Earlier, Section 1.3 presented the scope of this study – technology-based SMEs.
Section 2.4.1 summarizes the earlier research done on the knowledge management modelling in this scope as well as highlights the areas that have been uncovered and thus justify this study. Section 2.4.2 presents the initial framework for the study that the researcher set to elaborate on, listing also the main sources of prior literature that have contributed to the creation of the initial framework.
43
2.4.1 Earlier research and gaps in it on knowledge management in technology-based SMEs
Despite the scarcity of research implications and resulting models for technology-based SME context, some outlines and elements that would contribute to strategies of coping with knowledge dynamics in entrepreneurial context have been established. Ching-Yung (2018) described the essence of one type of knowledge artefacts - intellectual property rights (IPR) - that they are for a SME “like water that floats or overturns SMEs”, but also that “it’s impossible for SMEs to invest all items of IPRs due to limited resource.” (ibid.) Earlier research has identified the difference KM typically embodies in SMEs in comparison with larger corporate entities (e.g. McAdam and Reid, 2001).
The shortcomings in SME knowledge management cannot however be pinpointed to resources alone. Anand, Kant and Singh (2013) identified two key main barriers to knowledge sharing in SMES: 1) lack of managerial commitment to sharing and 2) poor or wrong understanding of the knowledge management itself. In short, SMEs would need more knowledge about knowledge to be able to act on it. How that would happen has not been elaborated on in larger volume.
Anand, Csepregi and Bodgány (2018) concluded that several publications have dealt with knowledge creation in larger organizations, but creating knowledge still was unexplored in SMEs.
Instead of depicting comprehensive KM models/frameworks for SMES prior research has either modelled sub-processes of KM, e.g. design knowledge absorption (Acklin, 2013), innovation transfer (Caputo, Cucchiella, Fratocchi, Pelagagge and Scacchia, 2002) intellectual capital (IC) measurement and KM implementation (Montequín, Fernández, Cabal and Gutierrez, 2006) or then given overall recommendations for SME management for improved KM. Most papers on SME-contextualized knowledge management discuss the needs and processes with a cross-sectional view instead of a time-dependent evolutionary approach. As Birchall and Tovstiga (2002) claim: “Many firms, particularly smaller and medium enterprises, have still not translated a concern for improved knowledge management into even the most rudimentary analysis”. The reason can be a combination of resources but also in the lack of tools needed.
Earlier KM studies with foci in SMEs (e.g. Lee and Lan, 2011; Yew Wong and Aspinwall, 2005; Martìnez-Conesa, Soto-Acosta and Carayannis, 2017) propose generic knowledge management models and processes for SMEs independent of their type. There are some studies focusing on technology- and knowledge intensive SMEs, but they (Olander, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Mähönen, 2009; Soto-Acosta, Popa and Palacios-Marquéz 2017) typically take a specific action within knowledge management under study, like the three examples above elaborate on Intellectual Asset Protection, Web Knowledge Sharing and Technology Transfer sharing, respectively.
The most recent overall views of knowledge management processes in knowledge-intensive SMEs are from Babtista Nunes et al. in 2006 and Alegre et al. in 2013, so an updated view may be of need. Baptista Nunes, Annansingh, Eaglestone and Wakefield (2006) pointed out the underlying potential of KM by
44
stating that “SMEs, including knowledge intensive ones, acknowledge that adequately capturing, storing, sharing and disseminating knowledge can lead to greater innovation and productivity”. The gap between what could be and how shows in the way“…their (SMEs) managers are not prepared to invest the relatively high effort on long term knowledge management goals for which they have difficulty in establishing the added value” (Baptista Nunes et al., 2006).
2.4.2 Initial framework for the study and its main sources
This study aims at creation of a new integrative framework of dynamic knowledge management in technology-based SMEs and prospective practical instantiations of the framework depicting the phenomenon under study for both theory development and pragmatic usage. To build on the existing knowledge, a study needs the initial or baseline framework to elaborate on. The essence and anatomy of a framework can be understood e.g. via the definition by Miles and Huberman (1999), who claim a framework for a researcher being a mechanism that aids a researcher to decide the most relevant variables of which data should be collected and analyzed. The framework can thus be looked from the researcher angle, but it may also have validity in more pragmatic point of view. Fisher (2007) coins framework as a description of causes and relationship between the identified key elements of the framework. Element identification of the baseline framework can be based on earlier literature, and the new knowledge created is likely to lead a new version of the framework, with additional factors and new relationships indicated by the results of empirical study.
This study in its different phases addresses many of the potential purposes aligned by Schwarz, Mehta, Johnson and Chin (2009) as it integrates the previous research and provides a new focus in the research stream. This study also facilitates future research by findings of the separate articles and summary of the primary empirical contributions from the articles. Additionally this thesis synthesizes research to an actionable way for practitioners by establishing new integrative framework and its instantiations. Table 5 summarizes the core tenets of the theoretical base that the initial framework is derived from.
The initial framework for this study (Figure 7) is based on the research setting and findings of earlier literature as a source of baseline models for knowledge management and of the potential elements to be included to an improved framework. The framework in itself do not present the knowledge base of the study, but it depicts the most important issue areas to be included and their relations to each other and to the whole. It is a framework for the study and guides the researcher in his search for more detailed knowledge on the phenomenon via empirical studies.
45
TABLE 5 Key contributing constructs to the initial framework, premises for the study and their key sources
Model
elements Construct Premises Section
# Key sources Change Specificity of
technology bu-siness
Increased clock speed,
in-creased uncertainty 1.1.,
3.1. Fine (1998);
Mohr et al.
(2010) Change Specificity of
Technology-based SMEs
Resource constraints in KM;
Unspecified and continually transforming KM processes at SMEs
2.4.1. Babtista Nunes et al. 2006; Ac-tors in KM interact
2.1. Zack,(1999)
Portfolio Knowledge Portfolio
Knowledge is made of knowledge assets that and interaction within KM
2.2.2 Hedlund
The (relative) resources of KM stakeholders shift over time. de-velop via dynamic states and iterate between these states in their trajectory
Change as a constant phe-nomenon in technology busi-ness; Constant flux between periods/states of emergence,
Anticipation is a KM process to interpret potential futures into present action to exploit opportunities
2.3.3. Dufva and Ahlqvist
(2014); Poli (2014)
46
FIGURE 7 Initial theoretical framework: Dynamic knowledge management in technol-ogy-based SMEs
Actor 1 in the initial framework is the unit of the analysis of the study, a technology-based SME that has its portfolio of knowledge assets (processes, artefacts, resources) and goals of knowledge management. These assets a SME sets to develop in interaction with other actors i.e. stakeholders. Both the internal assets and goals of the SMEs as well as the ones of the other stakeholders – and as a result their interaction- are likely to be transformed over time when the elements of change, growth and anticipation that start moderating KM. The underlying assumption is that a technology-based SME (as well as its interaction counterparts) possesses not only one process or one set of artifacts that serve for all KM purposes of the company, but it rather manages a portfolio containing knowledge assets that call for variety of actions on them.
Despite the fact that the initial framework recognizes the impact of time as a moderating element on KM in a technology-based SME, it is still a static model as it cannot illustrate how the KM will change over time in regards of the goals, processes, artefacts and resources. In that sense the model cannot be seen to present a framework of dynamic knowledge management but a cross-sectional, static view of KM, that admits the presence of time-dependent moderators for KM. In addition, the knowledge and knowledge management are in the model not depicted as uniform, indivisible entity. The initial framework builds on the view that a modern company possesses and acts on multiple knowledge assets simultaneously. The concept of knowledge portfolio is thus also included in the initial framework.
47
This chapter summarizes the scope of the research and philosophical position of the researcher describing and justifying the multiple methods used. Data collection and analyses are described and finally the author reflects the work done on quality criteria for qualitative research that the study relies upon.