Knowledge Management in Supply Chain

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Strategic Information Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsis
Knowledge management in supply chain: An empirical study from France

Karine Evrard Samuel a, Marie-Lyne Goury a,, Angappa Gunasekaran b, Alain Spalanzani a
a
CERAG UMR CNRS 5820, Pierre-Mends-France University, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
b
Department of Decision and Information Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, North Dartmouth, MA 02747-2300, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Supply chain management has assumed a leading operations strategy position in both
Available online 17 December 2010 manufacturing and service industries, and over the past 10 years companies have seriously
implemented supply chain management strategies in their organizations. Knowledge man-
Keywords: agement (KM) is a major enabler of supply chain management, and is a critical element in
Supply chain information intensive and multi-cultured enterprise environments. Realizing the impor-
Knowledge management tance of knowledge management in supply chain (SC), an attempt has been made in this
Framework
paper to propose a conceptual framework for KM in SC and to validate the framework with
Empirical research
help of an empirical study conducted with French companies. Finally, a summary of nd-
ings and conclusions is presented for KM in SC.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) has become increasingly signicant with the globalization of industry, and competition
between supply chains is likely to remain an important element in worldwide competitive rivalries (Ketchen Jr. and Guin-
ipero, 2004). The current economic crisis combined with a hyper-competitive environment has developed a real need for
optimization practices within supply chains. When prots fall and costs increase, new trade-offs have to be explored and
new organizational models need to be developed to enhance decision-making and to maintain a competitive edge. For
the past few years, companies have implemented SCM in order to make high level strategic decisions that are relevant to
whole organizations including product development, customer relations, manufacturing, vendors and logistics. Supply
chains are congurations of rms working together in a network that continuously need to upgrade their operations and
capabilities, both upstream and downstream, from raw material to end-use consumption (Mentzer et al., 2001). Such net-
work congurations are made up of heterogeneous groups sharing common topics of interest, but sometimes with auto-
nomic relationships. The advantages of supply chain management derive from a rms ability to quickly utilize the entire
network of suppliers, vendors, buyers and customers. The ows of information lying at the core of the coordination and col-
laboration among network members are not only disparate information sources, they also provide an opportunity to build
knowledge-based tools that are an important part of the extended rms capabilities (Davis and Spekman, 2004).
Resource Based View (RBV) theory assumes that resources are the source of a rms capabilities, and that its capabilities
are the foundation of its competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1989; Wernerfelt, 1984). According to
Grant (1991), a rms resources are represented by capital equipment, patents, individuals skills, brands and reputation,
nancial resources, physical resources, technological resources, or organizational resources. As an outgrowth of this stream
of research, the Knowledge Based View (KBV) regards knowledge as the key resource, which emphasizes the role of organi-
zational capabilities to create a sustainable competitive advantage (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992;
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marie-lyne.goury@upmf-grenoble.fr (M.-L. Goury).
0963-8687/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2010.11.001
284 K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306
Nonaka, 1994; Spender and Grant, 1996). Goh (2006) assumes that knowledge adds value to an organization through its con-
tribution to products, processes and people, while knowledge management (KM) transforms information, data and intellec-
tual assets into enduring value by identifying useful knowledge for management actions. KM tools support the organization
in exploring, innovating, disseminating and automating corporate knowledge. An integrated KM approach embraces cultural,
organizational, procedural, and methodical integration. Grant (1996) argues that rms exist so that individuals, seen as
knowledge resources, can integrate their knowledge through the organizations routines, in the form of capabilities. While
other theories emphasize the structure and process of organizational activities, KBV emphasizes the content of those activ-
ities by exploring the concept of capabilities, seen as an important explanatory variable of performance.
Research on organizational learning and knowledge management focuses on a fundamental set of questions. How do
organizations create knowledge? How do organizations retain the knowledge they create? How can an organization improve
without rst learning something new? How is knowledge transferred within and between organizations and what factors
facilitate its transfer? More recently, questions about how to transfer knowledge across organizational boundaries appear
in the literature (Wadhwa and Saxena, 2005), bringing a novel perspective to the analysis and understanding of inter-rm
collaboration (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 1995). The knowledge-based approach offers new insight into the mechanism for
upgrading and transferring practices within supply chains and increasing numbers of researchers are exploring inter-
organizational sharing between different actors for improving supply chain performance (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Wagner
and Buko, 2005).
Current SCM literature is highly focused on structural issues (governance structures, structures of supply chain processes,
networks, etc.) and has huge difculties comprehending people issues, even if it is now well-established that companies ex-
ist due to individuals motivation and preference for the shared identities they supply (Kogut and Zander, 1996). Learning
and KM can be considered as drivers for supply chain development, and may be seen as processes likely to introduce inno-
vation in supply chains (Gammelgard, 2007). In complex supply chains, members combined information and experience
may be the most signicant source of value creation. New developments in computing and information technology now en-
able the retention and transfer of information at a supply chain scale that was not the possible when previous major con-
tributions on KM and organizational learning were proposed by researchers. According to Garvins (1993) denition, a
learning organization is skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reect
new knowledge and insights. This denition can be easily transposed to SCM considering that supply chains are learning
organizations where knowledge can be viewed as a quasi-public good to be shared across the member rms. As companies
engage in longer term partnering relationships built around mutual goals and accompanied by a rich and deep exchange of
information, inter-organizational learning is a process that unfolds over time and links with knowledge acquisition and
transfer, innovation and improved performance.
To date, most studies on knowledge management have maintained an intra-organizational perspective. With this study,
we make an attempt ll a gap in both supply chain management literature and knowledge management literature by pro-
viding empirical support for understanding each stage of the knowledge creation process applied in an inter-organizational
context. Our research question analyzes how the knowledge creation process can be adapted to supply chains and studies
the factors enabling that process. Because this study is concerned with exchanges among members in a supply chain, we
initially proposed a research framework that was then used to design a questionnaire covering all dimensions of the knowl-
edge creation process according to the SECI model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). A particular emphasis is placed
upon relationship context, an element demonstrated as being decisive in the knowledge creation process; in particular it
denes the motivation of the supply chain partners to share knowledge over the system.
To investigate our research question, a survey of French manufacturing rms likely to be concerned with knowledge cre-
ation within their supply chain was conducted. The next section will provide an overview of previous research for the re-
search model presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents the research methodology including the data collection process
that was set up to tackle the knowledge creation process within the specic context of supply chains. Finally, Section 5 lays
out the empirical analysis by presenting the results of this data collection and a discussion of research perspectives for
knowledge management in a supply chain.
2. Background for the research
Knowledge is an essential theoretical construct for understanding organizations, and the relationship between a rms
knowledge capital and its capabilities is now widely accepted (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Grandori and Kogut, 2002;
Winter, 1987). In a turbulent business environment, the concept of a knowledge network has great resonance and helps
explain why some business units are able to benet from knowledge residing in other parts of the company (Hansen,
2002), or across the whole network (Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Wagner and Buko, 2005). According
to KBV theory, rms must extract maximum value from the knowledge they possess, acquire or create in order to compete
and survive (Choi and Lee, 1997; Grant, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992). Unfortunately, knowledge transfer and knowledge
sharing between groups with dissimilar purposes and dissimilar practices is difcult to achieve either within a company
(between different business units) or between trading partners belonging to the same supply chain. In a globalization con-
text, knowledge transparency brings new objectives of providing more detailed product information to the consumer and
gathering more detailed knowledge about the individual consumer (Leidner, 2010). These new challenges underscore that
K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306 285
supply chains can be considered as a cradle of knowledge because they involve multiple autonomous players with varying
technical cultures, managerial backgrounds and SCM exposure. Increasingly, scholars see development of a knowledge-
based supply chain as an opportunity to achieve better value for customers (Wadhwa and Saxena, 2005). More generally,
managing knowledge within supply chains can help companies promote better use of resources.
Our objective in this research is to understand how knowledge is created in a supply chain. New possibilities for devel-
oping knowledge within supply chains have appeared as information technologies have dramatically evolved over the last
15 years. This situation is considered in our effort to understand how information sharing supply chains transform into
knowledge sharing ones and the impact of the context on the transfer. The two main research questions resulting from this
analysis are: (1) Is it possible to characterize the context and the four stages of the SECI model when observing buyerseller
relationships within supply chains? (2) What tools and techniques support the knowledge creation process in a supply
chain? Are they specic to each stage or common to the whole process?
SCM and KM represent two main streams of research that have signicantly developed over the past several years and
many related issues are still addressed by consultants, practitioners or academics. One of these issues concerns the link be-
tween knowledge and supply chain outcomes, but very few studies have dealt with this particular aspect. The literature on
Inter-organizational knowledge management (IKM) can be classied into several categories in accordance with the analysis
focus, as shown in Table 1.
The literature review shows two main streams of research regarding inter-organizational knowledge: some reports have
concentrated on learning issues within networks and have tried to identify different types of learning which might take place
within supply chains, while other research mainly focuses on knowledge creation and knowledge management practices in
the specic context of a supply chain. As they are complex organizations, supply chains provide an opportunity to analyze
the way partners interact, and the processes that allow joint knowledge creation and dissemination. However, despite the
fact that data, information, and knowledge sharing among members of a supply chain is critical to success (Romano,
Table 1
Summary of selected literature on KM in SCM.
Authors Research subject Methodology

Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) Knowledge transfer in a network Case study based of 30 interviews of Toyota executives and
senior-executives + 21 rst-tier suppliers (US + Japan)
Knowledge-sharing routines developed
by Toyota and its suppliers
Hansen (2002) Knowledge sharing in a multiunit rm Case study of 120 new product development projects
in 41 business units of a large electronics company
Product development projects
Bessant et al. (2003) Inter-organizational learning Case study of six industries (semiconductor equipment,
oil and gas, computer, aerospace, chemical)
Enabling facilitators Analysis of 25 UK supply chains
Dyer and Hatch (2006) Knowledge sharing in a network Case study of 42 US automotive suppliers
of Toyota and US automakers
Inuence of network resources on rm performance
Wagner and Buko (2005) Knowledge-sharing activities with customers, Ten hypotheses tested by a mail survey of 182 rms
suppliers and research institutions
Analysis of specic roles of these different Multi-industry companies in Germany and Switzerland
actors in knowledge-sharing networks
Malhotra et al. (2005) Supply chain partnership congurations Exploratory eld case study of an IT-industry
supply chain (RosettaNet B2B initiative)
Knowledge creation in collaboration with Thirty-ve interviews in 16 enterprises in the
partners for long-term advantage IT-industry supply chain
Multiple-section survey questionnaire on 91 partnerships
Wadhwa and Saxena Knowledge sharing amongst Development of demo models to encourage
(2005) the supply chain members knowledge sharing concepts
Link with performance Application of a model for improved SCM
Halley and Beaulieu (2005) Relationship between supply chain Data collected from a questionnaire on
and knowledge management practices 163 Quebec manufacturing companies
Research model tested by four hypothesis
Hult et al. (2006) Fit among strategy and eight knowledge elements Prole deviation analysis on 913 entities in supply chains
Supply chain performance Identication of ideal proles for ve strategy types
Modi and Mabert (2007) Supplier performance Conceptual model to improve supplier performance
Supplier development 215 supplier development experiences from
US manufacturing rms
Knowledge transfer
Role of collaborative inter-organizational
communication
Andersson et al. (2008) Inter-organizational innovation Building of a theoretical model of
architectural knowledge development
IT projects Swedish transport industry network
Dimensions of architectural knowledge
2003), few studies have empirically demonstrated how knowledge is created and exchanged through relationships devel-
oped within this particular type of network. There is also a need for closer observation of the processes through which tacit
knowledge is transferred into explicit knowledge upstream between suppliers and customers, or downstream between pro-
ducers and retailers.
The literature review on KM in SCM has revealed two main streams of research on inter-organizational knowledge man-
agement. The rst group of contributions is concentrated on knowledge management projects within networks and is pri-
marily of a conceptual or qualitative nature. Mainly intra-organizational systems are analyzed (Chow et al., 2005; Dyer and
Hatch, 2006; Hansen, 2002) and the literature reveals nothing regarding the inter-organizational knowledge creation process
except the emergence of networks of practice and the role of knowledge sharing via knowledge portals (Van Baalen et al.,
2005). It also points to the fact that inter-organizational relationships provide long-term new knowledge creation (Sobrero
and Roberts, 2002). Most authors in this group propose theoretical models or frameworks that link operational and knowl-
edge creation capability-building aspects of inter-organizational supply chain partnerships (Andersson et al., 2008; Malhotra
et al., 2005; Wadhwa and Saxena, 2005).
The second group can be divided in two categories: a supply chain focused approach, and a buyersupplier relationship
focused approach. The supply chain focused articles study knowledge management in a supply chain context and analyze its
impact on performance and on SCM (Halley and Beaulieu, 2001, 2005; Hult et al., 2006, 2004). Some authors also propose
contributions on the Learning Supply Chain (Bessant, 2004; Bessant et al., 2003; Peterson, 2002) which appears as an ide-
alistic concept regarding the constraining factors that may stop the learning process immediately following the initial set-up
phase (lack of trust, lack of awareness of sector problems, lack of consensus, lack of structure, lack of strategic focus, etc.).
However, researchers agree that supply chain integration enhances inter-organizational knowledge management (IKM)
development, which in turn enhances supply chain integration and performance (Fabbe-Costes and Lancini, 2009). The need
to develop models and understanding of the global knowledge creation process persists since the link between knowledge
sharing and performance improvements in supply chains has been demonstrated but not adequately pursued (Hult et al.,
2006).
Coordination of supply chain activities across internal business functions as well as across company borders implies col-
laboration, information sharing, integration and long-term commitment that place learning issues at the heart of supply
chain efciency. Knowledge may be an important source of coordination and is central to chain functioning (Hansen,
2002). The Toyota case study proposed by Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) provides evidence that suppliers learned more quickly
after participating in an automakers network. They demonstrate that cooperation was facilitated within the network thanks
to enhanced member motivation to participate and openly share knowledge, opportunism was limited, and efcient transfer
of both tacit and explicit knowledge occurred.
Hult et al. (2004) present a knowledge development process model and test nine hypotheses to explain substantial cycle
time variables over 58 strategic supply chains. Their study reveals a strong link between shared meaning and reduced cycle
time proving that a common point of view concerning quality and speed among supply chain partners may improve chain
performance. Later, using data from 913 entities in supply chains, Hult et al. (2006) demonstrate that capitalizing on knowl-
edge can create superior network performance, but only if the relative emphasis on various knowledge elements (memory,
tacitness, accessibility of knowledge, knowledge use, knowledge intensity, responsiveness, learning capacity) matches sup-
ply chain strategy.
Bessant et al. (2003) propose a literature survey and a detailed study of six UK supply chains at various stages of imple-
menting supply chain learning. This exploratory research work is completed by a theoretical reection on the link between
supply chain learning and innovation (Bessant, 2004). It seems that a model of supply chain learning in which a coordinating
or central rm takes the lead is emerging, but further research needs to be carried out to explore the stages of the knowledge
sharing process between supply chain partners.
Finally, much attention has focused on buyersupplier relationships, since trading partner collaboration emphasizes
information exchange and knowledge sharing as key success factors for supply chain integration. A large variety of practices
are observed by authors regarding the nature and level of knowledge exchange, and the frequency and information technol-
ogies used (Bensaou and Venkatraman, 1995; Modi and Mabert, 2007). For example, collaborative practices associated with
SCM like Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI), Efcient Consumer Response (ECR), Enhanced Web Reporting (EWR) or Collab-
orative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) imply that companies share strategic information (like forecasts or
production plans) and also progressively develop knowledge that may become essential to stabilize the network.
The KBV theory provides an interesting starting point to explore the issue of knowledge creation within supply chains.
Companies have realized that they can integrate crucial knowledge from their relationships with suppliers, customers,
and other various institutions in a network setting.
Currently, the literature review shows that there is no deliberate policy to develop IKM within companies and that IKM
practices are spontaneous, implicit, interpersonal and specic to a particular context. However, companies are aware that
learning by doing with their partners is a considerable source of knowledge that needs to be exploited in the future. Knowl-
edge management provides a huge potential to create and retain greater value within supply chains by using appropriate
information technology (IT), but also by better understanding and mastering the knowledge creation process.
Thus, there is a need for greater industrial research leading to KM-based supply chain evolution, as they promise enor-
mous benets for companies. This paper proposes a means to better understand how knowledge is created within a supply
chain by studying application of the SECI model to the observation of various interaction situations between supply chain
Table 2
Dimensions of Ba context.
Dimensions of Ba Questions
Intention Your partner wants to share information with you
Autonomy You have some freedom to act in the context of your work with your partner
Creative chaos Your practice with your partner changes regularly, you must adapt
Redundancy Information ows well between your partner and yourself, even if the partners are changing
Variety of information You have access to a wide range of information to help you cope with different situations with your partner
partners. Our main data collection is based on a questionnaire that was pretested and rened for clarity with supply chain
managers and then sent to 144 French companies. Our aim was to identify KM drivers within supply chains in various indus-
tries and to characterize each stage of the knowledge creation process according to the SECI model.
The rst step of our research was to propose a research model linking the main major variables of the knowledge creation
process. This model will be further explained in the following section.
3. A conceptual model for KM in supply chain
In this section, we propose a conceptual model for KM in supply chain as an extension of the model presented by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995).
The locus of responses to innovation challenges has shifted from single innovators to innovative networks of heteroge-
neous actors (Boland et al., 2007; Tuomi, 2002). This evolution gives knowledge a strategic role in inter-organizational
networks (Andersson et al., 2008). Despite this, little is known about collaborative knowledge sharing for performance
improvement in supply chains. Particularly, the process of knowledge creation and transfer that consists of capturing a part
of tacit knowledge and transforming it into explicit knowledge that can be acquired and used by several actors in the supply
chain has not yet been studied. In fact, a high level of tacitness makes the transfer of knowledge within and outside the
borders of the rm very challenging (Simonin, 2004; Wagner and Buko, 2005). Tacit knowledge is best obtained through
collaborative experience and knowledge transfer requires at least a partial codication of tacit knowledge (from tacit to ex-
plicit), while applying it requires an internalization of the acquired knowledge (from explicit to tacit) (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). This theory of knowledge creation developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi is based on a knowledge level that goes from
individual to inter-organizational and is particularly relevant to observing the knowledge sharing process within supply
chains. These authors consider that a spiral emerges when the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge in elevated
dynamically from a lower ontological level to higher levels.
3.1. Ba concept for KM in SCM
Ba, a Japanese term meaning place, was used by Nonaka and Takeuchi in the elaboration of their theory concerning
the key role of the organization in the dynamic of knowledge creation. To access knowledge creation and implement Nonaka
and Takeuchis knowledge spiral, they identied ve dimensions representing necessary conditions for knowledge spiral
development: intention, autonomy, creative chaos, redundancy and variety information. Nonaka and Takeuchi assume that
Ba allows the organization to optimize access to the four phases of the SECI model.
Our questionnaire carefully incorporates these ve conditions in the corresponding items in supply chain (see Table 2).
One important aspect of our study is that the results reect the respondents perception of their shared contexts.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) formalize the entire process in a four-mode model called SECI (socialization sympathized
knowledge, externalization conceptual knowledge, combination systemic knowledge, internalization operational
knowledge) that characterizes how the contents of knowledge interact with each other in the spiral of knowledge creation
(see Fig. 1).
This model cannot be considered without its context represented by the Ba concept (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). This con-
cept assumes that it is not possible to separate knowledge from the physical, virtual and mental environment in which it
arises. The concept of Ba was originally proposed by Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida in 1970 and further developed
by Shimizu (1995). Nonaka adapted this concept for the purpose of elaborating the SECI model, in which he considers Ba
as a shared space that serves as a foundation for knowledge creation: Ba is Place-Time-People, a dynamic relation in context
that enables creation of an Atmosphere: shared context in motion emotions and truth are changing rapidly; we must share deep
thoughts, not explicit knowledge. Ba does not seek for simplication but complexity; it provides an enabler for clear and shared
vision and goals, leadership, incentive system, place, technologies.1 According to Nonaka, Ba can be thought of as a shared space
for emerging relationships. This space can be physical (ofce, dispersed business space), virtual (email, teleconference), mental
(shared experiences, ideas, ideals) or any combination of them. Ba provides a place where information is given meaning through
interpretation, to become knowledge, and new knowledge is created out of existing knowledge through the change of meanings
and contexts. In other words, Ba is a shared context in cognition and action (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003).
1
Opening lecture by I. Nonaka, Knowledge Management Society of Japan (KMSJ) Conference, held in Tokyo, Japan, November 17th and 18th, 2008.
Tacit knowledge To Explicit knowledge
Tacit knowledge Socialization Externalization

From
Explicit knowledge Internalization Combination
(Source: SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)
Fig. 1. The four modes of knowledge conversion.
3.2. Socialization
The rst phase of knowledge sharing takes place when meetings occur with partnering rms and suppliers during infor-
mal and formal meetings, at company sites or at conferences and workshops. Socialization occurs via interactions between
the focal company and suppliers or partnering rms, as well as customers. Knowledge transfer occurs concerning suppliers
and their performance in terms of maintaining exibility, quality, and responsiveness.
From tacit to tacit: socialization concerns the interaction between individuals within a group. Exchange takes place
through observation, imitation and sharing experiences. Socialization is a process of sharing experiences: learning-
by-doing is a practice that exemplies the fundamental concept of socialization. Experience is the key for acquiring tacit
knowledge, such as shared mental models and technical skills. This also includes observation, imitation, and practice.
However, experience is the key, which is why the mere transfer of information often makes little sense to the receiver.
The variables listed in Table 3 were selected to measure different aspects of socialization.
Recall that the questionnaire was based on solving a problem that the respondent had to deal with in collaboration with
one of its partners. The socialization process is the rst interaction between the two parties.
3.3. Externalization
The second phase of knowledge sharing (from tacit to explicit) occurs by investigation of practices and understanding.
This follows socialization and well dened informal knowledge sharing. It takes place in supply chains when signing con-
tracts or going through outsourcing processes. Through socialization, one can develop potential business contacts as a part
of supply chain operations. This then can be extended by further information exchanges to understand each others require-
ments and nally go through the process of formal contract documentation. This process appears to result in the formaliza-
tion, via concrete exchanges, of informal knowledge stemming from the socialization phase.
To characterize the variables of outsourcing, several dimensions have been chosen some of which include: need to for-
malize the process, structured meetings, denition of contract specications, and archiving documents (see Table 4).
3.4. Combination
This stage of knowledge sharing occurs in supply chain management while exchanging information among a network of
rms in a supply chain through formal communication mediums such as meetings, telephone conversations, and emails. This
combination phase transforms explicit knowledge into more formal exchanges of explicit knowledge among the various
supply chain actors such as partnering rms, customers, and government institutions (see Table 5). The combination stage
systemizes the concepts into a knowledge system.
Individuals exchange and combine knowledge through media such as documents, meetings, telephone conversations and
computer communication networks. Information is recongured by sorting, combining, and categorizing. Formal education
and many training programs work this way. For example, a new product concept governs the combination phase in which
existing technologies are combined to develop a prototype (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Table 7 indicates the major
Table 3
Dimensions of socialization.
Dimensions of socialization Questions

Face to face You started to seek solutions through meeting face to face
Brainstorming You organized brainstorming
Informal meeting You met your partner regularly on an informal basis
Informal exchanges It is mainly through informal exchanges of information that you work effectively with this partner
Transmission of best practices You have shown him your best practices
Table 4
Dimensions of externalization.
Dimensions of Externalization Questions

Need to formalize When the solution is found, you need to formalize
Structuring meetings You structure your meetings with your partner
Denition of contract specications You dene contract specications
Archiving documents You archive all documents exchanged
Table 5
Dimensions of combination.
Dimensions of combination Questions

Integration of experiments You integrate the experiences of each to improve your practices
Using several tools You use several technological tools to share your solutions with your partner
Creation of new knowledge From exchanges with your partner, you create new knowledge
Development of common tools You have developed common tools to meet your needs
dimensions or attributes that facilitate the combination phase in knowledge management. These dimensions include the
integration of joint projects, use of technological tools such as the Internet, WWW, ERP and Social Networks, creating a
knowledge system and developing common tools for knowledge transfer in supply chain management.
3.5. Internalization
Internalization of knowledge in a supply chain is meant to transform explicit knowledge into tacit (implicit) knowledge
through a process of learning by doing or the implementation of knowledge in a supply chain through a systematic approach
by developing a suitable implementation framework. This results in an effective problem solving technique in supply chain
management. Table 6 presents the key dimensions of internalization that include completion of learning processes, solving
problems faster, external collaborations for new best practices and internal sharing of them in a supply chain.
3.6. Proposition of a model for KM in supply chain
The idea of knowledge creation between different actors belonging to the same supply chain can be linked to the ACT
model developed in cognitive psychology (Anderson, 1983; Singley and Anderson, 1989). This model is focused on the acqui-
sition and transfer of tacit knowledge in an unidirectional way (from declarative to procedural). However, it helps to under-
stand the links between tacit (procedural) and explicit (declarative) knowledge as showed in our framework (see Fig. 2).
The socialization phase nds its origin in Hans Gadamers concept of fusion of horizons. Gadamer (1989) developed
this concept to study methodology for interpreting historical tests. He argues that a true understanding of a text is a fusion
of the interpreters and the authors horizons. Applied to the KM concept, socialization can be considered as a fusion of
participants tacit knowledge into a shared mental model. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) explain that the rst example
Table 6
Dimension of internalization.
Dimensions of Internalization Questions

Learning You learn from experience
Faster solutions You now solve your problems faster with this partner
External development You develop new practices with other partners
Internal sharing You share this experience in your business
Table 7
The size of respondent companies.
Number of employees Number of responses Percentage

Less than 250 26 14.5
Between 250 and 500 36 20.1
More than 501 101 56.4
Total 163 91.1
Not responded 16 8.9
Total 179 100
SOCIALIZATION PHASE EXTERNALIZATION PHASE
Company A Company B Company A Company B

Tacit knowledge Tacit knowledge Tacit to explicit Tacit to explicit
Dialogue
INTERNALIZATION PHASE COMBINATION PHASE
Company A Company B Company A Company B

Explicit to tacit Explicit to tacit
Explicit TO Explicit
Organizational learning New knowledge system
Fig. 2. A model for KM in SC.
of socialization came from Honda, which set up brainstorming camps to solve difcult problems in development projects.
In the context of a transactional relationship, socialization means an exchange of commercial information between partners,
but no mixing of their respective organizational cultures.
The real dialogue begins with the externalization phase when partners begin to exchange explicit information that comes
from their own internal tacit knowledge. According to Graumann (1990), dialogue is a multi-perspective cognition and is
inherently related to a collective action. As partners decided to jointly solve a problem, it is necessary to transform part
of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Our study of French companies aims to understand this process by analyzing
practices and tools used to realize this conversion.
Once explicit knowledge is shared, new models and practices can be developed to create a new knowledge system. Part-
ners exchange and combine knowledge though media such as documents, meetings, emails, telephone conversations, or
computerized communication networks. Reconguration of existing information can lead to new knowledge that will be
embodied in tacit knowledge when experiences are internalized into companies tacit knowledge bases in the form of rou-
tines, technical know-how or shared mental models. The Internalization phase can be compared to the learning-by-doing
concept that refers to the capability of workers to improve their productivity by regularly repeating the same type of action.
In a supply chain context, internalization occurs when a company re-experiences practices that were learned from other
companies experiences.
4. Research objectives and methodology
In this section, the research objectives are presented together with the employed research methodology.
4.1. Research objectives
Supply chain management has evolved over the years, going from a technical mode to a global mode in which the notion
of ow is well represented. In recent years, several authors have brought together the concepts of KM and supply chain, high-
lighting the close links between these two concepts. Following the stream of KBV theory, we believe that knowledge issues
are central to supply chain management. Our research question attempts to analyze how the knowledge creation process can
be adapted to supply chains and which factors enable that process. This research is based on the process of knowledge man-
agement and specically uses Nonakas matrix of knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Ruggles, 1998).
4.2. Research methodology
The majority of participants solicited for this study work in the private sector (medium and large companies in the Rhne-
Alpes region of France). The respondents in this survey are: logistics managers, supply chain managers and engineers. The
study focused on three levels of analysis: strategic, tactical and operational. All the individuals who were interviewed have a
direct link with supply chain functioning and regularly face issues related to partners within the supply chain.
4.3. Questionnaire
The research is based on a questionnaire containing 66 questions, the majority of which are closed in nature (57 closed
questions versus seven open questions) (see Appendix A). Among these items, several questions relate specically to the
process of knowledge management, to Nonaka and Takeuchis knowledge matrix, and to knowledge management practices.
A pre-test was conducted with six supply chain professionals in order to rene the questionnaire. This work enabled us to
reformulate certain questions and to synthesize several sections so that the study suitably addresses the issues of KM in
SCM.
The questionnaire is composed of ve parts:
1. The collaborative context corresponds to Nonakas Ba concept.

2. The information exchange between partners corresponds to the process of socialization.
3. Sharing knowledge corresponds to the process of externalization.
4. Collaborative exchanges and shared knowledge creation correspond to the process of combination.
5. Dissemination and transfer of knowledge corresponds to the process of internalization.
The introduction highlights the framework of the study and presents the aim of the questionnaire. The interviewee is
asked to refer to his relationship with a particular partner (strategic supplier or customer) with whom he/she has regular
interaction and/or a longstanding relationship. The idea is to refer to a specic problem that the professional has had to man-
age in a collaborative way with his/her partner.
4.4. Data collected
Most of the time, the administration of these questionnaires was conducted face to face (75%), with a small proportion of
questionnaires (25%) being administered by email. The choice of a face-to-face mode is justied by the qualitative part of the
questionnaire: it seemed more appropriate to interact directly about the subject to encourage/support the discussion. The
data collection was conducted over a period of 4 months. All answers were initially collected manually, directly on the ques-
tionnaire in paper form and then entered into the statistical software SPSS and Excel.
5. Empirical analysis
The data collected using the questionnaire was analyzed to operationalize the model for KM in SCM and then to identify
some critical success factors for managing knowledge effectively with the objective of enhancing the competitiveness of sup-
ply chains. We also collected data on the impact of KM in SC. Most of the companies that we consulted for our empirical data
collection are heavily involved with supply chain operations, in particular integrating suppliers or partnering rms. The Ba
concept was validated from the perspective of the importance of variety and redundancy of information exchanged, creative
chaos, autonomy and willingness to share information. The KM process model (SECI) was then validated with the help of
empirical data and analysis.
5.1. Company characteristics
The companies interviewed work in industry or services at an international level. The number of employees vary between
50 and several thousand (Table 7). The turnover ranges from 1.7 million to 37 billion Euros. The average company age is
65 years and the deviation is 45 years. The majority of the rms are mature companies but supply chain services have
not necessarily existed for a very long time: on average, around 15 years.
Regarding industry orientation, the respondents are mainly in manufacturing (Table 8). Indeed, 80% come from this sector
and the remaining companies are divided into services, production and distribution of electricity, gas and water; trade, repair
of motor vehicles and household goods; hotels and restaurants; transport and communications or health and social work.
Considering the theme of our study, namely knowledge transfer between focal company and partnering rms or suppliers,
it is more appropriate to focus on manufacturing companies. Also, manufacturing companies offer a better scope for supply
chain management and their competitiveness relies on an effective KM process and implementation. Therefore, our study is
mainly concentrated in the manufacturing sector (Table 8).
5.2. Impact of KM in SC
The most important characteristic of the interviewed companies is that knowledge is considered central to improving
their supply chain. The sharing of data, information and knowledge among both upstream and downstream members of a
supply chain is perceived as critical to success.
We observe that the most important issues cited by the respondents were: reliability in deliveries (23%), the irregularity
of the quality of goods delivered (19%) and the costs associated with bad inventory management (14%), supplier ability prob-
lems (10%), and the risk about supplier (10%). Many of them were related to the upstream ow of the supply chain (see Fig. 3
and Table 9). This clearly justies the focus of our research on KM between focal and partnering rms in a supply chain.
Contrary to our beliefs, issues surrounding sustainable supply chain, production planning and supplier risk were poorly
represented. Generally speaking, the respondents answers seem to be more operationally than strategically focused.
Table 8
Industrial prole of companies.
Types of industry Number of responses Percentage

Non respondents 7 3.9
Extractive industry 1 0.6
Manufacturing 144 80.4
Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water 6 3.4
Construction 1 0.6
Trade, repair of motor vehicles and household goods 4 2.2
Hotels and restaurants 4 2.2
Transport and communications 5 2.8
Real estate, renting and business activities 2 1.1
Health and social work 5 2.8
Total 179 100
Establishment of a VWI
Better production planning 2%Co-design
Others
5% 2%
Inventory reduction
1% 14%
Forecast sales
5%
Major supplier
10% Quality
Supplier risk 19%
4%
Volatility of demand
4%
Ability of the supplier Reliability in deliveries

10% 23%
Fig. 3. Origin of the SCM issues.
Table 9
Type of ow observed.
Number of responses Percentage Type of ow

50 30 Upstream side
4 2 Downstream side
34 20 Internals ows
35 21 Flows upstream and downstream
36 22 Upstream and internal
8 5 Downstream and internal
167 100 Total
Regarding partners, we can see that most of them were providers and only 18% were customers (see Table 10).
In summary, the particular partners chosen by the respondents in this study were mainly suppliers and the majority of
reported problems were closely related to the upstream ow of the supply chain. These results show that companies pre-
occupations are largely oriented upstream in the supply chain and that efforts are mainly involved in resolving problems
Table 10
Type of partnerships observed.
Number of responses Percentage Type of partnership

30 18 Customer
139 82 Provider
169 Total
with suppliers and subcontractors. Since outsourcing has become a major sub-strategy of global supply chain operations, the
relationship between focal company and partnering rms (outsources), and the information and knowledge sharing between
them, is critical for achieving a well integrated supply chain leading to organizational competitiveness in terms of price,
quality, exibility, responsiveness, and dependability.
5.3. Ba concept
To facilitate data analysis, we looked at the ve dimensions of Ba (intention, autonomy, creative chaos, redundancy and
variety information) and used averages (see Fig. 4).
We can observe that rms have a positive perspective towards exchanging information and knowledge among the supply
chain network actors. A large majority of them have a redundancy of information, autonomy and their intention to exchange
with partners is strong (more than 80%). Variety of the information and creative chaos are less represented but their percent-
ages none the less exceed 60%. Supply chain networks have partnering rms with varied characteristics and goals. This im-
plies that autonomy, redundancy and willingness to share information signicantly supports knowledge management with a
goal of improving the performance of supply chains.
Nonakas Ba concept is an essential element of the SECI model. In our study, we have a good representation of this context,
thus lending good credibility to the following results of the four phases of the model.
5.4. Knowledge creation phases
In this section, we analyze the responses on Nonakas knowledge spiral (SECI) with reference to facilitating KM in SC, in
particular between focal and partnering rms. The main objective of this study is to identify the critical success factors dur-
ing each stage of the knowledge spiral for enhancing information sharing and in turn the knowledge management in supply
chains.
5.4.1. Socialization
Socialization is the rst process of Nonakas knowledge spiral. It is through this process that exchanges and interactions
between partners in a supply chain begin. To characterize the phenomenon of socialization, we identied specic items most
appropriate to Nonakas denition.
We considered that the socialization phase was characterized by an aggregate rating of ve dimensions: face to face,
brainstorming, informal meeting, informal exchanges and transmission of best practices.
Among the ve dimensions of socialization, we observe that the most used practices are face to face and pointing of
best practices (Fig. 5). Note that the informal meeting and informal exchanges were combined.
Analysis by aggregating ratings (Tables 1113 and 15) allows us to either validate the phase or not. It seemed appropriate
to dene intervals to facilitate statistical analysis.
A phase was considered very good if this aggregate rating was higher than 5.5 (on a scale of 7); quite good when aggregate
rating was between 4.5 and 5.5 and not so good when it was below 4.5. A Likert scale was used in the questionnaire. This
scale contains seven levels that qualify the degree of agreement. The central level allows the respondent to express no
opinion.
The socialization phase was regarded as having been performed by the partners when this aggregate rating was greater
than 5.5 (on a scale of 7), rather well done when aggregate rating was between 4.5 and 5.5 and poorly performed when it was
less than 4.5.
Fig. 4. Collaborative context within the supply chain (conditions of the Ba context).
Fig. 5. Information exchange through socialization phase.
Table 11
Socialization phase.
Dimensionsa Average Rating

Face to faceb 5.7
Brainstorming 5.01
Informal meeting 4.9
Informal exchanges 4.6
Transmission of best practices 5.9
Aggregate ratingc 5.22
a
To each dimension corresponds one or several questions.
b
Example: the dimension face to face corresponds to two questions (see
questionnaire in Appendix A): average rating of question 15:5.5; average rating
of question 16:5.9; total average rating of dimension: (5.5 + 5.9)/2 = 5.7.
c
Aggregate ratingoverall average of all dimensions. The same method is
applied to Tables 1113 and 15.
Table 12
Externalization.
Dimension Average rating

Need to formalize 5.7
Structuring meetings 5.2
Denition of contract specications 5.5
Archiving documents 4.2
Aggregate rating 5.13
Table 13
Combination.

Integration of experiments 5.1
Developing common tools 3.6
Creation of new knowledge 4.7
To validate each phase of the SECI model, we considered the average results.
According to our results, the socialization phase is well represented with an aggregate rating of 5.22. We can say that, at
the beginning of the collaboration, when partners have a problem to solve, they need to meet informally. Depending upon
the alignment of interests of focal and partnering rms, the networking between them takes place. This implies that in the
beginning of supply chain network development, information interaction will facilitate the transition to externalization. The
SECI process is initiated by this phase, characterized by an exchange of tacit knowledge.
5.4.2. Externalization
From tacit to explicit: externalization requires the explanation of practices and beliefs. It is a process of articulating tacit
knowledge into explicit concepts. This process is fundamental for the creation of knowledge because tacit knowledge be-
comes explicit through analogy, concepts, hypotheses or models.
We considered that the externalization phase was characterized by an aggregate rating of four dimensions: need to for-
malize, structuring meetings, denition of contract specications, and structuring documents. Once initial contacts have
been established for supply chain network development through the socialization phase, the next stage is to formalize
the interaction between focal and partnering rms through structured meeting, developing contract details and more formal
documents. Since outsourcing is an integral part of supply chain, this requires increased formal information sharing to en-
sure expectations are transparent on both sides.
All four dimensions are well represented (Fig. 6). Their percentages are equal to or greater than 78%. Overall, companies
like to keep track of their exchanges while formally dealing with suppliers or partnering rms. This is important to ensure
that performance objectives are met by both focal and partnering companies. Formal contract processes enable this to be
achieved in supply chain management.
As with the socialization phase, the externalization phase was regarded as having been performed by the partners when
this aggregate rating was greater than 5.5 (on a scale of 7) rather well done when aggregate rating was between 4.5 and 5.5
and very poorly performed when less than 4.5.
According to our results, the externalization phase is well represented with an aggregate rating of 5.13 (see Table 12).
After an informal exchange, partners in a supply chain network need to formalize their reections. This phase appears to
participate in the development of part of the nal solution. It is essential to formalize the business, reassure both partners
and co-improve supply chain performance by creating new solutions/tools such as exchanging/comparing different methods,
conceptualizing processes, and optimizing solutions.
5.4.3. Combination
From explicit to explicit: the combination allows communication of knowledge and helps produce new knowledge. The
combination is a process of systematizing concepts into a knowledge system. In a supply chain network, moving from exter-
nalization phase to combination phase means that the next level of formalization of the information sharing process should
lead to an effective KM process through collaboration between focal company and partnering rms. Both groups of rms
should understand each others organizational culture and corporate management objectives so that a common mechanism
can be established for working together on various projects. The critical success factors for the combination phase should
include developing an integrated information sharing system based on transparency and common strategic objectives.
Developing common tools such as ERP systems, RFID and other real-time information sharing helps create new knowledge
in supply chain networks.
We considered that the combination phase was characterized by an aggregate rating of three dimensions: integration of
experiments, creation of new knowledge, and development of common tools.
The dimensions of combination show very different percentages (Fig. 7) from the other indicators. Indeed, rms appear to
know how to integrate the experience related to problem solving with their partners but few of them create or develop new
knowledge.
As with the other phases, the combination phase was considered as having been performed by the partners where this
aggregate rating was greater than 5.5 (on a scale of 7), rather well done when aggregate rating was between 4.5 and 5.5
and very poorly performed when less than 4.5. Though developing common tools or methods is not as critical as that of
integration systems for knowledge creation, but they do inuence the consistency, through automation and standardization,
of information ow throughout the supply chain network. According to our results, the combination phase is poorly repre-
sented with an aggregate rating of 4.4 (see Table 13).
Few partners created common tools together. In fact, our results indicate that only 28% of companies created common
tools. Among these tools, most are Excel tables, EDI (electronic data exchange), SAP, Kanban tool and VMI (see Table 14).
Fig. 6. Information sharing through externalization phase.

Fig. 7. Creating shared knowledge through combination phase.
Combination is the process of converting explicit knowledge into more complex and systematic sets of explicit knowl-
edge. The new explicit knowledge is then disseminated among the members of the organization. As a general rule, this phase
is difcult, and in our study, supply chain services are large and complex. Considering the case of sustainable supply chain
and green manufacturing, it is essential to go beyond the black box to explore innovative supply management solutions tak-
ing into account various external factors such as government regulations, taxes, and political environments. It is interesting
to note that tools such as Excel and EDI are predominantly used in the combination phase though they may not support real-
time information sharing and standardization of information ow along the supply chain. However, they seem to be user-
friendly and easily communicated. Nevertheless, Kanban and VMI do not come under the category of information sharing at
the strategic level, but gure at the operational control level.
5.4.4. Internalization
From explicit to tacit: internalization represents the root of explicit knowledge. Internalization is a process of incorporat-
ing explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. It is closely related to learning by doing. Once the knowledge system is devel-
oped, both focal and partnering rms can use the system to facilitate information and knowledge sharing and creation. The
real challenge in the internalization phase is developing a framework within both focal and partnering rms in a supply
chain network so they complement each others success in the implementation of a knowledge system in order to increase
the performance of the supply chain.
We considered that the internalization phase was characterized by an aggregate rating of four dimensions: learning, fas-
ter solutions, external development and internal sharing.
The practices of internalization are represented mainly by the learning dimension and faster solutions (Fig. 8). Indeed,
when a solution is found in collaboration with a partner, companies appear to integrate them into their practices relatively
Table 14
Tools used for KM in SCM.
IT/IS Percentage
Excel 22
EDI 20
SAP 10
Kanban 8
VMI 4
Fig. 8. Knowledge transfer through internalization phase.

Table 15
Internalization phase.

Learning 6.02
Faster solutions 5.4
External Development 4.9
Internal sharing 5.1
easily and thus save more and more time in their supply chain. Agility has become an increasingly desirable attribute during
the last decade. Companies are developing their supply chain network so that the organizations can complete based on
responsiveness and exibility. This requires a real-time information sharing system to support quick decision-making or
developing quick solutions through organizational learning and internal information sharing in a supply chain network.
According to our results, the Internalization phase is well represented with an aggregate rating of 5.3 (see Table 15).
Internalization is the process of understanding and embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. Through inter-
nalization, created explicit knowledge is shared throughout an organization and converted into tacit knowledge by individ-
uals. Internalization is closely related to learning by doing. Explicit knowledge, such as product concepts or manufacturing
procedures, has to be actualized through action and practice. In our study, the majority of managers were able to solve their
problems and share this experience with other actors of the organization in different contexts.
These four modes do not work in isolation and they are strongly interdependent (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). To support
the process of knowledge creation, individual tacit knowledge must be assimilated by other members of the organization,
and then a new spiral of knowledge creation can begin.
In our study, we show that the SECI process is not really complete in a Supply Chain Organization. The combination phase
is poorly mentioned. In other words, when a SC manager must resolve a problem with a partner, they naturally know how to
establish the socialization phase: they want to meet their partner in an informal manner, they also need to formalize the
resulting answers (the externalization phase). The manager can apply the solution to the same sorts of problems in their
own organization (the internalization phase) but they do not systematically know how to create new knowledge with their
partner (the combination phase is very rarely characterized).
Another result is interesting. When we analyze data from the Ba context in supply chain, we observe that this dimension
is essential for the creation of knowledge. Among the panel of interviewed professionals,2 33% of the respondents have a con-
text designed to promote exchange: the company improves the sharing of knowledge with its partners, the partners aspire to
share information, the work environment is conducive to sharing knowledge and information ows are easy and reliable be-
tween the partners. Fifty-four percent of companies have a good context of information exchange. Generally, the lack of infor-
mation provision and empowerment of the partners decision-making are the weakest variables. Finally, 13% of the rm
contexts show unfavorable exchange. The partners lack of information, freedom to act and their environments are not condu-
cive to trade. Using these initial results, we show that the context of exchange varies from one company to another but the
majority of them have a relatively favorable context.
This seems like a decisive factor for the creation of knowledge. Indeed, leading companies in the creation of shared knowl-
edge belong to the group of companies showing favorable Ba context in addition to having developed a common tool.
6. Summary of ndings and conclusions
In this section, a summary of ndings, conclusions and future research directions are indicated.
6.1. Summary of ndings
Based on the conceptual framework proposed for KM in SC and empirical validation of the model, the following ndings
may be useful for further investigation and application in practice:
We observe that when the context is qualied as bad by the companies, only 38% of them declare creating common
tools with their partners and create knowledge. When no common tools are developed the knowledge creation process
fails.
This study shows that learning can be realized across company borders and those companies within a supply chain create
knowledge by working together. The development of tools that allow knowledge to be created is a very important result
since we show that when such tools are developed by partners, knowledge is created in the majority of these companies.
2
The average rating for the ve dimensions that characterize the Ba context has been calculated (see Appendix). The average ratings corresponding to the
179 interviewed companies have been sorted: 59 companies (33% of total) have an average rating from 7 to 5.5 (context considered as very good), 97 companies
(54% of total) have an average rating between 5.4 and 4.4 (context considered as good) and 23 companies (13% of total) have an average rating from 4.4 to 1
(context considered as not so good). Finally, 156 (59 + 97) companies (87% of total) have a good context of exchange.
Socialization and externalization are two stages that are well-perceived by companies but the combination stage is infre-
quently mentioned. It probably means that there are some barriers to knowledge sharing and the nature of these brakes
should be further explored. If knowledge brings value to companies and is a source of competitive advantage, according to
KBV theory, the way knowledge is created within a supply chain seems to be blocked by the combination stage.
KM in the initial stage of supply chain network development should focus on a socialization approach to eliminate bar-
riers to networking and developing business relationships between a focal company and its partnering rms in a supply
chain.
During the socialization phase, willingness (interest in developing partnerships), redundancy and autonomy play a major
role in developing informal information sharing among potential supply chain partners.
The externalization phase is important in supply chain knowledge management because the formalization of information
sharing through structured meeting and information sharing processes will enable development of collaboratively sup-
ported work in a supply chain network. The critical factors for the externalization phase in SCM include exchanging struc-
tured documents, formal contract documents, and structured meetings and formal processes.
In the combination phase of the knowledge spiral in SCM, a KM system is being established. For this, joint project expe-
rience and (possibly) developing common tools for the creation of new knowledge are the critical success factors that
could be employed for SCM.
The implementation phase of the knowledge spiral is internalization, which in fact transforms from explicit knowledge to
tacit knowledge through using the KM system by learning, quicker solutions and internal sharing of information.
6.2. Conclusions
An attempt has been made in this paper to study KM in supply chain networks. The purpose of the study is to explore the
application of an existing knowledge management model or framework in selected French companies through empirical
data collection and analysis. The model that was selected is based on Nonakas four stage spiral model (SECI). This model
seemed interesting at the beginning of KM evolution, but advanced developments occurring over the past decade, especially
with supply chain becoming an integral part of operations strategy have shown that it is not entirely suited to the current
SCM environment. There is a need to clearly integrate supply chain network parameters and variables into any eventual KM
model or framework. The results then would provide a more appropriate KM framework for enhancing supply chain
competitiveness.
Though the empirical study helped identify more specic attributes of KM in SCM, a multiple case study with detailed
data collection based on the KM model would help to further develop a more precise framework not only for developing
KM, but also for its implementation.
We think that the results are not specic to French companies and we assume they could apply to other countries, espe-
cially as a large percentage of the companies surveyed are global actors. Additional studies may validate this assumption.
Even if only a few studies have dealt with knowledge management in an inter-organizational perspective, the results of a
Canadian study (Halley and Beaulieu, 2005) conrmed the idea that deployment of integrated supply chain management
practices is associated with more effective knowledge management processes.
6.3. Future research directions
It is clear that this study assists in identifying the information chain process in the development of a knowledge manage-
ment system and its implementation. The following are some potential research directions based on the limitations of the
current research.
First, a more precise framework for KM in SCM could be developed in order to identify more general attributes that are
not linked to a specic culture. A multiple case study for a more detailed investigation of knowledge management in supply
chain networks based on the relationship among supply chain partners would be a good extension to the work that has been
already done.
Another research path could also try to identify the IT/IS tools for KM in SCM and their implications on information and
knowledge sharing. The development of an implementation framework for effective KM in SCM is an interesting idea that
needs further analysis to better help managers in understanding KM implementation in complex inter-organizational envi-
ronments. The development of a new model for KM in SCM based on the development or evolution stages of supply chain
networks could follow this analysis based on empirical data collection and analysis, and multiple case studies.
The development of a framework for KM strategies, tactics, tools and techniques in sustainable supply chain management
could help determine performance measures and metrics that may then enable the development of KM in supply chain
networks.
Acknowledgments
The authors are most grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments which helped to
improve the presentation and quality of the paper considerably.
Appendix A. Questionnaire knowledge management in supply chains
The purpose of this questionnaire is to develop a better understanding of the phenomenon of knowledge creation within a supply chain. The information gathered will
help us determine how to expand and develop the knowledge capital of a company and clarify the practices used to share knowledge with a strategic partner. There may
be redundant questions.
Terminological details about Knowledge Management (KM):
Knowledge management concerns any business activity related to the acquisition, sharing and/or creation of knowledge, experience, know-how or information.
When responding to this questionnaire, please refer to a relationship you have with a strategic partner (supplier or customer), with whom you maintain a regular and/
or long term working relationship.
Take an example of a concrete issue that you have had to manage with this partner. Imagine that you change your way of working with this partner. What kind of
practices, projects (etc.) would you implement?
K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

1. Which partner do you choose? ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
2. Is it a supplier or a customer? ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
3. Regarding the following issues, which items best characterize the example you have chosen for this exercise? (circle the issue)
(a) Inventory reduction

(b) Quality problem with a supplier (or logistics provider)
(c) Reliability problems in deliveries (bad service rate)
(d) Problem with suppliers ability (difculties adapting capacity to quantity variations)
(e) Customer demand volatility, implying a strong bullwhip effect
(f) Supplier risk (or fragile nancial situation that weighs heavily on turnover)
(g) Major supplier (single source or unique know-how)
(h) Better planning of your production
(i) Need to improve your sales forecasts
(j) Establishment of a VMI/CMI
(k) Co-design approach
(l) Other issue:
A.1. Collaborative context within the supply chain (Ba context)
Strongly Disagree Slightly No Slightly Agree Strongly

disagree disagree opinion agree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Intention
1. Who initiated this collaborative relationship? You
2. Who initiated this collaborative relationship? Your partner
3. You regularly share your SCM practices with this specic partner
4. Your partner wants to share information with you
5. You are ready to help your partner
6. You trust your partner
(continued on next page)
299
Appendix A.1 (continued)
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Autonomy
7. Generally, your company promotes knowledge sharing with its partners
8. Your work environment (industry, company. . .) is conducive to sharing
knowledge with your partner
9. Your partner is relatively autonomous in its practices and decisions
10. You have some freedom to act in the work context with your partner

Creative chao
11. Your partner changes practices regularly and you must adapt
12. You regularly share your SCM practices with this specic partner
Redundancy
13. Information ows smoothly between your partner and yourself
Variety of information
14. You have access to a wide range of information that helps you cope with
different situations regarding your partner
A.2. Information exchange between supply chain partners (socialization)
Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree No opinion Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Explain what kind of issues you face
with your strategic partner.
Face to face
15. Forcing face to face meetings
16. Using collaborative media:
conference calls, web conferences...
Brainstorming
17. Organizing brainstorming sessions
Informal meeting
18. Using collaborative media: conference calls,
web conferences...
19. Organizing regular informal meetings (e.g. a dinner,
a sporting activity outside the professional setting, etc.)
Informal exchanges
20. With this partner, you are part of a group of experts
(e.g. networks of SCM specialists, professional
associations...)
whose purpose is to think about new SCM practices
21. It is mainly through informal exchanges
of information
that you work effectively with this partner
22. Sometimes, you solve problems by yourself
(without using process or formal problem
solving procedures)

Transmission of best practices
23. Promoting your best practices
24. Sometimes, you solve problems by yourself
(without using process or formal
problem solving procedures)
25. What information technologies and
communication do you
use during a solution seeking stage of
a relationship? e-mail,
telephone, Excel, EDI, ERP (SAP),
workow, intranet,
collaborative platform,
Electronic Document Management,
forum discussions, etc.: . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
A.3. Sharing knowledge between supply chain partners (externalization)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Need to formalize
26. Once a solution for improvement
has been found with your partner,
you do not need to formalize the implementation with that partner
27. You need to dene joint contracts or specications
28. You mobilise additional resources to design or develop the adjustments which were
decided with your partner
301
302
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. What kind of resources? (specify)
You implement a solution to improve your practices with your partner by:
Structuring meetings
30. Structuring your meetings: procedural approach, project monitoring, usual process
project approaches, etc.
Denition of contract specications

31. Dening joint contracts or specications
32. You regularly write/edit the new procedures or methods of working that you have
deployed effectively with your partner
33. After each important meeting with your partner, you seek to keep a written record (e.g.
writing a report, statement conclusion, e-mail, etc.)
Archiving documents
34. You formalize (or structure) all documents exchanged with your partner
35. Which tool do you use for your archives? (specify)
36. What types of information technologies do you use at this stage of the relationship?
Mail, Excel, EDI, ERP (SAP), workow, intranet, collaborative platform, Electronic
Document Management, forum discussions, etc.
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ..
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
A.4. Creating shared knowledge between partners (combination)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Integration of experiments
37. You integrate the experiences of each partner to improve your practices
Using several tools

38. What type of information technologies do you use? Mail, Excel, EDI, ERP (SAP),
workow, intranet, collaborative platform, Electronic Document Management, others?
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
What type of new practices have you created by working with your partner?
Creation of new knowledge

39. Improved reliability and responsiveness of customer service
40. Improved replenishment of your production sites and/or distribution centers
41. Better management of inventory costs
42. Improving availability of your products
43. Increased exibility.
44. Development of shared knowledge on the downstream markets
45. Exchange of more reliable information
46. Product innovation, improved service level, improved customer satisfaction
47. Other:

(a) Please give examples
(a) Such as?
48. Ability to customize products more easily
49. You develop new methods of working, specic to the exchanges of information with
your partner
50. You implement new practices within your company
Development of common tools

51. You develop common tools to meet your needs
A.5. Knowledge transfer between supply chain partners (internalization)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Learning
52. You are in a continuous improvement mode with your partner
53. You have improved your partners practices by working with them
54. You can transfer certain lessons learned from solutions created in this
partnership to relations with your other partners
Faster solutions
55. You share your failures or difculties with other SC Managers to warn them and
help them save time.
56. You solve potential problems that may arise with your partner more quickly
External development
partnership to relations with your other partners.
303
304
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Internal development
58. You regularly share your best practices with some colleagues (e.g. training
modules, briengs, etc.)
59. You share your failures or difculties with other SC Managers to warn them and
help them save time
partnership to relations with your other partners

From these lessons, you may change some practices within your organization. Your internal relationships are improved with:
61. Purchasing
62. Plant
63. Marketing staff
64. Who else ?... ... ...
65. Your exchange of good practices with your partner inuences your way of
working internally
66. Can you explain how? ... ... ... ...
References
Anderson, J.R., 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Andersson, M., Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., 2008. Architectural knowledge in inter-organizational IT innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems
17, 1938.
Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1).
Bensaou, M., Venkatraman, N., 1995. Congurations of interorganizational relationships: a comparison between US and Japanese automakers. Management
Science 41 (9), 14711492.
Bessant, J., 2004. Supply chain learning. In: New, S., Westbrook, R. (Eds.), Understanding Supply Chains. Oxford University Press, New York.
Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R., Lamming, R., 2003. Putting supply chain learning into practice. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 23
(2), 167184.
Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., 2007. Wakes of innovation in project networks: the case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and
construction. Organization Science 18 (4), 631647.
Choi, C.J., Lee, S.H., 1997. A knowledge-based view of cooperative inter-organizational relationships. In: Beamish, P.W., Killing, J.P. (Eds.), Cooperative
Strategies, European Perspectives. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3358.
Chow, H.K.H., Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B., Chan, F.T.S., 2005. Design of a knowledge-based logistics strategy system. Expert Systems with Applications 29,
272290.
Conner, K., Prahalad, C.K., 1996. A resource-based theory of the rm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science 7 (5), 477501.
Davis, E.W., Spekman, R.E., 2004. The Extended Enterprise. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W., 2006. Relation-specic capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfer: creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic
Management Journal 27, 701719.
Dyer, J.H., Nobeoka, K., 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21,
345367.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21, 11051122.
Fabbe-Costes, N., Lancini, A., 2009. Gestion inter-organisationnelle des connaissances et gestion des chanes logistiques: enjeux, limites et ds. Revue
management et avenir 24 (4), 123145.
Gadamer, H., 1989. Truth and Method, second ed. Crossroad, New York.
Gammelgard, B., 2007. Editorial. International Journal of Learning and Change 2 (2), 127129.
Garvin, D.A., 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 71 (4), 7891.
Goh, A., 2006. A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge innovation. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and
Management 14 (3), 3249.
Grandori, A., Kogut, B., 2002. Dialogue on organization and knowledge. Organization Science 13 (3), 224231.
Grant, R.M., 1991. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage : Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Spring, pp.
114135.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge base theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 17, 109122 (special issue).
Grant, R.M., Baden-Fuller, C., 1995. A Knowledge-Based Theory of Inter-Firm Collaboration. Paper Presented at the Academy of Management.
Graumann, C.F., 1990. Perspectival structure and dynamics in dialogues. In: Markova, I., Foppa, K. (Eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. Harvester Wheatsheaf,
New York, pp. 105126.
Halley, A., Beaulieu, M., 2001. Supply chain management and the development of competencies: the learning logistics concept and applications. Supply
Chain Forum 2 (2), 1219.
Halley, A., Beaulieu, M., 2005. Knowledge management practices in the context of supply chain integration: the Canadian experience. Supply Chain Forum:
An International Journal 6 (1), 6681.
Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review (MayJune), 6376.
Hansen, M.T., 2002. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13 (1), 232248.
Hult, G., Ketchen, D.J., Stanley, S.F., 2004. Information processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply chain performance. Academy of
Management Journal 47 (2), 241253.
Hult, G., David, J.K., Cavusgil, S.T., Calantone, R.J., 2006. Knowledge as a strategic resource in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 24,
458475.
Ketchen Jr., D.J., Guinipero, L.C., 2004. The intersection of strategic management and supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Management 33 (1),
5156.
Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the rm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3).
Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1996. What rms do? Coordination, identity and learning. Organization Science 7 (5), 502518.
Leidner, D.E., 2010. Globalization, culture, and information: Towards global knowledge transparency. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19 (2), 69
77.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., El Sawy, O.A., 2005. Absorptive capacity congurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation.
MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 145187.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J., Hult, G.T.M., 2001. Logistics service quality as a segment-customized process. Journal of Marketing 65 (October), 82104.
Modi, S.B., Mabert, V.A., 2007. Supplier development: improving supplier performance through knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management 25,
4264.
Nishida, K., 1970. Fundamental Problems of Philosophy: The world of Action and the Dialectical World. Sophia University, Tokyo.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 1437.
Nonaka, I., Konno, N., 1998. The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40, 4055.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., 2003. The knowledge creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and
Practice 1, 210.
Peterson, H.C., 2002. The learning supply chain: pipeline or pipedream? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (5), 13291336.
Romano, P., 2003. Co-ordination and integration mechanisms to manage logistics processes across supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Ruggles, R., 1998. The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. California Management Review 40 (3), 8089.
Shimizu, H., 1995. Ba-principle: new logic for the real-time emergence of information. Holonics 5 (1), 6769.
Simonin, B.L., 2004. An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business
Studies 35 (5), 407427.
Singley, M.K., Anderson, J.R., 1989. The Transfer of Cognitive Skill. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sobrero, M., Roberts, E.B., 2002. Strategic management of suppliermanufacturer relations in new product development. Research Policy 31 (1),
159182.
Spender, J.C., Grant, R.M., 1996. Knowledge of the rm: overview. Strategic Management Journal 17, 59.
Tuomi, I., 2002. Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford University Press, New York.
Van Baalen, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., Van Heck, E., 2005. Knowledge sharing in an emerging network of practice: the role of a knowledge portal. European
Management Journal 23 (3), 300314.
Wadhwa, S., Saxena, A., 2005. Knowledge management based supply chain: an evolution perspective. Global Journal of e-Business and Knowledge
Wagner, S.M., Buko, C., 2005. An empirical investigation of knowledge-sharing in networks. Journal of Supply Chain Management 41 (4), 1731.
Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 5, 171180.
Winter, S.G., 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece, D.J.E. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and
Renewal. Harper and Row, New York, pp. 159185.

Knowledge Management in Supply Chain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Management in Supply Chain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Strategic Information Systems

Knowledge management in supply chain: An empirical study from France

2. Background for the research

Authors Research subject Methodology

3. A conceptual model for KM in supply chain

3.1. Ba concept for KM in SCM

Tacit knowledge To Explicit knowledge

Tacit knowledge Socialization Externalization

Explicit knowledge Internalization Combination

(Source: SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

Fig. 1. The four modes of knowledge conversion.

Dimensions of socialization Questions

Dimensions of Externalization Questions

Dimensions of combination Questions

3.6. Proposition of a model for KM in supply chain

Dimensions of Internalization Questions

Number of employees Number of responses Percentage

SOCIALIZATION PHASE EXTERNALIZATION PHASE

Company A Company B Company A Company B

INTERNALIZATION PHASE COMBINATION PHASE

Company A Company B Company A Company B

Organizational learning New knowledge system

Fig. 2. A model for KM in SC.

4. Research objectives and methodology

4.1. Research objectives

4.2. Research methodology

1. The collaborative context corresponds to Nonakas Ba concept.

4.4. Data collected

5.1. Company characteristics

Types of industry Number of responses Percentage

Ability of the supplier Reliability in deliveries

Fig. 3. Origin of the SCM issues.

Number of responses Percentage Type of ow

Number of responses Percentage Type of partnership

5.4. Knowledge creation phases

Fig. 5. Information exchange through socialization phase.

Dimensionsa Average Rating

Dimension Average rating

Dimension Average rating

Fig. 6. Information sharing through externalization phase.

Fig. 7. Creating shared knowledge through combination phase.

Fig. 8. Knowledge transfer through internalization phase.

Dimension Average rating

6. Summary of ndings and conclusions

6.1. Summary of ndings

6.3. Future research directions

K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

(a) Inventory reduction

A.1. Collaborative context within the supply chain (Ba context)

Strongly Disagree Slightly No Slightly Agree Strongly

K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

A.2. Information exchange between supply chain partners (socialization)

K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

A.3. Sharing knowledge between supply chain partners (externalization)

Strongly Disagree Slightly No Slightly Agree Strongly

Denition of contract specications

K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306

A.4. Creating shared knowledge between partners (combination)

Strongly Disagree Slightly No Slightly Agree Strongly

Using several tools

Creation of new knowledge

K.E. Samuel et al. / Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20 (2011) 283306