Managing Knowledge in Enterprises

Evidences from China

Maria Obeso

and Maria J. Luengo-Valderrey

Department of Business Administration, University of Cantabria, Avda. Los Castros, 56, Santander, Spain

Department of Management Evaluation and Business Innovation, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Km Strategy, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Creation, China.

Abstract: Knowledge management is an essential key in order to obtain competitive advantages in organizations. In

this scenario, an interesting study about the first global power, China, is presented. The paper analyzes how

Chinese enterprises manage their knowledge using variables linked to knowledge sharing and knowledge

creation. Data were extracted by World Bank between December 2011 and February 2013, and the analysis

has two parts. First the percentage of innovative enterprises within China is identified and then, a

descriptive analysis about the situation of Chinese innovative firms is realized. In addition ANOVA

technique is used. Results show that almost the half of Chinese enterprises (around 47 per cent) is

considered as innovative, and these innovative firms make decisions focused on active measures related to

knowledge management. Then they realize an active used of new technologies in order to communicate

with people related to the organization (sharing knowledge) and also to develop new ideas within the

organization (creation knowledge). Chinese Government could use our paper in order to know how their

enterprises manage their knowledge and, accordingly, they could motivate non-innovative enterprises to

incorporate actively knowledge management process.

1 INTRODUCTION

In today´s society, knowledge is considered as an

essential resource for organizations in order to

achieve competitive advantages (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995). Its popularity as an excellent

management tool has increased rapidly as can be

demonstrated by the growing number of research in

the area (Edvardsson, 2009).

In this scenario an original analysis located in

one of the most interesting countries around the

world is presented: China. China has had an

extraordinary growth in the last years transforming

the first global power. From this point, the aim of

this paper is to identify what innovative enterprises

in the first global power are doing related to

knowledge management. First, the degree of

innovation from Chinese is identified firms

analyzing what percentage of them is considered as

innovative. Then we set out if there are any

differences in innovation results within the

innovative firms based on industries. Finally, the

Chinese situation is explained in order to contribute

to the literature explaining what innovative

enterprises in the first global power are doing

managing their knowledge.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Knowledge Management

Nowadays, we are in society known as “knowledge

society”, concept introduced by Taichi Sakaiya in

1991 bringing to light the relevance of knowledge

for people in general and organizations in particular.

Accordingly, knowledge is considered a key

resource and knowledge management is considered

an essential tool in order to achieve competitive

advantages (Zyngier and Venkitachalam, 2011)

because it cannot be imitated easily by competitors,

thus the process is related to business survival (Liao

et al., 2008).

There are several definitions about knowledge

management, because it includes different activities

such as data collection, analysis, storage, diffusion

or use in organizations (Lancioni and Chandran,

2009). For instance Kebede (2010) defines the

Obeso, M. and Luengo-Valderrey, M..

Managing Knowledge in Enterprises - Evidences from China.

In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2015) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 111-118

ISBN: 978-989-758-158-8

111

process as manage process and tools linked with

knowledge with the aim to take advantage of its

potential and support to decision making process

facilitating innovation and creativity promoting

competitive advantages.

Knowledge management is linked to two

processes: knowledge sharing and knowledge

creation interrelated between each other, considering

knowledge sharing like the previous step of

knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1991). Both of them

are influenced by managers who support knowledge

sharing and knowledge creation in enterprises (Reid,

2014).

2.1.1 Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing is defined as “the provision of

task information and know-how to help others and to

collaborate with others to solve problems, develop

new ideas or implement policies or procedures (…)

and it can occur via written correspondence or face-

to-face communications through networking with

other experts, of documenting, organizing and

capturing knowledge for others” (Wang and Noe,

2010, p. 117). Accordingly this process is related to

acquire knowledge (Chow and Chan, 2008).

Literature about knowledge management shows

that knowledge sharing is linked with several

benefits within organizations like reductions in

production costs, improve team performance,

increase innovation activity and, then, increase

firm´s performance between others (Cummings,

2004). In addition, in difficult situations knowledge

management could increase the credibility of firm´s

commitments because of the interrelations in

organizations (McEvily et al., 2000). Following

Amayah “in the knowledge-based economy,

knowledge sharing is increasingly viewed as critical

to organizational effectiveness” (2013: p. 454).

Although with general character knowledge

sharing related to research and learning in the

Universities is the most common, enterprises can´t

forget it (Fullwood et al., 2013). Knowledge sharing

is related to inter-organizational communication,

that is to say, between employees (internal process),

but also knowledge could be shared with suppliers

or clients (external process) (Renzl, 2008). Besides

this, enterprises should promote wellness with the

aim of preventing disengagement from knowledge

sharing (Ford et al., 2015).

2.1.2 Knowledge Creation

Knowledge creation is related to new knowledge. In

this way, this concept is linked to the innovation

process. Plessis defines innovation as “the creation

of new knowledge and ideas to facilitate new

business outcomes, aimed at improving internal

business processes and structures and to create

market driven products and services” (2007: p. 21).

Authors like Parlby and Taylor (2000) (cited by

Plessis, 2007) explain that knowledge management

process support innovation activity within the

organization, because it promotes the development

of new ideas and the organization´s thinking. In this

sense, Amar and Juneja show the relationship

between innovation and knowledge like an analogy

from a plant: “The seed is the tacit knowledge, the

fertilizer is the explicit knowledge and the soil is

human creativity; all three are essential to get

innovation” (2008: p. 299). Following Akhavan et

al. (2014) there is a positive relationship between

knowledge creation process and organizational

performance. That highlights knowledge creation

process.

There is a positive relationship between research

and development (R&D) activity and innovation,

because R&D is considered font of the innovation

process (Crepon et al., 1998). Following Roper et al.

(2008: p. 843) “R&D increase the market success of

innovative products”, and a strong R&D expenditure

influence internal knowledge needed for product

innovation (Rosenberg, 1990).

Authors like Boisot (1998) has been identified a

positive relationship between organizational learning

and knowledge creation. Addleson (1999) defines

organizational learning like the process to obtain

knowledge and develop abilities in employees in

order to improve the performance. Accordingly the

main aim of organizational learning is develop new

knowledge and increase knowledge existing in

organization (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000).

2.2 The Case of China

For the first time in the recent history, China lead the

global rank in 2014, overtaken The United States of

America if the gross domestic product (GDP) is

measured using the purchasing power parity (PPP)

(data extracted from International Monetary Fund

(IMF) website). This event is according to the

prevision realized by O´Neill in 2001, when the

economist from Goldman Sachs identified the

countries known as BRIC, acronym of their names:

Brazil, Russia, India and China. O´Neill predicted

the extraordinary growth of China before this

country took off.

Curiously the majority of Chinese enterprises are

between 6 and 15 years old (more than 70 per cent

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

112

of them), thus the creation of new enterprises in

China coincided with the publication of O´Neill´s

contribution.

China is a country located on East Asia and

Pacific region with a population around 1,357 billion

of inhabitants, the most populous country in the

world (World Bank, 2015). The country has a high

human development index (position 91) (UNDP,

2014), and a GDP per capita in the year of analysis

(2011) around US$11477 (UNDP, 2015). In this

way, its GDP growth since the year 2000 has been

always positive fluctuating between 7 and 15 per

cent (see Figure 1). Following IMF (2014),

predictions show that China will maintain a

sustainability growth, less every time; in the year

2019, predictions estimate a GDP growth around 6

per cent.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data Collection

Data has been collected in China between December

2011 and February 2013 by The World Bank. A

total of 2,700 privately-owned and 148 state-owned

were successfully interviewed over this period

referring to the last complete fiscal year (2011).

Following the information about the data, the sample

for China was selected using stratified random

sampling in order to make sure that the final total

sample includes establishments from all different

sectors and obtains unbiased estimates for different

subdivisions of the whole population. The data

included questionnaire-based responses on data in

the following areas: general information from

recipients, infrastructure and services, sales and

supplies, innovation and degree of competition, land

and permits, crime, finance, business development

services, business-government relations, labour

business environment and performance.

Database has been obtained from Microdata

Library, a service established by Enterprise Surveys

(from World Bank) to provide information about

people living in developing countries, their

institutions, their environment, their communities

and the operation of their economies (World Bank,

2015).

Enterprises belong to the following industries:

food, textiles, garments, chemicals, plastics &

rubber, non metallic mineral products, basic metals,

fabricated metal products, machinery and

equipment, electronics, transport machines, retail,

wholesale, information technology (IT), hotel and

restaurants (section H), services of motor vehicles,

construction (section F), transport (section I) and

other manufacturing. In addition sample includes

some 100 per cent state owned enterprises.

Authors have succeeded to database in April

2015, where the last data updated from China was

2011.

Figure 1: China´s GDP growth.

(Source: compiled by authors. Data extracted from World Bank

Database, 2015).

3.2 Statistical Technique

First, in order to realize a comparison between the

behaviour of innovative and non-innovative

enterprises linked to knowledge management, those

firms considered as innovative have been selected.

For this aim, innovative enterprises are considered

those companies that have introduced new products

or services in the last three years.

In the second step, we have used ANOVA

technique in order to know if there are any

differences between industries in Chinese innovative

enterprises related to innovation results. For

ANOVA analysis a result variable known as the

“Percentage of the establishment´s total annual sales

was accounted for by products or services that were

introduced in the last three years” has been chosen.

ANOVA technique is a statistical method used

with the aim of compare some groups regarding a

quantitative variable. In this way the method is used

to analyze if there is any difference between groups

(or not) (Hair et al., 1995).

Before the application of ANOVA, the Levene´s

test has been calculated to assess the equality of

variances for a variable calculated for two or more

groups (see Table 1). In this way, significance is less

than 0,05 thus null hypothesis is rejected that is to

say variances between variables are different.

As a consequence in ANOVA

post-hoc comparisons are performance using T2 of

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Managing Knowledge in Enterprises - Evidences from China

113

Table 1: Levene´s test.

Levene´s test d.f1 d.f2 Significance

2,279 19 1272 0,001

Tamhane´s test (see Table 2). Significance is more

than 0,05 therefore there are not differences between

industries in innovative enterprises related to the

knowledge results measured.

Table 2: ANOVA test.

Sum of

squares

d.f

Mean

square

F Sig.

Between

groups

7510,775 19 395,304 0,980 0,482

Within

groups

512866,015 1272 403,197

Total 520376,789 1291

In the last step, after the ANOVA analysis, an

analysis about how Chinese innovative enterprises

managing their knowledge is presented using

descriptive analysis and comparing the situation of

innovative and non-innovative firms.

3.3 Description of Variables

In the first step, where enterprises are considered as

innovative are identified, a dichotomous variable is

used from the following question: “In the last three

years, has this establishment introduced any new

products or services?”. Respondents could choose

between “Yes” (innovative enterprises) and “No”

(non-innovative enterprises).

Besides this the paper have analyzed if there are

any different between innovation results comparing

the Chinese industries. For this comparison a scale

variable is used extracted from the following

question in the questionnaire: “In the fiscal year

2011, what percent of this establishment´s total

annual sales was accounted for by products or

services that were introduced in the last three

years?”.

In the descriptive analysis, the last step, variables

related to the knowledge management process in

Chinese enterprises with the aim of draw Chinese

situation are selected. These variables have been

categorized as knowledge sharing and knowledge

creation (see Appendix).

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Around 47 per cent of Chinese enterprises have

introduced at least a new product or service in the

last three years. In this paper, these companies are

known as “innovative enterprises” while those

companies that they have not introduced new

products or services in the last three years are known

as “non-innovative enterprises”. ANOVA´s test

shows that there are not any differences between

industries regarding the results (see Table 2), but

there are some industries with a high level of

innovative enterprises. In this way enterprises

belong to electronics, wholesale and IT have a

percentage over the average (53,1 per cent, 62,9 per

cent and 58,1 per cent respectively) while for

instance companies from transport or other

manufacturing have a percentage of enterprises

introducing new products or services in the last three

years less than the average (20 per cent and 35,6 per

cent respectively).

The majority of innovative enterprises are

located in a main business city (around 92 per cent

of them) and the years of experience working in this

sector the top manager have are about 17. Currently

they use cell phones for the operations of the

establishment and also they use them for inter-

organizational relationships and transactions. By

contrast only 85,5 per cent of non innovative

enterprises are located in a main business city,

although their top managers have an average of

experience very similar to innovative and they also

realize a heavy use of cell phones (see Table 3).

Research and development (R&D) activities

keep in mind, especially those related to internal

generation. Accordingly around 68 per cent of

innovative enterprises have spent on R&D in the last

three years but only about 20 per cent have spent on

R&D contracted with other companies. Regarding

the new products or services, more than 77 per cent

have been developed using internal R&D while only

36,4 per cent of them have used external support. At

the same time, regarding the new process a 78,6 per

cent have been developed inside and just 39 per cent

have used external resources. On the contrary the

situation of non innovative enterprises is very

different, because they present lower percentages

than innovative. For instance only a 18,34 per cent

of them invest in R&D activities.

Linked to Internet, about 91 per cent of

enterprises use e-mail in order to communicate with

clients and suppliers regularly, and they also use it

for inter-organizational relationships and

transactions (91,7 per cent). In addition more than

70 per cent of firms use Internet connection to

develop ideas on new products and services, and

around a 78 per cent of them has their own website.

In comparison, the percentage of non innovative

enterprises using e-mail to interact with clients and

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

114

supplier is only 82,3 and for inter-organizational

relationships a 68,54 per cent. In addition only

around a 40 per cent of enterprises use internet to

develop new ideas.

Table 3: Comparison between innovative and non-

innovative enterprises.

Innovative Non-innovative

KNOW_SHA1 17 16,06

KNOW_SHA2 91,8 82,3

KNOW_SHA3 77,6 67,7

KNOW_SHA4 70,9 40,8

KNOW_SHA5 99,8 98,9

KNOW_SHA6 99,1 97,1

KNOW_SHA7 91,7 68,5

KNOW_SHA8 80,2 58,2

KNOW_SHA9 61,5 33,6

KNOW_SHA10 77,3 53,8

KNOW_SHA11 36,4 19,9

KNOW_SHA12 78,6 58,7

KNOW_SHA13 39,2 25

KNOW_SHA14 82,1 61,2

KNOW_SHA15 33,2 22,3

KNOW_SHA16 45,9 27,3

KNOW_SHA17 50,4 30,4

KNOW_SHA18 79,4 63,6

KNOW_SHA19 35,2 29,7

KNOW_SHA20 42,3 26,8

KNOW_SHA21 41,4 26,7

KNOW_SHA22 68,1 18,4

KNOW_SHA23 20,9 -

KNOW_SHA24 63,74 57,55

KNOW_SHA25 88,11 94,43

KNOW_SHA26 75,22 75,37

KM_CREA2 23,65 -

KM_CREA3 89,6 39

KM_CREA4 69,7 29,8

KM_CREA5 63,6 31,6

KM_CREA6 82,2 59,8

KM_CREA7 82,7 26,5

KM_CREA8 72,2 29,6

KM_CREA9 83,9 66,2

KM_CREA10 77 51,4

The majority of enterprises also use specific

software in order to share data like for example

enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems or

customer relationship management (CRM) systems.

In this way, a 61,5 per cent of firms use this type of

software and more than 80 per cent of them use

online web-based systems for inter-organizational

relationships and transactions. By contrast the use of

these software in non innovative enterprises is

smaller (33,6 per cent and 58,2 per cent

respectively).

In the last three years a 89,6 per cent of

enterprises have introduced new technology and

equipment for product or process improvements,

around 70 per cent of them have introduce new

quality control procedure in production operations,

about 63 per cent introduce new managerial

processes, more than 82 per cent have provided

technology training for staff, a 82,7 per cent have

introduced new product or new service, more than

72 per cent have added new features to existing

products or services, a 83,9 per cent have taken

measures to reduce production cost and a 77 per cent

have taken actions to improve production flexibility.

Regarding the new products or services, more

than 82 per cent of enterprises developed them in

house, around 50 per cent introduced their own

version of a product already supplied by another

firm, a 45,9 per cent developed them cooperating

with their clients and only a 33 per cent of

enterprises developed the ideas collaborating with

suppliers.

Regarding the new process, more a 79,4 per cent

of enterprises developed them in house, around 41

per cent introduced their own version of a product

already supplied by another firm, a 42,3 per cent

developed them cooperating with their clients and

only a 35 per cent of enterprises developed the ideas

collaborating with suppliers.

In innovative enterprises more than 63 per cent

of full time workers have finished the secondary

school while this figure is 57,55 in the case of non

innovative enterprises. Both of production and non

production employees receive formal training (88,11

per cent and 78,22 per cent in the case of enterprises

categorized as innovative and 94,93 per cent and

75,77 per cent in the case of enterprises categorized

as non innovative).

However, the situation related to training

employees between innovative and non-innovative

Chinese enterprises is different. The percentage of

full-time permanent production workers receiving

formal training is around 88 per cent in innovative

enterprises, and around 94 per cent in non-

innovative enterprises. The percentage of full-time

permanent non-production workers receiving formal

training is 78,22 per cent in the case of innovative

firms, and 75,77 per cent in the case of non

innovative firms. In this way, it seems innovative

enterprises do not bet more than others related to this

variable. Finally the years of experience that top

managers have also are the same in both categories:

17 years in innovative enterprises and around 16

years in non-innovative enterprises.

With general character innovative enterprises

realize a heavy use of information and

Managing Knowledge in Enterprises - Evidences from China

115

communication technologies (ICT) as for instance

computers, internet or software. As a result customer

and partner relations, marketing and sales,

production and operations and product and service

enhancement have been beneficiary by these

technologies because firms use them a lot in support

of the activities (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: ICT used to support the following processes.

(Source: compiled by authors. Data extracted from World Bank

Database, 2015).

In addition ICT have been used in order to realize

innovative activities like take actions to improve

production flexibility, take measures to reduce

production cost, add new features to existing

products or services, introduce new product or new

service, provide technology training for staff,

introduce new managerial processes, introduce new

quality control procedure in production or operations

and introduce new technology and equipments for

product or process improvements (see Figure 3).

In summary, nearly half of Chinese enterprises

are considered as innovative, that is to say, they have

introduced a new product or a new service in the last

three years. These innovative enterprises carry out

more measures related to knowledge management

than non-innovative firms.

In general, Chinese innovative enterprises realize

a high use of the new technologies, both

communication and develop new ideas. In this sense,

the majority of them have specific software to

manage information within the company and to

promote inter-organizational communication.

Almost all the firms use cell phones, fax and Internet

connection to communicate with clients, suppliers

and other people linked to the organization. In

addition Internet connection is used to develop new

ideas as new processes, products, services or

managerial processes, between others.

Finally, innovative enterprises pays attention to

R&D activity, specially that R&D generated using

Figure 3: ICT used to support the following processes.

(Source: compiled by authors. Data extracted from World Bank

Database, 2015).

internal resources where the investment is high.

However external R&D investment is less than

internal. In any case, innovative enterprises invest

more than non-innovative enterprises in R&D (both

internal and external resources).

These results are along the same lines explained

in the previous section, theoretical framework,

where authors highlighting the relationship between

knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (for

instance, Nonaka, 1991). Accordingly Chinese

innovative enterprises bet on knowledge sharing

measures using ICTs and, as consequently, they

achieve knowledge creation introducing new

products and services.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The extraordinary growth of China, considered at

present time as the first global power in the world,

identifies this country and their enterprises as

interesting cases of study. Besides this, an analysis

about Chinese enterprises, started from a point of

view based on how they manage their knowledge, is

presented.

Accordingly, we have identified that almost the

half of Chinese enterprises are considered as

innovative, and these innovative firms realize active

measures related to knowledge management. This

means that they use new technologies regularly in

order to communicate with people related to the

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Partner relations

Product and service enhancement

Production and operations

Marketing and sales

Customer relations

Never Rarely Sometime Frequently All the time

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Introduce new technology and

equipments for product or process

improvements

Introduce new quality control

procedure in production or operations

Introduce new

managerial/administrative processes

Provide technology training for staff

Introduce new product or new service

Add new features to existing products

or services

Take measures to reduce production

cost

Take actions to improve production

flexibility

No use Some use Heavy use

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

116

organization, and also to develop new ideas within

the organization. As a result a significant percentage

of their total annual sales is derived from their

innovation activity.

This result is interesting for different people. On

one hand, a vision of China is offered. In this way,

Chinese Government could be used our paper in

order to know how their enterprises manage their

knowledge. Accordingly, they could motivate to

non-innovative enterprises to incorporate actively

knowledge management process. On the other hand,

paper could be useful to Chinese enterprises. They

could know how they are categorized (innovative or

non-innovative enterprises) and then they could take

decisions if they need increase knowledge

management. In addition this paper could be useful

to scholars and people interested on knowledge

management in enterprises, because the paper shows

an example about enterprises in the first global

power.

The analysis has some limitations. First, the year

analyzed (2011), although is the most updated year,

is past. It could be interesting realize again the

analysis with a year more recent. On the other hand,

descriptive analysis supposes a first step, but it need

to be completed with other statistical techniques.

Finally the innovative enterprises selection is

conditioned by database, where the variable used is

the most suitable standard but it is not the best

because it is biased by the fact that success/failure

attached to this product or service is not considered.

Then in the future this database could be used to

other analysis like, for example, regressions or

similar in order to analyze what variables affect

knowledge performance. In addition a comparison

between different years it could be interesting in

order to know the changes within the country.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank to The World Bank and

Enterprise Surveys for the work collecting data.

REFERENCES

Addleson, M., 1999. What is a good organization?:

Learning organizations, community and the rhetoric of

the ‘Bottom Line’. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology 9(2), 233-252.

Akhavan, P., Ramezan, M., Jafar, Y.M., Mehralian, G.,

2014. Exploring the relationship between ethics,

knowledge creation and organizational performance.

VINE 44(1), 42-58.

Amar, A.D., Juneja, J.A., 2008. A descriptive model of

innovation and creativity in organizations: A synthesis

of research and practice. Knowledge Management

Research & Practice 6, 298-311.

Amayah, A.T., 2013. Determinants of knowledge sharing

in a public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge

Management 17, 454-471.

Boisot, M.H., 1998. Knowledge assets: Securing

competitive advantage in the information economy,

Oxford University Press. New York.

Chow, W.S., Chan, L.S., 2008. Social network, social trust

and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing.

Information & Management 45(7), 458-465.

Crepon, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J., 1998. Research,

innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis

at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New

Technology 7, 115-158.

Cummings, J.N., 2004. Work groups, structural diversity

and knowledge sharing in a global organization.

Management Science 50(3), 352-364.

Edvardsson, I.R., 2009. Is Knowledge Management losing

ground? Developments among Icelandic SMEs.

Knowledge Management Research and Practice 7, 91-

99.

Ford, D., Myrden, S.E., Jones, T.D., 2015. Understanding

“disengagement from knowledge sharing” engagement

theory versus adaptive cost theory. Journal of

Knowledge Management 19, 476-496.

Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., Delbridge, R., 2013.

Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK

Universities. Journal of Knowledge Management 17,

123-136.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R., Black, W., 1995.

Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2014. People´s

Republic of China. IFM Country Report No. 14/235.

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2015.

http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm (accesed 7 may

2015).

Kebede, G., 2010. Knowledge management: An

information management perspective. International

Journal of Information Science 30, 416-424.

Lancioni, R.A., Chandran, R., 2009. Managing knowledge

in industrial markets: New dimensions and challenges.

Industrial Marketing Management 38(2), 148-151.

Liao, S.-H., Fei, W.-C., Liu, C.-T., 2008. Relationships

between knowledge inertia, organizational learning

and organization innovation. Technovation 28, 183-

195.

McEvily, S.K., Das, S., McCabe, K., 2000. Avoiding

competence substitution thorugh knowledge sharing.

Academic Management Review 25, 2294-311.

O´Neill, J., 2001. Building better global economic BRICs.

Global Economics Paper No: 66, Goldman Sachs.

Nonaka, I., 1991. The knowledge creating company.

Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec, 96-104.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge creating

company: How Japanese companies create the

Managing Knowledge in Enterprises - Evidences from China

117

dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press. New

York.

Pemberton, J.D., Stonehouse, G.H., 2000. Organizational

learning and knowledge assets-An essential

partnership. The Learning Organization 7(4), 184-194.

Plessis, M., 2007. The role of knowledge management in

innovation. Journal of Knowledge Mangement 11(4),

20-29.

Reid, S., 2014. Knowledge influencers: leaders

influencing knowledge creation and mobilization.

Journal of Educational Administration 52, 332-357.

Renzl, B., 2008. Trust in management and knowledge

sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge

documentation. Omega 36, 206-220.

Roper, S., Du, J., Love, J.H., 2008. Modelling the

innovation value chain. Research Policy 37, 961-977.

Rosenberg, N., 1990. Why do firms do basic research

(with their own money)?. Research Policy 19(2), 165-

174.

Sakaiya, T., 1991. The knowledge value revolution or a

History of the future, Kodansha International. Tokyo,

Japan.

UNDP United Nations Development Programme, 2014.

Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities

and building resilience.

UNDP United Nations Development Programme, 2015.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CHN

(accesed 9 may 2015).

World Bank, 2015. http://www.worldbank.org/ (accesed

14 may 2015).

Zyngier, S., Venkitachalam, K., 2011. Knowledge

management governance-A strategic driver.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9, 136-

150.

APPENDIX

(1) Knowledge sharing variables:

KM_IN1: This establishment spend on research and

development activities within the establishment in the last three

years.

KM_IN2: This establishment spend on research and

development activities contracted with other companies.

KNOW_SHA1: Years of experience working in the sector

the top manager has.

KNOW_SHA2: This establishment use e-mail to

communicate with clients or suppliers.

KNOW_SHA3: This establishment use its own website.

KNOW_SHA4: In this establishment Internet´s connection is

used to do research and develop ideas on new products and

services.

KNOW_SHA5: This establishment currently use cell phones

for the operations.

KNOW_SHA6: This establishment use phone and fax for

inter-organizational relationships and transactions.

KNOW_SHA7: This establishment use e-mail for inter-

organizational relationships and transactions.

KNOW_SHA8: This establishment use online web-based

systems for inter-organizational relationships and transactions.

KNOW_SHA9: This establishment use specific software for

inter-organizational relationships and transactions.

KNOW_SHA10: This establishment introduced new

products or services using internal R&D.

KNOW_SHA11: This establishment introduced new

products or services using external sources.

KNOW_SHA12: This establishment introduced new process

using internal R&D.

KNOW_SHA13: This establishment introduced new process

using external sources.

KNOW_SHA14: This establishment introduced new

products or services adapted in house.

KNOW_SHA15: This establishment introduced new

products or services cooperating with suppliers.

KNOW_SHA16: This establishment introduced new

products or services cooperating with client firms.

KNOW_SHA17: This establishment introduced new

products or services already supplied by another firm.

KNOW_SHA18: This establishment introduced new process

adapted in house.

KNOW_SHA19: This establishment introduced new process

cooperating with suppliers.

KNOW_SHA20: This establishment introduced new process

cooperating with client firms.

KNOW_SHA21: This establishment introduced new process

already supplied by another firm.

KNOW_SHA22: This establishment spend on research and

development activities within the establishment in the last three

years.

KNOW_SHA23: This establishment spend on research and

development activities contracted with other companies.

KNOW_SHA24: Percentage of full-time permanent workers

who completed secondary school.

KNOW_SHA25: Percentage of production full-time

permanent employees trained.

KNOW_SHA26: Percentage of non production full-time

permanent employees trained.

(2) Knowledge Creation Variables:

KM_CREA1: This establishment has introduced new

products or services in the last three years.

KM_CREA2: Percentage of these establishment´s total

annual sales was accounted for by products or services that were

introduced in the last three years.

KM_CREA3: Enterprises committed to introduce new

technology and equipments for product or process improvements.

KM_CREA4: Enterprises committed to introduce new

quality control procedure in production or operations.

KM_CREA5: Enterprises committed to introduce new

managerial processes.

KM_CREA6: Enterprises committed to provide technology

training for staff.

KM_CREA7: Enterprises committed to introduce new

product or new service.

KM_CREA8: Enterprises committed to add new features to

existing products or services.

KM_CREA9: Enterprises committed to take measures to

reduce production cost.

KM_CREA10: Enterprises committed to take actions to

improve production flexibility.

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

118