1

BABARINDE, SOLOMON ADEJARE

PG/PhD/05/45287

SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE OF

MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN NIGERIA.

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

Paul Okeke

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name DN : CN = Webmaster’s name O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka OU = Innovation Centre

2

SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE OF

MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN NIGERIA

BY

BABARINDE, SOLOMON ADEJARE PG/PhD/05/45287

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA,

ENUGU CAMPUS.

JULY, 2014.

3

SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS

IN NIGERIA BY

BABARINDE, SOLOMON ADEJARE PG/PhD/05/45287

BEING A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD

OF DOCTOR OF PHILLOSOPH (Ph.D) DEGREE IN

MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS.

SUPERVISOR: Prof. U. J. F. EWURUM

JULY, 2014.

4

DECLARATION This is to declare that BABARINDE, SOLOMON ADEJARE, of

the Department of Management, with the Registration Number

PG/Ph.D/05/45287 has carried out this research.

The work embodied in his thesis is original and has not been

submitted in part or full for any other diploma or degree of

this or any other University.

……..………………………………. ………………………… BABARINDE SOLOMON ADEJARE DATE

5

APPROVAL

The thesis has been approved for the Department of

Management, Faculty of Business Administration, University

of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

By ………………………….. ……………………………….. SUPERVISOR HEAD OF DEPARTMENT Prof. U. J. F. Ewurum Dr. V. A. Onodugo

6

DEDICATION

TO GOD ALMIGHTY

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My profound gratitude goes to THE ALMIGHTY GOD, the Alpha and

Omega, the beginning and the ending for preserving my life and for

making this dream a reality.

My warmest regard to my supervisor, Prof. U. J. F. Ewurum, who,

despite his tight schedule, found time to put this thesis in a correct

perspective. My appreciation to Dr. V. A. Onodugo, the current Head,

Department of Management, Dr. Ann Ogboo, Dr. B. I. Chukwu and all

other lecturers in the Department and the administrative staffs

especially Mrs. Ngozi Ofordili for unquantifiable roles they played in

achieving this dream. I appreciate the following people: Dr. Isola

Kareem, Mr. Ayodele Aluko, Pastor & Mrs. A. O. Olayode and Pastor A.

Isiaka, Pastor David Olarewaju for the roles they played in my life to

make this a reality. God will bless you all.

I appreciate the management and staff of Nigeria Breweries Plc.,

Guinness Nig. Plc. and Bendel Breweries Plc. for making the necessary

data available to me in the course of writing this thesis.

My appreciation goes to my amiable wife and children who without

their cooperation and understanding this success would have been a

mere dream. I am also indebted to my secretaries Mrs. Mercy Isaac

Yusuf, Mrs. Dadeowo Bimbo and Mrs. Theresa Babajide for their

support in typing the manuscripts.

8

ABSTRACT

This thesis examined the effect of shared knowledge on the performance of firms in Nigeria. The objectives of the study are: (1) To determine the effect of shared knowledge on the performance of firms (2) To find out whether the contribution of shared knowledge to the performance of firms compares with national and international standards. (3) To determine the effects of knowledge learning capacity of workers on a sustainable competitive performance of the firms. (5) To ascertain the extent to which tacit knowledge helps to improve the performance of the firms. (5) To identify the principal mode of explicit knowledge that contributes to a sustained performance of the firms. (6) To investigate the extent to which knowledge based capacity is considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the firms. The research design chosen in the study is a combination of a survey and oral interview. A representative sample of 504 respondents where chosen using the table of random numbers from a population of 735 respondents from Nigerian Breweries Plc., Guinness Nig. Plc. and Bendel Breweries Plc. The data presentation tools were tables. The data analyses tools were percentages Z test, Z test of population proportions and coefficient of determination. The Z test and Z test of population proportions were used to test the six hypotheses. The test-retest method of reliability and content validity were used. It was found that: (1) shared knowledge had a positive effect on the performance of the firms. (2) It was found that the contribution of shared knowledge to the performance of the firms compared favourably with national and international standards. It was also found that knowledge learning capacity of the workers had a positive effect on the sustained competitive performance of the firms. It was found that the tacit knowledge to a large extent helped to improve the performance of the firms. It was also found that combination and externalization were the principal modes of explicit knowledge that contributed to a sustained performance of the firms and lastly it was found that knowledge based capacity is considered to a large extent a strategic resource but not the most strategic resource as there were other resources such as men, materials, money time, energy, information and infrastructure. It was concluded that as shared knowledge increased, the performance of the firms also increased. It was recommended that the strategic managers of the firms studied should as a matter of policy continue to use shared knowledge as a tool for improving performance in their companies.

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ………………………………………………………………. i APPROVAL ……………………………………………………………………… ii DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………… iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………………. iv ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………….. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………. vi LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ……………………………………………………..

xi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY……………………………………

1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT …………………………………………….. 8 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY …………………………………….. 9 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ……………………………………………

9 1.5 HYPOTHESES ………………………………………………………….

10 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY …………………………………..

11 1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ……………………………………………..

12 1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ……………………………………. 13 1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS …………………………………………….. 13 1.10 PROFILE OF SELECTED MANUFACTURING FIRM

UNDER STUDY …............................................................ 17

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………

24

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ………………………… 27

10

2.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 27 2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ……………………………………………… 27 2.1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF KNOWLEDGE ……………………. 27 2.1.2 THE CONCEPT OF CONTRIBUTION OF

SHARED KNOWLEDGE……………………………………………………. 29 2.1.3 THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE LEARNING

CAPACITY OF WORKERS…………………………………………………. 30 2.1.4 THE CONCEPT OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE……………………………… 31 2.1.5 THE CONCEPT OF PRINCIPAL MODE OF

EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE…………………………………………………. 32 2.1.6 THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE BASED CAPACITY……………. 33 2.1.7 THE CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE…………………………………. 33 2.1.8 THE CONCEPT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF

THE MANUFACTURING FIRMS……………………………………….. 34 2.1.9 THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE

PERFORMANCE ………………………………………………………….. 35

2.1.10 THE CONCEPT OF IMPROVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE……… 35 2.1.11 THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINED PERFORMANCE………………. 36 2.1.12 THE CONCEPT OF PRODUCTIVITY ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE…36 2.1.13 THE CONCEPT OF EFFICIENCY ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE…….37 2.1.14 THE CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVENESS ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE 38 2.1.15 THE CONCEPT OF IMPROVEMENT IN PROFITABILITY……… 38 2.3 THEORETICAL REVIEW………………………………………………… 44 2.3.1 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT… 44 2.3.2 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF OPERATIONALISING

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT………………………………………. 47 2.3.3 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL

AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT……………………………….. 49

11

2.3.4 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION……….. 55 2.3.4.1 TACIT TO TACIT (SOCIALIZATION) …………………………….. 55 2.3.4.2 EXPLICIT TO EXPLICIT (COMBINATION)……………………… 56 2.3.4.3 TACIT TO EXPLICIT (EXTERNALIZATION)…………………….. 56 2.3.4.4 EXPLICIT TO TACIT (INTERNALIZATION)……………………… 57 2.3.5 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE AND

KNOWLEDGE SHARING (KS)……………………………………….. 58 2.3.6 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE

SHARING USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY……………… 64 2.3.6.1 GROUPWARE…………………………………………………………. 65 2.3.6.2 INTRANETS……………………………………………………………. 66 2.3.6.3 KNOWLEDGE PORTALS…………………………………………… 67 2.3.6.4 EXTENSIBLE MARK-UP LANGUAGE (XML)…………………… 68 2.3.6.5 KNOWLEDGE MAPPING…………………………………………… 69 2.3.6.6 DATA MINING AND DATA WAREHOUSE……………………… 69 2.3.6.7 ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT (EDM)………….. 70 2.3.6.8 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)…………………………………. 71 2.3.6.9 EXPERT SYSTEMS…………………………………………………… 71 2.3.6.10 CASE BASED REASONING………………………………………. 72 2.3.6.11 ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS…………………………….. 72 2.3.6.12 INTELLIGENT AGENTS…………………………………………..

73

2.3.7 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF MANUFACTURING FIRM……………………………………….. 73

2.3.7.1 THE CONTEXT FOR MANUFACTURING PLANNING AND CONTROL…………………………………………………………..

73 2.3.7.2 NETWORKING AS KNOWLEDGE WORK: A STUDY

OF STRATEGIC INTERORGANIZATIONAL

12

DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONALIZATION……………….. 75

2.3.8 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF DEFINING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE…………………………….

78 2.3.9 THE CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT………….. 79 2.3.9.1PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND ITS EFFECT

ON THE MANUFACTURING FIRMS………………………………… 81

2.3.9.2 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS………………………………………. 82 2.3.10 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT AND MANUFACTURING PERFORMANCE…… 86 2.3.11 THEORETICAL REVIEW OF BALANCED SCORECARD:

AS A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT METHOD…………… … 89 2.3.12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: ORGANISATIONAL

KNOWLEDGE …………………………………………………………. 91

2.3.12.1 THEORY………………………………………………………………… 91 2.3.12.2 THEORY OF ORGANISATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CREATION.. 92 2.3.12.3 THEORIES OF FIRM INTERNATIONALIZATION………………. 94 2.3.12.4 RESOURCE BASE VIEW OF THE FIRM…………………………. 98 2.3.12.5 FROM THE RESOURCE-BASED TO THE KNOWLEDGE-

BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM…………………………………………… 102

2.3.12.6 THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM………………… 105 2.3.12.7 REINFORCEMENT THEORY OF LEARNING………………………. 109 2.3.12.8 FACILITATION THEORY (THE HUMANIST APPROACH)………. 110 2.3.12.8.1 FACILITATIVE TEACHERS ARE:………………………………….. 111 2.3.12.8.2 LEARNERS:…………………………………………………………….. 111 2.3.13 COGNITIVISM THEORY OF LEARNING……………………………… 111 2.3.14 GOAL THEORY…………………………………………………………….. 112 2.3.15 CONTROL THEORY………………………………………………………. 112

13

2.3.16 SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY…………………………………………. 113 2.4 MODEL MODIFICATION………………………………………………… 113 2.5 EMPIRICAL REVIEW………………………………………………………. 115 2.5.1 SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE OF

MANUFACTURING FIRMS……………………………………………….. 115 2.5.2 COMPARISON OF CONTRIBUTION OF SHARED

KNOWLEDGE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARD……

118 2.5.3 KNOWLEDGE LEARNING CAPACITY OF WORKERS

AND SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE MANUFACTURING FIRMS………………………………………

120 2.5.4 TACIT KNOWLEDGE AND THE PERFORMANCE OF

MANUFACTURING FIRMS………………………………………………… 123 2.5.5 THE PRINCIPAL MODE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE

ANDPERFORMANCE OF THE MANUFACTURING FIRMS…………. 126 2.5.6 HOW KNOWLEDGE-BASED CAPACITY IMPROVES THE

PROFITABILITY OF THE MANUFACTURING FIRMS………………... 127 2.6 SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE…….. 132

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….. 134 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………….. 148 3.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………… 148 3.1 METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW…………………………………………. 148 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………………. 149 3.3 SOURCES OF DATA…………………………………………………….. 150 3.3.1 PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA……………………………………….. 150 3.3.2 SECONDARY SOURCES OF DATA…………………………………… 150 3.4 POPULATION………………………………………………………………. 150

14

3.5 SAMPLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE………………………….. 151 3.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT……………… 153 3.7 DESCRIPTION OF DATA PRESENTATION AND

ANALYSIS TOOLS………………………………………………………... 154

3.8 RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT………………………………… 154 3.9 VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENT…………………………………….. 155

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….. 157

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS……………………………. 158

4.1 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….. 158 4.2 DATA PRESENTATION ……………………………………………………… 159 4.3 DATA ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………… 163 4.3.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS …………………………………………………… 163 4.3.2 VALIDITY ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………. 164 4.3.3 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS ………………………………………………… 166 4.3.4 RELATIVE FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ………………………………….. 169 4.3.5 ANALYSIS OF DATA USING THE COEFFICIENT

OF VARIATION …………….………………………………………………. 171 4.3.6 ANALYSIS OF SOME LIKERT SCALE STATEMENT

USING THE Z TEST ……………………………………………………….. 174 4.3.7 ANALYSIS OF DATA USING THE Z TEST OF

POPULATION PROPORTIONS …………………………………………… 175 4.3.8 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS ………………………………………………… 179 4.3.9 HYPOTHESES TESTING ……………………………………………….… 180 4.3.10 INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS …………………………………………… 183

15

4.4 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ……………………………………… 188 4.4.1 DISCUSSION OF THEORETICAL FINDINGS…………………………

199

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………….. 201

CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSION,

RECOMMENDATIONS,CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE AND SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH…….

203 5.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS ……………………………………… 203 5.2 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………….. 204 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………….. 206 5.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE …………………………………….. 207 5.5 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH …………………………….

211

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………... 212 APPENDIX I…………………………………………………………………………… 214

APPENDIX II

QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………………..……………

215

SECTION 1: PERSONAL DATA ………………………………………………….. 215 SECTION 2: DATA ON SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AS THEY AFFECT MANUFACTURING PERFORMANCE ……………….

215 APPENDIX III

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE………………………………………………………….. 220 APPENDIX IV

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………. 221

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 - Conversation of knowledge between explicit and tacit………………

46 Table 2.2 - Knowledge types and process maturity………………………………

62 Table 2.3 - Knowledge stages and learning approaches………………………….

63 Table 2.4 - Conversation of knowledge based on portal technology……………..

68 Table 2.5 - Main theoretical approaches that lead to the explanation of the

development of transnational companies…………………………….. 96

Table 3.1 - Computation of correlation co-

efficient………………………………155 Table 4.1 - The presentation of the response and none response rates of the

questionnaire administered……………………………………………159

17

Table 4.2 - The summary of the personal data of the 500 respondents…………..

159 Table 4.3 - The Summary of the personal data of the 500

Respondents…………………………………………………………

160

Table 4.4 - The lengths of service and statuses of the 500

Respondents………………………………………………………1

62

Table 4.5a - The spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of the data on two occasions from the responses on the objectives ..…………………… 164

Table 4.5b - The 504 sample numbers……………………………………………

165 Table 4.6 - The analysis of the likert scale responses related to the first

Objective…………………………………………………………… 167

Table 4.7 - The analysis of the likert scale responses related to the second

Objective………………………………………………………..…. 169

Table 4.8 - The analysis of the data related to the third objective……………….

171 Table 4.9 - The analysis of the data related to the fourth

objective………………174 Table 4.10 - The analysis of the data related to the fifty

objective………………..176 Table 4.11 - The analysis of the data related to the sixth

objective……………….178 Table 4.12 - The computational details of the first three

hypotheses……………….181 Table 4.13 - The computational details of the last three hypotheses……………….182

18

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 - Three essential components knowledge management…………….. 46 Figure 2.2 - Framework for operationalising knowledge management…………. 48 Figure 2.3 - Knowledge management processes………………………………… 49

19

Figure 2.4 - The knowledge conversion processes in a knowledge creating organization…………………………………………………………..

57 Figure 2.5 - The system’s cybernetic model of the transform of the firm

approach in the management of changes in the Nigerian manufacturing Industry………………………………………………113

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Shared knowledge and performance have been relevant in four epochs

namely the era of early influences, the era of the industrial revolution,

the era of scientific management movement and the modern era. Many

records and ideas relating to management date from antiquity. Among

these are the records of the Egyptians, the early Greeks, and the ancient

Romans. In addition, there have been the experience and administrative

practices of the Catholic Church, military organizations, and the

cameralists of the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Interpretation of

early Egyptian papyri, extending as far back as 1300 B.C., indicate the

recognition of the importance of organization (Koontz, O’donnel and

Weirich, 2000:34).

The Industrial Revolution in Europe was the transitory phase from the

manufacturing or putting-out system to the factory system. The present

thesis will attempt to show that management was relevant during the

three epochs of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, United States of

America and Japan and so it was more of a Management Revolution

than an Industrial Revolution (Berliner, 2003:5). Although Frederick

Taylor, who did his work in the early years of the twentieth century, is

20

usually called the father of scientific management, many persons before

Taylor considerable contributions to the development of management

thought (Koontz, O’donnel and Weirich, 2000:34).

Knowledge management is a relatively new discipline and therefore has a

short history. As a conscious discipline, it developed from the various

published work of academics and pioneers such as Peter Drucker in the

1970s, Karl-Erik Sveiby in the late 1980s, and Nonaka and Takeuchi in

the 1990s. It began when the concept of a “knowledge company” was

introduced in published literature (Uriarte, 2008:32-38)

The 1970s

In the 1970s, there was increasing use of information and this led to an

increase in the performance of the workers. Both implicit and explicit

knowledge were relevant as valuable assets of organizations. Most

organizations became learning organizations and emphasized the

cultural dimension of managing knowledge. Management of knowledge

became very relevant. Knowledge was seen as specialized information

and information was seen as processed data and the output of the

statistical system, the data processing system and the integrated

computer system. Information became a very important resource which

needed to be integrated with such other resources as the human

resource, materials, money, time, energy, knowledge, and infrastructure.

These resources when processed would lead to an improvement in the

performance of the brewing staff as the output.

This growing recognition of the importance of organizational knowledge

led to an increasing concern over how to deal with exponential increases

in the amount of available knowledge and the complexity of products

and processes. It was at this point that the computer technology, which

in the first place contributed heavily to the great abundance of

information, started to become part of the solution in a variety of ways.

21

Two examples of technology solutions that were available for use in early

knowledge management systems can be cited.

The 1980s

Classical economic theory does not fully recognize the value of

knowledge as an organizational asset. However, by the mid-1980s, the

importance of knowledge as a competitive asset was already well-

recognized, in particular, its expression in professional competence.

Nevertheless, most organizations still did not have the strategies and

methods for managing knowledge. It was during this period that Peter

Drucker coined the term “knowledge worker”. He, together with other

foresighted writers like Matsuda and Sveiby, wrote in-depth about the

role of knowledge in organization. Thus by the late 1980s, the ideas that

they had developed together with the work done in artificial intelligence

and expert systems gave rise to such concepts as “knowledge

acquisition”, “knowledge engineering” and “knowledge-based systems”

and other computer-based ontologies. These developments gave further

impetus to the growth of systems for managing knowledge.

As more thinkers and scholars publish their work, the phrase

“knowledge management” formally became part of the lexicon of

management. And in order to provide a technological base for managing

knowledge, a consortium of U.S. companies started in 1989 the

“Initiative for Managing Knowledge Assets”. As a result, numerous

knowledge management related articles began appearing in journals like

Sloan Management Review, Harvard Business Review, and others.

Simultaneously, the first books on organizational learning and

knowledge management were published, including Senge’s The Fifth

Discipline and Sakaiya’s The Knowledge Value Revolution (Uriarte,

2008:32-38)

The 1990s

22

By 1990 a growing number of academics and consultants had started

talking about knowledge management as the new business practice. At

the same time, a significant number of large management consulting

firms had begun in-house knowledge management activities and several

well established U.S., European and Japanese firms instituted focused

knowledge management programs. This came about as a result of the

publication of the seminar book of Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka

Takeuchi (1995:198-230) titled The Knowledge Creating Company: How

Japanese Companies Create the Dynamic of Innovation. And more and

more articles on knowledge management began to appear in an

increasing number of business journals. The agenda of many

conferences also started to include knowledge management as a main

item for discussion. But the introduction of knowledge management did

not come until 1991 when Tom Stewart published the article

“Brainpower” in Fortune magazine. This was followed by many more

articles in widely read publications, most notably articles written by

Nonaka, Stewart, and others. Nevertheless, business executives and

professionals did not yet show widespread interest in the subject

(Uriarte, 2008:32-38).

It was only in 1995 when knowledge management in its current form

first received significant attention among corporations and organizations.

The ability to create knowledge became a success factor that was very

relevant in Japanese management. The Japanese did not have raw

materials but they had the technical knowledge and other resources that

were processed using machines, methods and maintenance to get an

improvement in performance as their output. This led to an economic

miracle. (Uriarte, 2008: 32 - 38)

By the mid -1990s, it became widely recognized that the competitive

edge of some of the world’s leading companies was for the most part due

to the robust knowledge assets of those companies. With this realization,

the management of knowledge suddenly became a mainstream business

objective. At the same time, nurturing knowledge assets such as

23

competencies, customer relationships and innovations became a focus of

attention of many corporations. And other companies started emulating

the knowledge management practices of the market leaders (Uriarte

2008,32-38)

The International Knowledge Management Network (IKMN), which

started in Europe in 1989, went online in 1994. It was soon joined by

the Knowledge Management Forum, based in the United States. Shortly

thereafter, many other KM-related groups and publications started

appearing. There was a tremendous increase in the number of

knowledge management conferences and seminars as organizations

focused on managing explicit and tacit knowledge and leveraging these

resources to achieve competitive advantage. In the same year, IKMN

published the results of a knowledge management survey conducted

among European firms. In 1995 the European Community began

offering funding for KM-related projects through its ESPRIT program.

By the end of the 1990s, big businesses started implementing

“knowledge management solutions”. Knowledge management became a

rage and came to be seen as a highly desirable alternative to the failed

Total Quality Management (TQM) and business process re-engineering

initiatives. As a result, knowledge management projects became big

business and source of revenue for major international consulting firms

such as Ernst & Young, Arthur Andersen, and Booz-Allen & Hamilton.

In addition, a number of professional organizations interested in such

related areas as benchmarking, best practices, risk management, and

change management began exploring the relationship between

knowledge management and their areas of special expertise. These

included reputable organizations like the American Productivity and

Quality Council and the American Society for Information Science

(Uriarte,2008:32-38).

Knowledge management is popularized and has been spread across the

industrial and the information research world in 2000s. Organizations

24

understand the significance of intellectual capital that is managed

efficiently in order to improve the entire organizational performance by

aligning the ability of employees in accordance with the overall business

strategy. The knowledge management focuses on merging people,

processes, and technology together by combining with the ability with

the objective of providing corporate knowledge at an organizational

standard. Knowledge management centralizes the multi-disciplined

behavior for achieving organizational aspects by using the best of

knowledge. Knowledge management focuses on processes that are

composed of acquisition, creation, sharing and applying knowledge.

Knowledge management is considered to be organizational innovation

that shifts the overall business strategy and is transmitted in

management practices.

Knowledge portrays a firm’s intellectual capital which is made up of

experiences related to work, capability, knowledge and best practices

(Nonaka, 1994:24). Today’s economy has changed into a knowledge

driven economy. Organizational executives are concerned about

developing strategies for knowledge creation, sharing, dissemination,

and adaptation within the organization by using the ability of employees

to achieve the knowledge enrichment management. That concept

prioritized the effect of people and social networks on the knowledge

creation process. A firm must also realize the value of cultural

knowledge as it is a very sensitive subject. In today's society,

multiculturalism is widely accepted and it is important for organizations

to realize that every culture does not require the same consistency or

frequency of knowledge. It is more important to maintain retainability

within a culture's knowledge.

Some studies are using quantitative measures of knowledge

management projects impact, like the return on investment (Anderson

2002:14). Finally, quite a few empirical studies are investigating into the

causal relationships of knowledge management and/or information

25

technologies with performance (Nelson and Cooprider 1996: 409-429),

Armistead 1999: 143-154, Chong et al 2000: 366-380).

In today’s business environment, change is constant and multi-

dimensional. New competitors, new potential customers, advanced new

technology, and intense global competition alter or completely modify

most industries in unexpected manners. To perform excellently,

organizations must use this turbulent environment as an opportunity

rather than a threat. Organizations need to adapt quickly to new

conditions. Knowledge sharing is considered an important factor related

to the ability of both employees and organizations to respond quickly to

a changing business environment. Prior studies focus only on knowledge

sharing antecedents or consequences (Du, Ai & Ren, 2007:234; Hsu,

2008:48; Hsu, Ju, Yen & Chang, 2007:57; Kuo & Young, 2008:67; Law

& Ngai, 2008:86; Siemsen, Roth & Balasubramanian, 2008:45; Yang,

2007:40, 2008:8, 2009:62). Knowledge sharing has been cited as a

precondition of organization competitiveness (Du et al, 2007:32; Hsu,

2008:42; Kearns & Lederer, 2000:71). In other words, the assumption

here is that knowledge sharing can help organizations to outperform

direct competitors. Meanwhile, Parker and Kyj (2006: 27-45) highlights

the importance of revealing normally private information through the

budgeting process to gain competitive advantage. Although top

management believes that information technology enables knowledge

sharing practices, the truth is that willingness and attitudes of

individuals is the key factor (Yang, 2008: 530-543).

According to Bock & Kim (2002:14-21), knowledge sharing is considered

the cornerstone of knowledge management. Also, (Inkpen 2000: 1019-

1043) asserts that: “unless individual knowledge is shared throughout

an organization, the knowledge will have a limited impact on

organizational effect”. Lin (2008: 1508-1521) describes this in

operational terms: “the exchange of knowledge and sharing of

experiences among different organizational units.”

26

The modern era in the study of shared knowledge and performance

included the American management, the Japanese management and

Nigerian management. In the case of American management, it has been

backed by an economy that is very wealthy. The Ford use of modern

techniques to have a mass production of cars was very spectacular.

American managers do a lot of planning as the first management

function but there is a lot of hurry. In the case of Japanese

management, the planning is slow and thorough. The Japanese miracle

is borne by the ability of the Japanese to import raw materials and

manufacture and export finished manufactured goods in a lot of

industries especially in electronics. Japanese management is

characterized by employee longevity, culture bound management, life

time employment, use of quality circles. In the case of Nigerian

management, it is characterized by an impressive economic growth

comparable to some countries in the Asian tigers. The Nigerian Bureau

for Statistics did a rebasing to which the Gross Domestic Product growth

rate between the last quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014 gave a

Gross Domestic Product growth rate of 7.4% making the Nigerian

economy bigger than that of South Africa and the largest in Africa. But

unfortunately, this economic growth is not backed by employment,

poverty alleviation and change in many macro economics variables

(Nigerian Bureau of Statistics, 2014:1).

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The inability to determine the impact of shared knowledge on

performance leads to a difficulty for managers of manufacturing firms

studied. There is a difficulty in determining the effect of shared

knowledge on the performance of the manufacturing firms studied. This

difficulty has led to the obstacle of the difficulty in finding out whether

the contribution of shared knowledge to the performance of the

manufacturing firms studied compared favourably with international

standard. This led to the difficulty in determining the effect of knowledge

27

learning capacity of workers on a sustainable competitive performance of

the manufacturing firms.

There is also the difficulty in ascertaining the extents to which tacit

knowledge helps to improve the performance of the manufacturing firms

studied. There is the difficulty in identifying the principal modes of

explicit knowledge that contributed to a sustained performance for the

manufacturing firms. It becomes difficult to investigate the extent to

which knowledge base capacity is considered the most strategic resource

for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms under study.

These difficulties lead to problems which lead to lack of gateways. It is

these problems that this thesis attempt to address.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to determine the effect of shared

knowledge on the performance of the brewing industry in Nigeria.

The following specific objectives have emerged:

1. To determine the extent of the effect of shared knowledge on

the productivity aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms.

2. To find out whether the contribution of shared knowledge to

the efficiency aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms compares favourably with international standard.

3. To determine the extent of the effect of knowledge learning

capacity of workers on a sustainable competitive performance

of the manufacturing firms.

4. To ascertain the extent to which tacit knowledge helps to

improve the effectiveness aspect of performance of the

manufacturing firms.

28

5. To identify the principal mode of explicit knowledge that

contributes to a sustained performance of the manufacturing

firms.

6. To investigate the extent to which knowledge based capacity is

considered the most strategic resource for improving the

profitability of the manufacturing firms.

1.8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research attempts to provide answers to the following questions:

1. What is the effect of shared knowledge on the productivity

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms?

2. How does the contribution of shared knowledge to the

efficiency aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms

compare with international standard?

3. What is the effect of knowledge learning capacity of workers

on a sustained competitive performance of the manufacturing

firms?

4. What is the extent to which tacit knowledge helps to improve

the effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms?

5. What are the principal modes of shared knowledge that

contributes to a sustainable performance of the manufacturing

firms?

6. To what extent is knowledge based capacity considered the

most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms?

29

1.9 HYPOTHESES

Ho1: There is no positive effect of shared knowledge on the productivity

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

HA1: There is positive effect of shared knowledge on the productivity

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

Ho2: The contribution of shared knowledge to the efficiency aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firm does not compare

favourably with international standard.

HA2: The contribution of shared knowledge to the efficiency aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms compares favourably with

international standard.

Ho3: There is no positive effect of knowledge learning capacity of

workers on a sustained competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms.

HA3: There is positive effect of knowledge learning capacity of workers

on a sustained competitive performance of the manufacturing

firms.

Ho4: Tacit knowledge to a large extent does not help to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

HA4: Tacit knowledge to a large extent helps to improve the effectiveness

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

Ho5: Combination and externalisation are not the principal modes of

shared knowledge that contribute to a sustainable performance of

the manufacturing firms.

HA5: Combination and externalisation are the principal modes of shared

knowledge that contribute to a sustainable performance of the

manufacturing firms.

Ho6: Knowledge based capacity is not to a large extent considered the

most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms.

30

HA6: Knowledge based capacity to a large extent is considered the most

strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms.

1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is significant because it will produce information on the

contribution of shared knowledge on:

1. The Shareholders and Members of the Boards of Directors of

the brewing companies who formulate policies on shared

knowledge and performance.

2. The Managers, Supervisors and Staff of the manufacturing

firms who implement the policies that have been formulated.

3. The External Stakeholders: Contractors, Consultants, tax

officials and other government officials who want to be paid

their monies when they fall due.

4. Information, communication and telecommunication managers

and staff: Information gathered here will guide them in their

daily operations generally and marketing in particular.

5. The public at large and the present and potential customers

who want the brewing firms to produce good quality goods and

services.

6. Economic policy makers: Data gathered in this work will assist

economic policy makers in their strategic policy making process

to turn around the economy.

7. Researchers and students of Computer Science, Computer

Engineering, Production Management, Brewing Science,

Brewing Technology, Management and Business

Administration: This work will be an epitomic of further

research as well as making relevant data available for their use

for further research.

1.11 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

31

The focus of the study is to determine the effect of shared knowledge on

the performance in the brewing industry in South Western and South

Southern Nigeria. The independent variables are shared knowledge,

contribution of shared knowledge, knowledge learning capacity of

workers, tacit knowledge, the principal mode of explicit knowledge and

knowledge based capacity. The dependent variables are performance,

productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of the manufacturing firms. The

geographical scope is South Western Nigeria and South Southern

Nigeria. The time scope is from 2010 to 2014.

1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Attitude of the Respondents: The survey research design has the

limitation that some respondents are reluctant to give answers to

probes. This limitation is minimized by persuading the respondents and

by also adding a covering letter.

Interviewing Situation Constraint: The oral interview has the

limitation that the interviewing situation may differ from one occasion to

another especially if some few data collections are used to do the field

work. This limitation is minimized by the researcher doing most of the

field work himself.

The Structured Nature Constraint: The questionnaire research

instrument has the limitation that its structured nature may compel the

respondents to give answers that they do not fully endorse. This

limitation is minimized by also using another interview schedule.

Difficulty in Analysis Constraint: The oral interview schedule has the

limitation that it contained open-ended questions whose answers are

difficult to analyze. This limitation is minimized by using rates of

numbers divided by the number of schedule returned to give the

frequencies.

Time Constraint: There is the limitation of the scarcity of time

resources. This limitation is minimized by the use of time management

techniques like hurrying up.

32

Financial Constraint: There is also the limitation of the scarcity of money

resource. This limitation is minimized by having a balance budget.

1.12 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Shared knowledge is defined as an activity through which knowledge is

exchanged among people, friends, families, communities or

organisations.

The contribution of shared knowledge is defined as the proportion of

shared knowledge above compared to a total of such other resources like

the human resource, materials, money, time, energy, information and

infrastructure all reduced to monetary terms.

Knowledge learning capacity is defined as the production capability of

the facility of knowledge learning.

Tacit knowledge is defined as that knowledge that relies on common

sense and intuition.

Explicit knowledge is defined as that knowledge that is very clear when it

is shared by people.

Knowledge based capacity is defined as a production capability of a

knowledge facility.

Performance is defined as the extent to which an organization is able to

achieve its goals and objectives.

Performance of manufacturing firms is the performance of firms that

produce tangible products.

Sustainable competitive performance is defined as long-lasting

performance that makes a firm stand out over its rival firms.

Improvement of performance is defined as the process of enhancing

performance or making it better.

33

Sustained performance is defined as long-lasting performance backed by

economic growth whose proceeds are properly distributed and there is

also spontaneous change.

Improvement of profitability is defined as the enhancement of the

difference between sales revenue and total cost.

Information Technology is defined as that technology based on electronic

data processing, office and factory automation, process control and

telecommunication.

Manufacturing is defined as the aspect of production where both

products, services and waste products are produced.

Manufacturing performance is defined as the extent to which the

objectives and goals of the manufacturing firms are being achieved, the

promises made to the stakeholders are being fulfilled and the behaviours

of the staff are amenable to achieve the goals and objectives.

Development is defined as an increase from a lower to a higher socio-

economic condition which is shown by increase in education, training

and infrastructural development.

Sustainable Development is defined as the process of meeting the needs

of the present day generation without jeopardizing the needs of the

future day generation.

Sustainability is defined as the process of meeting the needs of the

shareholders for a long time into the future.

Competitive Advantage is defined as that element of strategy that makes

the manufacturing firm to have distinctive competence over and above

other firms.

34

Knowledge is defined as an organized combination of ideas, rules,

procedures and information (Marakas, 1999:12).

Core Knowledge is defined as that minimum scope and level of

knowledge required for the company to survive.

Advanced Knowledge is defined as the knowledge that enables a firm to

be competitively viable.

Ontology is defined as an explicit specification of a conceptualization,

while a conceptualization is an abstract, simplified view of the world that

we wish to represent for some purpose. (Gruber, 1993:24).

Innovative knowledge is defined as the knowledge that enables a firm to

lead its industry and significantly differentiate itself from its competitors.

Performance is “an action or process of performing a task or function”

(Oxford Concise Dictionary 1999: 1060). Important variables to be kept

in mind are function, work, action, task, process and specific standard.

Performance is the actual conducting of activities to meet responsibilities

according to standards. It is indication of what is done and how well its

is done (Winch, Bhattacharyya, Debay, Sarriot, Bertoli & Morrow 2003:2)

Productivity this refers to a state of yielding or furnishing results,

benefits or profits. It is an organization’s outputs divided by its inputs,

and group cohesiveness. It implies the quantity or volume of the major

product or service that an organization provides. It includes capital

investments, innovation, learning, and an employee’s motivation

(Decenzo and Robbins 2000:360). Employees are performing well when

they are productive (Decenzo and Robbins 2000:360). Productivity itsel

implies both concern for effectiveness and efficiency.

35

Performance appraisal is defined as the means the observation and

assessment of employee performance against pre-agreed and pre-

established activities and standard.

Performance Management is defined as the Leading edge organization

use performance management to gain insight into and make judgments

about, the effectiveness and efficiency of their programmes, processes

and people (Gore, 19997:4).

Performance measurement and evaluation are used to strengthen and

improve performance practices. According to WCPS (2001:47), measures

“… are the yardsticks used to determine how well work units and

employees produced or provide d products r services”.

Skill refers to the ability to perform a task or a group of task which often

requires the use of motor functions but also specific knowledge and

skills.

1.10 PROFILES OF SELECTED MANUFACTURING FIRMS UNDER

STUDY

GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC.

The multinational brewing company under study is Guinness Nigeria

Plc. Guinness Stout is sold in over 140 countries of the World. Its

popularity is based on its natural goodness and its unique flavour

(Guinness Nigeria Plc., 2012). In 1759, Mr. Arthur Guinness established

his brewery on a four-acre site near the western entrance to the city of

Dublin, Ireland, called St. James’s gate. Although the gate has

disappeared, the brewery now covers 66 acres and is one of the largest

in the world (Guinness Nigeria Plc., 2012).

In 1936, the demand for Guinness made it necessary to build a second

brewery at Park Royal near London. The third Guinness Brewery was

opened in Nigeria at Ikeja in 1963. Unlike the breweries at Dublin and

36

Park Royal, Guinness in Nigeria is bottled at the brewery and the Ikeja

brewery has the largest bottling hall of any Guinness brewery in the

world. The worldwide popularity of Guinness has led to the

establishment of breweries in Malaysia, Cameroon, Ghana and Jamaica.

Guinness is brewed under Guinness supervision in Kenya, Sierra Leone,

Australia, Trinidad, Canada, Mauritius, New Zealand, Seychelles,

Liberia, Thailand, Indonesia and Venezuela (Guinness Nigeria Plc.,

2012).

In 1959, Guinness produced her first larger beer, called Harp in Ireland

and shortly afterwards expanded this market and Harp was brewed in

the Guinness Nigeria Limited brewery in Benin. Harp later failed due to a

problem of quality, which could not be solved using the conventional

brewing methods and so it had to be dropped. It was replaced by

Satzenbrau which still trailed behind such popular larger bear brands

like Star and Guilder brewed by the market leader in the brewing

industry in Nigeria namely Nigeria Breweries Plc. (Guinness Nigeria Plc.,

2012).

NIGERIA BREWERIES PLC.

Nigerian Breweries Plc, incorporated in 1946, is the pioneer and largest

brewing company in Nigeria. Its first bottle of beer, STAR Larger, rolled

off the bottling lines of its Lagos Brewery in June 1949. Other breweries

were subsequently commissioned by the company, including Aba

Brewery in 1957, Kaduna Brewery in 1963, and Ibadan Brewery in

1982. In September, 1993, the company acquired its fifth brewery in

Enugu State, and in October, 2003, its sixth brewery, sited at Ama in

Enugu. Ama Brewery is the largest brewery in Nigeria and one of the

most modern worldwide. Operations at Enugu brewery were

discontinued in 2004, leaving the company with five operational

breweries.

The company has a portfolio of high-quality brands, including Star

Larger Beer launched in (1949); Gulder Larger Beer (1970); Maltina

37

(1976), which now has three varieties, namely Maltina Classic, Maltina

Strawberry, and Maltina with Pineapple; Maltina Sip-it (2005), which

was packaged in Tetrapaks; Legend Extra Stout (1992); and Amstel

Malta (1994). The company also relaunched Heineken Larger into the

Nigerian market in June, 1998 (Nigerian Breweries, 2012).

It started as a joint venture between the United African Company (UAC)

International, UK and Heineken of Holland, Thus, at inception, it was

100 per cent foreign owned. By the early 1950s, when it began operating

fully, some indigenous traders already involved with its products were

invited to become shareholders. Under the indigenization policy of the

early 1970s the foreign shareholders were forced to sell a significant

proportion of their holdings. Today, the company is 60 per cent Nigerian

owned and 40 per cent foreign owned. The 60 per cent Nigerian stake is

held by company employees and members of the public, while the 40 per

cent foreign ownership is split almost equally between UAC Holdings

Limited (for Unilever) and Heineken Brouwerijen BV (Nigeria Breweries

Plc, 2012).

The foreign partners now perform the role of technical advisers, with

Unilever advising on commercial aspects such as accounting,

purchasing, marketing and personnel, while Heineken does the same for

technology. Organizationally, the company has four divisions: technical,

finance, marketing and personnel, each of which is headed by an

executive director (Nigeria Breweries Plc., 2012).

At its inception in 1949, NBPLC had only Star Larger (Nigeria’s first) on

the market, over the years it has broadened its product range. Except for

the period 1984 to 86, when sales volume suffered an annual average

decline of about 18 per cent, turnover growth in the company has

generally been accompanied by growth in profit and production volume.

Thus, when normal growth was restored in 1987, the 51 per cent and 83

per cent increases in turnover and operating profit, respectively, for 1987

– 88 were accompanied by about 35 per cent volume growth. Similarly,

38

the turnover of about N1.7 billion recorded in 1991 was partially the

result of 8 per cent growth in sales volume. However, from all

indications, product pricing has been the major factor in the impressive

growth in operating profits (Nigeria Breweries Plc, 2012).

The deteriorating results recorded by the company in 1984-86 reflected

the foreign exchange rationing policy of the period, which was

necessitated by the severe balance of payments crisis of the post-oil-

boom era. The import licence allocation of the company could hardly

satisfy one third of its foreign exchange requirements. The government’s

mandatory backward integration policy in the mid-1980s saw the

company establishing a 5,000 – hectare farm, estimated to be worth N30

million, in Niger State. The farm is highly mechanized and produces

mainly maize, rice and sorghum, with soya beans and cowpeas as

rotational crops. The main crops are used as replacements for barley

malt. The changeover in input mix was assisted by the company’s N2

million R&D facility, which was commissioned in June 1987 and plant

conversion costing about N100 million (Nigeria Breweries Plc, 2012).

The company works with highly structured plans, with annual budgets

of intentions translated into explicit targets. The decision board sits

towards the end of the year to deliberate on the report of each divisional

head. Annual budget estimates are made in the middle of the year while

decisions on annual plans are left till the end of the year (Nigeria

Breweries Plc., 2012).

The company has experienced remarkable changes in its technical

capability. In 1949 it used to take between 28 and 30 days to produce a

bottle of beer but with technological improvement it now takes about two

weeks. The change in input content in the late 1980s also involved

changes in processing technology (Nigeria Breweries Plc, 2012).

Different measures of productivity are used for the technical division and

other divisions. In the technical section, productivity is measured in

39

terms of the efficiency of plant operation and also in terms of capacity

utilization. In other divisions, it is in terms of the accomplishment of

assigned responsibility. The company is viewed as a leader in the

national industry and in Africa it enjoys a high rating, in terms of both

productivity and product quality (Nigeria Breweries Plc, 2012).

NBPLC concentrates on the production of its beer and related products,

leaving ancillary services such as bottles, crown corks, labels, cartons

and crates to be supplied by other local manufacturers. In fact, Nigerian

law precludes a brewer from producing such ancillary services. Only the

companies in the soft drinks industry appear to sponsor firms to

produce such services. Backward integration into farming was a special

concession granted to the breweries in 1984 following the stringent

foreign exchange control measures introduced in that year. It also uses

outside transport companies for 60 per cent of total distribution (Nigeria

Breweries Plc, 2012).

BENDEL BREWERIES PLC.

The company entered into contract agreements with Henninger

International, Frankfurt, West Germany. Consequently, Henninger

Larger beer was introduced into Nigeria market, whose Franchise

duration was ten years, subject to renewal of another ten years. The

company’s product was launched on May 10th, 1975, but unfortunately

it was not acceptable to the consumers, and the contract was terminated

in September, 1976 (Bendel Brewery Plc 2006).

A new product known as Crystal larger beer came in to replace

Henninger Larger Beer, which was terminated on the 16th November,

1976, and was acceptable by beer consumers. The company signed a

contract agreement of about N4m with Kosmos. Export, for the

expansion of its production capacity form N100,000 hectoliters to

N300,000 hectoliters over per annum in 1976 and was completed in

1979 (Bendel Brewery Plc, 2006).

40

Bendel Brewery Limited was solely owned by the defunct Bendel State

Government of Nigeria, with an initial share capital of N200,000

(100,000 ordinary share capital of N2.00 each), which was increased to

N10m (5,000,000 ordinary share capital of N2.000 each) in 1987.

Initially, the company recorded profits and dividends were paid to the

State Government. There was crisis in the company, between the Board

of Directors and management in 1989, which led to the collapse of the

company, due to the removal of both the Board and General Manager,

thereby bringing about the corporate collapse; problem of sourcing for

funds (working capital); problem of overhauling of the equipment,

problem of keeping abreast with the new trend in beer market. This led

to the closure by the Government in December, 1990 (Bendel Brewery

Plc., 2006).

The company was privatized online with the Federal Government Policies

of commercialization and privatization of 1989. Offers were made by

Nigeria brewery Plc, Guinness Brewery Nigeria Plc., Church-gate

Institutes Nigeria Limited and Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Limited. Three

of the above companies rejected the offer, and Church-gate Industries

Nigeria Limited went ahead to sign the agreement for privatization of the

company on the 25th November, 1992, as investor/manager with

Technical Committee on privatization and commercialization on behalf of

the defunct Bendel State Government; which now comprises Edo and

Delta State, with Edo state own the company by virtue of assets sharing

formula for state creation by the Federal Government (Bendel Brewery

Plc., 2006).

The company’s equity share holding structures are as follows:

Church-gate Industries Nigeria Limited 51%

Edo State Government 25%

Other Nigerians 19%

Worker’s Trust 5%

Total 100

41

OF SELECTED MANUFACTURING FIRMS UNDER STUDY Comparison of the historical sketches ofGuinness Nigeria Limited and

Nigerian Breweries Plc. Guinness Overseas Limited came in existence in

1759 in a factory at Saint James’ Gate in Dublin, Ireland. However,

Nigerian Breweries started operating in Nigeria in November 1946. This

was the same year that the first pre-colonial development plan was

started in Nigeria by the British Colonial Government to harness raw

materials from the colonies to enable Britain to win the Second World

War. The first Nigerian Guinness Brewery was established in Ikeja,

Lagos in 1963.

The two lager beer products of Nigerian Breweries Plc namely Gulder and

Star lead the Guinness lager product called Harp. However, the

leadership is not in all marketing areas as Harp also leads in some

places. The ratio is Gulder 0.4, Star 0.35, Harp .25. However, Guinness

Stout is a very big leader when compared to Nigerian Brewery Plc Stout.

The malt products almost bracket.

The Gate Guinness Nigeria Plc factories are located in Benin, 1979, Ogba

and Guinness is brewed at Dubic Breweries Aba and Jos Metropolitan

Breweries Jos, Plateau State of Nigeria. Nigerian Breweries Plc factories

are located at Lagos, Night Mile, Enugu, Aba and Kaduna. So both

Breweries are almost equally dispersed geographically.

42

REFERENCES

Anderson, M (2012) “Measuring Intangible Value: The ROI of Knowledge

Management”; www.measuringofintangiblevalue.org. (on line,

assessed on 5th July by 5pm).

Armistead, C (1999) “Knowledge Management and Process Performance”,

Journal of Knowledge Management. Volume 2, Number 1.

Babbie, E (2005) The Basics of Social Research, Toronto: Wadsworth.

Banjoko, S. A (2000) Production and Operations Management, Lagos:

Saban Publishers.

Bartol, K. M and Srivastava, A (2002) “Encouraging Knowledge Sharing:

The Role of Organizational Reward System”, Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies. Volume 5, Number 1.

Bendel Breweries Plc (2006) Annual Report and Statements of Accounts,

Benin City: Bendel Breweries Plc.

Bock, G. E and Kim, Y. G (2002) “Breaking the Myths of Rewards,”

Informational Resources Management Journal. Volume 5, Number

2.

C.B.N (2002) Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Abuja: Central

Bank of Nigeria.

Chong, C.W, T. Holden, P. Wilhelmij, R. A Schmidt (2000) “Where Does

Knowledge Management Add Value”, Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Volume 3, Number 2.

43

Du, R, S. Ai, Y. Ren (2007) “Relationship between Knowledge Sharing

and Performance: A Survey in Xi’an China,” Expert System with

Applications.

Filemon, A. U(2008) Introduction to Knowledge Management, Jajarta,

Indonesia, ASSEAN Foundation, www.asenfoundation.org. online

assessed 12.12.2012 at 10am.

Firestone, J.M (2001) “Estimating Benefits of Knowledge Management

Initiatives: Concepts, Methodology and Tools,” Journal of the KMCI.

Volume 5, Number 2.

Grant, R.M (1997) “Knowledge-based View of the Firm: Implications for,”

Management Journal. Volume 1, Number 3.

Guinness Nigeria Plc (2012) “Annual Report and Statement of Accounts,”

www.GuinnessNigeri Plc Annual Report.org. downloaded on 10th

December by 6pm.

Hus, I. (2008) “Knowledge Sharing Practices as a Facilitating Factor for

Improving Organizational Performance Through Human Capital: A

Preliminary Test,” Expert Systems with Application, Volume 35,

Number 3.

Inkpen, A. C. (2000) “Learning Through Joint Ventures: A Framework of

Knowledge Acquisition,” The Journal of Management Studies.

Volume 11, Number 2.

Law, C. C. H and Ngai, E. W. T (2008) “An Empirical Study of the Effects

of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Behaviours on Firm

Performance,” Expert System with Applications: An International

Journal. Volume 2, Number 8.

Lin, W. B (2008) “The Effect of Knowledge Sharing Model,” Expert

Systems with Applications: An International Journal, Volume 6,

Number 1.

Nelson, K.M and Cooprider, J.G (1996) “The Contribution of Shared

Knowledge to is Group performance,” MIS Quarterly. Volume 1,

Number 3.

44

Nigerian Breweries Plc (2012) “Annual Report and Statements of

Account”, www.nigerianbreweries.org Plc Annual Report.org,

downloaded on 10th December by 4pm.

Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company-

How Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Parker, R and Kyj, L (2006) “Vertical Information Sharing in the

Budgeting Process Accounting,” Organizations and Society.

Siemsen, E, A. V. Roth and S. Balasubramanian (2008) “How motivation,

Opportunity, and Ability Drive Knowledge Sharing: The Constraining-

Factor Model,” Journal of Operations Management, Volume 12,

Number 1.

Yang, J. T (2007) “Knowledge Sharing: Investigating Appropriate

Leadership Roles and Collaborative Culture,” Tourism

Management. Volume 6, Number 3.

Yang, J. T (2008) “Individual Attitudes and Organizational Knowledge

Sharing,” Tourism Management. Volume 7, Number 3.

Yang, J. T (2009) “Antecedents and Consequences of Job Satisfaction in

the Hotel Industry,” International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Volume 9, Number 2.

45

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The focus of this study is on the effect of shared knowledge on the

performance of the manufacturing firms in South Western and South

Southern Nigeria. This chapter deals with the review of the related

literature for the research. Essential works on the following areas shall

be reviewed: analyzing the various conceptual/theoretical frameworks

and model that focus on knowledge management indicators and related

issues that affect shared knowledge and subsequently the organizational

performance conceptual overview of knowledge management, knowledge

creations where four modes of shared knowledge shall be discussed.

What knowledge sharing is and the roles of knowledge sharing in

manufacturing firms will be reviewed. Knowledge sharing using

information technology will also be discussed in this respect.

Consequently, performance indices such as efficiency productivity,

profitability, liquidity and others shall be reviewed, various aspects of

performance assessment (measurement tools) shall also be reviewed. The

other topics handled included organizational knowledge theory, theory of

organizational knowledge creation, the knowledge-based view of the firm,

resource based view of the firm, performance theories and the summary

of the review of the related literature shall be looked unto.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.1 The Concept of Shared Knowledge

Shared knowledge is that aspect of knowledge that is available to a lot of

people in the group. Kremp and Mairesse (2003:32) have found that

knowledge measurement have positive effects on Labour Productivity. It

is acknowledged that management processes have significant effects on

knowledge management success and that IT impact on knowledge

46

management success is not direct but mediated through knowledge

management process. Leadership, culture and strategy influence

knowledge management infrastructure.

Keramti and Axadeh (2007:292 – 297) believe that factors responsible for

commitment knowledge management success are knowledge sharing,

knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. It is argued that the ability

of the firm to create knowledge helps to explain the firm’s ability to

innovate and grow. Strategic alliance leads to better firm performance.

Market research and use of networks for knowledge exchange are linked

to higher sales turnover growth. Cooperation with other firms for renewal

is found to be positively related among medium scale firms. However,

output strategies such as sharing, codification of knowledge, firm-

provided training and quality certificates have no positive effects just in

the same manner output strategies: patents, new products or services

and improvement of internal processes do not have positive effects on

performance. KM input strategies are found to be clearly better

predictors of sales turnover. Research evidence suggests that innovation

is positively related to rapid sales growth within small firms (Storey,

2000:27-51) and that there is a significant positive relationship between

marketing research and development and sales growth. A positive

relationship also exists between new product introduction and re-

designed products and total sales growth. Non innovators are more

prevalent in declining, stable and low (to average) growth firms while

innovators exceed non-innovators in the supper-growth category

(Uhlaner, 2007:42). To be able to define and measure progress toward

the achievement of the goals of organization, every organization must be

abreast with its key performance indicators and crucial success factors.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or key success indicators (KSIs) are

quantifiable performance measurements used to define success factors

and measure progress toward the achievement of business goals.

Organizations that have well defined goals, well analysed mission and

have identified their stakeholders need to measure progress toward the

47

achievement of those goals by using key performance indicators. KPLs

are quantifiable measures that reflect the critical success factors of an

organization (Reh, 2010:57).

2.1.2 The Concept of Contribution of Shared Knowledge

The concept of contribution of shared knowledge has to do with the

percentage of the benefits of shared knowledge over the totality of the

benefits of shared knowledge and other resources such as human

resource, materials, time, energy, information and infrastructure.

It is posited that intangible assets such as spending on R & D, Internet

and Web applications, human resources, and customer acquisition

significantly influence the performance of companies. There is agreement

both from the academic community as well as from the practitioners’

community, that Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) do have a

positive impact on the performance of the organization.

Wu and Wang (2006:728-739) find in their study that system quality and

knowledge or information quality have a significantly positive influence

on user satisfaction. Also user satisfaction and perceived KMS benefits

have a direct effect on KMS use. In the KMS context, they find that user

attitude is affected by beliefs about system quality and knowledge or

information quality, which then affect KMS use. Users’ beliefs about the

KMS quality shape their attitude and this affects their KMS use. They

further find that system quality, knowledge or information quality, and

perceived benefits have a significantly positive influence on user

satisfaction because they want their KMS to be of high system quality,

high knowledge or information quality, and provide substantial benefits.

However they do not find the system quality of the KMS to have a

significantly direct influence on user perceived benefits. Firms that adopt

KMS significantly reduce administrative costs and improve productivity

in the second year after adopting KMS and gaining a competitive

advantage over non-adopters (Kuoching, 2004:32).

48

Some theories of economic growth are Solow-Swan theory which shows

growth as increased capital stock and endogenous theory which holds

that subsidies on research and development or education increase the

growth rate by increasing the incentive to innovation and Solow-Swan

models believes that new capital is more valuable than old capital

because since capital is produced based on known technology, and

technology improves with time, new capital will be more productive than

old capital. The implication of this model to knowledge management is

that application of knowledge will lead to creating new capital which will

be more productive than old capital and thus lead to growth. Growth

may be organic or inorganic. Organic growth means that the

organization itself has grown from its own business activity while organic

growth means that the company has grown by merger or acquisition.

Organic growth is internal growth and inorganic growth is external.

Companies want to grow in order to gain economies of scale and, spread

risk (diversification can help to spread risk and increase profits and

therefore returns for shareholders).

2.1.3 The Concept of Knowledge Learning Capacity of Workers

The concept of knowledge learning capacity of workers has to do with the

production capability of the facility of knowledge learning. Knowledge

learning is very typical of knowledge organizations. Most brewing firms

are now knowledge organizations. In recent years, major reviews have

occurred of the nature of truth and knowledge, the relationship between

rationality and action, and the links between individual thought and

collective beliefs. Contributions have been made from variety of sources,

including the sociology of knowledge, discourse analysis, organization

behaviour, studies of the social impact of advanced technologies,

theories of learning, institutional theory, and philosophy. Using Ryle’s

terminology, collectively such work has contributed to a series of

developments in both the theory of ‘knowing that’ and the theory of

‘knowing how’ (Blacker 1993:894). It has been suggested that knowledge:

i. Socially constructed.

49

ii. Often tacit.

iii. A function of the play of other meaning.

iv. Enacted.

v. Situated.

2.1.4 The Concept of Tacit Knowledge

Capital, raw materials and labour have been considered more valuable

than creating and applying knowledge. The information age and the

knowledge revolution have caused problems for people and

organizations. Demands for imaginative, intuitive, inspirational leaders

who can manage human intellect and convert it into useful products and

service continue to grow (Goffee and Jones, 2000:89). People must do

more work in less time. Workers who lack adequate education and

training, or explicit knowledge, struggle to keep up. They rely on their

common sense and intuition, or tacit knowledge, to get through the day.

Many companies are using tacit knowledge to augment a person’s

academic learning and experience. Wagner and Sternberg (1987:22)

believe that the ability to acquire and manage tacit knowledge are

hallmarks of managerial success. Opportunities to use tacit knowledge

are prime factors in attracting and maintaining a talented, loyal,

productive workforce (Smith, 2000:77). Valuable human and knowledge

resources will be wasted unless management openly accepts and

supports efforts to gather, sort, transform, record and share knowledge.

Priceless knowledge will continue to be lost unless organizations make

better use of their prime resource – relatively unchallenged, creative

people who are eager to apply their knowledge. Tacit knowledge, in

particular, is lost through outsourcing, downsizing, mergers and

terminations. Reportedly, 90 percent of the knowledge in any

organization is embedded and synthesized in peoples’ heads (Wah,

1999b:44; Bonner, 2000a:64; Lee, 2000:63). Most tacit knowledge is an

invisible line item in corporate budgets. However, it is tacit knowledge

that plays a key role in leveraging the overall quality of knowledge

(Quinn et al., 1996:111, Wah, 1999a:78; Goffee and Jones, 2000:78-79).

50

Tacit knowledge is “...being understood without being openly expressed’’

(Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1971), or knowledge

for which we do not have words. Tacit knowledge is automatic, requires

little or no time or thought and helps determine how organizations make

decisions and influence the collective behaviour of their members

(Liebowitz and Beckman, 1998). The philosopher Polanyi (1967:65-74)

described tacit knowledge as knowing more than we can tell, or knowing

how to do something without thinking about it, like ride a bicycle. This

highly personal, subjective form of knowledge is usually informal and

can be inferred from the statements of others (Sternberg, 1997:99). Tacit

knowledge tends to be local. It is not found in manuals, books,

databases or files. Tacit knowledge is technical or cognitive and is made

up of mental models, values, beliefs, perceptions, insights and

assumptions. Technical tacit knowledge is demonstrated when people

master a specific body of knowledge or use skills like those gradually

developed by master craftsmen.

2.1.5 The Concept of Principal Mode of Explicit Knowledge

Most explicit knowledge is technical or academic data or information

that is described in formal language, like manuals, mathematical

expressions, copyright and Patents. This “know-what,’’ or systematic

knowledge is readily communicated and shared through print, electronic

methods and other formal means. Explicit knowledge is technical and

requires a level of academic knowledge or understanding that is gained

through formal education, or structured study. Explicit knowledge is

carefully codified, stored in a hierarchy of databases and is accessed

with high quality, reliable, fast information retrieval systems. Once

codified, explicit knowledge assets can be re-used to solve many similar

types of problems or connect people with valuable, re-usable knowledge.

Sharing processes often require major monetary investments in the

infrastructure needed to support and fund information technology

(Hansen et al, 1999:204). Acts of gathering and using explicit knowledge

assume a predictable, relatively stable environment. Marketplace

51

competition, changing customer needs, among other factors, reduce

stability.

2.1.6 The Concept of Knowledge Based Capacity

It was found that knowledge based capacity is considered to a large

extent a strategic resource but not the most strategic as there were other

resources such as men, materials, money, time, energy, information and

infrastructure. Knowledge has been the organized combination of ideas,

rules, procedures and specialized information which a worker had. These

attributes that are acquired through education, training, socialization

and experiment went a long way in establishing the capacity of the

workers to produce that which will totally establish the ability of the

entire manufacturing firm to produce (Vollman, 2010:19).

The knowledge based capacity of the manufacturing firm could be

measured in the units of the inputs or output.

However, knowledge based capacity at the input level becomes a very

valuable and strategic resource. It has been however not the only

resource because in economic parlance the resources which were the

factors of production were four in number namely land, labour, capital

and entrepreneurship (Unyimadu and Igwe, 2012:18). However in the

system’s cybernetic model which has been an extension of the Leontief’s

model applicable to all systems, there are two additional elements. In the

Leontief’s model, the elements are three in number namely inputs,

transform and output (O’brien, 2000:56). In the system’s cybernetic

model, the elements were five in number namely inputs, transform,

output, feedback and control. The inputs are eight in number namely,

men, materials, money, time, energy, information, infrastructure and

knowledge-based capacity (O’brien, 2000:234).

2.1.7 The Concept of Performance

Performance in business setting mean the extent to which an objective

has been or is being met Put in another way, performance refers to the

degree to which organizational goals are achieved. Performance is

52

measured from concepts – efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers

to the rate of resource utilization, i.e. cost incurred in the course of work

done, while effectiveness refers to the extent to which results are

achieved by ways of units of goods produced or sold, value of content

executed, etc.

Both aspects of performance are relevant in this thesis. In evaluating

and assessing performance of a business enterprise, attempt is made to

examine not only the resultant outcome of the company’s efforts in

terms of returns (profit and its othe derivation), but also those aspects of

the company’s financing and asset structure which indicate its ability to

survive or its disposition to avail itself of future opportunities. In

practical parlance, performance is looked at in the context of the delivery

to the promise made to stakeholders. This is why many oil producing

firm in the Niger Delta in Nigeria have problems with their host

communities because they continue to fail to make good their promises

even when there is full degradation of soil during their operations. The

major areas of performance customarily evaluated are profitability,

liquidity, leverage (long term solvency) and activity or efficiency of

operation (Nwachukwu, 2006:50).

2.1.8 The Concept of the Performance of the Manufacturing Firms

The performance of manufacturing firms is in the context of the extent to

which they achieve their goals and objectives. Manufacturing firms have

a lot of performance factors and the performance factors include:

a. Efficiency.

b. Effectiveness.

c. Productivity.

d. Profitability.

e. Solvency.

Dictionary’s definition of efficiency as fitness or power to accomplish, or

success in accomplishing the purpose intended, adequate power,

53

effectiveness, efficacy. Apart from efficiency, effectiveness literally means

to have effects, when something is said to be effective, it means that it

has effects that are desired and recognized as intentional in the design of

the thing in question. Productivity is defined as the measure of how well

resources are brought together in organizations and utilized for

accomplishing a set of results. Profitability is the ability of an enterprise

to make profit. Profit is the income or difference between sales revenue

and total cost. Solvency is the ability of an enterprise to meet its

immediate obligations and thus avoid the possibility of insolvency

(Nwachukwu, 2006:50).

2.1.9 The Concept of Sustainable Competitive Performance

Sustainable competitive performance entails a long lasting type of

performance in order to have a competitive edge over rival firms. The

sustainable competitive performance factors are;

i. Leverage.

ii. Activity.

iii. Morale.

Leverage is a measure of how far the total capital of the enterprise is

borne by long term debt. Activity is defined as the use made of resource

by the enterprise; while morale is only as a member of an integrated

group with high morale that a worker in public enterprise can make his

maximum contribution to the enterprise (Koontz et al, 2000:90).

2.1.10 The Concept of Improvement of Performance

Performance is defined as a set of behaviours that are relevant to the

goals of the organization. It is believed that performance involves the

process of measuring the attainment of multiple and sometimes

conflicting organizational goals. Sales growth, improved quality of

products/services, delivery time, customer retention, customer growth,

increase in market shares, increase in the value of company’s shares as

examples of organizational goals were listed. Performance assessment or

measurement has also been defined as – “…the acquisition and analysis

54

of information about the actual attainment of company objectives and

plans, and about factors that may influence this attainment…”; “…the

process of determining how successful organizations or individuals have

been in attaining their objectives…”.

2.1.11 The Concept of Sustained Performance

The concept of sustained performance entails long lasting performance,

backed by economic growth in which the proceeds are properly

distributed and it is backed by spontaneous change. This spontaneous

change will lead to an improvement in a lot of the macro economic

variables. For example employment of school leavers will improve. There

will be a lot of poverty alleviation programmes and the workers would

have a drastic improvement in their income; the brewing companies

would also be able to pay good salaries because improved performance

goes with increase in net profit (Anyawu & Oaikhenan, 2000:100).

With sustained performance, the increase in net profit will enable the

brewing firms to pay their taxes and also meet obligations to external

shareholders such as contractors, consultants, tax officials and other

government officials. Sustained performance will also enable the brewing

firms to pay the interest on their loans. It will also enable the firms to go

into internal or external growth. The internal growth will include

expansion, market penetration and product development. The external

growth will include mergers, consolidations, acquisitions, and

diversification (Yomere & Osaze, 2000:65).

2.1.12 The Concept of Productivity Aspect of Performance

Productivity has been defined as the measure of how well resources are

brought together in organizations and utilized for accomplishing a set of

results. It is reaching the highest level of performance with the least

expenditure or resource. To operationalise productivity in a public

enterprise the ratio of total output to total input is very handy. Total

input is the naira value of all the factors of production for that year

which include land, labour and capital. The limitation of this method of

55

operationalising productivity is that entrepreneurship management

which is a factor of production is difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Another limitation is that for public enterprises that render a service, it

becomes difficult to quantify the output in monetary terms since the

outputs are tangible (Nwachukwu, 2008: 40-45).

This measure of productivity has the advantage that it aggregates

effectiveness of the use of the factors of production of the public

enterprise to produce goods and services. It draws attention to the fact

that a good integration of resources physical and human will yield higher

output of public enterprises shown by the result of total output/total

input between greater than 1 (Unyimadu, 2007: 28-36).

Higher productivity of the employees of a public enterprise has the

following good effects:

(i) higher incomes and profits;

(ii) higher earnings;

(iii) increased supplies of both consumer and capital goods at lower

costs and lower prices;

(iv) ultimate shorter hours of work and improvements in working and

living conditions; and

(v) strengthening the general economic foundation of workers.

2.1.13 The Concept of Efficiency Aspect of Performance

Efficiency is the fitness or power to accomplish success in accomplishing

the purpose intended. Efficiency is the ratio between input and output,

between effort and results, expenditure and income, cost and resulting

pleasure. This second meaning became current in Business and

Economic only since the beginning of the 2oth century. Still, later on,

influenced by the scientific management movement. Efficiency was

defined as the ratio of actual performance to the standard performance

(Ejiofor, 2007:6).

56

2.1.14 The Concept of Effectiveness aspect of performance

Effectiveness is doing the right thing it refers to the extent in which

result are achieved by the way of meeting of goods produced or sold and

value of content executed. To be effective means to have effect, impact or

influence. For a manufacturing firm to be effective it must have more

chances of survival than the other firm. It must meet the essential

function or throuput than the firm and it must contribute to the supra

system to the bigger system and must maximize its benefit

(Unyimadu2007:10)

2.1.15 The Concept of Improvement in Profitability

Profitability is the extent to which the total revenue exceeds total cost.

Total revenue is got by multiplying quantity sold by price per unit. Total

cost is got by multiplying the quantity bought by unit cost. The

profitability of a brewing firm can be operationalized by using

profitability ratios. Profitability ratios are classified into two categories;

ratios which express income as a percentage of sales, and ratios which

express income as a yield associated with the employment of resources.

For the purpose of the analysis of profitability, income is generally

expressed as Earning Before Interest and Tax (EBIT). The profitability

ratios of income as a percentage of sales include the following:

i. Gross profit ratio which is the ratio of gross margin or profit to

sales which is used to check stability of market conditions;

ii. Net income ratio or the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes

to sales. The profitability ratios of return on resources employed

include the following;

i. Return on capital employed which is the ration of the

earnings before interest and taxes over net asset value

which is found by adding the value of assets to that of

current assets and subtracting the total assets which is the

ratio of earnings before interest and taxes over fixed plus

current assets;

57

ii. Return on total assets which is the ratio of earnings before

income and taxes plus current assets; and

iii. Return on gross assets which are the ratio of earnings

interest and taxes plus depreciation for the period over the

assets at costs plus current assets (Nwachukwu, 2006:65).

The most basic proposition of growth theory is that continual advances

in technological knowledge in the form of new goods, new markets, or

new processes is necessary in order to sustain a positive growth rate of

output per capita in the long run. The proposition can be demonstrated

using the neoclassical growth model developed by Solow (1956) and

Swan (1956:87), which shows that if there is no technological progress,

then the effects of diminishing returns would eventually cause economic

growth to cease. Growth measures the ability of the organization to

maintain competitive economic position in the growth of the economy

and industry (market share, customer acquisition/retention, account

penetration).

As far back as 1597, Sir Francis Bacon asserted that knowledge is

power, He could not possibly have foreseen the everlasting echo of his

saying. Indeed, nothing haunts the post-bureaucratic organization

(Heckscher and Donnellson, 1994:25) like the problem of knowledge.

What it is and how it should be employed.

In 1988, Drucker identified knowledge as the source of competitive

advantage and economic growth. From then on, the resource-based view

of the firm (Barney, 1991: 99-120) and the capability-based view of the

firm (Prahalad and Hamel, 1997: 34-56) take into account intangibles as

key assets, evolving into a knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant,

1996: 375-387). The age when knowledge existed inside the

organization, but the organization, not its knowledge, was managed, is

gradually replaced by the managerial focus on knowledge as such

(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003:234-236).

58

Still, what do we manage? Knowledge was considered to be the fourth

factor of production (Jameson, 2001:89-90), a dynamic and relational

one, whose complexity, according to Schneider (2007:567-569), makes it

an expression of the conditio humana, as difficult to define as life, or

culture. The same researcher states that intensive publishing, in the last

decade, on the topic, does nothing but to increase the confusion. Brown

and Duguid (2001:198-213) speak of an abundance of definitions and

classifications of organizational knowledge. The starting point, if any,

may be consider ( Ackoff 1989:678-682). This pyramid advances from

data to information, then to knowledge, and, finally, to wisdom, a fourth

layer which is usually left apart in further quotations of the model

(Davenport and Prusak, 2000:16-18). A main critique of the model,

which is to found, for instance, in Spender (2008:634-638) is that the

categories in the model are nested, rather than neatly separated

(information is constructed starting from data; knowledge is built on

information, etc.), which makes it difficult to define each of them other

than tautologically. Spender’s own definition of knowledge places it

between organizational learning, which generates it (Duncan and Weiss,

1979), and knowledge management, which makes it usable. A separation

of domains, rather than a mere definition.

Alavi and Leitner (2001:7) notice the same lack of precision in defining

knowledge. The concept is approached literally, as Schubert et al.

(1998:35) speak of a state of knowing (knowing, as defined by Gherardi

and Nicolin( 2000:13, Cook and Brown, 1999:8) implies a certain form of

participation, by being a dynamic, provisional process, rather than a

possession of knowledge). Zack (1998:124) describes, following the same

idea, knowledge processes, while Carlsson et al. (1996:89), continuing

Habermas’s (1971:56) and Everhart’s (1983:20) theory of the “reified

knowledge”, speak of knowledge objects. McQueen (1998:18) links

knowledge to the conditions of access to information, while Watson

(1999:234) defines it as a capability to influence action.

59

Maturana (1997:213) defines two modes of knowing: objectividad sin

parentesis (objectivity without parentheses), and objectividad entre

parentesis (objectivity in parenthesis). The objectividad sin parentesis

refers to the fact that the world is always there, and we can certainly say

that this objective knowledge, given by the world, exists. But, as

Maturana and Varela (1980:9, 1992:12) have argued, the world looks

different for each of us, and this happens because social systems change

every time they are analysed. In other words, as we are parts of the

world, our knowledge of it, knowledge of ourselves, in fact, is never

objective and never complete. This is the objectividad entre parentesis.

Knowledge, then, can be defined as Ortony (1993:24) defined language:

“a phenomenon of thought and of mental representation.”

Knowledge, which implies experience, being created, as Kolb (1984:45)

states, by the transformation of experience, in the process of learning,

involves the idea of action. Action, which, in the form of experience, is,

according to Dewey (1910:79), a transaction between the individual and

the environment, calls for reflection (or inquiry, in Dewey’s terms). Schön

(1983:21) speaks of the reflective practitioner, whose importance for the

knowledge processes in the organization can be linked to the definition

provided by Fisher and White (2000:213):

“Organizational learning is a reflective process, played out by

members at all levels of the organization, that involves the

collection of information from both the external and the internal

environments.”

Knowledge, organizational learning, the learning organization and

knowledge management are concepts which go all together, although, as

Spender (2008:89) remarks, their supporters praise different gods:

Polanyi, on the one hand, March and Argyris, on the other. The lack of a

common language, in fields belonging to the same realm, increases

60

confusion. While organizational learning and the learning organization

are two concepts too often confounded (Dimovski, Škelavaj, Kimman,

and Hernaus, 2008:3063-3070, Tsang, 1997:47, Chiva and Alegre

(2005:205) account for confusions between organizational learning and

knowledge management. The two are related (Roth, 2003: 32-48; Rowley,

2000: 7-15; Davenport, De Long, and Beers, 1998: 43-57; Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995:76), but, as Chiva and Alegre (2005:86) point out, while

knowledge management is studied by strategic management specialists,

organizational learning belongs to the human resources area of study,

and the two pillars rarely meet, and, consequently, lack a common

conceptual language. The confusion may also arise from the fact that

knowledge management relies as much as on organizational learning, on

organizational unlearning, as Hedberg (1981:32-34) reveals:

“Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as

reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new

knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge. The

discarding activity – unlearning – is as important a part of

understanding as adding new knowledge.”

This can be considered an adequate response to a definition of the kind

Levitt and March (1988: 319-340) proposed for organizational learning:

“The process of encoding interfaces from history into routines that guide

behaviour”. For sure, new routines have to replace old ones, and the

harmonious advancement of this process is an issue of knowledge

management (Tsang, 2008:87).

Still, one point of synthesis between knowledge management and

organizational learning resides in the fact that knowledge is no longer

perceived as a substance fragmented and deposited in the minds of the

individuals in the organization, but as a socially constructed concept

(Easterby-Smith et. al, 2000:18). Knowledge creation, rather than

knowledge transfer, as knowledge is always created anew rather than

61

merely transferred by human beings” (Van Krogh and Roos, 1995:54),

implies the existence of the communities of practice (Wenger et al.,

2002:24). Inside these communities, knowledge sharing, “the provision

or receipt of task information, knowhow and feedback regarding a

product or procedure” (Cummings, 2004:56), takes place.

The process of knowledge-sharing is underlined by Polanyi’s (1962:45)

distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. The distinction was

further developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:34) in the knowledge

spiral model, accounting for the transformations taking place between

tacit and explicit knowledge. Although the model has its critics –

Tsoukas (1996: 11-25, 2003:58) states that individual knowledge exists

because of the social practices in which individuals engage, while the

tacit-explicit distinction suggests an opposition between the two; Giroux

and Taylor (2002:51) argue that actually there is no tacit to explicit

transformation, but the explicit knowledge creation reflects the tacit

modes in which a specific community produces knowledge – we take this

model as representative for what knowledge dynamics means.

From what we have seen until now, it is obvious that there is no

unanimity in defining knowledge. In order to do that, researchers will

first have to search for a common vocabulary to express a common

understanding of the basic knowledge concepts. Cohen (1998:22-39)

reports Paul Duguid (of the U.C. Berkeley School of Education)

cautioning that “there is a trap in assuming we will suddenly hit on the

one right definition of ‘knowledge’. It is neither possible nor desirable to

validate a single set of terms and meanings and banish the rest (…).

Language is both the common ground on which we meet and the

medium through which we express the diversity of our ideas.”

The difficulty for defining knowledge originates on the very intangible

meaning of the term: knowledge, wisdom, intelligence are concepts

constantly revised and redefined as part of cognitive psychology and

62

philosophy of science. It might be due to this lack of coincidence that we

have such a variety and diffusion to the interpretation of Knowledge

Management.

2.3 THEORETICAL REVIEW

2.3.1 Theoretical Review of Knowledge Management

The principle of knowledge management deals with the process of

creating value from an organization's intangible assets (Wigg, 1993: 54). In

essence, knowledge management not only involved the production of

information, but also the capture of data at the source, the transmission and

analysis of data, as well as the communication of information based on, or

derived from, the data, to those who can act on it (Davenport and Prusak,

1998:349). Knowledge management involved capturing the internal

knowledge generated by a firm - its best thinking on products, customers,

competitors, processes and sharing it (DiMattia and Oder, 1997: 33-5).

Knowledge management is therefore about achieving organizational goals

through strategy-driven motivation and facilitation of workers’

knowledge to develop, enhance and use their capability to interpret

data and information (by using available sources of information,

experience, skills, culture, character, personality, feelings, etc.)

through a process of giving meaning to these data and information

(Beijerse, 1999: 94-110). Consequently, knowledge management acts

as a key approach to solve organization problems such as

competitiveness and the need to innovate. Sustainable competitive

advantage is dependent on building and exploiting core

competencies.

In order to sustain competitive advantage, resources which are

idiosyncratic (and thus scarce) and difficult to transfer or replicate are

required (Grant, 1991:114-35). A knowledge-based view of the

organization identified knowledge as organizational asset that enables

sustainable competitive advantage, especially in hyper competitive

environments (Alavi, 1999:243; Davenport and Prusak, 1998:321). For

63

knowledge to provide an organization with sustainable competitive

advantage, such knowledge must be independent from any given

individual. For this reason, knowledge must be identified and managed.

In fact, the knowledge within the organization has to be captured by

organization’s systems, processes, products, rules, and culture.

Knowledge management is described as art by Havens and Knapp,

(1999:34). According to them knowledge management is regarding the

evolvement of people's attitudes and work behaviours which is related to

changing people's value paradigm from ‘my information is power’ to

‘sharing is power’. It is about large-scale cultural change, new incentive

systems and performance metrics, learning and education. It focuses on

(re)shaping the attitudes and behaviours of people so they can ensure

the ready availability and resolute application of both personal and

institutional knowledge. Offering the right knowledge to the right users

at the right time and helping people share and put information into

action in ways that strive to improve organization performance are

the defined process of knowledge management by Svenja et al. (2003:

67 & 78).

On the other hand, knowledge management is a method or solution that

enables an organization to capture and structure its knowledge assets.

Knowledge management is therefore an approach to build organization

learning. Organization learning is defined as the process of improving

actions through better knowledge and understanding Fiol and Lyles

(1985:17-33). Learning is organization to the extent that it is done to

achieve organization purposes; it is shared or distributed among

members of the organizations; and learning outcomes are embedded in

organization’s systems, structures, and culture (Snyder and Cummings,

1998: 873-895).

Three essential components of knowledge management as laid down by

Tkach (1999:5-13) comprise knowledge discovery, knowledge

64

organization and knowledge sharing. Knowledge may be discovered

where it exists or resides in the firm, on site, in processes or in

individuals, in the form of experiential knowledge and enterprise

knowledge. Knowledge may be organized according to the organization’s

preferred classification or framework. The way knowledge is organized in

a particular firm differs from another irrespective of whether they come

from the same discipline or otherwise (categorized and personalized).

The third component of knowledge management suggests that

knowledge should be shared among top management and all those

employees that are authorized to be knowledgeable about it and have

access to it and can benefit from its availability (Faridah Yusuf and

Mustafa Samad, 2001, Paper 10).

Source: Tkach, D. (1999: 5-13) Advances in Knowledge Management – the Pillars of Knowledge Management (An IBM Report) IBM and Lotus are Trademarks of International Business Machines, IBM Corporation.

Figure 2.1: Three Essential Components of Knowledge Management

According to Rosenberg (2001) knowledge management supports the

creation, archiving and sharing of valued information, expertise and

insight within across communities of people and organizations with

similar interests and needs. In essence, knowledge management is the

discipline that helps spread knowledge of individual or groups across

organization in ways that directly affect performance, with the aim of

getting the right information within the right context to the right person

at the right time for the right purpose. In other words, knowledge

Knowledge Discovery

Knowledge Organisation

Knowledge Sharing

65

sharing is the interactive process of making the right information

available to people at the right time in a comprehensible manner to

enable them to act judiciously enriching the knowledge base in the entire

mechanism.

Earl (2001:35-36) argues that the types of questions that organisations

need to ask are:

- How can knowledge make a difference to the business?

- Are their performance gaps in the business that knowledge

management can address?

- Which factors critical to the business can knowledge

management make a difference?

- Which knowledge management initiative adds the most value,

and what resources need to be allocated to realize this value?

Strategic questions help the organisation focus on what is important for the

business. It helps them identify what knowledge management needs the

organisation has and what action plan they need to put in place to deliver

real business value.

O’Dell et al (1999: 202) highlight that organizations have different

strategies in place to address their knowledge management needs. What

is important to note is that a firm’s understanding of their needs directly

correlates with the type of knowledge management strategy they employ.

2.3.2 Theoretical Review of Operationalising Knowledge

Management

The knowledge management strategic intent, as argued by Earl

(2001:8s), is to deliver business value. The challenge for organisations

after adopting a knowledge strategy is to translate it into processes and

activities. APQC and Arthur Anderson (O’Dell et al, 1999: 202) co-

developed the following knowledge management framework.

66

Source: O’dell, C., Wiig, K. & Odem, P. (1999: 202) “Benchmarking Unveils Emerging Knowledge Management Strategies”, Benchmarking, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 202.

Figure 2.2 Framework for Operationalising Knowledge Management

The framework highlights the key processes and enablers that were

found to be central in delivering knowledge management strategies. It

identifies seven sequential processes. It begins with the creation,

identification and collection of knowledge. It continues with the

organisation and sharing of knowledge and finally the adapting and

application of knowledge.

Surrounding the process are the four enablers; culture, technology,

measurement and strategy and leadership. These enablers can either

help or hinder the knowledge management processes.

The processes are very similar to those presented by other practitioners

in this area i.e. Davenport and Volpel (2001: 212-221) who presented the

following:

Strategy andLeadership

Technology

Culture

Mea

sure

men

t

ORGANISATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge Management Enablers

Knowledge Management Process

Feedback

67

Source: Davenport, T. H. & Volpel, S.C (2001:212-221), “The Rise of Knowledge towards Attention Management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 5f, no. 3

Figure 2.3 Knowledge Management Processes, Davenport and Volpel

(2001:212)

It highlights that knowledge management, holistically, consists of a

range of processes. Each one of these processes can be a subject of

research in themselves. The author in this research is focusing on the

sharing (distribution) of knowledge.

This is because this process has been found to be central to knowledge

management and can be a key enabler for knowledge creation. In fact,

Ikijuro Nonaka (1991: 96-104) in his work The Knowledge Creating

Company said that:

“Making personal knowledge available to others is the central

activity of the knowledge-creating company.” He continues by

stating “It takes place continuously and at all levels of the

organisation.”

2.3.3 Theoretical Review of Intellectual Capital and Knowledge

Management

It is broadly accepted that the skills and capabilities required to manage

the knowledge of global company are different from those required for a

domestic one. Getting an organization and not just top management to

think globally is not an easy task. Neither can it be accomplished by

simply trying to match existing skills with the emerging global

management requirements. In some cases education and training

programs may provide a remedy, but it is very often that recruiting from

the outside is absolutely necessary. For a collection of regional

68

organizations to transform themselves in a sort time to a global

enterprise, an injection of new skills or perspectives is required.

Top management can forcibly position the organization at the beginning

of the path to globalization by creating the processes and structures to

help employees take the first steps. Management has the responsibility

to convince employees why transformation is necessary, to get the

organization going and keep people aimed at the right direction. For a

company to become truly a global enterprise, employees have to change

the way they think and act, taking on progressively more responsibility

and initiative until the company behaves globally in all of its regions.

This is a time consuming process that cannot be accomplished

overnight, as most of the global merges usually happen. Merging or

acquisition contracts give enterprises ownership of land, buildings and

capital while employees have to enter into the work contract of their own

free will, motivated by top management. An initiative like globalization

does not acquire momentum just because it is enormous. It is the art of

knowledge management that has to push hard to overcome the initial

inertia, and keep pushing so that friction in the form of fear,

uncertainty, and confusion- does not stop the globalization initiative of

its tracks.

We consider it useful to distinguish, at this point, the basic difference

between Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital Management.

According to Wiig (1997a :400-403) there is definitely an overlap between

the approaches of both processes. But, undoubtedly, there are

orientations that distinguish their focus and approach in a very clear

way.

Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) focuses on building and

governing intellectual assets from strategic and enterprise governance

perspectives with some focus on tactics. Its function is to take overall

care of the enterprise’s intellectual capital.

69

Knowledge Management (KM) has tactical and operational perspectives.

KMM is more detailed and focuses on facilitating and managing

knowledge related activities such as creation, capture, transformation

and use. Its function is to plan, implement, operate and monitor all the

knowledge-related activities and program required for effective

intellectual capital management.

It is clear from the above definitions that Intellectual Capital

Management has a strategic approach and its main objective is to

manage the entire intellectual capital of the company in a way that it is

measurable, using indices easily incorporated in the organization’s

financial balances and indicating, with the maximum accuracy, the

organization’s real value.

0n the other hand, Knowledge Management has a tactic and operative

approach. It is interesting to list, at this point, a number of definitions of

Knowledge Management, given by various researchers as quoted in

(WEB-01):

• Karl Eric Sveiby: “It is the act of creating by leveraging the

intangible assets. To be able to do that, you have to be able to

visualize your organization as consisting of nothing but knowledge

and knowledge flows.”

• Larry Prusak: “It is the attempt to recognize what is essentially a

human asset buried in the minds of individuals, and leverage it

into an organizational asset that can be accessed and used by a

broader set on individuals on whose decisions the firm depends.”

• Hubert Saint-Onge: “It is creating value based on the intangible

assets of the firm through relationships where the creation,

exchange and harvesting of knowledge builds the individual and

organizational capabilities required to provide superior value for

customers.”

• Chris Argyris: “The art of management is managing knowledge.

That means we do not manage people per se, but rather the

knowledge that they carry. Leadership means creating the

70

conditions that enable people to produce valid knowledge and to

do so in ways that encourage personal responsibility.”

• Verna Allee: “Knowledge management means attending to

processes for creating, sustaining, applying, sharing, and renewing

knowledge to enhance organizational performance and create

value.”

Two main Knowledge Management aspects emerge from the comparison

of the above definitions: KM is presented as a set of processes, and it s

aimed to create value for the organization. Apart from the definitions, it

is also interesting to look into the different ways that authors describe

the processes involved in knowledge management and see how each of

them estimates the created value.

Drucker (1998:45-53) contends that knowledge management will have a

major impact on the structure of future organizations. He predicts that

knowledge-based organizations will have half the number of

management layers found in business today – and the number of

managers will be cut by two thirds. Drucker considered that the

organizational structures featured in current textbooks are still those of

1950’s manufacturing industries. In the future, businesses will come to

resemble organizations that today’s managers and students would not

pay any attention to: hospitals, universities, and symphony orchestras.

In the other words, knowledge-based organizations “composed largely of

specialists who direct and discipline their own performance through

organized feedback from colleagues, customers and headquarters.”

In the 20th century information was collected in order to monitor and

control workers. ‘Knowledge’ was held at the top of the organization

where strategies were determined and decisions made. But the

Tayloristic view of the organizations ignored the wealth of knowledge

held by ordinary workers. In Drucker’s view, specialist knowledge

workers will resist the primitive “command and control” model of people

71

management in the same way as professionals such as doctors and

university teachers do already.

Drucker recently (2002:70-77) reinforced this idea, stating: “What [in the

past] made the traditional workforce productive was the system, whether

it was Taylor’s ‘one best way’, Henry Ford’s assembly line, or Deming’s

‘Total Quality Management’. The system embodies the knowledge… In a

knowledge-based organization, however, it is the individual worker’s

productivity that makes the entire system successful. In a traditional

workforce, the worker serves the system; in a knowledge workforce, the

system must serve the worker.” And he further emphasizes, claiming

that “…today’s knowledge workers are not just labor –they are capital.

And what differentiates outstanding companies is the productivity of

their capital.”

Schuppel et al (1998:223-239) argue that Knowledge Management has to

compromise all activities regarding production, distribution, utilization

and multiplication of relevant knowledge. In concrete, knowledge

management can be implemented as a process along the following four

dimensions:

i. First, the process has to focus on the subjects of knowledge by

optimizing the ratio of internal and external knowledge elements

within the organization.

ii. Second, the process has to focus on the relevance of knowledge in

the actual competitive environment, for building sustainable

competitive advantages.

iii. Third, the process must increase the availability, communication

and transfer of knowledge by focusing on both implicit and explicit

forms of knowledge.

iv. Fourth, the richness and availability of knowledge have to be

determined.

The authors argue that the goal of systematic knowledge management

must be seen in the modeling of a dynamic knowledge spiral that builds

72

on the four process dimensions by using specific, knowledge-oriented

instruments.

Stewart (2002:80-83) reveals how today’s companies are applying the

concept of intellectual capital into day-to-day operations to dramatically

increase their success in the marketplace. In the second part of his

book, he offers a four-step guide to application of knowledge

management concepts to modern business, and delivers strategies

necessary for organizations to use when investing in intellectual capital

and competing with others.

According to his guide, managing intellectual capital entails the

following:

1. Identify and evaluate the role of knowledge in your business – as

input, process and output. Learn more about your business and

its use of knowledge by finding out who gets paid for knowledge,

who pays, how much is being paid, and who creates the most

value.

2. Match the revenues you’ve just found with the knowledge assets

that produce them. Find out how much value the organization is

getting from its expertise, capabilities, brands, intellectual

properties, processes and other intellectual capital.

3. Develop a strategy for investing in and exploiting your intellectual

assets. To do this, companies will need to determine their value

proposition (what they know that they can sell, and how to sell it

for a profit), source of control and profit model, as well as current

strategies for increasing their knowledge intensity. Looking for

ways to leverage or restructure intellectual assets will help.

4. Improve the efficiency of knowledge work and knowledge workers.

Remember that knowledge work does not necessarily follow the

73

linear path traditional labor follows, and look at ways to increase

the productivity of knowledge workers.

Another important issue that derives from the above analysis has to do

with the nature of knowledge. Managing knowledge as a static reserve

disregards the essential dynamism of the knowledge creation process.

And it is here where the role of leadership is vital. Leaders must support

and encourage this dynamism and senior management must realize that

in order for knowledge to be best managed, it has first to be “nurtured,

supported, enhanced, and cared for” as Nonaka and Konno (1998:53)

note. Top management may assist in various ways, starting by sending

out the message to the entire organization that knowledge management

is critical for its success; by providing funding necessary for

infrastructure and finally by clarifying the type of knowledge which is

most important for the organization.

2.3.4 Theoretical Review of Knowledge Creation

Many feel that both forms of knowledge are important for effective

knowledge management to provide competitive advantage. However,

according to Nonaka (2000: 1-20) “the key to knowledge creation lies in

the mobilization and conversion of tacit knowledge”. Nonaka (1994)

devised a theory of organizational learning where knowledge is created

through the conversion between tacit and explicit forms creating four

different patterns or modes of knowledge conversion: socialization,

combination, externalization, and internalization. Nonaka (1994:54)

stressed that the four knowledge conversion patterns are a flow that are

dependent on each other for organizational learning to be continuous.

2.3.4.1 Tacit to Tacit (Socialization)

Socialization is the sharing of tacit knowledge among a group of people

either through observation, practice, discussion, or sharing notes

(Nonaka, 1994: 96-104). This form of knowledge creation never takes an

explicit form. Nonaka (2000: 1-20) feels this is a limited form of

74

knowledge creation because neither the teacher nor the learner ever

learns the “systematic insight” into their knowledge. Marwick (2001:

814-830) believes that since socialization is concerned with the sharing

of ideas information technology use can promote collaboration and

communities. On-line technologies like e-meetings and chat can

facilitate the sharing of knowledge.

2.3.4.2 Explicit to Explicit (Combination)

Combination is the process of sharing explicit knowledge with other

organization members (Nonaka, 1994: 96-104) to produce new insight.

Combination involves the process of gathering explicit knowledge. The

knowledge may not be part of the organization’s knowledge. Explicit

knowledge can be generated from explicit knowledge by reconfiguring

existing knowledge through sorting, categorizing, and adding. Marwick

(2001: 814-830) feels that technology can contribute with explicit to

explicit conversion by enriching the capturing of explicit knowledge to be

made available to the rest of the organization in its “persistent” form like

a report, email, or presentation.

2.3.4.3 Tacit to Explicit (Externalization)

Externalization is the process of translating the personal expressions of

tacit knowledge into an explicit form that can be understood by other

members of the organization. According to Nonaka (1994: 96-104),

externalization is accomplished by forming a mental model, then

articulating through dialog. The nature of tacit knowledge makes

externalization more difficult than the other three conversion types.

Externalization involves the mapping of tacit knowledge through

metaphors, analogies, concepts, hypothesis, or models (Clark, 2004).

Marwick (2001: 814-830) selects technologies such as collaborative

systems and groupware to facilitate the interactions need to support

dialog, a necessary component according to Nonaka’s definition of

externalization.

75

2.3.4.4 Explicit to Tacit (Internalization)

Internalization is the action of using organizational explicit knowledge to

create tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994: 96-104) by being exposed to other

individual’s knowledge. Nonaka (2000:1-20) feels that some action is

needed by the learner such as learning-by doing, training, or exercises

for the conversion from explicit to tacit knowledge to occur. Marwick

(2001: 814-830) identifies text searching and document categorization as

effective information technologies that can promote the process of

internalization.

Source: Nonaka I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995:65) The Knowledge Creating

Company- How Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Figure 2.4 – The knowledge conversion processes in a knowledge

creating organization according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:65).

Table 2.1: Conversion of knowledge between explicit and tacit

(Adapted from Marwick 2001: 814-830)

Conversion Mode Knowledge Management Solutions

Socialization E-mails, collaboration forums, white boards/ bulleting boards.

Internalization E-Learning, data-mining, document categorizing, searching.

Externalization Data warehousing, collaboration system, groupware.

Combination Document Management, decision support.

Tacitknowledge

Explicitknowledge

Tacitknowledge

SocializationExternalization

Internalization CombinationExplicitknowledge

76

Source: Marwick, A. D., (2001) Knowledge Management Technology, IBM

Systems Journal 40(4), 814- 830. Retrieved May 29, 2007.

2.3.5 Theoretical Review of Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing (Ks)

Ever since the awareness and recognition that knowledge is an

indispensable asset needed by organizations throughout, numerous

renowned researchers, including Davenport and Prusak (1998:9) had

given birth to various definitions for the term ‘knowledge’. It is therefore

asserted, according to Davenport and Prusak (1998:14) that knowledge

is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and

expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and

incorporating new experiences and information.

In principle, knowledge can be differentiated into two types, which are

explicit knowledge (EK) and tacit knowledge (TK) (Nonaka, Toyama, &

Konno, 2000:78). EK is knowledge that can be processed by information

systems, codified or recorded, archived and protected by an organization

(Barth, 2000:51). Conversely, Choi and Lee (2003:32) have defined TK as

informal, embedded in mental processes, was obtained through

experience and work practices, and can be transferred by observing and

applying it.

In response to continuously sharing of knowledge in organizations, be it

EK or TK, the dominance of KS enters the spotlight. KS is a component

of KM but it focuses less on technology in organizations. There are many

definitions by numerous researchers and philosophers on KS, listed in

Table 1. Rather, McInerney and Day (2007:8) explained KS as related to

the relationships among co-workers that promote information exchange

and learning. KS is viewed not only as a neutral exchange of

information, but also affects working relationships, patterns of influence

and alters how people define their responsibilities (Willett, 2000:49). As a

consequence, organization that does not have formal KS practices will

77

fail to leverage its employees' IC for business innovation and growth

(O'Neill and Adya, 2007:34-35). On top of that, the key element in KS is

not the underlying (original) knowledge, but rather the extent to which

the receiver acquires potentially useful knowledge and utilizes this

knowledge in his or her own operation (Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjoerkman,

Fey and Park, 2003:231).

Author/s Definition

Lin, Lee and Wang (2009:7) Harder (2008:23) Sethumadhavan (2007:12) (Bircham-Connolly, Corner and Bowden, 2005:14) Hooff and Weenen (2004:12) Willem (2003:17) Wilson (2002:23)

“Knowledge sharing can be defined as a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization.” “Knowledge sharing can be defined as the voluntary and social process to transfer, absorb and reuse the existing knowledge in order to serve an organizational end.” “It is a systematic process to create, acquire, synthesize, learn, share and use knowledge and experience to achieve organizational goal. This knowledge can be formed in employees’ mind or stored in paper form in filing cabinets and/or stored in electronic form.” “The process of capturing knowledge or moving it from a source unit to recipient unit.” “It involves mutual exchanges among individuals, including both receiving and sending knowledge. It was based on the sender-receiver relationship which incorporates both communication of one’s knowledge to others as well as receiving others’ knowledge.” “The exchange of knowledge between at least two parties in a reciprocal process allowing reshape and sense-making of the knowledge in new context.” “Knowledge is defined as what we know: knowledge involves the

78

Malhotra (2001:34) Linda, Argote and Ingram, (2000:23)

mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind, however much they involve interaction with the world outside the mind, and interaction with others.” “Knowledge is interpreted in terms of potential for action and distinguished in the following discussion from information in terms of its more immediate link with performance.” “Knowledge sharing is the process through which one unit is affected by the experience of another. In this respect, a unit can be an individual, a group or an organization.”

However KS is therefore argued by many prominent researchers to be a

demanding and uncertain phase that is consequently evoking the ‘fear of

criticism’ even at the mere individual level.

As knowledge, is what gives people the capacity to act; knowledge

sharing logically following is the process where people develop in one

another new capacities for action. Senge (1997: 103-109) highlights that

“sharing knowledge occurs when people are genuinely interested in

helping one another to develop new capacities for action”. To understand

the nature of how knowledge is shared, it is important to understand the

term sharing.

Broadly, sharing is the process where a resource is given by a source to

a recipient. This understanding of the term ‘sharing’ has led, as Berends

(2005:205) highlights, people to interpret knowledge sharing to be the

“transfer of knowledge from a source to a recipient”. This definition can be

construed in a way where knowledge sharing is viewed as a one way

process that leads to the benefit of one person.

79

According to Chow et.al (2006: 213-232) it is quite the opposite. They

argue that knowledge “appreciates in value when shared with others”

leading to both parties benefiting. The more people involved in this

process the greater the value. To understand why this is one needs to

understand how the process of knowledge sharing takes place.

As identified by Sveiby (1997:63) knowledge is an intangible resource, it

resides in the minds of people. As previously discussed knowledge is that

which gives people the capacity to act. On that basis, knowledge has not

effectively been shared unless it develops a capacity for action in the

recipient.

The process of knowledge sharing as highlighted by Sharratt (2003: 187-

196) involves a source framing their knowledge in a way that can be

received by a recipient. The recipient does not receive it as knowledge, as

that is in the mind of the source, but receives it as information which

he/she frames according to their knowledge. As detailed by Van Beveren

(2002:65) the end result is new knowledge being created in the mind of

the recipient.

Miller (2002: 9-11) argues that the knowledge of the recipient cannot be

identical to that of the source, as the process of sense-making is framed

by the recipients existing knowledge and insights. For this reason, it is

possible for not only new knowledge to be created in the recipient but for

new knowledge, as a result of this additional insight of the recipient, to

be created altogether. Potentially, leading to virtuous cycle where

knowledge is not only shared but also created.

Such a process requires more than co-operation it requires

collaboration. As argued by Bob Buckman the difference is “co-operation

means to pleasantly work together; collaboration means to emphatically

work together”. Knowledge sharing as argued by Senge (1997: 213-240)

80

requires people to genuinely have interest to “develop new capacities for

action” for their colleagues.

Like Nonaka (1994), she found that an important factor in sharing tacit

knowledge was interdisciplinary personal interaction, noting that ‘both

scientific and technological inputs to innovation embody a considerable

tacit component which can only be acquired by practical experience.’

She identified four reasons why tacit knowledge was important: it

improves learning; it is used to solve technical problems; it is a necessity

for understanding the complexity of systems and it is fundamental for

new emerging technologies. She also identified three main routes to the

codification of tacit knowledge: the science push, where theoretical

underpinnings are applied; the technology pull, where industrial

problems are explored and automation (although this was limiting for

innovation).

Bohn also explored technological knowledge (defined as the knowledge

associated in realising products and services) and its tacit and explicit

elements (Bohn, 1994: 61-73). A third dimension – that of knowledge

maturity – is introduced. A scale of knowledge maturity is proposed in

which knowledge types are used to describe the maturity of a process.

Process maturity is defined as the ability to which its attributes can be

codified and standardized.

Bohn takes a pragmatic view of industry, claiming that any organization

will have a mix of processes at varying levels of knowledge maturity,

which will in turn affect learning, problem solving, production and job

roles. Therefore a mix of approaches and methods should be used for

successful management (summarized in table 2.2). This is seen as

particularly important in high-tech industries, as ‘managing in high-tech

industries requires both rapid learning and the ability to manufacture with

“immature” (low stage of knowledge) technologies.’

81

Table 2.2: Knowledge Types and Process Maturity (Bohn, 1994: 61-73)

Stage Name Comment Typical form of knowledge

1. Complete ignorance Nowhere 2 Awareness Pure art Tacit 3 Measure Pretechnological Written 4 Control of the mean Scientific

method feasible Written and embodied in hardware

5 Process capability Local recipe Hardware and operating manual

6 Process characterization Tradeoffs to reduce costs

Empirical equations (numerical)

7 Know why Science Scientific formulae and algorithms

8 Complete knowledge Nirvana

Source: Bohn, R.E., (1994) Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994 pp. 61-73.

In some ways Bohn’s view is positivistic. It appears to infer that

everything should be measurable and that qualitative data is inferior to

quantitative. In table 2.2 there is a link between artistic learning and

process immaturity, which may not necessarily be the case. Nonetheless,

it is an interesting application of the explicit – tacit definition to a

potentially time-based maturity scale of knowledge. It also has

interesting implications for the context of this research. Manufacturing

knowledge may not be a straightforward case of defining specific context.

It may change and evolve over time depending on the ability of the

process to be codified.

Table 2.3: Knowledge stages and learning approaches (Bohn, 1994:

61-73)

Knowledge at stage

12 345 678

Nature of production

Expertise based Procedure based

Role of workers Everything Problem solving Learning and improving

82

Location of knowledge

Workers’ heads Written and oral In databases or software

Nature of learning

Artistic Natural experiments

Controlled experiments, stimulations

Nature of problem solving

Trial and error Scientific method

Table look-up

Method of training new workers

Apprenticeship, coaching

Classroom

Natural types of organization

Organic Mechanistic Learning oriented

Suitability for automation

None High

Ease of transfer to another site

Low High

Feasible product variety

High Low High

Quality control approach

Sorting SPC Feed forward

Source: Bohn, R.E., (1994) Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994, pp. 61-73.

2.3.6 Theoretical Review of Knowledge Sharing Using Information

Technology

The role of the information technology (IT) in sharing knowledge has

been a center of debate (Maccoby, 2003:24). While some investigators

are of the opinion that knowledge management (KM) initiatives could be

successful without using IT tools (Mohamed, 2006:103; Hislop, 2002:

165-177), other researchers have, however, identified IT as a variable

that could impact knowledge sharing (Huysman and Wulf, 2006: 40) for

the fact that technology is one of the important pillars of knowledge

management. Haldin-Herrgard (2000: 357-365) maintained that a great

deal can be done through modern IT to diffuse explicit knowledge. It is

also becoming easier nowadays to capture tacit knowledge with the aid

of retrieval technologies (Kumar, 2005: 27-34).

A study by Pai (2006:105-123) examined the relationship between the

effectiveness of IS strategic planning (ISSP) and knowledge sharing found

83

that top management support for ISSP has a strong significant effect on

knowledge sharing behaviour. A separate study in South Korea by Kim

and Lee (1996:43) also found among others, that both employees’ usage

of IT applications and friendliness of the IT systems significantly impact

employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. It can, therefore, be expected

that individuals with more usage and favourable perception of IT may

demonstrate more knowledge sharing behaviour (Kumar, 2005: 27-34).

Information Technology enables people and enterprises to capture

economic opportunities and to improve business processes by increasing

process efficiency and productivity and opportunities for employment.

The following plays key role in manufacturing organization:

2.3.6.1 Groupware

Groupware is information technology that is intended to improve the

knowledge workers productivity by supporting the efforts of the group or

framework that require the workers to interact (Pollack, 2002: 212-234).

Groupware technology generally includes the ability to send and receive

e-mail, share personal calendars, hold computer conferencing, and

workflow management (Bhatt and Gupta, 2005:23). For groupware

technologies to be effective in knowledge management they must be

networked. Some examples of groupware technology are Lotus Notes, e-

mail, internet, electronic and conferencing.

Groupware technologies can facilitate interactions by enhancing

communication, collaboration, and coordination of knowledge worker

(Bhatt and Gupta, 2005:28-46). Communications can be a blend of

synchronous (chat), asynchronous (e-mail) and community-focused tools

(egroup), supporting the sharing of structured and unstructured

knowledge (DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987:589-609). Communication and

coordination activities of knowledge workers are facilitated by

technologies that bridge the time, space, and levels of group support

(DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987:589-609). According to Baroni de Caralho

84

and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira (2001:56), groupware supports collaboration

because informal communications flourish in groupware settings

allowing for free exchange of opinions.

According to Marwick (2001:814-830) groupware technologies can

support all four knowledge conversion modes devised by Nonaka (1994).

Groupware can be used to capture, store, retrieve and distribute

knowledge. Externalization can occur through interaction and exchange

of knowledge. Discussion group and chats are prime examples of

groupware technologies that support the expression of tacit knowledge

(Baroni de Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira, 2001:23). Despite the fact

that tacit knowledge is difficult to capture, groupware can still capture

some tacit knowledge in the forms of histories, rituals, and organization

stories. The following is a list of technologies that can be used in

groupware setting:

i. Video Conferencing

ii. Webcasting

iii. E-Mail

iv. Chat/Instant Messaging

v. Electronic Meeting Systems/White Boards/On-line Meetings

vi. Desktop and real-time data conferencing

vii. Non-real time conferencing and,

viii. Group document handling.

2.3.6.2 Intranets

Intranets can be leveraged to support knowledge management initiatives.

Intranets have evolved into technologies that can do more than capture

and disseminate knowledge. Intranets generally are not knowledge

management solutions by themselves but components of larger

knowledge management systems. They aid knowledge management

initiatives by inspiring new knowledge through the sharing of best

practices with person-to-person interaction (Kim & Trimi, 2007: 145-

85

155). Knowledge workers can use the intranet as a collaborative

universal access platform because it can consistently provide them with

authoritative, validated, and qualified knowledge (Kim and Trimi, 2007:

145-155). Tiwana (2002:57) list four specific examples where intranets

can be extended to support knowledge management:

collaboration/connectivity, information distribution, publishing/push

feed, directory (e.g. knowledge maps).

2.3.6.3 Knowledge Portals

Janus Boye (2006:17), managing director of Boye IT, defines a portal “as

a system that allows multiple applications such as everyday office

programs as well as collaborative technologies to include lessons

learned, databases and expert finders to be accessed through one

window.” Portals were originally applications that provided a single

access point to distribute online information known as information

portals. The typically features of information portals were advanced

search engine and advanced organizing, categorizing or taxonomies (e.g.

the organizing of documents into topics) to facilitate easier retrieval of

information, along with the ability to customize the portal by user

community. Information portals ability to integrate many applications

such as e-mails, documents, and chats allowed them to evolve to

knowledge portals (Boye, 2006: 30-33).

Knowledge portals support the knowledge community by doing the work

of knowledge workers such as capturing, controlling access, cataloging

and transferring structured and unstructured knowledge to knowledge

workers. Knowledge portals allow the integration of information into one

access point via the internet or intranet that can allow knowledge

workers to easily find and share information with other knowledge

workers. Mack, Ravin and Byrd (2001:71) and Baroni de Caralho and

Araùjo Tavares Ferreira (2001:23, stress that knowledge portals are not

intranets. Intranets lack the superior features that can allow the transfer

86

of tacit to explicit knowledge (Mack, Ravin and Byrd, 2001:71) and are

limited to the boundaries of the organization.

Table 2.4: Conversion of knowledge based on portal technology

(Adapted from Marwick, 2001:814)

Conversion Portal Technology

Tacit to Explicit Chat, E-Meeting

Explicit to Explicit Chat

Tacit to Tacit E-Learning, E-Teaching

Explicit to Tacit Document, Search

Source: Marwick, A. D (2001) Knowledge Management Technology. IBM Systems Journal 40(4), 814- 830. Retrieved May 29, 2007

2.3.6.4 Extensible Mark-Up Language (XML)

A promising information technology that can help the knowledge

management process is XML. Extensible means that XML is not limited

to one format like HTML (Hypertext Mark-up Language). XML is a

“metalanguage”, meaning it is a language about languages. XML can

represent different “elements” for different people. For example XML can

format documents differently for different people making data more

useful.

In the case of knowledge management, XML can strengthen knowledge

sharing because content is separated from presentation (Halfhill,

2007:212). XML looks at its data dictionary, known as (DTD) Document

Type Definitions, where codes are stored, to determine the proper

structure of data for a given software or device (Halfhill, 2007:213).

According to Knox (2004:25) the structuring context available to

knowledge workers with the use of XML can “ensure constant semantic

consistency of knowledge throughout the organization”.

87

2.3.6.5 Knowledge Mapping

Knowledge maps are software that work like the “yellow pages” of a

telephone book because the map only points to knowledge and do not

actually store any knowledge (Baroni de Caralho and Araùjo Tavares

Ferreira, 2001:23). It guides knowledge workers to “who knows what”

(Davenport and Prusak, 1998:48). Typically knowledge maps comprised

the “profile of competencies” of an organization’s members (Baroni de

Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira, 2001:24). Member’s expertises are

categorized for searching by users to find the best expert for a particular

topic.

Knowledge maps can capture and share explicit knowledge by facilitating

organization learning, especially when no knowledge base is maintained

by an organization. According to Baroni de Caralho and Araùjo Tavares

Ferreira (2001:23) knowledge maps make it easier to identify experts in

terms of “who they know, what they know, and how proficient they are in

their competency tasks”. Tiwana (2002:19) agrees with Baroni de

Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira(2001:23) but adds that knowledge

maps can help organizations understand “what they must know”,

thereby helping organizations create strategic planning and gain

competitive advantage.

2.3.6.6 Data Mining and Data Warehouse

Data warehouse is a special kind of database that unifies multiple

databases. Data warehouse biggest contribution to organization

environment is its ability to present information from many databases at

once by combining their content (Tiwana, 2002:27). Data warehouses

usually “scrub” their data to produce better quality of information

(Tiwana, 2002:28). In the scheme of knowledge management better

quality of knowledge can improve and speed up the knowledge

management process as well as decision making. Management can make

good decision when all data is available to them (Segall, 2004:234). Data

warehouse does have a disadvantage that knowledge workers must be

88

aware of. Since data warehouses are not updated dynamically decision

making may not be on real-time knowledge. However, unless decisions

are time critical this disadvantage is an acceptable tradeoff (Tiwana,

2002:67).

Data mining is a technique used to extract meaningful information from

large databases or data warehouses using algorithms to correlate

variables (Pollock, 2002:92) and summarizing into meaningful

information (Segall, 2004:109). Data mining techniques such as

prediction, classification and statistical deviation are accomplished by

employing algorithms that statistically analyze data to identify trends

and patterns (Folorunso, 2004:64).

Data mining techniques can aid the knowledge management process by

allowing management to generate knowledge driven decisions because

knowledge workers can focus on the important knowledge in the

database or data warehouse. Data mining can support the knowledge

management process by extracting analyzed explicit knowledge for

patterns and trends (Folorunso, 2004:82). “Knowledge mining can

drastically improve the power of knowledge search by integrating various

information sources stored outside of the traditional technology (Kim

and Trimi, 2007:48)”.

2.3.6.7 Electronic Document Management (EDM)

EDM is the management of documents through repositories (Baroni de

Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira, 2001:214). EDM’s systematically

stores, locate, track, and secure information. The storage of document in

electronic form can help the knowledge management process in several

ways. Corporate knowledge is a valuable asset and the storage and

security features of EDM’s can protect the knowledge from possible loss

which is usually the case with paper knowledge. Most EDM repositories

have the capability of cataloging, indexing and versioning. These features

can allow knowledge workers to readily access and analyze knowledge to

obtain the correct information. EDM’s can support the sharing of

89

knowledge by providing explicit knowledge that has been organized and

structured providing a more efficient flow of knowledge (Baroni de

Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira, 2001:216) leading to new

knowledge.

2.3.6.8 Artificial Intelligence (AI)

AI is computer techniques that attempt to solve problems generally done

by experts. AI tools will be described by their ability to organize,

disseminate, and storage tasks of knowledge management. Technologies

which have shown promise in knowledge management include expert

systems, case based reasoning, neural networks and intelligence agents.

2.3.6.9 Expert Systems

Another promising AI technique for knowledge management is expert

systems. An expert system is an information system that uses rules

developed by experts to solve a problem or process to accomplish certain

tasks (Pollock, 2002:26). The computer system is a knowledge base of

codified rules that can guide or aid in finding solutions to problems.

Expert system consists of two principal parts: the knowledge base; and

the reasoning (or inference) engine. The knowledge base is the key

component of an expert system. The knowledge base is comprised of the

factual and heuristics (rule of thumb) of experts in their field codified

into rules based on their task domain. The facts are comprised of

information that has been accepted by most in the expert field. A task

domain is an activity within a problem environment (Tiwana, 2002:8).

The primary function of an expert system in knowledge management is

to deliver knowledge that is relevant to the problem at hand by using a

problem solving technique such as IF-THEN rules of reasoning or fuzzy

logic (Engelmore and Feigenbaum, 1993:9). Expert systems also support

knowledge management by capturing tacit knowledge because expert

system’s knowledge base contains the knowledge used by human

experts, in contrast to knowledge gathered from print or non-experts.

90

2.3.6.10 Case Based Reasoning

Case based reasoning is an AI technique where new problems are solved

by using lessons learned from solutions to previous problems (Pollock,

2002). For knowledge management case based reasoning is

accomplished by combining knowledge support with human reasoning

(Limam Mansar and Marir, 2003:21) by using past experiences that are

incorporated into the knowledge management system. The collection of

past experiences and solutions is the knowledge base (Daud and

Kamsin, 2004:15). Case based reasoning is mostly concerned with the

explicit nature of knowledge because it primarily deals with the explicit

experiences, called cases, which have been codified to solve present

problems (Pollack, 2002:24).

Case based reasoning is particularly helpful in the decision making

activity of knowledge management by improving the problem solving

capabilities of decision makers because concrete examples (cases) are

easier for management to comprehend (Limam Mansar and Marir,

2003:83). Baroni de Caralho and Araùjo Tavares Ferreira (2001:76) feel

that externalization of tacit knowledge is best supported by case-based

reasoning through the “narrative” of cases therefore increasing corporate

explicit knowledge.

2.3.6.11 Artificial Neural Networks

Neural networks are a type of AI information processing technique that

is based on the biological neural system of humans (Metaxiotis,

Ergazakis, Samouilidis and Psarras, 2003:65). Merriam-Webster’s Online

(2007) defines neural networks as “computer architecture in which a

number of processors are interconnected in a manner suggestive of the

connections between neurons in a human brain and which is able to

learn by a process of trial and error.” The human brain has the ability to

reason, think and adapt behaviour based on past experiences. Neural

networks mimic human behaviour to solve problems by learning from

experience.

91

2.3.6.12 Intelligent Agents

Intelligent Agents are AI techniques that attempt to solve problems

generally done by experts without the assistance of users. They are

software technologies that use an established or learned knowledge base

to carry out non-specific, non-repetitive, and un-predictable tasks on

behalf of knowledge workers (Tiwana, 2002:48) by learning from

intelligence that has been built into the software or being influenced by

other agents (Metaxiotis, Ergazakis, Samouilidis and Psarras, 2003:76).

For example, intelligent agent software can scan or crawl the internet

and capture the most appropriate information to the user's preference or

alert the user of availability of new information.

In the world of knowledge management, the push-pull features of

intelligent agents can help in the “packaging” of knowledge according to

Tiwana (2002:53). Packaging according to Tiwana (2002:53) involves the

“filtering, editing, searching, and organizing pieces of knowledge.” It

would appear that “packaging” has a strong correlation to Nonaka

(2001:23)’s combination conversion method. Intelligence agents can

gather explicit knowledge, combine, filter and classify the knowledge,

and then share the knowledge with other members of the organization in

an explicit form.

2.3.7 Theoretical Review of Internationalization of Manufacturing

Firm.

2.3.7.1 The Context for Manufacturing planning and control

Perhaps the most important aspect of the context for development and

maintenance of a manufacturing planning and control system is the

continual change in its competitive strategic. Three key areas of

influence on MPC system design are the degree of internationalization,

the role of the customer in the system, and the increasing use of

information technology (Vollman, Berry, Whybark and Jacobs, 2005:43).

92

The increase in breadth and depth of internationalization of manufacturing

continues space.

Growth in international markets, both demand and supply, has had a

major impact on MPC system design and execution. Even small firms

have customers around the world, and many have foreign sources of

supply as well. The reach of national markets through trade blocks like

NAFTA, the European Common Market, the Andean Market, an others

will continue to expand. These markets expand the sources of demand

and locations of suppliers for firms of all sizes. It is a competitive

imperative to adapt MPC systems to this wide environment (Vollman et

al, 2005:25).

Internationalization has given rise to a whole new form of company. An

expression from the 1980s, Hollow Corporation, has taken on a new

meaning. The original concept has to do with product design and

marketing. But companies like Nike have taken this concept to a new

level.

Whole networks of manufacturing firms around the world have frown up

to support the likes of such companies as Nike. The MPC systems

necessary to support these supply chain networks are much more

complex than those of the traditional manufacturing company (Vollman

et al, 2005:51).

At the same time, there are firms that have capitalized on distinctive

competence in manufacturing. Firms like Solectron and Flextronics

perform subcontract manufacturing of products for many different

companies around the world. Their distinctive competence is

manufacturing first and foremost and, secondarily, the capability to

coordinate their activities with their suppliers and their customers in

global networks. They do this with high levels of flexibility – to ramp up

93

production and deliver new product to the marketplace and respond to

changing market needs (Vollman et al, 2005:43).

These new arrangements have given rise to what can be called “plug

compatibility. This is a concept not unlike the original Macintosh

computer concept of plug and play. The idea here is to have the ability to

plug into a manufacturer in Malaysia for a particular product components

for assembly and be able to move that capacity to Indonesia or Chile

when demands shift or requirements change. Thus, for example, the

Microsoft Xbox was launched in the U.S. marketed by manufacturing in

Mexico and Hungary. The manufacturing was done by Flextornics, which

was able to rapidly ramp up production to meet a target launch date.

Thereafter, Flextronics concentrated Xbox manufacturing in China. All of

this requires new levels of excellence in MPC system design (Vollman et

al, 2005:53).

2.3.7.2 Networking as knowledge work: A Study of Strategic

Interorganizational Development and Internationalization

In 1990, an ambitious plan to introduce electronic trading into UK life

insurance industry was formulated by 20 of the UK’s large and medium-

sized insurance companies. As a means of promoting and developing this

innovation, a company to which they give the pseudonym Switchco was

established. Its purpose was to act as focal point and facilitator of the

new electronically mediated interorganizational network designed to

displace paper-based methods of trading between insurance companies

and their distributors (Knights, Murray and Willmott, 1993:64).

In this article, they examined the process of establishing and building

the Swhitchco network as a form of knowledge work. In doing so, they

drew links between two areas of study: networking and knowledge work.

‘Knowledge work’, they argued, is less viable as an occupational

classification than as a catch-phrase for signaling current changes in the

94

organization of work in the direction of knowledge intensification. It is

also associated with a post-fordist ‘Information economy’ in which

information systems are understood to facilitate processes of ‘delaying’

and ‘multi-skilling’ within organizations. As hierarchies are flattened,

those at the lower levels are being trained to take greater responsibility

for decision, often on a team work or networking basis: in this limited

sense, workers are becoming ‘more knowledgeable’ and self-disciplined

workers. The study of networks has been undertaken, in the main, by

champions of ‘networks has been research’ as distinctive activity or field

of study the absence of more critical work on interorganizational

networks – a field that, while present in some organizational study text is

conspicuous by its absence from others is associated with a continuing

fixation on intraorganizational work processes. This has trended to

deflect attention from the development and significance or inter-

organizational networks between nominally autonomous organizations. In

their case, this process has involved establishing and building a strategic

network designed to support electronic trading between a number of

insurance companies which rely upon Independent Financial Advisers

(IFAs) to supply them with business (Knights, et al, 1993:5s).

Their study, then, is focused upon those knowledge workers who have

been engaged in establishing and developing the interorganizational

electronic trading network. In conducting the research, they drew upon

the conceptual framework developed by Michel Callon. Prior to

presenting their field work, therefore, they provided a limited account of

his ‘sociology of translation’ arguing that it yields certain valuable

insights into the process whereby techno-economic networks, such as

the one organized by Switchco are established and developed. Their case

material on Swirchco is then located in the historical and institutional

context of its ‘enrolment’ and ‘mobilization’ to interpret its information

and progression. In their account of Switchco, they refrain from

presenting an over-rational or linear model of organizational behaviour,

preferring instead to pay attentions to the conditions of its information

95

and dynamics of its development. This approach allows them to indicate

how the knowledge work involved in building the network has accommodated

the divergent demands of companies and their intermediaries; and to show

how, as networks develop, knowledge workers are continuously engaged in

a reworking and reconstitution of their position, commitments and

involvement. In a discussion section, they indicated the relevance of

their research for constructing a theory of networks as a distinctive form

of organizing that complements integrates insights derived from Callon

and Foucault’s diverse but complementary use of the concept of

normalization (Knights et al, 1993:975).

Typically, knowledge work is associated with the activity of those who

occupy a privileged position within the division of labour. ‘Knowledge

workers’ are understood to be highly qualified individuals who belong to,

or form a distinct component of, an elite of highly qualified, exceptionally

intelligent and/or hard working individuals is associated with the power

to design and/or control their own work, and to conceive of, and delegate

to, others tasks that are deemed to require comparatively little or no

expertise (Knights et al, 1993:975).

By accepting the authority of such conception of ‘Knowledge work’, there

is a danger that academic knowledge workers simply reproduce and

legitimize this social division of labour in a way that simultaneously

overlooks their common positioning as wage labour within a capitalist

mode of production. Without denying that the political economy of

capitalism promotes a division of labour in which expertise traditionally

invested in a craft labour is systematically appropriated and controlled

by professional and managerial strata, they argued that there is a

danger of using the concept of knowledge in all forms of activity. As has

been argued, all types of human activity involve a ‘reflexive monitoring of

conduct’, even though some work processes may become so habitual

and devalued as to render workers unaware or ignorant of the ‘tacit

knowledge’ upon which they routinely and skillfully draw a challenge for

96

critical analysis is to study the changing organization of work without

needlessly assuming or reinforcing social division of labour (Knights et

al, 1993:975).

An alternative to engaging in forms of discourse that uncritically

differentiates knowledge work from other kinds of work is to understand

it, genealogical, as a ‘truth claim’ that is currently being invoked to

suggest the changing profile of work is post-industrial societies (from

manual/industrial to knowledge/service) or to classify a type of work ,

often related to the use of computer-based communication and

information technologies and/or associated with the core activities of so-

called knowledge – intensive firms. A genealogy, as characterizes it,

addresses the social formation of what are routinely taken or known to

be ‘objects’ such as the practice and discourse deemed to raise within

the boundaries of knowledge work’ (Knights et al, 1993:976).

2.3.8 Theoretical Review of Defining Organisational Performance

Innovation and improvement of products, services, and processes will be

generated by reskilled employees, superior information technology, and

aligned organisational procedures. As organisations invest in acquiring

these new capabilities, their success (or failure) cannot be motivated or

measured in the short run by the traditional financial measures (Kaplan

and Norton, 1996:73). In other words, organisational performance is far

wider concept than just profit or some other financial performance

measures. It cannot be evaluated without taking organisational goals

into consideration.

The contemporary modern business environment demands a multi-goal

orientation. Profit theory (Cyert and March, 1963:) is no longer a valid

measure of organisational performance and neither are other approaches

that only take the interests of shareholders (owners) of a company into

account. Emerging management paradigms are emphasizing a

stakeholder perspective (Atkinson et al, 1997:9; Berman et al, 1999:26;

Harrison and Freeman, 1999:34; Hillman and Keim, 2001:6; Sirgy,

97

2002:22; Riahi-Belkaoui, 2003:53; Tangem, 2004:43s). Due to the

significance of various stakeholders, organisational performance should

not be solely assessed by financial indicators. Although there are various

approaches (Tangem, 2004:44) to organisational performance

measurement that encompass different stakeholder perspectives, I have

chosen to focus on the following four perspectives: financial, employee’s

view, supplier’s view, customer’s view. The chosen perspectives are very

similar to the perspectives provided by a Balanced Scorecard approach,

one of the most popular and widespread concepts. Namely, its founders,

Kaplan and Norton (1996:33), have determined four basic perspectives of

the Balanced Scorecard: the financial perspective, the customer

perspective, the internal business process perspective, the learning and

growth perspective.

2.3.9 The Concept of Performance Management

The historical view of performance management has been through the

traditional performance appraisal system. Events have overtaken this

model, as increased competition, cost, information technology and

greater customer focus on quality care have all raised the stakes in

managing the performance of employees for organizational success. The

move is away from the traditional performance appraisal system to a

more modern performance management system. The traditional

performance appraisal system is one in which the organization

distributes appraisal forms and the appraisal is done by the immediate

supervisor and the staff being appraised is told the result whether he or

she is recommended for promotion or not. In addition, the widespread

sentiment on the part of both professional employees and management

in most organization’s that the traditional annual performance review

form and process were no longer meeting their needs, gave rise to the

need for a new performance evaluation system; the performance

approach. Performance management is therefore, a more developmental

performance process for employees (Coopeee, Marchesani, Woo,

Arsenault, Perkins and Wise, 2001:1).

98

It is one of the most important and critical functions of human resource

management. It is seen as a way of establishing mechanisms for

reviewing the performance of staff, and helping them to effectively

contribute towards the achievement of organizational objectives (Price,

2000: 181; Martineau, 2005:7).

Authors differ as to the understanding of performance management.

Katz and Green (1997:7) define performance management as “. . . a

system composed of an orderly series of programmes designed to define,

measure, and improve organizational performance”. The PSMPC (2001:1)

defines performance management as “...helping people to work effectively

by improving individual and team performance, increasing the overall

productivity of an agency” in the context of staff management. The

Institute of Personnel Management as quoted by Martinez (2003:206)

defines performance management as “...a strategy which relates to every

activity of the organization set in the context of its human resources

policies, culture, style and communications systems. The nature of

strategy depends on the organizational context and can vary from

organization to organization”.

Performance management is a shared process between managers, the

individual and the teams they are supervising; it is designed to improve

the performance of an organization and the people working within it

(Armstrong, 1994:1; Torrington and Hall, 1998:313). Performance

management is based on agreed objectives, competencies required to

undertake the work and development plans for achieving the objectives.

Performance management focuses on strategically increasing the

effectiveness of an organization through improving the productivity of its

people.

According to Price (2000:181), Armstrong (1994:1), Amaratunga and

Baldry (2002:218), Van der Bij and Visers (1999:214) and De Bruijn

(2002:579), Performance management or appraisal systems which are

99

specially developed to appraise the performance of individuals or teams.

Such appraisal requires the following:

i. Clearly defined organizational goals,

ii. Individual or team objectives or management targets,

iii. Properly defined standards of performance and the skills and

competency require to meet them,

iv. Regular formal review of progress,

v. Systems of feedback and proposals for improvement.

In this sense, performance management is about ascertaining the

value of a person’s work performance by assessing an employee’s

strength and development needs using different measurements

and evaluation methods. (Troskie, 1993:534; Torrington and Hall,

1998:325). The key in performance analysis is the identification of

the gap between desired and actual performance (goals) and the

current situation (baseline) to enable monitoring of progress

(Whinch et al, 2003:10).

Armstrong (1994:25) says that the aims of performance management

and human resources management are similar, namely, to achieve

sustained improved performance of organizations and employees to

ensure that people develop and achieve their fullest captivity and

potential for their own benefit and that of the organization. Furthermore,

performance management aims creating an environment which values

people, empowering people in a way that latent potential can be realized

and to strengthen or change positively the organization’s culture.

2.3.9.1 Performance Indicators and its Effect on the

Manufacturing Firms

Performance in business setting means the extent to which an objective

has been or is being put in another way, performance refers to the

degree to which organizational goals are achieved. Performance is

measured from concepts-efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to

the rate of resource utilization, i.e. cost incurred in the course of work

100

done, while effectiveness refers to the extent in which results are

achieved by way of units of goods produced or sold, value of content

executed etc. (Unyimadu, 2007:5).

Both aspects of performance are relevant in this work. In evaluating and

assessing performance of a business enterprise, attempt is made to

examine not only the resultant outcome of the company’s efforts in

terms of returns (profit and its other derivation), but also those aspects

of the company’s financing and asset structure which indicate its ability

to survive or its disposition to avail itself of future opportunities. In

practical parlance, performance is looked at in the context of the delivery

to the promise made to stakeholders. This is why many oil producing

firms in the Niger Delta in Nigeria have problems with their host

communities because they continue to fail to make good their promises

even when there is full degradation of the soil during their operations

(Nwachukwu, 2008:21). The major areas of performance customarily

evaluated are profitability, liquidity, leverage (long term liquidity) and

activity or efficiency of operation.

2.3.9.2 Performance indicators

They include:

a. Efficiency;

b. Effectiveness;

c. Productivity;

d. Profitability;

e. Liquidity;

f. Leverage;

g. Activity; and

h. Morale.

Dictionary’s definition of efficiency as fitness or power to accomplish, or

success in accomplishing the purpose intended, adequate power,

effectiveness, efficacy. Later on, it is pointed out that efficiency acquired

101

a second meaning – the ratio between input and output, between effort

and results, expenditure and income, cost and resulting pleasure. This

second meaning became current in Business and Economics, only since

the beginning of the 20th century. Still later on, influenced by the

scientific management movement, efficiency was defined as the ratio of

actual performance to the standard performance (Ejiofor, 2007:6).

For public enterprises in Nigeria, efficiency can be operationalised in

three ways according to Nwachukwu (2008:28) as follows:

1. In a technical sense, usually of machines when it is the rate

between inputs and outputs.

2. In a manufacturing process or operation as the unit cost when

applied to a worker, as the relation between actual output and a

standard output.

While efficiency is concerned with measuring the ability of inputs that

produced outputs, or relationship between performance and standard

efficiency is concerned with the failure of inputs to achieve desired

outputs, the gap between actual performance and expected, and between

results and efforts. Apart from efficiency another closely related

performance variable is effectiveness. To be effective literally means to

have effects, when we say that something is effective we mean that it has

effects that we desired that we recognize as intentional in the design of

the thing in question. When we say that a television set is effective we

mean that it provides clear picture and reasonable reproduction of

sounds.

Productivity has been defined as the measure of how well resources are

brought together in organizations and utilized for accomplishing a set of

results. It is reaching the highest level of performance with the least

expenditure or resource. To operationalise productivity in a public

enterprise the ratio of total output to total input is very handy. Total

102

input is the naira value of all the factors of production for that year

which include land, labour and capital. The limitation of this method of

operationalising productivity is that entrepreneurship management

which is a factor of production is difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Another limitation is that for public enterprises that render a service, it

becomes difficult to quantify the output in monetary terms since the

outputs are tangible (Nwachukwu, 2008: 40-45).

This measure of productivity has the advantage that it aggregates

effectiveness of the use of the factors of production of the public

enterprise to produce goods and services. It draws attention to the fact

that a good integration of resources physical and human will yield higher

output of public enterprises shown by the result of total output/total

input between greater than 1 (Unyimadu, 2007: 28-36).

Higher productivity of the employees of a public enterprise has the

following good effects:

(vi) higher incomes and profits;

(vii) higher earnings;

(viii) increased supplies of both consumer and capital goods at lower

costs and lower prices;

(ix) ultimate shorter hours of work and improvements in working and

living conditions; and

(x) strengthening the general economic foundation of workers.

Another performance variable apart from productivity is profitability or

the ability of the enterprise to make profit. Profit is the income and

difference between sales revenue and total cost. The profitability

enterprise is summarized in the valuation of that enterprise. Indeed the

basic objective of measurement of profitability is to provide a viability of

the enterprise which will be a critical assessment of the worth of the

investment. In effect, the vale of an enterprise may be stated as being the

present values of its future stream (Ejiofor, 2008: 36-45).

103

The profitability of a privatized or commercialized public enterprise can

be operationalised by using profitability ratios. Profitability ratios are

classified into two categories; ratios which express income as a

percentage of sales, and ratios which express income as a yield

associated with the employment of resources. For the purpose of the

analysis of profitability, income is generally expressed as earnings before

interest and tax (EBIT). The profitability ratios of income as a percentage

of sales include the following:

a. gross profit ratio which is the ratio of gross margin or profit to

sales which is used to check stability of market conditions;

b. net income ratio or the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes

to sales. The profitability ratios of return on resources employed

include the following;

c. return on capital employed which is the ratio of the earnings

before interest and taxes over net asset value which is found by

adding the value of assets to that of current assets and

subtracting the total assets which is the ratio of earnings before

interest and taxes over fixed plus current assets;

d. return on total assets which is the ratio of earnings before it and

taxes plus current assets; and

e. return on gross assets which is the ratio of earnings interest and

taxes plus depreciation for the period over assets at costs plus

current assets (Ejiofor, 2008:18).

Another performance variable apart from profitability is sold. Solvency is

the ability of an enterprise to meet its immediate obligations and thus

avoid the possibility of insolvency. To operate the solvency of the public

enterprise two ratios are in common as follows:

i) current ratio which is the ratio of current assets to liabilities is

a measure of how current assets could be converted into cash

to meet current liabilities and if its value is one it would

104

indicate that the firm might have a problem in meeting

creditor’s claim;

ii) acid test ratio which is the ratio of current assets less than over

current liabilities which recognizes the problem of current ratio

that inventory is not easily converted to cash (Unyimadu, 2007:

83-94).

Another performance variable apart from solvency is leverages. Leverage

is a measure of how far the total capital of the enterprise is compared

with long term debt. In operationalising the leverage of privatized public

services two ratios come on hand as follows:

i) Gearing or leverage ratios is long term debt as a fraction of long

term debt plus share capital;

ii) Gearing or leverage ratio which is long term as a fraction of

share capital (Nwachukwu, 2008:32).

Another performance variable apart from leverage is activity. Activity is

defined as the use made of resource by the enterprise. To operationalise

activity of a public enterprise the following ratios are useful as follows:

(a) Inventory turnover or the ratio of sales over average inventory

which is the rate at which an enterprise converts inventory into

sales;

(b) Average debt collection period which is given by debtors divided by

credit sales times 365 which gives the average number of days for

payment;

(c) Ratio of sales to total assets value which is the ratio of sales to

fixed assets plus current assets and indicates the ability of the

assets to generate income (Ejiofor, 2008:52).

2.3.10 Theoretical Review of Knowledge Management and

Manufacturing Performance.

In the course of an investigation we have identify a number of specific

KM problems encounter by engineering groups involved in

105

manufacturing and product development. The two areas, have a lot of

things in common, but are not the same. As Adler et al (1996) note,

“Product development manufacturing. It is mainly knowledge work. The

tasks are not nearly as repeatable as they are in manufacturing, and

standardizing the world will kill creativity.” (p.134). Even though we

focus on Production, Quality and R &D groups, the role of other groups

(i.e. Supplies, Sales and Marketing, Logistics etc.) is of importance.

Some organizations believe that they have internal customers;

manufacturing is marketing’s customer, for example. By doing so they

lose sight of what they are trying to accomplish as an organization.

Others are organized around multifunctional processes that are directly

processes that are directly focused on serving the end user. They form

‘product business teams’ that behave completely differently to the way

departments behaved in the past over relevant functions. In this way a

lot of dump decisions in manufacturing –made only for the sake of

manufacturing- can be avoided. The ‘product business teams’ are meant

to divert the focus from the function to the customer.

There are particular aspects in the manufacturing process that create

difficult situations for both the Knowledge Sharing Networks (KSNs), and

the knowledge management system in use. We are listing here below

some of the most common ones:

Lack of shared understanding, mainly due to the fact that they do not

all use a common language, Discrepancies among the various versions of

information stored in different locations of the KSN, Extensive use of

personal (or group) information stores and the absence of easy-to-use

indexing systems, Over-dependence upon sharing explicit knowledge and

information, as the tacit one is more difficult to flow, Loss of skills

developed due to collaboration, as they are not transferable through the

KSN, Over-dependence on the KSN, and thus minimization of face-to-

face contacts.

106

In industrial environments where these situations are not overcome,

they may result in inefficiencies in the manufacturing process, which

may, in their turn, produce a negative influence on the performance of

the organization. Thus the effort is to make available infrastructures

supporting knowledge management applications and introduce

management initiatives promoting knowledge sharing activities

throughout the entire manufacturing environment.

Increasing productivity is one of the challenges for KSNs in a

manufacturing environment. Product and manufacturing process life

cycles are becoming shorter as we move from traditional to more high-

technology based engineering. As a consequence, the available time for

recovering the expenses related with developing and manufacturing new

products, is also compressed. This places a reward on the ability of KSNs

to capture knowledge created during the process and re-use it in the

next generation of products, thus reducing the development and

manufacturing time. This “capture-reuse” cycle is a key enabler for

performance improvement. The fact that the challenges associated with

capturing and reusing knowledge, are basically knowledge management

challenges is underlining KM’s key role.

KM responses to this challenge may range from Knowledge Management

Architecture (proposed by Zack, 1999a) to the alternatives of Knowledge

Codification Strategy (a people-to-document approach to codify, store

and reuse knowledge ) or a Knowledge Personalization strategy (based on

network of people and dialogue between individuals) propose by Hansel

et al (1999). Companies using codification strategies or approaches rely

primarily on repositories of explicit knowledge. Personalization strategies

or approaches imply that the primary mode of knowledge transfer is

direct among people.

Based on the study of KM practices of companies in several industrial

sectors (Consulting Firms, Health care and High Tech industry) Hansen

et al (1999) note that although in every sector managers are chosen a

107

distinct knowledge management strategy, there is a common pattern

among them. “Those that pursue and assemble-to-order product or

service strategy emphasized the codification and reuse of knowledge.

Those that pursue highly customized service offerings, or a product

innovation strategy, invested mainly in person-to-person knowledge

sharing.” (p.112). They also know that many companies that use

knowledge effectively have chosen one strategy predominantly and use

the second one to support the first, on an 80-20 split: 80% of their

knowledge sharing follows the predominant strategy and 20% the

supporting one. They advice managers not to straddle as they may

find themselves with an unmanageable mix of people expertise.

Grover and Davenport (2001:8) in a recent article seems to be in

complete agreement, when the state: “Both [codification and

personalization approaches] are necessary in most organizations, but

an increased focus on one approach or the other at any given time

within a specific organization maybe appropriate.” it is noteworthy

that they add ‘time’, as a new parameter affecting the company’s

decision.

2.3.11 Theoretical Review of Balanced Scorecard: as a

Performance Measurement Method

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a technique developed by Kaplan

and Norton (1992:234). The technique enables organisations to

translate their mission and strategy into a comprehensive set of

performance measures that provide the framework for a strategic

measurement and management system. Organisations have used the

Balanced Scorecard to; (1) clarify and translate vision and strategy,

(2) communicate and link strategic objectives and measures, (3) plan,

set targets and align strategic initiatives and (4) enhance strategic

feedback and learning, and succeed in realizing both tangible and

intangible benefits of their investments (Kaplan and Norton,

1992:234, 1996:213, 2000:312).

108

The Balanced Scorecard measures organisational performance, with

emphasis on financial objectives. But, it also includes the

performance drivers of these financial objectives, and measures

organisational performance across four balanced perspectives; (1)

financial, (2) customer, (3) internal business processes and (4)

learning and growth.

Creators of the Balanced Scorecard argue that, traditional financial

measures “Tell the story of the past” (Kaplan and Norton, 1992:235).

They try to address this inadequacy by complementing past

performance measures (financial measures) with the drivers of future

performance indicators (customers, suppliers, employees, processes,

technologies and innovation. The fundamental concept of the

Balanced Scorecard is to drive the objectives and measures from the

overall corporate vision and strategy and to use the four perspectives

as a “balanced” framework to monitor and achieve these objectives. A

properly developed Balanced Scorecard should:

(1) Represent financial and non-financial measures from all

levels of the organization (front line to executives)

(2) Maintain an equilibrium between:

i. External measures (developed for the stakeholders and

customers) and Internal measures (developed for the

business processes, innovation, learning and growth)

ii. Outcome measures (results from the past) and

measures that are for Future performance

iii. Objective (easily quantifiable outcome measures)

and subjective (judgmental performance drivers)

outcome measures.

(3) Include only measures that are elements in a chain of

cause-and-effect relationships that communicate the

meaning of the organisation’s (or business unit’s)

strategy.

109

It must be pointed out that the traditional Balanced Scorecard

approach is used to measure the performance of the overall

organization, while the focus of this research is on measuring ES

performance.

2.3.12 Theoretical Framework: Organisational Knowledge

2.3.12.1 Theory

In order to understand why managing knowledge effectively is an

important source of competitive advantage, we briefly review the

organizational knowledge literature and the knowledge-based view of the

firm. We define organizational knowledge as all the tacit and explicit

knowledge that individuals possess about products, systems and

processes. This includes explicit knowledge codified in manuals,

databases and information systems as well as tacit knowledge that is

shared collectively in the firm in the form of routines, culture and know-

how (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998: 242-266; Grant, 1996; Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995).

For many small and medium sized firms the potential of the ideas that

the funders have in their heads are the most valuable assets they

possess. Consequently, intentionally managing that knowledge is critical

to achieving competitive advantage. Both internal and external sources

of knowledge are important to entrepreneurs (Kogut and Zander, 1996:

502-518). Internal knowledge comes from reorganizing accidents,

experiments, and inventiveness. External knowledge comes form new

people, acquisitions, joint ventures and social networks (Kogut and

Zander, 1996: 502-518).

Organizational knowledge is subject to path dependencies. Once a

particular technological path or learning path has been taken, it

becomes more difficult to diverge from that path (Kogut and Zander,

1996: 502-518). There are both psychological and financial

commitments to that course of action. Knowledge advances on the basis

110

of current information and ways of doing things. It takes investment over

the longer term to reap benefits of knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1996:

502-518).

Alliances, partnerships and joint ventures provide additional sources of

external knowledge (new technologies, new production processes,

operations processes). Inter-organizational networks (e.g, equity

investments from investors) impact the success of firms (Stuart, Hoang

and Hybels, 1999). Faced with a lack of information about the success

potential of small firms, third parties rely on the prominence of the

affiliates to make judgments about quality of the company. Those

companies with prominent endorsements will perform better than those

without them.

A firm’s ability to make use of these sources of external knowledge will

be moderated by its absorptive capacity (learning new ideas from

internal and external sources, systems and structures that facilitate

knowledge cultivation) (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990: 128-152). Those

firms that have systems and structure in place to absorb external

knowledge will do a better job of integrating the new knowledge into their

firm, which may result in higher levels of innovation and knowledge

exploitation.

2.3.12.2 Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation

In their 1995 book titled The Knowledge-Creating Company, Nonaka

and Takaichi proposed a theory to explain the phenomenon of

organizational knowledge creation. They defined knowledge as “Justified

true belief” to reflect the context in which knowledge exists. Organisation

knowledge creation was defined as “……. The capability of a company as

a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the

organization and embody it in products, services and systems”.

111

Nonaka and Takeuchi argued that knowledge is initially created by

individuals and that the knowledge created by individuals becomes

organisational knowledge through a process described by the theory.

They described two dimensions of organizational knowledge creation—

epistemological and ontological. On the epistemological side, the authors

recognize two types of knowledge–tacit and explicit. Explicit knowledge is

the knowledge that can be written down and relatively easily transferred

from one person to the next. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is more

difficult to articulate because it often arises out of experience. The

ontological dimension ranges from the individual at one end of the range

and moves from there to team, group, organization and beyond. “A spiral

emerges when the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge is

elevated dynamically from a lower ontological level to higher levels”

(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995:423). This spiral is created by the four

modes of knowledge conversion through which knowledge is converted

from one knowledge type to another. The modes of knowledge conversion

include socialization (from tacit to tacit knowledge), externalization (from

tacit to explicit knowledge), combination (from explicit to explicit

knowledge), and internalization (from explicit to tacit knowledge). Their

theory also explains how individual knowledge is “amplified” into and

throughout the organization through these four modes and under five

conditions that enable and promote organizational knowledge creation.

These conditions include Intention, Autonomy, Fluctuation and Creative

Chaos, Redundancy, and Requisite Variety. Finally, the theory consists

of a five-phase organizational knowledge creation process. These five

phases are: 1) sharing tacit knowledge, 2) creating concepts, 3) justifying

concepts, 4) building an archetype, and 5) cross-leveling knowledge. In

developing this theory, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995:86:67) drew on the

work of numerous scholars including Brown and Druguid’s (2001:198-

213) work on communities of practice, Polyani’s (1966:121) work on tacit

and codified (explicit) knowledge, Anderson’s (1983:98) and Signley and

Anderson’s (1989) declarative (explicit) and procedural (tacit) knowledge

from cognitive psychology, Johnson-Laird’s (1983:67) work on shared

112

mental models, and Donnellon, Gray, and Bougon’s (1986: 43-55) work

on metaphors, among others.

2.3.12.3 Theories of Firm Internationalization

The movement to internationalization, as theoretical approach, was

needed due to the fact the more and more theorists noticed that the

performances in the field of the international trade cannot be explained

only by referring to macro-economic phenomena. Firms’ role is very

important and it influences the commercial performances of the nations.

As opposed to the theories of the international trade and foreign direct

investments, the theories of firm internationalization explain how and

why a firm engages in foreign activities and how the dynamics of the

nature of this behaviour can be conceptualized.

The internationalization can be described as a movement of firm’s

operations beyond the borders of the home country, a process of the

increase of firm’s implication in complex operations outside national

borders. This acceptance of the internationalization process allows the

analysis of the multiple activities performed by firms abroad, which are

of extreme complexity: from licensing, to franchising, to joint ventures or

mergers and acquisitions. The theory of firm internationalization allowed

the broadening of new horizons for the analysis of the corporative

phenomenon: management, marketing, finances or human resources. If

at macro-economic level, between the firms that perform activities at

international level distinctions are not made, at micro-economic level,

management and marketing strategies identify particularities specific to

each internationalization level.

Firm internationalization theories analyze the factors that generate the

advance firms win in the process of internationalization, the stages firms

cover in the process of internationalization, and the elements that define

the internationalization behaviour of firms. A model for firm

internationalization is represented by the Uppsala Model, developed by

113

the Swedish researchers (Blomstermo and DeoSharma, 2003:87). They

consider that the internationalization process is an evolutionary and

sequential one, which develops as the firm becomes more and more

involved on the international market. According to the approach of the

Swedish theorists, firms enter foreign markets in a gradual way, in

accordance to the level of knowledge and the information accumulated

about the destination market. Firms gain knowledge and experience

from their activity on the internal market, and, at a certain point, turn to

external markets. The external markets have different degrees of

attractiveness, in accordance to the geographical and cultural proximity

to the home country. The Uppsala Model considers that the firms starts

the approach of the international markets with the usage of the

traditional export methods to countries closer from the perspective of

geographical and cultural proximity, gradually developing complex ways

to operate, at firm level, at destination country level, and towards

geographical and cultural more distant countries. There can be

distinguished four such methods for market penetration: irregular

export, export through an agent, subsidiary and production.

The lack of information and knowledge about the international markets

represents a major obstacle in the way of internationalization, but this

can be overcome by researching the peculiarities of the target markets.

The decisions regarding the investment arrangements are made as the

degree of non-information decreases. The more the firm knows about a

foreign market, the perceived risk is lower. As consequence, the level of

investments increases. The level of knowledge about the new market

directly influences firm’s involvement, generating a certain degree of

involvement towards the external market. Innovation-related

internationalization taxonomies examines the way in which firms

progress in the process of internationalization and suggest that this

process is a sequence of stages with stagnation periods, influenced by

the degree of involvement in the global economy. Over these static

periods, firms accumulate the needed resources to reply to the

114

challenges launched by the international environment and to pass to the

next level (Morgan and Katsikeas, 1997:96).

Innovation allows firms to obtain new products with superior features

and to decrease costs by developing new production processes and

production technologies etc. In this way, using innovation, firms obtain

advantages that allow them to be competitive in international

environments distinct from that of the home country. The higher the

level of innovation absorption is, the competitive ability increases and

firms expand on markets even more different than the origin market

(Stoian and Zaharia, 2009:55). The synthesis of the main theories that

lead from the international trade to the internationalization of large firms

is presented in Table 2.6 below.

Table 2.5: Main theoretical approaches that lead to the explanation of

the development of transnational companies

Theories Emphasis Credited writers International trade theories Absolute advantage Theory

Countries win if they specialize in the production of goods for which they hold an absolute cost advantage.

Adam Smith (1776)

Comparative advantage Theory

Countries win if they specialize in the production of goods for which they hold a comparative cost advantage.

Ricardo (1817)

Factor proportion theory

Countries tend to specialize in the production of those goods that intensively use the most abundant production factors.

Hecksher and Ohlin (1933)

Product life cycle theory

Different stages: production and export to a foreign country, external production, external production for export, product import

Vernon (1966)

115

from abroad. New theory of international trade

Utilizing protectionist measures to develop an important industrial base in some industries allows these industries to dominate the global market.

Krugman (1970)

Competitive advantage Theory

Advantages are given not by the endowment with production factors, but by the availability of advanced production factors and the degree of competitiveness of an economy.

Porter (1990)

Foreign direct investment theories Market imperfections Theory

Market imperfections are structural and come from the deviations from the perfect competition on the market of the final product, as a consequence of an exclusivist and permanent control on the rights of property on technology, access to resources, scale economies, distribution system and product differentiation.

Hymer (1970)

International production theories: Demand structure theory Location theory Eclectic theory

- Investments direction shows a higher attraction to the countries with a similar demand structure to that in the country of origin, in relation to countries with a different demand structure - What economic activity needs to be located, where and why? - The reasons for localization are linked to several advantages generated by ownership, firm’s location and the international environment

Hicks (1939) Phillips (1958) Weber (1929) Dunning (1980)

116

Internalization theory - Transaction costs theory

The development of transnational companies allows the manipulation of the transactions within the firm, so as to minimize losses

Ronald Coase (1937) Buckley and Casson (1976, 1985)

Internationalization theories of the firm Uppsala Model Firms penetrate foreign

markets in a gradual way, in accordance to the level of knowledge and information they accumulate about the destination market

Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul (1975)

Innovation-related The internationalization process is a stepwise

Bilkey and Tesar (1977)

Internationalization Taxonomies

process, with stagnation periods, over which firms utilize innovation to respond to the challenges launched by the international environment and to move to the next level.

Cavusgil (1980) Czinkota (1982) Lim (1991) Rao and Naidu (1992)

Source: Blacker (2002) “Knowledge, Knowledge works and Organisations: An Overview and Interpretation,” in Choo and Bomtis (eds.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

2.3.12.4 Resource Base View of the Firm

Over the last two decades, RBV has emerged as one of the most

dominant theoretical perspectives in the field of strategic management

(Newbert, 2007: 121-146). The term was originally coined by Wernerfelt

in 1984 (Fahy, 2000: 94-104) and the significance of this contribution is

evident in its being awarded the Strategic Management Journal best

paper prize in 1994 for reasons such as being “truly seminal” and an

“early statement of an important trend in the field” (Zajac, 1995; cited in

Fahy, 2000: 94-104). Fahy (2000: 94-104) has reasoned that the

principal contribution of the resource-based view of the firm has been as

a theory of competitive advantage. Its basic logic is a relatively simple

one. It starts with the assumption that the desired outcome of

117

managerial effort within the firm is a sustainable competitive advantage

(SCA). Achieving an SCA allows the firm to earn economic rents or

above-average returns. In turn, this focuses attention on how firms

achieved and sustain advantages.

The resource-based view contends that the answer to this question lies

in the possession of certain key resources, that is, resources having the

characteristics of value, barriers to duplication and appropriability

(Fahy, 2000: 94-104). This view is not dissimilar to that proposed by

Barney (1991: 99-120). An SCA can be obtained if the firm effectively

deploys these resources in its product-markets. Therefore, the RBV

emphasizes strategic choice, charging the firm's management with the

important tasks of identifying, developing and deploying key resources to

maximize returns (Fahy, 2000: 94-104). In summary, following Fahy

(2000: 94-104), the essential elements of the resource-based view are as

follows: (i) sustainable competitive advantage and superior performance;

(ii) the characteristics and types of advantage-generating resources; and

(iii) strategic choices by management.

The resource-based view is indeed an alternative perspective to analyze

competitive advantage compared to that put forward by the I/O

perspective. As Porter (1991: 95-117) highlights, there are four attributes

of the proximate environment of a firm that has the greatest influence on

its competitive advantage, namely, factor conditions, demand conditions,

related & supporting industries, and firm strategy, structure and rivalry.

O’Shaughnessy (1996: 12-20) re-affirms the validity of Michael Porter’s

contribution to the discourse on competitive advantage, but suggests

that his (Porter) theory is weakened by its neglect of cultural factors and

historical antecedents.

Mazzarol and Soutar (1999: 287-300) study of structure, strategy

(marketing and entry) and competitive advantage outline a model of the

factors that are critical to the establishment and maintenance of

sustainable competitive advantage for education services enterprises in

118

international markets. The variables are conceptualized as industry and

foreign market structure; quality image, market profile, coalition

formation, forward integration, expertise, culture and information

technology. Whereas, the study by Burden and Proctor (2000: 90-97) on

training and competitive advantage found out that meeting customer

needs on time, every time, is a significant route to achieving and

sustaining competitive advantage, and training is a tool that

organizations should use to succeed at this. However, a study by Gupta

and McDaniel (2002) on knowledge management (KM) and competitive

advantage investigates the vital link between the management of

knowledge in contemporary organizations and the development of a

sustainable competitive advantage. The variables are conceptualized in

terms of organizational effectiveness, efficiency, core competency, costs;

knowledge harvesting, filtering, configuration, dissemination and

application. Also, Goh (2004) identifies that the field of knowledge

management (KM) has emerged strongly as the next source of

competitive advantage. Nevertheless, Lin (2003: 327-341) suggests that

technology transfer (TT) can be a significant source of competitive

advantage for firms in developing countries with limited R&D resources.

TT was conceptualized in terms of technological learning performance,

organizational intelligence, causal ambiguity, firm specificity, complexity,

maturity, employee qualification, and innovation orientation.

Fahy, Farrelly and Quester (2004: 1013-1030) have also found out the

increasingly important role played by sponsorship in the marketing mix

that has given rise to the view that it should be considered as a

significant strategic activity with the potential to generate a sustainable

competitive advantage in the marketplace. However, Ma (2004: 907-924)

further advances an integrative framework on the determinants of

competitive advantage in global competition namely creation &

innovation, competition, cooperation and co-option. Whereas De Pablos

(2006: 544-559) explains that the competitive advantage of a

transnational organization lies to a great extent in its ability to identify

119

and transfer strategic knowledge between its geographically dispersed

and diverse locations.

In a study of strategic focus and competitive advantage by Cousins

(2005: 403-428), it was found that firms defining their competitive

advantage as being cost-focused will generally consider supply as

playing merely a cost-reduction role, i.e. passive and supportive,

whereas firms viewing their competitive advantage as being differentiated

will see supply as strategic, i.e. as a distinctive capability. The variables

are measured in terms of business development, market share,

relationship development; cost focus, differentiation and collaboration.

In addition, Liao and Hu (2007: 402-411) further investigates the inter-

relationships among environmental uncertainty, knowledge transfer (KT)

and competitive advantage, which was conceptualized as ambiguity,

complexity, partner protectiveness; organizational KT, group &

procedural movements; reduce dependency, KT effect, technology

development and technology transfer (TT).

In spite of the vast conceptual and empirical study conducted on the

notion of competitive advantage, Flint and Van Fleet (2005) nonetheless

argues that there is no clear definition of competitive advantage (CA) that

is applicable in general term i.e. applicable in any dimension or criteria.

Following Ma (2000: 16-17), as far as the research on (sustainable)

competitive advantage is concerned.

Furthermore, other studies have indeed provided support on the

importance of having a good strategy to attain competitive advantage

from the resource-based view (Hult and Ketchen Jr., 2001: 899-906;

Ramsay, 2001: 38-47; Foss and Knudsen, 2003: 291-307; Gottschalg

and Zollo, 2007: 418-437). A well formulated and implemented strategy

can have significant effect on the attainment of competitive advantage

level (Richard, 2000: 164-177; Arend, 2003: 279-284; Powell, 2003: 285-

291; Porter and Kramer, 2006). The resource-based view has indeed

120

provides an avenue for organization to plan and execute its

organizational strategy via examining the position of its internal

resources and capabilities towards achieving competitive advantage

(Kristandl and Bontis, 2007: 1510-1524; Sheehan and Foss, 2007: 450-

461).

2.3.12.5 From the Resource-Based to the Knowledge-Based View

of the Firm

It is largely accepted that the knowledge-based (KBV) of the firm is a

recent extension of the RBV of the firm (Balogun and Jenkins,

2003:1231-1241). The KBV of the firm considers knowledge as the most

important strategic resource and, in that sense, this perspective is an

extension of RBV of the firm (De Carolis, 2002:699-709).

The recent extension of the RBV, the KBV, is accepted to be adequate to

the present economic context (Mathews, 2003:115-145). In this context,

intangible assets are highly valued (Mathews, 2003:133-148).

The interpretation of knowledge as a resource establishes the theoretical

connection between the RBV and the KBV (Ariely, 2003). The KBV of the

firm is a recent extension of the RBV of the firm, and the capabilities

made that extension possible (Malerba and Orsenigo, 2000:289-314).

The competition based upon the capabilities, and the notion of

increasing returns was first suggested by Marr (2004), and then further

explored by Marr (2004), Marr (2004), as they are considered to be the

developers of the modern RBV of the firm (Marr, 2004).

The KBV of the firm is an extension of the RBV of the firm because it

considers that organizations are heterogeneous entities loaded with

knowledge (Hoskisson et al., 1999). The resource base of the

organization increasingly consists of knowledge-based assets (Marr,

2004). The logic of the RBV of the firm suggests that unique

characteristics of the intangible resources (especially knowledge) should

121

determine the focus of research (Rouse and Daellenbach, 2002:963-967).

Knowledge resources are particularly important to ensure that

competitive advantages are sustainable, as these resources are difficult

to imitate they are the foundation for sustainable differentiation

(Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003:1307-1314).

The KBV of the firm has attracted great interest as it reflects that

academia recognizes the fundamental economic changes resulting from

cumulatively and availability of knowledge in the past two decades. We

are witnessing a structural change in the productive paradigm (Carneiro,

2003:33-43). The change from manufacture to services in the majority of

developed economies is based on the manipulation of information and

symbols and not on the use of physical products (Fulk and DeSanctis,

1995:337-349).

The RBV of the firm literature justifies the existence of differences in

performance between organizations as a consequence of knowledge

asymmetries (capabilities and competences). As a result, an important

KBV of the firm proposition states that the organization exists to create,

transfer and transform knowledge into competitive advantage (Kogut and

Zander, 1992:383-397). Nevertheless, transferring knowledge through

the organization can be difficult, that’s the so-called “stickiness”.

Stickiness reflects the presence of internal factors that enable the true

achievement of competitive advantage. Stickiness also hinders the

appropriation of rents from existing knowledge assets (Szulanski, 2003).

Conner and Prahalad (2002:103-131) argue that clearly there is a body

of literature that considering KBV of the firm as being the essence of the

RBV of the firm. According to these authors there is an emerging

strategic management literature on the RBV that points out knowledge

as the basis for competition. The RBV of the firm should incorporate the

temporal evolution of its resources and the capabilities that sustain the

122

competitive advantage (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003:997-1010) and that was

achieved by the “dynamic capabilities”.

The Ricardian perspective of rent creation adopted by the RBV of the

firm is challenged by the Shumpeterian perspective of the dynamic

capabilities vision (Makadok, 2001:287-401). This vision of dynamic

capabilities enlightens the importance of an alternative rent creation

mechanism – capability building - which is different from resource

choosing Makadok (2001).

Teece and other authors (Teece et al, 1997:509-534) present a clear

distinction between the two perspectives: the RBV and the dynamic

capability view; the former is mostly dependent on resources and

presents a Ricardian rent creation. On the contrary, the dynamic

capability view is strongly related to processes and paths, presenting a

Schumpeterian rent creation.

It is largely accepted that KBV of the firm is an extension of the RBV of

the firm. Considering that the capabilities made that extension (Malerba

and Orsenigo, 2000:45), we can make a logical deduction and admit that

the influence of the capability development mechanism will affect KBV of

the firm. Dynamic capabilities have the capacity to reconfigure, redirect,

transform, shape and integrate central knowledge, external resources

and strategic and complementary assets. They will allow the firm to

respond to the challenges presented by the Schumpeterian competitive

world, made of competition and imitation, changing so fast and

pressured by temporal factors (Teece et al, 1997:24). The KBV of the firm

is the logical evolution of the RBV of the firm considering that it is a way

to incorporate the temporal evolution of its resources and the

capabilities that sustain the competitive advantage (Helfat and Peteraf,

2003:13).

123

Petrick and other authors (1999:95) present the intangible assets (both

individual, such as leadership, and social, such as organizational

reputation) as being the basis for sustained competitive advantage.

Following a RBV approach, the central capabilities (such as the

capabilities to define and solve the organizational problems) are the base

for the specific competitive advantage of the firm (Lei et. al, 1996:549-

569). The present management literature strongly points out capabilities

and competences as the basis for the competitive advantage of the firm

(Amit and Schoemaker, 1993:33-46).

2.3.12.6 The Knowledge-Based View of the Firm

The economic change of material-based production to information-based

production created a revaluation of the firm workers. Increasingly we

find knowledge workers at the core of the organization functions:

concept and technology designers, as well as finance and management

people. Other individuals are considered to be in the firm’s periphery, as

a consequence their responsibilities change permanently and they are

defined by the tasks they perform at the moment. This way, a new

differentiation in labour arises (Child and McGrath, 2001: 1135-1148).

The perspective of the KBV of the firm is consistent with the approach to

organizations as cultures (Balogun and Jenkins, 2003). Considering that

organizations are conceptualised as cultures, they are supposed to learn

through activities that involve cultural artefacts. Organizational learning

allows the firm to acquire, to change and to preserve its organizational

capabilities (Cook and Yanow, 1995: 430-459). Culture is most

repeatedly defined after Schein (Schein, 1985, apub, Balogun and

Jenkins, 2003), as a set of assumptions and beliefs held in common and

shared by members of an organization, or as shared beliefs and

knowledge after Nonaka and Takeuchi (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995,

apub, Balogun and Jenkins, 2003:87).

124

Organizational culture is, in each moment, the stock of knowledge,

coded or not, integrated in patterns and recipes of action to be taken

before certain situations. Time and routines often make knowledge

become tacit, embedded, and a drive for action (Balogun and Jenkins,

2003:88). A routine consists of behaviour that is learned, highly

patterned, repeated and founded, even if only partly, in tacit knowledge

(Winter, 2003:52).

Following the words by Nonaka (1991:68) “… the only true lasting 305)”,

these authors recognize that non-observable factors have impact on firm

performance. Those factors, as management capabilities and

competences, technical knowledge or tacit organizational routines, may

turn out to be the main determinants of firm performance (Dess et al,

1995: 357-393).

Strategic management literature is recently analysing the competitive

advantage in a way that it associates firm performance variation to

intangible factors (Rouse and Daellenbach, 1999:61). Apart from natural

resources monopolies, the intangible resources present a superior

probability to produce competitive advantage, as they are generally rare,

socially complex, and though, hardly imitable (Hitt et al, 2001:13-28).

In the same sense, it is appropriate to point out that there is a

knowledge management literature that associates superior knowledge

bases, resulting from organizational learning, to superior firm

performances (Senge, 1999:212, Garvin, 1998:47-80), as well as

presenting differences in knowledge inventories as the basis of

competitive advantage (Miller, 2002:33). A superior knowledge base can

be associated to higher strategic flexibility and faster reaction to

environment changes (Grant, 1996b: 375-387; Volberda, 1996:359-374),

so, knowledge is considered to be one of the most important assets to

the creation of sustained competitive advantage (Umemoto, 2002: 463-

476).

125

Through the use of dynamic capabilities, organizations get to integrate,

to build and to reconfigure their internal and external capacities to face

fast changing environments (Teece et al, 1997: 1-30). Organizational

capabilities emerge over time through a process of organizational

learning (Levitt and March, 1988, Szulanski, 2003:77).

Knowledge-based capabilities are considered to be the most strategically

important ones to create and sustain competitive advantage (DeNisi et

al, 2003: 3-33). Superior talent is recognized to be the main creator of

sustained competitive advantage in high performance firms (Hiltrop,

1999). The capacity to learn faster than competitors could turn out to be

the only sustained competitive advantage (Geus, 1988: 70-74). This

dynamic capability builds up over time a historical or path dependency

(Collis, 1991; Winter, 1987:159-184), creating causal ambiguity (creating

barriers to imitability and making it very difficult for other firms to

recreate the unique historical evolution each organization develops), and

it establishes a basis for competitive advantage (Lei et al, 1996:24).

Capabilities and capacities lead to superior sustained performances

because they are specific to each organization (they are temporarily

immobile and unique to that firm), valuable to the clients, non

substitutable and hard to imitate (Rugman and Verbeke, 2002: 769-

780). Capacities are difficult to duplicate (Blackler, 2002:83). The

replication of organizational routines, for example, is a very difficult and

expensive process because replication itself is an organizational

capability only developed through execution (Winter and Szulanski,

2002:36).

The tacit, specific and complex knowledge that the organization develops

inside generates long lasting advantages because that knowledge is

difficult to imitate (McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002: 285-305). The firm

absorbs internal and external knowledge, combines them with pre-

acquired knowledge, and creates new one (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990:

126

128-152). The organization may enlarge its knowledge base through the

new application of pre-existing knowledge in the firm (Szulanski, 2003),

as these new combinations of pre-existing knowledge generate new

knowledge (Gratton and Ghoshal, 2003: 1-10). Even external, explicit

knowledge, involving high acquisition costs to the firm and available to

competitors simultaneously, combined with unique internal knowledge

may result in new and exclusive knowledge (Zack, 2002: 255-276).

The capabilities of problem solving, of recognizing the importance and

assimilating information, and of knowledge application for commercial

purposes, inter alia, are considered to be intangible resources (Cohen

and Levinthal, 1990), and the knowledge resources are especially critical

for the organization (Grant, 1996a: 375-387). Resources like knowledge,

learning capacity, culture, team work and human capital, inter alia, are

pointed out to be the ones contributing the more to the sustained

competitive advantage of the firm (Hitt et al., 2001: 13-28; Barney,

2001a). These resources have the potential of recognizing each other

(information, relationship importance, contacts and knowledge within

the sector) and to absorb them.

The sustainability of the knowledge-based competitive advantage

depends on the following association: knowing better certain aspects

than the competitors, along with the time limitations competitors have to

acquire similar knowledge despite the amount of money they are willing

to invest to achieve it (Zack, 2002:255-276). According to Sveiby (Sveiby,

2001:3-15), regarding a knowledge-based strategic formulation the main

intangible resource is people’s capability. Human experience, in the large

sense, might be the foundation of the KBV of the firm (von Krogh and

Grand, 2002:34-54).

The post-industrial economy that is emerging based upon knowledge is

largely referred to as “new economy” (Grant, 2002:13-24). In this

economy organizations become virtual, geographically dispersed,

127

presenting knowledge nets highly dependent on computer mediated

communication. Firms negotiate almost exclusively in the cyberspace

and give extreme emphasis to learning and knowledge-based work

(Markham, 1998: 1-23). Organizations operate in a net independently

from their geographic location, based upon the use of communication

technologies (Blackler, 2002:24-26).

Cole (1998:34) asserts that together with traditional resources (Land,

Labour and Capital) knowledge is a determinant element of the firms

and nations competitiveness. According to a report by the OECD

(OECD, 1999, apub, Cavalcanti, 2003: 72-81) 55% of the 1998

production of the world wealth was generated through knowledge.

According to Boisot (2002: 65-77) the recognition that knowledge

contributes to the construction of national wealth and development

of a strong and competitive country goes back to the mercantilist era.

In recent literature we still find research reports that describe the

search for the knowledge-based foundations of national wealth as in

(Bontis, 2002a), and (Jeong, 2002: 333-349).

Contrasting with this view we still find, as well, certain countries

very rich in natural resources falling in the commodity trap, this

meaning that they belief that their mines, rather than their minds,

are the source of their prosperity. Nations' real wealth doesn't reside

in forests of rubber trees or acres of diamond mines, but in the

techniques and technologies for exploiting them (Stewart, 1998: 199-

200). The problem is that it is much more difficult to count ideas and

specialization than to count money, or quantities of products

(Reinhardt et al, 2003).

2.3.12.7 Reinforcement Theory of Learning

This theory was developed by the behaviourist school of psychology,

notably by B.F. Skinner (Laird 1985, Burns 1995: 16-17). Skinner

believed that behaviour is a function of its consequences. The learner

128

will repeat the desired behaviour if positive reinforcement (a pleasant

consequence) follows the behaviour.

Positive reinforcement, or ‘rewards’ can include verbal reinforcement

such as ‘That’s great’ or ‘You’re certainly on the right track’ through to

more tangible rewards such as a certificate at the end of the course or

promotion to a higher level in an organisation.

Negative reinforcement also strengthens a behaviour and refers to a

situation when a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a

consequence of the behaviour. Punishment, on the other hand, weakens

a behaviour because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as

a consequence of the behaviour and teaches the individual not to repeat

the behaviour which was negatively reinforced. Punishment creates a set

of conditions which are designed to eliminate behaviour (Burns, 1995:

16-17). Laird (1985:43) considers this aspect of behaviourism to be of

little or no relevance to education. However, Burns says that

punishment is widely used in everyday life although it only works for a

short time and often only when the punishing agency is present.

Burns notes that much Competency Based Training is based on this

theory, and although it is useful in learning repetitive tasks like

multiplication tables and those work skills that require a great deal of

practice, higher order learning is not involved. The criticism of this

approach is that it is rigid and mechanical.

2.3.12.8 Facilitation Theory (The Humanist Approach)

Carl Rogers and others have developed the theory of facilitative learning.

The basic premise of this theory is that learning will occur by the

educator acting as a facilitator, that is by establishing an atmosphere in

which learners feel comfortable to consider new ideas and are not

threatened by external factors (Laird, 1985:46).

Other characteristics of this theory include:

129

• A belief that human beings have a natural eagerness to learn

• There is some resistance to, and unpleasant consequences of,

giving up what is currently held to be true

• The most significant learning involves changing one’s concept of

oneself

2.3.12.8.1 Facilitative teachers are:

• Less protective of their constructs and beliefs than other teachers

• More able to listen to learners, especially to their feelings

• inclined to pay as much attention to their relationship with

learners as to the content of the course

• Apt to accept feedback, both positive and negative and to use it as

constructive insight into themselves and their behaviour

2.3.12.8.2 Learners:

• are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning

• provide much of the input for the learning which occurs through

their insights and experiences

• are encouraged to consider that the most valuable evaluation is

self-evaluation and that learning needs to focus on factors that

contribute to solving significant problems or achieving significant

results

2.3.13 Cognitivism Theory of Learning

Cognitivism refers to a class of learning theories that are based on some

sort of rational information processing model of the human mind.

According to Wilhelmsen et al (1998:64-67): The cognitivistic school

“went inside the head of the learner” so to speak in that they made

mental processes the primary object of study and tried to discover and

model the mental processes on the part of the learner during the learning-

process. In Cognitive theories knowledge is viewed as symbolic, mental

constructions in the minds of individuals, and learning becomes the process

of committing these symbolic representations to memory where they may be

130

processed. The development of computers with a strict "input - processing -

output architecture" from the 1960s and up till today certainly have inspired

these "information-processing" views of learning.

In sum the cognitive approach and cognitive theories emerged as a new

perspective employing “information-processing” ideas” rather than the

behaviouristic assumptions that the learner is determined by his

environments and so passively adapts to the circumstances. This

cognitivistic view emphasized the active mental processing on the part of

the learner. However knowledge was still viewed as given and absolute

just like in the behaviouristic school. Cognitivism and some variants of

constructivism adopt a rationalist stance, i.e. the idea that learning

processes can be at least somewhat described in terms of general

information processing principles.

2.3.14 Goal Theory

Goal theory, as developed by Latham and Locke (1979:67-75), highlights

four mechanisms that connect goals to performance outcomes; 1) they

direct attention to priorities; 2) they stimulate effort; 3) they challenge

people to bring their knowledge and skills to bare to increase their

chances of success; and 4) the more challenging the goal, the more

people will draw on their full repertoire of skills. This theory underpins

the emphasis in performance management on setting and agreeing

objectives against which performance can be measured and managed.

2.3.15 Control Theory

Control theory focuses attention on feedback as a means of shaping

behaviour. As people received feedback on their behaviour they

appreciate the discrepancy between what they are doing and what they

are expected to do and take corrective action to overcome the

discrepancy. Feedback is recognized as a crucial part of performance

management processes.

131

2.3.16 Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory was developed by Bandura (1986: 620). It is

based on his central concept of self-efficacy. This suggests that what

people believe they can or cannot do powerfully impacts on their

performance. Developing and strengthening positive self-belief in

employees is therefore an important performance management objective.

2.4 MODEL MODIFICATION

Figure 2.5 The system’s cybernetic model of the transform of the

team approach in the management of change in the

Nigerian Manufacturing Industry

Source: Adapted by the author from O’brien, J.A (2008:143-157). Computers in Business Management: An Introduction. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

From Figure 2.5 above, it is shown that the system’s cybernetic

model has five components namely inputs, transform, outputs,

feedback and control. A system is an integrative whole which has

parts (Koontz, O’donnel and Weihrich, 2000:213). In Management,

The Process of Shared Knowledge

The improvement in the performance of the manufacturing firms studied in South West Nigeria and Edo State of Nigeria.

Feedback Feedback Control

TRANSFORM

INPUTS OUTPUT Men Materials Money Time Energy Knowledge Information Infrastructure

132

Business Administration and the Social Sciences systems are open

because the parts have interfaces and interactions with the environment

(Nwachukwu, 1988). The environment is the totality of the variables and

factors that affect managers at their work (Agbonifo, 2008:46). Agbonifoh

(2008:48) explains the environment using the PEST model. PEST in an

acronym where P means the Political environment, E, the Economic

environment, S, the Social environment and T, the Technological

environment.

The inputs of the model are eight in number namely, men, materials,

money, time energy, knowledge, information and infrastructure. By men

or women is meant the totality of the human resource with the skills,

potentialities and competences (Adebayo, 2006:34). Materials are the

raw materials, work-in-progress, finished goods, inventory, parts, sub-

assemblies, stationery and inventory or stock that go into the operations

of commercial banks. Money is in the form of fixed and working capital

put in by owners or shareholders of the limited liability companies (Anao

and Osaze, 1989:26). Money is used to pay off staff salaries procure fixed

and short-term assets, pay interest on loans, pay contractors and

suppliers, and dividends to shareholders (Van Horne, 2006:55).

Time is the non-renewable resource which has the capacity of 60

seconds per minutes, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day and if it

is lost it cannot be regained and it could lead to losses (Hornby,

2003:15). Energy is the work done per unit time and is measured in

watts, or kilowatts while work is measured in joules (Banjoko,

1989:32). Knowledge is the totality of the information,

understanding, skills, competences, available to the managers and

team leaders of the firms studied (Hornby, 2003:52).

The transform is the process of shared knowledge and the topic is the

effect of shared knowledge on the performance of the manufacturing

firms in Nigeria. The output is the improvement in the performance of

133

the manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The output corresponds to solutions

that will assist in achieving the objectives of the study.

Control is the system’s element that involves setting standards.

Appreciating results; measuring past performance, doing variance

analysis, separating controllable and uncontrollable variables and

correcting action if there are negative deviation from the plans and

continuing if things are okay (Nwachukwu, 1988:21). Feedback is

information to know how the system is performing so that corrective

action can be taken if the system is not performing well (O’brien,

2008:231).

The assumption of the model is that the managers of the manufacturing

firms would be able to put together the five components of the five

components of the system’s cybernetic model.

2.5 EMPIRICAL REVIEW

2.5.1 Shared Knowledge and Performance of Manufacturing Firms

Kremp and Mairesse (2003:32) have found that knowledge measurement

have positive effects on Labour Productivity. It is acknowledged that

management processes have significant effects on knowledge management

success and that IT impact on knowledge management success is not

direct but mediated through knowledge management process.

Leadership, culture and strategy influence knowledge management

infrastructure.

Keramti and Axadeh (2007:292 – 297) believe that factors responsible for

commitment knowledge management success are knowledge sharing,

knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. It is argued that the ability

of the firm to create knowledge helps to explain the firm’s ability to

innovate and grow. Strategic alliance leads to better firm performance.

134

Market research and use of networks for knowledge exchange are linked

to higher sales turnover growth. Cooperation with other firms for renewal

is found to be positively related among medium scale firms. However,

output strategies such as sharing, codification of knowledge, firm-

provided training and quality certificates have no positive effects just in

the same manner output strategies: patents, new products or services

and improvement of internal processes do not have positive effects on

performance. KM input strategies are found to be clearly better

predictors of sales turnover. Research evidence suggests that innovation

is positively related to rapid sales growth within small firms (Storey,

2000:27-51) and that there is a significant positive relationship between

marketing research and development and sales growth. A positive

relationship also exists between new product introduction and re-

designed products and total sales growth. Non innovators are more

prevalent in declining, stable and low (to average) growth firms while

innovators exceed non-innovators in the supper-growth category

(Uhlaner, 2007:42). To be able to define and measure progress toward

the achievement of the goals of organization, every organization must be

abreast with its key performance indicators and crucial success factors.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or key success indicators (KSIs) are

quantifiable performance measurements used to define success factors

and measure progress toward the achievement of business goals.

Organizations that have well defined goals, well analysed mission and

have identified their stakeholders need to measure progress toward the

achievement of those goals by using key performance indicators. KPLs

are quantifiable measures that reflect the critical success factors of an

organization (Reh, 2010:57).

It is posited that intangible assets such as spending on R & D, Internet

and Web applications, human resources, and customer acquisition

significantly influence the performance of companies. There is agreement

both from the academic community as well as from the practitioners’

135

community, that Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) do have a

positive impact on the performance of the organization.

Wu and Wang (2006:728-739) find in their study that system quality and

knowledge or information quality have a significantly positive influence

on user satisfaction. Also user satisfaction and perceived KMS benefits

have a direct effect on KMS use. In the KMS context, they find that user

attitude is affected by beliefs about system quality and knowledge or

information quality, which then affect KMS use. Users’ beliefs about the

KMS quality shape their attitude and this affects their KMS use. They

further find that system quality, knowledge or information quality, and

perceived benefits have a significantly positive influence on user

satisfaction because they want their KMS to be of high system quality,

high knowledge or information quality, and provide substantial benefits.

However they do not find the system quality of the KMS to have a

significantly direct influence on user perceived benefits. Firms that adopt

KMS significantly reduce administrative costs and improve productivity

in the second year after adopting KMS and gaining a competitive

advantage over non-adopters (Kuoching, 2004:32).

Some theories of economic growth are Solow-Swan theory which shows

growth as increased capital stock and endogenous theory which holds

that subsidies on research and development or education increase the

growth rate by increasing the incentive to innovation and Solow-Swan

models believes that new capital is more valuable than old capital

because since capital is produced based on known technology, and

technology improves with time, new capital will be more productive than

old capital. The implication of this model to knowledge management is

that application of knowledge will lead to creating new capital which will

be more productive than old capital and thus lead to growth. Growth

may be organic or inorganic. Organic growth means that the

organization itself has grown from its own business activity while organic

growth means that the company has grown by merger or acquisition.

136

Organic growth is internal growth and inorganic growth is external.

Companies want to grow in order to gain economies of scale and, spread

risk (diversification can help to spread risk and increase profits and

therefore returns for shareholders).

The most basic proposition of growth theory is that continual advances

in technological knowledge in the form of new goods, new markets, or

new processes is necessary in order to sustain a positive growth rate of

output per capita in the long run. The proposition can be demonstrated

using the neoclassical growth model developed by Solow (1956) and

Swan (1956:87), which shows that if there is no technological progress,

then the effects of diminishing returns would eventually cause economic

growth to cease. Growth measures the ability of the organization to

maintain competitive economic position in the growth of the economy

and industry (market share, customer acquisition/retention, account

penetration).

2.5.2 Comparison of Contribution of Shared Knowledge to the

Performance of Manufacturing Firms and International

Standard.

Kuo and Wu (2007:231) indicate that there are two important

determinants of innovation: the ownership structure and foreign capital.

In an empirical study of the determinants of organizational innovation

and performance in a Taiwanese Electronics Industry, they find that

family ownership structure has a negative impact on organizational

innovation while foreign capital has a positive impact on a firm’s

innovation and that domestic ownership structure is more important

than foreign capital to explain the effect of innovation on organizational

performance.

In the 1990s, knowledge management was further introduced with

additional detail in a popular article, “The Knowledge-Creating Company:

137

How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation (1995) by

Ikuforiji Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi. Knowledge management has

been successfully expanded into large business firms such as Ernst &

Young, Arthur Anderson, and Booz-Allen & Hamilton for international

consultation purposes.

In their quest for a comprehensive, total internationalisation process

model the Uppsala scholars and their apprentice students have drawn

attention to determinants of internationalisation patterns in addition to

knowledge and operating cost considerations. Thus, Johanson and

Vahlne (1977:58, 1990:16) would expect companies ‘with large total

resources’ to be less incremental in their international involvement. Kjell

Nordström (1991:124) in his doctoral thesis on the internationalisation

process of firms extended the explanatory space of his Uppsala mentors.

Still acknowledging the importance of knowledge and resource

constraints, he found empirical support for the conclusion that market

potential and industry structure in particular plays a role in the

internationalisation process of firms: ‘Market potential and industry

structure seem to override the forces promoting.’ Thus, global

competition factors, including bandwagon effects (Aharoni, 1966:121;

Knickerbocker, 1973:103) may also play a role in the internationalisation

process. Pedersen and Petersen (1998:111) identified several factors

that, in addition to acquisition of market-specific knowledge, may

explain firms’ gradual commitment of resources to foreign markets. The

data (on Danish multinational companies) indicated that directly, and

also indirectly via the global competition and the resource bases of the

firms, did knowledge accumulation co-determine firms’ resource

commitment to foreign markets. Thus, increasing commitment to a

foreign market as a response to strategic behaviour of competitors is to

some extent contingent on the firms’ possession of knowledge about the

foreign market – including the activities and suspected intentions of the

competitors operating in that market. Conversely, the firms’

accumulation of knowledge of foreign markets was found to be

138

associated with their resource base and the competitive environment.

The two interaction effects observed in the study may reflect phenomena

such as ‘absorptive capacity’ (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990:44) and

‘initiative learning’ (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983:13), respectively

2.5.3 Knowledge Learning Capacity of Workers and Sustainable

Competitive Performance of the Manufacturing Firms.

KM strategies such as effective acquisition and utilization of new

knowledge are as source of flexibility and competitive advantage and

hence associated with organizational performance and indeed may be

the most important aspect of innovation process influencing the

performance of small firms (Uhlaner, 2007:26).

Rochart (1979:89) has applied CSFs approach to several organizations

using a three-step procedure. The steps are: to generate the success

factors, refine CSFs into business objectives and identify measures of

performance while CSFs is treated as a basic strategy by Ohmac

(1982:18). According to him CSFs should be identified as a strategy and

a concentration of resources injected into a strategic area where the

company has opportunity to gain competitive advantages over its

competitors.

Serving and De Brun (2004:312) identify the balanced scorecard as an

increasing popular approach to measuring an organization’s and one

that is being widely adopted in knowledge management. The advantage

of this model in knowledge management that it links organizational

strategy and objectives to measures from four key perspectives:

financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth. The

customer perspective looks at how the customer perceives the

organization. Do customers see the organization as meeting their needs

and expectations? The organization must assure the customer that it

would consistently provide customer satisfaction to keep the customer

and ensure repeat business. The internal business process perspective

139

seeks to put in place processes to deliver value (innovation, post sales

services) for customer’s satisfaction. The learning and growth perspective

focuses on the infrastructure to build, to create long-term growth and

improvement. This perspective comes from people, systems, and

procedures and requires improving staff training, enhancing information

technology and aligning organizational procedures and routines to

improve customer satisfaction (Okafor, 2007:53).

There are four equally KPI perspectives: Financial which measures the

economic impact of actions on growth, profitability and risk from

shareholder’s perspective (net income, rate of return on investment

(ROI), rate of return on assets (ROA), cash flow); Customer which

measures the ability of an organization to provide quality goods and

services that meet customer expectations (customer retention,

profitability, satisfaction and loyalty) internal business processes which

measures the internal business processes that create customer and

shareholder satisfaction (project management, total quality management,

Six Sigma); Learning and growth which measures the organizational

environment that fosters change, innovation, information sharing and

growth (staff morale, training, knowledge sharing).

From the foregoing discussions on performance indices, innovation,

competitive advantage and growth appear to be common key performance

factors and are therefore critical in determining the success of any

(business) organization. Consequently, we shall adopt these factors

(innovation, competitive advantage and growth) as measures not only

because they have been widely used as predictors of performance

Ohiorenoya (2010:31-43) wrote that because they are interrelated:

innovation leads to gaining competitive advantage and is in fact a source

of competitive advantage which leads to growth of (business)

organizations.

140

Innovation measures the capability of the organization to develop new

products, processes and services to penetrate new markets and

customer segments (new patents, new product rollouts, R&D spending),

improvement in technology, improvements in methods. Adler and

Shenhar (1990) posit that innovation is (1) the know-how to develop

products to meet the needs of the market, (2) the know-how to use

existing technology to develop new products, (3) the know-how to

develop new products or update existing products to meet the needs of

the markets, and (4) the know-how to acquire new technology to create

new opportunities. Technology measures how effectively the IT organization

develops, implements and maintains information management

infrastructure and applications (IT) spending, customer relationship

management technologies implemented, Web-enabled access) (Bauer,

2007:34-56). IT drives innovation.

Innovation capability is the performance of the enterprise going through

various types of innovation to achieve an overall improvement of its

innovation capability (Liao, Wu, Hu and Tsuei, 2009:31-37) 53. It is the

implementation of significantly improved or new products, processes,

business methods and marketing methods (Manley, 2006:54-57).

Innovation leads to competitive advantage (Porter, 1980:86). Therefore

innovation is an asset to any organization. The objectives of innovation

in the universities should include: Teacher quality; getting the right

people to become teachers. Professional development, developing faculty

into effective instructors. Curriculum development; ensuring that the

system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for every child, and

research and development.

Information and data management have been recognized as an expect of

knowledge management Massa and Testa (2009:129-141) but some

researchers distinguished knowledge management from information

management due to its emphasis on collaborative learning, capture of

141

tacit knowledge and value-added obtained through best practices,

mentoring and data mining Gandi (2004:368-381).

Prior research has gone further to determine if there is a significant

relationship between knowledge sharing and organizational performance

(Du et al., 2007). Similarly, while Hsu (2008:76) suggests that knowledge

sharing practices are considered the facilitating factor for improving

organizational performance through human capital, Law and Ngai

(2008:56) acknowledge that even though knowledge sharing may affect

organizational performance, it is also important to examine the

relationships between knowledge sharing and learning behaviours,

business process improvements, and product and service offerings to

fully understand the factors that affect organizational performance. Their

results revealed that knowledge sharing and learning behaviours are

positively related to business process improvement and product and

service offerings. In addition, business process improvement and

product and service offerings are associated with organizational

performance.

2.5.4 Tacit Knowledge and the Performance of Manufacturing Firms

Capital, raw materials and labour have been considered more valuable

than creating and applying knowledge. The information age and the

knowledge revolution have caused problems for people and

organizations. Demands for imaginative, intuitive, inspirational leaders

who can manage human intellect and convert it into useful products and

service continue to grow (Goffee and Jones, 2000:89). People must do

more work in less time. Workers who lack adequate education and

training, or explicit knowledge, struggle to keep up. They rely on their

common sense and intuition, or tacit knowledge, to get through the day.

Many companies are using tacit knowledge to augment a person’s

academic learning and experience. Wagner and Sternberg (1987:22)

believe that the ability to acquire and manage tacit knowledge are

142

hallmarks of managerial success. Opportunities to use tacit knowledge

are prime factors in attracting and maintaining a talented, loyal,

productive workforce (Smith, 2000:77). Valuable human and knowledge

resources will be wasted unless management openly accepts and

supports efforts to gather, sort, transform, record and share knowledge.

Priceless knowledge will continue to be lost unless organizations make

better use of their prime resource – relatively unchallenged, creative

people who are eager to apply their knowledge. Tacit knowledge, in

particular, is lost through outsourcing, downsizing, mergers and

terminations. Reportedly, 90 percent of the knowledge in any

organization is embedded and synthesized in peoples’ heads (Wah,

1999b:44; Bonner, 2000a:64; Lee, 2000:63). Most tacit knowledge is an

invisible line item in corporate budgets. However, it is tacit knowledge

that plays a key role in leveraging the overall quality of knowledge

(Quinn et al., 1996:111, Wah, 1999a:78; Goffee and Jones, 2000:78-79).

Tacit knowledge is “...being understood without being openly expressed’’

(Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1971), or knowledge

for which we do not have words. Tacit knowledge is automatic, requires

little or no time or thought and helps determine how organizations make

decisions and influence the collective behaviour of their members

(Liebowitz and Beckman, 1998). The philosopher Polanyi (1967:65-74)

described tacit knowledge as knowing more than we can tell, or knowing

how to do something without thinking about it, like ride a bicycle. This

highly personal, subjective form of knowledge is usually informal and

can be inferred from the statements of others (Sternberg, 1997:99). Tacit

knowledge tends to be local. It is not found in manuals, books,

databases or files. Tacit knowledge is technical or cognitive and is made

up of mental models, values, beliefs, perceptions, insights and

assumptions. Technical tacit knowledge is demonstrated when people

master a specific body of knowledge or use skills like those gradually

developed by master craftsmen.

143

Cognitive tacit knowledge incorporates implicit mental models and

perceptions that are so ingrained they are taken for granted (Sternberg,

1997:75). Cognitive models affect how we make sense of events in our

world. People use metaphors, analogies, demonstrations and stories to

convey their tacit knowledge to others (Stewart, 1997:24). Listeners can

evaluate story content and actions and apply useful tacit knowledge to

their own jobs. For instance, employees of Datafusion Inc., an

information-technology products and consulting firm, take photos at

business conferences and share these photos with colleagues. The

stories employees write contain notes and descriptions, or explicit

knowledge. Stories about why things happened and how information

could be applied contain tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, as context, is

often easier to remember and talk about than explicit knowledge or

content (Wah, 1999b:24). The value of tacit knowledge, like customer

good will, is often underrated and underutilized in the workplace. Nearly

two-thirds of work-related information that is gradually transformed into

tacit knowledge comes from face-to-face contacts, like casual

conversations, stories, mentoring, internships and apprenticeships. One-

of-a-kind, spontaneous, creative conversations often occur when people

exchange ideas and practicalities in a free and open environment. People

who have technical tacit knowledge are considered unconsciously

skilled. They know something so well that they are unaware of what they

need to do to be successful. To illustrate, inexperienced managers use

their tacit knowledge, common sense and diplomacy to handle a difficult

employee successfully. Tacit knowledge is grouped according to content,

context and orientation. Depending on the person and the situation, one

or more types of tacit knowledge may be used in different contexts and

orientations. Content knowledge is used to manage oneself, others, or

manage one’s tasks. Context is described in terms of local and global.

Local involves doing the task at hand. Global describes how the current

situation fits into the larger picture. Orientations are pragmatic and

ideal. A pragmatic orientation is knowing how workable an idea is

without regard to its ideal quality. An ideal orientation stresses the ideal

144

quality of an idea or goal regardless of its practicality, like giving an

employee negative feedback in private, not in public (Wagner and

Sternberg, 1987:103). CSFs require KPIs in order to be measured.

Like CSFs, KPIs vary between organizations. Educational institution may

have as KPIs the graduation of its students or percentage of pass of

students in West African Examination Council (WAEC). Knowledge

sharing may lead to higher organizational performance (Du, Ai, and Ren,

2007:38–46) especially when knowledge sharing capabilities are

combined with organizational resources. Tacit knowledge sharing is the

best tool for SME in enhancing competence and organizational

performance.

The process of knowledge management provides many valuable skills

such as on-job discussion, formal apprenticeships, discussion forums,

corporate libraries, professional training and excellent mentoring

programs. In addition, the increase in the usage of computers and

networking system of e-commerce in the second half of 20th century

has highly contributed to specific adjustment in technology, such as

knowledge base, information technology expert systems, knowledge

repositories, intranets, group decision support systems, and computer-

supported cooperative working systems. All of these have been

implemented to further improve and develop such efforts. Moreover,

managers and academics consider knowledge as a fundamental spring of

competitive advantage (Grant, 1997:203). Knowledge is a promising and

significant resource to an organization as it may possess many valuable

and non-substitutable aspects which are appropriate for its tacit

dimension (Polanyi, 1996:321’ Hall and Sapsed, 2005:212).

2.5.5 The Principal Mode of Explicit Knowledge and Performance of

the Manufacturing Firms.

Most explicit knowledge is technical or academic data or information

that is described in formal language, like manuals, mathematical

expressions, copyright and Patents. This “know-what,’’ or systematic

145

knowledge is readily communicated and shared through print, electronic

methods and other formal means. Explicit knowledge is technical and

requires a level of academic knowledge or understanding that is gained

through formal education, or structured study. Explicit knowledge is

carefully codified, stored in a hierarchy of databases and is accessed

with high quality, reliable, fast information retrieval systems. Once

codified, explicit knowledge assets can be re-used to solve many similar

types of problems or connect people with valuable, re-usable knowledge.

Sharing processes often require major monetary investments in the

infrastructure needed to support and fund information technology

(Hansen et al, 1999:204). Acts of gathering and using explicit knowledge

assume a predictable, relatively stable environment. Marketplace

competition, changing customer needs, among other factors, reduce

stability.

Distinctive competence enables a firm to create innovative, quality and

efficiency which can be leveraged to produce cost advantage or

differentiation advantage. Competitive advantage will only be meaningful

if it can be sustained over a long period of time. Sustainable competitive

advantage is an advantage that enables a firm to survive against its

competitor over a long period of time. To be sustained, competitive

advantage must be unique, difficult to replicate, superior to competition

and applicable to multiply situations. The source of competitive

advantage has been said to be the ability of a firm to identify and exploit

niche market and innovate (Inegbenebor, 2004:110).

2.5.6 How Knowledge-based Capacity Improves the Profitability of

the Manufacturing Firms.

In today’s economy, knowledge is considered to be the most strategically

important resource (Conner and Phrahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996; Nahapiet

and Ghoshal, 1998:81; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1993:43). The effective

management of this resource is, therefore, one of the most important

challenges facing today’s organizations (Davenport and Prusak,

146

1998:115 Drucker, 1993:123; Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney, 1999:237).

The sharing of knowledge between employees and departments in the

organization is necessary to transfer individual and group knowledge

into organizational knowledge. Some researchers found that knowledge

sharing is critical to a firm’s success (Davenport and Prusak, 1998:205)

as it leads to faster knowledge deployment to portions of the organization

that can greatly benefit from it (Syed-ikhsan and Rowland, 2004:223).

When individuals share organizationally relevant experiences and

information with one another, it significantly increases the resources of

an organization and decreases time wasted in trial-and error (Lin,

2007:36).

On the other hand, the unwillingness of knowledge sharing causes

fatalities for organizational survival (Lin, 2007:37). Therefore,

determining which factors contribute to effective knowledge sharing

in an organization constitutes an important area of research (Hooff

and Ridder, 2004:56).

Bassi and McMurrer (2006:25) worked on various measures or

metrics of organizational performance. These metrics may be

qualitative or quantitative, financial or non financial. They believe

that “the easily-quantified measures typically used by HR

professionals such as employee turnover rates, average time to fill

open positions, total hours of training fail to capture the drivers of

organizational performance” and have suggested the next generation

of human capital measures-those that predict organizational

performance both within and across organizations such as leadership

practices, employee engagement, knowledge accessibility, workforce

optimization and learning capacity. Each of these measures helps to

drive organizational performance. These drivers can be used to

predict variations in financial performance both within an

organization and across different organizations.

147

Andrews, Boyne and Walker (2003:44) see strategy content as a key

determinant of organizational performance in the public sector.

Strategy content comprises strategy stance and strategy action.

Strategy stance relates to the extent to which an organization is a

prospector, a defender and a reactor while strategic action is the

relative emphasis on changes in markets, services, revenues, external

relationships and internal characteristics. In an informant survey of

199 English local authorities, Andrews, Boyne and Walker (2003:98)

find that prospector stance is directly related to organizational

performance while reactive stance is negatively associated with

organizational performance. In the case of strategic actions, local

authorities that seek new markets for their services are more likely to

perform well.

A prospector is an innovative organization which almost continually

searches for market opportunities and regularly experiments with

potential responses to emerging environmental trends. The features of

public sector prospectors are innovative, risk taking, rapid

organizational responses to new circumstances and the invasion of the

markets of other agencies (Downs, 1967:31).

Process efficiency measures how effectively the management or

organization incorporates equality control, six sigma and best

practices to streamline operational processes (yield percentage,

process uptime, and capacity utilization). Cycle Time measures the

duration of time (hours/days/months) required by employees to

complete tasks (processing time, time to service customer). Resource

Utilization measures how effectively the organization leverages

existing business resources such as assets, bricks and mortar,

investments (sales per total assets, sales per channel, win rate).

Critical success factors (CSFs) or strategic factors are those factors

which are crucial for organizational success. Wong adopts Rockart

148

(1979)’s definition of CSFs and sees it as “areas in which results, if they

are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the

organization. Seraph, Benson and Schroeder (1989: 810 – 829) view

them as those critical areas of managerial planning and action that must

be practised in order to achieve effectiveness. In terms of KM, they can

be viewed as those activities and practices that should be addressed in

order to ensure its successful implementation.

Organizations become more successful and put in relatively less efforts

when strategists put these factors into consideration. A government

department may have as its critical success factors support for

customer, support for employees, and support for mission and control of

costs; a shoe company may be critically dependent on high manufacturing

quality, cost efficiency, sophisticated retailing, a flexible product mix and

creation of product image. A courier service company has its CFS’s:

speedy dispatch, reliability and price. Companies need to keep in view

the critical success factors for objective setting and exercising strategic

choice (Reh, 2010:94). In the opinion of Smith (2002:26), six strong

pillars that are essentially to support knowledge powered companies are:

business value focus, people, process, content, technology and

execution. Williams (2009:44) in his own view believe that six CSFs are

culture, building a foundation, motivating staff, training, making

resources available and executive support. According to Bixler, a four

pillar model can be used to capture CSFs for a knowledge management

implementation. These are leadership, organization, technology and

organizational learning.

Strategic stance is based on five types of specific actions that

organizations may use to define their stance. These actions concern

changes in markets, services, revenues, the external organization and

the internal organization. The first three of these strategic actions is

what Porter’s (1980:17) typology calls strategy content. This typology has

been extended to capture the constraints that public organizations may

149

face in altering markets, services or revenues. The strategic challenge for

many public managers is to find better ways to deliver existing services

in a fixed market with limited revenues. Thus strategy may focus

disproportionately on the organizational arrangements for service

provision by altering external relationships or internal characteristics. A

major strategic issue for public organizations is ensuring that they have

sufficient revenues to maintain or expand services. This type of strategic

action can include raising extra income from frees, government grants or

charitable donations. Strategic actions that focus on internal

organization cover variables such as structure, culture, processes,

leadership and a variety of metrics for improvement.

Cost advantage and differentiation advantage are referred to as position

advantages because they describe the firm’s position as a leader in cost

or differentiation. A firm uses its resources and capabilities to create

competitive advantage that enables it to generate superior value. In order

to create competitive advantage, a firm must have resources and

capabilities which are superior to those of the competitors otherwise its

competitors can easily replicate its strategy and competitive advantage

would disappear.

Resources are assets useful for creating a cost or differentiation

advantage that few competitors can acquire easily. Resources may be

patents, trademarks, reputation, proprietary know-how, brand equity,

skills and talents. Capabilities refer to a firm’s ability to utilize its

resources effectively. Distinctive competence is achieved when a firm

combines its resources and capabilities. Among these resources and

capabilities, knowledge represents the most important value creating

asset (Kotelnikov, 2008:58).

Growth is defined as a progression from simpler to more complex forms.

It is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage

(especially a more advanced or mature stage); It is a process of becoming

150

larger or more numerous or more important such as the increase in

market share, and the profit growth. It is an increase in size, number

and significance.

2.6 SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

This thesis focused on knowledge management, shared knowledge and

information technology. The modes of shared knowledge which are

critical to the topic studied covered such modes as socialization,

externalization, combination and internalization. Also, such issues as

knowledge sharing through the use of context, social and technological

enablers, knowledge sharing through learning and information

technology were explained.

Performance indices such as efficiency, effectiveness, productivity,

profitability, liquidity activity and morale were reviewed alongside with

theoretical framework such as organizational knowledge theory, theory

of organizational knowledge creation, the knowledge base view of the

firm, resource base view of the firm, information theory and performance

theory of the organization.

The existing body of literature fails to show the impact of employee’s

ability to share and accept new ideas and learn new ways of doing things

that will lead to better performance of the organization in Nigeria. Also,

the existing literature fails to dis-abuse the minds of people especially

Nigerians that the source of their success is not by virtue of their riches

in natural resources but their skills, shared knowledge and information

technology.

Mostly, the existing body of literature concentrates on other companies

which care foreign to Nigeria. Chosen this research topic becomes

imperative to fill the gap(s) in the existing body of knowledge as above

and to appropriate it to the performance of manufacturing firms in

South Western States and South Southern Nigeria.

151

Manufacturing is understood as that aspect of industry that produces

tangible products in large numbers while performance is understood as

the extent to which the organizational objectives are being achieved.

152

REFERENCES

Adebayo, Y.K (2006) Essentials of Human Resource Management, Benin

City: Otoghagua (Nigeria Enterprises).

Agbonifoh, B.A (2008) “The Nature of Strategy Management”. In:

Strategic Management. (B.A. Agbonifoh, Editor). Benin City:

Mindex Publishers Company Limited.

Alavi, M., Leidner, D (1999) “Knowledge Management System: Issues,

Challenges and Benefits,” Communications of the Association for

Information Systems. Volume 1, Number 5.

Allee, V (2000) “Return on Knowledge”, Executive Excellence, Volume 17,

Number 1.

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P (1993) “Strategic Assets and Organizational

Rent”, Strategic Management Journal, Volume 14.

Anao, A.R., and Osaze, B.E (1989) Managerial Finance. Benin City:

Uniben Press.

Anderson, J. R (1983) The Architecture of Cognition, Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Arend, R. J (2003) “Revisiting the Logical and Research Considerations

of Competitive Advantage”. Strategic Management Journal, Volume

24.

Argote, L., and Ingram, P (2000) “Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for

Competitive Advantage in Firms,” Organizational Behaviour and

Human Decision Processes.

Ariely, G. (2003) “Knowledge Management as a Methodology Towards

Intellectual Capital,” Presented at 3rd European Knowledge

Management Summer School, Spain, 7 – 12 September, San

Sebastian.

Balogun, J. and Jenkins, M (2003) “Re-conceiving Change Management:

A Knowledge-based Perspective,” European Management Journal

Volume 21, Number 2.

Bandura, J(1986) Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed.

Banjoko, S.A (1989) “Production and Operations Management”. Lagos:

Saban publishers.

153

Barth, S (2000) “Defining Knowledge Management”, URL

http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/CRM-News/Daily-

News/Defining-Knowledge-Management-46355.aspx

Beijersee, (1999) “Questions in Knowledge Management: Defining and

Conceptualization a Phenomenon,” Journal of Knowledge

Management, Volume 3, Number 2.

Becerra-Frenandez, I, A. Gonzalez and R. Sabherwal (2004) “Knowledge

Management: Challenges”, solu-Journal, Volume 15, Number 2.

Bircham-Connolly, H, J. Corner and S. Bowden (2005) “An Empirical

Study of the Impact of Question Structure on Recipient Attitude

During Knowledge Sharing”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge

Management, Volume 32.

Blackler, F (2002) “Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organisations: An

Overview and Interpretation,” In Choo and Bontis (eds.) The

Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organisational

Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bohn, R.E (1994) “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge,”

Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994.

Boisot, M (2002) The Creation and Sharing of Knowledge. In Choo and

Bontis (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and

Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bontis, N (2002a) “National Intellectual Capital Index Nations Office for

Project Services,” www.bontis.com. Assessed on 23th Oct, 2012 by

10pm.

Burden, R and Proctor, T (2000) “Creating a Sustainable Competitive

Advantage through Training,” Team Performance Management,

Volume 6, Number 5/6.

Burns, S (1995) “Rapid Changes Require Enhancement of Adult

Learning,” HR Monthly, June.

Child, J and McGrath, R (2001) “Organizations Unfettered:

Organisational Forms in an Information-intensive Economy,”

Academy of Management Journal. Volume 4, Number 2.

154

Cohen, M and D. Levinthal (1990) “Absorptive Capacity: A New

Perspective on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science

Quarterly.

Cook, S. and Yanow, D (1995) “Culture and Organisational Learning”. In

Cohen and Sproull (eds.) Organisational Learning, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Conner, K (1991) “A Historical Comparation of Resource-based Theory

and Five Schools of Thought within the Industrial Organization

Economics: Do we have a New Theory of the Firm?” Journal of

Management, Volume 17.

Conner, K. and Prahalad, C (2002) “A Resource-Based Theory of the

Firm” In: Choo and Bontis (Eds.) The Strategic Management of

Intellectual Capital and Organizational knowledge, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Coopee, J. L. Marchesani, N. Marshall, E. Woo, M. Arsenault, E. Perkins

and H. Wise (2001) “Performance Management Programme

Handbook for SEIU Members as the University of Massachusetts”,

Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts.

Cousins, P. D (2005) “The Alignment of Appropriate Firm and Supply

Strategies for Competitive Advantage,” International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, Volume 25, Number 5.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L (1998) Working Knowledge: How

Organization Manage What They Know, Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Davenport, T. H and Short, J. E (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering:

Information Technology and Business Process Redesign”, Sloan

Management Review, summer.

Davenport, T.H., D.W De Long and M.C. Beers (1998) “Successful

Knowledge Management Projects. Eight Key Factors Can Help a

Company Create, Share and Use Knowledge Effectively,” Sloan

Management Review.

De Carolis, D (2002) “The Role of Social Capital and Organizational

Knowledge in Enhancing Entrepreneurial Opportunities in High-

155

Technology Environments,” In: Choo and Bontis (Eds.) The

Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational

Knowledge”, New York: Oxford University Press.

De Pablos, P. O (2006) “Transnational Corporations and Strategic

Challenges: An Analysis of Knowledge Flows and Competitive

Advantage,” The Learning Organisation, Volume 13, Number 6.

DeNisi, A., M. Hitt and S. Jackson (2003) “The Knowledge-Based

Approach to Sustainable Competitive Advantage. In Jackson, Hitt

and DeNisi (eds.) Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive

Advantage,” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dess, G., A. Gupta, J. Hennart and C. Hill (1995) “Conducting and

Integrating Strategy Research at the International, Corporate, and

Business Levels: Issues and Directions,” Journal of Management.

DiMattia, S and Order, N (1997) “Knowledge Management: Hope, Hype or

Harbinger?” Library Journal.

Donnellon, A., B. Gray and M.G. Bougon (1986) “Communication,

Meaning and Organized Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly.

Earl, M.J. and Scott, I.A (1999) “What is a Chief Knowledge Officer?”,

Sloan Management Review, Winter, Volume 40, Number 2. Issue 2.

Ejiofor, P.N.O (2008) Management Theory, Onitsha: Africana FEB

Publishers Limited.

Fahy, J. (2000) “The Resource-based View of the Firm: Some Stumbling-

Blocks on the Road to Understanding Sustainable Competitive

Advantage,” Journal of European Industrial Training, Volume 24.

Fahy, J, F. Farrelly and P. Quester (2004) “Competitive Advantage

through Sponsorship: A Conceptual Model and Research

Propositions,” European Journal of Marketing, Volume 38, Number

8.

Faridah, Y and Mustafa, S(2001) “Application of Knowledge Management

in the Construction Industry,” Proceeding of Seminar on Future

Trends in Construction and Manufacturing: Towards A Borderless

World”. 9-10 October 2001. Kuala Lumpur: International Islamic

University Malaysia. Paper 10.

156

Fiol, M. and Lyles M (1985) “Organizational Learning,” Academy of

Management Review.

Flint, G. D and Van Fleet, D. D (2005) “A Comparison and Contrast of

Strategic Management and Classical Economic Concepts:

Definitions, Comparisons, and Pursuit of Advantages,”. Journal of

Business Inquiry, Utah Valley State College, USA.

Foss, N. J. and Knudsen, T (2003) “The Resource-based Tangle: Towards

a Sustainable Explanation of Competitive Advantage,” Managerial

and Decision Economics, Volume 24.

Fulk, J. and DeSanctis, G (1995) “Electronic Communication and

Changing Organizational Forms,” Organization Science, Volume 6.

Geus, A. (1988) “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review,

March-April.

Goh, A. (2004) “Enhancing Organizational Performance through

Knowledge Innovation: A Proposed Strategic Management

Framework,” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October.

Gottschalg, O and Zollo, M (2007) “Interest Alignment and Competitive

Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, Volume 32, Number

2.

Grant, R. (1991) “The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage:

Implications for Strategy Formulation,” California Management

Review.

Grant, R. M (1996b) “Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm”,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Special Issue entitled

Knowledge and the Firm, winter.

Grant, R (2002) “The Knowledge-Based View of the Firm,” In: Choo and

Bontis (Eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and

Organizational Knowledge”, New York: Oxford University Press.

Gupta, A and McDaniel, J (2002) “Creating Competitive Advantage by

Effectively Managing Knowledge: A Framework for Knowledge

Management,” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October,

2002.

157

Hall, J and Sapsed, J (2005) “Influences of Knowledge Sharing and

Hoarding in Project-Based Firms,” In: Love, P., Iranti, Z. and Fong,

P. (Eds), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Harder, M (2008) “How do Rewards and Management Styles Influence

the Motivation to Share Knowledge?” In: SMG Working Paper No.

6/2008.

Helfat, C. and Peteraf, M (2003) “The Dynamic Resource-based and

Competition,” European Management Journal, Volume 18, Number

1.

Hislop, D. (2002) “Mission Impossible. Communicating and Sharing

Knowledge via Information Technology,” Journal of Information

Technology, Volume 17.

Hitt, M., L. Bierman, K. Shimizu and R. Kockhar (2001) “Direct and

Moderate Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance

in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-based Perspective,”

Academy of Management Review, 44 Volume 1.

Hooff, B.V.D and Weenen, F.D.L.V (2004) “Committed to Share

Commitment and CMC Use as Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing,”

Knowledge and Process Management, Volume 11.

Hornby, A.S (2003) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

http://www.edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/constructivism.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Breweries.

http://www.knowledge.org.uk = It is dedicated to Knowledge

Management. It contains articles and information on the “gurus”,

associations, links etc.

http://reach.ucf.edu/~eme 6457/ main.html.)

Hult, G. T. M and Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001) “Does Market Orientation

Matter? A Test of the Relationship between Positional Advantage

and Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 22.

158

Hsu, I (2006) “Enhancing Employees’ Tendencies to Share Knowledge –

Case Studies of Nine Companies in Taiwan,” International Journal

of Information Management.

Jeong, B (2002) “Measurement of Human Capital Input Across

Countries: A Method Based on the Labour’s Income,” Journal of

Development Economics.

Johnson-Laird, P. N (1983) Mental Models, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Karaevli, A and Hall, D (2006) “How Career Variety Promotes the

Adaptability of Managers: A Theoretical Model,” Journal of

Vocational Behaviour.

Keramati, A and Axadeh, M.A (2007) “Exploring the Effects of Top

Management’s Commitment on Knowledge Management

Success in Academia: A Case Study,” Proceedings of World

Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, Volume 21,

May.

Kim S and Trimi, S (2007) “IT for KM in the Management Consulting

Industry,” Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 11, Number

3.

Kogut, B and Zander, U (1992) “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative

Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology,” Organization

Science, Volume 3.

Koontz, H, C. O’donnel and H.C. Weihrich (2000) Management,

Auckland: McGraw Hill.

Kremp, E and Mairesse, J (2003) “Knowledge Management, Innovation

and Productivity: A Firm Level Exploration Based on the French

CIS 3 Data”.

Kristandl, G and Bontis, N (2007) “Constructing a Definition for

Intangibles Using the Resource Based View of the Firm,” Management

Decision, Volume 45, Number 9.

Kuo, F and Young, M (2008) “Predicting Knowledge Sharing Practices

through Intention: A Test of Competing Models,” Computer in

Human Behaviour.

159

Kuo, T. and Wu, A. (2007) “The Determinants of Organisational

Innovation and Performance: An Examination of Taiwanese

Electronics Industry” AAA 2007 Management Accounting Section

(MAS) Meeting. http://ssm.com/abstract. Retrieved on line 20th

December, 5p.m.

Law, C. C. H and Ngai, E. W. T (2008) “An Empirical Study of the Effects

of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Behaviours on Firm

Performance,” Expert Systems with Applications: An International

Journal.

Lei, D., M. Hitt and R. Bettis (1996) “Dynamic Core Competences

through Meta-Learning and Strategic Context,” Journal of

Management, Volume 22 Number 4.

Liao, S. H and Hu, T. C (2007) “Knowledge Transfer and Competitive

Advantage on Environmental Uncertainty: An Empirical Study of

the Taiwan Semiconductor 342 Industry,” Technovation.

Lin, B. W (2003) “Technology Transfer as Technological Learning: A

Source of Competitive Advantage for Firms with Limited R & D

Resources,” R & D Management, Volume 33 Number 3.

Lin, H.F., H.-S. Lee and D.W. Wang (2009) “Evaluation of Factors

Influencing Knowledge Sharing Based on a Fuzzy AHP Approach,”

Journal of Information Science, Volume 36.

Locke, J (1979) Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed.

Ma, H (2004) “Toward Global Competitive Advantage: Creation,

Competition, Cooperation and Co-option”, Management Decision,

Volume 42, Number 7.

Makadok, R (2001) “Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-Based and

Dynamic-Capability Views of Rent Creation,” Strategic

Management Journal, Volume 22.

Malerba, F. and Orsenico, L (2000) “Knowledge, Innovative Activities and

Industrial Evolution,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 9.

Malhotra, Y (2001) “Knowledge Management and Business Model

Innovation,” Idea Group Incorporated (IGI).

160

Markham, S (1998) “The Scientific Visualization of Organizations: A

Rationale for a New Approach to Organisational Modelling,”

Decision Sciences.

Marr, B (2004) “Is It Impossible to Benchmark Intellectual Capital? In:

Bart”, Bontis and Head (Eds.) Conference Proceedings of the 25th

McMaster World Congess, Janeiro de 2004, Hamilton, Canada:

MWC.

Mathew, J (2003) “Competitive Dynamics and Economic Learning: An

Extended Resource-Based View,” Industrial and Corporate Change,

Volume 12. Number 1

Mazzarol, T and Soutar, G. N (1999) “Sustainable Competitive Advantage

for Educational Institutions: A Suggested Model,” International

Journal of Educational Management, Volume 13, Number 6.

McInerney, C.R and Day, R.E (2007) “Trust and Knowledge Sharing in

Organizations: Theory and Practice”, In: Rethinking Knowledge

Management: From Knowledge Objects to Knowledge Processes,

Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

McEvily and Chakravarthy, B (2002) “The Persistence of Knowledge-

based Advantage: An Empirical Trust for Product Performance and

Technological Knowledge,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume

23.

Miller, F. J (2002) “1=0 (Information has no Intrinsic Meaning),”

Information Research, Volume 8, Number 1.

Miller, G.A (1956) “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some

Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information Psychological

Review”. http://www.educationau.edu.au/ archives/cp/04h.htm

Minbaeva, D., T. Pedersen, I. Bjoerkman, C.F. Fey and H. J. Park (2003)

“MNC Knowledge Transfer, Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity and

HRM,” Journal of International Business Studies.

Mooradian, T., B. Renzl and K. Matzler (2006) “Who Trusts? Personality,

Trust and Knowledge Sharing,” Management Learning.

161

Newbert, S. L (2007) “Empirical Research on the Resource Based View of

the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future Research”.

Strategic Management Journal, Volume 28, Number 2.

Nonaka, I (1994) “The Knowledge-Creating Company,” Harvard Business

Review, November-December.

Nonaka, I. R. Toyama and N. Konno (2000) “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A

Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation,” Long Range

Planning.

Nonaka, I. R, R. Toyama and A. Nagata (2000) “A Firm as a Knowledge-

Creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm,”

Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 9, Number 1.

Nwachukwu, C.C (1988) Management Theory and Practice, Onitsha:

Africana FEP Publishers Limited.

Nwachukwu, C.C (2008) Management Theory and Practice, Onitsha:

Africana FEB Publishers Limited.

O’brien, J. A (2008) Computers in Business Management: An Introduction.

New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

O’dell, C., Wiig, K and Odem, P (1999) “Benchmarking Unveils Emerging

Knowledge Management Strategies,” Benchmarking, Volume 6,

Number 3.

Okafor, C (2007) Organisation Culture Characteristics, Practices and

Performance, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Benin, Benin City.

O’Neill, B.S and Adya, M (2007) “Knowledge Sharing and the

Psychological Contract: Managing Knowledge Workers Across

Different Stages of Employment,” Journal of Managerial

Psychology.

O’Shaughnessy, N. J (1996) “Michael Porter’s Competitive Advantage

Revisited,” Management Decision, Volume 34, Number 6.

Peteraf, M (1993) “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A

Resource-Based View,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 13.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R (2006) “Strategy and Society: The Link

between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility,”

Harvard Business Review, December, 2006.

162

Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E (1985) “How Information Gives You

Competitive Advantage”, Harvard Business Review, July-August.

Prince, A (2000) Principles of Human Resources Management; An active

learning Approach, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Ramsay, J (2001) “The Resource-Based Perspective, Rents, and

Purchasing’s Contribution to Sustainable Competitive Advantage,”

The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Summer 2001.

Retrieved June 1, 2007, from Emerald Insight.

Richard, O. C (2000) “Racial Diversity, Business Strategy and Firm

Performance: A Resource-Based View,” Academy of Management

Journal, Volume 43, Number 2.

Rouse, M and Daellenbach, U (2002) “More Thinking on Research

Methods for the Resource-Based Perspective,” Strategic Management

Journal, Volume 23.

Rugman, A and Verbeke, A (2002) “Edith’s Penrose’s Contribution to the

Resource-Based View of Strategic Management,” Strategic

Management Journal, Volume 23.

Rumelt, R (1984) “Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm. In: Lamp (Ed.)

Competitive Strategic Management,” New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Sethumadhavan, R (2007) Importance of Knowledge Sharing for

Organizations.

Schein, E (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership. San-Francisco:

JHossey-Bass.

Senge, P (1990) The Fifth Discipline – the Art and Practice of the Learning

Organisation, New York: Doublebay.

Sharratt, M and Usoro, A (2003) “Understanding Knowledge-sharing in

online Communities of Practice,” Electronic Journal on Knowledge

Management, Volume 1, Number 2.

Sheehan, N. T and Foss, N. J (2007) “Enhancing the Prescriptiveness of

the Resource-based View through Porterian Activity Analysis,”

Management Decision, Volume 45, Number 3.

163

Snyder, E. and Cummings, T (1998) “Organization Learning Disorders:

Conceptual Model and Intervention Hypotheses,” Human Relations,

Volume 51, Number 7.

Storey, J (2000) “Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from

Failure,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Sveiby, K. E (1997) “The New Organization Wealth: Managing and

Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets,” Berret-Koehler, San

Francisco.

Svenja, F., J. B. Alfred and D. Daniel (2003) “Knowledge Management

and Networked Environments: Leveraging Intellectual Capital in

Virtual Business Communities,” American Management

Association (AMACOM).

Szulanski, G. (2003) Sticky Knowledge – barriers to Knowing in the Firm,

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Teece, D. J., R. Rumelt, G. Dosi and S. Winter (1994) “Understanding

Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Economic

Behaviour and Organisation, Volume 23, Number 1.

Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen (1997) “Dynamic Capabilities and

Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 18,

Number 7.

Tkach, D (1999) “Advances in Knowledge Management – the Pillars of

Knowledge Management (An IBM Report) IBM and Lotus are

Trademarks of International Business Machines,” IBM Corporation.

Uhlaner, L (2007) “The Relationship between Knowledge Management,

Innovation and Firm Performance: Evidence from Dutch SMEs”

Zoetermeer, January.

Umemoto, K. (2002) “Managing Existing Knowledge is Not Enough. In:

Choo and Bontis (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual

Capital and Organisational Knowledge,” New York: Oxford

University Press.

Unyimadu, S.O (2007) Business Policy, Strategy and Management, Benin

City: Harmony Publishers.,

164

Van-Horne, A (2006) Financial Management Policy, New Delhi: Prentice-

Hall of India Private Limited.

Venkatraman, N (1994) “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From

Automation to Business Scope Redefinition,” Sloan Management

Review, winter.

Vollman, T.E., W.L. Berry, D.C. Whybark, F.B. Jacobs (2005) Managing

Planning and Control for Supply Chain Management, New Delhi:

Tata McGraw-Hill.

Volberda, H (1996) “Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in

the Hypercompetitive Environments,” Organization Science, Vol.7.

Wiig, K (1993) Knowledge Management Foundations. Arlington, VA:

Schema Press.

Wiklund, J and Shepherd, D (2003) “Knowledge-based Resources,

Entrepreneurial Orientation, and the Performance of Small and

Medium-sized Businesses,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24.

Willem, A (2003) “The Role of Organization Specific Integration Mechanisms

in Inter-unit Knowledge Sharing”.

Willett, C (2002) “Knowledge Sharing Shifts the Power Paradigm”, URL

http:/www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Knowledge_Shifts

_the_Power_Paradigm.

Wilson, T.D (2002) “The Nonsense of Knowledge Management,” Information

Research, Volume 8.

Winter, S (1987) “Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets,” In: D.

Teece (ed.). The Competitive Challenge: Strategies of Industrial

Innovation and Renewal, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

World Development Report (1999) Knowledge for Development

1998/1999, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zack, M (2002) “Developing a Knowledge Strategy”. In: Choo and Bontis

(eds.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and

Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zuboff, S (1988) “In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work

and Power”, Basic Books, New York.

165

Yang, J. T (2008) “Individual Attitudes and Organizational Knowledge

Sharing,” Tourism Management.

166

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 INTRODUCTION

Research methodology is defined as a way of carrying out a research

project that is, it shows the roadmap for its execution and identifies the

sequential steps for carrying out a research study, Cohen and Manion

(1980.26) state that methodology refers to the range of approaches used

in research to gather data which are to be used as a basis for inference

and interpretation, for explanation and prediction.

This chapter presents an overview of research design, source of data, the

population of the study, sample size and sampling techniques,

description of research instrument; method of data analysis, reliability of

data, validity of measurement and test instrument.

3.1 METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

Krempt and Mairease worked on the effect of the shared knowledge on

the performance of some manufacturing firms. They found that shared

knowledge had a positive effect on labour productivity aspect of

performance. They did a survey using a sample of 120 staff of the

manufacturing firms.

Keramti and Aradesh worked on the factors responsible for commitment

knowledge management success. They did a theoretical review as their

research design combined with content analysis. They found that the

commitment knowledge factors were knowledge sharing, knowledge

creation, and knowledge transfer.

Kuo and Wu (2007) did a study to find out if the contribution of shared

knowledge to the performance of manufacturing firms compared well

with international standard. They did a survey using a sample of 200

workers in manufacturing firms in Los Angeles, United States of

America. They found that there was a positive contribution of shared

167

knowledge on the performance of the firms that compared well with

international standards.

Rochart (1979;32) has done a study to find out the effect of knowledge

sharing capacity of workers on the sustainable competitive performance

of the manufacturing firms. He did a survey using a sample of 180

workers in manufacturing firms in Ohio in the United States of America.

He found that the knowledge sharing capacity to a large extent improved

the performance of the manufacturing firms.

Goffee and Jones (2000;79) did a study on the extent to which tacit

knowledge helps to improve the performance of the manufacturing firms.

They did a survey of 150 workers of the manufacturing firms in Buffalo,

United States of America. They found that tacit knowledge to a large

extent improved the performance of the manufacturing firms.

Hasnsen et al (1999;86) did a study to find out the principal modes of

explicit knowledge that contribute to a sustained performance of the

manufacturing firms. They did a survey of a sample of 250 workers in

manufacturing firms in Philadelphia, United States of America. They

found that combination and externalization were the principal modes of

explicit knowledge that contributed to a sustained performance of

manufacturing firms.

Goffer and Phrahalad (1990;76) did a study to find out the extent to

which knowledge based capacity is considered the most strategic

resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firm. They

did a survey of 300 workers in manufacturing firms in Texas, United

States of America. They found that to a large extent, knowledge based

capacity was considered one of the resources but not the most strategic

resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

This study made use of survey design and interview. The study started

with a detailed descriptive survey of effect of shared knowledge on the

168

performance of the manufacturing firms. It was carried out to ascertain

the effect that shared knowledge will have on the performance of the

manufacturing firms in Nigeria and to compare shared knowledge

contribution to international standard. From that perspective, the study

proceeds to collect and analyze empirical data to ascertain objectively

the contribution of shared knowledge in improving the performance of

manufacturing firms in Nigeria. In the light of the foregoing, the study

adopted the survey research design, as the study deals with the practical

application of already standardized theories available in the

organization.

3.3 SOURCES OF DATA

The sources of data for study are of two kinds namely primary and

secondary data.

3.3.1 Primary Sources of Data

The primary sources of the data are from the field work. Data observed

or collected directly from first hand experience is called Primary Data.

Primary data used in this research were data collected through personal

interview, designed questionnaire and observation.

3.3.2 Secondary Sources of Data

The secondary sources of data are from textbooks, journal articles and

internet materials. Secondary data are data collected by someone other

than the user. Secondary data used in this research includes: Data from

internet, text books, different kinds of Journal relating to research topic

and records/profiles of the selected firms for this research.

3.4 POPULATION

A research population is generally a large collection of individuals or

objects that is the main focus of a scientific query. It is for the benefit of

the population that researches are done. However, due to the large sizes

of populations, researchers often cannot test every individual in the

169

population because it is too expensive and time-consuming. This is the

reason why researchers rely on sampling techniques.

For the purpose of this research, the population of staff in Nigeria

Breweries Plc, Guinness Nigeria Plc and Bendel Breweries Plc stand at

302, 309 and 124 respectively. These cut across the senior staff of these

manufacturing companies. Therefore the population size of this study is

735.

3.5 SAMPLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

A sample is simply a subset of the population. The concept of sample

arises from the inability of the researcher to test all the individuals in a

given population. The sample must be representative of the population

from which it was drawn and it must have good size to warrant

statistical analysis (Selltiz et al, 1976)

It is not possible to interview all the respondents in the population which

comprise all the employees in the firms. As a result, the researcher

deemed it fit to select a representative number of employees in the firms.

A pilot study was done to determine at a preliminary and lower level to

know how the respondents in the brewing companies would respond to

the questions asked in the questionnaire. The pilot study enabled the

researcher to approach a small sample of 100 respondents in the

brewing companies studied. The preliminary sample size of 100 was

greater than 30 and the standard deviation and variance were known as

they could be calculated from the Likert scale responses, the z test was

applicable (Agbadudu, 2004:18).

Also Agbadudu (2004:34) has given the formula for calculating the

sample size as

n = z2 pq where z is the normal sum, e is the error term which is 5% at

e2

95% confidence level, p is the proportion of the respondents that either

agreed or strongly agreed with a Likert statement or question, q is the

170

proportion of the respondents that were neutral or disagreed or strongly

disagreed. So this is a binominal experiment with the following formula p

= x/n: p+q=1 where x is the number of respondents that either agreed or

strongly agreed, n is the pilot sample size = 100

q = 1 - x (Agbadudu 2004:19)

n

so the equation n=z2 pq could be written as

e2

n=z2 x 1 – x

n n

e2

Three iterations were made and n = 400 which was the highest sample

size using pilot study.

ITERATION 1

n= z2 p.q

e2

p =.59

q = (1-p) = 1 - .59) = .41

CL = 95

And the z standard variate for CL = .95 is 1.96

e = +.05

thus n – (1.96)2 (.59) (.41) = 369

(.05)2

ITERATION 2

p = .8

q = (1-p) = (1-.8) = .2

n= (2.5)2 (0.8) (0.2) = 400

(0.05)2

171

ITERATION 3

P = .9

q = (1 - .9) = .1

:. n = (1.645)2 (0.9) (0.1) = 97.4

(0.05)2

The Taro Yamane’s formula was used to calculate the sample size and

the formula is given by

( )21 eN

Nn

+=

Where N = 735

1 is a constant

and e = 2.5% for a two tailed test at 5% level of significance.

( )( )

504

6.503467

320735

320

467735

025.07351

7352

≈

===

+=

n

xn

n

A sample size of 504 is used because it is higher than those got from the

pilot study.

3.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The questionnaire was structured in line with the variables of the study

already stated in the research questions and hypotheses. The

questionnaire was divided into two parts; section A was designed to

collect demographic information of the respondents. Section B dealt with

issues relating to the subject of inquiry. The instrument included Likert

type of questions. One questionnaire was prepared for the study and in

keeping with the sample, 504 copies of the said questionnaire were

distributed. The design of the questionnaire was in two main parts.

Part I dealt with the personal data of the respondents and Part II focused

on the essential principles or effects of shared knowledge on

172

performance of the manufacturing firms in Nigeria addressing the

research questions.

The data collected facilitates the testing of hypotheses.The interview method

was used to supplement the questionnaire in order to obtain vital

information that could not be got through questionnaire. Through personal

interview, such information as the firm’s manpower size, its historical

background, its policy on shared knowledge and performance. The

information obtained from the above exercise enabled the researcher to

cross-verify certain answers that were provided by respondents in the

questionnaire.

3.7 DESCRIPTION OF DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS

Data presentation tool is the table

Appropriate statistical tools are percentages that were used to analyze

the data generated. Hypotheses were tested using Z-test for hypotheses

1, 2 and 3 while Z-test of population proportions statistics was used for

hypotheses 4, 5 and 6.

3.8 RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT

To test for the reliability of the instrument, a test re-test method was

applied in which 504 questionnaire were distributed to the three firms

under study. After some days, the instrument was collected and re-

administered for the second time.

The Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient of reliability was used to

test the result. It gives a reliability of r = 0.97 showing that there is

consistency in the items of survey. The reliability was calculated as

follows:

173

Table 3.1: Computation of correlation coefficient

S/

N

Responses

to the first

task

Rank Responses to

the second

task

Rank Reference

of rank. D

d2

1. 473 2 470 1 1 1

2. 474 3.5 474 3.5 0 0

3. 476 5.5 476 5.5 0 0

4. 477 7.5 477 7.5 0 0

5. 478 9.5 478 9.5 0 0

6. 480 11.5 480 11.5 0 1

The Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

3.9 VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENT

Uzoagulu (1998) defines validity as the appropriateness of an instrument

in measuring what it tends to measure. To validate the research

instrument, the researcher ensured that the structured questionnaire

was subjected to the combination of face and content validity. Face

validity judges at the face value the appropriateness of the measuring

instrument. Content validity is the extent to which the items of an

instrument are representative of the content and behaviour specified by

the theoretical content being measured. Also, a proper restructuring of

the questionnaire and the conduct of a pre-test of every question

contained in the questionnaire was carried out to ensure that they are

valid. Furthermore, the design of the questionnaire was made easy for

the respondents to tick their preferred choice from the options provided

as it has been established that the longer the length of questionnaire the

rs = 1

rs = 1

rs = 1

n(n 1) (n + 1)

(6)(5)(7)

6(1)

1

25

34

25= = 0.97

6

d2

174

lower the response rate (Anyiwe, 2012:65). Response validity was

obtained by re-contacting individual respondents whose responses

appeared unclear, unusual or inconsistent.

175

REFERENCES

Agbadudu, A.B (1994) Statistics for Business and the Social Sciences,

Benin City: Uri Publishing Limited.

Anyiwe, E.M.A (2012) ECOSTAT!!! Statistical Handbook for

Economists,Social Scientists, Yaba, Lagos: Ama Resources Nigeria

Limited.

Selltiz, C., L.S. Wrightsman and S.W. Cook (1976) Research

Methodology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

176

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In the last chapter, the research methodology was handled in which it

was stated that the research design was a combination of a survey, oral

interview and model modification. In this chapter, the data presentation,

analysis and model solution are to be done. The data is to be presented

by means of tables.

By analysis is meant the process of noting relationships and aggregating

the data on the variables and also splitting the units into its parts

(Stone, 2004). Agbonifoh and Yomere (2006:38) have observed that it is

at the data analysis stage of a research work that meaning is given to the

data that is collected. If the data is not properly analysed, it will not be

possible to get meaningful results and discuss them, moreover, it will

not also be possible to summarise the findings, conclude and make

recommendations. Moreover, without the findings it will not be possible

to know the similarities and differences between the findings in the

research work and other research works to form the basis for the

contribution to knowledge.

No wonder, the researcher accepts the contention of Podsakoff and

Dalton (1987:64) that the data that is analysed will form the basis for

research, discussion and calculation. Apart from the heading above, the

other headings to be used in this chapter include Data Presentation,

Data Analysis, Reliability and Validity Analysis, Percentage Analysis,

Relative Frequency Analysis, Analysis of Data using the Coefficient of

Variation, Analysis of some likert scale statement using the z test,

Analysis of data using z test of Population Proportion, Theoretical

Analysis, Hypotheses testing and Discussion of Findings.

177

4.2 DATA PRESENTATION

Table 4.1 gives the presentation of the response and non response rates

of the questionnaire administered.

Table 4.1: The Presentation of the response and non response rates

of the questionnaire administered

Numbers Rates

Questionnaire administered 504 1.000

Questionnaire returned 500 0.992

Questionnaire not returned 4 0.008

Total 504 1.000

Source: Fieldwork (2010).

From Table 4.1, it is shown that 500 out of 504 questionnaires

administered were returned giving a response rate of 0.992. 4 out of 504

questionnaires giving a non response rate of 0.008. The total response

and non response rates gave a total of 1.000.

Table 4.2 gives the summary of the personal data of the 500

respondents.

Table 4.2: Computation of correlation coefficient

S/

N

Responses

to the first

task

Rank Responses to

the second

task

Rank Reference

of rank. D

d2

1. 473 2 470 1 1 1

2. 474 3.5 474 3.5 0 0

3. 476 5.5 476 5.5 0 0

4. 477 7.5 477 7.5 0 0

5. 478 9.5 478 9.5 0 0

6. 480 11.5 480 11.5 0 1

178

The Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Table 4.3: The Summary of the personal data of the 500

Respondents

Nigerian Breweries Plc

Guinness Nigeria Plc

Bendel Breweries Plc

Total

Sex

Male 150 155 69 374

Female 50 53 23 126

200 208 92 500

Marital status

Married 142 142 57 341

Single 53 61 32 146

Divorced 1 1 1 3

Widowed 3 3 1 7

Separated 1 1 1 3

Total 200 208 92 500

Age

Below 25 years 23 23 12 58

26 – 30 years 14 23 13 60

31 – 35 years 24 26 12 62

36 – 40 years 28 28 13 69

41 – 50 years 27 27 12 66

51 – 56 years 24 26 09 61

Above 56 years 23 24 46 56

201 208 92 500

Highest

rs = 1

rs = 1

rs = 1

n(n 1) (n + 1)

(6)(5)(7)

6(1)

1

25

34

25= = 0.97

6

d2

179

Educational Qualification Senior School

Certificate

74 77 33 184

R.S.A. 12 13 6 31

Trade Certificate 5 5 2 12

Diploma 12 13 5 30

O.N.D. 13 13 6 32

H.N.D. 16 17 8 41

First Degree 40 42 19 101

Second Degree 26 27 12 65

Ph.D. 2 2 0 4

Total 200 208 92 500

Source: Fieldwork (2010).

From Table 4.2, it is shown that for the sex of the 500 respondents, for

Nigerian Breweries Plc, Guinness Nigeria Plc and Bendel Breweries Plc.

The males were 150, 155 and 69 respectively totaling 374 of them. For

the females in Nigerian Breweries Plc, Guinness Nigeria Plc and Bendel

Breweries Plc, they were 50, 53 and 23 respectively totaling 126 of them.

For the marital status of the 500 respondents the married respondents

in Nigerian Breweries Plc, Guinness Nigeria Plc and Bendel Breweries

Plc, they were 144, 142 and 57 respectively totaling 341 of them. For the

single respondents in Nigerian Breweries Plc, Guinness Nigeria Plc and

Bendel Breweries Plc, they were 53, 61 and 32 of them respectively

totaling 146 of them. For the divorced respondents in Nigerian Breweries

Plc, Guinness Nigerian Plc and Bendel Breweries Plc, they were 1, 1, and

1 respectively of them totaling 3 of them, for the widowed respondents

they were 2, 2 and 1 of them respectively totaling 5 of them, while for the

separated respondents, they were 1, 1, and 1 of them respectively

totaling 3 of them.

180

For the ages of the 500 respondents they were below 25 years, 26 – 30

years, 31 – 35 years, 36 – 40 years, 41 – 45 years, 46 – 50 years, 51 – 55

years and above 56 years. For Nigerian Breweries Plc, they were 23, 24,

24, 27, 28, 27, 24 and 23 of them totaling 244 of them. For Guinness

Nigeria Plc, they were 28, 28, 26, 28, 29, 27, 26 and 28 of them

respectively totaling 208 of them. For Bendel Breweries Plc, they were

12, 13, 12, 13, 13, 12, 11 and 6 of them respectively totaling 92 of them.

For the highest educational qualifications they were senior school

certificate, R.S.A, Trade Certificate, Diploma, O.N.D., H.N.D., First

Degree, Second Degree and Ph.D. for Nigerian Breweries Plc they were

74, 12, 5, 13, 16, 40, 26 and 2 of them respectively totaling 200 of them.

For Guinness Nigeria Plc, they were 77, 13, 5, 13, 13, 17, 42, 27 ad 2 of

them respectively totaling 208 of them. For Bendel Breweries Plc, they

were 33, 6, 2, 5, 6 8, 19, 12 and 0 of them respectively totaling 92 of

them.

Table 4.3 shows the lengths of service and statuses of the 500

respondents.

Table 4.4: The lengths of service and statuses of the 500

Respondents

Lengths of service Nigerian

Breweries Plc

Guinness

Nigeria Plc

Bendel

Breweries

Plc

Total

Below 0.5 years 27 28 14 69

0.5 – 5.5 years 30 31 13 74

5.5 – 10.5 years 45 46 20 111

10.5 – 15.5 years 68 72 30 170

15.5 – 20.5 years 30 31 15 76

200 208 92 500

Status

181

Senior Staff 59 62 29 160

Junior Staff 141 146 63 350

200 208 92 500

Source: Fieldwork (2010).

Table 4.3 shows for the lengths of service and statuses of the 370

respondents. For the lengths of service, they were below 0.5, 0.5 – 5.5,

5.5 – 10.5, 10.5 – 15.5, 15.5 – 20.5 all in years. For Nigerian Breweries

Plc, the values were 27, 30, 45, 68 and 30 all in numbers respectively

giving a total of 200 of them. For Guinness Nigeria Plc, the numbers

were 28, 31, 46, 73 and 31 respectively giving a total of 208 of them. For

Bendel Breweries Plc, the numbers were 14, 13, 20, 30 and 15

respectively giving a total of 92 of them.

Table 4.3 shows the statuses of the 500 respondents which were senior

staff and junior staff. For Nigerian Breweries Plc, they were 59 and 141

of them respectively giving a total of 200 of them. For Guinness Nigeria

Plc, they were 62 and 146 of them respectively giving a total of 208 of

them. For Bendel Breweries Plc, they were 29 and 63 respectively giving

a total of 92 of them.

4.3 DATA ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Reliability Analysis

Table 4.3a shows the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient of the

data on two occasions from the responses on the objectives.

182

Table 4.5a: The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient of the data

on two occasions from the responses on the objectives

S/N Responses to

the first task

Rank Responses to

the second

task

Rank Reference

of rank, d

d2

1. 473 2 470 1 1 1

2. 474 3.5 474 3.5 0 0

3. 476 5.5 476 5.5 0 0

4. 477 7.5 477 7.5 0 0

5 478 9.5 478 9.5 0 0

6 480 11.5 480 11.5 0 1

The Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient,

( ) ( )( )

( )( )( )97.0

25

34

25

11

756

161

11

61

2

==−=

−=

+−= ∑

rs

rs

nnn

drs

N.B: The responses are the numbers of those who agreed or strongly

agreed with the Likert scale statement.

Source: Fieldwork (2011).

From Table 4.3a, it is shown that the Spearman’s Rank Correlation

Coefficient is 0.97 near 1, so the measure is reliable.

4.3.2 Validity Analysis

Table 4.3b shows the 504 sample numbers.

183

Table 4.5b: The 504 sample numbers

1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. 108 703 325 101 367 441 023 437 164 307

3. 282 589 279 488 609 705 538 588 058 235

4. 218 355 111 347 173 034 359 528 448 220

5. 554 196 252 502 037 574 120 414 210 207

6. 029 022 092 540 183 209 284 552 711 036

7. 205 169 066 299 515 658 295 011 069 202

8. 103 248 516 388 496 742 471 226 567 217

9. 687 383 598 192 287 193 433 066 018 342

10. 654 145 358 215 726 598 699 718 649 487

11. 439 249 692 400 295 564 027 585 405 293

12. 066 440 323 319 027 348 209 031 715 315

13. 552 613 265 061 744 339 135 588 104 546

14. 460 018 201 362 197 224 238 054 488 617

15. 155 335 738 481 190 278 605 241 021 564

16. 463 521 695 606 657 427 698 140 577 279

17. 472 692 232 610 263 150 287 146 220 237

18. 562 658 142 094 410 496 342 409 194 217

19. 612 511 668 404 540 621 689 583 117 072

10. 149 741 216 389 608 427 321 463 118 631

21. 280 294 554 195 511 658 525 359 204 711

22. 379 527 068 381 322 413 193 644 324 037

23. 075 678 064 207 454 227 347 557 300 083

24. 326 026 020 545 056 344 619 266 388 447

25. 324 170 083 156 222 075 220 628 609 415

26. 546 410 345 667 196 703 036 648 220 304

27. 462 332 539 423 314 502 339 515 428 504

28. 501 022 737 738 154 049 249 655 566 720

29. 308 183 546 021 463 214 282 081 234 661

30. 494 325 521 384 420 011 169 194 732 471

31 239 360 397 596 287 695 581 650 087 148

32. 048 397 596 287 698 581 650 087 148 404

184

33. 367 389 360 023 281 041 655 527 552 335

34. 470 556 517 027 466 080 450 028 600 228

35. 380 358 159 172 423 140 554 148 353 006

36. 592 193 314 118 062 596 091 539 014 572

37. 264 076 631 271 154 039 562 657 577 017

38. 615 170 287 414 188 415 149 661 105 209

39. 654 680 050 116 644 590 067 028 381 694

40. 253 519 427 685 603 288 342 186 711 446

41. 446 208 465 677 427 137 449 671 646 076

42. 167 121 152 741 606 562 166 561 557 092

43. 524 333 578 367 008 499 481 092 380 494

44. 481 615 427 035 217 194 579 276 223 163

45. 053 346 240 171 440 073 196 405 090 002

46. 512 715 226 412 548 397 051 182 698 599

47. 496 534 282 207 560 392 451 504 400 068

48. 055 685 394 615 523 202 403 641 279 048

49. 426 586 622 572 452 370 150 683 160 624

50. 282 085 327 488 308 034 359 528 448 220

51. 554 196 252 502

Source: The Rand Corporation (2002). A Million Random digits with

100,000 normal Digits. Glencoe, New York: The Free Press.

The 735 members of the population are numbered 001, 002 …… 735.

The Table of random numbers was used to select the 504 numbers given

to the 504 subjects. The same version of the research instrument was

administered to the 504 respondents at two points in time and this gave

the measure content validity.

4.3.3 Percentage Analysis

Table 4.4 shows the analysis of the responses related to the first

objective

185

Table 4.6: The analysis of the likert scale responses related to the

first objective

Statement SA % A % U % D % SD % Total in No.

Total in %

1. There is no positive effect of shared knowledge on the productivity aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm.

110 2.00 9 1.80 8 1.60 66 13.20 407 81.40 500 100

2. There is a positive effect of shared knowledge on the productivity aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm.

404 80.80 70 14.00 6 1.20 9 1.80 11 2.20 500 100

3. There is no positive effect of information technology on the productivity aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm.

8 1.60 8 1.60 8 1.68 68 13.60 4.08 81.60 500 100

4. There is a positive effect of information technology on the productivity aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm.

405 81.00 72 14.40 8 1.60 7 1.40 8 1.60 500 100

5. There is a relationship between shared knowledge information technology with the productivity aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm.

420 84.00 58 11.60 7 1.40 7 1.40 8 1.60 500 100

186

Source: The statements and Likert scale responses are got from the

questionnaires administered.

Table 4.4 shows the responses in absolute numbers and in percentages.

For the statement that there is no positive contribution of shared

knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance of their

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 10, 9, 8, 6, 6,

and 404 out of 500 respectively giving percentages of 2.00, 1.80, 1.60,

13.2 and 81.40 respectively. For the statement that there is a positive

contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance

of their manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree,

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 404,

70, 6, 9 and 11 respectively out of 500. These give percentages of 80.80,

14.00, 1.20, 1.80 and 2.20 respectively.

For the statement that there is no positive contribution of information

technology on the efficiency aspect of performance of their

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 8, 8, 8, 68, and

408 respectively out of 500. These give percentages of 1.60, 1.60, 13.60

and 81.60 respectively.

For the statement that there is a positive contribution of Information

Technology on the efficiency aspect of performance of their

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 405, 72, 8, 7

and 8 respectively out of 500. These give percentages of 81.00, 14.40

1.60, 1.40 and 1.60 respectively.

For the statement that there is no relationship between shared

knowledge and Information Technology on the efficiency aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly

agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have

187

frequencies of 420, 58, 7, 7 and 8 respectively out of 500. These give

percentages of 84.00, 11.60, 1.40, 1.70 and 1.60 respectively.

4.3.4 Relative Frequency Analysis

Table 4.5 shows the analysis of the likert scale statement of the

responses related to the second objective.

Table 4.7: The analysis of the likert scale responses related to the

second objective

Statement SA RF A RF U RF D RF SD RF Total in No.

Total in %

1. The contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm does not compare favourably with international standard.

7 6.014 9 0.018 8 0.616 70 0.140 406 0.812 500 1

2. The contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm compare favourably with international standard.

4.60 0.812 70 0.280 8 0.076 9 0.018 7 0.014 500 1

3. The contribution of Information Technology to your manufacturing firm does not compare with the international standard.

8 0.016 8 0.016 11 0.00 69 0.138 404 0.808 500 1

4. The contribution of Information Technology on the efficiency aspect of performance of your manufacturing

404 0.808 69 0.128 11 0.22 8 8.016 8 0.016 500 1

188

firm compare favourably with the international standard.

5. The contribution of shared knowledge and information technology of your manufacturing firm compare favourably with the international standard.

401 812 69 0.138 8 0.016 8 0.016 9 0.018 500 1

RF: means Relative Frequency. 1.001 is approximated to 1 in statement

numbers 1 and 2.

Source: The statements and likert scale responses are got from the

questionnaires administered.

Table 4.5 shows the responses in absolute numbers and relative

frequencies. For the statement that the contribution of shared knowledge

on the efficiency aspect of performance the manufacturing firm does not

compare favourably with the international standard, the responses are

strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They

have Frequencies of 9, 9, 8, 70 and 406 respectively out of 500. These

give relative frequencies of 0.014, 0.018, 0.016, 0.140 and 0.812

respectively totaling 1.000.

For the statement that the contribution of shared knowledge on the

efficiency aspect of performance of the manufacturing firm compares

favourably with the international standard, the responses are strongly

agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have

frequencies of 406, 70, 8, 7 and 7 respectively out of 500. These give

relative frequencies of 0.812, 0.140, 0.016, 0.018 and 0.014 totaling

1.000.

For the statement that the contribution of Information Technology on the

efficiency aspect of performance does not compare favourably with the

international standards, the responses are strongly agree, agree,

189

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 8, 8,

11, 69 and 404 respectively out of 500. These give Relative frequencies of

0.016, 0.016, 0.022, 0.138 and 0.808 respectively totaling 1.000.

For the statement that the contribution of Information Technology on the

efficiency aspect of performance compares favourably with the

international standards, the responses are strongly agree, agree,

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have frequencies of 404,

69, 11, 8 and 8 respectively out of 500. These give Relative frequencies of

0.808, 0.138, 0.022, 0.016 and 0.016 totaling 1.00.

For the statement that the contribution of shared knowledge and

information technology to the efficiency aspect of performance compares

favourably with the international standard, the responses are strongly

agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. They have

frequencies of 406, 69, 8, 8 and 9 respectively out of 500. These give

Relative Frequencies (RF) of 0.811, 0.138, 0.016, 0.016, and 0.018

respectively totaling 1.000.

4.3.5 Analysis of Data Using the Coefficient of Variation

Table 4.6 shows the analysis of the data related to the third objective.

Table 4.8: The analysis of the data related to the third objective

Statement SA A U D SD x S2 S

x

S

1.

Knowledge learning capacity of workers has a positive effect on a sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firms.

f 406 70 8 8 8

x 5 4 3 2 1

fx 2030 280 24 16 8 4.72 0..54 0.724 0.153

f(x- x )2

2. Knowledge learning capacity of the workers does not have a

f 8 8 8 70 406

x 5 4 3 2 1

fx 1.03 0.589 0.76 0.744

190

performance position of the manufacturing firms.

f(x- x )2

3. Knowledge learning capability of the workers has a positive effect on a sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firms.

f 404 72 8 8 8

x 5 4 3 2 1

fx 4.71 0.526 0.725 0.154

f(x- x )2

4. Knowledge learning capability of the workers does not have a positive effect on a sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firms.

f 8 8 8 72 404

x 5 4 3 2 1

fx 1.29 0.526 0.725 0.503

f(x- x )2

5. There is a relationship between the knowledge learning capacity and the sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firms.

f 406 70 9 8 7

x 5 4 3 2 1 4.72 0.503 0.709 0.150

fx

f(x- x )2

Source: The statements and responses are got from the questionnaires

administered.

Table 4.6 shows the responses in absolute numbers and the sample mean,

sample variance, sample standard deviation and the coefficient of variation.

For the statement that the knowledge learning capacity has a positive effect

on the sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firm, the

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have numbers of 406, 70, 8, 8, and 8 respectively giving a

sample mean of 4.710, sample variance of 0.530, sample standard deviation

of 0.728 and coefficient of variation of 0.154.

For the statement that the knowledge learning capacity does not have a

positive effect on the sustainable performance of the manufacturing

191

firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

strongly disagree. They have numbers of 8, 8, 8, 70 and 406 respectively.

These gives a sample mean of 1.290, sample variance of 0.530, sample

standard deviation of 0.728 and coefficient of variation of 1.767.

For the statement that the knowledge learning capacity has a positive effect

on the sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing firms, the

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have numbers of 404, 72, 8, 8, and 8 respectively. These give

a sample mean of 4.710, a sample standard variance of 0.531, sample

standard deviation of 0.729 and coefficient of variation of 0.159.

For the statement that the knowledge learning capacity does not have a

positive effect on the sustainable competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 8, 8, 8, 70 and 406

respectively. These give a sample mean of 1.290, sample variance of 0.539,

sample standard deviation of 0.729 and coefficient of variation of 1.769.

For the statement that there is a relationship between the knowledge

sharing capacity with the sustained competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 406, 70, 8, 9 and 7

respectively. These give a sample mean of 4.720, sample variance of 0.501,

sample standard deviation of 0.708 and coefficient determination of 0.150.

All in all the two negative statements had lower sample means lying

between strongly disagree and higher degree coefficients of variable and

were less stable. The two positive statements had higher sample means

lying between strongly agree and were more stable. So the respondents

either strongly agreed or agreed with the positive statements. They either

strongly disagreed or disagreed with the negative statements.

192

4.3.6 Analysis of some Likert Scale Statements using the Z Test

Table 4.7 shows the analysis of the data related to the fourth objective.

Table 4.9: The analysis of the data related to the fourth objective

Statement SA A U D SD 2x

1. Tacit knowledge does not to a large extent improve the effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

5 8 10 74 403 -65.293

2. Tacit knowledge to a large extent improves the effectiveness aspect of the performance of the manufacturing firms.

5 7 11 73 400 -65.293

3. Tacit knowledge to a large extent improves the performance of the manufacturing firms.

403 74 10 8 5 4.024

4. Tacit knowledge to a large extent improves the profitability aspect of the performance.

404 73 11 7 5 4.024

5. There is no relationship between Tacit knowledge and the effectiveness of performance of the manufacturing firm

5 8 10 72 405 -65.253

6. There is a relationship between Tacit knowledge and the effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms

405 72 10 8 5 4.024

Source: The statements and responses are got from the questionnaires

administered.

Table 4.7 shows the statements and their responses in absolute

numbers and the same means sample standard deviation and calculated

z value. For the statement that Tacit knowledge does not to a large

extent improve the effectiveness of performance of the manufacturing

firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

strongly. They have numbers of 9, 8, 10, 74 and 463 respectively. These

give a calculated z score of -65.144 of 1.280, sample standard deviation

of 0.683 and calculated z value of -48.459.

For the statement that Tacit knowledge to a large extent improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms, the

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have numbers of 5, 7, 11, 73 and 403. These give a

calculated z score of -65.253.

193

For the statement that Tacit knowledge to a large extent improves the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms, the

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have numbers of 403, 74, 10 8 and 5 respectively. These give

a calculated z score of 4.024.

For the statement that Tacit knowledge to a large extent improves

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms, the

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have number of 404, 73, 11, 7 and 5 respectively. These give

a calculated z score of 4.024.

For the statement that there is no relationship to a large extent between

Tacit knowledge and the effectiveness aspect of performance of the

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 5, 8, 10, 32 and

405 respectively, these give a calculated z score of -65.253.

For the statement that there is a relationship between tacit knowledge and

the effectiveness of performance of the manufacturing firms, the responses

are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They

have numbers of 405, 72, 10, 8 and 5. This give a sample calculated z score

of 4.024.

All in all the negative statements have negative calculated z scores while the

positive statements had positive calculated z scores. This is because the

negative statements had low strongly agree and agree figures and vice versa.

So most of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the positive

statement and disagreed or strongly disagreed with the negative statement.

4.3.7 Analysis of Data using the Z Test of Population Proportions

Table 4.8 shows the analysis of the data related to the fifth objective.

194

Table 4.10: The Analysis of the Data Related to the Fifth Objective

Statement SA A U D SD Z

1. Combination and externalization are not principal modes of explicit knowledge of manufacturing firms.

68 7 7 73 405 -64

2. Combination and externalization are the principal modes of explicit knowledge that contributes to sustainable performance of the manufacturing firms

405 73 7 7 8 4.170

3. Combination and externalization are the principal modes of explicit knowledge that contributes to the sustainable profitability of the manufacturing firms.

405 74 7 7 7 4.770

4. Combination and externalization are the principal modes of explicit that contributes to the sustainable productivity of the manufacturing firms.

405 72 9 7 7 4.625

5. Sustainable performance of the manufacturing firms is dependent on the principal modes of explicit knowledge

404 72 9 8 7 3.876

6. Sustainable profitability of the manufacturing firms is dependent on the principal modes of explicit knowledge.

404 70 9 9 8 3.578

7. Sustainable productivity of the manufacturing firms is dependent on the principal modes of explicit knowledge.

405 73 7 7 8 4.174

8. There is a relationship between knowledge and the effectiveness of the manufacturing firms

404 69 9 9 9 3.420

9. There is a relationship between the principal modes of explicit knowledge and the profitability of the manufacturing firms.

404 68 9 9 10 3.280

Source: The statements and the responses are got from the

questionnaires administered.

Table 4.8 shows the responses to the likert scale responses in absolute

numbers and the calculated z value of population proportions. For the

statement that shared knowledge and Information Technology do not to

a large extent help to improve the productivity of the manufacturing

firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

strongly disagree. They have numbers of 8, 7, 7, 73 and 405 respectively.

These give the z score of population proportions of 64.846 at a

prescribed proportion of 0.9.

195

For the statement that shared knowledge and Information Technology to

a large extent help to improve the productivity of the selected

manufacturing firms, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 405, 73, 7, 7 and

8. These give the z score or population proportions of 4.174 at a

prescribed proportion of 0.9.

For the statement that their companies use senior personnel to mentor

junior employees, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 405, 74, 7, 7 and

7 respectively. These give the z score of population proportions of 4.770

at a prescribed proportion of 0.9.

For the statement that their companies group employees in work teams,

the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

strongly disagree. They have numbers of 405, 72, 9, 7 and 7 respectively.

These give a calculated z score of population proportions of 4.025.

For the statement that their companies analyzes their past features and

disseminate the lessons learnt among the employees, the responses are

strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They

have frequencies of 404, 72, 8, 8 and 7 out of 500. These give a

calculated z test of population proportions of 3.876.

For the statement that their companies invest in IT System that

facilitates knowledge sharing, the responses are strongly agree, agree,

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 404,

70, 9, 9 and 8. These give a calculated z score of population proportions

of 3.578.

For the statement that their companies develop knowledge sharing

modes, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

196

strongly disagree. They have numbers of 405, 73, 7, 7 and 8 respectively.

These give a calculated z score of population proportion of 4.174.

For the statement that their companies offer incentives to encourage

knowledge sharing, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 404, 69, 9, 9 and

8 respectively. These give the z score of population proportions of 3.429.

For the statement that their companies offer variety of training and

development programs, the responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided,

disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 404, 68, 9, 9 and 10

respectively. These give a z score of population proportions of 3.280.

Table 4.9 shows the analysis of the data related to the sixth objective.

Table 4.11: The Analysis of the Data Related to the Sixth Objective

Statement SA A U D SD Z

1. Knowledge based capacity is considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms.

370 7 8 78 380 -64.963

2. Knowledge based capacity is not considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms

300 178 7 7 8 4.174

3. Knowledge based capacity is considered a strategic resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms.

301 175 8 8 8 3.876

4. Knowledge based capacity is not considered a strategic resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms.

8 8 8 175 301 -64.687

Source: The statements and responses are got from the questionnaires

administered.

The statements and the responses and the z score of population

proportions are shown for the statement that knowledge based capacity

is considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability

of the manufacturing firms. The responses are strongly agree, agree,

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 370, 7,

197

8, 78 and 350 respectively. These give a z score of population proportion

of -64.993.

For the statement that knowledge based capacity is not considered the

most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms. The responses are strongly agree, agree,

undecided, disagree and strongly disagree. They have numbers of 300,

178, 7, 7 and 8 respectively. These give a z score of population

proportion of 4.174.

For the statement that knowledge based capacity is considered a

strategic resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing

firms. The responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and

strongly disagree. They have numbers of 301, 175, 8, 8 and 8

respectively. These give a z score of population proportion of 3.876.

For the state that knowledge based capacity is not considered a strategic

resource for improving the profitability of the manufacturing firms. The

responses are strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree. They have numbers of 8, 8, 8, 175 and 301 respectively. These

give a z score of population proportion of -64.687.

4.3.8 Theoretical Analysis

The 500 respondents were asked the effect of shared knowledge on the

performance of the manufacturing firms and more than 9 out of 10 of

them said that the effect was positive. The 500 respondents were asked

how the contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of the

manufacturing firms compared with international standard and most of

them said that it compared well and favourably. The 500 respondents

were asked the effect of knowledge learning capacity of workers on the

sustained competitive performance of the manufacturing firms and 19

out of 20 of them said it was positive.

The 500 respondents were asked the extent to which tacit knowledge

helped to improve the effectiveness aspect of performance of the

198

manufacturing firms and little over 19 out of 20 of them said it was to a

large extent. The 500 respondents were asked what the principal modes

of shared knowledge were that contributed to a sustained effectiveness

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms and over 19 out of 20

of them said they were combination and externalization. The 500

respondents were asked the extent to which knowledge based capacity is

considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability of

the manufacturing firms and most of them said that it was to a large

extent a strategic resource but not the most strategic and so they were to

a large extent undecided that it was the most strategic resource as they

said that there were other strategic resources like men, material, money,

time, energy, information and infrastructure.

4.3.9 Hypotheses Testing

Six hypotheses are tested in the null that:

1) There is no positive effect of shared knowledge on the productivity

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

2) The contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms does not compare

favourably with international standard.

3) There is no positive effect of knowledge learning capacity of the

workers on the sustained competitive productivity of the

manufacturing firms.

4) Tacit knowledge does not to a large extent help to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

5) Combination and externalization are not the principal modes of

shared knowledge that contributes to a sustainable performance of

the manufacturing firms.

6) Knowledge based capacity to a large extent is not considered the

most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms. The alternative hypotheses are given below

that:

199

i) There is a positive effect of shared knowledge on the

productivity aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms.

ii) The contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect

of performance of the manufacturing firms compares

favourably with international standard.

iii) Knowledge learning capacity of the workers has a positive

effect on the sustained competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms.

iv) Tacit knowledge has to a large extent helped to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms.

v) Combination and externalization are the principal modes of

shared knowledge that contributes to a sustained

performance of the manufacturing firms.

vi) Knowledge based capacity to a large extent is considered the

most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms. The statistical tool for testing the first

three hypotheses is the z test of population proportions and

the last three hypotheses by the z test.

Table 4.10 shows the computational details of the first three hypotheses.

Table 4.12: The computational details of the first three hypotheses

Number Number of

respondents

that agreed

or strongly

agreed

Sample

size

Calculated

z value

Table z

value

Statistical

decision

1 473 500 3.429 1.645 Reject Ho

2 474 500 3.578 1.645 Reject Ho

3 476 500 3.876 1.645 Reject Ho

200

( )( )

−

−=

n

PoPo

Pon

x

z1

where

x is the number of respondents who either strongly agreed or agreed

n is the number of respondents that returned their questionnaires

Po is the prescribed proportion which is 0.9

1-Po is 1 – 0.9 = 0.1

Ho: P = 0.9

HA: P > 0.9

Source: The number of respondents who either strongly agreed or

agreed with the likert statement corresponding to the first, second and

third objectives numbered 1, 2, 3 respectively are got from the

questionnaires returned and usable.

From table 4.10, it is shown that the null hypothesis in each case is

rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. This shows that the

contribution of shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance

on the manufacturing firms compares favourably with international

standard. This shows that knowledge learning capacity of workers has a

positive effect on the sustained competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms.

Table 4.11 shows the computational details of the last three hypotheses.

Table 4.13: The computational details of the last three hypotheses

S/N Responses

Calculated

z value

Table

z

value

Statistical

decision

SA A U D SD x S

4 403 74 10 8 5 4.76 0.677 58.150 1.645 Reject Ho

5 405 73 18 7 7 4.720 0.696 55.236 1.645 Reject Ho

6 5 7 7 34 405 1.27 0.693 -55.841 1.645 Accept Ho

201

Source: The responses, the sample mean, sample standard deviation

and calculated z values are got from tables 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9.

From Table 4.11, it is shown that in the first two cases the calculated z

value is greater than the Table z value at 95% confidence level, so the

null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. In

the third case the calculated z value is less than the Table z value. So it

shows that tacit knowledge has to a large extent helped to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms. It shows

also that combination and externalization are the principal mode of

shared knowledge that contributes to a sustained performance of the

manufacturing firms. It shows also that knowledge based capacity to a

large extent is not considered the most strategic resource for improving

the profitability of the manufacturing firms all at 5% level of significance.

4.3.10 INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 1:

What is the effect of shared knowledge on the productivity aspect of

performance of your manufacturing firm?

Most of the interviewees maintained that shared knowledge allows their

manufacturing company to create, communicate, and apply knowledge

of all kind to achieve business objectives. This is corroborated by Kirk

Klasson who opines that shared knowledge is ability by which greater

value can be created and retained from core competencies of business.

Shared knowledge labels business issues and problems particularly of

its creation, administration, improvement of work processes and

practices, and produces innovative products and services, interviewees

in their opinion also said that shared knowledge allows their form to

retain, enhance, and manage the relationships with current and new

customers, and also with the stakeholders of the organization.

202

Interviewees responded that valuable human and knowledge resources

will be wasted unless management openly accepts and supports efforts

to gather, sort, transform, record and share knowledge.

According to Yang (2007:84), knowledge integration and sharing are the

major factors that lead to an excellent competitive advantage. He argued

that organizations can switch from a situation where intellectual

liabilities are created by loss or inappropriate utilization of knowledge

into situation of effective utilization of shared knowledge which creates

intellectual assets.

Shared knowledge is also used to generate and enhance business, and to

create competitive advantage. Due to the rapid changes in a business

environment, sustainability of an organization is possible only if the

knowledge trademark is utilized (Grant 1996:236)

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 2:

How does the contribution of shared knowledge to the efficiency

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms compare

favourably with international standard?

The interviewees strongly responded by saying that the contribution of

shared knowledge to the efficiency aspect of performance of

manufacturing firms meet up with international standard. Majority of

the interviewees were of the opinion that brewery firms that dominate

emerging technologies have a collective sense of identity and a shared

understanding of what they stand for, where they are going, the kind of

world they want to live in and how to make that world a reality. Brewery

firm with interactive learning environments develop ways to find, sort,

use, store, retrieve and link the growing number of data and information

bases. First, they learn what local knowledge exists; second, they put

valuable knowledge into wider circulation, Brown and Dugid (2000: 73-

74). Interviewees at the breweries under study maintained that their

firms transform databases and information, into useable formats that

203

are readily shared and assessed compared with companies like IBM,

Xeros, and Nike Corporation transform databases and information into

useable formats.

It was pointed out by the interviewees that firm’s learning – or,

acquisition of the knowledge-about foreign markets was seen as

determining not only the speed by which firms expand internationally,

but also which regions of the world firms enter and what operation

methods they employ in the foreign markets. Interviewees were of the

opinion that managers’ consideration about scales revenue vis-à-vis

operating unit costs of their subsidiaries were acknowledged as being a

determinant of firms’ internationalization patterns equally important

with shared knowledge.

In their quest for a comprehensive, total internationalization process

model the Uppsala Scholars and their apprentice students have drawn

attention to determinants of internalization patterns in addition to share

knowledge and operating cost considerations. Thus, Johanson and

Vahlne (1990:1-20) would expect companies ‘with large total resources’

to be less incremental in their international involvement.

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 3:

How does the knowledge learning capacity of workers affect

sustainable competitive performance of your manufacturing firm?

Shared knowledge helped determine the influence of culture and the

alteration of behaviour among the employees. In addition, social and

organizational culture are essential strategically methods of learning in

the knowledge management, shared knowledge has proven to be a

beneficial asset that allows an individual to compete in the competitive

and concrete organizational structure, interviewees maintained. Most of

the scholarly opinions on knowledge management and sharing reveal

that knowledge dissemination in organizations is more necessary in

contrast to knowledge receivers Usoro & Majewski (2009:89 ).

204

Shared knowledge according to interviewees in their response, plays a

pivotal role in the organization’s competitive nature and finally

concludes into an important base factor of the brewering strategy.

Interviewees were of the opinion that the ideology of dynamic knowledge

learning capacity of workers has a strong talk with the total quality

management concepts as it formulates new policies in accordance with

the changes required to meet the new challenges of the evolving market.

In their view, every manufacturing firm has different sets of concrete and

insubstantial resources and capacities. Such variations between

brewering firms lead to their different competitive positions and also

reflect in their varying performances.

Some of the researchers highlight that dynamic knowledge learning

capabilities of workers centralize around the organizational patterns.

Dynamic capabilities are found in routines, especially if these are of high

standard, although it was behaved earlier that these are found in

resources themselves Zollo & Winter (2002:41 ) Zott (2003:75 ), reveals

the in-depth relationship between dynamic capabilities of an

organization and knowledge management Easterby-Smith & Prieto

(2008:44-46 ).

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 4:

What is the extent to which tacit knowledge helps to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm?

Most of the interviewees strongly responded that they rely on their

common sense and intuition, or tacit knowledge, to get through the day.

They asserted that their brewering firms are mostly using tacit

knowledge to augment a person’s academic learning experience. Wagner

and Sternberg (1987:98) believe that the ability to acquire and manage

tacit knowledge are hallmarks of managerial success. Opportunities to

205

use tacit knowledge are prime factors in attracting and maintaining a

talented, loyal, productive workforce Smith (2000:236 – 244). Tacit

knowledge, in particular, is lost through outsourcing, downsizing,

mergers and amalgamations. Reportedly, 90 percent of the knowledge in

any organization is embedded and synthesized in peoples’ heads Lee

(2000:34 – 37). Most tacit knowledge is an invisible line item in corporate

budgets. However, it is tacit knowledge that plays a key role in leveraging

the overall quality of knowledge Goffee and Jones (2000: 62 – 70).

The tacit, specific and complex knowledge that the organization develops

inside generates long lasting advantages because that knowledge is

difficult to imitate McEvilly and Charravarthy (2000: 285 – 305).

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 5:

Interview question: What are the principal modes of explicit

knowledge that contributes to a sustainable performance of your

brewery firm?

In their response to this question, majority of the interviewees stated

that combination and externalization become the principal modes of

explicit knowledge that contributes to a sustainable effectiveness in the

brewery industry. Combination, according to them is the process used

to share explicit knowledge with other organization members to produce

new idea or innovation while they affirmed that externalization is used to

translate the personal expressions of their knowledge into an explicit

form that could be understood by their colleagues, this they do through

concepts, models and metaphors. These modes of shared knowledge are

what majority of interviewees claimed they apply in their jobs in making

decisions which is an important aspect of planning so as to be able to

strive toward achieving the organizational objectives and by so doing

achieved a sustainable manufacturing effectiveness both in the short

and long run.

206

Discussion of the interview question related to objective 6:

To what extent is knowledge based capacity considered the most

strategic resource for improving the profitability of your

manufacturing firms?

Most of the interviewees responded by saying that knowledge based

capacity in their brewery industry is not considered as the most strategic

resource for improving their profitability. This according to them,

knowledge based capacity is just one of the firm’s resources for

improving the profitability of manufacturing firm. There are other

resources such as men, materials, money, time, energy and information

infrastructure that also contribute to profitability improvement in the

brewery industry. The interviewees affirmed that knowledge based

capacity is considered to a large extent a strategic resource but not the

most strategic resource as corroborated by Nwachukwu (2006:48) that

knowledge based capacity is considered to a large extent a strategic

resource but not the most strategic resource since most managers

regard the human resource as the most strategic resource without which

most of the other resources remain dormant.

4.4 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The discussion of the findings of the personal data of the correspondent

is very important. One quarter of the respondents are female while three

quarter are male. This proportion needs to be improved to meet the 35%

that is recommended by the presidency. For the marital status, the

marriage respondents have a modal frequency of 341 out of 500. This is

very good because when workers are married, they become more

responsible. The modal age class is 36-40 years with a frequency of 69

out of 500. This is quite in aggrement with what holds in the United

States of America, Western Germany and Italy where the baby boomers

are of the age bracket of 31-40 years. In the highest educational

qualification of the respondents, the people with first degree have the

modal frequency of 101 out of 500 and this shows that there is now a lot

207

of emphasis on university education for workers in the brewing industry

in particular and other industries in general.

Discussion of the findings related to the first objective that shared

knowledge had a positive effect on the productivity aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms.

It was found that shared knowledge had a positive effect on the

productivity aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms.

Knowledge as far back as 1598 has been seen from the perspective of

power. No wonder, modern researchers observed that information is

power and power is might. Drucker (2000) identified knowledge as the

specialized skill, information, competence that makes it a source of

competitive advantage. Blacker (2003) sees knowledge as having such

attributes that it is socially constructed, often tacit, being a function of

the plays of other meanings such as well as metal and social, resilient

but provisional and developing, public and rhetorical, acquired through

participation in a community of practice.

It is because knowledge has such attributes like that it is public, socially

constructed and acquired through participation in communities of

practice that makes knowledge sharing possible. Shared knowledge is

the totality of the organized combination of ideas, rules, procedures and

information that is held by a group (Maradial, 2000:43). Getting shared

has a process knowing sharing. Noe (2005:26) has observed that shared

knowledge had a positive effect on the performance of organizations. This

he stated was because shared knowledge was got through learning

theories. Learning has been a relatively permanent change on human

capabilities and not necessarily a result of growth processes. These

capabilities are related to specific learning outcomes. A notable learning

out is the improvement in the performance of the learner which in turn

leads to the improvement in organizational performance (Noe, 2005:26).

208

Verbal information has included names or labels, facts and bodies of

shared knowledge. Verbal knowledge has included specialized and

shared knowledge that employees needed in their jobs to improve their

performance. A good example is when a manager had to know the names

of different types of equipment as well as the body of specialized and

shared knowledge which could improve organizational performance. The

knowledge could be acquired through motor skills which need the

coordination of physical movements. For example, a telephone repairer

mechanic had to have the coordination and dexterity necessary to climb

labours and telephone poles (Noe, 2005:27).

Attitudes are a combination of beliefs and feelings that predispose a

person to behave in a certain way. Performance on the job entails

behaviours that lead to the achievement of goals and objectives.

Attitudes include the cognitive component (beliefs), the effective

component (feeling) and the international component (the way a person’s

attitude affects the behaviour with regard to the subject of the attitudes).

Important work-related attitudes include job satisfaction, commitment to

the organization, job involvement, and an aspiration to achieve the

organizational objective (Noe, 2005:27-30).

Suppose it is said that a worker has a positive attitude towards his or

her work. This implies that he or she is positively disposed to do her

work well so that the organizational goals and objectives would be

achieved. This means that the worker has had the aspiration to that

leads to the organizational performance. She might because the workers

grow to like the job. Also, because he or she has liked the job, the worker

would like to stay with the company to do the job to the best of the

worker’s ability.

209

Discussion of the Findings Related to the Second Objective: To find out

whether the contribution of shared knowledge to the productivity

aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms compares favourably

with international standard.

It was found that the contribution of shared knowledge to the

productivity aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms compared

well with international standard. This is because the manufacturing

firms studied are all multi-national firms and their operations have been

benchmarked. A good example is the case of Guinness Nigeria Plc. She

has had a policy where the brewing process for beer which include

marching of the raw materials, fermenting to get alcohol, maturating the

wort to get beer, storing in bright beer tanks and bottling in the halls

and using centralized warehousing to store the plastic crate of the

bottled beer. These processes have been the same in more than 20

breweries, located in different parts of the world. So this standardization

has been responsible for the same quality of lager beer, stout beer and

Guinness Malt (Guinness Nigeria Plc, 2010).

The contribution of shared knowledge in the brewing firms studied is got

through training. Once an applicant has been interviewed in the brewing

companies and he or she passed the test and have been employed, induction

is carried out. Induction has been a formal way of introducing a new

employee to the organization (Igbinomwanhia, 2010:23_35s). Induction has

to be done with caution. There is empirical evidence that the impression a

new employee gets on remained with the employee throughout the

employee’s stay in the organization. The induction is conducted for new

employees in groups and the knowledge about the brewing firms is shared

by the new employees (Guinness Nigeria Plc, 2010).

Most employees that decide to leave the organization have tended to take

the decision within the first three weeks in the organization. In the

brewing industry, there is poaching of staff and well trained staffs from

one brewery are offered better packages by other breweries. There have

210

been instances when a manager leaving one brewery for another goes

with his or her good staff because they have had shared knowledge,

beliefs and attitudes. Due to the fact that decisions about leaving the

organization are taken in the first three weeks, it was advisable to treat

new employee well in the first few weeks. This is why many organizations

have tended to have recruitment policies that have allowed for incentives

like giving accommodation feed and entertainment to the new staff in

good hotels (Igbinomwahia, 2010:30).

The first few weeks make new staff in the brewery companies successful

or unsuccessful in striving to achieve the organizational objectives.

Another aspect of performance has been the extent to which the

organization has fulfilled the promises made to the shareholders (Shell

Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Plc. (S.P.D.C.), 2010:47).

New and old employees have remained important internal shareholders

that made up the human resource that is an input from transforming

the process of sharing knowledge to get the output of the improvement of

the performance in the brewing industry in South West Nigeria and the

Edo State of Nigeria.

In the system’s cybernetic model, the inputs are eight in number

namely, men or human resource including women, materials, money,

time, energy, shared knowledge, information and infrastructure (O’brien,

2000:45). The transform has been the process of the independent

variable which in this study has been shared knowledge and the output

is the improvement in the dependent variable which in this study has

been the performance of the manufacturing firms which have been three

brewing companies, namely Guinness Nigeria Plc, Nigerian Breweries

Limited and Bendel Breweries Plc all located in South Western and

South Southern Nigeria. Feedback has been an element in the model

which has entailed obtaining information to know how the system has

been functioning. The control element of the model is responsible for

ensuring that their activities if appraising and appreciating the

211

performance of the manufacturing firms, doing variance analysis to

know the differences in the measures of the goals and objectives of the

manufacturing firms and segregating controllable and uncontrollable

variables. If the goals and objectives are being met, the system would

continue but if there are negative deviations from the goals, then

connective action has to be taken (Koontz, O’donnel and Weihrich,

2000:47).

Discussion of the Finding Related to the third objective: To

determine the effect of knowledge learning capacity of the workers

on a sustainable competitive performance of the manufacturing

firms.

It was found that knowledge learning capacity of the workers had a

positive effect on the sustained competitive performance of the

manufacturing firms. The brewing firms studied have staff with

specialized information, skills and competence, which had long lasting

competitive which they have achieved their goals and objectives. They

had always fulfilled their promises to various stakeholders. Also their

staff have had behaviours that had led to having positive performing

outcomes (Guinness Nigeria Plc, 2010, Nigeria Breweries Limited, 2010,

Bendel Breweries Plc, 2010).

This positive effect of knowledge learning capacity on sustained

competitive performance has been operational right from its inception in

1759 in Saint James’ Gate in Dublin, Ireland. The brewing capacity of

Guinness has been responsible for Guinness being the leader in stout

production from 1759 till date. The concentrated stout for blending that

has given Guinness stout its bitter taste been a secret of the company

and even when Guinness Managers visit Dublin, Ireland, they are not

allowed to go to the 8th floor where concentrated stout for blending is

produced (Guinness Nigeria Plc, 2010). Only staff from the Guinness

family are allowed access to the 8th floor of the building in Guinness

Overseas Limited, Dublin, Ireland.

212

Nigerian Breweries Limited was the first brewery to be established in

Nigeria in 1946. From 1946 till date it has had an impressive knowledge

learning capacity that has had a positive effective of the sustained

competitive performance knowledge in this brewing leader producing a

leading brand of larger beer brands normally star and gulder has

included both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge

has been the knowledge shared collectively in the firm in the form of

routines, culture and knowhow. Explicit knowledge is the one made

clear by publishing a lot of information codified in the organization

manuals, data bases and the information systems (Nonaka, 2010:342).

Knowledge learning in the brewing industry is done through in-house

training sessions, out-door training through seminars, workshops and

conferences and also through part-time programmes in the diversities,

through mentoring of protégés by their mentors who are senior

colleagues to the protégés. A typical knowledge learning is on how to

brew beer. The trainees are taught about the malt-store, where the

malted barley is kept. The mixture of malted flaked and wasted barley is

mixed with the hot water and the resulting wort is passed to the other

side of the brewing. At the third stage the wort is boiled in big copper

containers, hops or the bitter materials are added. At the fourth stage,

fermentation is done and when the liquid from the brew house reaches

this fourth stage point, yeast is added to start the fermentation process

which produces wort. At the fifth stage maturation is done in the bright

beer tanks and left the brewing for bottling (Guinness Nigeria Plc, 2011).

Knowledge learning capacity entailed the knowledge learning production

capability, the planning of which has the positive effect on performance

(Vollman, 2010:46). The knowledge learning capacity is measured in the

units of the inputs or outputs.

213

Discussion of the Findings Related to the Fourth Objective: To

ascertain the extent to which tacit knowledge helped to improve

the effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms

It was found that the tacit knowledge to a large extent helped to improve

the effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing firms. Tacit

knowledge returned to personal knowledge based on individual

experience and it has been difficult to explain to others. Explicit

knowledge referred to knowledge that was formalized, codified and

communicated. Both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge make up

knowledge (Noe, 2005:27).

Due to the fact that tacit knowledge was difficult to communicate, it has

been passed to others through direct experience (e.g. interacting with

other employees, watching other employees) (Tobin, 2008:53). The types

of tacit and explicit knowledge that are important for employees included

the knowledge about the company, knowledge about customers and

knowledge about the company’s business processes. Employees needed

to understand the company’s business, strategy, financial statements as

well as how the company is organized. This has given them some idea of

where to go with new ideas, how to seek help with problems and how to

create opportunities for cross-functional businesses.

Employees had to know who the company’s customers were, what they

needed, and why they chose to do business with the company. Finally,

employees had to have a general understanding of the major business

processes they are involved in; well designed traditional training courses

could assist employees learn tacit knowledge. However, to learn tacit

knowledge required interpersonal interaction and experiences that were

not usually found in training courses (Noe, 2005).

In traditional approaches to training it was seen as a series of

programmes that employees attended to. After participating in the

training programmes the employees were responsible for using what they

learnt in training on the job. Any support they would get is on the whims

214

of the manager. The traditional training provided no information that

would make the employee to understand the relationship between the

training content and individual performance or development objectives

or goals that were all inherent in training (Greenghard, 2002:65).

However, training events or performance needed to be tied to

performance improvement and business needs to receive the support of

top management. The cross-functional businesses engendered by tacit

knowledge needed goals to be achieved to make profit for the business to

grow and so performance was very necessary.

Glaser, Lesgold and Gott (2001:1 – 26) worked on the implications of

cognitive psychology for measuring job performance. They observed that

fundamentally the measurement of job performance should be driven by

modern cognitive theory that conceived of learning as the acquisition of

structures of integrated conceptual and procedural knowledge. They

realized that someone who has learnt the concepts and skills of a subject

matter has acquired a collation of schematic knowledge structure both

tacit and explicit. These knowledge structures enabled an understanding

of the relationships necessary for skilled and enduring competitive.

Discussion of the Findings Related to the Fifth Objective: To

identify the principal modes of explicit knowledge that contributed

to a sustained performance of the manufacturing firms

It was found that combination and externalization were the principal

modes of explicit knowledge that contributed to a sustained performance

of the manufacturing firms.

Combination has been the process of sharing explicit knowledge with

other organizational members to produce new insights (Nonanka, 2004),

it entailed the process of gathering knowledge. The knowledge might not

be part of the organizations knowledge. Explicit knowledge could be

generated by reconfigurating existing knowledge through sorting,

categorizing and adding. Manvick (2004:25) felt that technology could

215

contribute to explicit knowledge by enriching the capturing of explicit

knowledge to be made available to the rest of the organization in its

persistent form such as a report, electronic mail or presentation.

Externalization has been the process of translating the personal

expressions of that knowledge into an explicit form that could be

understood by other members of the organization. Nonanka (2004:24)

observed that externalization is accomplished by forming a mental model

and then articulating through dialogue. The nature of explicit

knowledge made externalization less difficult than the other three

conversion types: socialisation, internalisation and combination.

Externalization involved the mapping of explicit knowledge through

metaphors, analogues, concepts, hypotheses and models.

These modes of explicit knowledge became the inputs which could be

transformed through the process of shared knowledge to get the output

of sustained performance of the manufacturing firms. Explicit knowledge

by worth of its formalization, codification and communication can be

learned. Learning referred to the acquisition of knowledge by individual

employees or groups of employees who were willing to apply that

knowledge in their jobs in making decisions which is an important

aspect of planning so as to be able to strive toward achieving the

organizational objectives and by so doing performance in the short run

and performance in the long run are achieved thus making for sustained

performance (Noe, 2005:27).

Discussion of the Findings Related to the Sixth objective: To

investigate the extent to which knowledge based capacity is considered

the most strategic resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms

It was found that knowledge based capacity is considered to a large

extent a strategic resource but not the most strategic as there were other

216

resources such as men, materials, money, time, energy, information and

infrastructure. Knowledge has been the organized combination of ideas,

rules, procedures and specialized information which a worker had. These

attributes that are acquired through education, training, socialization

and experiment went a long way in establishing the capacity of the

workers to produce that which will totally establish the ability of the

entire manufacturing firm to produce (Vollman, 2010:19).

The knowledge based capacity of the manufacturing firm could be

measured in the units of the inputs or output.

However, knowledge based capacity at the input level becomes a very

valuable and strategic resource. It has been however not the only

resource because in economic parlance the resources which were the

factors of production were four in number namely land, labour, capital

and entrepreneurship (Unyimadu and Igwe, 2012:18). However in the

system’s cybernetic model which has been an extension of the Leontief’s

model applicable to all systems, there are two additional elements. In the

Leontief’s model, the elements are three in number namely inputs,

transform and output (O’brien, 2000:56). In the system’s cybernetic

model, the elements were five in number namely inputs, transform,

output, feedback and control. The inputs are eight in number namely,

men, materials, money, time, energy, information, infrastructure and

knowledge-based capacity (O’brien, 2000:234).

No wonder, it was found that knowledge based capacity is considered to

a large extent a strategic resource but not the most strategic resource

since most managers regard the human resource as the most strategic

resource without which most of the other resources remain dormant

(Nwachukwu, 2006:65). These eight inputs are transformed through the

process of acquired shared knowledge as the transform that generated

the output of improvement in the profitability aspect of the performance

outcome.

217

4.4.1 Discussion of Theoretical Findings

Getting value out of knowledge sharing requires more than technology.

Knowledge is inherently hard to control as it is ever expanding and

unpredictable. Only when executives view knowledge in this light will

they manage it for most effective use. The knowledge-based theory of the

firm is obviously the most adequate framework for these objectives to be

fulfilled. The fundamental problem in traditional management theory is

how to align the objectives of workers with those of managers and the

stakeholders. In accordance with the knowledge-based view, “… if

knowledge is the preeminent productive resource, and most knowledge is

created by and stored within individuals, then employees are the

primary stakeholders” (Grant 1997:452). Under this perspective,

management’s principal challenge is to coordinate their activities in

order to best integrate their knowledge into productive activity.

Grant(1997:452) points out a number of implications for management

practice, all stemming from the manufacturing firm’s decision to follow

the knowledge-based theory:

i. Assist firms to understand the challenges inherent in building new

capabilities, by uncovering the mechanism through which

knowledge is integrated. One has to recognize that a firm’s

capabilities reflect long-term evolutionary processes, and

management has limited power to create new capabilities.

ii. The knowledge-based view allows firms to unravel the process

through which capabilities are systematized and internally

replicated, building at the same time barriers to knowledge

replication by potential rivals and imitators.

iii. Permits firms to look beyond the conventional transaction cost

economics analysis to better understand the optimal boundaries of

the firm, by enabling them to transfer knowledge even in cases

where it is not embodied within products.

iv. The knowledge-based theory helps firm to overcome the

deficiencies of hierarchy, proposing an alternative team-based

structure where team membership only depends upon the specific

218

– at a point of time-Knowledge requirements. Even under such a

scheme, hierarchy is necessary in order to link different teams.

v. The knowledge-based view, also in relation to hierarchy, points to

the importance of co-locating decision making and knowledge,

rejecting ‘delegation’, the method used by traditional management.

Decisions based on tacit knowledge must be made where this type

of knowledge is located. Decision which require explicit knowledge

can certainly be centralized.

vi. As firms need to diversify their products in order to gain full

utilization of their internal knowledge resources, the knowledge-

based theory better serves the required inter-firm collaborations

that will allow for ‘strategic options’ on new technologies.

Under this perspective the knowledge-based view is expected to create

one of the most profound changes in management thinking since the

scientific management revolution of the early 19th century, finally

showing the way to a knowledge-based management through the

necessary close collaboration between academics and management

practitioners.

219

REFERENCES

Agbonifoh, B.A. and Yomere, G.O (2006) Research Methodology in the

Social Sciences and Education, Benin City: Centre Piece

Consultants Nigeria Limited.

Bendel Breweries Plc (2010) Annual Report and Statement of Accounts,

Benin City: Bendel Breweries Plc.

Brown, J.S. and Dugid, P (2000) “Balancing act: How to Capture

Knowledge without Killing It”, Harvard Business Review, May-

June.

Easterby-Smith,A and Prieto, D (2008) cited at www.fareastjournals.com

Goffee, R and Jones, G (2000) “Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?”

Harvard Business Review, September-October.

Grant, R. M (1997) “Knowledge-based view of the Firm: Implications for

Management Practice”, Long Range Planning, June, Volume 30

Number 3.

Greorgard, S (2012) “Keyboard Courses at Work or Home,”

www.qualcom.com, downloaded 6th June at 4pm, 1 – 10.

Guinness Nigeria Plc (2010) Annual Report and Statement of Accounts,

Lagos: Guinness Nigeria Plc.

Guinness Nigeria Plc (2011) How Beer Is Brewed, Lagos: Guinness

Nigeria Plc.

Johanson, J. and Vahlane, J.E (1990) “The Mechanism of

Internationalization,” International Marketing Review, Volume 7,

Number 4.

Koontz, H., C. O’donnel, and H. Weihrich (2002) Management, Auckland:

McGraw Hill.

Lee, J (2000) “Knowledge Management the Intellectual Revolution,” IIE

Solutions, October.

McEvily, S.K and Chakravarthy, B (2008) “The Persistence of Knowledge-

based Advantage: An Empirical Test for Product Performance

and Technological Knowledge,” Strategic Management Journal.

220

Nigerian Breweries Limited (2010) Annual Report and Statement of

Accounts, Lagos: Nigerian Breweries Limited.

Nonanka, L (2004) “The Knowledge Creating Company,” Harvard

Business Review, November – December.

Noe, R.A (2005) Employee Training and Development, Boston: McGraw-

Hill.

Nwachukwu, C.C (2000) Management Theory and Practice, Onitsha:

Africana FEP Publishers Limited.

O’brien, J.A (2000) Computers in Business Management: An Introduction,

Homewood Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Incorporated.

Podsakoff, R.M and Dalton, D.R (1987) “Research Methodology in

Organisational Behaviour,” Journal of Management, Volume 41,

Number 3.

Smith, E. A (2000) “Applying Knowledge-enabling Methods in the

Classroom and in the Workplace,” Journal of Workplace

Learning, Volume 12, Number 6.

Stone, E. (2004) Research Methodology in Organisational Studies, Santa

Monica: Good Year Publishing Company.

Tobin, D (2008) The Knowledge enabled Organization. New York.

Amacom.

Unyimadu, S.O and Igwe, A (2012) Applied Economics in Nigeria, Owerri:

Amidei Publishers.

Uzoro and Majewski (2009) www.fareastjournals.com/..../paper_no_2

Wagner, R.K. and Stemberg, R.J. (1987) “Tacit Knowledge in Managerial

Success,” Journal of Business and Psychology.

(WEB – 01) www.qutenberg.com/-millenium/define.htm

Yang, J.T (2007) Knowledge Sharing: Investigating Appropriate

Leadership Roles and Collaborative Culture,” Tourism

Management, Volume 28, Number 2.

Yang, J.T (2008) “Individual Attitudes and Organizational Knowledge

Sharing,” Tourism Management, Volume 29 Number 2.

221

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS,

CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE AND SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

5.1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

The major thrust of the study was to determine the effect of shared

knowledge on the performance of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The

specific objectives were:

1. To determine the extent of the effect of shared knowledge on the

activity of the manufacturing firms.

2. To find out whether the contribution of shared knowledge to the

performance of the manufacturing firms meet up with international

standards.

3. To determine the effect of knowledge learning capacity of the workers

on the sustainable competitive productivity of the manufacturing

firms.

4. To ascertain the extent to which tacit knowledge helped to improve the

efficiency of the manufacturing firms.

5. To identify the principal modes of explicit knowledge that contributed

to a sustained effectiveness of the manufacturing firms.

6. To investigate the extent to which knowledge based capacity is

considered the most strategic resource for improving the profitability

of the manufacturing firms.

It was found that:

i) Shared knowledge had a positive contribution on the

performance of the manufacturing firms.

ii) The contribution of shared knowledge to the performance of the

manufacturing firms meet up with international standard.

222

iii) Knowledge learning capacity of workers had a positive effect on

the sustained competitive performance of the manufacturing

firms.

iv) Tacit knowledge to a large extent helped to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the manufacturing

firms.

v) Combination and externalization were the principal modes of

explicit knowledge that contributed to a sustained

performance of the manufacturing firms.

vi) Knowledge based capacity is considered to a large extent a

strategic resource but not the most strategic as there were

other strategic resources like men, materials, money, time,

energy, information and infrastructure.

5.2 CONCLUSION

As shared knowledge increased, the performance of the manufacturing firms

increased. This showed that the facts, skills and specialized information

available to a group of workers in team increased the ability of the

manufacturing firms studied to achieve their organizational objective. So the

competence due to information that was part of what the group had in the

manufacturing firms studied improved the extent to which the

manufacturing firms made them to achieve the good results and attain their

goals and objectives.

The process of giving to a common fund or effort of the specialized

information held by the group in the manufacturing firms studied measure

up with international standard. So, the competence due to the specialized

information which the group of workers in the manufacturing firms had met

the benchmarks of the manufacturing firms across the brewing companies

in Nigeria and even across the brewing companies globally. So the

percentage of the specialized knowledge available to the group of the brewing

worker studied was comparable to those of their counterpart in Nigeria and

other transnational brewing companies across the globe.

223

The productive capability of the knowledge obtained by studying both within

and outside the manufacturing firms studied increased as the sustainable

development surpassed that of other firms in the brewing business. So the

productive capability of the knowledge attained by in-house training and in

the job and outside the manufacturing firms studied to hold out for long to

get good results and attain the goals and objectives that could surpass those

of other firms in the same line of the brewing business. So knowledge

learning capability facilities available to the manufacturing workers studied

went a long way in making them able to equal and surpass other workers in

other brewing companies in achieving the organizational objectives.

The competitive advantage due to the information available to the workers in

the brewing companies studied that made them to understand events

without talking helped to improve their performance, make them produce

good results and achieve the organizational goals and objectives. So the

knowledge the brewing workers externalize would make them perform

better. So non-verbalised knowledge was a sine qua non in making the

manufacturing firms study to fulfill the processes they made to their

numerous stakeholders; and achieve the organizational goals and objectives.

Having shared knowledge with other organizational members produced

new insights. Combination had to do with the process of gathering

explicit knowledge. This type of knowledge could be formalized, codified

and communicated, could be attained and could be explained plainly

and outwardly by the workers for other workers to understand and it

went a long way to ensure long lasting achievement of organizational

objectives. So without combination and externalization it would not be

possible to have principal ways of achieving the long lasting

organizational objective. So combination and externalization were main

modes of attaining the organizational objectives in the brewing

companies studied.

224

Knowledge based capacity is seen to a large extent as one of the strategic

inputs but not the most strategic input. So it is one among equals even

though knowledge based capability of the facilities available in the

brewing companies studied were company mode and a very important

output. There were other very important resources apart from the

knowledge based knowledge. Other resource like human resource,

material resource, financial resource, time resource, energy resource

could be ranked higher than the knowledge based capability even

though it was important on its own.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. The strategic managers of the manufacturing firms studied should

as a matter of policy:

Continue to use shared knowledge as a tool for improving productivity

aspect of performance in their companies.

Continue to adopt the benchmarking process of the contribution of

shared knowledge on the efficiency aspect of performance to meet the

international standard.

Continue to use knowledge learning capability of the manufacturing

facilities of the workers to attain long lasting competitive performing

outcomes.

Continue to use tacit knowledge backed by personal knowledge based on

individual experience without which it will be very difficult to explain to

others to a great extent how to improve effectiveness aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms.

225

Continue to use combination as the process of sharing explicit

knowledge or the knowledge that can be formalized, codified and

communicated and externalization as the process of translating the

personal expressions of tacit knowledge into exact form of principal

modes of explicit knowledge to enhance sustained performance continue

to use knowledge based capacity as a strategic resource but not as the

most strategic resource.

2. It is also recommended that staff of the manufacturing firms

should continue to use shared knowledge in their daily activities to

improve their performance.

3. Shareholders of the manufacturing companies studied should

continue to use shared knowledge so as to enhance their decision

making process.

4. It is also recommended that economic policy makers should

continue to use shared knowledge in their strategic policy making

process to turn around the economy.

5. Researchers and Student Of Computer Science, Computer

Engineering, Production Management, Brewing Science, Brewing

Technology, Management and Business Administration should also

continue to use shared knowledge in all their various activities as an

epitomic of further research.

5.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE

Kremp and Mairesse (2003:32) have found that knowledge measurement

have positive effects on Labour Productivity. It is acknowledged that

management processes have significant effects on knowledge management

success and that IT impact on knowledge management success is not

direct but mediated through knowledge management process.

226

Leadership, culture and strategy influence knowledge management

infrastructure.

Keramti and Axadeh (2007:292 – 297) believe that factors responsible for

commitment knowledge management success are knowledge sharing,

knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. It is argued that the ability

of the firm to create knowledge helps to explain the firm’s ability to

innovate and grow. Strategic alliance leads to better firm performance.

Market research and use of networks for knowledge exchange are linked

to higher sales turnover growth. Cooperation with other firms for renewal

is found to be positively related among medium scale firms. However,

output strategies such as sharing, codification of knowledge, firm-

provided training and quality certificates have no positive effects just in

the same manner output strategies: patents, new products or services

and improvement of internal processes do not have positive effects on

performance. KM input strategies are found to be clearly better

predictors of sales turnover. Research evidence suggests that innovation

is positively related to rapid sales growth within small firms (Storey,

2000:27-51) and that there is a significant positive relationship between

marketing research and development and sales growth. A positive

relationship also exists between new product introduction and re-

designed products and total sales growth. Non innovators are more

prevalent in declining, stable and low (to average) growth firms while

innovators exceed non-innovators in the supper-growth category

(Uhlaner, 2007:42). To be able to define and measure progress toward

the achievement of the goals of organization, every organization must be

abreast with its key performance indicators and crucial success factors.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or key success indicators (KSIs) are

quantifiable performance measurements used to define success factors

and measure progress toward the achievement of business goals.

Organizations that have well defined goals, well analysed mission and

have identified their stakeholders need to measure progress toward the

achievement of those goals by using key performance indicators. KPLs

227

are quantifiable measures that reflect the critical success factors of an

organization (Reh, 2010:57).

It is posited that intangible assets such as spending on R & D, Internet

and Web applications, human resources, and customer acquisition

significantly influence the performance of companies. There is agreement

both from the academic community as well as from the practitioners’

community, that Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) do have a

positive impact on the performance of the organization.

Wu and Wang (2006:728-739) find in their study that system quality and

knowledge or information quality have a significantly positive influence

on user satisfaction. Also user satisfaction and perceived KMS benefits

have a direct effect on KMS use. In the KMS context, they find that user

attitude is affected by beliefs about system quality and knowledge or

information quality, which then affect KMS use. Users’ beliefs about the

KMS quality shape their attitude and this affects their KMS use. They

further find that system quality, knowledge or information quality, and

perceived benefits have a significantly positive influence on user

satisfaction because they want their KMS to be of high system quality,

high knowledge or information quality, and provide substantial benefits.

However they do not find the system quality of the KMS to have a

significantly direct influence on user perceived benefits. Firms that adopt

KMS significantly reduce administrative costs and improve productivity

in the second year after adopting KMS and gaining a competitive

advantage over non-adopters (Kuoching, 2004:32).

Some theories of economic growth are Solow-Swan theory which shows

growth as increased capital stock and endogenous theory which holds

that subsidies on research and development or education increase the

growth rate by increasing the incentive to innovation and Solow-Swan

models believes that new capital is more valuable than old capital

because since capital is produced based on known technology, and

228

technology improves with time, new capital will be more productive than

old capital. The implication of this model to knowledge management is

that application of knowledge will lead to creating new capital which will

be more productive than old capital and thus lead to growth. Growth

may be organic or inorganic. Organic growth means that the

organization itself has grown from its own business activity while organic

growth means that the company has grown by merger or acquisition.

Organic growth is internal growth and inorganic growth is external.

Companies want to grow in order to gain economies of scale and, spread

risk (diversification can help to spread risk and increase profits and

therefore returns for shareholders).

The most basic proposition of growth theory is that continual advances

in technological knowledge in the form of new goods, new markets, or

new processes is necessary in order to sustain a positive growth rate of

output per capita in the long run. The proposition can be demonstrated

using the neoclassical growth model developed by Solow (1956) and

Swan (1956:87), which shows that if there is no technological progress,

then the effects of diminishing returns would eventually cause economic

growth to cease. Growth measures the ability of the organization to

maintain competitive economic position in the growth of the economy

and industry (market share, customer acquisition/retention, account

penetration).

Even though there has been a lot of research works on the effect of shared

knowledge on the performance of manufacturing firms in many countries

especially the developed ones, the contribution made by this research work

is that to the best of the knowledge of the Researcher, this is the first time an

empirical work is done that has shown that shared knowledge has a positive

effect on the performance of three brewing firms located in South Western

and South Southern Nigeria. Also the study has shown that such

dimensions of shared knowledge such as this contribution, learning capacity

of workers, tacit knowledge, principal mode of shared knowledge and

229

knowledge base capacity have respectively have a positive effect on the

dimensions of productivity aspect of performance, comparison of efficiency

aspect of performance with international standard, sustaining competitive

performance, improvement of the effectiveness aspect of performance,

sustainable performance and improvement of profitability of the

manufacturing firms studied. Another contribution to knowledge has been

in the area of the modification of the system’s cybernetic model with 8 inputs

and transform of the process of shared knowledge and the output of the

improvement in the performance of the manufacturing firm studied in the

South Western and South Southern Nigeria with control and feedback.

5.5 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has shown that shared knowledge in tacit and explicit source

had a positive effect on the performance of the manufacturing firms in

South Western and South Southern Nigeria and it will be worthwhile if the

study is replicated in other States of Nigeria not stated and Federal Capital

Territory to make for a complete generalization of the findings to the entire

Nigerian economy. It will also be worthwhile if an investigation is done to

find out if the contribution of shared knowledge would improve

performance of brewing firms in Nigeria and it will also be worthwhile to

determine if learning capacity of workers will lead to sustainable

competitive performance of brewing firms in Nigeria as a whole.

230

REFERENCES

Andrews, R, G.A. Boyne and R.M. Walker (2003) “Strategy Content and

Organisational Performance: An Empirical Analysis,” National

Public Management Research Conference, Washington DC,

October.

Bauer, K (2004) “Key Performance in Public Management: the Adoption

of Strategic Planning,” Public Administrative Review, Volume 54.

Blacker, F., M. Reedand and A. Whitaker (2003) “Knowledge Workers

and Contemporary Organisations,” Journal of Management

Studies, Volume 30, Number 6, November.

Davenport, T.H and Volpel, S.G (2001) “The Rise of Knowledge Towards

Attention Management,” Journal of Knowledge Management,

Volume 5f, Number 3.

Du, R., S. Ai and Y. Ren (2007) “Relationship between Knowledge

Sharing and Performance: A Survey,” Expert Systems with

Applications, Volume 32.

Keramati, A and Axadeh, M.A (2007) “Exploring the Effects of Top

Management’s Commitment on Knowledge Management Success

in Academia: A Case Study,” Proceedings of World Academy of

Science Engineering and Technology, Vol. 21, May.

Kim, J (2006) “Measuring the Impacts of Knowledge Management,”World

Library and Information Congress: 72nd IFLA General Conference

and Council 20 – 24 August, Seoul, Korea

http://ww.ifla.org72/index.htm.

Kremp, E and Mairesse, J (2003) “Knowledge Management, Innovation

and Productivity: A Firm Level Exploration Based on the French

CIS 3 Data”.

Kuoching, F (2006) “Implementation of Knowledge Management Systems

and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation,” The Journal

of Computer Information Systems, January.

Kuoching, F. (2006) “Implementation of Knowledge Management Systems

and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation” The Journal of

Computer Information Systems. January.

231

Liao, S.C., D.H. Wu and A. T. Guang (2009) “Knowledge Acquisition,

Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Capability: An Empirical

Study of Taiwan’s Knowledge-Intensive Industries,” World

Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.

Miller, P.J (2002) “1 = 0 Information has No Intrinsic Meaning”,

Information Research, Volume 8, Number 1.

O’dell, L., K. Wiig and P. Odem (1999) “Benchmarking Unveils Emerging

Knowledge Management Strategies,” Benchmarking, Volume 6,

Number 3.

Ohmae, K (1982) “The Min of the Strategist,” In: Kazmi, A. (2009)

Strategic Management and Business Policy, New Delhi: The

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Reh, J.F (2010) “Key Performance Indicators,” About.Com Guide retrieved

01/08/10.Retrieved June 1, 2007, from Emerald Insight.

Seraph, J.V, P.G. Benson and R.G. Schreder (1989) “An Instrument for

Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management,”

Decision Sciences, Volume 20, Number 4.

Serving, G and De Brun, C (2005) “ABC of Knowledge Management,”

NHS National Library for Health.

Storey, J (2000) “Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from

Failure,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Uhlaner, L (2007) “The Relationship between Knowledge Management,

Innovation and Firm Performance: Evidence from Dutch SMEs”

Zoetermeer, January.

Williams, R (2009) “Critical Success Factors when Building a Knowledge

Management System,” Analysis, News, December.

Wu, J. and Wang, Y (2006) “Measuring KMS Success: A Re-Specification

of the DeLone and McLean’s Model,” Information and Management.

Vol. 43.

232

APPENDIX I

Department of Management, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, 10th October, 2012. Dear Sir/Madam, REQUEST TO FILL IN THE QUESTIONNAIRES AS PART OF THE Ph.D THESIS IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES AT UNEC

I am a postgraduate student of the Department of Management, University of Nigeria and am currently carrying out a research on “The Effect of Shared Knowledge on the Performance of Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria: A Study of Three Selected Manufacturing Firms in South-Western and South Southern Nigeria.” This study is part of the requirement for the award of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) Degree in Management. You are among those randomly selected as my respondents. Kindly supply honestly, the information and your view as required in the attached questionnaires. Your name and identity are not required and any information supplied will be treated confidentially. Yours sincerely, BABARINDE, SOLOMON A.

233

APPENDIX II

QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 1: PERSONAL DATA

1. Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Marital Status: Married [ ] Single [ ] Divorced [ ] Widowed [

] Separated [ ]

3. Age: Less than 20 years [ ] 21 – 30 years [ ] 31 – 40 years [ ]

41 – 50 years [ ] 51 – 60 years [ ] above 60 years [ ]

4. Highest Educational Qualification: Se

Junior School Certificate [ ] Trade Certificate [ ] R.S.A [ ]

Trade Certificate [ ] Diploma [ ] O.N.D. [ ] H.N.D. [ ] First

Degree [ ] Second Degree [ ] Ph.D. [ ] Professional

Qualification: state which ……………………………………………….

5. Duration worked: 1 – 5 years [ ] 6 – 10 years [ ] 11 – 15 years [

] 16 – 20 years [ ] 21 – 25 years [ ] 26 – 30 years [ Above 30

years [ ].

SECTION 2: DATA ON SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY AS THEY AFFECT MANUFACTURING

PERFORMANCE

10. What are the other problems of manufacturing performance in

your company?

Other problems

(i) Insufficient Incentives [ ]

(ii) Inadequate financial resources [ ]

(iii) Weak institutional support [ ]

(iv) Tedious regulatory framework [ ]

For Questions 11 – 19, please use the responses of Strongly Agree

(SA), Agree (A), Undecided (U) Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD) to

provide answers to the following statements.

20. What are the modes of sharing knowledge in your company?

234

Modes of Sharing Knowledge

(1) Socialization [ ]

(2) Externalization [ ]

(3) Combination [ ]

(4) Internalization [ ]

21. Using the responses of To A Very Large Extent (5) Large Extent

(4) Undecided (3) Little Extent (2) and Very little Extent (1) state

how shared knowledge or information technology and

manufacturing performance has increased in the past five

years.

S/N QUESTIONAIRE

A SA D SD U

Objective 1: To determine the extent of

effect of shared knowledge on the activity

of manufacturing firms.

1. There is no positive effect of shared

knowledge to the activity of your

manufacturing firm.

2. There is positive contribution of shared

knowledge to the performance of your

manufacturing firm.

3. There is no positive contribution of

information technology on the activity of

your manufacturing firm.

4. There is positive contribution of

information technology to the activity of

your manufacturing firm.

5. There is relationship between shared

knowledge information technology with the

activity of your manufacturing firm.

Objective 2: To find out whether the

contribution of shared knowledge and

information technology of the manufacturing

firms meet up with international standard?

6. The contribution of shared knowledge does

not meet up with international standard.

7. The contribution of shared knowledge

meet up with international standard.

235

8. The contribution of information technology

to the efficiency aspect of performance

does not compare favourably with

international standard.

9. The contribution of information technology

to the efficiency aspect of performance

compares favourably with international

standard.

10. The contribution of shared knowledge and

information technology to the efficiency

aspect of performance compares

favourably with international standard.

Objective 3: To determine the extent of

the effect of knowledge learning capacity of

workers on a sustainable competitive

performance of manufacturing firms.

11. Knowledge learning capacity of workers

has greater influence on the sustainable

performance of your manufacturing firm.

12. Knowledge learning capacity of workers

has strong relationship with the

sustainable performance of your

manufacturing firm.

13. Knowledge learning capacity of workers

does not have relationship with

sustainable performance of your

manufacturing firm.

Objective 4: To ascertain the extent to which

tacit knowledge helps to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the

manufacturing firm.

14. Shared knowledge and information

technology do not to a large extent help to

improve the effectiveness aspect of

performance of the manufacturing firms.

15. Shared knowledge and information technology

to a large extent help to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of the

selected manufacturing firms.

Organizational knowledge sharing

16. My company uses senior personnel to mentor

junior employees.

236

17. My company groups employees in work

teams.

18. My company analyses its past failures and

disseminates lessons learned among its

employees.

19. My company invests in IT System that facilitates

knowledge sharing.

20. My company develops knowledge sharing

modes.

21. My company offers incentives to encourage

knowledge sharing.

22. My company offers a variety of training and

development programs.

Objective 5: To identify the principal

modes of shared knowledge that

contribute to a sustainable performance of

the firms.

23. Socialisation and externalization are the

principal modes of shared knowledge that

contribute to a sustainable performance of

the manufacturing firms.

24. Socialization and externalization are not the

principal modes of shared knowledge that

contribute to a sustainable performance of the

manufacturing firms.

25. Electronic document management (EDM) and

intranets constitute the principal modes of

information technology to a sustainable

performance of manufacturing firms.

26. Electronic document management (EDM) and

intranets does not constitute the principal

modes of information technology to a

sustainable performance of manufacturing

firms.

27. Sustainable performance of your

manufacturing firm is dependent on the

principal modes of shared knowledge and

information technology used.

Objective 6: To investigate the extent to

which knowledge based capabilities are

considered the most strategically important

resources for improving the profitability of

manufacturing firms.

237

28. Knowledge based capabilities are not to a large

extent considered the most strategically

important resource for improving the

profitability of the manufacturing firms.

29. Information technology are not to a large extent

considered the most strategically important

resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing terms.

30. Knowledge based capabilities are to a large

extent considered the most strategically

important resource for improving the

profitability of the manufacturing firms.

31. Information technology are to a large extent

considered the most strategically important

resource for improving the profitability of

the manufacturing firms.

32. Knowledge based capabilities and information

technology are not to a large extent

considered the most strategically important

resource for improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms.

33. Knowledge based capabilities and information

technology are to a large extent considered

the most strategically important resources for

improving the profitability of the

manufacturing firms.

238

APPENDIX III

Interview Schedule

1. What is the effect of shared knowledge on the productivity aspect

of performance of your manufacturing firm?

2. How does the contribution of shared knowledge to the efficiency

aspect of performance of your manufacturing firms compare with

international standard?

3. How does the effect of knowledge learning capacity of workers on a

sustainable shared knowledge helps determine the competitive

performance of your manufacturing firm?

4. What is the extent to which tacit knowledge helps to improve the

effectiveness aspect of performance of your manufacturing firm?

5. What are the principal modes of explicit knowledge that

contributes to a sustainable performance of your brewery firm?

6. To what extent is knowledge based capacity considered the most

strategic resource for improving the profitability of your

manufacturing firms?

239

APPENDIX IV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adebayo, Y.K (2006) Essentials of Human Resource Management, Benin

City: Otoghagua (Nigeria Enterprises).

Agbadudu, A.B (1994) Statistics for Business and the Social Sciences.

Benin City: Uri Publishing Limited.

Agbonifoh, B.A (2008) “The Nature of Strategy Management,” In:

Strategic Management, B.A. Agbonifoh (Ed), Benin City: Mindex

Publishers Company Limited.

Alavi, M and Leidner, D (1999) “Knowledge Management System: Issues,

Challenges and Benefits,” Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, Vol. 1(5).

Allee, V (2000) “Return on Knowledge,” Executive Excellence, Vol. 17, No.

9.

Anao, A.R and Osaze, B.E (1989) Managerial Finance, Benin City: Uniben

Press.

Anderson, J. R (1983) The Architecture of Cognition, Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Anderson, M (2002) “Measuring Intangible Value,” The ROI of Knowledge

Management; (on line, cited on July, 2004).

Andrews, R, G.A. Boyne and R.M. Walker (2003) “Strategy Content and

Organisational Performance: An Empirical Analysis,” National

Public Management Research Conference, Washington DC,

October.

Anyiwe, E.M.A (1994) ECOSTAT!!! Statistical Handbook for Economists,

Social Scientists, Yaba, Lagos: Ama Resources Nigeria Limited.

Arend, R. J (2003) “Revisiting the Logical and Research Considerations

of Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal, 24.

Armistead, C (1999) “Knowledge Management and Process Performance,”

Journal of Knowledge Management.

Bandura, (1986) Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed.,

240

Banjoko, S.A (1989) Production and Operations Management, Lagos:

Saban publishers.

Banjoko, S.A (2000) Production and Operations Management, Lagos:

Saban Publishers.

Barney, J (1991) “Firm Resources and Sustainable Competitive

Advantage,” Journal of Management, Vol.17, No.1.

Baroni de Carvalho, R and Araujo Tavares Ferreira, M (2001) “Using

Information Technology to Support Knowledge Conversion

Processes,” Information Research, Vol. 7(1). Retrieved April 9,

2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper118.html

Bartol, K. M and Srivastava, A (2002) “Encouraging Knowledge Sharing:

The Role of Organizational Reward System,” Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies.

Bassi, L and McMurrer, D (2006) “Human Capital and Organisational

Performance: Next Generation Metrics as a Catalyst for

Change,”http://www.mcbassi.com/BassiMcmurrer-rgdynamics-

whitepaper/pdf.

Bauer, K (2004) “Key Performance in Public Management: the Adoption

of Strategic Planning,” Public Administrative Review, Vol. 54.

Beijersee (1999) Questions in Knowledge Management: Defining and

Conceptualization a Phenomenon,” Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 3(2).

Bendel Breweries Plc (2006) Annual Report and Statements of Accounts,

Benin City: Bendel Breweries Plc.

Bhatt, G., & Gupta, J. (2005) “An exploratory Study of Groupware Use in

the Knowledge Management Process,” The Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, Vol.18, No.1. Retrieved June 3, 2007,

from Emerald Insight.

Blacker, F, M. Reed and A. Whitaker (2003) “Knowledge Workers and

Contemporary Organisations,” Journal of Management Studies,

Vol. 30, No. 6, November.

Blackler, F (2002) “Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organisations: An

Overview and Interpretation,” In: Choo and Bontis (eds.) The

241

Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organisational

Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bock, G. E and Kim, Y. G (2002) “Breaking the Myths of Rewards,”

Informational Resources Management Journal.

Bohn, R.E (1994) “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge,”

Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994.

Boisot, M (2002) “The Creation and Sharing of Knowledge,” In: Choo and

Bontis (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and

Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bontis, N (2002a) “National Intellectual Capital Index Nations Office for

Project Services,” www.bontis.com.

Boye, J (2006) “Improving Collaboration with a Portal: Categorizing Your

Portal Needs and Evaluating for the First 100 Days,” Knowledge

Management Review, Vol. 9 No.3, 30-33. Retrieved June 1, 2007

from

http://janusboye.dk/_downloads/articles/06_improving_collaborat

ion.pdf

Brown, S. J and Duguid, P (2001) “Knowledge and Organization: A

Social-Practice Perspective,” Organisation Science, Vol. 12, No. 2.

Burden, R and Proctor, T (2000) “Creating a Sustainable Competitive

Advantage through Training,” Team Performance Management, Vol.

6, No. 5/6.

Burns, S (1995) “Rapid Changes Require Enhancement of Adult

Learning,” HR Monthly, June.

Cavalcanti, M (2003) “Conhecimento e Desigualdade,” In: Silva and

Neves (Orgs.) Gestao de Empresas na Era do Conhecimento, Lisboa:

Edicoes Silabo.

Chang, S and Lee, M (2007) “The Effects of Organisation Culture and

Knowledge Management Mechanisms on Organisational

Innovation: An Empirical Study in Taiwan,” The Business Review,

Cambridge, Vol. 7, No. 1, Summer.

242

Child, J and McGrath, R (2001) Organisations Unfettered:

Organisational Forms in an Information-intensive Economy,”

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6.

Chong, C.W, T. Holden, P. Wilhelmij and R.A Schmidt (2000) “Where Does

Knowledge Management Add Value,” Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Claser, R, A. Lesgold and S. Gotts (2002) “Implications of Cognitive

Psychology for Measuring Job Performance,” In: Performance

Assessment of the Workplace, A.K. Wigdor and F. Green (Eds).

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Cohen, D and Prusak, L (2001) “How to Invest in Social Capital,”

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 5.

Cohen, M and D. Levinthal (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New

Perspective on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 35.

Cook, S and Yanow, D (1995) “Culture and Organisational Learning,” In:

Cohen and Sproull (eds.) Organisational Learning, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Cousins, P. D (2005) “The Alignment of Appropriate Firm and Supply

Strategies for Competitive Advantage,” International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 5.

Cummings, J (2003) Knowledge Sharing: A review of literature, The

World Bank, Washington D.C.

Daud, R and Kamsin, A (2004) “The Impact of Information Systems on

Organizations in Malaysia: Knowledge Worker Aspect,” ACM

International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 58. Retrieved May

28, 2007, from ACM Portal.

Davenport, T. H and Volpel, S.C (2001) “The Rise of Knowledge Towards

Attention Management,” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.

5f, No. 3.

Davenport, T. H and Short, J. E (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering:

Information Technology and Business Process Redesign,” Sloan

Management Review, summer.

243

Davenport, T.H and Prusak, L (1998) Working Knowledge: How

Organizations Manage What They Know, Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Davenport, T.H and Short, J.E (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering:

Information Technology and Business Process Redesign,” Sloan

Management Review.

Davenport, T.H, D.W De Long and M.C Beers (1998) “Successful

Knowledge Management Projects. Eight Key Factors Can Help a

Company Create, Share and Use Knowledge Effectively,” Sloan

Management Review. Vol. 39 No. 2.

De Pablos, P. O (2006) “Transnational Corporations and Strategic

Challenges: An Analysis of Knowledge Flows and Competitive

Advantage,” The Learning Organisation, Vol. 13, No. 6.

DeNisi, A, M. Hitt and S. Jackson (2003) “The Knowledge-Based

Appraoch to Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” In: Jackson, Hitt

and DeNisi (eds.) Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive

Advantage, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeSanctis, G and Gallupe, R (1987) “A Foundation for the Study of

Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science, Vol. 33

No. 5. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from Emerald Insight.

Dess, G, A. Gupta, J. Hennart and C. Hill (1995) “Conducting and

Integrating Strategy Research at the International, Corporate, and

Business Levels: Issues and Directions,” Journal of Management,

Vol. 21 No. 3.

DiMattia, S and Order, N. (1997) “Knowledge Management: Hope, Hype

or Harbinger?” Library Journal, Vol.122, No. 15.

Dimovski, V, M. Skerlavaj, M. Kimman and T. Hernaus (2008)

“Comparative Analysis of the Organizational Learning Process,” In:

Slovena. Croatia, and Malaysia, Expert Systems with Applications,

Vol. 34, No. 4.

Donnellon, A, B. Gray and M. G Bougon (1986) “Communication,

Meaning and Organized Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly,

Vol. 31.

244

Downs, A (1967) Inside Bureaucracy, Boston: Little Brown.

Drucker, P.F (1985) “The Discipline of Innovation,” Harvard Business

Review.

Drucker, P.F (1990) “The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing,” Harvard

Business Review.

Drucker, P.F (1991) The New Productivity Challenge,” Harvard Business

Review.

Du, R, S. Ai and Y. Ren (2007) “Relationship between Knowledge Sharing

and Performance: A Survey, China. Expert Systems with

Applications. Vol. 32.

Dyer, G (2001) U.S and Worldwide Knowledge Management Market

Forecast and Analysis, 2000 – 2005, IDC, Framingham, MA.

Earl, M.J. and Scott, I.A (1999) “What is a Chief Knowledge Officer?”

Sloan Management Review, Winter, Vol. 40, No.2, Issue 2.

Easterby-Smith, M and Lyles, M (Eds.) (2003) The blackboard Hand lock

of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

Ejiofor, P.N.O (2008) Management Theory, Onitsha: Africana FEB

Publishers Limited.

Engelmore, R and Feigenbaum, E (1993) Knowledge-Based Systems in

Japan. Maryland: Loyola College. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/kb/toc.htm

Fahy, J (2000) “The Resource-based View of the Firm: Some Stumbling-

blocks on the Road to Understanding Sustainable Competitive

Advantage,” Journal of European Industrial Training, 24/2/3/4/.

Fahy, J, F. Farrelly and Quester, P (2004) “Competitive Advantage

through Sponsorship: A Conceptual Model and Research

Propositions,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 8.

Faridah, Y and Mustafa, S (2001) “Application of Knowledge

Management in the Construction Industry,” Proceeding of Seminar

on Future Trends in Construction and Manufacturing: Towards A

Borderless World, 9-10 October 2001. Kuala Lumpur:

International Islamic University Malaysia. Paper 10.

245

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1980) Nigerian Industrial Policy and Strategy

Guidelines to Investors, Lagos: Federal Government Press.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1988) Industrial Policy of Nigeria: Policies,

Incentives, Guidelines and Institutional Framework, Abuja: Federal

Ministry of Industries.

Fiol, M and Lyles M (1985) “Organizational Learning,” Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 2.

Firestone, J.M (2001) “Estimating Benefits of Knowledge Management

Initiatives: Concepts, Methodology and Tools,” Journal of the KMCI.

Flint, G. D and Van Fleet, D. D (2005) “A Comparison and Contrast of

Strategic Management and Classical Economic Concepts:

Definitions, Comparisons, and Pursuit of Advantages,” Journal of

Business Inquiry. Utah Valley State College, USA.

Folorunso, O and Ogunde, A (2004) “Data Mining as a Technique for

Knowledge Management in Business Process Redesign,” Electronic

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2(1). Retrieved May 30,

2007, from http://www.ejkm.com/volume-2/v2i1/v2-i1-art4-

folorunso.pdf.

Foss, N. J and Knudsen, T (2003) The Resource-based Tangle: Towards a

Sustainable Explanation of Competitive Advantage,” Managerial

and Decision Economics, Vol. 24.

Geus, A (1988) “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review,

March-April.

Glazer, R (1998) “Meaning the Knower: Towards a Theory of Knowledge

Equity,” California Management Review.

Goh, A. (2004) “Enhancing Organizational Performance through

Knowledge Innovation: A proposed Strategic Management

Framework,” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, October.

Gottfredson, L.S (2002) “Implications of Cognitive Psychology for

Measuring Job Performance,” In: Performance Assessment of the

Workplace, A.K. Wigdor and F. Green (Eds), Washington, D.C.,

National Academy Press.

246

Gottschalg, O and Zollo, M (2007) Interest Alignment and Competitive

Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2.

Grant, R (1991) “The Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage:

Implications for Strategy Formulation,” California Management

Review. Vol. 33, No. 3.

Grant, R. M (1996b) “Towards a Knowledge-based theory of the Firm,”

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Special Issue entitled

Knowledge and the Firm, winter.

Grant, R.M (1996b) “Towards a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm,”

Strategic Management Journal.

Grant, R.M (1997) “Knowledge-based View of the Firm,” Implications for

Management Journal.

Grant, R.M (2000) Shifts in the World Economy: The Drivers of Knowledge

Management.

Grant, R.M and Baden-Fuller C (1995) “A Knowledge-based Theory of

Inter-firm Collaboration,” Academy of Management Best Papers

Proceedings.

Green, B. F and Wigdor, A.K (2002) “Implications of Cognitive Psychology

for Measuring Job Performance,” In: Performance Assessment of

the Workplace, A.K. Wigdor and F. Green, (Eds), Washington, D.C.,

National Academy Press.

Guinness Nigeria Plc (2006) Annual Report and Statement of Accounts,

Lagos: Guinness Nigeria Plc.

Gupta, A and McDaniel, J (2002) “Creating Competitive Advantage by

Effectively Managing Knowledge: A Framework for Knowledge

Management,” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice,

October.

Haldin-Herrgard, T (2000) “Difficulties in Diffusion of Tacit Knowledge in

Organisation,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.1, No. 4.

Halfhill, T (2007) “XML: The Next Big Thing,” IBM Think Research.

Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://domino.research.ibm.com/

comm/wwwr_thinkresearch.nsf/pages/xml199.html

247

Henderson, J.C and Venkatraman, N (1993) “Strategic Alignment:

Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming

Organizations,” IBM Systems Journal.

Hislop, D (2002) “Mission Impossible. Communicating and Sharing

Knowledge via Information Technology,” Journal of Information

Technology, Vol.17.

Hitt, M, L. Bierman, K.Shimizu and R. Kockhar (2001) “Direct and

Moderate Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance

in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-based Perspective,”

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 1.

Hoffman, J.J, L.M. Hoelscher and K. Sheriff (2005) “Social Capital,

Knowledge Management, and Sustain Superior Performance,”

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 3.

Hornby, A.S (2003) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

http://www.edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/constructivism.

http://www.en.astd.org/news letter/anerson.html.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Breweries.

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_data

http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-population.html

http://www.knowledge.org.uk = It is dedicated to Knowledge

Management. It contains articles and information on the “gurus”,

associations, links etc.

http://www.nbplc.com/our_company.html.

Hult, G. T. M and Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001) “Does Market Orientation

Matter? A Test of the Relationship between Positional Advantage

and Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.22.

Hus, I (2008) “Knowledge Sharing Practices as a Facilitating Factor for

Improving Organizational Performance through Human Capital: A

Preliminary Test,” Expert Systems with application, Vol. 35, No. 3.

Huysman, M and Wulf, V (2006) “IT to Support Knowledge Sharing in

Communities, Towards a Social Capital Analysis,” Journal of

Information Technology.

248

Inegbenebor, A.U (2004) “Knowledge Management for the Small and

Medium Enterprises,” In: Knowledge Incubation and

Management, Lagos, Trithel International Consulting.

Inkpen, A. C (2000) “Learning through Joint Ventures: A Framework of

Knowledge Acquisition,” The Journal of Management Studies.

Jeong, B (2002) Measurement of Human Capital Input Across Countries:

A Method Based on the Labour’s Income,” Journal of Development

Economics.

Johnson-Laird, P. N (1983) Mental models, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kazmi, A (2009) Strategic Management and Business Policy. New Delhi,

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Keramati, A and Axadeh, M.A (2007) “Exploring the Effects of Top

Management’s Commitment on Knowledge Management Success

in Academia: A Case Study,” Proceedings of World Academy of

Science Engineering and Technology, Vol. 21, May.

Kim, S and Trimi, S (2007) “IT for KM in the Management Consulting

Industry,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Kim, J (2006) “Measuring the Impacts of Knowledge Management,” World

Library and Information Congress: 72nd IFLA General Conference

and Council 20 – 24 August, Seoul, Korea

http://ww.ifla.org72/index.htm.

Knox, R (2004) “Use XML to Structure and Manage Content”, Retrieved

June 1, 2007, form Gartner.

Koontz, H, C. O’donnel and H.C. Weihrich (2000) Management,

Auckland: McGraw Hill.

Kremp, E and Mairesse, J (2003) “Knowledge Management, Innovation

and Productivity: A Firm Level Exploration Based on the French

CIS 3 Data”.

Kristandl, G and Bontis, N (2007) “Constructing a Definition for

Intangibles Using the Resource Based View of the Firm,”

Management Decision, Vol. 45, No. 9.

249

Kumar, N (2005) “Assessing the Learning Culture and Performance of

Educational Institutions,” Performance Improvement, Vol. 44, No. 9.

Kuo, T. and Wu, A (2007) “The Determinants of Organisational

Innovation and Performance: An Examination of Taiwanese

Electronics Industry” AAA 2007 Management Accounting Section

(MAS) Meeting, http://ssm.com/abstract.

Kuoching, F. (2006) “Implementation of Knowledge Management Systems

and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation” The Journal of

Computer Information Systems. January.

Larsen, H.T, P.N.D Bukh and J. Mouritsen (1999) “Intellectual Capital

Statements and Knowledge Management: Measuring, Reporting,

Acting,” Australian Accounting Review.

Law, C. C. H and Ngai, E. W. T (2008) “An Empirical Study of the Effects

of Knowledge Sharing and Learning Behaviours on Firm

Performance,” Expert System with Applications: An International

Journal.

Levitt, B and March, J (1988) “Organisational Learning,” Annual Review

of Sociology, Vol.14.

Liao, S. H and Hu, T. C (2007) “Knowledge Transfer and Competitive

Advantage on Environmental Uncertainty: An Empirical Study of

the Taiwan Semiconductor Industry, Technovation.

Liao, S.C., D.H. Wu, and A. T. Guang (2009) “Knowledge Acquisition,

Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Capability: An Empirical

Study of Taiwan’s Knowledge-Intensive Industries,” World

Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.

Liebowitz, J, B. Rubenstein-Montano, D. McCaw, J. Buchwalter, C.

Browning, B. Newman, K. Rebeck (2000) “The Knowledge

Management Methodology Team Knowledge Audit,” Knowledge and

Process Management.

Limam Mansar, S and Marir, F (2003) Case-Based Reasoning as a

Technique for Knowledge Management in Business Process

Redesign, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2)

250

Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.ejkm.com/ volume-

1/volume1-issue-2/issue2-art11-mansar.pdf

Lin, B. W (2003) “Technology Transfer as Technological Learning: A

Source of Competitive Advantage for Firms with Limited R & D

Resources,” R & D Management.

Lin, W. B (2008) “The Effect of Knowledge Sharing Model,” Expert

Systems with Applications: An International Journal.

Locke (1979) Human Resource Management Practice, 11th ed.,

Ma, H (2004) “Toward Global Competitive Advantage: Creation,

Competition, Cooperation and Co-option,” Management Decision,

Vol. 42, No. 7.

Mack, R, Y. Ravin and R. J. Byrd (2001) “Knowledge Portals and the

Emerging Digital Knowledge Workplace,” IBM Systems Journal,

Vol. 40(4).

Markham, S (1998) “The Scientific Visualization of Organsiations: A

Rationale for a New Approach to Organisational Modelling,”

Decision Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 1.

Marwick, A. D (2001) Knowledge Management Technology,” IBM Systems

Journal, Vol. 40(4). Retrieved May 29, 2007, from

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/ 404/marwick.html

Mazzarol, T and Soutar, G. N (1999) “Sustainable Competitive Advantage

for Educational Institutions: A Suggested Model,” International

Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 13, No. 6.

McEvily and Chakravarthy, B. (2002) “The Persistence of Knowledge-

based Advantage: an Empirical Trust for Product Performance and

Technological Knowledge,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23.

McFarlan, F.W, J.L. McKenney and P. Pyburn (1983) “The Information

Archipelago, Plotting a Course,” Harvard Business Review.

Metaxiotis, K, K. Ergazakis, E. Samouilidis and J.Psarras (2003)

“Decision Support through Knowledge Management: The Role of

the Artificial Intelligence,” Information Management and Computer

Security, Vol. 11(5). Retrieved May 30, 2007, from Emerald Insight.

251

Miller, F. J (2002) “1=0 (Information Has No Intrinsic Meaning),”

Information Research, Vol. 8, No. 1.

Miller, G.A (1956) “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some

Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychological

Review. http://www.educationau.edu.au/ archives/cp/04h.htm

Miller, P.J (2002) “1 = 0 Information Has No Intrinsic Meaning,”

Information Research, Vol. 8, No 1.

Mohamed, M, M. Stankosky and A. Murray (2006) “Knowledge

Management and Information Technology: Can They Work in

Perfect Harmony,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Nelson, K.M and Cooprider, J.G (1996) “The Contribution of Shared

Knowledge to IS Group performance,” MIS Quarterly.

Newbert, S. L (2007) “Empirical Research on the Resource Based View of

the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future Research,”

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2.

Nigerian Breweries Plc (2006) Annual Report and Statements of Account,

Lagos: Nigerian Breweries Plc.

Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company-

How Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I (1994) “The Knowledge-Creating Company,” Harvard Business

Review, November-December.

Nonaka, I, R. Toyama and A. Nagata (2000) “A Firm as a Knowledge-

creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm,”

Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9, No. 1.

Nwachukwu, C.C (1988) Management Theory and Practice, Onitsha:

Africana FEP Publishers Limited.

Nwachukwu, C.C (2008) Management Theory and Practice, Onitsha:

Africana FEB Publishers Limited.

O’brien, J.A (2008) Computers in Business Management: An Introduction.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

O’dell, C, K. Wiig and P.Odem (1999) “Benchmarking Unveils Emerging

Knowledge Management Strategies,” Benchmarking, Vol. 6, No. 3.

252

O’dell, L, K. Wiig and P. Odem (1999) “Benchmarking Unveils Emerging

Knowledge Management Strategies,” Benchmarking, Vol. 6, No 3.

O’Shaughnessy, N. J (1996) “Michael Porter’s Competitive Advantage

Revisited,” Management Decision, Vol. 34, No. 6.

Ohiorenoya, J. O (2010) “Knowledge Management and Performance in a

Private Corporate Organisation: A Case Study of Benson Idahosa

University” West African Social and Management Sciences Review.

Vol. 1, No. 1.

Ohmac, K (1982) The Min of the Strategist, In: Kazmi, A (2009) Strategic

Management and Business Policy. New Delhi, the McGraw-Hill

Companies.

Okafor, C (2007) “Organisation Culture Characteristics, Practices and

Performance, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Benin, Benin City.

Pai, J (2006) An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Knowledge

Sharing and IS/IT Strategic Planning (ISSP), Management

Decision, Vol. 44.

Parker, R and Kyj, L (2006) “Vertical Information Sharing in the

Budgeting Process,” Accounting, Organizations and Society.

Peteraf, M (1993) The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A

Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.13.

Polanyi, (1966) The Tacit Dimension, New York Doubleday.

Pollack, N (2002) “Knowledge Management and Information Technology,”

(Know-IT Encyclopedia). Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Defense Acquisition

University Press.

Porter, M. E and Kramer, M. R (2006) Strategy and Society: The link

between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social

Responsibility,” Harvard Business Review, December, 2006.

Porter, M.E (1980) Competitive Strategy, New York: Free Press.

Porter, M.E and Millar, V.E (1985) “How Information Gives You

Competitive Advantage,” Harvard Business Review, July-August.

Ramsay, J (2001) “The Resource Based Perspective, Rents, and

Purchasing’s Contribution to Sustainable Competitive Advantage,”

The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Summer.

253

Reh, J.F (2010) “Key Performance Indicators,” About.Com Guide retrieved

01/08/10.Retrieved June 1, 2007, from Emerald Insight.

Richard, O. C (2000) “Racial Diversity, Business Strategy and Firm

Performance: A Resource-based View,” Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2.

Robertson, J. C (2004) “Knowledge Management,” Knowledge

Management Research and Practice, Vol. 3, No 1.

Rochart, J.F (1979) “CEs Define Their Own Data Needs,” Harvard

Business Review, Mar-April.

Roth, J (2003) Enabling Knowledge Creation Learning Form an R & D

Organsiation,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Rugman, A and Verbeke, A (2002) Edith’s Penrose’s Contribution to the

Resource-Based View of Strategic Management,” Strategic

Management Journal.

Schein, E (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership, San-Francisco:

JHossey-Bass.

Segall, R. S (2004) “Incorporating Data Mining and Computer Graphics

for Modeling of Neural Networks,” Kybernetes, Vol.33(8). Retrieved

May 24, 2007 from Emerald Insight.

Selltiz, C, L.S. Wrightsman and S.W. Cook (1976) Research Methodology,

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Senge, P (1990) The Fifth Discipline – the Art and Practice of the Learning

Organisation, New York: Doublebay.

Seraph, J.V, P.G Benson and R.G Schreder (1989) “An Instrument for

Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management,” Decision

Sciences. Vol. 20, No 4.

Serving, G and De Brun, C (2005) “ABC of Knowledge Management,”

NHS National Library for Health.

Sharratt, M and Usoro, A (2003) “Understanding Knowledge-sharing in

Online Communities of Practice,” Electronic Journal on Knowledge

Management, Vol. 1, No. 2.

254

Sheehan, N. T and Foss, N. J (2007) “Enhancing the Prescriptiveness of

the Resource-based View through Porterian Activity Analysis.

Management Decision, Vol. 45, No. 3.

Siemsen, E, A. V. Roth and S. Balasubramanian (2008) “How Motivation,

Opportunity, and Ability Drive Knowledge Sharing: The

Constraining-factor Model,” Journal of Operations Management.

Smith, F.D (2002) “Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Measuring

Job Performance,” In: Performance Assessment of the Workplace,

A.K. Wigdor and F. Green (Eds), Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Snowden, D. (2002) “Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive

Self-awareness,” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 2.

Snyder, E and Cummings, T (1998) Organisastion Learning Disorders:

Conceptual Model and Intervention Hypotheses,” Human

Relations.

Stenmark, D (2005) “Knowledge Sharing on a Corporate Internet: Effects

of Reinstating Web Authority Capabilities,” In: ECIS, Regensbury,

Germany.

Storey, J (2000) “Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from

Failure,” Journal of Knowledge Management.

Sveiby, K. E (1997) The New Oranisation Wealth: Managing & Measuring

Knowledge-Based Assets, Berret-Koehler, San Francisco.

Svenja, F, J. B Alfred and D. Daniel (2003) Knowledge Management and

Networked Environments: Leveraging Intellectual Capital in Virtual

Business Communities, American Management Association

(AMACOM).

Teece, D. J, R. Rumelt, G. Dosi and S. Winter (1994) “Understanding

Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Economic

Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 23, No. 1.

Tiwana, A (2002) The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT,

Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.

255

Tkach, D (1999) “Advances in Knowledge Management – the Pillars of

Knowledge Management (An IBM Report) IBM and Lotus are

Trademarks of International Business Machines,” IBM Corporation.

Tsoukas, H (1996) “The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A

Constructionist Approach,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17,

Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm, winter.

Uhlaner, L (2007) “The Relationship between Knowledge Management,

Innovation and Firm Performance: Evidence from Dutch SMEs”

Zoetermeer, January.

Umemoto, K (2002) “Managing Existing Knowledge is Not Enough,” In:

Choo and Bontis (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual

Capital and Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Unyimadu, S.O (2007) Business Policy, Strategy and Management, Benin

City: Harmony Publishers.

Van-Horne, A (2006) Financial Management Policy. New Delhi: Prentice-

Hall of India Private Limited.

Venkatraman, N (1994) “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From

Automation to Business Scope Redefinition,” Sloan Management

Review.

Venkatraman, N (1994) “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From

Automation to Business Scope Redefinition,” Sloan Management

Review, winter.

Volberda, H (1996) “Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in

the Hypercompetitive Environments,” Organization Science, Vol. 7.

Wenger, E and Lave, J (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation, Cambridge University Press, London.

Wenger, E and Snyder, M. W (2000) “Communities of Practice: The

Organisational Frontier,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 1.

Wiig, K (1993) Knowledge Management Foundations, Arlington, VA:

Schema Press.

Williams, R (2009) “Critical Success Factors when Building a Knowledge

Management System,” Analysis News, December.

256

Winter, S (1987) Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets,” In: D.

Teece (ed.). The Competitive challenge: Strategies of Industrial Innovation

and Renewal, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

World Development Report (1999) Knowledge for Development

1998/1999, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wu, J. and Wang, Y (2006) “Measuring KMS Success: A Re-Specification

of the DeLone and McLean’s Model,” Information and Management.

Vol. 43.

Yang, J. T (2007) “Knowledge Sharing: Investigating Appropriate

Leadership Roles and Collaborative Culture,” Tourism

Management.

Yang, J. T (2008) “Individual Attitudes and Organizational Knowledge

Sharing,” Tourism Management.

Yang, J. T (2009) “Antecedents and Consequences of Job Satisfaction in

the Hotel Industry,” International Journal of Hospitality

Management.

Zack, M (2002) “Developing a Knowledge Strategy,” In: Choo and Bontis

(eds.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and

Organisational Knowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zuboff, S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and

Power, Basic Books, New York.