Knowledge management capabilities and organizational performance: an investigation into the effects of knowledge infrastructure and processes on organizational performance

Knowledge is one of the most important assets for surviving in the modern business environment. The effective management of that asset mandates continuous adaptation by organizations, and requires employees to strive to improve the company's work processes. Organizations attempt to coordinate their unique knowledge with traditional means as well as in new and distinct ways, and to transform them into innovative resources better than those of their competitors. As a result, how to manage the knowledge asset has become a critical issue for modern organizations, and knowledge management is considered the most feasible solution. Knowledge management is a multidimensional process that identifies, acquires, develops, distributes, utilizes, and stores knowledge. However, many related studies focus only on fragmented or limited knowledge-management perspectives. In order to make knowledge management more effective, it is important to identify the qualitative and quantitative issues that are the foundation of the challenge of effective knowledge management in organizations. The main purpose of this study was to integrate the fragmented knowledge management perspectives into the holistic framework, which includes knowledge infrastructure capability (technology, structure, and culture) and knowledge process capability (acquisition, conversion, application, and protection), based on Gold's (2001) study. Additionally, because the effect of incentives ̶̶ which is widely acknowledged as a prime motivator in facilitating the knowledge management process ̶̶ was missing in the original framework, this study included the importance of incentives in the knowledge management framework. This study also identified the relationship of organizational performance from the standpoint of the Balanced Scorecard, which includes the customer-related, internal business process, learning & growth, and perceptual financial aspects of organizational performance in the Korean business context. Moreover, this study identified the relationship with the objective financial performance by calculating the Tobin's q ratio. Lastly, this study compared the group differences between larger and smaller organizations, and manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms in the study of knowledge management. Since this study was conducted in Korea, the original instrument was translated into Korean through the back translation technique. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the validity and reliability of the instrument. To identify the relationship between knowledge management capabilities and organizational performance, structural equation modeling (SEM) and multiple regression analysis were conducted. A Student's t test was conducted to examine the mean differences. The results of this study indicated that there is a positive relationship between effective knowledge management and organizational performance. However, no empirical evidence was found to suggest that knowledge management capabilities are linked to the objective financial performance, which remains a topic for future review. Additionally, findings showed that knowledge management is affected by organization's size, but not by type of organization. The results of this study are valuable in establishing a valid and reliable survey instrument, as well as in providing strong evidence that knowledge management capabilities are essential to improving organizational performance currently and making important recommendations for future research.

Paths to peace: conflict management trajectories in militarized interstate disputes

When multiple third-parties (states, coalitions, and international organizations) intervene in the same conflict, do their efforts inform one another? Anecdotal evidence suggests such a possibility, but research to date has not attempted to model this interdependence directly. The current project breaks with that tradition. In particular, it proposes three competing explanations of how previous intervention efforts affect current intervention decisions: a cost model (and a variant on it, a limited commitments model), a learning model, and a random model. After using a series of Markov transition (regime-switching) models to evaluate conflict management behavior within militarized interstate disputes in the 1946-2001 period, this study concludes that third-party intervention efforts inform one another. More specifically, third-parties examine previous efforts and balance their desire to manage conflict with their need to minimize intervention costs (the cost and limited commitments models). As a result, third-parties intervene regularly using verbal pleas and mediation, but rely significantly less frequently on legal, administrative, or peace operations strategies. This empirical threshold to the intervention costs that third-parties are willing to bear has strong theoretical foundations and holds across different time periods and third-party actors. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that the first third-party to intervene in a conflict is most likely to use a strategy designed to help the disputants work toward a resolution of their dispute. After this initial intervention, the level of third-party involvement declines and often devolves into a series of verbal pleas for peace. Such findings cumulatively suggest that disputants hold the key to effective conflict management. If the disputants adopt and maintain an extreme bargaining position or fail to encourage third-parties to accept greater intervention costs, their dispute will receive little more than verbal pleas for negotiations and peace.