International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
STRUCTURING ACTIVITIES OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION FOR INNOVATION PROCESSES (KCFIP) IN INDONESIAN AUTOMOTIVE PART SMEs Tarwa1, Machfud2, Kudang Boro Seminar,3, Ono Suparno2 1
Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Islamic University of Jakarta (UIJ) Jl. Balai Rakyat, Utan Kayu, Jakarta 13120 E-mail:
[email protected] 2 Agroindustrial Technology Department, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), 3 Mechanical Engineering and Biosystem Department, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Kampus IPB Darmaga PO Box 220, Bogor, Indonesia 16002
Abstract Knowledge creation for innovation processes via knowledge socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization modes poses considerable challenges for SME managers. Many activities are involved in each mode. The objectives of this study are to identify the relevant activities of knowledge creation in each mode, to rank the identified activities, to find out the interaction among the identified activities, and to develop a structural diagram of the activities. This study utilized the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) methodology to obtain better understanding of the mutual influences among the activities in order to identify those influential and dependent activities. This study highlights the potential of using the ISM methodology and analyzes activities in each mode of knowledge creation. The case study of knowledge creation for innovation processes in Indonesian SMEs is used to formulate a general model of activities in each mode of knowledge creation.
Keywords: knowledge creation, activities, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) knowledge, combination refers to knowledge creation from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and lastly, internalization refers to knowledge creation from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge.
I. INTRODUCTION Extensive literature suggests that to cope with the increasingly competitive environment due to the globalization process, business organizations are required to intensify their search for strategies that will give them a sustainable competitive advantage [1][2][3]. Such strategies generally require that the firm continuously differentiates its products and services. In other words, firms must constantly be innovative. This continuous innovation requires a wellplanned system of knowledge management that enables the firm to stand out in technological, market and administrative knowledge creation [4][5][6]. One of the most influential models or theories of organizational knowledge creation is that developed by Nonaka and his colleagues [7][8][5]. According to these authors, knowledge conversion occurs in four modes, namely: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization, or in short, SECI. Socialization refers to knowledge creation from tacit knowledge to new tacit knowledge, externalization refers to knowledge creation from tacit knowledge to explicit
Numerous researchers such as [4][9][10] have discussed knowledge creation for innovation processes (KCFIP) from a distinct set of aspects. Their discussions, however, neither describe exactly what elements constitute to every mode of knowledge creation nor elaborate in detail the possible relationships among the elements belonging to each mode of knowledge creation. However, the literature on how processes of organizational knowledge creation advance the generation of new product ideas is extremely limited. This study argues that understanding the relationship between these two kinds of knowledge will be the key factor in understanding knowledge creation processes. The conversion of the tacit knowledge into the explicit one is a social process between individuals and is not confined to a single person. The Indonesian manufacturing SMEs commonly operate under the job order system, wherein the orders they receive have different characteristics in term of the product and the process. Consequently, new knowledge required to create 85
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
new products and bring them to customers is an important factor, which needs consideration. The knowledge creation for innovation processes (KCFIP) is very important for this context. KCFIP is extremely important for firms operating under the job order system. However, it is important to note here that KCFIP is a multidimensional and complex process consisting of a distinct set of activities. Some of the activities do not only affect the KCFIP as a whole but also influence one another. Therefore, it is very essential to understand the mutual relationship among the activities.
knowledge is widely regarded as the main source of a competitive advantage for a firm [10]. According to [5], knowledge can be distinguished into two dimensions: tacit and explicit. The first is based on experience, thinking, and feelings in a specific context. It is comprised of both cognitive and technical components. The cognitive component refers to an individual’s mental models, maps, beliefs, paradigms, and viewpoints. The technical component refers to concrete know-how and skills that apply to a specific context [10]. The latter is articulated, codified, and communicated using symbols. It may also be classified as object or rule-based. Knowledge is object-based when it is codified in words, numbers, formulas, or made tangible as equipment, documents, or models. It is rule-based when the knowledge is encoded as rules, routines, or standard operating procedures [10]. This study builds on the conceptualization of organizational knowledge creation as proposed by Nonaka and colleagues [7][5][8]. These authors theorize four knowledge creation modes, namely: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. This concept is often referred to as the SECI model. According to the SECI model, an organization creates knowledge through the interactions between the tacit knowledge and the explicit knowledge. These two types of knowledge emerge during the process of knowledge conversion. Numerous researchers including [6][9][10] acknowledge that Nonaka’s theory of knowledge creation has achieved the paradigmatic status, is highly respected and is one of the best known and most influential models in the knowledge strategy literature.
The identification of the driving activities (i.e., the activities that form the basis for some more activities) and driven activities (i.e., the activities which are most influenced by other activities) will be helpful for the top management in conducting KCFIP. This can help the top management take appropriate actions to deal with the KCFIP activities. This study focuses on Indonesian automotive part SMEs for several reaons. First, in Indonesia, SMEs play an important role in the industrialization process and the national economic growth. Noting the important role these SMEs play, yet, empirical studies tend to place emphasis on large enterprises. Research focusing on SMEs is still relatively scarce. Second, the national industry, including SMEs, remains encountering a number of constrains resulting in their decreasing competitiveness. This study is in line with the national industrial development policies: i.e. developing industry groups, including rubber and the rubber product industry (Industrial Ministry, 2013). The Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) can be used for identifying and summarizing relationships among specific variables, which define a problem or an issue [11][12]. It provides a means by which order can be imposed on the complexity of such variables [13][14]. Therefore, in this paper, the KCFIP activities have been analyzed using the ISM methodology, which shows the interrelationships of the activities and their levels. These activities are also categorized depending on their driving power and dependence. The main objectives of this study are: to identify and rank the activities of knowledge creation for innovation processes (KCFIP), to find out the interaction among the identified activities using ISM, and to discuss the managerial implications of this study.
II.
Knowledge Socialization The first stage of KCFIP is socialization. This mode of knowledge creation refers to the creation of new tacit knowledge through an implied sharing of tacit knowledge among individuals. Since tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize, it can be created and shared via social interactions between employees and experts by observation, imitation and shared experience. It occurs by spending time together, making joint hands on experiences, working in the same environment, and in informal social meetings among members of an organization. Further, companies can absorb new tacit knowledge through interactions with customers or suppliers [7][9][8][9]. Table 1 presents the activities identified in the KCFIP.
LITERATUR REVIEW
2.1 Knowledge Creation for Innovation Processes Defined as a justified true belief that increases an organization’s capacity for effective actions [7][5], 86
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
www.jitbm.com
Table 1. Activities of KCFIP via Socialization Activity Reference Communication between management [9][7] and employees (soc 1) Communication between management [16][7] and customers (soc 2) Communication between management [16],[7] and suppliers (soc 3) Communication between management [16][4] and competitors (soc 4) [7] Communication between management Expert and practical community (soc 5) opinions Communication among employees Expert (soc 6) opinions Inviting experts in product designs [7] (soc 7) Inviting experts in new technology [7] (soc 8) Employee rotation across areas (soc 9) [17][10]
8
Reporting market survey results (ext 8)
9
Developing the technical reports (ext 9)
Expert opinions Expert opinions
Knowledge Combination The third stage of KCFIP is combination. This mode of knowledge creation refers to the process of transferring explicit knowledge to more complex and systematic sets of explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is gathered internally in or externally to the enterprise and then combined, edited or processed to form new knowledge. The new explicit knowledge is then disseminated among members of the organization which is then disseminated among the members of the organization [15][5][9]. Table 3 presents activities identified in the KCFIP via knowledge externalization.
No. 1
Knowledge Externalization The second stage of KCFIP is externalization. This mode of knowledge creation refers to the process of converting the tacit knowledge into the explicit knowledge. It occurs when the firm expresses formally its internal rules of functioning or when it explicitly sets organizational goals. Knowledge is created when the tacit knowledge is articulated into the explicit knowledge. It allows knowledge to be shared with others, and it then becomes the basis for new knowledge. Externalization is characterized by more formal interactions such as expert interviews or the sharing of lessons learned in a previous project. The use of metaphors, analogies and creative dialogues can help articulate tacit knowledge and create new explicit knowledge [15][5][9]. Table 2 presents activities identified in the KCFIP via knowledge externalization.
2
3
4
5 6 7
Table 2. Activities of KCFIP via Externalization No. Activity Reference 1 Documenting customers’ needs (ext 1) [9] 2 Documenting technological needs (ext [9] 2) 3 Documenting material needs (ext 3) [9] 4 Documenting procedures for [9] implementing ideas (ext 4) 5 Developing the prototype of new [4][17] products (ext 5) 6 Exchanging ideas (ext 6) [4] 7 Developing the new product manual (ext [4] 7)
Table 3. Activities of KCFIP via Combination Activity Reference Utilizing internal and external resources [9] to update the understanding of customers’ needs (com 1) Utilizing internal and external resources [9] to update the understanding of the technological needs (com 2) Utilizing internal and external resources [9] to update the understanding of the procedures for idea implementation (com 3) Utilizing computer simulations to [4] develop a production planning and control system (com 4) Using the Web as a source of [18] knowledge of new products (com 5) Creating a product database (com 6) Expert opinions Distributing new knowledge of the [4] customers’ needs to all parts of the organization (com 7)
Knowlwdge Internalization The last stage of KCFIP is internalization; i.e., the conversion of explicit organizational knowledge into tacit knowledge by individuals. In this process, employees obtain organizational explicit knowledge and convert it to new tacit knowledge by putting the explicit knowledge into practice. Lessons from training programs, simulations, experimentations as well as reading and using documents about work tasks and job rotation become implicitly embedded into the minds of the individuals within the firm. 87
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
By using procedural manual which lists the explicit experiences of other employees, individuals can convert this explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge once it is assimilated [15][5][9]. Table 4 below presents activities identified in the KCFIP via knowledge externalization.
No. 1
2
3
4
5 6 7
are related. It is structural too, as on the basis of relationship; an overall structure is extracted from the complex set of variables. It is a modeling technique in which the specific relationships of the variables and the overall structure of the system under consideration are portrayed in a digraph model [14]. The ISM methodology is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Table 4. Activities of KCFIP via Internalization Activity Reference Observing experiments to obtain the [9] understanding of the customers’ needs (int 1) Conducting experiments to obtain the [9] understanding of the functions of new technology (int 2) Conducting experiments to obtain the [9] understanding of the new production procedures (int 3) Distributing the results of the [4] experiments to all parts of the organization (int 4) Conducting training in new production Expert processes (int 5) opinions Developing a working group (int 6) Expert opinions Conducting a pre-production program [17][18] to obtain the understanding of new production methods (int 7)
The various steps involved in the ISM methodology are explained as follows: Step 1: Variables affecting the system under consideration are listed, which can be Objectives, Actions, Individuals and so on. Step 2: From the variables identified in Step 1, a contextual relationship is established among the variables with respect to which pairs of variables will be examined. Step 3: A Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) is developed for those variables, which indicates the pairwise relationships among the variables of the system under consideration. Step 4: A reachability matrix is developed from the SSIM and the matrix is checked for transitivity. The transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption made in the ISM. It states that if variable A is related to variable B and variable B is related to variable C, then variable A is necessarily related to variable C. Step 5: The reachability matrix obtained in Step 4 is partitioned into different levels. Step 6: Based on the relationships given above in the reachability matrix, a directed graph is drawn and the transitive links are removed. Step 7: The resultant digraph is converted into an ISM, by replacing variable nodes with statements. Step 8: The ISM model developed in Step 7 is checked for conceptual inconsistency and necessary modifications are made.
III. THE ISM METHODOLOGY A number of activities exist in the knowledge socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. An investigation of the direct and indirect relationships among the activities as a whole can provide more thorough understanding of the knowledge creation processes than simply considering individual activities in isolation. The ISM can be thoughtfully employed for obtaining better understanding of the knowledge creation processes in Indonesian manufacturing SMEs. The main objective of this study is to develop the structural model of knowledge creation using ISM methodology. The methodology of ISM was applied due to its ability in providing a model portraying the structure of a complex issue of the problem under study, in a carefully designed pattern employing graphics as well as words. The methodology of ISM can act as a tool for imposing order and direction on the complexity of relationships among the elements of a system, as [14]. The ISM methodology is interpretive from the fact that the judgment of the group decides whether and how the variables 88
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
Identifying relevant process and activities
Literature review
Establishing the contextual activities among the activities
Expert opinion
Table 1. The Structural Self-Interaction Matrix for Socialization Processes
Necessary modifications
Developing a SSIM (Stuctural Self Interaction Matrix)
A: Activity j will alleviate Activity i; X: Activities i and j alleviate each other; and O: Activities i and j are unrelated. Based on this process, the SSIM for socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization was developed (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4).
Developing a RM (Reachability Matrix)
Partitioning the RM into different levels
Yes
Developing a diagraph
Removing transitivity from the diagraph
Table 2. The Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (Externalization)
Is there any conceptual inconsistency No
The KCFIP structure in rubber-based parts manufacturing SMEs
Table 3. The Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (Combination)
Figure 1. The Flow Diagram of the ISM Methodology Source: [14]
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Defining the contextual relationships and the reachability matrices The next step in the ISM process is defining the relationships of the KCFIP activities using a structural self-integration matrix (SSIM). The ISM methodology suggests the use of expert opinions in defining the contextual relationship among the elements involved in the system being analyzed [19][14]. As such, this study consulted five experts in defining the contextual relationships among KCFIP activities. For the purpose of interpreting the ISM model, a contextual relationship of “lead to” type was selected. This means that one element leads to another element. The contextual relationship among the KCFIP activities was defined based on this relationship. Four symbols were used to denote the direction of the relationship among the activities [19][14][20]. V: Activity i will alleviate Activity j;
Table 4. The Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (Internalization)
89
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
Table 7. The Final Reachability Matrix (Combination)
4.2 The Reachability Matrix It is difficult to interpret an SSIM on its own. To generate a useable form, the SSIM is transformed into a binary matrix called a reachability matrix by transforming V, A, X, O symbols into the corresponding values of either 1 or 0 as per the case. The rules for the transformation are explained as follows: 1. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0. 2. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1. 3. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1. 4. If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0. Direct relationships among the activities have been denoted in the SSIM. Due to the transitive nature of the activity relationships, indirect relationships are also possible among these activities. Therefore, the final reachability matrix is generated by incorporating the transitivity rule. In the final reachability matrix, the driving power and the dependence power of each activity is also indicated. The driving power of a particular activity refers to the total number of activities that can be alleviated by it. The dependence power of a particular activity refers to the total number of activities which may help achieve it. This is shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. Table 5. The Final Reachability Matrix (Socialization)
Table 8. The Final Reachability Matrix (Internalization)
4.3 Level Partitions The process of level partitions is carried out to assist in the development of a system diagram showing the structure of knowledge creation activities. The final reachability matrix is used in the process, as [19] describe. Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 depict the results of the level partitions for knowledge socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization processes. Table 9. Level Partitions (Socialization)
Table 10. Level Partitions (Externalization)
Table 6. The Final Reachability Matrix (Externalization)
Table 11. Level Partitions (Combination)
90
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
Table 12. Level Partitions (Internalization)
4.4 The MICMAC Analysis Following previous studies e.g. [19][14], this study performed a MICMAC analysis to analyze the driving power and the dependence power of the knowledge creation activities included in the model. Based on their plotted positions, the elements are classified into four clusters, namely autonomous activities, dependent activities, linkage activities, and independent activities. In this context, the autonomous activities are those with weak driving power and weak dependence power. These activities are relatively disconnected from the system, within which they have only a few links. Dependent activities are those with weak driving power and strong dependence power. Linkage activities are those with strong driving power and also a strong dependence power. These activities are unstable as any action on these activities will have an effect on others and also a feedback on themselves. Independent activities are those with strong driving power and weak dependence power. The results of MICMAC analysis for the socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization processes are presented in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
Figure 3. The Diagram of the Driving Power and Dependence Power (Externalization)
Figure 4. The Diagram of the Driving Power and Dependence Power (Combination)
Figure. 2 The Diagram of the Driving Power and Dependence Power (Socialization) Figure 5. The Diagram of the Driving Power and Dependence Power (Internalization) 91
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
Level 1
4.5 The ISM Model Following the method employed by [14], the ISM model for knowledge socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization processes is generated (Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9). It is important to note here that the ISM model should not be viewed as a rigid flowchart-type diagram. In other words, the ISM model is not to be interpreted to mean that once the activity positioned at the bottom of the diagram is addressed then the aid organization can simply move on to the next activity in the chain [19].
Level 2
Level 3
Knowledge Socialization As can be seen in Figure 6, activities of communication between the management and the customers (sos 2), communication between the management and the employees (sos 1), and communication among employees (sos 6) occupy the bottom segment of the diagram. As the MICMAC analysis indicates, these three activities are classified as independent activities. It means that these three activities have a significant influence on the knowledge socialization process and drive the activities above them. As such, obtaining knowledge from these three activities early in the knowledge socialization process will establish a strong foundation for the KCFIP processes and build up the stock of organization knowledge as they provide knowledge required by the remaining activities. Next in the middle segment of the structural diagram is the communication between the management and the suppliers (sos 3), communication between the management and the competitors (sos 4), communication between the management and practical community (sos 5), inviting experts in product designs (sos 7), and inviting experts in new technology (sos 8). The MICMAC analysis categorizes these five activities as linkage activities. It means that these activities serve as both a knowledge driver and a knowledge receiver. Lastly, at the top segment of the structural diagram is the job rotation (sos 9). This activity is a dependent activity, as the MICMAC analysis indicates. It has very weak driving power and heavily depends on other activities.
Level 4
Soc 9
Soc 3
Soc 4
Soc 5
Soc 1
Soc 7
Soc 8
Soc 6
Soc 2
Figure 6. The ISM Model for the Process of Knowledge Socialization Knowledge Externalization Figure 7 depicts the structural diagram of activities included in the externalization process. It is observed from Figure 5, consisting of activities such as documenting the customers’ needs (ext 1), reporting the market survey results (ext 8), documenting the procedures for idea implementation (ext 4), and exchanging ideas (ext 6), all of which occupy the bottom segment of the structural diagram. Meanwhile, the MICMAC analysis categorizes these activities as independent activities in the knowledge externalization process. These activities are important for transforming the tacit knowledge into the organization’s explisit knowledge and driving the remaining knowledge externalization activities. Furthermore, Figure 7 depicts the activity of developing new product models or prototypes (ext 5) is located in the middle of the structural diagram. It is a linkage activity, as the MICMAC categorizes. This indicates that this activity plays an important role in the process of knowledge externalization. This activity can encourage other activities during the externalization process. However, this activity also requires the support of other activities. Finally, it is observed from Figure 5 that activities such as documenting the technological needs (ext 4), documenting the material needs (ext 3), developing the new product manual (ext 7), and developing the technical reports (ext 9) are positioned on the top of the structural diagram. The MICMAC categorizes these activities as dependent activities. It means that the implementation of these activities has weak driving power in creating new explicit knowledge.
92
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
Level 1
Ext 7
Ext 9
Level 2
Ext 2
Ext 3
Level 3
Level 1
Com 6
Level 2
Com 7
Ext 5
Level 4
Ext 4
Level 5
Ext 6
Level 6
update the understanding of the technological needs (com 2), utilizing internal and external resources to update the understanding of the procedures for idea implementation (com 3), and utilizing computer simulations to develop a production planning and control system (com 4). These three activities are autonomous activities.
Ext 1
Level 3
Com 3
Level 4
Com 1
Com 2
Com 4
Ext 8
Figure 7. The ISM Model for the Process of Knowledge Externalization
Com 5
Figure 8. The ISM Model for the Process of Knowledge Combination
Knowledge Combination The ISM model for the process of knowledge combination is depicted in Figure 8. As can be seen in Figure 10, it is observed that the two activities, namely utilizing internal and external resources to update the understanding of the customers’ needs (com 1) and using the Web as a source of knowledge of new products (com 5) are located at the bottom of the structural diagram. This suggests that the two activities have a very important role in the process of knowledge combination. This is supported by the MICMAC analysis that categorizes the two activities as independent activities, meaning that the two activities have strong driving power in creating new explicit knowledge via the knowledge combination mode. Likewise, Figure 8 also indicates two activities, namely creating a product database (com 6) and distributing new knowledge of the customers’ needs to all parts of the organization (com 7). These two activities are dependent activities, as the MICMAC analysis categorizes. This suggests that the two activities have low driving power in the creation of new explicit knowledge. Furthermore, it is observed that three activities occupy the top of the structural diagram: i.e., utilizing internal and external resources to
Knowledge Internalization Figure 9 depicts the structural diagram for the process of knowledge internalization. As seen in Figure 9, it is observed that conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the customers’ needs (int 1), conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the functions of new technology (int 2), and conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the new production procedures (int 3) are located at the bottom of the structural diagram. These three activities are classified as independent activities. This means that these three activities have strong driving power in creating new tacit knowledge. Figure 9 further depicts the distribution of the experiment results to all parts of the organization (int 4) which is positioned in the middle of the structural diagram and is categorized as a linkage activity. This activity has strong driving power and strong dependence as well. At this end, Figure 9 depicts three activities; i.e., conducting training in new production processes (int 5), developing a working group (int 6) and conducting a preproduction program to obtain the understanding of new 93
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
www.jitbm.com
production methods (int 7), all of which are located on the top of the structural diagram. These activities are categorized as dependent activities, suggesting that the activities have weak driving power in creating new tacit knowledge.
Level 1
Level 2
Int 7
Int 5
Level 5
Int 6
Int 4
Level 3
Level 4
have high driving power and less dependence power. It means that these three activities have a significant influence on the knowledge socialization process and strengthen other activities. In the externalization process, it is observed that documenting the customers’ needs (ext 1), reporting the market survey results (ext 8), documenting procedures for the implementation of ideas (ext 4), and exchanging ideas (ext 6) are important for transforming the tacit knowledge into the explisit knowledge. Next, it is observed that the two activities, namely utilizing internal and external resources to update the understanding of the customers’ needs (com 1) and using the Web as a source of knowledge of new products (com 5) play a very important role in the process of knowledge combination. Meanwhile, conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the customers’ needs (int 1), conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the functions of new technology (int 2), and conducting experiments to obtain the understanding of the new production procedures (int 3 ) are identified as three key activities creating new tacit knowledge via the process of knowledge internalization. At this end, it is important to note that the model proposed in this study is not statistically validated. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), for example, might be applied in the future research to test the statistical validity of such hypothetical models. The emphasis of the ISM is on the “geometric” and “qualitative modeling” aspects of the system analysis, meaning that it cannot be used for forecasting the various elements connected with the system [14]. Furthermore, while it is argued that all activities comprised the socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization knowledge processes are important for the purpose of knowledge creation for innovation processes, future research might include more activities and develop the relationship among them using the ISM methodology.
Int 2
Int 3
Int 1
Figure 9. The ISM Model for the Process of Knowledge Internalization
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Knowledge creation for innovation processes poses considerable challenges for SMEs managers. It involves many activities which might be classified into four different modes, namely: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. In this study; nine activities of socialization, nine activities of externalization, seven activities of combination, and seven activities of internalization have been highlighted and put into an ISM model. The levels of activities are important for the knowledge socialization process. It is found in this study that three activities, i.e. communication between the management and the customers (sos 2), communication between the management and the employees (sos 1), and communication among employees are classified as independent activities and
REFERENCES [1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
94
Darroch J. (2005). Knowledge Management, Innovation and Firm Performance. Journal of Knowledge Management. 9 (3): 101-115 Davenport, Thomas H, and Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge, How Organization Manage What They Know. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Esterhuizen D, Schutte C.S.L, Du Toit A.S.A. 2012. Knowledge Creation Processes As Critical Enablers For Innovation. International Journal Of Information Management. 32: 354-364. Lee H, Choi B. 2003. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative
International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1 © 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
[5].
[6].
[7]. [8].
[9].
[10].
[11].
[12].
[13].
[14].
[15].
[16].
[17].
[18].
[19].
[20].
www.jitbm.com
View and Empirical Examination. Journal of Management Information System/Summer, 20 (1):179-228. Nonaka I and Takeuchi H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Popadiuk S and Choo CW. 2006. Innovation and knowledge creation:how are these concepts related. Int J Infor Mgmt. 26: 302-312. Nonaka I. 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science, 5 (1):14-37. Nonaka I, Toyama R, and Konno N. 2000. SECI, ba and leadrship: a unified model of dinamic knowledge creating. Long Range Planning, 33: 5-34. Schulze A, Hoegl M. 2008. Knowledge Creation in New Product Development Project. Journal of Management. 32 (2): 210-236. Tsai P.Y, and Chung-li C.J (2007) The Study Of Applying Interpretative Structural Modeling in Intructional Structural Design. Educational Research and Information. 11(2):1-40. Warfield J.W. (1974). Developing Interconnected Matrics In Structural Modeling. IEEE Transactions On System Men And Cybermetrics. 4(1): 51-81 Sage A.P. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology For Large-Scale Systems. Mc Graw-Hill. New York. Pp. 91-164. Mandal A and Deshmukh S.G. 1994. Vendor Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14 (6): 52-59. Ravi V, and Shankar R. (2005). Analysis Of Interaction Among The Barriers Of Reverse Logistics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72:1011-1029. Martin-de-Castro G, Lopez Saez P, Navas Lopez J E. 2008. Knowledge creation in knowledge intensive firms, Technovation. 28 (4): 222-230. Teerajetgul W, Charoenngam C. (2006). Factors Inducing Knowledge Creation: Empirical Evidence From Thai Construction Project. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. 13(6): 584-599. Chou S.W and He M.Y. (2004) Knowledge Management the Distinctive Roles Of Knowledge Assets In Facilitating Knowledge Creation. Journal Of Information Science. 30(2): 146-164. Li Y.H, Huang J.W.Tsai M.T. (2009) Enterpreuneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Role Of Knowledge Creation Process. Industrial Marketing Management. 36:440449. Chandramowli S, Transue M, Felder F A. 2011. Analysis Of Barrier To Development in Landfill Communities Using Interpretive Structural Modeling. Habitat Internaltional, 35 (2): 246-253. Saxena J J P, Sushil, Vrat P. 1992. Hierarchy And Classification Of Program Plan Element Using Interpretive Structural Modeling. System Practice. 5 (6): 651 – 670.
95
