Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:44:03.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge Management in Brazil: What Governance Mechanisms are Needed to Boost Innovation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

Guillermo Antonio Dávila Open the ORCID record for Guillermo Antonio Dávila [Opens in a new window] ,
Tatiana Andreeva Open the ORCID record for Tatiana Andreeva [Opens in a new window]  and
Gregório Varvakis Open the ORCID record for Gregório Varvakis [Opens in a new window]
Guillermo Antonio Dávila*
Affiliation:
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
Tatiana Andreeva
Affiliation:
Maynooth University, Ireland
Gregório Varvakis
Affiliation:
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Guillermo Antonio Dávila ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need to innovate is relevant to many firms around the globe and is particularly pressing for those in emerging markets. They face global competition, are under-resourced, and suffer from weaker institutional support. It is suggested that to innovate successfully in this context, indigenous firms would benefit from focusing on managing their current knowledge base more efficiently. We know little about how knowledge management works outside developed economies and which knowledge governance mechanisms have more influence than others in the context of emerging economies. To address this gap, we explore how context may matter for the use of knowledge governance mechanisms and their effect on innovation performance in Brazilian firms. Using the survey data of 109 firms, structural equation modelling, and cluster analysis, our findings suggest that the joint application of knowledge-focused rewards, organizational design, and information and communication technologies that support knowledge processes is critical for boosting innovation performance. We discuss how the peculiarities of the Brazilian context may shape these findings. Our article contributes to the knowledge management and innovation literature by demonstrating that the joint effects of bundles of knowledge governance mechanisms and contextual variables should be explored in order to understand their impact on organizational outcomes.

摘要

全球的许多公司都需要创新，这对于新兴市场中的企业尤其迫切。新兴市场中的企业面临全球性竞争、资源不足以及制度支持很弱等问题。本土企业在这种环境下要成功创新需要更加有效地管理它们当前的知识基础。我们很少了解发达经济体之外的知识管理，也不太了解新兴经济环境中哪个知识治理机制更有影响力。为了填补这个空白，我们探讨巴西企业中采用知识治理机制中情境怎样变得重要及其对创新业绩的影响。对于109家企业调查数据进行结构方程模型和聚类分析，我们发现同时采用基于知识的奖励、组织设计和支持知识流程的信息沟通技术，是促进企业创新业绩的关键。我们讨论了巴西独特的环境怎样造成了这些结果。本文表明，应该探讨知识治理机制和情境因素的联合影响才能理解他们对于组织绩效的作用，从而对于知识和创新领域的文献做出了贡献。

Аннотация

Инновационная деятельность крайне важна для многих компаний по всему миру и особенно необходима для компаний в развивающихся странах. Эти компании сталкиваются с глобальной конкуренцией, не имея достаточных ресурсов и страдая от более слабой институциональной поддержки. Предполагается, что для успешного внедрения инноваций в этом контексте местные компании должны сосредоточиться на более эффективном управлении существующей базой знаний. Мы мало знаем о том, как управление знаниями работает за пределами развитых стран и какие механизмы управления знаниями оказывают большее влияние в странах с развивающейся экономикой. Для того, чтобы устранить этот пробел, мы исследуем, какое значение может иметь контекст для использования механизмов управления знаниями и каким образом эти механизмы влияют на эффективность инноваций в бразильских компаниях. На основании данных из 109 компаний, структурного моделирования и кластерного анализа, мы приходим к выводу о том, что одновременное применение вознаграждений за приобретение знаний, организационной структуры, а также информационных и коммуникационных технологий, поддерживающих процессы развития знаний, имеет решающее значение для повышения эффективности инноваций. Мы рассматриваем, каким образом особенности бразильского контекста могут влиять на эти выводы. Наша работа вносит свой вклад в литературу по управлению знаниями и инновациям, поскольку свидетельствует о том, что совокупное влияние механизмов управления знаниями и контекстных переменных требует изучения для того, чтобы понять их воздействие на организационные процессы.

Resumen

La necesidad de innovar es relevante para muchas empresas alrededor del globo y es particularmente apremiante para aquellas en mercados emergentes. Ellas enfrentan competencia global, no cuentan con recursos suficientes, y adolecen de débil apoyo institucional. Se sugiere que, para innovar exitosamente en este contexto, las empresas nacionales se beneficiarían de enfocarse en gestionar su base de conocimiento actual más eficientemente. Sabemos poco sobre cómo funciona la gestión de conocimiento por fuera de las economías desarrolladas y cuáles mecanismos de gobernanza tienen más influencia que otros en el contexto de economías emergentes. Para abordar esta brecha, exploramos como el contexto puede importar para el uso de los mecanismos de gobernanza del conocimiento y su efecto en el desempeño de la innovación en empresas brasileras. Usando datos de encuestas de 109 empresas, modelo de ecuaciones estructurales, y análisis de clúster, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que la aplicación conjunta de recompensas enfocadas en el conocimiento, diseño organizacional, y tecnologías de información y comunicación que apoyan los procesos de conocimiento es crítico para fomentar el desempeño de la innovación. Discutimos cómo las peculiaridades del contexto brasilero pueden moldear estos hallazgos. Nuestro artículo contribuye a la literatura de gestión de conocimiento e innovación al demostrar los efectos conjuntos de los paquetes de mecanismos de gobernanza del conocimiento y las variables contextuales deben ser exploradas para entender su impacto en los resultados organizacionales.

Keywords

Brazilcontextinnovationknowledge governance mechanismsknowledge management巴西情境创新知识治理机制知识管理Бразилияконтекстинновациимеханизмы управления знаниямиуправление знаниямиBrasilcontextoinnovaciónmecanismos de gobernanza del conocimientogestión del conocimiento
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 857 - 886
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The International Association for Chinese Management Research 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Deputy Editor Gerald McDermott

References

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. 2006. An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3): 91–224.Google Scholar
Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. 2013. Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4): 454–470.Google Scholar
Amado, G., & Vinagre Brasil, H. 1991. Organizational behaviors and cultural context: The Brazilian ‘Jeitinho’. International Studies of Management & Organization, 21(3): 38–61.Google Scholar
Andreeva, T., & Ikhilchik, I. 2011. Applicability of the SECI model of knowledge creation in Russian cultural context: Theoretical analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(1): 56–66.Google Scholar
Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. 2012. Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4): 617–636.Google Scholar
Andreeva, T., & Sergeeva, A. 2016. The more the better… Or is it? The contradictory effects of HR practices on knowledge sharing motivation and behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2): 151–171.Google Scholar
Andreeva, T., Vanhala, M., Sergeeva, A., Ritala, P., & Kianto, A. 2017. When the fit between HR practices backfires: Exploring the interaction effects between rewards for and appraisal of knowledge behaviours on innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2): 209–227.Google Scholar
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. 2006. Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1): 94–107.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396–402.Google Scholar
Barradas, J. S., & Campos Filho, L. A. N. 2010. Knowledge management trends in Brazil content analysis in the opinion of Brazilians' specialists. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, 15(3): 131–154.Google Scholar
Barros, H. M. 2015. Exploring the use of patents in a weak institutional environment: The effects of innovation partnerships, firm ownership, and new management practices. Technovation, 45: 63–77.Google Scholar
Barros, H. M., & Lazzarini, S. G. 2012. Do organizational incentives spur innovation? BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 9(3): 308–328.Google Scholar
Bruton, G. D., Dess, G. G., & Janney, J. J. 2007. Knowledge management in technology-focused firms in emerging economies: Caveats on capabilities, networks, and real options. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2): 115–130.Google Scholar
Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Kianto, A., & Sáenz, J. 2018. Intellectual capital drivers of product and managerial innovation in high-tech and low-tech firms. R&D Management 48(3): 290–307.Google Scholar
Caldas, M. P. 2006. Conceptualizing Brazilian multiple and fluid cultural profiles. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 4(3): 169–180.Google Scholar
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. 2000. The incumbent's curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3): 1–17.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Commander, S., Harrison, R., & Menezes-Filho, N. 2011. ICT and productivity in developing countries: New firm-level evidence from Brazil and India. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2): 528–541.Google Scholar
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1): 39–67.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1154–1191.Google Scholar
Darroch, J. 2005. Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3): 101–115.Google Scholar
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. 1998. Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2): 43–57.Google Scholar
Dávila, G. A., North, K., & Varvakis, G. 2016. How Brazilian textile enterprises learn to grow. In North, K. & Varvakis, G. (Eds.), Competitive strategies for small and medium enterprises: 241–254. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(4): 113–127.Google Scholar
Dominguez Gonzalez, R. V., & Martins, M. F. 2014. Mapping the organizational factors that support knowledge management in the Brazilian automotive industry. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1): 152–176.Google Scholar
Ellonen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Puumalainen, K. 2008. The role of trust in organisational innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2): 160–181.Google Scholar
FIESC. 2017. Santa Catarina em Dados 2017. Industry Federation of Santa Catarina - FIESC, Florianópolis.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, P. N. 2005. Acumulação tecnológica e inovação industrial: Conceitos, mensuração e evidências no Brasil. São Paulo em Perspectiva, 19(1): 54–69.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, P. N. 2011. The role of dual embeddedness in the innovative performance of MNE subsidiaries: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 417-440.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. L., & de Albuquerque, L. G. 2005. Trends of the human resources management model in Brazilian companies: A forecast according to opinion leaders from the area. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7): 1211–1227.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., Smith, P. B., Richey, B., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E. M. L., Maes, J., & Stumpf, S. 2007. How do organizations allocate rewards? The predictive validity of national values, economic and organizational factors across six nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. L. 1997. Aprendizagem e inovação organizacional: As experiências de Japão, Coréia e Brasil. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
Fleury, A., Fleury, M. T. L., & Borini, F. M. 2013. The Brazilian multinationals' approaches to innovation. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 260–275.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Michailova, S. 2009. Knowledge governance: Processes and perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3): 455–482.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., Pedersen, T., Reinholt, M., & Stea, D. 2015. Why complementary HRM practices impact performance: The case of rewards, job design, and work climate in a knowledge-sharing context. Human Resource Management, 54(6): 955–976.Google Scholar
Frank, A. G., Cortimiglia, M. N., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & de Oliveira, L. S. 2016. The effect of innovation activities on innovation outputs in the Brazilian industry: Market-orientation vs technology acquisition strategies. Research Policy, 45(3): 577–592.Google Scholar
Glisby, M., & Holden, N. 2003. Contextual constraints in knowledge management theory: The cultural embeddedness of Nonaka's knowledge-creating company. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(1): 29–36.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 109–122.Google Scholar
Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M., & Hungeling, S. 2010. Configurations of resources and capabilities and their performance implications: An exploratory study on technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12): 1337–1356.Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Harkness, J. A. 2003. Questionnaire translation. Cross-cultural Survey Methods, 1: 35–56.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. 2016. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1): 2–20.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., De Hilal, A. V. G., Malvezzi, S., Tanure, B., & Vinken, H. 2010. Comparing regional cultures within a country: Lessons from Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3): 336–352.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Inkinen, H. T., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M. 2015. Knowledge management practices and innovation performance in Finland. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(4): 432–455.Google Scholar
Jennings, D. F., & Young, D. M. 1990. An empirical comparison between objective and subjective measures of the product innovation domain of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1): 53–66.Google Scholar
Ketchen, D., & Shook, C. 1996. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6): 441–458.Google Scholar
Kianto, A., & Andreeva, T. 2014. Knowledge management practices and results in service-oriented versus product-oriented companies. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(4): 221–230.Google Scholar
Kock, N. 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 11(4): 1–10.Google Scholar
Lakshman, C., & Parente, R. C. 2008. Supplier-focused knowledge management in the automobile industry and its implications for product performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 317–342.Google Scholar
Lee Park, C., Fracarolli Nunes, M., Muratbekova-Touron, M., & Moatti, V. 2018. The duality of the Brazilian jeitinho: An empirical investigation and conceptual framework. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 14(4): 404–425.Google Scholar
Lenartowicz, T., & Johnson, J. 2003. A cross-national assessment of the values of Latin America managers: Contrasting hues or shades of gray? Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 266–281.Google Scholar
Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. 2016. Calculation of effect sizes. Bibergau: Psychometrica. Available online at: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lewin, A. Y. 2014. The peer-review process: The good, the bad, the ugly, and the extraordinary. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 167–173.Google Scholar
Li, J., Chen, D., & Shapiro, D. 2010. Product innovations in emerging economies: The role of foreign knowledge access channels and internal efforts in Chinese firms. Management and Organization Review, 6(2): 243–266.Google Scholar
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS quarterly, 31(1): 59–87.Google Scholar
Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. 2014. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2): 123–146.Google Scholar
Lu, Y., Tsang, E. W., & Peng, M. W. 2008. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Toward an institution-based view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 361–374.Google Scholar
Manhães, M., & Dávila, G. A. 2016. The innovation triple challenge: A creativity check for SMEs. In North, K. & Varvakis, G. (Eds.), Competitive strategies for small and medium enterprises: 77–92. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
May, R. C., & Stewart, W. H. 2013. Building theory with BRICs: Russia's contribution to knowledge sharing theory. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 9(1–2): 147–172.Google Scholar
McDermott, G. A., & Pietrobelli, C. 2017. Walking before you can run: The knowledge, networks, and institutions for emerging market SMEs. In Pedersen, T., Devinney, T. M., Tihanyi, L., & Camuffo, A. (Eds.), Breaking up the global value chain: Opportunities and consequences: 311–332. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Meyer, A., Tsui, A., & Hinings, C. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175–1195.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 2015. Context in management research in emerging economies. Management and Organization Review, 11(3): 369–377.Google Scholar
Michailova, S. 2011. Contextualizing in international business research: Why do we need more of it and how can we be better at it? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1): 129–139.Google Scholar
Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. 2006. National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: A comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 383–405.Google Scholar
Michailova, S., & Sidorova, E. 2010. Knowledge management in transition economies: Selected key issues and possible research avenues. Organizations & Markets in Emerging Economies, 1(1): 68–81.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. S., Mathews, J. A., Miles, G., & Coleman, H. J. Jr. 1997. Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4): 7–20.Google Scholar
Minbaeva, D. 2013. Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of organizational knowledge-based performance. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4): 378–390.Google Scholar
Moder, K. 2010. Alternatives to F-Test in One Way ANOVA in case of heterogeneity of variances (a simulation study). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4): 343–353.Google Scholar
Oliva, F. L. 2014, Knowledge management barriers, practices and maturity model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(6): 1053–1074.Google Scholar
Osland, J. S., De Franco, S., & Osland, A. 1999. Organizational implications of Latin American culture: Lessons for the expatriate manager. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2): 219–234.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63: 539-569.Google Scholar
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. 2012. Editor's comments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1): iii-xiv.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Duarte, R., & Carrieri, A. 2012. Indigenous or imported knowledge in Brazilian management studies: A quest for legitimacy? Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 211–232.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, A., Dahlman, C., & Salmi, J. 2008. Knowledge and innovation for competitiveness in Brazil. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
SEBRAE. 2017. Anuário do trabalho na micro e pequena empresa 2015. Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises – SEBRAE, São Paulo. https://m.sebrae.com.br/Sebrae/Portal%20Sebrae/Anexos/anu%C3%A1rio%20do%20trabalho%202015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sergeeva, A., & Andreeva, T. 2016. Knowledge sharing research: Bringing context back in. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(3): 240–261.Google Scholar
Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S., & Calantone, R. 2005. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 259–276.Google Scholar
Sparkman, T. E. 2015. The factors and conditions for national human resource development in Brazil. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(8): 666–680.Google Scholar
Stone, M. 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 36(2): 111–147.Google Scholar
Story, J., & Reis, G. G. 2014. Managing the Brazilian way: Adaptation and integration. In Gehrke, B. & Claes, M.-T. (Eds.), Global leadership practices: A cross-cultural management perspective: 203–21. London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar
Strese, S., Adams, D. R., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. 2016. Corporate culture and absorptive capacity: The moderating role of national culture dimensions on innovation management. International Business Review, 25(5): 1149–1168.Google Scholar
Su, Z., Peng, M. W., & Xie, E. 2016. A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability. British Journal of Management, 27(1): 58–76.Google Scholar
Thürer, M., Godinho Filho, M., Stevenson, M., & Fredendall, L. D. 2013. Competitive priorities of small manufacturers in Brazil. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(6): 856–874.Google Scholar
Turner, W., & Kleiner, B. H. 1996. What managers must know to conduct business in Brazil. Management Research News, 19(11): 58–63.Google Scholar
Wan, W. P. 2005. Country resource environment, firm capabilities, and corporate diversification strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 161–182.Google Scholar
Weerawardena, J. 2003. Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3): 407–429.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 29–56.Google Scholar
Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., Snell, S. A. 2004. Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 335–361.Google Scholar
Zack, M. H. 1999. Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4): 45–58.Google Scholar