The relationship between knowledge The relationship between knowledge management, innovation and revenues: a management, innovation and revenues: a

survey of incubated firms in Brazilsurvey of incubated firms in Brazil

Carlos QuandtCicero Bezerra

Business School – Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná – Brazil

2014 BALAS Annual ConferenceApril, 9-12, 2014 - Port of Spain,Trinidad and Tobago

AgendaAgenda

• Objectives• Motivation• Theoretical background• Questionnaire• Analysis Protocol• Results• Final remarks

ObjectiveObjective

• To verify the relationships among– perceived effectiveness of

knowledge management practices, – investment in innovative

activities and – revenues of TBFs graduated by

incubators.

MotivationMotivation

• Relation between incubating process and KM practices– (Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat & Laosirihongthong, 2011;

Ratinho & Henriques, 2010).• Disposition of incubated companies to invest in innovation-related activities– (Schwartz, 2011).

• Lack of consensus about economic performance of graduated companies– (Kilcrease, 2011).

• Few studies on deployment of knowledge assets in TBFs– (West & Noel, 2009).

Theoretical BackgroundTheoretical Background

• Incubators and graduated companies – Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat & Laosirihongthong, 2011; Ratinho &

Henriques, 2010; Schwartz, 2011; Bøllingtoft, 2012; Bruneel et al, 2012; Ahmed & Ingle, 2011; Kilcrease, 2011; Qian, Haynes & Riggle, 2011.

• Knowledge Management– Nonaka, 1991; Christopher & Tanwar, 2012; Goel, Rana &

Rastogi, 2010; Pfaff & Hasan, 2010; Sveiby, 2001; Saini, 2013; Linderman, Schroeder & Sanders, 2010; Dalkir, 2011; Batista, Quandt, Pacheco & Terra, 2005.

• Innovation

– Ribière & Walter, 2013; Krogh, Nonaka & Rechsteiner, 2012; Camelo-Ordaz et al, 2011; Charterina & Landeta, 2013; Oslo Manual, 2005; Prester & Bozac, 2012.

SurveySurvey

• 12 incubators in State of Paraná– 95 graduated companies• 24 no longer available• 52 respondents

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

•Perception of effectiveness of KM practices• HR Management: rewards for initiatives, informal gathering (virtual or face-to-face) of people to discuss organizational problems, coaching and mentoring, formal corporate education programs, knowledge specialist networks. • Organizational policies: rewards for development of individual skills, internal and external benchmarking, documentation of learnt lessons and best practices, formal identification of individual and organizational competencies, establishment of formal KM strategy and policies.•ICT-related practices: portals, communication and collaboration tools, business intelligence systems, electronic document management, ERP systems.

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

• Investments in innovation– Acquisition of external knowledge– Acquisition of software–Machines and equipment– Training– Internal R&D– External R&D

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

• Revenues–Micro: under R$ 360 K– Small: up to R$ 3.6 M–Medium – group IV: up to R$ 6 M–Medium – group III: up to R$ 20 M– Large – group II: up to R$ 50 M– Large – group I: more than R$ 50 M

Analysis ProtocolAnalysis Protocol

Step Objective Procedure

1 Evaluate the internal reliability of the sets of questions submitted to the respondents

Cronbach's Alpha

2 Provide a general vision of the characteristics of respondent companies

Descriptive statistics (averages, standard deviations, frequencies)

3 Categorize the variables that represent graduate companies in relation to their investments in innovative elements and perceived efficacy of KM practices.

Percentage frequency.

4 Determine the number of dimensions to be analyzed Eigenvalues, intertia and scree plot

5 Verify the existence of associations between variables Multiple correspondence analysis

6 Evaluate the reliability of the set of variables chosen to be represented in the dimensions

Cronbach's Alpha

7 Evaluate the intensity of the association between grouped variables

Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)

ResultsResults

Statistic Consultancies Software Equipment TrainingInternal R&D

External R&D

Average 0.14 0.40 0.92 0.91 2.54 0.19Standard Deviation

0.29 0.43 0.92 0.79 1.54 0.36

Investments in innovation as a percentage of revenues

ResultsResults

Perception of effectiveness of KM practices (frequencies)Practice 0 1 2 3 4 5Initiative rewarding 0.00 0.00 11.54 46.45 36.54 5.77Informal grouping 11.54 9.62 19.23 19.23 32.69 7.69Coaching and mentoring 5.77 15.38 15.38 19.23 32.69 11.54Corporate education 17.31 40.38 19.23 9.62 9.62 3.85Knowledge specialists 15.38 11.54 11.54 17.31 26.92 17.31Best practices 17.31 7.69 17.31 11.54 28.85 17.31Benchmarking 0.00 5.77 9.62 30.77 36.54 17.31Skill identification 7.69 11.54 17.31 21.15 28.85 13.46Skill rewarding 9.62 7.69 11.54 36.54 28.85 5.77KM Strategies 19.23 42.31 5.77 23.08 7.69 1.92Corporate portals 13.46 15.38 15.38 21.15 23.08 11.54Communication/collaboration tools 0.00 0.00 1.92 21.15 53.85 23.08Business intelligence 34.62 25.00 19.23 9.62 7.69 3.85Electronic document management 38.46 23.08 19.23 9.62 5.77 3.85Management systems 11.54 11.54 15.38 17.31 30.77 13.46

ResultsResults

Multiple correspondence analysis

ResultsResults

Statistic RevenuesInvestment in

innovationHR

managementOrganizational

policiesInformation technology

Revenuesr 1.000 0.247 0.685 0.736 0.668p-value 0.000 0.779 0.000 0.000 0.000

Investment in innovation

r 1.000 0.495 0.378 0.417p-value 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002

Human Resources management

r 0.813 0.853p-value 0.000 0.000

Organizational policies

r 1.000 0.724p-value 0.000

Information Technology

r 1.000p-value 0.000

Correlations

ResultsResults

Investment in innovation and revenues

Concluding remarksConcluding remarks

Most of the aspects related to the effectiveness of KM practices are associated to revenues.

Companies that perceive greater effectiveness of KM practices:– invest more in innovation– have higher revenues.

Microenterprises present a higher propensity to invest in innovative activities than small ones – and as they reach higher revenue levels, the investments in innovation also increase.