Thi Nguyet Que Nguyen, Liem Viet Ngo, Gavin Northey and Christopher Agyapong Siaw
Drawing upon the resource-based view of the firm, this paper aims to develop and empirically validate a model that examines the relationships between technical knowledge…
Abstract
Purpose
Drawing upon the resource-based view of the firm, this paper aims to develop and empirically validate a model that examines the relationships between technical knowledge management infrastructure (TKMI), social KM infrastructure (SKMI) and competitive advantage provided by KM (CAPKM). The authors argue that KM process capabilities account for the direct effects of TKMI and SKMI on CAPKM.
Design/methodology/approach
The study used partial least squares —structural equating modelling (SEM) to empirically test the hypotheses using a sample of 251 firms from an emerging economy. The results were then confirmed using the bias-corrected bootstrap procedure. The study also conducted two robustness checks including examining a competing moderation model and performing fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), a set–theoretic method that examines how causal conditions combine into all possible configurations of binary states to explain the desired outcome.
Findings
The findings show that TKMI and SKMI have positive effects on CAPKM. In addition, KM process capabilities mediate the direct effects of TKMI and SKMI on CAPKM.
Originality/value
This paper complements and advances previous research in several ways. Firstly, the paper develops a conceptual model that depicts the interrelationships between TKMI, SKMI, KM process capabilities and CAPKM. Secondly, this paper suggests the critical role of the “action” component (i.e. KM process capabilities) that capitalises on the KM resources in the creation of CAPKM.
Details
Keywords
Peter Massingham, Thi Nguyet Que Nguyen and Rada Massingham
The purpose of this paper is to address the subjectivity inherent in existing methods of human capital value measurement (HCVM) by proposing a 360‐degree peer review as a method…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to address the subjectivity inherent in existing methods of human capital value measurement (HCVM) by proposing a 360‐degree peer review as a method of validating self‐reporting in HCVM surveys.
Design/methodology/approach
The case study is based on a survey of a section of the Royal Australian Navy. The sample was 118 respondents, who were mainly engineering and technical workers, and included both civilian and uniform.
Findings
The research may be summarised in three main findings. First, it confirms previous research demonstrating that correlations between self‐ and other‐ratings tend to be low. However, while previous research has found that self‐rating tends to be higher than other‐rating, it was found to be the opposite: other‐rating was higher than self‐rating. Second, personality is discounted as an influencing variable in self‐rating of knowledge. Third, there are patterns in the size of the discrepancy by knowledge dimension (i.e. employee capability, employee sustainability) that allow generalisation about the adjustment necessary to find an accurate self‐other rating of knowledge.
Research limitations/implications
The findings are based on a single case study and are therefore an exercise in theory development rather than theory testing.
Practical implications
The 360‐degree peer review rating of knowledge has considerable application. First, use the outcomes in the way 360‐degree feedback has been traditionally used; i.e. identifying training needs assessment, job analysis, performance appraisal, or managerial and leadership development. Second, use it for performance appraisal – given the method's capacity to identify issues at a very finite level: e.g. are you building effective relationships with customers? Third, identify knowledge gaps, at a strategic level, for recruitment and development targets. Finally, in terms of financial decisions investors might be able to compare knowledge scores by organization.
Originality/value
Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have used other‐ratings as a tool for identifying training and development needs. In this paper, other‐ratings have been introduced as a method for validating self‐rating in the measurement of knowledge. The objective was to address one of the weaknesses in existing methods – subjectivity. The solution to this problem was to use three data points – self‐reporting, 360‐degree peer review, and personality ratings – to validate the measurement of individuals’ human capital. This triangulation method aims to introduce objectivity to survey methods, making it a value measurement rather than value assessment.