alone, but also one that was able to achieve a novel status parallel to the objectives of the whole product project.
Iyer at al. (2006) indicate that successful commercialization of new products requires the organisation to place a considerable focus in marketing and its supply chain. Olson et al. (2001) posit that novel product creations are multidisciplinary in nature and that rapid technological change and flexible manufacturing systems along with the need for global competitiveness cause cohesive and effective cross-functional teamwork to be critical for the success of new product development. Hence, one of the key factors that influence product development performance is the cooperation of cross-functional teams in order to ensure multidisciplinary involvement among all functions of the organization.
Organizations need to effectively understand and manage risks associated with developing new products since there is a high probability of new product development failure and large financial loss (Schmidt et al., 2009). Zika-Viktorsson and Ingelgard (2006) believe that working on new product development provides superior chances in improving systems as well as practices since they demand team-based knowledge creation, problem-solving and brainstorming activities, that attend to product related issues and acclimatization in schedule in addition to job measures. Improved product development performance could also mean enhanced competitive advantage for the organization, despite the fact that the probability of failure of the product may still exist.
However, high failure rates may suggest that management’s knowledge of the
transformation process whereby ideas are turned into successful new products is
far from perfect, particularly for more innovative development projects (Bonner
et al., 2002). Although the capacity to rapidly pioneer new products and assume new
manufacturing processes has become a requirement for competitive advantage, the
introduction of succesful new products have become
exceedingly complex and require a broad variety of assets, funds and competence
(Sen and Egelhoff, 2000).
In
summary, an organization’s management needs to intensify its efforts to better
understand these transformation processes and strive to minimize the
constraints of attaining a reliable product. Therefore, it would be necessary
to apply a model that is geared for the direct improvement of new product
development performance such as the SECI model into product development
projects. Table 1
presents the summary of literature for socialization, externalization,
combination, internalization and product development performance.
Table 1: Literature - Socialization, Externalization,
Combination, Internalization, Product Development Performance
|
KM
Elements |
Sources |
|
Socialization |
Vaccaro
et al. (2009), Choi and Lee (2002), Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), Lee and Choi
(2003), Salmador and Bueno (2007), Lawson et al. (2009), Martın-de-Castro
et al. (2008), Lin (2008), Persaud (2005), Oshri et al. (2007), Li et al.
(2009), Bolloju et al. (2002), Kimble and Hildreth (2005), Mittendorff
et al. (2006), Senoo et al. (2007), Gold et al.
(2001) |
|
Externalization |
Choi and Lee (2002),
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Hoegl
and Schulze (2005), Berends et al. (2007), Salmador and Bueno (2007), Martın-de-Castro et al.
(2008), Bolloju et al. (2002), Linderman
et al. (2004), Tsai and Li
(2007), Li et al. (2009), Vaccaro et al. (2009) |
|
Combination |
Bolloju et al. (2002), Vaccaro et al. (2009), Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995), Li
et al. (2009), Martın-de-Castro et al. (2008), Sapienza et al. (2004) |
|
Internalization |
Vaccaro et al. (2009), Bolloju et al. (2002), Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995), Martın-de-Castro et al.
(2008), Li
et al. (2009), Li and Hsieh (2009) |
|
Product development performance |
Schmickl and Kieser (2008),
Pheng and Chuan (2006), Iyer et al.
(2006), Olson et al. (2001), Thamhain (2004), Schmidt et al. (2009), Zika-Viktorsson and Ingelgard
(2006), Bonner et al. (2002), Sen and Egelhoff (2000) |
3. Findings and Discussion
Based on the preceding sections, socialization and internalization mechanisms have a more profound effect on product development performance due to their more dominant and comprehensive literature support. We arrived at this conclusion by linking the literature support on socialization and externalization with the literature on product development performance to determine the relationship between the two variables.
Socialization is of great use to multifunctional teams and collaborative activities in new product development because it involves very convenient and common methods of communication that connect people and their expertise in an organization (Bolloju et al., 2002; Lawson et al., 2009; Lin, 2008; Martın-de-Castro et al., 2008; Oshri et al., 2007). These findings are relevant because product development is multidisciplinary in nature and often involves teamwork from various functions of the organization as well as all partners in the supply chain (Iyer et al., 2006; Olson et al., 2001; Thamhain, 2004). Thus, it is evident that socialization plays a very important role in integrating functions and teams for improved product development performance.
According
to Gold et al. (2001), organizations must carefully transform its tacit knowledge
into explicit knowledge to avoid the loss of efficiencies in production and
innovation. This is because socialization often results in implicit learning,
which is context-specific, subjective and difficult to express in a more
comprehensible manner (Mittendorff et al., 2006; Senoo et al., 2007). Consequently, this can create more
challenges in product development as it produces more knowledge barriers
between team members and functions that can slow down new product development
activities.
Externalization,
which involves the creation of conceptual knowledge
assists product development by providing a more structured and tangible form of
knowledge in terms of conceptions and ideas that is more useful at the
conceptual stage of the product development lifecycle (Bolloju
et al., 2002; Li et al., 2009; Martın-de-Castro
et al., 2008; Tsai and Li, 2007). This is very relevant in a product
development context because the risks and potential failures of the products
need to be understood clearly through brainstorming, problem-solving and
knowledge creation activities among various team members at the beginning of
the conceptual stage in new product development (Schmidt et al., 2009; Zika-Viktorsson and Ingelgard,
2006).
From the aforementioned linkages, it is evident that externalization helps more in the conceptual development in the product’s overall lifecycle. However, due to the tight schedules in new product development, externalization often becomes a challenge as the conceptual knowledge created is hard to be maintained and often becomes rooted within peer-to-peer communications or manual compilations (Vaccaro et al., 2009).
The
knowledge combination process helps to connect, reconfigure and organize the
explicit knowledge from externalization into a new and more structured form of
explicit knowledge that has a higher possibility of materializing into actions
and practices (Li et al., 2009; Martın-de-Castro
et al., 2008). This is more useful for product development because it requires
amalgamated knowledge from various consultants and experts to be combined and
prearranged for the construction of a novel product (Schmickl
and Kieser, 2008). However, it still may not
be certain whether knowledge combination directly leads to improved product
development (Sapienza et al., 2004).
Internalization activities involves more action oriented forms of knowledge
known as operational knowledge that can help facilitate the conversion of the
organization’s explicit knowledge into team level tacit knowledge, which upholds the actualization of new product development (Bolloju et al., 2002; Li et al., 2009; Martın-de-Castro
et al., 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Vaccaro et al., 2009). This, therefore, supports the idea
that achieving success in product development involves more than meeting time,
cost and quality goals, but also a more tangible outcome of the project such as
product completion and objective fulfilment (Pheng and Chuan, 2006).
However, the introduction of new products have become
exceedingly complex and require a broad variety of assets, funds and competence
(Sen and Egelhoff, 2000).
Similarly for internalization, due to knowledge stickiness among product
development team members, deliberately
transferring knowledge to supplementary firms turns out to be costly and
tedious (Li and Hsieh, 2009). Therefore, as the level of internalization
becomes more complicated, so will the entire process of new product
development.
Table 2 presents the
summary of literature supporting the role of knowledge management in product
development performance. Overall, the findings indicate that although all
knowledge management processes play an important role in product development
performance, there are still some negative effects due to the complexity and
uncertainty of the organization and projects involved.
Table 2: Literature Support on the Role of Knowledge Management in
Product Development Performance
|
KM
Elements |
Literature
Support |
Effect on Product Development |
|
|
Knowledge
Management |
Product
Development Performance |
||
|
Socialization |
Lawson et al. (2009), Martın-de-Castro et
al. (2008), Lin (2008), Oshri et al. (2007), Li et al. (2009), Bolloju
et al. (2002), Gold et al. (2001) |
Iyer
et al. (2006), Olson et al. (2001), Thamhain (2004) |
Positive |
|
Mittendorff et al. (2006), Senoo
et al. (2007) |
Bonner
et al. (2002) |
Negative |
|
|
Externalization |
Martın-de-Castro et al. (2008), Bolloju et al. (2002), Tsai and Li
(2007), Li et al. (2009) |
Schmidt et al.
(2009), Zika-Viktorsson and Ingelgard (2006) |
Positive |
|
Vaccaro
et al. (2009) |
Bonner
et al. (2002) |
Negative |
|
|
Combination |
Li et al. (2009), Martın-de-Castro et al. (2008) |
Schmickl and Kieser (2008) |
Positive |
|
Sapienza
et al. (2004) |
Bonner
et al. (2002) |
Negative |
|
|
Internalization |
Vaccaro et al. (2009), Bolloju et al. (2002), Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995), Martın-de-Castro et al. (2008), Li et al. (2009) |
Pheng
and Chuan (2006) |
Positive |
|
Li and Hsieh (2009) |
Sen and Egelhoff
(2000) |
Negative |
|
4. Conclusion And Directions For Future Research
Based on the findings and discussions in the preceding section, it can be summarized that knowledge management plays a relatively important role in product development performance as far as socialization, externalization, combination and internalization processes are concerned. Also, from the literature review, it is found that socialization and internalization implementations exhibit a stronger role in enhancing product development performance.
However, since the failure rates in product development projects tend to be high, it is imperative for the organization’s management to ensure careful control and attention towards the knowledge conversion processes in the organization (Bonner et al., 2002). In this case, the application of the SECI model would be an effective method to ensure tight control and monitoring of knowledge management activities in the organisation.
Managers and engineers should work together to create more platforms that can harness socialization activities such as coffee klatches, technical sharing and team building activities. This will help to enhance the socialization activities among product development teams. In addition, management should also emphasize the process of internalizing explicit knowledge that actualizes concepts about strategy, tactics, innovation or improvement. For example, training programs should be held in organizations to help employees understand the organization and themselves in the whole.
A few suggestions are proposed to further the work in this area. One of them is to conduct a qualitative or quantitative empirical study to test the sub-variables of the SECI model and determine their influence in product development performance. Interviews or surveys may be employed to obtain insights and data from various organizations. Apart from that, it would be good if researchers are able to use secondary data from the organization’s records such as sales performance, customer satisfaction or development cost to determine the knowledge management practices in product development projects.
Overall, this paper identified the important and necessary factors to enhance the practice of knowledge management in improving product development performance. In this case, socialization and internalization implementation factors are found be the more prominent elements in the SECI model that deserves attention to improve product development performance.
5. References
Baber,
Z. (2001). The Emerging Triple-Helix of
Science-Industry-University in
Berends, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Kirschbaum,
R. (2007). Knowledge management challenges in new business development: Case study
observations. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 24(4), 314-328.
Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M. and Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for
the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176.
Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W. and Walker, O. C.
(2002). Upper management control of new product development
projects and project performance. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 233-245.
Cho, K., Hong, T. and Hyun, C. (2009). Effect of project
characteristics on project performance in construction projects based on
structural equation model. Expert
Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10461-10470.
Choi, B. and Lee, H.
(2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge
creation process. Expert Systems
with Applications, 23, 173-187.
Crawford,
L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project
management competence. International
Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 7-16.
Faniel,
Gardoni, M. and Dudezert, A. (2005). Valuing knowledge management impact on engineering design activities.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. and Segars,
A. H. (2001). Knowledge Management: An organizational capabilities
perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
Hoegl, M. and
Schulze, A. (2005). How to support knowledge creation in new product
development: An Investigation of knowledge management methods. European Management Journal, 23(3),
263-273.
Iyer, G. R., LaPlaca, P. J. and Sharma, A. (2006). Innovation and
new product introductions in emerging markets: Strategic recommendations for
the Indian market. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35, 373-382.
Kimble, C. and Hildreth, P. (2005). Dualities, distributed communities of practice and knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(4), 102-113.
Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D. and Handfield,
R. B. (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational
product development teams: The effect of formal and informal socialization
mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(2), 156-172.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge
management enablers, processes and organizational performance: An integrative
view and empirical examination. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228.
Lee, M.-C. and Chang, T.
(2006). Applying TQM, CMM and ISO 9001 in Knowledge
Management for Software Development Process Improvement. International Journal of Services and
Standards, 2(1), 101-115.
Li, C.-Y. and Hsieh, C.-T. (2009). The impact of knowledge stickiness on knowledge transfer
implementation, internalization, and satisfaction for multinational
corporations. International Journal of
Information Management, 29(6), 425-435.
Li, Y.-H., Huang, J.-W. and Tsai, M.-T.
(2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge
creation process. Industrial Marketing
Management, 38(4), 440–449.
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the
success of an organization’s knowledge management strategy. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1),
37–40.
Lin, W.-B. (2008). The effect of
knowledge sharing model. Expert Systems
with Applications, 34(2), 1508–1521.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer,
S., Liedtke, C. and Choo,
A. S. (2004). Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation
processes. Journal of Operations
Management, 22(6), 589–607.
Liu, P.-L., Chen, W.-C. and Tsai, C.-H.
(2005). An empirical study on the correlation between
the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product
performance in
Love,
J. H. and Roper, S. (2009). Organizing innovation: Complementarities
between cross-functional teams. Technovation, 29(3),
192-203.
Martın-de-Castro, G., Lopez-Saez, P. and Navas-Lopez,
J. E. (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in
knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from
Mittendorff, K., Geijsel, F., Hoeve,
A., Laat, M. d. and Nieuwenhuis,
L. (2006). Communities of practice as stimulating forces for
collective learning. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 18(5), 298-312.
Nonaka,
Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekert, R. W. and
Bonner, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development
among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4),
258-271.
Oshri,
Persaud, A. (2005). Enhancing synergistic
innovative capability in multinational corporations: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 22, 412–429.
Pheng, L. S. and
Chuan, Q. T. (2006). Environmental factors and work performance of project
managers in the construction industry. International
Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 24–37.
Quah, D. (2001). The weightless economy in economic
development. In M. Pohjola
(Ed.), Information Technology,
Productivity and Economic Growth: International Evidence and Implications for
Economic Development:
Qureshi, T. M., Warraich, A. S. and Hijazi, S. T.
(2009). Significance of project management performance
assessment (PMPA) model. International
Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 378–388.
Salmador, M. P. and Bueno, E. (2007). Knowledge creation in strategy-making:
Implications for theory and practice. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 367-390.
Sapienza, H. J., Parhankangas, A. and Autio, E.
(2004). Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(10),
809–829.
Schmickl, C. and Kieser, A. (2008). How much do specialists have to learn from
each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37(3), 473-491.
Schmidt, J. B., Sarangee, K. R. and Montoya, M.
M. (2009). Exploring new product development project review
practices. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 26(5), 520-535.
Sen, F. K. and Egelhoff, W. G. (2000). Innovative capabilities of a firm and the use of technical
alliances. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 47(2), 174-183.
Senoo, D., Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Salmador,
M. P. (2007). Workplace reformation, active ba
and knowledge creation: From a conceptual to a practical framework. European Journal of Innovation Management,
10(3), 296-315.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to
performance: Lessons for team leadership. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533-544.
Tsai, M.-T. and Li, Y.-H. (2007). Knowledge creation process in new venture strategy and
performance. Journal of Business
Research, 60(4), 371-381.
Vaccaro, A., Veloso, F. and Brusoni, S.
(2009). The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based processes: An
empirical study. Research Policy, 38(8),
1278–1287.
Zika-Viktorsson, A. and Ingelgard, A. (2006). Reflecting activities in product developing teams: Conditions for
improved project management processes. Research in Engineering Design, 17(2), 103-111.
About the Authors:
Poh Kiat Ng is an Assistant Lecturer at the Faculty of
Engineering and Technology,
Gerald Guan Gan
Goh is
a Senior Lecturer in Knowledge Management, Faculty of Business and Law,
Uchenna Cyril Eze is a Senior Lecturer at the