Knowledge serves as the foundation for SMEs to enhance capabilities in navigating turbulent environments. This study highlights that SMEs capability is a determinant in adopting innovations and business performance.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to uncover the capabilities of SMEs in relation to innovation adoption and business performance, with environmental turbulence acting as a moderating variable between innovation adoption and business performance.
METHODS
This study employed an explanatory approach that established quantitative foundations. PLS-SEM was utilized as the statistical analysis approach to test the developed hypotheses. An offline survey was conducted using data collected from 159 SMEs in the creative economy sectors.
RESULTS
The results reveal that knowledge management capability and dynamic capability significantly influence on innovation adoption. However, innovation capability has an insignificant effect on innovation adoption. Additionally, innovation adoption has a significant effect on business performance. Environmental turbulence, as a moderating variable between innovation adoption and business performance, demonstrates a weakening effect. Furthermore, this study also examines the mediating role of innovation adoption.
CONCLUSIONS
The interplay of knowledge management capability, innovation adoption, and business performance enhances the optimal capabilities of SMEs to achieve competitive advantage. On the basis of the KBV, knowledge fortifies the potential capacities, thereby fostering unique capabilities.
TeeceDJ. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies. 2012;49(8):1395–401. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x.
2.
Martinez-ConesaISoto-AcostaPCarayannisEG. On the path towards open innovation: Assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2017;21(3):553–70. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0403.
3.
Soto-AcostaPPopaSPalacios-MarquésD. E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: An empirical study in Spain. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2016;22(6):885–904. DOI: 10.3846/20294913.2015.1074126.
4.
CabriloSDahmsS. How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to superior innovation and market performance. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2018;22(3):621–48. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0309.
5.
FerraresiAAQuandtCOdos SantosSAFregaJR. Knowledge management and strategic orientation: Leveraging innovativeness and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2012;16(5):688–701. DOI: 10.1108/13673271211262754.
6.
HeisigPSurajOAKiantoAKemboiCArrauGPEasaNF. Knowledge management and business performance: Global experts’ views on future research needs. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2016;20(6):1169–98. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-12-2015-0521.
7.
ZhangHZhangXSongM. Does knowledge management enhance or impede innovation speed? Journal of Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2020;24(6):1393–424. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-08-2019-0460.
8.
Acosta-PradoJCNavarreteJFFTafur-MendozaAA. Relationship between conditions of knowledge management and innovation capability in new technology-based firms. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2021;25(01):2150005. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-08-2019-0460.
9.
PriceDPStoicaMBoncellaRJ. The relationship between innovation, knowledge, and performance in family and non-family firms: An analysis of SMEs. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurshi. 2013;2(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1186/2192-5372-2-14.
10.
KošturiakJ. Innovations and knowledge management. Human Systems Management. 2010;29(1):51–63. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-2010-0713.
11.
KaraawiAHamoodMIHuiminM. IT capability, knowledge management, and product design. Human Systems Management. 2018;37(1):117–28. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-17128.
12.
IqbalMYanuarniEMawardiMKAstutiES. Linking knowledge management to tourism business of SMEs in aftermath of disaster: Implications for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2023;9(2):100054. DOI: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100054.
13.
Martín-de CastroG. Knowledge management and innovation in knowledge-based and high-tech industrial markets: The role of openness and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management. 2015;47:143–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.032.
14.
SchumpeterJA. The theory of economic development, translated by Redvers Opie. Harvard: Economic Studies. 1934;46, 404–1600.
15.
MamunAA. Diffusion of innovation among Malaysian manufacturing SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2018;21(1):113–41. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-02-2017-0017.
16.
PhanTTA. Does organizational innovation always lead to better performance? A study of firms in Vietnam. Journal of Economics and Development. 2019;21(1):71–82. DOI: 10.1108/JED-06-2019-0003.
17.
ZhengYLiuJGeorgeG. The dynamic impact of innovative capability and inter-firm network on firm valuation: A longitudinal study of biotechnology start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing. 2010;25(6):593–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.02.001.
18.
ForsmanH. Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy. 2011;40(5):739–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.003.
19.
SaunilaMUkkoJ. Intangible aspects of innovation capability in SMEs: Impacts of size and industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2014;33:32–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.02.002.
20.
SaunilaM. Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2020;5(4):260–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.11.002.
21.
Maldonado-GuzmánGGarza-ReyesJAPinzón-CastroSYKumarV. Innovation capabilities and performance: Are they truly linked in SMEs? . International Journal of Innovation Science. 2018;11(1):48–62. DOI: 10.1108/IJIS-12-2017-0139.
22.
TeeceDJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2007;28(13):1319–50. DOI: 10.1002/smj.640.
23.
FerreiraJCoelhoAMoutinhoL. Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation. 2020;92:102061. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004.
24.
PanditDJoshiMPSahayAGuptaRK. Disruptive innovation and dynamic capabilities in emerging economies: Evidence from the Indian automotive sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;129:323–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.035.
25.
VrontisDBasileGAndreanoMSMazzitelliAPapasolomouI. The profile of innovation driven Italian SMEs and the relationship between the firms’ networking abilities and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research. 2020;114:313–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.009.
26.
WeavenSQuachSThaichonPFrazerLBillotKGraceD. Surviving an economic downturn: Dynamic capabilities of SMEs. Journal of Business Research. 2021;128:109–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.009.
27.
BoHQGuangDZFengJY. A framework of digitalization: Insights based on resource orchestration theory for digital transformation of traditional retailers. International Journal of Management Excellence. 2020;16:2260–71. DOI: 10.17722/ijme.v16i1.1179.
28.
GuoHYangZHuangRGuoA. The digitalization and public crisis responses of small and medium enterprises: Implications from a COVID-19 survey. Frontiers of Business Research in China. 2020;14:1–25. DOI: 10.1186/s11782-020-00087-1.
29.
BreznikLHisrichRD. Dynamic capabilities vs. innovation capability: Are they related? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2014;21(3):368–84. DOI: 10.1108/JSBED-02-2014-0018.
30.
DostMPahiMHMagsiHBUmraniWA. Effects of sources of knowledge on frugal innovation: Moderating role of environmental turbulence. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019;23(7):1245–59. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-01-2019-0035.
31.
TambunanT. Recent evidence of the development of micro, small and medium enterprises in Indonesia. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 2019;9(1):18. DOI: 10.1186/s40497-018-0140-4.
ChristensenCM. The innovator‘s dilemma: When newtechnologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press; 2013.
34.
Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy. Indonesia Tourism & Creative Economy Outlook 2021–2022. Jakarta: Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, Indonesia; 2022.
35.
TuruljaLBajgoricN. Innovation, firms’ performance and environmental turbulence: Is there a moderator or mediator?European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019;22(1):213–32. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-03-2018-0064.
36.
AriciTGokMS. Examining environmental turbulence intensity: A strategic agility and innovativeness approach on firm performance in environmental turbulence situations. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):5364. DOI: 10.3390/su15065364.
37.
GyeduSTangHNtarmahAHManuEK. The moderating effect of environmental turbulence on the relationship between innovation capability and business performance. International Journal of Innovation Science. 2021;13(4):456–76. DOI: 10.1108/IJIS-10-2020-0189.
38.
FossNJLyngsieJZahraSA. The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal. 2013;34(12):1453–71. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2135.
39.
GardnerHKGinoFStaatsBR. Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2012;55(4):1022–998. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2010.0604.
40.
GassmannOKeuppMM. The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business. 2007;42(3):350–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.006.
41.
CaputoFGarcia-PerezACilloVGiacosaE. A knowledge-based view of people and technology: Directions for a value co-creation-based learning organisation. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019;23(7):1314–34. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2018-0645.
42.
GrantRM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1996;17(S2):109–22. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250171110.
43.
KogutBZanderU. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science. 1992;3(3):383–97. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.383.
44.
BarneyJ. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 1991;17(1):99–120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
45.
SchützKKässerMBlomeCFoerstlK. How to achieve cost savings and strategic performance in purchasing simultaneously: A knowledge-based view. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 2020;26(2):100534. DOI: 10.1016/j.pursu2019.04.002.
46.
ZaiedRMBLouatiHAffesH. The relationship between organizational innovations, internal sources of knowledge and organizational performance. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains. 2015;6(1):53–67. DOI: 10.5121/ijmvsc.2015.6105.
47.
JuTLLiCYLeeTS. A contingency model for knowledge management capability and innovation. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2006;106(6):855–77. DOI: 10.1108/02635570610671524.
48.
AlQudahNF. Knowledge sharing and innovation in business organization: A literature review. Human Systems Management. 2023;42(5):471–85. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-220081.
49.
IqbalMSiti AstutiETrialihRArifinZAlief AprilianY. The influences of information technology resources on Knowledge Management Capabilities: Organizational culture as mediator variable. Human Systems Management. 2020;39(2):129–39. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-190562.
50.
NyameGAmpomahEKAdu-GyamfiM. Knowledge management system implementation success: A social capital perspective. Human Systems Management. 2022;41(1):27–45. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-211185.
51.
TaghizadehSKKariniANadarajahGNikbinD. Knowledge management capability, environmental dynamism and innovation strategy in Malaysian firms. Management Decision. 2020;59(6):1386–405. DOI: 10.1108/MD-01-2020-0051.
52.
YiLWangYUpadhayaBZhaoSYinY. Knowledge spillover, knowledge management capabilities, and innovation among returnee entrepreneurial firms in emerging markets: Does entrepreneurial ecosystem matter. Journal of Business Research. 2021;130:283–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.024.
53.
TsengS-M. The effect of knowledge management capability and customer knowledge gaps on corporate performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2016;29(1):51–71. DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-03-2015-0021.
54.
SunYLiuJDingY. Analysis of the relationship between open innovation, knowledge management capability and dual innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2020;32(1):15–28. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1632431.
55.
Al-Sa’diAFAbdallahABDahiyatSE. The mediating role of product and process innovations on the relationship between knowledge management and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan. Business Process Management Journal. 2017;23(2):349–76. DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2016-0047.
56.
ByukusengeEMuneneJ.C. Knowledge management and business performance: Does innovation matter?. Cogent Business & Management. 2017;4(1):1368434. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2017.1368434.
57.
HonarpourAJusohAMd NorK. Total quality management, knowledge management, and innovation: An empirical study in R&D units. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2018;29(7–8):798–816. DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2016.1238760.
58.
LawsonBSamsonD. Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2001;5(3):377–400. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919601000427.
59.
ChenQWangC-HHuangS-Z. Effects of organizational innovation and technological innovation capabilities on firm performance: Evidence from firms in China’s Pearl River Delta. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2020;26(1):72–96. DOI: 10.4324/9781003057352-6.
60.
KimM-KParkJ-HPaikJ-H. Factors influencing innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises in Korean manufacturing sector: Facilitators, barriers and moderators. International Journal of Technology Management. 2018;76(3–4):214–35. DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2018.091286.
61.
SamsonDGloetMSinghP. Systematic innovation capability: Evidence from case studies and a large survey. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2017;21(7):1750058. DOI: 10.1142/S136391961750058X.
62.
KafetzopoulosDPsomasE. The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing companies: The Greek case. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2015;26(1):104–30. DOI: 10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117.
63.
RajapathiranaRPJHuiY. Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2018;3(1):44–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2017.06.002.
64.
ErmaYIqbalMAstutiESMawardiMKAlfisyahrR. Determinants of Business Recovery: The Role of Government Support as Moderator (a Study on Tourism SMEs Affected by Lombok Earthquake, Indonesia). Human System Management. 2023:1-19. DOI: 10.3233/HSM-220171.
65.
VicenteMAbrantesJLTeixeiraMS. Measuring innovation capability in exporting firms: The INNOVSCALE. International Marketing Review. 2015;32(1):29–51. DOI: 10.1108/IMR-09-2013-0208.
66.
YeǯilSDoğanIF. Exploring the relationship between social capital, innovation capability and innovation. Innovation. 2019;21(4):506–32. DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1585187.
67.
AlvesACBarbieuxDReicherFMTello-GamarraJZawislakPA. Innovation and dynamic capabilities of the firm: Defining an assessment model. Revista de Administração de Empresas.. 2017;57:232–44. DOI: 10.1590/S0034-759020170304.
68.
MikalefPBouraMLekakosGKrogstieJ. Big data analytics capabilities and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of the environment. British Journal of Management. 2019;30(2):272–98. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12343.
69.
DavisPEBendicksonJS. Strategic antecedents of innovation: Variance between small and large firms. Journal of Small Business Management. 2021;59(1):47–72. DOI: 10.1111/jsbm.12478.
70.
ZhouSSZhouAJFengJJiangS. Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Management & Organization. 2019;25(5):731–47. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2017.20.
71.
CrossanMMApaydinM. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies. 2010;47(6):1154–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x.
72.
YuShengKIbrahimM. Innovation capabilities, innovation types, and firm performance: Evidence from the banking sector of Ghana. Sage Open. 2020;10(2):2158244020920892. DOI: 10.1177/2158244020920892.
73.
BennerMJTushmanML. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review. 2003;28(2):238–56. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096.
74.
PrimaLita RFitrianaFaisal RMeuthiaM. Enhancing small and medium enterprises performance through innovation in Indonesia: A framework for creative industries supporting tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. 2020;11(1):155–76. DOI: 10.1108/JHTT-11-2017-0124.
75.
DanneelsESethiR. New product exploration under environmental turbulence. Organization Science. 2011;22(4):1026–39. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0572.
76.
HanvanichSSivakumarKHultGTM. The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: The moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2006;34:600–12. DOI: 10.1177/0092070306287327.
77.
DayanMBasarirA. Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2009;25(1):18–29. DOI: 10.1108/08858621011009128.
78.
JaworskiBJKohliAK. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing. 1993;57(3):53–70. DOI: 10.1177/002224299305700304.
79.
Garcia-ZamoraEGonzalez-BenitoOMunoz-GallegoPA. Organizational and environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance. Innovation. 2013;15(2):224–44. DOI: 10.5172/im2013.15.2.224.
80.
TsaiKHYangSY. The contingent value of firm innovativeness for business performance under environmental turbulence. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2014;10:343–66. DOI: 10.1007/s11365-012-0225-4.
81.
DotzelTShankarVBerryLL. Service innovativeness and firm value. Journal of Marketing Research. 2013;50(2):259–76. DOI: 10.1509/jmr.10.0426.
82.
BelloDCRadulovichLPJavalgiRRGSchererRFTaylorJ. Performance of professional service firms from emerging markets: Role of innovative services and firm capabilities. Journal of World Business. 2016;51(3):413–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2015.11.004.
83.
KalmukGAcarAZ. The mediating role of organizational learning capability on the relationship between innovation and firm’s performance: A conceptual framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;210:164–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.355.
84.
KareemHMAzizKAMaelahRYunusYMAlsheikhAAlsheikhW. The influence of accounting information systems, knowledge management capabilities, and innovation on organizational performance in Iraqi SMEs. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM). 2021;17(2):72–103. DOI: 10.4018/IJKM.2021040104.
85.
QandahRSuifanTSMasa’dehRObeidatBY. The impact of knowledge management capabilities on innovation in entrepreneurial companies in Jordan. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2021;29(4):989–1014. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2246.
86.
AlrubaieeLAlzubiHMHanandehRAliRA. Investigating the relationship between knowledge management processes and organizational performance. The mediating effect of organizational innovation. International Review of Management and Business Research. 2015;4, 989–1009.
87.
CreswellJWCreswellJD. JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Newbury Park: Sage; 2017.
88.
HairJFJSarstedtMHopkinsLKuppelwieserVG. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. 2014;26(2):106–21. DOI: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
89.
HairJ.F.JrSarstedtMRingleC.MGuderganS.P. Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage publications; 2017.
90.
HairJFSarstedtMRingleCM. Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing. 2019;53(4):566–84. DOI: 10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665.
91.
AboelmagedMG. Linking operations performance to knowledge management capability: The mediating role of innovation performance. Production Planning & Control. 2014;25(1):44–58. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2012.655802.
92.
AkmanGYilmazC. Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation: An empirical analysis in Turkish software industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(01), 69–111. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919608001923.
93.
LiYHHuangJWTsaiMT. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management. 2009;38(4):440–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.004.
94.
Sadiku-DushiJDanaL.PRamadaniV. Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions and SMEs performance. Journal of Business Research. 2019;100:86–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.025.
95.
ChinWW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods Bus Res. 1998;295(2), 295–336.
96.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43:115–35. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
97.
RingleCMSarstedtMStraubDW. Editor’s Comments: A Critical Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in” MIS Quarterly”. MIS Quarterly. 2012;36(1):iii–xiv. DOI: 10.2307/41410402.
