4.4 Article

Linking knowledge management practices to organizational performance using the balanced scorecard approach

期刊

KYBERNETES
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 88-115

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/K-04-2019-0295

关键词

Balanced scorecard; Performance measures; Knowledge management practices; Information and communication technology; Knowledge sharing culture; Knowledge-based human resource management; Strategy and leadership

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to develop a decomposed model to inspect the effect of knowledge management practices (knowledge sharing culture [KSC], knowledge-based human resource management [KHRM], strategy and leadership [S&L], information and communication technology [ICT] on organizational performance [OP]) by using the four balanced scorecard outcomes (BSC) (learning and growth [L&G], internal process [IP] perspective, customer satisfaction [CS] perspective and financial performance [FP]). Design/methodology/approach - The research methodology included development of a research model based on comprehensive literature review followed by survey of knowledge-intensive organizations. A sample of 277 employees was obtained and structured equation modeling analysis using SPSS AMOS was conducted to test the proposed hypotheses. Findings - The study shows that KSC and KHRM have a highly significant effect on all the four aspects of OP; S&L positively and significantly affects only L&G and IP but does not have any significant effect on the other two, i.e. CS and FP, while ICT practices did not affect any of the measures significantly. Research limitations/implications - The data are limited to 277 middle and senior level managers of Indian firms, which may be a limiting factor for generalizability. Originality/value - The proposed model uncovers the dynamics of individual relationships between KM practices and measures of performance (proposed by BSC) in comparison to existing models which have mainly focused on the overall effect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据