96

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 96-109 (2010)

THE EFFECT OF MARKET KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

COMPETENCE ON BUSINESS PERFORMANCE: A
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES PERSPECTIVE
Jia-Jeng Hou* and Ying-Tsung Chien
Department of Business Administration
National Chiayi University
Chiayi (600), Taiwan

ABSTRACT
Market knowledge has become the major asset of modern businesses and the key to retain
their competitiveness. This research attempts to explore the impact of market knowledge
management competence on performance via the dynamic capabilities perspective. 192
Taiwan companies were selected for the survey setting. The major findings are
summarized as following: 1. this empirical result supports the relationships among
dynamic capability, market knowledge management competence and business
performance; namely, the model fit is acceptable. 2. Dynamic capability has a positive
impact on market knowledge management competence. 3. Both Market knowledge
management competence and Dynamic capability have positive influence on business
performance. 4. We can find mediation effect from market knowledge management
competence on the relationship between dynamic capability and financial performance.
This research is valuable for assessing key organizational capabilities that directly impact
an organizations drive toward successful knowledge management.
Keywords: Dynamic Capabilities, Market Knowledge Management, Market Knowledge
Management Competence, Performance

1. INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, the notion of dynamic

capabilities as the ultimate source of competitive
advantage [51] has catapulted these concepts to the
forefront of strategy research. Rudimentary efforts
have made to identify the dimensions of firm-specific
capabilities that be sources of advantage, and to
explain how combinations of competences and
resources can be developed, and protected.
Teece, Pisano and Shuen [51] referred to this as
the dynamic capabilities approach in order to stress
exploiting internal and external firm-specific
competences to address changing environments.
Because this approach emphasizes the development
of management capabilities, and difficult-to-imitate
combinations of organizational, functional and
technological skills, it integrates and draws upon
research in such areas as management of R&D,
product and process development, technology
transfer, intellectual property, manufacturing, human
resources, and organizational learning. Because these
fields are often viewed as outside the traditional
boundaries of strategy, much of this research has not
been incorporated into existing economic approaches
*

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

to strategy issues. As a result, dynamic capabilities

can be seen as an emerging and potentially
integrative approach to understanding the newer
sources of competitive advantage [3,8,10,12,18,19,
32,40,41,45,52,60,61].
The most dramatic evolution in business over the
past decade is the dawn of the new economy. The
velocity and dynamic nature of the new marketplace
has created a competitive incentive among many
companies to consolidate and reconcile their
knowledge assets as a means of creating value that is
sustainable over time. In order to achieve competitive
sustainability, many firms are launching extensive
knowledge management efforts. Unfortunately, many
knowledge management projects are, in reality,
information projects. When these projects yield some
consolidation of data but little innovation in products
and services, the concept of knowledge management
(KM) is cast in doubt. Clearly, the quest to move
beyond information management and into the realm
of knowledge management is a complex undertaking
involving the development of structures that allow
the firm to recognize, create, transform, and distribute
knowledge.
Importantly, organizations may not be equally
predisposed for successful launch and maintenance of
knowledge management initiatives. Therefore, a key

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

to understanding the success and failure of
knowledge management within organizations is the
identification and assessment of preconditions that
are necessary for the effort to flourish. These
preconditions are described broadly as "capabilities"
or "resources" within the organizational behavior
literature [31]. The study makes two major empirical
contributions to the strategic management field. The
first one is related to the introduction of the dynamic
capabilities perspective to the research framework
for capturing the performance implications of market
knowledge management competence. Second, we
examine the market knowledge management
competence mediate effect between dynamic
capabilities and business performance furthermore.
Therefore, this research is valuable for assessing key
organizational capabilities that directly impact an
organizations drive toward successful knowledge
management.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Critical Review of Dynamic Capabilities
Perspective
The concept of dynamic capabilities was
introduced by [51] who asserted that in a dynamic
environment a firms competitive advantage will rest
on the firms internal processes and routines that
enable the firm to renew and change its stock of
organizational capabilities thereby making it possible
to deliver a constant stream of new and innovative
products and services to customers. Dynamic
capabilities can therefore be perceived as the routines
in a firm that guide and facilitate the development of
the firms organizational capabilities by changing the
underlying resource base in the firm [10]. Both
dynamic and organizational capabilities can be seen
as organizational routines, but their outcomes are
different. Organizational capabilities enable the firm
to produce goods and services whereas the dynamic
capabilities ensure the renewal and development of
the organizational capabilities. The interest in
dynamic capabilities has created focus on the
processes in a firm aimed at developing and renewing
the resource bases of the firm [51,56]. Market
orientation and
marketing
capabilities
are
complementary assets that contribute to superior firm
performance. Hou [20] proposed a research model to
show how market orientation can be transformed into
dynamic capabilities and the competitive value of
market orientation is positively mediated by dynamic
capabilities. The key implication of dynamic
capabilities is that firms not only are competing on
their ability to activate and exploit their existing
resources and organizational capabilities, firms are
also competing on their ability to renew and develop
these [34].
In the dynamic markets of today competitive

97

advantage rest on the ability to constantly develop

organizational capabilities that form the basis for
products and services offered by the firm, thereby
constantly renewing the competitive advantages of
the firm. Building on previous research on the
resource based view of the firm the dynamic
capabilities concept has added to our understanding
of the challenges involved in following a resource
based approach to strategy. Strategy should also be a
battle for sustained development of the firms
organizational capabilities [51] and not just a battle
for strong market positions. In the long run it is
insufficient to have strong resources and
organizational capabilities, the firm must also possess
strong organizational routines for developing and
renewing these resources and organizational
capabilities. This is especially true for companies
competing in dynamic markets [56]. Dynamic
capabilities can be seen as an extension of resource
based view where the firm is conceived as a
collection of resources, e.g. technologies, skills, and
knowledge-based resources. Competitive advantage
originates from the creative integration and
subsequent exploitation of these resources in the
market place [50,51]. Furthermore, it has, within the
resource based view, been emphasized that the key to
achieving a sustainable competitive advantage from
the firms stock of resources lies in the ability to
integrate different resources to form strong
organizational capabilities [16,54,60].
Empirical research on dynamic capabilities has
begun to fill the vacuum area of the transformational
mechanisms. According to literature review, the
study points out five important research agenda. They
are nature and component factors of dynamic
capabiliites [10,50,51,55], formation process of
dynamic capabilities [36,60], influential factors of
dynamic capabilities [17,18,27,41], the impact of
dynamic capabilities on performance [43,44,61], and
other applications [4,32].
In summary, the emergence of dynamic
capabilities has enhanced the resource-based view by
addressing the evolutionary nature of firm resources
and capabilities in relation to environmental changes
and enabling identification of firm- or industryspecific processes that are critical to firm evolution.
2.2 Market Knowledge Market Competence
Market knowledge has become the major asset of
modern businesses and the key to retain their
competitiveness. To compete effectively, firms must
leverage their existing knowledge and create new
knowledge that favorably positions them in their
chosen markets. In order to accomplish this, firms
must develop an absorptive capacity-the ability to
use prior knowledge to recognize the value of new
information, assimilates it, and apply it to create new
knowledge and capabilities. In essence, all new

98

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

resources, including knowledge, are created through

two generic processes, combination and exchange
[37]. Combination and exchange of knowledge for
creation of new knowledge requires the presence of
social capital [35].
In order to leverage knowledge infrastructure,
knowledge management processes must also be
present in order to store, transform, and transport
knowledge throughout the organization [1,2,38,42,
47]. These processes enable the organization to
capture, reconcile, and transfer knowledge in an
efficient manner. Su and Lin [48] demonstrated
customer knowledge can be enhanced through
resource provision and knowledge management
process. Grant [15,16] provides a framework for
defining the process aspects of knowledge integration.
According to this framework, integration of
knowledge is dependent upon three aspects:
efficiency of integration, scope of integration, and
flexibility of integration. The frequency and
variability of processes are key determinants of
efficiency of integration. The more frequently a
company carries out its knowledge management
processes, the more routine the norms and more
efficient the integration process. The more variable
the knowledge management processes, the more a
company must handle exceptions, and. consequently,
the less efficient the integration of knowledge. The
variety of knowledge that is integrated through the
presence of requisite processes defines the scope of
integration. Finally, flexibility of integration refers to
the manner in which an organization can combine its
knowledge.
Together,
the
perspectives
of
infrastructure and process provide a useful theoretical
foundation for defining important aspects of
organizational capability.
Although it is important for an organization to
manage knowledge internally, it is equally important
to effectively manage external knowledge as well
[11]. Researchers have identified many key aspects to
this knowledge management process: capture,
transfer, and use, acquire, collaborate, integrate,
experiment; create, transfer, assemble, integrate, and
exploit [49]; create, transfer, use [47]; and create,
process [25].
In order to examination of these various
characteristics of knowledge management process,
the research adopts the arguments of Gold, Malhotra,
and Segars [14]. They grouped knowledge
management process into four broad dimensions
ofacquiring knowledge, converting it into useful
form, applying or using it, and protecting it. We
future describe them as market knowledge
management competence (MKMC).
2.2.1 Acquisition of Market Knowledge
Acquisition-oriented knowledge management
processes are those oriented toward obtaining

knowledge. The creation of organizational knowledge

requires the sharing and dissemination of personal
experiences [24]. Collaboration takes place at two
levels within the organization; between individuals
and between the organization and its network of
business partners. Collaboration between individuals
brings together individual differences (e.g., cognitive
style, preferred tools, backgrounds, experiences) and
can be used to create knowledge [32]. This assumes
that interaction between the individuals will promote
learning [49]. Collaboration between individuals is
also the basis for the socialization of knowledge.
Collaboration between organizations is also a
potential source of knowledge [9,22,23,24]. Core
capabilities are increasingly based on an
organizations ability to find and create knowledge.
Collaboration with other firms is critical to
knowledge acquisition [15,16,33]. Technology
sharing, personnel movement, and linkages between
the organization and alliance partners or joint venture
partners have all been shown to assist with the
accumulation of knowledge [22,24]. However, the
ability to acquire knowledge is partly based on an
organizations absorptive capacity. This is because all
the necessary skills for innovation may not be found
within a single organization [23].
2.2.2 Conversion of Market Knowledge
Conversion-oriented knowledge management
processes are those oriented toward making existing
knowledge useful. Some of the processes that enable
knowledge conversion are a firms ability to organize
[39], integrate [16], combine, structure, coordinate
[46], or distribute knowledge [6,7,59]. An
organization must develop a framework for
organizing or structuring its knowledge [39]. Without
common representation standards, no consistency or
common dialogue of knowledge would exist. This
would make the asset difficult to effectively manage.
Knowledge about a particular subject may reside in
different pans of the organization or in different
systems within the organization.
Combining or integrating this knowledge reduces
redundancy, enhances consistent representation, and
improves efficiency by eliminating excess volume
[16]. These processes also enable the organization to
replace knowledge that has become outdated. The
different knowledge of many individuals must be
integrated to maximize efficiency. Thus, a primary
goal of any organization should be to integrate the
specialized knowledge of many individuals [16].
Four commonly cited mechanisms for facilitating
integration are rules and directives, sequencing,
routines, and group problem solving and decisionmaking.
2.2.3 Application of Market Knowledge
Application-based processes are those oriented

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

toward the actual use of the knowledge. Interestingly,
little discussion has been devoted to the outcomes of
the effective application of knowledge. Effective
application seems to be largely assumed or implied as
opposed to treated explicitly. Process characteristics
that have been associated with the application of
knowledge within the literature include storage,
retrieval, application, contribution, and sharing [2].
Effective storage and retrieval mechanisms enable the
organization to quickly access knowledge. To remain
competitive, organizations must create, capture, and
locate organizational knowledge.
In addition, organizational knowledge and
expertise must be shared [26,28,29]. As a result of
this sharing of knowledge, product development
times have accelerated, functionality has increased
rapidly, and its adoption has become widespread. In a
discussion of customer support knowledge, Fathian,
Sotoudehriazi, Akhavan, and Moghaddam [13] note
that the effective application of knowledge has
helped companies improve their efficiency and
reduce costs. Systematic management for enterprise
knowledge as a critical and strategic resource has a
great impact on business sustainability and growth.
2.2.4 Protection of Market Knowledge
Security-oriented
knowledge
management
processes are those designed to protect the
knowledge within an organization from illegal or
inappropriate use or theft. For a firm to generate and
preserve a competitive advantage, it is vital that its
knowledge be protected [42]. Similar to
application-oriented processes, this has also received
little attention in the literature. Many may assume
that a firm can protect its knowledge via patents,
trademarks, copyrights, and so on. However, not all
knowledge can he define according to property laws
and property rights [42].
Because protecting knowledge is inherently
difficult, it should not be abandoned or marginalized.
Steps can be taken to protect the asset, such as
incentive alignment, employee conduct rules, or job
designs. In addition, an organization can develop
technology that restricts or tracks access to vital
knowledge. Irrespective of the difficulty in protecting
knowledge, it is a process that is important for an
organization. For an asset to be the source of a
competitive advantage, it needs to be rare and
inimitable. Without security-oriented processes,
knowledge loses these important qualities. Synthesis
of the prior discussion suggests that organizational
capability to effectively initiate and maintain
programs of knowledge management can be framed
along broad dimensions of infrastructure and process.
Infrastructure capability can be further subdivided
along definitional lines of technical, structural, and
cultural capability. Process capability can be further
subdivided along definitional lines of acquisition,

99

conversion, application, and protection capability.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Framework and Hypothesis
Development
Wang and Ahmed [55] indicated that research on
dynamic capabilities has been conducted on a
piecemeal basis and issues surrounding its
conceptualization remain ambivalent. It is important
to synthesize the conceptual debates and diverse
empirical findings towards a more integrated
understanding of dynamic capabilities. This research
thus conceptualized and tested a model of how the
dynamic capabilities affected the MKMC and how
these two factors associated with performance. Figure
1 presents a theoretical model overview (refer to
appendix).
Conceptually, we considered that sensing
capability, absorptive capability and learning
capability are the most important component factors
of dynamic capabilities and the base of a firms
ability to create or response market and capabilities in
line with external changes. Therefore, dynamic
capabilities should facilitate the market knowledge;
namely, component factors of dynamic capabilities
are positively related to market knowledge
management competence.
H1 Dynamic capabilities are positively related to
market knowledge management competence.
H1-1 The sensing capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related to
MKMC.
H1-2 The absorptive capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related to
MKMC.
H1-3 The learning capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related to
MKMC.
It is an important issue for firms to manage
internal and external knowledge for better
organization performance. Poter-Liebskind [42]
argued that market knowledge management
competence may influence the firm performance.
Thus, better management in MKMC should be
associated with higher market and financial
performance. More formally:
H2-1 Market knowledge management competence is
positively related to market performance.
H2-1-1 The acquisition of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to market performance.
H2-1-2 The conversion of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to market performance.
H2-1-3 The application of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to market performance.

100

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

H2-1-4 The protection of market knowledge

dimension for MKMC is positively related
to market performance.
H2-2 Market knowledge management competence is
positively related to financial performance.
H2-2-1 The acquisition of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to financial performance.
H2-2-2 The conversion of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to financial performance.
H2-2-3 The application of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to financial performance.
H2-2-4 The protection of market knowledge
dimension for MKMC is positively related
to financial performance.
Empirical evidence supported that dynamic
capabilities plays an important role in firms survival
and success [55]. Given the related literature [9], we
argued that dynamic capabilities are conducive to
firm performance. Thus, this study proposed the
hypothesis is below:
H3-1 Dynamic capabilities are positively related to
market performance.
H3-1-1 The sensing capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to market performance.
H3-1-2 The absorptive capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to market performance.
H3-1-3 The learning capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to market performance.
H3-2 Dynamic capabilities are positively related to
financial performance.
H3-2-1 The sensing capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to financial performance.
H3-2-2 The absorptive capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to financial performance.
H3-2-3 The learning capability dimension for
dynamic capabilities is positively related
to financial performance.
As proposed by Wang and Ahmed [55], firm
assets have an indirect effect on market performance
mediated by firm strategy. Dynamic capabilities are
conducive to firm performance, but the relationship is
an indirect one mediated by capability development.
Hence, we propose:
H4-1 Market knowledge management competence
mediates the relationship of dynamic
capabilities on market performance.
H4-2 Market knowledge management competence
mediates the relationship of dynamic
capabilities on financial performance.

3.2 Operational Definitions and Measures

Based on dynamic capabilities view [32,51,55]
and theoretical grounding [5,9,53,57], we identified
three component factors related dynamic capabilities
and MKMC as independent variables, i.e. sensing
capability, absorptive capability and learning
capability. For mediate variables part, as proposed by
Gold et al. [14], the study conceptualized MKMC to
include acquisition of market knowledge, conversion
of market knowledge, application of market
knowledge, and protection of market knowledge four
dimensions.
As proposed by Venkatraman and Ramanujam
[54], the business performance should include
financial and non-financial indicators. Therefore, this
study measured market performance by market shares,
sales growth rates, customer satisfaction, and the
success rate of new product. Financial performance
was measured by return on investment and
profitability.
3.3 Sampling and Data Collection
Data collection proceeded through mail survey
questionnaires, sent to NCYU EMBA students and
senior executives from the major companies in
Taiwan. This study carried out two-wave mailings
with follow-up telephone calls, producing an
effective response rate. Responses two weeks later
increased to a total of 225 responses. Among the
returned surveys, 33 were incomplete and therefore
discarded, reducing the sample size to 192, with an
effective response rate of 13.9%.

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND

DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Reliability and Validity Tests
Cronbachs is used in this research to measure
the reliability of data collected. The Cronbachs
value is 0.963 for the whole Dynamic Capabilities.
The Cronbachs value for its factors are sensing
capability = 0.868, absorptive capability = 0.949, and
learning capability = 0.922. The Cronbachs value
is 0.930 for the whole market knowledge
management competence (MKMC), and the value for
its factors are acquisition of market knowledge =
0.864, conversion of market knowledge = 0.890,
application of market knowledge = 0.894, and
protection of market knowledge = 0.839. The
Cronbachs value is 0.943 for the whole
performance, and the Cronbachs value for its
factors are market performance = 0.837, and financial
performance = 0.943. As a whole, the Cronbachs
value for predictor variables and criterion variables
are both higher than required 0.7. This research is
hence of reliability.
As to the validity, the measurement scales used

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

for predictor variables and criterion variables in this
research are developed based on research theories
done by domestic and national scholars. The required
content validity is fulfilled. Also, after being analyzed
by factor analysis, it was found that except
Application of market knowledge, market
performance, and the whole performance, the KMO
sampling adequacy are all higher than 0.8. The
Bartletts test of Sphericity is also significant and
conforms to the requirement of construct validity.
4.2 Relationships of Dynamic Capabilities and
MKMC
Regression analysis was used to examine the
relationship of dynamic capabilities and MKMC in
this research. From Table 1 (refer to appendix), it is
clear that dynamic capabilities and its factors, sensing,
absorptive, and learning capability, all reflect MKMC
because the F value is significant. It means that the
regression effect is meaningful statistically. The
adjusted R2 value is 0.583, which means that the
dynamic capabilities can explain 58.3% variables of
MKMC. Among the factors in dynamic capabilities,
the absorptive capability (=0.508, p<0.001),
learning capability (=0.474, p<0.001), and sensing
capability (=0.328, p<0.001) are all explanatory to
MKMC. To view as a whole, the absorptive
capability can explain the best, learning capability the
second, and sensing capability the least. The VIF
value is below 10 so the collinearity is quite low. The
H1, H1-1, H1-2, and H1-3 of the research are
supported.
4.3 Relationships of MKMC and Performance
4.3.1 MKMC and Market Performance
Table 2 (refer to appendix) shows that MKMC
can explain market performance because the F value
is significant, which means the regression effect is
meaningful statistically. The adjusted R2 value of
MKMC is 0.102. This means that MKMC can
explain 10.2 % variables of market performance. The
factor application of knowledge in MKMC (=0.296,
p<0.001) is explanatory to market performance. The
factors acquisition of knowledge (=0.046, p>0.05),
conversion of knowledge (=0.116, p>0.05), and
protection of knowledge (=0.132, p>0.05)are not
significant to market performance. Besides, The VIF
value is below 10 so the collinearity is quite low. As a
result, the H2-1, and H2-1-3 of this research are
supported. But the H2-1-1, 2-1-2, and 2-1-4 are not
supported.
4.3.2 MKMC and Financial Performance
From Table 3 (refer to appendix), it is known that
MKMC is explanatory to financial performance
because the F value is significant, and the regression
effect is meaningful statistically. The adjusted R2 of
MKMC is 0.247. This means that MKMC can

101

explain 24.7% variables of financial performance.

The factors acquisition of market knowledge
(=0.376, p<0.001), conversion of market knowledge
(=0.232, p<0.001), and protection of market
knowledge (=0.247, p<0.001) are significant to
financial performance. But application of knowledge
(=0.081, p>0.05) isnt significant to financial
performance. Beside, the VIF value is below 10 so
the collinearity is quite low. As a result, the H2-2,
H2-2-1, H2-2-2, and H2-2-4 of this research are
supported. But the H2-1-3 isnt supported.
4.4 Relationships of Dynamic Capabilities and
Performance
4.4.1 Dynamic Capabilities and Market
Performance
Regression analysis was used to explain the
relationship of variables dynamic capabilities and
performance. From Table 4 (refer to appendix), it is
clear that the factors of dynamic capabilities, sensing
capability, absorptive capability, and learning
capability, all can explain market performance
because the F value is significant and the regression
effect is meaningful statistically. The adjusted R2 of
dynamic capabilities is 0.096. This means that
dynamic capabilities can explain 9.6% variables of
market performance. The two factors absorptive
capability (=0.284, p<0.001), and learning
capability (=0.154, p<0.005)are significant to
market performance. To view as a whole, the
absorptive capability can explain market performance
the most, and learning capability the second. The
sensing capability (=0.078, p>0.05) shows no
significant positive effect to market performance.
Beside, the VIF value is below 10 so the collinearity
is quite low. As a result, the H3-1, H3-1-2, and
H3-1-3 of this research are supported. But the H3-1-1
isnt supported.
4.4.2 Dynamic Capabilities and Financial
Performance
Table 5 (refer to appendix) tells that the dynamic
capabilities and its factors, sensing capability,
absorptive capability, and learning capability, all can
explain financial performance because the F value is
significant. This means that the regression effect is
meaningful statistically. The adjusted R2 value is
0.250. This means that dynamic capabilities can
explain 25% variables of financial performance. The
three factors of dynamic capabilities, sensing
capability (=0.245, p<0.001), absorptive capability
(=0.337, p<0.001), and learning capability (=0.296,
p<0.001), are all explanatory to financial
performance. As a whole, the absorptive capability
can explain financial performance the most, learning
capability the second, and sensing capability the least.
Beside, the VIF value is below 10 so the collinearity
is quite low. As a result, the H3-2, H3-2-1, H3-2-2,

102

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

and H3-2-3 of this research are all supported.

4.5 Mediate Effect Analysis
4.5.1 The mediate effect that MKMC has between
Dynamic Capabilities and Market Performance
Table 6 (refer to appendix) shows that dynamic
capabilities has significant partial positive effect on
MKMC (=0.756, p<0.001). Its shown in model 2
that dynamic capabilities has significant positive
effect on market performance (=0.298, p<0.001).
With mediate variables being added to model 3, it
shows that dynamic capabilities has no significant
effect on performance (=0.174, p>0.05). After the
factor MKMC is added, MKMC also has no
significant effect on market performance (=0.163,
p>0.05). This shows that MKMC has no mediate
effect between dynamic capabilities and market
performance. H4-1 is refused.
4.5.2 The mediate effect that MKMC has between
Dynamic Capabilities and Financial Performance
The model in Table 7 (refer to appendix) shows
that dynamic capabilities has significant partial
positive effect on MKMC (=0.756, p<0.001). Its
shown in model 2 that dynamic capabilities has
significant positive effect on financial performance
(=0.507, p<0.001). With mediate variables being
added to model 3, it shows that dynamic capabilities
has significant positive effect on financial
performance (=0.358, p<0.001). After the factor
MKMC is added, MKMC also has significant
positive effect on financial performance (=0.197,
p<0.05). However, the value drops from 0.507 to
0.358 shows the explanatory power that dynamic
capabilities has on financial performance comes
partially from MKMC, which means that MKMC has
mediate effect. Hence, H4-2 is supported.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 The Relationship of Dynamic Capabilities
and
Market
Knowledge
Management
Competence.
Inspected by regression analysis, it is found that
H1 is obvious. This means that dynamic capabilities
have partial positive effect on MKMC. It tells us that
if a corporation can raise its dynamic capabilities, the
development of MKMC will also be bettered. This
conforms to the theories proposed by Wang and
Ahmed [55] that the development of MKMC comes
from dynamic capabilities.
Sensing capability, absorptive capability, and
learning capability have positive effect on
development of MKMC. As Wang and Ahmed [55]
addressed, the better the dynamic capabilities is, the

more possible that a better MKMC will be developed.

The result that the effect sensing capability has on
MKMC reveals that the stronger the sensing
capability a firm has, the better its acquisition of
market knowledge and conversion of market
knowledge will be. The result differs from the
conclusion what Gold et al. [14] proposed, which said
that firms in Taiwan lack external detecting
mechanism. The result that good absorptive
capability helps improve MKMC comes out the same
as research result of Gold et al. [14]. The learning
capability has obvious positive effect on MKMC
supports the research of Gold et al. [14].
5.1.2 The Relationship of MKMC and
Performance.
The result shows that MKMC has partial positive
effect on market performance and financial
performance. The more efficient the MKMC is, the
better the performance will be. The same conclusion
is shown by the research of Gold et al. [14]. As to
market performance, good application of market
knowledge has significant positive effect on market
performance, and this will effectively raise selling
growth rate and customers satisfaction. However, if
financial performance is to be effectively raised, the
importance of applying market knowledge is less
important than the process of acquisition of market
knowledge, conversion of market knowledge, and
protection of market knowledge. In comparison with
application of market knowledge, the processes of
quality of knowledge acquired, the knowledge
quality control during conversion process, and the
protection of knowledge for later usage of estimating
and predicting market demand have a relatively
long-term meaning and the meaning whether the
knowledge can be applied to correctly.
5.1.3 The Relationship of Dynamic Capabilities
and Performance.
To view the whole construct framework, it is
found that dynamic capabilities have direct effect on
performance. But the sensing capability has no
significant effect on market performance. The result
could be an outcome of failing to clarify the
relationship between sensing capability and market
performance because there are too many factors
interfering amid. Among the findings, that the
conclusion of absorptive capability will become a
competitive advantage of a firm and brings good
performance echoes Zahra and Georges conclusion
[57]. The finding that learning capability has direct
effect on performance also has the same outcome as
the research of Gold et al. [14] about learning and
performance.

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

5.1.4 The Mediate Effect that MKMC has on
Dynamic Capabilities and Performance
It is found that the mediate variable MKMC has
significant mediate effect between dynamic
capabilities and financial performance. This finding
is similar to what Wang and Ahmed [55] proposed,
which says that the outcome of dynamic capabilities
is the development of MKMC, and MKMC will
affect performance. The conclusion is the same as
research conclusion of Zahra, Sppienza, and
Daviddson [57]. MKMC has no significant mediate
effect between dynamic capabilities and market
performance. The reason why it doesnt might be that
the meaning of dynamic capabilities and MKMC is a
procedural concept, and market performance, the
market possessive rate and customers satisfaction,
could be affected by factors such as marketing
method or product price set by competitive trades.
Therefore, mediate effect that dynamic capabilities
have on market performance could be interfered by
many factors.
5.2 Managerial Implications
5.2.1 Import New Leading Way of Thinking.
According to the research findings, managers
should be able to sense, absorb, and learn market
knowledge from outside the firm. Therefore at the
thought of decision-making, besides the past method
of considering from internal procedure angles,
knowledge acquired from external environment
should also be considered. It can be the groundwork
of internal adjustment and innovation. Also, it can be
used to respond to the fast change at the market.
Therefore, managers should get to learn clearly the
market trend, and encourage their employees to travel
and see more, be brave to give suggestions, and share
with each other what theyve learned, instead of
implementing supreme management control. It is
believed that this will help raise performance.
5.2.2 Construct Market Knowledge Management
Mechanism
It is found that the acquisition, conversion, and
protection of market knowledge in MKMC have no
significant effect on market performance. The reason
why it is so was speculated that there isnt a clear
measurement norm for them. Their relationship isnt
as clear as what application of market knowledge has
on market performance. Though acquisition,
conversion, and protection of knowledge have effect
on financial performance, they are not as clear as
what application of knowledge showed in the
samples of this research. In addition, when MKMC
was compared to financial performance, application
of knowledge then isnt as valuable as acquisition,
conversion, and protection of knowledge. Therefore,
at the MKMC, firms might construct a management
mechanism to weigh against how much benefit

103

market knowledge creates and where MKMC is

insufficient enough. Even, the mechanism can be
effectively used to discriminate and find out what
relationship the process of acquisition, conversion,
application, and protection of knowledge respectively
has with market performance and financial
Performance.
5.3 Future Research Suggestions
5.3.1 Consider other Factors of Dynamic
Capabilities
New dynamic capability factors were developed
in this research base on the rationale proposed by
Wang and Ahmed [55] to precede examination and
analysis. However, the constituent structure of this
new Dynamic Capabilities is not as flawless as the
three factors that proposed by Teece et al. [51] and
Teece [50]. Therefore, in the future research, other
weighing norms can be used for re-examination in
regard to the constituents of dynamic capabilities to
analyze whether dynamic capabilities can be
constituted by different factors and seek for a more
perfect weighing norm for dynamic capabilities.
5.3.2 Research on Different Industries Market
Knowledge Characteristics
Environment of different industries differs so the
market knowledge differs, too. Therefore, future
research can probe deeply into how different
industries control market knowledge management
and whats the relationship between MKMC and
performance that exist in different industries.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Almeida, P., 1996, Knowledge .sourcing by

foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis
in the U.S. semiconductor industry, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. Winter, pp.
155-165.
Appleyard, M. M., 1996, How does
knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the
semiconductor
industry,
Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. Winter, pp.
137-154.
Blyler, M. and Coff, R. W., 2003, Dynamic
capabilities,
social
capital,
and
rent
appropriation: Ties that split pies, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp.
677-686.
Chang, H. J. and Hou, J. J., 2007,
Organizational change and dynamic capability:
A case study of SP Company, Industry and
Management Forum, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Chen, C. J, 2004, The effect of knowledge
attribute,
alliance
characteristics,
and
absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer
performance, R and D Management, Vol, 34,

104

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

No. 3, pp. 311-324.
Davenport, T, DcLong, D. and Beers, M., 1998,
Successful knowledge management projects,
Sloan Management Review, Vol., 39, No Winter,
pp. 43-57.
Davenport, T. and Klahr, P., 1998, Managing
customer support knowledge, California
Management Review, Vol. 40, No, 3, pp.
195-208.
Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O. and Rajiv, S., 2005,
Conceptualization and measuring capability:
Methodology and empirical application,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 7,
pp. 667-686.
Dyer, J. H. and Nobeoka, K, 2000, Creating
and
managing
a
high-performance
knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No.3,
pp. 345.
Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J., 2000, Dynamic
Capability: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21, No.10-11, pp.
1105-1121.
El Sawy, O. A., Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and
Young, K., 2000, IT-enabled value innovation
in the electronic economy: Insights from
Marshall industry, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No.
3, pp. 305-335.
Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S. and
Singh, J. V., 2005, Where do capabilities come
from and how do they matter? A study in the
software
service
industry,
Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.
25-45.
Fathian, M., Sotoudehriazi, M., Akhavan, P.
and Moghaddam A. A., 2008, Building
customer knowledge base through knowledge
management: A missionary and visionary
perspective,
International
Journal
of
Electronic Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 10-20.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A. H.,
2001,
Knowledge
management:
An
organizational
capabilities
perspective,
Journal of Management Information System,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Grant, R., 1995, A knowledge-based theory of
inter-firm
collaboration,
Academy
of
Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp.
17-21.
Grant. R., 1996, Toward a knowledge based
theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, No. Winter, pp. 109-122.
Griffith, D. A. and Harvey, M. G., 2001, A
resource perspective of global dynamic
capabilities, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 597-606.
Helfat, C. E., 1997, Know-how and asset

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

complementarily and dynamic capability

accumulation: The case of R&D, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.
339-360.
Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A., 2003, The
dynamic resource-based view: Capability
lifecycles, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
24, No. 4, pp. 997-1010.
Hou, J. J., 2008, Toward a research model of
market orientation and dynamic capabilities,
Social
Behavior
&
Personality:
An
International Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp.
1251-1268.
Iansiti, M. and Clark, K. B., 1994, Integration
and dynamics capability: Evidence from
product development in automobiles and
mainframe
computers,
Industrial
and
Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 557-605.
Inkpen, A., 1996, Creating knowledge through
collaboration, California Management Review,
Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 123-141.
Inkpen, A. and Beamish, P., 1997, Knowledge,
bargaining power, and the instability of
international joint ventures, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.
177-202.
Inkpen, A. and Dinur, A., 1998, Knowledge
management processes and international joint
ventures, Organization Science, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp. 454-468.
Ivers, J., 1998, Bringing out brilliance:
Enabling knowledge creation in the Notes/
Domino environment, Enterprise Solutions,
November/December, pp. 24-27.
Johannessen, J., Olsen, B. and Olaisen, J., 1999,
Aspects of innovation theory based on
knowledge
management,
International
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 19,
No. 2, pp. 121-139.
King, A. A. and Tucci, C. L., 2002, Incumbent
entry into new market niches: The role of
experience and managerial choice in the
creation of dynamic capabilities, Management
Science, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 171-186.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U., 1992, Knowledge
of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology, Organization
Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Kraatz, M., 1998, Learning by association?
Interorganizational networks and adaptation to
environmental
change,
Academy
of
Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp.
621-643.
Lane, P. J. and Lubatkin, M, 1998, Relative
absorptive capability and interorganization
learning, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
19, No. 6, pp. 461-477.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. and Mobley, W. H., 1998,

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional

constructs, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.741-753.
Luo, Y, 2000, Dynamic capabilities in
international expansion, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 355-378.
Matusik, S. and Hill, C., 1998, The utilization
of contingent work, knowledge creation, and
competitive
advantage,
Academy
of
Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
680-697.
Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W. and Mason, C.
H., 2009, Market orientation, marketing
capabilities, and firm performance, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp.
909-920.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S., 1998, Social
capital,
intellectual
capital,
and
the
organizational advantage, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.
242-258.
Newbert, S. L., 2005, New firm formation: A
dynamic capability perspective, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.
55-77.
Nonaka, I., 1994, A dynamic theory of
organizational
knowledge
creation,
Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 10, pp.
14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N., 1998, The concept
of ba: Building a foundation of knowledge
creation, California Management Review, Vol.
40, No. 3, pp. 40-54.
ODell, C and Grayson, C., 1998, If only we
knew what we know: Identification and transfer
of internal best practices, California
Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.
154-174.
Pan, S., Pan, G. and Hsieh, M. H., 2006,A
dual-level analysis of the capability
development process: A case study of TT&T,
Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 57,
No. 13, pp. 1814-1829.
Petroni, A., 1998, The analysis of dynamic
capabilities
in
a
competence-oriented
organization, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.
179-189.
Porter-Liebskind, J., 1996, Knowledge,
strategy, and the theory of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. Winter, pp.
93-107.
Priem, R. L. and Butler, J. E., 2001, Is the
resource-based view a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Roy, P. and Roy, P., 2004, The Hewlett
PackardCompaq computers merger: Insight

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

105

from the resource-based view and the dynamic

capabilities perspective, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Vol. 5 No. 1/2, pp. 7-14.
Sanchez,
R.,
2004,
Understanding
competence-based management: Identifying
and managing five modes of competence,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, No. 5,
pp. 518-532.
Sanchez. R. and Mahoney, J. T., 1996,
Modularity, flexibility and knowledge
management in product and organization
design, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
17, No. Winter, pp. 63-76.
Spender, J. C., 1996, Making knowledge the
basis of a dynamic theory of the firm,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No.
Winter, pp. 45-62.
Su, H. Y. and Lin, Y., 2005, Building customer
knowledge
base
through
knowledge
management: A missionary and visionary
perspective,
International
Journal
of
Electronic Business Management, Vol. 3, No. 2,
pp. 140-150.
Teece, D., 1998, Capturing value from
knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
for knowhow and intangible assets, California
Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Teece, D. J., 2007, Explicating dynamic
capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 13,
pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., 1997,
Dynamic
capabilities
and
strategic
management, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Tripsas, M., 1997, Surviving radical
technological change through dynamic
capability: Evidence from the typesetter
industry, Industrial and Corporate Change,
Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 341-377.
Tsai, W., 2001, Knowledge transfer in
intraorganizational networks: Effects of
network position and absorptive capacity on
business unit innovation and performance,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No.
5, pp. 996-1005.
Venkatraman N. and Ramanujam, V., 1986,
Measurement of business performance in
strategy
research:
A
comparison
of
approaches, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11, pp. 801-814.
Wang, C. L. and Ahmed, P. K., 2007, Dynamic
capabilities: A review and research agenda,
The International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Wheeler, B. C., 2002, NEBIC: A dynamic
capabilities
theory
for
assessing

106

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

net-enablement,
Information
Systems
Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 125-146.
Zahra, S. A. and George, G., 2002, Absorptive
capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and
extension, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Zahra, S. A., Sppienza, H. J. and Davidsson, P.,
2006,
Entrepreneurship
and
dynamic
capabilities: A review, model and research
agenda, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
43, No. 4, pp. 917-955.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B., 1995, Knowledge
and the .speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: An empirical test,
Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G., 2002, Deliberate
learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No.
3, pp. 339-351.
Zott, C., 2003, Dynamic capabilities and the
emergence of intra-industry differential firm
performance: Insights from a simulation study,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No.
Winter, pp. 97-125.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jia-Jeng Hou is a Professor in the Department of
Business Administration, and the Dean of R&D
Office at National Chiayi University (NCYU),
Taiwan R.O.C. He received his Ph.D. degree in
Business Administration at National Taiwan
University in 1997. His current research and teaching
interests are in the general area of Strategic
Management.
Ying-Tsung Chien is a MBA of Management at
National Chiayi University.
(Received December 2008, revised March 2009,
accepted August 2009)

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

107

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Research framework

Table 1: Multiple Regression Analysis: Dynamic Capabilities and MKMC
Criterion Variable
Predictor Variables
Beta
F
Adjusted R 2
Sensing Capability
0.328***
Market Knowledge
0.583
Absorptive Capability 0.508*** 90.085***
Management Competence
Learning Capability 0.474***
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 2: Multiple regression analysis: MKMC and market performance
Criterion Variable
Predictor Variables
Beta
F
Adjusted R 2
Acquisition of Market
0.046
Knowledge
Conversion of Market
0.116
Knowledge
Market Performance
6.427***
0.102
Application of Market
0.296***
Knowledge
Protection of Market
0.132
Knowledge
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Table 3: Multiple regression analysis: MKMC and financial performance

Criterion Variable
predictor variables
Beta
F
Adjusted R 2
Acquisition of Market
0.376***
Knowledge
Conversion of Market
0.232***
Knowledge
Financial Performance
16.623***
0.247
Application of Market
0.081
Knowledge
Protection of Market
0.247***
Knowledge
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

VIF
1.000
1.000
1.000

VIF
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

VIF
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

108

International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2010)

Table 4: Multiple regression analysis: Dynamic capabilities and market performance
Criterion Variable
Predictor Variables
Beta
F
VIF
Adjusted R 2
Sensing Capability
0.078
1.000
Market Performance Absorptive Capability 0.284*** 7.773***
0.096
1.000
Learning Capability
0.154*
1.000
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 5: Multiple regression analysis: Dynamic capabilities and financial performance
Criterion Variable
Predictor Variables
Beta
F
Adjusted R 2
Sensing Capability
0.245***
Financial Performance Absorptive Capability 0.337*** 22.182***
0.250
Learning Capability 0.296***
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

VIF
1.000
1.000
1.000

Table 6: The mediate effect of MKMC to dynamic capabilities and market performance
MKMC
Market Performance
Independent Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Main Effect:
Dynamic Capabilities
0.756***
0.298***
0.174
Mediate Effect:
Market Knowledge Management Competence
0.163
F value
253.403*** 18.487*** 10.513***
0.569
0.084
0.091
Adjusted R 2
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 7: The mediate effect of MKMC to dynamic capabilities and financial performance
MKMC
Financial Performance
Independent Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Main Effect:
Dynamic Capabilities
0.756***
0.507***
0.358***
Mediate Effect:
Market Knowledge Management Competence
0.197*
F value
253.403*** 65.802*** 35.637***
0.569
0.253
0.266
Adjusted R 2
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

J. J. Hou and Y. T. Chien: The Effect of Market Knowledge Management Competence

580

1921.
2.
3.
4.

*[email protected]

109