Knowledge Driven Quality Improvement

Mukherjee, Amit Shankar; Lapré, Michael A.; Wassenhove, Luk N. Van

doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.11.s35

Cited by 206 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are consistent with research conducted by De Geus, 1988;Senge, 1990;Huber, 1991;Dimovski, 1994;Tsang, 1997;Jones & Hendry, 1992;Kezar, 2005;Jones, 2000;Škerlavaj & Dimovski, 2006;Škerlavaj et al, 2007;Liao & Wu, 2009. 3) The results showed that KM affects OP. The results are consistent with research conducted by Škerlavaj & Dimovski, 2006;Wiig, 2002;Gorelick & Monsou, 2005;Liao & Wu, 2009;Darroch, 2005;Alavi & Leidner, 2001;Massey et al, 2002;Schulz & Jobe, 2001;Darroch & McNaughton, 2003;Tanriverdi, 2005;Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Zack, et al, 2009;Mukherjee et al, 1998;Liao & Wu, 2009;Raja Suzana, 2004;2008;Gorelick & Monsou, 2005;Liao & Wu, 2009. …”

Section: Research Findingssupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Mediating Effects of Organizational Learning on the Relationship between Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An Applied Study on the Egyptian Commercial Banks

Nafei¹

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the mediating significant role of OL in the relationship between Knowledge Management (KM) and Organizational Performance (OP). It intends to explore the significant role of KM in achieving superior OP. It analyzes how KM creates OL and how OL contributes to OP.KM and OL should join forces and develop a unified discipline. KM needs OL and its expanding body of good research. OL needs base of practitioners of KM and its abiding interest in problems and practice.KM and OP are believed to be essential for the success in business. Organizations and researchers have turned their attention to KM recently. Despite the growing interest and investment of resources in KM, there are few empirical studies to demonstrate the relationship between KM and OP. Understanding these relationships is essential for managers if they hope to improve OP through KM. The purpose of this research is to fill the abovementioned gap by testing the relationships between KM and their impact on OP.This study was conducted on the Egyptian commercial banks. Of the 382 questionnaires that were distributed, 310 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 81%. This survey-type research is descriptive in terms of the data collection.The finding reveals that KM affects OP through OL. Accordingly, the study provided a set of recommendations including the necessity to pay more attention to KM as a key source for organizations to enhance the competitive advantage which is of prime significance for OP through OL.

show abstract

Section: Research Findingssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…One might expect KM to influence many different aspects of OP. KM has been linked positively to financial performance measures (Tanriverdi, 2005) and non-financial performance measures such as quality (Mukherjee et al, 1998). KM makes a difference to OP.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Km and Opmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mediating Effects of Organizational Learning on the Relationship between Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance: An Applied Study on the Egyptian Commercial Banks

Nafei¹

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This ensures that processes are repeatable, allowing for ongoing incremental improvement, and the realization of benefits of improvement efforts (Hackman & Wageman, 1995;Harrington & Mathers, 1997;Mukherjee, Lapré, & Van Wassenhove, 1998). The ISO 9000…”

Section: Background: the Promise And Reality Of Process Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited

Benner¹,

Tushman²

2003

The Academy of Management Review

1,977

2,448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organization and strategy research has stressed the need for organizations to simultaneously exploit existing capabilities while developing new ones. Yet this increasingly crucial challenge has been accompanied by an ongoing wave of managerial activity and institutional pressures for process management and control. We argue that these pressures stunt a firm's dynamic capabilities. We develop a contingency view of process management's influence on both technological innovation as well as organizational adaptation. We argue that while process management activities are beneficial for organizations in stable contexts, they are fundamentally inconsistent with all but incremental innovation and change. We argue that process management activities must be buffered from exploratory activities. As dynamic capabilities are rooted in both exploitative and exploratory activities, ambidextrous organizational forms provide the complex contexts for these inconsistent processes to co-exist. 3More than twenty years ago, Abernathy (1978) suggested that a firm's focus on productivity gains inhibited its flexibility and ability to innovate. Abernathy observed that in the automobile industry, a firm's economic decline was directly related to its efficiency and productivity efforts. He suggested that a firm's ability to compete over time may be rooted not only in simply increasing efficiency, but also in its ability to be simultaneously efficient and innovative (Abernathy, 1978: 173;Hayes & Abernathy, 1980). Strategy and organization theorists have similarly observed that dynamic capabilities are anchored in the ability to both exploit and explore (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993;March, 1991;Weick, 1969). A firm's ability to compete over time may lie in its ability both to integrate and build upon its current competencies, while simultaneously developing fundamentally new capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997).Twenty years after Abernathy's observations, the pressures for organizations to meet multiple, often inconsistent, contextual demands have escalated (e.g. Christensen, 1997;Tushman & O'Reilly, 1997). The notion of balance between exploitation and exploration, or between incremental and radical organizational change has been a consistent theme across several approaches to research in organizational adaptation (e.g. Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998;Burgelman, 1994;March, 1991;Levinthal & March, 1993;Gavetti and Levinthal, 2000; Romanelli & Tushman, 1985). Yet this need for dual organizational capabilities arises in the context of a wave of managerial activity and institutional pressures focusing on process management and control (e.g. Cole, 1998;Winter, 1994;Hackman & Wageman, 1995;Hammer & Stanton, 1999).Process management, based on a view of an organization as a system of interlinked processes, involves concerted efforts to map, improve, and adhere to organizational processes.Initially building on the seminal work of Deming (1986), Juran (1989), andIshikawa (1985), Although process management techniques were first employed in th...

show abstract

“…As Davenport (1999) show that, although the relationship between KM and performance indicators has been discussed at length of balance sheet, exchange value, market value, etc, few firms have been able to create a causal relationship between KM activities and OP utilising traditional measurements. Many scholars have therefore felt it necessary to attempt to measure other OP indicators when attempting to investigate the effects of KM including non-financial performance measures such as productivity (Lapre and Wassenhove, 2001), quality (Mukherjee, Lapre, and Wassenhove, 1998), and innovation (Francisco and Guadamillas, 2002). Cotora (2007) claimed that to measure corporate performance, it is imperative that a system takes into account indefinable values such as competencies, partnerships and knowledge along with inter-relationships and the process of conversion in situations.…”

Section: Organisational Performancementioning

confidence: 99%