IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aae/journl/v17y2021i4p121-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of knowledge management tools: Comparative analysis of small, medium, and large enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Natalia Sytnik

    (Associate Professor, National Technical University of Ukraine, “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute†, Peremogy Street, 37, Kyiv, 03056б, Ukraine)

  • Maryna Kravchenko

    (Professor, National Technical University of Ukraine, “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute†, Peremogy Street, 37, Kyiv, 03056 Ukraine)

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of knowledge management (KM) initiatives in small, medium, and large enterprises operating in Ukraine, and to highlight the specific characteristics of KM policies, as well as the scope and intensity of KM tools application in these categories. In particular, the study focused on the consistency between the awareness of knowledge/KM importance and KM policies, and the scope and intensity of the application of both human-centered tools and information communication technology (ICT) tools. METHODOLOGY: The concept of the study was developed on the basis of an integrative socio-technical perspective. The empirical data were obtained through a questionnaire survey among 90 managers of small, medium, and large Ukrainian enterprises and were analyzed statistically. FINDINGS: Both common and distinctive characteristics of these categories in terms of KM were highlighted. Although all enterprises, regardless of their size, showed a high awareness of knowledge/KM importance for their business, significant distinctions between small and large enterprises were found with regard to their KM policies, the scope of advanced KM tools application, and the intensity of some traditional and advanced KM tools application. In all cases, large enterprises showed higher levels of these characteristics compared to small enterprises, whereas medium enterprises were more similar to large enterprises. In contrast to the common view on SMEs as a homogeneous sector in terms of KM, the study shows its heterogeneity in terms of KM initiatives. According to a number of indicators studied, significant differences were observed between small and large enterprises, whereas the distinctions between medium and large enterprises were much less obvious. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE: The theoretical contribution of this study was the provision of SMEs sector heterogeneity evidence based on a number of KМ characteristics. This finding allows us to deepen our knowledge of conceptual differences in KM approaches, applied by different enterprise categories. From a practical perspective, an enterprise size should be taken into account while designing specific KM policies, programs and tools to meet enterprises’ needs to a greater extent. The larger the enterprise is, the more structured, deliberate, and conscious the KM approach that should be applied is. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: No empirical research that addresses the comparative analysis of KM initiatives in small, medium, and large enterprises operating in Ukraine, as well as in other transition economies of post-Soviet states, has been previously performed, and this study fills the gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalia Sytnik & Maryna Kravchenko, 2021. "Application of knowledge management tools: Comparative analysis of small, medium, and large enterprises," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 17(4), pages 121-156.
    • Handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:121-156
    DOI: 10.7341/20211745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jemi.edu.pl/uploadedFiles/file/all-issues/vol17/issue4/JEMI_Vol17_Issue4_2021_Article5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.7341/20211745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    2. Amandine Pinget & Rachel Bocquet & Caroline Mothe, 2015. "Barriers to Environmental Innovation in SMEs: Empirical Evidence from French Firms," Post-Print hal-01300837, HAL.
    3. Andrea Cardoni & Filippo Zanin & Giulio Corazza & Alessio Paradisi, 2020. "Knowledge Management and Performance Measurement Systems for SMEs’ Economic Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Amitabh Anand & Isabelle Walsh, 2016. "Should knowledge be shared generously? Tracing insights from past to present and describing a model," Post-Print halshs-02284055, HAL.
    5. Fahmi Ibrahim & David Edgar & Vivien Reid, 2009. "Assessing the Role of Knowledge Management in Adding Value: Moving Towards a Comprehensive Framework," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 275-286.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maciej Urbaniak & Piotr Rogala & Piotr Kafel, 2023. "Expectations of manufacturing companies regarding future priorities of improvement actions taken by their suppliers," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 296-310, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pinget, Amandine, 2016. "Spécificités des déterminants des innovations environnementales : une approche appliquée aux PME [Specificities of determinants for environmental innovation : an approach applied to SMEs]," MPRA Paper 80108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Amitabh Anand & Piera Centobelli & Roberto Cerchione, 2020. "Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding," Post-Print hal-02870014, HAL.
    3. Amandine Pinget & Rachel Bocquet, 2017. "Spécificités des sources de connaissances pour l'innovation environnementale des PME," Post-Print hal-01699651, HAL.
    4. Emad Abu-Shanab & Ayat Subaih, 2019. "The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Satisfaction in Predicting Organisational Innovation," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-25, September.
    5. Ana Villar & César Camisón Zornoza & Montserrat Boronat, 2009. "New challenges in competitiveness: knowledge development and coopetition," Working Papers. Serie EC 2009-04, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    6. Paola Castellani & Chiara Rossato & Elena Giaretta & Raffaela Davide, 2021. "Tacit knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive firms: the perceptions of team members and team leaders," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 125-155, January.
    7. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    8. Roberto Cerchione & Emilio Esposito & Maria Rosaria Spadaro, 2015. "The Spread of Knowledge Management in SMEs: A Scenario in Evolution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, 2016. "Managing Telecommunications for Development: An Analysis of Intellectual Capital in Nigerian Telecommunication Industry," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-30, March.
    10. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    11. Scott, Allen J., 2010. "Cultural economy and the creative field of the city," MPRA Paper 32108, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.
    14. Chris Kimble & José Braga Vasconcelos & Álvaro Rocha, 2016. "Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1119-1130, December.
    15. Maurizio Zollo, 1998. "Strategies or Routines ? Knowledge Codification, Path-Dependence and the Evolution of Post-Acquisition Integration Practices in the U.S. Banking Industry," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-10, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. Nicholas A. Athanassiou & Kendall Roth, 2006. "International experience heterogeneity effects on top management team advice networks: A hierarchical analysis," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 749-770, December.
    17. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    18. David Vallat, 2015. "Une alternative au dualisme État-Marché : l’économie collaborative, questions pratiques et épistémologiques," Working Papers halshs-01249308, HAL.
    19. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    20. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aae:journl:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:121-156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Ujwary-Gil (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://fundacjacognitione.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.