Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the significance and impact of strategic knowledge management (SKM) practices and organisational change capacity (OCC) in improving strategic thinking and strategic orientation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their contribution in overall improvement of entrepreneurial performance.

Quantitative research methodology using partial least square structural equation modelling with data of 296 sample from the target group as managers and owners from various SMEs in the UK has been used in the study.

The findings suggest that SMEs that invest in SKM and OCC are more proficient at adjusting to fluctuations in the business landscape and develop effective strategies that lead to improved entrepreneurial performance. The study provides evidence that SKM encompasses more than just the acquisition and use of information. It also involves the establishment of a learning and innovation culture that facilitates strategic thinking and direction. Similarly, OCC is not just about implementing change but also about developing the agility and flexibility to adapt to market changes, consumer demands and technology.

According to the research, SMEs may boost their entrepreneurial performance and keep a competitive advantage in the modern, dynamic business environment by investing in SKM and OCC. The capacity of SMEs to implement SKM and organisational change should be encouraged and supported by policymakers and practitioners, who should also offer the necessary tools and assistance to do so.

This study offers a valuable addition to the previously published works on SKM and OCC within SMEs. It offers empirical data that highlights the significance of SKM and OCC in fostering strategic thinking, strategic orientation and ultimately, boosting entrepreneurial performance. The study also highlights the challenges faced by SMEs in implementing SKM and OCC and provides recommendations for overcoming these challenges.

This paper aims to propose and assess a framework to analyse the institutionalization of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) through a framing analysis.

The framework was developed by combining the institutional approach with orders of worth, drawing insights from a comprehensive literature review. To assess it, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of annual reports from companies with the largest market capitalization over a six-year period and interviewed union representatives in Spain and Sweden.

The framework comprises five dimensions (industrial, market, civic, green and connectionist). The empirical results reveal that companies consistently frame I4.0 with an emphasis on industrial and market perspectives. In contrast, unions place a stronger emphasis on civic issues, with Spanish unions holding a more negative view of I4.0, expressing concerns about working conditions and unemployment.

The proposed framework brings interesting insights into the dispute over the meaning of I4.0. Although this empirical study was limited to companies and unions in Sweden and Spain, the framework can be expanded for broader investigations, involving additional stakeholders in one or more countries. The discussion outlined using the varieties of capitalism approach is relevant for understanding the connection between the meso and macro levels of this phenomenon.

In navigating the landscape of I4.0, managers should remain flexible, and ready to tailor their strategies and operations to align with the distinct demands and expectations of stakeholders and their specific institutional environments. Similarly, policymakers are urged to acknowledge these contextual intricacies when crafting strategies for implementing I4.0 initiatives across national settings.

Based on the empirical findings, this study underscores the importance of fostering social dialogue and involving stakeholders in the implementation of I4.0. Policymakers and other stakeholders should take proactive measures, tailored to each country’s context, to mitigate potential adverse effects on labour and workers.

The study presents a novel framework that facilitates the systematic comparison of I4.0 framing by different actors. This contribution is significant because the way actors frame I4.0 affects its interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the aggregate analysis of results enables cross-country comparisons, enhancing our understanding of regional disparities.