Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-06T14:50:11.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolution and Coevolution: Dynamic Knowledge Capability Building for Catching-up in Emerging Economies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2016

Xiaoying Dong ,
Yan Yu  and
Na Zhang
Xiaoying Dong
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Yan Yu*
Affiliation:
Renmin University of China, China
Na Zhang
Affiliation:
Purdue University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Yan Yu (yanyu@ruc.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge has always been a strategic resource for firms; however, there is a lack of research regarding how a firm's knowledge management (KM) contributes to its capability catching-up and adaptation in emerging economies. This article focuses on the knowledge capability building of Chinese private firms that were set up in the 1990s and pays particular attention to how firms with limited resources and knowledge went on to achieve remarkable success. This paper presents its analysis through a multi-level co-evolutionary lens and a case study on the Li-Ning Company. The case study depicts the macro coevolution between the changing business environment and the firm's strategic choices, as well as the micro coevolution of the organizational strategy and the KM orientations, processes, and infrastructures within the firm. The research sheds light on the dynamic capability building trajectory for the firms in emerging economies.

摘要:

摘要:

知识一直是公司的战略资源; 然而, 企业的知识管理 (KM) 如何有助于其在新兴经济体中的能力赶超和适应缺乏研究。本文重点介绍了20世纪90年代建立的中国私营企业的知识能力建设, 特别关注资源有限的企业是如何取得显著成效的。本文展示多层面协同演化视角和李宁公司案例研究。案例研究描述变化的商业环境与企业战略选择之间的宏观协同演化, 以及组织战略和企业内的KM导向、过程及基础设施的微观协同演化。本研究揭示了新兴经济体中企业动态能力建设的轨迹。

ज्ञान सदैव फर्म के लिए कूटनैतिक संसाधन रहा है; वरन ज्ञान प्रबंधन के उदीयमान अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में बराबरी व अनुकूलन प्रभाव पर सीमित शोध उपलब्ध है. यह शोध ९० के दशक में स्थापित निजी फर्मों में ज्ञान क्षमता सर्जन पर केंद्रित है जिसमें इस बात पर विशेष प्रकाश डाला गया है की सीमित ज्ञान संसाधन वाली फार्मों में सराहनीय उपलब्धियां कैसे हुईं. इस शोध में बहु-स्तरीय उद्गम के मूल्यांकन के माध्यम से आकलन प्रस्तुत किया गया है और में साथ ही एक चीनी निजी कंपनी का वृत्त अध्ययन दिया गया है. वृत्त अध्ययन में परिवर्तनशील व्यापारिक वातावरण तथा फर्म के रणनैतिक चुनाव के सह-उद्गम तथा संगठनीय रणनीति व फर्म के ज्ञान प्रबंध विन्यास, प्रक्रियाओं व अवसंरचना के सूक्ष्म स्तरीय उद्गम को प्रदर्शित किया गया है. यह शोध उदीयमान अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में फर्मों के गतिशील सर्जन प्रक्रम पर प्रकाश डालता है.

O conhecimento sempre foi um recurso estratégico para as empresas; entretanto, há uma falta de pesquisas a respeito de como a gerência do conhecimento (KM) de uma empresa contribui para a sua capacidade de recuperação e adaptação em economias emergentes. Este artigo centra-se na construção de capacidades de conhecimento de empresas privadas chinesas que foram criadas na década de 1990 e presta especial atenção à forma pela qual empresas com recursos e conhecimento limitados passaram a alcançar um sucesso notável.

Este artigo apresenta a sua análise através de uma lente multinível coevolucionária e um estudo de caso sobre a empresa Li-Ning. O estudo de caso descreve a coevolução macro entre um ambiente de negócios em mudança e as escolhas estratégicas da empresa, bem como a coevolução micro da estratégia organizacional e as orientações da KM, processos e infraestrutura na empresa. A pesquisa lança luz sobre a trajetória da construção de capacidades dinâmicas para empresas em economias emergentes.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Знание всегда является стратегическим ресурсом для компаний; тем не менее, существует мало исследований, посвященных тому, как управление знаниями в компании способствует догоняющему росту и адаптации в странах с развивающейся экономикой. В данной статье основное внимание уделяется развитию динамических способностей приобретения знаний в китайских частных компаниях, которые были созданы в 1990-х годах; особое внимание уделяется тому, как компании с ограниченными ресурсами и знаниями смогли достичь значительных успехов. В этой статье проводится многоуровневый коэволюционный анализ на основании исследования компании Li-Ning. Эмпирическое исследование демонстрирует макрокоэволюцию между меняющейся бизнес-средой и стратегическим выбором компании, а также микрокоэволюцию между организационной стратегией и управлением знаниями, включая ориентацию, процессы и инфраструктуру управления знаниями внутри компании. Данное исследование проливает свет на траекторию создания динамических способностей для компаний в развивающихся странах.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

El conocimiento siempre ha sido un recurso estratégico para las empresas; sin embargo, hay una falta de investigación sobre cómo la gestión del conocimiento de una empresa contribuye al catching-up y la adaptación de sus capacidades en economías emergentes. Este artículo se centra en la construcción de capacidades de empresas privadas chinas que se establecieron en la década de los 1990 y presta una atención especial al cómo las empresas con recursos y conocimiento limitados pasaron a conseguir un éxito notable. Este artículo presenta su análisis mediante unos lentes multi-evolucionarios y un estudio de caso en la Empresa Li-Ning. El caso de estudio muestra la co-evolución entre los entornos de negocios cambiantes y las opciones estratégicas de la empresa, así como la co-evolución micro de la estrategia organizacional y las orientaciones de gestión del conocimiento, los procesos, y las infraestructuras en la empresa. Esta investigación arroja luces sobre la trayectoria de la construcción de capacidades dinámicas para empresas de economías emergentes.

Keywords

capability buildingemerging economyknowledge managementmultilevel coevolution
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 717 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25 (1): 107–136.Google Scholar
Barney, J. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27 (6): 643–650.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 24–56.Google Scholar
Dixon, S. E. A., Meyer, K. E., & Day, M. 2014. Building dynamic capabilities of adaption and innovation: A study of micro-foundations in a transition economy. Long Range Planning, 47 (4): 186–205.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, C. 2012. Organizational learning as credit assignment: A model and two experiments. Organization Science, 23 (6): 1717–1732.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. P., Serra, F. A. R., & Reis, N. R. 2011. On the adaptation of the firm's strategies to the international business environment: A knowledge-based and evolutionary perspective. European Journal International Management, 5 (6): 633–655.Google Scholar
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1): 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7 (4): 375–387.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycle. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10): 997–1010.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. 1993. Strategic alignment - leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32 (1): 4–16.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2014. Strategic management: Concepts: Competitiveness and globalization (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 249–267.Google Scholar
Inkpen, A., & Choudhury, N. 1995. The seeking of strategy where it is not: Towards a theory of strategy absence. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (4): 313–323.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Khalifa, M., Yu, A. Y., & Shen, K. N. 2008. Knowledge management systems success: A contingency perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12 (1): 119–132.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai motor. Organization Science, 9 (4): 506–402.Google Scholar
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24 (4): 691–710.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. 1999. Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10 (5): 519–534.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. 2012. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McKelvey, B. 1997. Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8 (4): 352–380.Google Scholar
McKelvey, B. 1999. Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10 (3): 294–321.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1): 14–37.Google Scholar
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. 1990. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275–296.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39: 920–936.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1987. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65 (3): 43–59.Google Scholar
Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C. J., & Vorakulpipat, C. 2010. Generations of knowledge management in the architecture, engineering and construction industry: An evolutionary perspective. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 24 (2): 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27 (2): 237–263.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2, Winter Special Issue): 63–76.Google Scholar
Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. 2013. The coevolution of sustainable strategic management in the global marketplace. Organization & Environment, 26 (2): 162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonehouse, G., & Minocha, S. 2008. Strategic processes @ nike—Making and doing knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 15 (1): 24–31.Google Scholar
Tan, J., & Tan, D. 2005. Environment-strategy co-evolution and co-alignment: A staged model of chinese soes under transition. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2): 141–157.Google Scholar
Tanriverdi, H. 2005. Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly, 29 (2): 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. 2005. Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2): 97–119.Google Scholar
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. 1993. Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71: 84–93.Google Scholar
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. 1997. The discipline of market leaders: Choose your customers, narrow your focus, dominate your market. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K. 2014. Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16 (4): 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Ellsaesser, F. 2011. How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2): 404–419.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Zahra, S. A. 2008. Organizational unlearning. Human Relations, 61 (10): 1435–1462.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. 1999. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10 (5): 551–568.Google Scholar
Waldmeir, P. 2015. Li Ning's rise and fall marks a cautionary tale. Financial Times. 23 January. Available from URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0ece54f6-a03d-11e4-aa89-00144feab7de.html#slide0 Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 2003. Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Yu, Y., Dong, X. Y., Shen, K. N., Mohamend, K., & Hao, J. X. 2013. Strategies, technologies, and organizational learning for developing organizational innovativeness in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 66 (12): 2507–2514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Abdelgawad, S. G., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2011. Emerging multinations venturing into developed economies: Implications for learning, unlearning, and entrepreneurial capability. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (3): 323–330.Google Scholar
Zhou, K. Z. 2006. Innovation, imitation, and new product performance: The case of China. Industrial Marketing Management, 35 (3): 394–402.Google Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. 2005. The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69 (2): 42–60.Google Scholar