The relationship between knowledge management (KM) and firm performance is an interesting field for both scholars and practitioners. Despite the extant literature, more studies are required in order to clarify the abovementioned relationship. The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of KM practices on financial and nonfinancial performance. KM practices are knowledge creation practices, continuous learning practices (CLP), knowledge and feedback systems (KFS), and management of employees’ individual competencies. Methodologically the study uses partial least squares structural equation modeling. The results show that KFS affect firms’ financial performance and that CLP do not influence oneither financial or nonfinancial performance.
AlaviMLeidnerDE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly25(1): 107–136.
2.
AlegreJSenguptaKLapiedraR (2013) Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal31(4): 454–470.
3.
Alegre VidalJLapiedra AlcamíR (2005) Gestión del conocimiento y desempeño innovador: un estudio del papel mediador del repertorio de competencias distintivas. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la23: 117–138.
4.
BarneyJ (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120.
5.
CarminesEGZellerRA (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
6.
ChinWW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research295(2): 295–336.
7.
ChinWW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: VinziVEChinWWHenselerJ, et al. (eds) Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Berlin: Springer, p. 813.
8.
ConnerKRPrahaladCK (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science7(5): 477–501.
9.
du PlessisM (2007) The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management11(4): 20–29.
10.
EisenhardtKMMartinAJ (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they?Strategic Management Journal21(10–11): 1105–1121.
11.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18: 39–50.
12.
GrantRM (1991) The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review33(3): 114–135.
13.
GrantRM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal17(S2): 109–122.
14.
HairJFHultGTMRingleC, et al. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thounsand Oaks: Sage Publications.
15.
HayekFA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review35(4): 519–530.
16.
JudgeWQDouglasTJ (1998) Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: an empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies35(2): 241–262.
17.
KogutBZanderU (1996) What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science7(5): 502–518.
18.
LeeYKimSLeeH (2011) The impact of service R&D on the performance of Korean information communication technology small and medium enterprises. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management20(1): 77–92.
19.
LeiDHittMABettisR (1996) Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management22(4): 549–569.
20.
Leonard-BartonD (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal13(S1): 111–125.
21.
LindermanKSchroederRGZaheerS, et al. (2004) Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation processes. Journal of Operations Management22(6): 589–607.
22.
McEvilyBZaheerA (1999) Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal20(12): 1133–1156.
23.
McGrathRGMacMillanICVenkataramanS (1995) Defining and developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal16(4): 251–275.
24.
NelsonRR (1991) Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?Strategic Managment Journal12(S2): 61–74.
25.
NewbertSL (2007) Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal28(2): 121–146.
26.
NonakaI (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science5(1): 14–37.
27.
NonakaITakeuchiH (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied88(5): 879–903.
29.
SaunilaMPekkolaSUkkoJ (2014) The relationship between innovation capability and performance: the moderating effect of measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management63(2): 234–249.
30.
SenguptaKAbdelhamidTK (1993)Alternative conceptions of feedback in dynamic decision environments – an experimental investigation. Management Science39(4): 411–428.
31.
SenguptaKTe’eniD (1993) Cognitive feedback in GDSS: improving control and convergence. MIS Quarterly17(1): 87–113.
32.
SpenderJC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal17(S2): 45–62.
33.
TeeceDJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal28(13): 1319–1350.
34.
TeeceDJ (2009) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
TeeceDJPisanoG (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change3(3): 537–556.
