Thesis (MScEng)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Innovation is widely considered a key prerequisite for achieving organisational competitiveness and sustained long-term wealth in our increasingly volatile business environment. It is therefore imperative that organisations enable themselves to relentlessly pursue constant innovation; to grow and mature their innovation capability. A study aimed at organisational support by means of business tools toward maturity growth in these innovation capability areas is therefore warranted. Knowledge management plays a fundamental role in the enterprise’s ability to innovate successfully, and the question arises whether knowledge management tools and organisational facilitating conditions can be used to grow innovation capability maturity. The existing literature on the subject is sparse, which led to the following research problem statement: No formal guidelines exist for the use of knowledge management to grow innovation capability maturity. Knowledge conversion is a prominent theme within the knowledge management field. Knowledge creation processes form the core of this knowledge creation model and therefore, one solution to the above-stated problem is to investigate the use of knowledge creation processes to grow innovation capability maturity. This notion provides the platform for aligning knowledge creation processes to the requirements for innovation capability growth from one maturity level to the next as the cornerstone for developing a knowledge management framework that enables innovation capability maturity growth. In order to align these knowledge processes with the requirements for growth in innovation capability maturity, the author identified a knowledge creation path as a key enabler for maturity growth in each innovation capability area. Knowledge management tools and organisational facilitating conditions that support the specific knowledge processes highlighted in the identified path were identified through a literature study and subsequently synthesised to form a framework. The impact of this framework lies in providing guidelines for the use of knowledge management as a vehicle for innovation capability maturity growth. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Innovasie word allerweë beskou as ’n kernvereiste vir die verkryging van organisatoriese mededingendheid en volhoubare langtermynsukses in ons toenemend wisselvallige sake-omgewing. Dit is dus noodsaaklik dat organisasies hulself in staat stel om meedoënloos konstante innovasie na te streef; om hul innovasievermoë uit te brei en volwassenheid daarin te bereik. ’n Studie gemik op organisatoriese ondersteuning deur middel van sake-hulpmiddels ten einde groei in volwassenheid in hierdie innovasievermoë-areas te bereik, is dus nodig. Kennisbestuur speel ’n fundamentele rol in die onderneming se vermoë om suksesvol te innoveer, wat die volgende vraag ontlok: Kan kennisbestuurhulpmiddels en organisatoriese fasiliteringsomstandighede gebruik word om innovasievermoëvolwassenheid te bereik? Die bestaande literatuur oor die onderwerp is gebrekkig, wat aanleiding tot die volgende probleemstelling gegee het: Daar is geen formele riglyne vir die gebruik van kennisbestuur om innovasievermoëvolwassenheid te verbeter nie. Kennisomskakeling is ’n prominente tema in die gebied van kennisbestuur. Kennisskeppingsprosesse vorm die kern van hierdie kennisskeppingsmodel en daarom is een oplossing tot bogenoemde probleem om die gebruik van kennisskeppingsprosesse om innovasievermoëvolwassenheid te verbeter, te ondersoek. Hierdie idee skep ’n platform om kennisskeppingsprosesse met die vereistes vir innovasievermoëverbetering van een volwassenheidsvlak tot die volgende te belyn, as hoeksteen vir die ontwikkeling van ’n kennisbestuurraamwerk om innovasievermoëvolwassenheid te verbeter. Ten einde hierdie kennisprosesse met die vereiste vir groei in innovasievermoëvolwassenheid te belyn, het die outeur ’n kennisskeppingspad as kernelement geïdentifiseer om volwassenheidsgroei in elke innovasievermoë-area in die hand te werk. Kennisbestuurhulpmiddels en organisatoriese fasiliteringsomstandighede wat die spesifieke kennisprosesse wat in die geïdentifiseerde pad uitgelig word, ondersteun, is deur middel van ’n literatuurstudie geïdentifiseer en daarna gesintetiseer om ’n raamwerk te vorm. Die impak van hierdie raamwerk lê daarin om riglyne vir die gebruik van kennisbestuur as ’n middel tot innovasievermoëvolwassenheidsgroei te bied.

Submitted by Luciana Ferreira (lucgeral@gmail.com) on 2017-12-29T10:16:17Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Daniel do Prado Pagotto - 2017.pdf: 1964990 bytes, checksum: d88c364403f4cf50d13cc3ccb1aba7bc (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Luciana Ferreira (lucgeral@gmail.com) on 2017-12-29T10:16:52Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Daniel do Prado Pagotto - 2017.pdf: 1964990 bytes, checksum: d88c364403f4cf50d13cc3ccb1aba7bc (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-29T10:16:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Daniel do Prado Pagotto - 2017.pdf: 1964990 bytes, checksum: d88c364403f4cf50d13cc3ccb1aba7bc (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-31 / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás - FAPEG / This research identifies, along the process of venture creation, the relationship of different forms of capital on innovation capability’s variation and, further, the impact of the latter on innovation. In order to achieve this goal, the Panel Study of Entrepreneurship Dynamics (PSED) was used, considering only solo entrepreneurs. The research design was split in two models. In the first one, different forms of capital – financial, human and social – were used as independent variables while the variation of innovation capability was considered the dependent variable. In the second model, innovation capability’s variation becomes the predictor variable and innovation turn into response variable. Multiple linear regressions were conducted to test both models. Results showed that formal education, physical social capital and personal finances are resources that positively impact innovation capability’s variation. Furthermore, the second model presented a positive and significant relationship between the innovation capability and innovation of nascent entrepreneurs. / Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo identificar, ao longo do processo de criação de empresas, a influência da composição de diferentes formas de capital na variação de capacidade inovadora e, em seguida, desta na inovação. Para cumprir este objetivo, foi utilizada a base de dados em painel Panel Study of Entrepreneurship Dynamics (PSED) com um corte de apenas empreendedores sem equipes. O desenho da pesquisa foi dividido em dois modelos. No primeiro, as variáveis independentes consideradas foram formas de capital enquanto a variável dependente foi a variação da capacidade inovadora. Em seguida, para o segundo modelo, a capacidade inovadora tornou-se a variável preditora enquanto a inovação foi utilizada como variável resposta. A partir disso, foram realizados testes de regressão múltipla. Considerando os resultados, foi possível identificar que o grau de escolaridade, o capital social físico e as finanças pessoais são recursos que impactam na variação positiva da capacidade inovadora. Em seguida, com base no segundo modelo, observou-se que a capacidade inovadora impacta a inovação nas empresas nascentes.

No description available.

The field of innovation management has gained extensive knowledge; however, there has been a tendency to study its various aspects in isolation rather than with a systems perspective, resulting in a potential oversight of interconnections between important aspects. While systems perspectives have been employed in organization and management research for over half a century, systems perspectives have more recently gained relevance in innovation management research. A sign of the growing relevance is the creation of an international guidance standard for innovation management systems, ISO 56002, published in 2019. Research indicates that implementing innovation management systems, with or without using a standard, has facilitated the transition from ad hoc practices to more integrated ones. Thus, it is interesting to investigate how systems approaches influence innovation capabilities. Furthermore, managing radical and incremental innovation may require different approaches, which presents challenges, particularly for large companies that prioritize projects typically involving incremental innovation. Consequently, studying how incremental and radical innovation are influenced when managing both types within the same system becomes relevant. In this study, the concept of systemicity was used to describe how systemic a system is through three system dimensions comprehensiveness, coherence and correspondence, which overlap with those commonly used in literature to describe and define a system. The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding of innovation management from a systems perspective by investigating how different systemic dimensions influence and relate to innovation capabilities, analysing these capabilities from a systems perspective, exploring hindrances and opportunities with a systems approach, and investigating the relationship between these systemic dimensions and incremental and radical innovation capabilities respectively. The study was part of a research project with the overarching aim to investigate important future development trends and evaluate the innovation capabilities of the Swedish metallic materials industryto use as a basis to develop strategies for how the industry can support the transition towards sustainability. A multiple-case study of two companies within the metallic materials industry was conducted using an abductive approach, including a literature study, data collection, coding, and analysis. Semi-structured interviews were employed, where interview questions were based on the ISO 56002 standard and its seven system elements. The analysis involved within-case and cross-case analysis. The findings from the study imply that having capabilities related to all seven system elements seem to be important for an organization's overall innovation capability, highlighting the significance of comprehensiveness. The interconnections between elements highlight the significance of coherence, and establishing correspondence between capabilities and goals enhances innovation capability. While exhibiting comprehensiveness, coherence, and correspondence is beneficial, the suitable level of systemicity remains uncertain. Further research is needed to determine the balance between systemicity and flexibility for effective support of innovation capabilities. Furthermore, in relation to managing incremental and radical innovation together, the study indicates the importance of considering systemicity to identify opportunities and hindrances when managing both types in the same system. The analysis of comprehensiveness highlights the need for distinct management approaches and capabilities for each innovation type. The analysis of coherence emphasizes the importance of considering interdependencies between system elements to avoid obstacles resulting from interdependencies being overlooked. The analysis of correspondence suggests separate goal setting for incremental and radical innovation due to their distinct objectives and outcomes. Based on the method and findings, a tentative framework was developed for analysis and evaluation of innovation management systemicity. / Trots att det finns mycket kunskap om innovationsledning har det funnits en tendens att studera olika aspekter inom området separat snarare än med ett systemperspektiv, vilket har resulterat i att viktiga samband mellan olika aspekter potentiellt har förbisetts. Systemperspektiv har använts i över 50 år inom organisationsforskning men har på senare år fått ökad relevans inom forskningen om innovationsledning. Ett tecken på denna ökande relevans är skapandet av en internationell vägledande standard för innovationsledningssystem, ISO 56002, som publicerades 2019. Forskning har visat att implementering av innovationsledningssystem genom att använda en standard eller inte, har underlättat för organisationer att övergå från ad hoc till mer integrerade innovationsledningsmetoder. Därför är det intressant att studera hur innovationsförmåga påverkas av att ta en systemansats till innovationsledning. Vidare kan hantering av radikal och inkrementell innovation kräva olika tillvägagångssätt, vilket skapar utmaningar, särskilt för stora företag eftersom de prioriterar projekt som oftast inkluderar inkrementell innovation. Därför är det relevant att studera hur inkrementell respektive radikal innovation påverkas av att hanteras inom samma system. I denna studie används begreppet systemiskhet (eng: systemicity) för att beskriva hur systemiskt ett system är genom tre systemdimensioner: omfattning (eng: comprehensiveness), sammankoppling (eng: coherence) och överrensstämmelse (eng: correspondence), vilka överlappar med dimensioner som vanligtvis används i litteraturen för att beskriva och definiera ett system. Syftet med studien var att få en bättre förståelse för innovationsledning ur ett systemperspektiv genom att undersöka hur olika systemdimensioner påverkar och relaterar till innovationsförmåga, analysera dessa förmågor ur ett systemperspektiv, utforska hinder och möjligheter med en systemansats, samt undersöka förhållandet mellan dessa systemdimensioner och inkrementell respektive radikal innovationsförmåga. Studien ingick i ett forskningsprojekt med det övergripande syftet att undersöka viktiga framtida utvecklingstrender och utvärdera den svenska metallindustrins innovationsförmåga för att använda som grund för att ta fram strategier för hur industrin kan stödja omställningen mot hållbarhet. En flerfallsstudie av två företag inom metallindustrin genomfördes med en abduktiv metod, inklusive en litteraturstudie, datainsamling, kodning och analys. Semistrukturerade intervjuer användes, där intervjufrågorna baserades på ISO 56002 och dess sju systemelement. Analysen gjordes i två steg genom att först analysera varje företag för sig och sedan jämföra de två fallen med varandra. Resultaten visar på vikten av att ha förmågor relaterade till alla sju systemelementen för en organisations övergripande innovationsförmåga, vilket lyfter fram betydelsen av dimensionen omfattning. Sammankopplingarna mellan element framhäver betydelsen av systemdimensionen sammankoppling, och att etablera överensstämmelse mellan förmågor och mål förbättrar innovationsförmågan. Även om studien pekar på att det är fördelaktigt för en organisation att uppvisa omfattning, sammankoppling och överrensstämmelse i sitt arbete med innovationsledning, kan resultaten inte användas för att dra slutsatser om vilken nivå av systemiskhet som är lämplig. Därför behövs ytterligare forskning för att fastställa balansen mellan systemiskhet och flexibilitet för att effektivt stödja innovationsförmåga. I relation till att hantera inkrementell och radikal innovation tillsammans, visar studien på vikten av att ta systemiskhet i beaktning för att identifiera möjligheter och hinder vid hantering av båda typerna av innovation i samma system. Analysen av omfattning belyser behovet av olika hantering och olika innovationsförmågor i relation till varje innovationstyp. Analysen av sammankoppling betonar vikten av att studera beroenden mellan systemelement för att undvika att hinder som uppstår av kopplingarna blir förbisedda. Analysen av överrensstämmelse föreslår separata målsättningar för inkrementell och radikal innovation på grund av deras distinkta mål och resultat. Baserat på metoden och resultaten har ett tentativt ramverk tagits fram i syfte att användas för analys och utvärdering av systemiskhet i innovationsledning.

企業透過創新以積極回應環境變遷的要求。企業新產品或服務的創新程度應依環境的需求決定。面對環境變遷，顧客需求可能改寫，企業如何取得正確的顧客需求成為重要問題；相反的，身處顧客需求已知的環境，競爭的重點轉為產品的品質與成本，企業內部如何充分分享知識以提升產品品質與降低成本成為重要議題。成功創新的企業是「如何」採行知識網路定位獲取所需要的新顧客需求及產品品質與成本等創新驅動因素，提升知識基礎與知識策略並進而影響創新能力？知識網路定位、知識基礎與知識策略對於創新能力的影響「有多大」？台灣資訊電子業又是如何透過知識網路定位同時達成上述的知識處理過程，提升創新能力？本研究試圖回答這些問題。 企業回應環境變遷所採行的企業策略可分為積極回應環境的前瞻者〈Prospector〉、固守環境穩定的防衛者〈Defender〉以及兼具前二者部份特色、試圖極大化獲利機會並同時極小化風險的分析者〈Analyzer〉(Miles et al., 1978)。企業回應環境的創新能力從本身具備的技術基礎與滿足市場需求所需具備技術間的差異程度可區分為激進式創新以及漸進式創新。文獻中對於企業創新能力的探討，主要有知識策略以及知識基礎二大觀點，知識策略強調企業回應環境需求變遷程度，設定新產品或服務創新程度、所需的激進式或漸進式創新能力，進而決定投資資源於探索新知識以及運用既有知識專案的比例，經由探索策略以及運用策略，提升企業回應環境需求的創新能力；知識基礎則強調企業的人力資本、組織資本以及社會資本等知識存量是提升企業創新能力的關鍵因素。如何調和知識基礎與知識策略產生正向的交互作用是提升企業創新能力的重要議題 (Cook & Brown, 1999)。 本研究檢視上述相關文獻，指出社會資本與人力資本、組織資本特性上的差異。鑲嵌不同社會資本〈新市場機會及信任〉的不同知識網路定位〈相對創業型定位及相對緊密型網路〉在環境變遷中提供企業不同程度的取得新市場機會〈如相對創業型定位有助於企業了解新市場顧客需求〉，促進知識基礎與知識策略對於企業創新能力的提升。本研究並且進一步在分析者企業策略的框架下，提出創新能力為因變數、知識策略與知識基礎為自變數、知識網路定位為調節變數的研究假設模型。 接著，本研究進行質性及量化實證研究，質性研究是從個案研究資料庫找出研究個案數量相對多且品質佳的創新個案：1980年代製造業的昇陽二號以及1990年代服務業的亞馬遜網路書店，逐篇檢視找出對應相關變數及其間關係，以初步檢驗本研究的研究模型。接著，為一般化本研究模型的解釋力，從重要的量化實證文獻中找出衡量各變數的問項整理成問卷，以台灣資訊電子業上市企業共341家為母體樣本，寄發問卷給各家企業之經理人，共取得69份有效問卷〈有效回收率為20.23%〉，將這些問卷資料以淨最小平方法演算後分析發現，採行分析〈者〉企業策略的台灣資訊電子業上市企業的實證資料支持絕大部分研究假設。在著重漸進式創新、漸進式創新專案對於激進式創新專案人力資本有顯著排擠效果的設計製造代工思維下，企業的知識網路定位透過知識策略與知識基礎提升創新能力。 本研究基於實證結果，除在理論上以知識網路定位銜接知識基礎與知識策略顯著提升對於創新能力的解釋力以及從產業創新階段觀點解答目前文獻對於組織知識網路定位的矛盾：同時採行相對創業型定位及相對緊密型網路成效差 (e.g., Koka & Prescott, 2008) vs. 同時採行二種知識網路定位成效好 (e.g., Capaldo, 2007) 外，同時也對實務提出建言：經理人應觀察產業所處的創新階段決定所需要提升的創新能力〈激進式或漸進式〉，盤點知識基礎〈人力資源及組織資本〉，透過知識網路定位〈相對創業型定位或相對緊密型網路〉與知識策略〈相對知識探索或相對知識運用〉的搭配，提升所需的創新能力。 / Firms aggressively respond to environmental change through innovations. Radicalness of innovations should be guided by environmental demand, or customers’ requirement. When customers’ requirement changes or is unknown, how do firms explore customers’ requirement becomes a crucial question. Contrarily, when customers’ requirement is known or unchanged and competition emphasizes on product/service quality and cost, how do firms exploit knowledge to increase quality or/and to decrease cost becomes a crucial question (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). How does an innovative firm successfully adopt a proper knowledge networking which acquires above drivers (i.e., new customer requirement, product quality/cost) and facilitates the firm’s knowledge base and knowledge strategy to increase innovation capability? To what extent of knowledge networking, knowledge bases and knowledge strategies combine to affect firm innovation capability? This study tries to answer these questions. According to firms’ responsive degree to environmental change, firms can be categorized into Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders from a corporate strategy perspective (Miles et al., 1978). ‘Prospectors’ aggressively respond environmental changes, ‘Defenders’ pursue a stable environment, ‘Analyzers’ attempt to minimize risk while they maximize profit. Corporate strategy directs how does a firm respond environmental change and pursue innovation capabilities (Koka & Prescott, 2008). According to discrepancy degree between market demand and firms’ existing technologies base, innovation capabilities which firms pursue can be categorized into radial innovation capability and incremental innovation capability. Two major schools argue different sources of innovation capability. Knowledge-based scholars (e.g., Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) argue that innovation capability is from firms’ knowledge (e.g., human capital, organization capital and social capital) utilization and accumulation. Contrarily, knowledge strategy scholars (e.g., Atuahene-Gima, 2005) emphasize importance of adaption. Firms are required to adapting to environmental change, setup radicalness of new product or innovation capability, and deicide resources allocating on exploration projects or/and exploitation projects. Firms increase innovation capability through knowledge exploration strategy and knowledge exploitation strategy. Knowledge-base perspective indicates source of firms’ innovation capability. However, it assumes environment changes slowly or companies are able to dominate environmental change. Contrarily, knowledge strategy perspective indicates direction of firms’ innovation capability for adapting to environment. However, it assumes firms’ knowledge base is fruitful and can be utilized for strategy execution. How does a firm positively interplay knowledge base and knowledge strategy to increase innovation capability is a crucial question (Cook & Brown, 1999). I review literature and firstly indicate that social capital’s characteristic is different from human capital and organization capital. Different degrees of knowledge networking (relatively entrepreneurial positioning and relatively prominent networking) embedding different social capital (new opportunities and trust) facilitates firms’ new opportunities accessibility to increase innovation capability via knowledge base and knowledge strategy. This research deducts eight hypotheses and builds a model which includes innovation capability (dependent variable), knowledge base and knowledge strategy (independent variable), and knowledge networking (moderating variable). Further, I conduct a qualitative research and a quantitative research to test the model. I find Sun-2 workstation in 1980s and Amazon.com website innovation cases from databases and elucidate corresponding variables relationships. Then, I collect items which measure variables from premier journals’ articles to generate a survey questionnaire. I send questionnaires to 341 Taiwan ICT firms’ managers. The firms are listed on Taiwan Stock Exchange. Final 69 effective samples are received (return rate = 20.23%). I use PLS to analyze the data and find that most hypotheses are supported. This quantitative research finds that Taiwan ICT firms emphasize on incremental innovation capability, and incremental innovation projects cannibalize radical innovation projects in human capital, knowledge networking influences innovation capability via knowledge base and knowledge strategy. This research concludes that 1. knowledge networking bridges the gap between knowledge base and knowledge strategy and increases innovation capability, 2. Corresponding knowledge networking, knowledge base, knowledge strategy, and innovation capability on distinct stages of industrial innovation resolves knowledge networking dilemma: A firm which simultaneously adopts relatively entrepreneurial positioning and relatively prominent networking performs worse (e.g., Koka & Prescott, 2008) or better (e.g., Capaldo, 2007), 3. Managers should determine innovation capability portfolio (relatively more radical innovations or relatively more incremental innovations?) by product market’s stages of industrial innovation, check existing knowledge base (human capital and organization capital), adopt corresponding knowledge networking (relatively entrepreneurial positioning or relatively prominent networking), knowledge base and knowledge strategy (relatively exploring knowledge or exploiting knowledge) to increase determinative innovation capability.

區域技術創新能力是展現區域將知識轉化為經濟的能力，是區域競爭力的重要內容。由於區域創新能力是造成中國各區域經濟發展差距的主要原因之一。本研究採用中國之上市公司為研究對象，探討公司創新活動的揭露與中國各省（自治區、直轄市）創新能力對分析師預測行為及分析師預測跟隨人數之影響。由三個面向檢視區域創新能力：研究與試驗發展全時人員當量增長率(REGTH)、政府研發投入占GDP比例(GIGDP)、每百萬人平均發明專利授權數(AVPAT)。研究結果發現創新活動揭露越多之公司，分析師之預測誤差程度越低、分析師之離散度越高且能吸引越多分析師對公司做預測。區域創新能力指標REGTH越高地區，分析師預測跟隨人數越少；區域創新能力指標GIGDP越高地區，分析師之預測誤差程度越低、分析師之離散度越低、分析師預測跟隨人數越少；區域創新能力指標AVPAT越高地區，分析師之預測誤差程度越低、分析師之離散度越低、分析師預測跟隨人數越多。 / Regional innovation capability is an important competitive ability to improve the economic development in China. Using a sample of Chinese listed companies, this study investigates the extent to which innovation disclosure at the company level and regional innovation capabilities affect analysts’ forecast characteristics in terms of forecast error, and forecast dispersion, and the number of analysts’ following. The indicators of regional innovation capabilities are the growth rate of R&D full-time equivalent personnel (REGTH), regional government's investment in R&D per GDP (GIGDP), and average of innovation patent authorized per millions of people in one region (AVPAT). The results indicate that firms with more innovation disclosures improve analysts’ forecast error, and regions with higher GIGDP and AVPAT also improve analysts’ forecast error. For firms with more innovation disclosures increase analysts’ forecast dispersion, and for regions with lower GIGDP and AVPAT increase analysts’ forecast dispersion. I also find firms with more innovation disclosures attract more analysts’ following, and regions with higher REGTH and GIGDP have less analysts’ following, while regions with higher AVPAT attract more analysts’ following.

In our knowledge-intensive economy, charismatic managers of organisations are increasingly adopting innovation and knowledge management strategic imperatives to improve products and services for service delivery and competitive edge. However, organisations implementing homogeneous and intellectual resource organisational capabilities such as Innovation Capability (INNO) and Knowledge Management Capability (KMC) suffer inertia, lack of understanding and organisational capability inefficiencies caused by multiple influences, complex building blocks and depleted organisational capability. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine if Organisational Capability Efficiency (OCE) is improved by aligning/synthesising organisational capabilities when implementing Innovation Capability and Knowledge Management Capability in organisations. The main objective of the study was to develop a conceptual framework for the alignment of Innovation Capability (INNO) and Knowledge Management Capability (KMC) that would assist managers in organisations during implementation to improve Organisational Capability Efficiency (OCE). This study adopted a positivist research philosophy. The variables derived from the theory for this study were Innovation Capability (INNO), Knowledge Management Capability (KMC) and Organisational Capability Efficiency (OCE). An in-depth literature review was undertaken to develop the constructs for the conceptual research model. The hypothesis and research questions were developed from the theory. The variables were operationalised into definable measurable indicators and a research survey instrument was used to measure the variables and operationalise the indicators to test the hypothesis. Quantitative research was used in this exploratory study and data were collected from a representative sample. No sampling was done in this study because the researcher conducted a census survey. A semi-structured questionnaire, mainly utilising the five-point Likert scale, was used to collect data. The target population consisted of all organisations, including national government departments, state-owned enterprises and listed SA companies engaged in innovation and knowledge management in South Africa. The data were analysed statistically, primarily by means of factor analysis, to determine the significant factors that contributed to the validation of the conceptual framework. The Structured Equation Model in chapter 4 (figure 4.7), which shows the interrelationships between Innovation Capability, Knowledge Management Capability and Organisational Capability Efficiency, and the conceptual framework described in chapter 5 (section 5.3.1), which offers insight into the aligned/synthesised implementation of Innovation Capability and Knowledge Management Capability are considered to be contributions to the body of knowledge. In terms of the research result, it is recommended that organisations implementing Innovation Capability consider Knowledge Management Capability concepts and, where applicable, align/synthesise them with the appropriate Innovation Capability, using their order of importance to prioritise implementation for the organisation and attain Organisational Capability Efficiency. It was found that implementing Innovation Capability and Knowledge Management Capability separately did not produce Organisational Capability Efficiency. However, aligning/synthesising Innovation Capability and Knowledge Management Capability coherently allowed managers and practitioners to achieve cohesive implementation strategies, optimised utilisation of resources, reduced redundancy of effort, improved investments and accessibility to scarce and skilled resources. / In die hedendaagse kennisekonomie gee charismatiese maatskappybestuurders voorkeur aan innovering en kennisbestuur om hulle organisasies se produkte en dienste te verbeter en ʼn mededingende voordeel te behaal. Organisasies wat homogene en intellektuele hulpbronvermoëns, soos Innoveringsvermoë (INNO) en Kennisbestuursvermoë (KBV), implementeer, openbaar egter mettertyd ʼn traagheid, ʼn gebrekkige begrip en ondoeltreffendheid as gevolg van verskeie invloede, waaronder ingewikkelde boustene en verminderde organisasievermoëns. Daarom probeer hierdie studie vasstel of Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid (OVD) verbeter indien organisasievermoëns gekorreleer of gesintetiseer kan word deur Innoveringsvermoë en Kennisbestuursvermoë in organisasies te implementeer. Die doel van hierdie studie was om ʼn konseptuele raamwerk vir die korrelering van Innoveringsvermoë (INNO) en Kennisbestuurvermoë (KBV) te ontwikkel wat tydens die implementering van Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid (OVD) vir maatskappybestuurders van nut kan wees. Hierdie studie het ʼn positiwistiese navorsingsbenadering gevolg. Die veranderlikes wat uit die teorie afgelei is, is Innoveringsvermoë (INNO), Kennisbestuursvermoë (KBV) en Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid (OVD). Die literatuur is grondig bestudeer om die konstrukte van die konseptuele navorsingsmodel te ontwikkel. Die hipotese en navorsingsvrae het uit die teorie voortgespruit. ʼn Navorsingsopname-instrument is gebruik om die veranderlikes te meet en in omskryfbare en meetbare aanwysers te operasionaliseer ten einde die hipotese te toets. Kwantitatiewe navorsing is in hierdie verkennende studie onderneem, en data is uit ʼn verteenwoordigende steekproef versamel. Geen steekproef is vir hierdie studie geneem nie, aangesien die navorser ʼn sensusopame gedoen het. Data is met behulp van ʼn halfgestruktureerde vraelys volgens die vyfpunt-Likert-skaal ingesamel. Allerlei organisasies, van staatsdepartemente en ondernemings in staatsbesit tot genoteerde plaaslike maatskappye wat by innovering en kennisbestuur in Suid-Afrika betrokke is, het A conceptual framework for the relationship between the implementation of innovation and knowledge management and its link to organisational capabilities Page 7 of 260 die teikenpopulasie gevorm. Die data is grotendeels aan die hand van ʼn faktoranalise statisties ontleed om die faktore te bepaal wat die geldigheid van die konseptuele raamwerk bevestig. Die Gestruktureerde Vergelykingsmodel in hoofstuk 4 (figuur 4.7) en die konseptuele raamwerk wat in hoofstuk 5 (afdeling 5.3.1) beskryf word, lewer ʼn bydrae tot die geheel van kennis. Eersgenoemde toon die onderlinge verbande tussen Innoveringsvermoë, Kennisbestuursvermoë en Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid, en laasgenoemde bied insig in die gekorreleerde of gesintetiseerde implementering van Innoveringsvermoë en Kennisbestuursvermoë. Wat die navorsingsuitslag betref, word aanbeveel dat organisasies wat Innoveringsvermoë implementeer, die Kennisbestuursvermoëkonsepte in ag neem en, as dit nodig is, met die toepaslike Innoveringsvermoë korreleer of sintetiseer, en volgens hulle eie prioriteite in werking stel om Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid moontlik te maak. Daar is bevind dat wanneer Innoveringsvermoë en Kennisbestuursvermoë afsonderlik geïmplementeer word, Organisasievermoëdoeltreffendheid nie verbeter nie. Indien Innoveringsvermoë en Kennisbestuursvermoë egter samehangend gekorreleer of gesintetiseer word, is bestuurders en praktisyns se implementeringstrategieë samehangend, word hulpbronne optimaal aangewend, verminder onnodige inspanning, verbeter beleggings, en is skaars en opgeleide hulpbronne meer toeganklik. / Olwazini wethu lomnotho obanzi, abaphathi abanobuntu bezinhlangano baya ngokuya bamukela izindlela ezintsha zokuphathwa kolwazi nokwenza ngcono imikhiqizo nezinsizakalo zokulethwa kwezinsiza kanye nokuncintisana. Kodwa-ke, izinhlangano ezisebenzisa amandla amakhulu wezinsizakusebenza ezinokuqonda okufana nAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha (Innovation Capability INNO) kanye nAmandla okuPhatha uLwazi (Knowledge Management capability KMC) zihlupheka ngokweqile, ukuntuleka kokuqonda nokungakwazi ukwenza kahle kwenhlangano okubangelwa yimithelela eminingi, izakhi zokwakha ezibucayi namandla aphelile enhlangano. Ngakho-ke, inhloso esemqoka yalolu cwaningo bekuwukuhlola ukuthi ngabe Amandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano (Organisational Capability Effeciency OCE) athuthukisiwe ngokuvumelanisa / ukuhlanganisa amandla enhlangano lapho kufakwa Amandla Ezindlela Ezintsha kanye nAmandla Okuphatha uLwazi ezinhlanganweni. Inhloso esemqoka yalolu cwaningo bekuwukuqamba uhlaka oluzwisisekayo lokuqondiswa kwAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha (Innovation Capability INNO) nAmandla okuPhatha uLwazi (Knowledge Management capability KMC) oluzosiza abaphathi ezinhlanganweni ngesikhathi sokuqalisa ukwenza ngcono Amandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano (Organisation capability Performance OCE). Lolu cwaningo lwamukele ucwaningo lolwazi olususelwa ezintweni zemvelo nobudlelwano bazo (positivist philosophy). Ukwehlukahluka okususelwa kumcabango walolu cwaningo bekungAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha (Innovation capability INNO), Amandla okuPhatha uLwazi (Management Capability KMC) kanye nAmandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano (Organisation capability OCE). Ukubuyekezwa kwezincwadi okujulile kwenziwa ukuze kuthuthukiswe ukwakhiwa kwesifaniselo socwaningo olucatshangelwe. Imibuzo ehlongozwayo njengesisekelo sobufakazi bokuqala uphenyo locwaningo yathuthukiswa kusuka emcabangweni. Izinto eziguqukayo zazisetshenziselwa izinkomba ezikwazi ukuqondakala futhi ithuluzi lokuhlola lusetshenziselwe ukukala okuguquguqukayo futhi kusebenze izinkomba ukuhlola umqondo Kusetshenziswe uhlobo locwaningo olufuna ukuhumusha ukuqonda emininingwaneni ezosiza ukuqonda impilo yenhlalakahle (quantitative research) kulolu cwaningo lokuhlola futhi imininingwane iqoqwe kusampuli emelwe. Akukho sampula eyenziwe kulolu cwaningo ngoba umcwaningi wenze inhlolovo yokubalwa kwabantu. Uhlu lwemibuzo olwakhiwe kancane, ikakhulukazi olusebenzisa isilinganiso samaphuzu amahlanu kaLikert, lwalusetshenziselwa ukuqoqa imininingwane. Abantu ababehlosiwe babehlanganisa zonke izinhlangano, kufaka phakathi iminyango kahulumeni kazwelonke, amabhizinisi aphethwe nguhulumeni kanye nezinkampani ezikleliswe ohlwini lweNingizimu Afrika ezisebenza ezindleleni ezintsha nokuphathwa kolwazi eNingizimu Afrika. Imininingwane yahlaziywa ngokwezibalo, ngokuyinhloko kusetshenziswa ukuhlaziywa kwezinto, ukuthola izinto ezibalulekile ezaba nomthelela ekuqinisekisweni kohlaka lomqondo. ISakhiwo Esilungisiwe Sesifaniselo esahlukweni 4 (isithombe 4.7), esikhombisa ukuxhumana phakathi, kwAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha, Amandla okuPhathwa koLwazi kanye nAmandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano, nohlaka lomqondo oluchazwe esahlukweni 5 (isigaba 5.3.1), olunikeza ukuqonda ngokuhambisana / ukuqaliswa okwenziwe kwaAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha kanye nAmandla okuPh athwa koLwazi kubhekwa njengegalelo emzimbeni wolwazi.Ngokomphumela wokucwaninga, kuphakanyiswe ukuthi izinhlangano ezisebenzisa Amandla Ezindlela Ezintsha zibheke imiqondo yAmandla okuPhathwa koLwazi futhi, lapho kusebenza khona, zikuqondanise / zikuhlanganise nAmandla Ezindlela Ezintsha ezifanelekile, zisebenzisa ukuhleleka kokubaluleka kokubeka phambili ukusebenza kwenhlangano futhi zithole Amandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano. Kwatholakala ukuthi ukusebenzisa Amandla Ezindlela Ezintsha kanye nAmandla okuPhathwa koLwazi ngokwehlukanisa akuzange kukhiqize Amandla okuSebenza Kahle kweNhlangano. Kodwa-ke, ukuvumelanisa / ukuhlanganisa Amandla Ezindlela Ezintsha kanye nAmandla okuPhathwa koLwazi kuvumele ngokuqinile abaphathi nabasebenza ngempumelelo ukufezekisa amasu wokusebenzisa okuvumelanayo, ukusetshenziswa kahle kwezinsiza, ukunciphisa kwemizamo engadingekile, ukuthuthukiswa kokutshalwa kwemali kanye nokufinyeleleka kwezinsizakusebenza ezinamakhono. / Business Management / D.B.L.

Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D printing, has been attracting attention from practitioners as well as academicians with its continuous evolution from being used primarily for prototyping to now end-product production. Despite this technology's current and future potential, few studies indicate that AM has not been extensively used across all industries. This dissertation addresses knowledge gaps by providing theoretical and empirical support for adopting AM through three essays that study the role of AM in restructuring supply chains. Essay 1 provides systematic support for AM implementation by developing a typology derived from technology-specific potentials and challenges to adopting AM. This study uses an exploratory research approach to collect and analyze data from semi-structured interviews of practitioners with deep knowledge of AM and supply chains from diverse industries. In Essay 2, our results show that AM adoption positively influences supply chain responsiveness and, in turn, reshoring decisions. Essay 3 compares different supply chain configurations based on traditional and AM. We developed a hybrid simulation model combining discrete event simulation and agent-based simulation and compared the performance in terms of wait time and costs. Our results indicate that under certain conditions, the centralized configuration delivers spare parts faster than the distributed configuration, contrary to previous literature findings. However, a hybrid configuration (a combination of centralized and decentralized) provides a better response (reduced wait time) than the traditional, centralized, and decentralized configurations. Collectively, the three essays provide academicians and practitioners with a more comprehensive understanding of how AM creates value for supply chains.

在持續創新的需求下，跨公司合作已成為企業整合應用知識，創新求變的重要策略。本文融合知識基礎觀點和組織學習觀點，指出跨公司合作所帶來的組織創新績效，係因合作夥伴知識整合的結果。因此研究的目的除了要實證知識整合與組織創新績效的關係外，主要在發展一個理論架構，說明影響跨公司合作創新的因素，及這些因素之間的關係。在研究設計上，本文係以我國高科技產業、資訊服務業及金融服務業做為問卷調查的對象，將所收集的資料透過探索性分析與驗證性分析兩階段檢定本文所提出之量測模式與研究假說，結果得到下列結論： 1. 跨公司合作為企業所帶來的創新績效，可以用知識整合的觀點來解釋，當企業知識整合能力越好，跨公司合作創新績效會越好。 2. 知識整合能力受到企業知識吸收能力的影響，吸收能力係企業先前知識的蓄積量，以及應用這些知識的能力之綜合。 3. 知識整合能力亦受到企業與夥伴合作的能力之影響，合作能力包括企業與夥伴建立信任關係，以及溝通、協調的能力。 4. 知識特質受知識整合機制的中介而影響創新績效，跨公司合作所帶來組織的創新績效，主要不受合作所牽涉知識之外顯╱內隱與複雜性特質的影響，必須應知識特質的不同而採取適當的整合機制後，才能因知識整合而產生創新績效。 5. 吸收能力、合作能力與知識整合機制是相互影響的因素，三者形成企業知識整合創新能力的主要構面，是企業追求跨公司合作創新必須重視的要素。 / Inter-firm collaboration has been an important strategy for firms to integrate and apply knowledge among their partners in order to obtain innovation performance under uncertainty circumstances. This study combining the knowledge based view and the organizational learning perspective, considers the innovation performance improvement as the result of knowledge integration. Besides examining the relation between innovation performance and knowledge integration, the purpose of this study is to find the factors influencing inter-firm collaboration performance and the relationships among these factors. The data collecting from Taiwan’s high-tech, information service and finance industry were used in the exploratory and confirmatory phases to evaluate the instruments and test the hypotheses. The conclusions are listed as below: 1. The innovation performance gaining from inter-firm collaboration can be considered as the result of knowledge integration. While the knowledge integration capability of a firm is better, the firm’s innovation performance in inter-firm collaborations will be better too. 2. The knowledge integration capability of a firm is influenced by the absorptive capacity of the firm. And the firm’s absorptive capacity derives from the firm’s prior knowledge accumulation and the capability to apply their knowledge. 3. The knowledge integration capability of a firm is also influenced by their cooperative competency. The cooperative competency is composed of three interrelated facets: trust, communication and coordination. 4. Firm’s innovation performance in an inter-firm collaboration doesn’t directly influenced by the explicit/tacit and complexity characteristics of the knowledge which appeared in the collaboration. To produce innovation performance, knowledge with different characteristics should be integrated by suitable integration mechanisms. 5. Absorptive capacity, corporative competency and knowledge integration mechanism construct firm’s “knowledge integration and innovation capability”, which is important to firm’s innovation performance in inter-firm collaborations.