scholarly journals Intrafirm Technical Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: A Framework and Exploratory Study

1970 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-130
Author(s):  
Morry Ghingold ◽  
Ernest Hall ◽  
Bruce Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Technical Knowledge ◽  
Production Operation ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Decision Making Styles ◽  
Critical Resource ◽  
Industrial Buying

The ability of managers to monitor; acquire, and manage new technologies may be a critical resource in developing a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, J99J). Expanding on recent work by Day (1994), this paper develops a conceptual framework that links intrafirm technical knowledge with the ability to develop and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage. Focusing on a sample of production/operation managers, a key industrial buying constituency, an exploratory study was undertaken that examined the linkage between managers' technical knowledge and their decision-making styles and outcomes. Results of the present study suggest strong relationships among technical knowledge, decision making styles and outcomes. Based on these findings, it is argued that firms with managers who possess greater technical knowledge will be better equipped to develop and maintain a competitive advantage.

Competitive Advantage of Knowledge Management

2011 ◽  
pp. 2646-2659
Author(s):  
Gabriel Cepeda-Carrion
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
Strategic Process ◽  
Decision Making Styles ◽  
Relevant Domain

Knowledge management has been proposed as a fundamental strategic process and the only sustainable competitive advantage for firms (Grant, 1996; Davenport, 1998). A key to understanding the success and failure of knowledge management efforts within organizations is the ability to identify the relevant knowledge to manage and to extract value out of this knowledge. In the last decade past research has focused heavily on defining what knowledge is and on using different typologies (e.g., tacit vs. explicit knowledge, individual vs. collective) to characterize the different types of knowledge available to firms (e.g., Polanyi, 1967; Spender, 1996). In addition, researchers have described the processes through which knowledge is created, developed, retained, and transferred in firms (e.g., Argote, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and the role played by leadership (Bryant, 2003; Vera & Crossan, 2004) and decision-making styles (Kalling, 2003) in influencing these processes. Unfortunately, despite the growing interest in knowledge management, little specific has been said about the mechanisms firms use to identify key knowledge areas and to gain competitive advantage out of knowledge management investments. The recognition of the important knowledge resources for a firm is critical, because the effectiveness of knowledge and learning can only be assessed on the basis of its utility in guiding behavior relative to the firm’s relevant domain (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Cepeda, Galán, & Leal, 2004; Zack, 1999). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not useful to firms.

Competitive Advantage of Knowledge Management

2011 ◽  
pp. 34-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Cepeda-Carrion
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
Strategic Process ◽  
Decision Making Styles ◽  
Relevant Domain

Knowledge management has been proposed as a fundamental strategic process and the only sustainable competitive advantage for firms (Grant, 1996; Davenport, 1998). A key to understanding the success and failure of knowledge management efforts within organizations is the ability to identify the relevant knowledge to manage and to extract value out of this knowledge. In the last decade past research has focused heavily on defining what knowledge is and on using different typologies (e.g., tacit vs. explicit knowledge, individual vs. collective) to characterize the different types of knowledge available to firms (e.g., Polanyi, 1967; Spender, 1996). In addition, researchers have described the processes through which knowledge is created, developed, retained, and transferred in firms (e.g., Argote, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and the role played by leadership (Bryant, 2003; Vera & Crossan, 2004) and decision-making styles (Kalling, 2003) in influencing these processes. Unfortunately, despite the growing interest in knowledge management, little specific has been said about the mechanisms firms use to identify key knowledge areas and to gain competitive advantage out of knowledge management investments. The recognition of the important knowledge resources for a firm is critical, because the effectiveness of knowledge and learning can only be assessed on the basis of its utility in guiding behavior relative to the firm’s relevant domain (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Cepeda, Galán, & Leal, 2004; Zack, 1999). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not useful to firms.

Competitive Advantage of Knowledge Management

2010 ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
Gabriel Cepeda-Carrion
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
Strategic Process ◽  
Decision Making Styles ◽  
Relevant Domain

Knowledge management has been proposed as a fundamental strategic process and the only sustainable competitive advantage for firms (Grant, 1996; Davenport, 1998). A key to understanding the success and failure of knowledge management efforts within organizations is the ability to identify the relevant knowledge to manage and to extract value out of this knowledge. In the last decade past research has focused heavily on defining what knowledge is and on using different typologies (e.g., tacit vs. explicit knowledge, individual vs. collective) to characterize the different types of knowledge available to firms (e.g., Polanyi, 1967; Spender, 1996). In addition, researchers have described the processes through which knowledge is created, developed, retained, and transferred in firms (e.g., Argote, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and the role played by leadership (Bryant, 2003; Vera & Crossan, 2004) and decision-making styles (Kalling, 2003) in influencing these processes. Unfortunately, despite the growing interest in knowledge management, little specific has been said about the mechanisms firms use to identify key knowledge areas and to gain competitive advantage out of knowledge management investments. The recognition of the important knowledge resources for a firm is critical, because the effectiveness of knowledge and learning can only be assessed on the basis of its utility in guiding behavior relative to the firm’s relevant domain (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Cepeda, Galán, & Leal, 2004; Zack, 1999). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not useful to firms.

Blockchain

2020 ◽  
pp. 127-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikhil Kant
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
Intangible Resources ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
Commercial Applications

Blockchain, having proved its commercial applications, is receiving increasing interest in the context of ODL system, which has flourished with the support of ICTs. ODL system cannot remain insulated from the associated potential risks of ignoring it and opportunities of embracing it. ODL institutions tend to gain competitive advantage by enhancing capabilities of combining resources. Intangible resources such as technological innovations are more strategically significant than tangible resources. ODL system is yet to taste the benefits of using blockchain. ODL institutions might use it as a resource to fill the gaps between needs, priorities, models, and practices for effective decision making anticipating future trends. The issue of considering it as a resource of competitive advantage for ODL system faces inadequacy of relevant literature. This chapter is an exploratory study considering blockchain as a resource of competitive advantage for ODL system. The significance of the chapter will be for the professionals, policymakers, researchers, governments, and regulators.

scholarly journals Effect of internal R&D activities to the accumulation of organizational technical knowledge with the mediation role of absorptive capacity to establish the innovation capability of electronic industries

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 ◽  
pp. 01059 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bambang Purwanggono ◽  
Yohana Aeria Damyana
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Absorptive Capacity ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Electronics Industry ◽  
Technical Knowledge ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Innovation Capability ◽  
The Relationship

Innovation is a strategy for the electronics industry to create a sustainable competitive advantage, in the midst of a rapidly changing environment with all its complexity. Seven AT program as an effort for PT. Hartono Istana Teknologi (Polytron) into enterprise knowledge, will accelerate the innovation process, combined with good organizational technical knowledge management. Organizational technical knowledge will be instrumental in innovation capabilities properly if there is an internal R & D activities that support and absorptive capacity as a mediator. This study reviewed the organizational technical knowledge influence to innovation capability, the influence of R & D activities to organizational technical knowledge, as well as the role of absorptive capacity as a mediator. The study was conducted by distributing questionnaires to 130 employees of PT. Hartono Istana Teknologi. Data processing was conducted using SEM. The results showed that the absorptive capacity mediate the relationship between R & D activities and organizational technical knowledge by 51%, and organizational technical knowledge affect innovation capabilities by 64%.

scholarly journals The Effects of R&D and Innovation Capabilities on the Thai Automotive Industry Part’s Competitive Advantage: A SEM Approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wawmayura Chamsuk ◽  
Wanno Fongsuwan ◽  
Josu Takala
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Structural Equation Model ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Equation Model ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Innovative Thinking ◽  
Automotive Parts ◽  
Wide Sector

Abstract A structural equation model was used to verify both the direct and indirect influences on research and development and innovation capabilities that affect Thai automotive parts enterprises competitive advantage. Thailand’s automotive sector is a major driver of the economy with a multi-thousand network of both domestic and international companies contributing a significant amount to both domestic and Asian economic growth. After peaking in 2013 and reaching the Top 10 automotive nations, there has been a slide backwards. Competition is fierce and the pace of change ever quickening. Therefore, the researchers sought to determine how the automotive parts sector needed to improve in capability, skills and infrastructure to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage. From the structural equation model analysis of 220 regional automotive parts sector managers and use of AMOS software, it was determined that research and development combined with innovation plays key roles in the industry’s profitability and survivability. Additionally, there must be support across a wide sector of the economy, including universities, government agencies and institutions. Once championed as the ‘Detroit of Asia’, Thailand’s recognized success as a global automotive hub is a classic case of a well-executed industrial plan but that lead can potentially slip away without embracing new technologies and innovative thinking.

scholarly journals PERANAN BUDAYA ORGANISASI, DIFERENSIASI DAN INOVASI TERHADAP SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (SCA) (Studi Empiris Perum Pegadaian Syariah Se Malang Raya)

IQTISHODUNA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-123
Author(s):  
Agung Budi Leksono ◽  
Agus Sucipto
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Organizational Culture ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Research Type ◽  
Multipleregression Analysis

The problem of this research is the development of pawning institution. It seems slowly developedand hardly to complete with other pawning institutions. Therefore, some factors causing this problem need tobe understood. Against this problem, the author feels necessary to examine some factors with important effecton Syariah pawning, such as differentiation, organizational culture, and innovation. Research type is explanatoryresearch, in which it explains the causal relationship between research variables through hypothesis testing.Population of research is manager with authority of strategic decision making in the syariah pawning institutionin Malang City. Sample is taken by census technique. Furthermore the data will be subjected to MultipleRegression Analysis. Result of research indicates that Differentiation, Organizational Culture, and Innovationinfluence sustainable competitive advantage. It may be concluded that higher level of Differentiation,Organizational Culture, and Innovation in the pawning institution can produce higher sustainable competitiveadvantage for pawning institutions in Malang.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document