International Conference on Islamic Economics, Governance and Social Enterprise, IConIGS 2015

A comprehensive review of the component of the knowledge management capabilities of social

enterprise

Norasiken Abdul Rahmana, Mohamed Fauzi Othmana,*, Ahmad Jusoha

a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, 81310, Malaysia

Abstract

Knowledge and its management are recognized as a strategic asset that provides firms with a competitive edge. Prior research
shows that a knowledge management capability (KMCs) is crucial because it helps companies promote best practice and
facilitate knowledge creation. However, although there is a growing realization that KMCs is critical to knowledge creation and
organization performance, there is still a need for exploring another dimension of KMCs as well as its application and successful
implementations, not only companies but also society in general. Based on the observation, this paper tries to explore and
identify the relevant capabilities of knowledge management which are can be applied to social enterprises. Fundamental concepts
of KMCs, capabilities and organization performance were used for reviewed. After reviewing the search results, a total of 21
studies were found related to the aims of this study. The studies were from 2001 to 2015 and included empirical, conceptual, and
literature review. The results demonstrated that most of the previous works on the KMCs were focused on the approach of Gold
(KMCs divided into two parts; infrastructures view and process view). Finally, a discussion on the findings of this review and the
possible future routes for research are presented.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under the responsibility of Universiti Teknologi MARA Johor.

Keywords: Knowledge Management; Organization Capabilities; Infrastructures capabilities; Knowledge Process Capabilities; Organizational
Performance

1. Introduction

Under the growing pressures of complexity, intangibility, interconnectivity and globalization, social enterprises
have understood the role of knowledge in bringing organization to face new challenges, especially the changing
nature of competition coupled with the enhanced dynamism and complexity of the environment in which they
operate (Abdullah, Hashim, & Ali, 2015). As a result, company managers strive in many ways to use this asset to
create the highest values in their company. Efficient knowledge management enhances competitive advantages and
improves organizational success.
Knowledge management improves the organizational performance through acquiring knowledge, converting it
into something useful and use that form. Therefore, many companies have initiated using knowledge management in
their organization (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001). Consequently, the topic of knowledge management has
received worldwide attention among researcher due to its significance for the firm (Misra, Hariharan, & Khaneja,
2003; Criscuolo, Salter, & Sheehan, 2007; Botha, Kourie, & Snyman, 2008; Lowik, Van Rossum, Kraaijenbrink, &
Groen, 2012; Jiao, Cui, Zhu, & Chen, 2014; Tseng & Lee, 2014).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +607-563 5098; fax: +607-557 9385.

E-mail address: m-fauzi@utm.my

2212-5671 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Accounting Research Institute (ARI).
2

Many knowledge management capabilities (KMCs) studies have been looked at in this review. The studies that
were covered include the impact of knowledge management capabilities on competitive advantage (Weissenberger-
Eibl & Schwenk, 2009; Zonooz, Farzam, Satarifar, & Bakhshi, 2011), innovativeness (Phene & Almeida, 2008;
Yang, Chen, & Shyu, 2008; Barbaroux, 2012), competitiveness (Hou & Chien, 2010; Setia & Patel, 2013; Kleef &
Roome, 2007) and organization performance (Kipley, Lewis, & Helm, 2008; Hyunsuk Lee & Kelley, 2008; Pagano,
2009; Martín-Pérez, Martín-Cruz, & Estrada-Vaquero, 2012).
Most of the research has been mainly completed in large private organizations, where resources and competitive
conditions can trigger the use of Knowledge Management (KM) (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). However, there are
other sectors and other organization types and sizes that can develop these capabilities and improve their
organization outcomes. These are the case of small businesses and Social Economy organizations that have organic
structures and culture fostering from knowledge capabilities to encourage innovation in their organization (Hume &
Hume, 2008; Ko, 2012; Social Enterprise Malaysia, 2015). Therefore, there is a developing need for more empirical
research that can explain how these KMCs can be developed by organizations of different sizes, sectors, structure or
strategic orientations, and demonstrate what are the tangible outcomes of this development (Ortiz, 2014).
In addressing these issues, this study focused on bringing the different theoretical and empirical research on
KMCs with the characteristics of Social Enterprise (SEs). They are micro, small or medium size organizations,
usually related to the social problem, environmental issues and economic goals to focus on sustainability. This
organization has received significant attention in recent years as academics and politicians for sought a solution to
decrease current social and environmental problems (Elson & Hall, 2012; Ko, 2012; Social Enterprise Malaysia,
2015).

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Knowledge management capabilities (KMCs)

This research is based on KMC literature and empirical conducted in the private and public sectors, determining
the theoretical grounding to study knowledge from the perspective of a Knowledge-based view Theory and
Organizational Capabilities Theories (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Grant, 1996; Spender, 1998; Lu & Tang, 2007). These
theories involve the development of organizational capabilities that enhance the chances of growth and firm survival
(Ortiz, 2014) and their long-term strategies for firm sustainability (Ko, 2012). Therefore, knowledge would become
a strategically significant resource of the firm that reflects well established, and knowledge management would
support the aggregation of resources into capabilities (Anderson, 2009). Also, Ortiz (2014) argue that the
organization should control these capabilities to improve firm effectiveness and employee engagement (Rahman,
2015).
Literature defines KMC as ability to mobilize and deploy KM-based resources in combination with other
resources and capability (Chuang, 2004; L. M. Lin & Hsia, 2011; Nieves & Haller, 2014) to achieve the goals of and
gain business values from the organization and positively affect organization performance ( Liu & Tsai, 2007; Kim,
Lee, Chun, & Benbasat, 2014). Based on this review, the following definition of KM capabilities for Social
Enterprises is developed for this study:

„The ability to mobilize and deploy knowledge resources in combination with other capabilities for enabling
KM activities within enterprises, and thus providing a sustainable advantage, and encourage organization
performance of Social Enterprises.’

However, there has been a little empirical discussion about how the development of these capabilities results in
strategic and operational outcomes for Social Enterprises (Ortiz, 2014). Moreover, the reduced number of empirical
studies that have been undertaken and focused only on large for-profit oriented company and public organization
(Gold et al., 2001; H. Lee & Choi, 2003; H. N. Nguyen & Mohamed, 2004; Smith, Mills, & Dion, 2010; Wu &
Chen, 2014). Therefore, more research needs to be undertaken to study and assess the development of these
capabilities under different firm‟s scales and structure, and findings the results in known and, potentially, some
unknown outcomes for these enterprises.
 3

2.2. Social enterprises (SEs)

It is necessary here to clarify what exactly meant by are considered organizations that represent another step in
the continuing reinvention of the „third sector‟(Ortiz, 2014). The focus of this paper is on Social Enterprises (SEs).
Because this research is undertaken mainly in the Malaysia, this paper follows the Malaysian definition of SEs in
Malaysian Social Enterprises Blueprint 2015-2018 (2015) as a fourth sector aptly named as the „for benefit‟ sector
that is emerged impact-driven and entrepreneurial individuals for solving a social and environmental issues using
viable business means. Although that, the term has been widely used in Malaysia recently to explain the effort of
government agencies to change the economic status of the poor community (Zainon et al., 2014). In addition, this
sector has created many variants of blended entities such as social enterprise, social business, and even socially
responsible business (Unleashing the power of Social Entrepreneurship: Malaysia Social Enterprise Blueprint
2015-2018, 2015). In fact, these entities have a strong social and environmental mission to their core and have a
business model that creates values not only for the economy but society and the environment as well.
However, the Malaysian SEs sector is currently in its infancy and although this organization is attracting the
attention of government and increasing number of supporting intermediary organizations for SEs including British
Council, myHarapan, iM4U, Scope Group, Pandemic, and Social Enterprise Alliance, until 2015, only 0.02% of
Malaysians are working in SEs (Unleashing the power of Social Entrepreneurship: Malaysia Social Enterprise
Blueprint 2015-2018, 2015). Moreover, there is still a little of empirical studies about how these organizations
operate, perform and consequently scale up. For that matter, there is need an increasing interest among researchers
doing more research and empirical data that describes and explains the intrinsic characteristics of SEs. This
knowledge will be crucial for internal and external supported to design and provide accurate strategies to enhance
the „for-benefit‟ sector and maximize its impact and coverage.

3. Methodology

The literature search took place in 2001 until 2015, during which relevant articles were found from online
database search engine with the keywords such as knowledge management, organization capability, organization
performance, social enterprise and a combination of these words were used. This database included Emerald,
JSTOR, ProQuest, ScienceDirect and Wiley Online Library. In another relevant attempt using Google Scholar, the
search was based on the keyword: “KM” and “organization performance”. The rationale for choosing this database
is that they are the largest and most popular online databases and search engines (Yiu & Law, 2014).
Each identified articles was carefully read through to determine its inclusion for analysis. The decision to include
an article for analysis was primarily based on its direct relevance to the theme of the study. The identified articles
that were publishing by Social Enterprises Journal and Knowledge Management Journal concentrate to the domain
in knowledge management capability were very few. After reviewing the search results, a total of 21 studies were
found related to the aims of this study (refer Table 1). The studies were included empirical, conceptual, and
literature review. Based on the literature review, the study findings were presented, and the model of Knowledge
Management Capabilities of Social Enterprises (KMC-SE) will be proposed.

4. Findings

4.1Previous studies of knowledge management capabilities (KMCs)

A significant amount of literature has been published on KMCs. The study performed by Gold et al. ( 2001), is
one of the most cited studies in the field of knowledge management capabilities. The studies by Gold et al. (2001)
adapted model from Leonard-Barton (1992) which is he divided capability to core capabilities and core rigidities.
However, most of the studies in this paper show most studies in knowledge management capabilities preferred used
the model proposed by Gold et al. (2001). Gold et al. (2001) identified knowledge process and knowledge
infrastructure as the component of knowledge management capabilities in the organization. Knowledge
infrastructure consists of culture, technology, and structure. On the other hand, knowledge processes refer to
4

capabilities of the organization to acquire knowledge, converse the knowledge, apply the knowledge, and protect the
useful knowledge.
The other studies have adopted Gold et al. (2001) approach either minimal or completely can see in a few studies
about knowledge management capabilities. An instance studies by Anderson (2009), in which researcher looks a
relationship between knowledge infrastructure capabilities and knowledge process capabilities with the purpose of
finding their impact on the overall firm effectiveness. Overall, the findings of studies suggested that knowledge
management capabilities of an organization are varied essentially to initiate knowledge management. Similarly,
Sandhawalia and Dalcher (2011) also full adopted Gold et al. (2001) approach, which used case study method to
identify the knowledge management capabilities of an organization. It is interesting to note that KM infrastructure
and process capabilities required to support and facilitate the knowledge flow, and the development of these
capabilities from an initial state to an organizational state.
The researcher has used the dame construct for knowledge management capabilities. However, they have
changed the labeling. A study by Liu and Tsai (2007) looked at the relationship between knowledge management
and knowledge sharing at the new product development performance based on customer knowledge development. A
construct that give a firm superior knowledge-based capabilities is obtaining the organizational culture, top
management support, organizational learning and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, Aujirapongpan, Vadhanasindhu,
Chandrachai, and Cooparat (2010) studies a literature review about KMCs and there are proposed indicator for
knowledge management capabilities based on a resources-based perspective (technology, structure, and culture) and
a knowledge-based perspective (expertise, learning and information). Both of studies using Gold et al. (2001)
approach however they're using different terms for explaining the component of KMCs.
Another component that has been used by researchers is the status of the company. The status of the company
includes technology advantage, characteristic of the company and the scale of the organization (Abdullah et al.,
2015). In Tseng and Lee (2014) study, they investigate the effect of KM capabilities and dynamic capabilities into
organization performance. The studies finding showed that all the four construct of knowledge management
capabilities (technology, structure, culture, and people) had a strong influence on the competitiveness of the
company. Also, they found that the dynamic capability is an important intermediated organization mechanism that is
benefits of organization competitiveness and performance.
Another dimension of KMCs was examined by Gharakhani and Mousakhani (2012) and Romero-artigas and
Pascual-miguel (2013). They've examined the impact of business strategies and knowledge capabilities of
knowledge process on small to medium-sized enterprises (SME) performance. In this study, there were used a three
key knowledge process capabilities that are knowledge acquisition, sharing and application of knowledge. Data was
obtained from 30 SMEs in Iran. The findings indicated that all component of capabilities had a positive relationship
with the SMEs performance. The interrelationships between knowledge management (KM) strategy, organizational
learning, innovation, KM capability and knowledge characteristics was the main purpose of the study conducted by
Ju, Li, and Lee (2006). They found that KMC had a strong effect on innovation. The similarly construct of KMCs
in studies by Peng, Schroeder, and Shah, (2008) and Liu and Lee (2015) but they found KMCs also have a strong
effect on business process performance.
A look at the previous studies the important component of knowledge management capabilities, Table 1
summarizes the literature based on the knowledge management capabilities component –knowledge infrastructure
and knowledge process used by scholars.

Table 1.A summary of previous empirical studies in KM capabilities – Infrastructure and process
Author(s) Study aims Component of KMC
Gold et al. Examines the issues of effective Infrastructure Capabilities:
(2001) knowledge management from the Technology, structure and culture
perspective of organizational Process Capabilities: Knowledge
acquisition, conversion,
capabilities
application, and protection
Chuang Development of concept of KMC and Infrastructure Capabilities:
(2004) examines the association between Structural KM resource, cultural
KMC and competitive advantage KM resource, Human KM resource
and technical KM resource
 5

Table 1 (Cont.). A summary of previous empirical studies in KM capabilities – Infrastructure

and process.

Ju et al. Development a strategic contingency Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2006) model acquisition, knowledge conversion,
and knowledge application

Freeze et al. Understanding the separate source of Infrastructure Capabilities:

(2007) knowledge Expertise knowledge, documents,
lesson learned, policies and
procedures, data
Liu et al. Exploring the impact of KMC and Process Capabilities: Knowledge
(2007) knowledge sharing on new product acquisition, knowledge creation,
development performance knowledge saving and knowledge
diffusion

Cortes et al. Identify the characteristics of Infrastructure Capabilities:

(2007) organizational structure that facilitate Organizational structure
the development of knowledge Process Capabilities: Knowledge
creation, knowledge transfer, and
management process
knowledge application
Battor et al. Identify the role knowledge-based Infrastructure Capabilities:
(2008) capabilities to achieve organization Customer relationship
performance management (CRM), Market
orientation, organization learning
and innovation
Process Capabilities: Knowledge
sharing and knowledge transfer

Peng et al. Investigating the links and effect
(2008) between IT and R&D performance
Anderson, Investigating relationships between
(2009) knowledge infrastructure capability,
knowledge process capability, and
organization effectiveness
Process Capabilities: Creating
knowledge, transferring and
integration knowledge
Infrastructure Capabilities:
Culture, structural, technological
Process Capabilities: Knowledge
acquisition, conversion,
application, and protection

Aujirapong- Synthesize and propose the indicators Infrastructure Capabilities:

pan et al. of KMC in different KM process to Technology, structure and culture
(2009) assess KM effectiveness Process Capabilities: Expertise,
learning, and information

Nguyen Investigating KM capability and its Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2010) relationship with competitive acquisition, knowledge conversion,
advantage knowledge application and
protection

Gharakhani Examining the role of KMCs on small Process Capabilities: Knowledge

et al. (2011) to medium-sized enterprises‟ (SME) acquisition, knowledge sharing,
performance and knowledge application

Wong et al. Investigation how supply chain Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2011) management (SCM) and KMCs affect acquisition, knowledge sharing,
firm performance knowledge storage and knowledge
application
6

Table 1 (Cont.). A summary of previous empirical studies in KM capabilities – Infrastructure

and process
Sandhawalia Understanding a systematic approach Process Capabilities: Knowledge
et al. (2011) to developing KM capabilities acquisition, conversion, knowledge
application, and knowledge
protection

Lin (2013) Development of a research model for Process Capabilities: Knowledge

KMCs acquisition, knowledge storage,
knowledge dissemination,
knowledge protection

Artigas et al. Modelling KMCs in SMEs in a socio- Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2013) technical context encoding, abstraction, diffusion
and knowledge used.

Pandey et al. Investigation the role of knowledge Infrastructure Capabilities:

(2013) infrastructure capability practices Cultural capability, structural
within an organization capability, technological
capability, knowledge process
capability

Wong et al. Exploration of effect business process Infrastructure Capabilities:

(2014) management (BPM) capabilities on Strategic alignment and IT
organizational performance infrastructure

Wu et al. Development model and examining Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2014) relationship between knowledge creation process, knowledge
business process and organizational transfer process, knowledge
performance integration process and knowledge
application process

Tseng et al. Investigating the effect of KM Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2014) capability and dynamic capability on transfer, knowledge protect
organization performance

Liu et al. Investigating trends dimension of Process Capabilities: Knowledge

(2015) KMC of business process outsourcing acquisition, conversion,
(BPO) firms application, and protection

5. Discussion

Prior studies have noted the importance of knowledge management capabilities into organization performance.
However, no empirical research or theoretical research was found on the implication of knowledge management
capabilities to social enterprise. The reviewed literature showed that most of the researchers in the field of
knowledge management capability used Gold et al. (2001) approach. The researchers in various used this model
extends, some fully while other adopted the model partially. However, there are also new trends available, which are
limited. Scholars tend to categorized the component of knowledge management capability as a single component
(Özbağ, Esen, & Esen, 2013).
 7

In addition, a review of the literature showed that most of the scholars agreed to divide the infrastructure
capability into three components of culture, technology, and structure. Nonetheless, a new infrastructure component
also emerges. While some authors included human resources as a part of the infrastructure, this research added one
component similarly proposed by Leonard-Barton (1992) in his model. The process capability has been consistent
with the four component of knowledge process by Gold et al. (2001).
The research established that KMCs evolve from the initial knowledge requirements to a state of continued
growth of knowledge use within organizations. Knowledge processes need to be embedded in the daily practices of
organizations and supported by knowledge infrastructure. The results of the analysis of this study provide additional
evidence that SEs must develop capabilities to support and facilitate interaction and feedback to ensure the flow of
knowledge. SEs needs to take steps to bring together individuals with common interest and improve their likelihood
of success in KMCs.

5.1 Knowledge management capabilities in social enterprises model (KMC-SE)

Drawing upon the previous findings it can be deduced that knowledge is a core source of competitive and
sustainable advantage and, by developing KMCs, a company can enhance organizational innovation (Ju et al.,
2006), organization performance (Battor, Zairi, & Francis, 2008; Freeze & Kulkarni, 2007; Gharakhani &
Mousakhani, 2012a; Peng Wong & Yew Wong, 2011; Sandhawalia & Dalcher, 2011; S. Tseng & Lee, 2014; Wong,
Tseng, & Tan, 2014; Wu & Chen, 2014), new product development (P. Liu & Tsai, 2007)and organization
effectiveness (Anderson, 2009; Aujirapongpan et al., 2010; Pandey & Dutta, 2013). Therefore, these capabilities can
create value for organizations of different sizes, structure, from varying sector with contrasting strategic drivers.
As a starting idea for managing knowledge in an organization, companies need to know which are the activities
that create knowledge, what exactly organizationally constitutes a KMC and understanding what exactly value this
knowledge can impact the organization ( Leonard-Barton, 1992; Gold et al., 2001; Ortiz, 2014). Based on previous
studies above, this research developed Knowledge Management Capabilities for Social Enterprise (KMC-SE) model
based on the model proposed by Leonard-Barton (1992) and Gold et al. (2001). The proposed model builds on this
and explores KMC influence on the organizational performance of SEs. The lack of empirical research related to
knowledge management capabilities in SEs impact to the explicit reference to KMC in SEs was found. Therefore,
the hypothesized model is developed primarily from the theoretical and empirical research of KMCs in other sectors
and the limited empirical and descriptive research available on SEs‟ organizational behavior.
The KMC-SE model presented in Figure 1 and illustrates the three main components of the model; knowledge
organizational capabilities (KOC), knowledge process capabilities (KPC) and organizational performance (OP).
Based on previous studies, have four components in knowledge organization performance (i) Technology (ii)
Structure (iii) People and (iv) Culture. In knowledge process capabilities, have four components also. It are (i)
Acquisition (ii) Conversion (iii) Application and (iv) Protection. Although that, this model provides their
relationship and their reflective to organization performance. However, until now, the lack of the empirical and
theoretical research to measure SEs performance and no have specific indicator we can measure output in SEs. For
that matter, this research adapted the indicator for organization performance from previous study which is provided
that organization performance can measure from (i) Return (ii) Workforce and innovation (iii) Internal activities
and, (iv) Stakeholder environment. Table 2 presents the explanation each component and description from SEs
perspective.
8

KMCs Independent Dependent

component Variable Outcome
Variable

 Technology Knowledge
 Structure Organizational
 Culture Capabilities
 People (KOC)
 Return
 Workforce and
Organization innovation
performance  Internal activities
(OC)  Stakeholder
environment
 Acquisition Knowledge
 Conversion Process
 Application Capabilities
 Protection (KPC)

Figure1. Knowledge management capability in social enterprise (KMC-SE) model

Table 2.KOCs component explanation and description from SEs Perspective

Variable Component Explanation
Technology Technology infrastructure
comprises the hardware,
software, and middleware and
protocols that allow for the
encoding and electronic
exchange of knowledge. It is
facilitating knowledge creation,
embodiment, dissemination,
integration, used and
management inside and outside
the organization.
Structure The structure of an organization
sets into place hierarchical
orders, communication channels,
Knowledge decision-making protocol, and
Organization some other communication-
Capabilities based functions.
(KOC)
Culture Culture in the organization will
be shaped assumptions about
why knowledge is valuable and
must be kept inside the
organization, who must save and
share it, how knowledge will be
used in a particular situation and
how new knowledge can change
strategic direction and resource
allocation faster than a
competitor.
Description from SEs perspective
IT can help SEs expanding the web
of social interaction, increasing its
density, promoting new connections
among diverse, supporters and
donors‟ records, staffing records and
project record.
Individuals, communities, and
volunteers required collective
organization structure and the
decision-making power share with
other stakeholders in a coalition
government.
Culture in SEs must have positive
environments, people in that
organization willing to listening,
have different thinking, caring and
friendly people. Although that, SEs
must maintain a culture with high
values related to their social and
environmental mission such as
solidarity, ethics, and trust. This
value can help the SEs to create
internal cohesion.
Literature support
(Gold et al., 2001; Sher & Lee,
2004; Ma, Peng, & Shi, 2008;
Chang, Park, & Chaiy, 2010;
Liang, You, & Liu, 2010;
Ismail & Mamat, 2012)
(Leonard-Barton, 1992; Gold et
al., 2001; Freeze & Kulkarni,
2007; Anderson, 2009;
Aujirapongpan et al., 2010;
Sandhawalia & Dalcher, 2011;
Susanty, Handayani, &
Henrawan, 2012; Lin, 2013;
Pandey & Dutta, 2013;
Romero-artigas & Pascual-
miguel, 2013; Steiger, 2013)
(Gold et al., 2001; Ba, 2004;
Hong, Kianto, & Kyläheiko,
2008; Anderson, 2009; Tseng,
2011; Rai, 2011;
Aujirapongpan et al., 2010;
Evans, 2014; Pandey & Dutta,
2013)
 9

People A key component of creating
organization knowledge.
Employees‟ skills are part of the
identity and idiosyncratic nature
of a person obtained from
education or experience. Factors
influence people in the
organization are T-shaped skill,
extrinsic motivation, and
intrinsic motivation.
People in SEs refer to social ( Leonard-Barton, 1992; Gold
entrepreneur and the other member et al., 2001; Lee & Choi, 2003;
of the SE. They were encouraged by Freeze & Kulkarni, 2007;
the social mission and social value, Ortiz, 2014)
the possible of working with and for
people, personal growth, have social
contacts, and always optimize to
grab the opportunities to learn.

Table 3.KPCs component explanation and description from SEs Perspective

Variable Component Explanation
Acquisition The activity orientated towards
obtaining knowledge by developing a
new idea and replacing existing content
within the organization‟s tacit and
explicit knowledge base. This process
enhances new productive opportunities,
encourage organizations to exploit
these opportunities, reduce uncertainty,
and encourage product innovation.
Conversion Activities are those orientated toward
making existing knowledge from
various source effective useful form
firm. The main aims this activity is
organizing and structuring the
knowledge of potential future value by
selecting, storing and regularly
updating that knowledge. So, in future,
Knowledge members of the organization can access
Process and distribute it within the organization.
Capabilities
(KPC) Application This process is concerned with the
actual use of integrating and applying
that knowledge in the firm‟s products
and services. It is also can use to
increase profitability, long-term
viability and ability to quantify critical
success factors for the organization.
Protection This activity is associated with the
effective control and protection of
knowledge within an organization from
inappropriate of illegal use involve
copyright, patents and IT systems that
restrict and control access to knowledge
and information.
Explanation from SEs perspective Literature support
Members in SEs can acquire (Gold et al., 2001; Ju et
knowledge by collaboration with al., 2006; Liu & Tsai,
other, outside organization, and 2007; Ma et al., 2008;
sharing and exploits the new Anderson, 2009;
knowledge throughout the Nguyen, 2010; Peng
organization, adapting, and Wong & Yew Wong,
integrating value-creating resources, 2011; Sandhawalia &
such as experience-based Dalcher, 2011
knowledge, into operating routines Gharakhani &
available. Mousakhani, 2012;
Lin, 2013; Deng, 2015)
SEs can distribute of knowledge by (Gold et al., 2001; Ju et
turning isolated knowledge or al., 2006; Anderson,
experiences into knowledge so the 2009; Nguyen, 2010;
whole enterprise can use it. It can Sandhawalia &
impact in the integration of Dalcher, 2011; Wu &
knowledge that may exist in Chen, 2014; Deng,
different parts of the enterprise, 2015)
reducing redundancy and improving
efficiency by eliminating excess
work.
SEs can apply knowledge from past (Gold et al., 2001; Ju et
mistaken to solve new problems, al., 2006; Anderson,
improved organization efficiency, 2009; Nguyen, 2010;
motivate people to think creatively Peng Wong & Yew
and use their understanding of the Wong, 2011;
enterprise products, process, and Sandhawalia &
services, also, use the knowledge to Dalcher, 2011;
adjust strategic direction to achieve Gharakhani &
the enterprise‟s ultimate goals. Mousakhani, 2012; Wu
& Chen, 2014; Deng,
2015)
SEs should protect their knowledge ( Gold et al., 2001; P.
and access only by authorized Liu & Tsai, 2007;
members. These are because; SEs Anderson, 2009;
like SMEs used the internet as a Nguyen, 2010; Peng
platform for hosting their Wong & Yew Wong,
information. It may be able to imply 2011; Sandhawalia &
their knowledge at high risk because Dalcher, 2011; Lin,
their knowledge exposed to the 2013; Tseng & Lee,
public domain. 2014; Deng, 2015)
10

6. Conclusion and direction for future work

This paper reviewed the body of literature to understand better the knowledge management capability that is
managing knowledge within an organization can become a core capability. This study is quantitative in nature and
using secondary data from which the study findings were derived. The study showed knowledge management
capabilities have a relationship in competitive advantages, and it can improve organizational performance. This
combination of findings provides some support for the conceptual premise that SEs can also develop this core
capability and obtained similar outcomes that its counterparts in the private, public and not-for-profit enterprises.
However, due to their idiosyncratic characteristics of multi-stakeholder organizations, SEs would need to devote
more consideration, time, cost and effort to exploit the values of knowledge effectively.
Therefore, it is suggestible that SEs managers and efficient management of knowledge require coherent and well-
established KM pre-conditions to improve SEs performance. This paper suggests that Social Enterprises or any
similar organizations need to assess and focus on these organizations pre-conditions, assuring knowledge-friendly
enterprises and consider their capability before devoting efforts and resources, to implementation KM activities and
systems in their organization.
The numbers of literature review studies on knowledge management capabilities in SEs are limited. Therefore, it
is recommended that researchers focus on expanding our understanding of knowledge management capabilities in
SEs, especially in Malaysia perspective. This study contributes a first attempts to understand how KM can be
developed in different organizational contexts, perhaps more informally, and still improve the performance of SEs in
Malaysian. Moreover, it can help enterprises to achieve their objectives, whether they are social environmental or
economic, or any combination of the three.
Despite these observations, it is recommended that future studies focus more on organizational behavior of SEs.
Moreover, the studies about another component of knowledge management capability in different sizes, sectors, and
strategic orientations still need to explore in future. This information can be used to contribute development SEs
sector in Malaysia because SEs in Malaysia is in the embryonic stage of development.

Acknowledgements

Norasiken Abdul Rahman acknowledges the Zamalah UTM scholarship that she received for the duration of her
Ph.D.

References

Abdullah, M. N., Hashim, M. A., & Ali, N., 2015. Review of the Elements of Knowledge Management Capabilities. Journal of Information
Systems Research and Innovation 9(2), 28–34.
Anderson, K. K., 2009. Organizational capabilities as predictors of effective knowledge management: An empirical examination. Nova
Southeastern University.
Aujirapongpan, S., Vadhanasindhu, P., Chandrachai, A., & Corporate, P., 2010. Indicators of knowledge management capability for KM
effectiveness. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 40(2), 183–203.
Ba, L., 2004. Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture: A Social Action Perspective. The George Washington University.
Barbaroux, P., 2012. Identifying collaborative innovation capabilities within knowledge-intensive environments: Insights from the ARPANET
project. European Journal of Innovation Management 15(2), 232-258.
Battor, M., Zairi, M., & Francis, A. 2008. Knowledge-based capabilities and their impact on performance: A best practice management
evaluation. Business Strategy Series 9(2), 47-56.
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R., 2008. Coping with Continuous Change in the Business Environment, Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Management Technology (1st ed.). Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited.
Chang, W., Park, J. E., & Chaiy, S., 2010. How does CRM technology transform into organizational performance? A mediating role of marketing
capability. Journal of Business Research 63(8), 849–855.
Chuang, S. H., 2004. A resource-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: An empirical investigation.
Expert Systems with Applications 27(3), 459–465.
Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Sheehan, T., 2007. Making knowledge visible: Using expert yellow pages to map capabilities in professional services
firms. Research Policy 36(10), 1603–1619.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L., 1998. Working knowledge how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Deng, S. L. Z., 2015. Understanding knowledge management capability in business process outsourcing. Management Decision 53(1), 124–138.
Elson, P. R., & Hall, P. V., 2012. Canadian social enterprises : Taking stock. Social Enterprise Journal 8(3), 216–236.
Evans, T., 2014. Managing Knowledge in Culture. Bowie State University.
 11

Freeze, R. D., & Kulkarni, U., 2007. Knowledge management capability: Defining knowledge assets. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(6)
94–109.
Gharakhani, D., & Mousakhani, M., 2012. Knowledge management capabilities and SMEs‟ organizational performance. Journal of Chinese
Entrepreneurship 4(1), 35–49.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H., 2001. Knowledge Management : An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems 18(1), 185.
Grant, R., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, 109-122.
Hong, J., Kianto, A., & Kyläheiko, K., 2008. Moving cultures and the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging markets.
Knowledge and Process Management 15(3), 196–202.
Hou, J., & Chien, Y., 2010. The effect of market knowledge management competence on business performance: A dynamic capabilities
perspective. International Journal of Electronic Business Management 8(2), 96–109.
Hume, C., & Hume, M., 2008. The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 13, 129–140.
Ismail, A., & Mamat, M., 2012. The relationship between information technology, process innovation and organizational performance.
International Journal of Business and Social Science 3(2), 268–275.
Jiao, H., Cui, Y., Zhu, Y., & Chen, J., 2014. Building entrepreneurs‟ innovativeness through knowledge management: the mediating effect of
entrepreneurial alertness. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26(5), 501–516.
Ju, T. L., Li, C.Y., & Lee, T.S., 2006. A contingency model for knowledge management capability and innovation. Industrial Management &
Data Systems 106(6), 855–877.
Kim, T. H., Lee, J.-N., Chun, J. U., & Benbasat, I., 2014. Understanding the effect of knowledge management strategies on knowledge
management performance: A contingency perspective. Information & Management 51(4), 398–416.
Kipley, D. H., Lewis, A. O., & Helm, R., 2008. Achieving Strategic Advantage and Organizational Legitimacy for Small and Medium Sized
NFPs Through the Implementation of Knowledge Management. Business Renaissance Quarterly 3, 21–42.
Ko, S., 2012. The viability of Social Enterprises: The Spillover Effects. Social Enterprise Journal 8(3), 251–263.
Lee, H., & Choi, B., 2003. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical
Examination. Journal of Management Information Systems 20 (1), 179–228.
Lee, H., & Kelley, D., 2008. Building Dynamic Capabilities for Innovation: An Exploratory Study of Key Management Practices. R&D
Management 38(2), 155–168.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management
Journal 13, 111-125. d
Liang, T.P., You, J.J., & Liu, C.C., 2010. A Resource-based Perspective on Information Technology and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 110(8), 1138-1158
Lin, H.F., 2013. The Effects of Knowledge Management Capabilities and Partnership Attributes on the Stage-based e-Business Diffusion.
Internet Research 23(4), 439–464.
Lin, L. M., & Hsia, T. L., 2011. Core Capabilities for Practitioners in Achieving e-Business Innovation. Computers in Human Behavior 27
1884–1891.
Liu, C., & Lee, T., 2015. International Journal of Hospitality Management Promoting Entrepreneurial Orientation Through The Accumulation of
Social Capital, and Knowledge Management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 46, 138–150.
Liu, P., & Tsai, C., 2007. Research on the Effects of Knowledge Management Capabilities and Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms on New Product
Development Performance in Taiwan‟ s High-tech Industries. Asian Journal of Quality 8(2), 82–100.
Lowik, S., Van Rossum, D., Kraaijenbrink, J., & Groen, A., 2012. Strong Ties as Sources of New Knowledge: How Small Firms Innovate
Through Bridging Capabilities. Journal of Small Business Management 50(2), 239–256.
Lu, Q., & Tang, Y., 2007. A Knowledge-based Model on the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. In First IEEE International Symposium on
Information Technologies and Applications in Education, 2007. ISITAE ’07. (pp. 78–83). doi:10.1109/ISITAE.2007.4409241
Ma, H., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2008). The effect of information technology and knowledge management capability on R&D process
performance. Journal of Knowledge-Based Innovation in China, 1(1), 43–55.
Martín-Pérez, V., Martín-Cruz, N., & Estrada-Vaquero, I., 2012. The Influence of Organizational Design on Knowledge Transfer. Journal of
Knowledge Management 16, 418–434.
Misra, D. C., Hariharan, R., & Khaneja, M., 2003. E-knowledge Management Framework for Government Organizations. Information Systems
Management 20(2), 38–48.
Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S., 2004. Leadership Behaviors, Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management, Practices An empirical
Investigation. Journal of Management Development 30(2), 206–221.
Nguyen, T., 2010. Knowledge Management Capability and Competitive Advantage : An Empirical Study of Vietnamese Enterprises. Journal of
Business 30(2), 206-221.
Nieves, J., & Haller, S., 2014. Building Dynamic Capabilities Through Knowledge Resources. Tourism Management 40, 224–232.
Ortiz, M. L. G., 2014. Knowledge Management Capabilities In Social Enterprises. University of Westminster.
Özbağ, G. K., Esen, M., & Esen, D., 2013. The Impact of HRM Capabilities on Innovation Mediated by Knowledge Management Capability.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 784–793.
Pagano, A., 2009. The Role of Relational Capabilities in the Organization of International Sourcing Activities: A literature Review. Industrial
Marketing Management 38(8), 903–913.
Pandey, S. C., & Dutta, A., 2013. Role of Knowledge Infrastructure Capabilities in Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management
17(3), 435–453.
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G., & Shah, R., 2008. Linking Routines to Operations Capabilities: A New Perspective. Journal of Operations
Management 26(6), 730–748.
Peng Wong, W., & Yew Wong, K., 2011. Supply Chain Management, Knowledge Management Capability, and Their Linkages Towards Firm
Performance. Business Process Management Journal 17(6), 940–964.
12

Phene, A., & Almeida, P., 2008. Innovation in Multinational Subsidiaries: The Role of Knowledge Assimilation and Subsidiary Capabilities.
Journal of International Business Studies 39(5), 901-919.
Rahman, N. A., 2015. Determinant of Employee Engagement and Knowledge Management for Enhancing Employee Engagement. In
International Conference on Social Science Research 2015, pp 556–566.
Rai, R. K., 2011. Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture : A Theoretical Integrative Framework. Journal of Knowledge
Management 15(5), 779–801.
Romero-artigas, D., & Pascual-miguel, F., 2013. Intellectual Capital Management in SMEs and the Management of Organizational Knowledge
Capabilities: An Empirical Analysis. Information Systems, E-Learning, and Knowledge Management Research 278, 121–128.
Sandhawalia, B. S., & Dalcher, D., 2011. Developing Knowledge Management Capabilities: A Structured Approach. Journal of Knowledge
Management 15(2), 313–328.
Setia, P., & Patel, P. C., 2013. How Information Systems Help Create OM Capabilities: Consequents and Antecedents of Operational Absorptive
Capacity. Journal of Operations Management 31(6), 409–413.
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C., 2004. Information Technology as a Facilitator for Enhancing Dynamic Capabilities Through Knowledge Management.
Information and Management 41(8), 933–945.
Smith, T. A., Mills, A. M., & Dion, P.,2010. Linking Business Strategy and Knowledge Management Capabilities for Organizational
Effectiveness. International Journal of Knowledge Management 6(3), 22–43.
Social Enterprise Malaysia., 2015. What is social enterprise? Retrieved from http://www.socialenterprise.org.my/what-is-social-enterprise/
Spender, J.,1998. Making Knowledge the Basis of A Dynamic Theory of The Firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, 45–62.
Steiger, J., 2013. An Examination of the Influence of Organizational Structure Types and Management Levels on Knowledge Management
Practices in Organizations. Alliant International University.
Susanty, A., Handayani, N. U., & Henrawan, M. Y., 2012. Key Success Factors that Influence Knowledge Transfer Effectiveness: A Case Study
of Garment Sentra at Kabupaten Sragen. Procedia Economics and Finance 4, 23–32.
Tseng, S., & Lee, P., 2014. The effect of Knowledge Management Capability and Dynamic Capability on organizational Performance. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 27(2), 158–179.
Tseng, S. M., 2011. The Effects of Hierarchical Culture on Knowledge Management Processes. Management Research Review 34(5), 595–608.
Unleashing the power of Social Entrepreneurship: Malaysia Social Enterprise Blueprint 2015-2018. (2015). Malaysian Global Innovation and
Creativity Centre (MaGIC) 1. Malaysia.
Van Kleef, J. A. G., & Roome, N. J., 2007. Developing Capabilities and Competence for Sustainable Business Management as Innovation: A
Research Agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(1), 38-51.
Weissenberger-Eibl, M., & Schwenk, J., 2009. Lifeblood Knowledge: Dynamic Relational Capabilities (DRC) and Knowledge for Firm
Innovativeness and Competitive Advantage. Measuring Business Excellence 13(2), 7-16.
Wong, W. P., Tseng, M.-L., & Tan, K. H., 2014. A Business Process Management Capabilities Perspective on Organization Performance. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 25(5-6), 602–617.
Wu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L., 2014. Knowledge Management Driven Firm Performance: The Roles of Business Process Capabilities and
Organizational Learning. Journal of Knowledge Management 18(6), 1141–1164.
Yang, C. H., Chen, C. J., & Shyu, J. Z., 2008. Innovation Intermediary for Creating Regional Knowledge Capabilities in Knowledge Cluster. In
2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM 2008, pp. 831–835.
Yiu, M., & Law, R., 2014. Review and Application of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Sharing in Tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research 19 (7), 737–759.
Zainon, S., Ahmar, S., Atan, R., Bee, Y., Abu, Z., & Rahayu, S., 2014. Legitimacy and Sustainability of Social Enterprise : Governance and
Accountability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 152–157.
Zonooz, B. H., Farzam, V., Satarifar, M., & Bakhshi, L., 2011. The Relationship Between Knowledge Transfer and Competitiveness in “ SMEs ”
with Emphasis on Absorptive Capacity and Combinative Capabilities. International Business and Management 2, 59–85.