Search results

This study aims to investigate the association of FinTech innovation (FinTechINN) and firm performance (FP) by considering the role of knowledge assets (KA) as a causal mechanism underlying the FinTechINN – FP association.

In this study, the authors consider panel data of 1,049 Chinese A-listed firm and construct a structural model for corporate FinTech innovation, knowledge assets and firm performance while considering endogeneity issues in analyses over the period of 2014–2022. The modified value added intellectual capital (VAIC) and research and development (R&D) expenses are used as a proxy measure for knowledge assets, considering governance and corporate performance measures.

According to the findings of this study FinTech innovation (FinTechINN) has a positive significant effect on firm performance. Particularly; the findings disclose that FinTech innovations has a link with knowledge assets, FinTech innovations indirectly affects firm performance, and the association between FinTech innovation and firm performance is partially mediated by knowledge assets (MVAIC and R&D expenses).

Rooted in the dynamic capability and resource-based view, this study pioneers an empirical exploration of the association of FinTech innovation with firm performance. Moreover, it introduces the novel dimension of knowledge assets (on firm-level), acting as a mediating factor with in this relationship.

This study aims to build upon resource orchestration theory to theorize and empirically test a model that demonstrates how knowledge assets and innovation ambidexterity trigger a synergy in favor of firm performance.

Drawing on a survey of 158 Iranian knowledge-intensive companies, this study uses the partial least squares based on structural equation modeling to test the research hypotheses.

The results show that two elements of knowledge assets, namely, structural and relational capital, indirectly affect firm performance through the full mediation of innovation ambidexterity. The findings indicate that human capital has no relationship with both innovation ambidexterity and firm performance.

This study offers fresh insights into the issue of how organizations can create value from an effective orchestration of various strategic resources and capabilities, including knowledge assets and innovation ambidexterity.

This study applies resource orchestration theory to concurrently the areas of knowledge resources and organizational ambidexterity to show how innovation ambidexterity plays a role in translating three various knowledge assets into performance.

This chapter makes a case for extending institutional preservation strategies to the entire landscape of knowledge capital. First, the authors define the three primary types of capital – physical, financial, and knowledge. Knowledge capital is further broken down into three categories – human, structural, and relational. The individual types of knowledge capital are defined, along with their variant economic properties and behaviors. The challenges these variations present for preservation are discussed. The authors also highlight these assets’ significant opportunities for curating new knowledge. Each type of knowledge capital is described, along with the preservation challenges and the curation opportunities.

This chapter identifies the five new roles that are critical to establishing and sustaining a knowledge preservation and curation practice. For each role, the authors describe fundamental responsibilities and competencies. Two of the roles support knowledge preservation, including business knowledge analyst and specialized knowledge preservationist. Three of the roles support knowledge curation including business interlocutor/translator, knowledge curator, and knowledge asset developer. Each role faces peculiar challenges in a dynamic and chaotic knowledge economy.

In this chapter, the authors define the new business term, future-proofing, and apply it to knowledge preservation and curation. The fundamental principles of future-proofing and the challenges and mechanics are discussed. These challenges are discussed in developing future-proofed knowledge preservation, and a curation strategy is identified. The authors identify four challenges to future-proofing a knowledge preservation and curation strategy – availability, visibility, accessibility, and consumability of knowledge assets. Ultimately, the greatest challenge to future-proofing these strategies lies in the channels we use to create, transmit, share, and store knowledge assets. At a minimum, the chapter speaks to the critical importance of future-proofing the preservation of knowledge assets, so there is a possibility of curation at some point in a known or unknown future.

This chapter explores the traditional and evolving practice of preservation. Traditional preservation practices are traced throughout history. Current practice is described as a foundation from which to understand evolving practices. Traditional preservation has historically focused on tangible assets that take a tangible form we can all see and touch. The traditional practices are compared to the evolving practices of knowledge and intangible resources. The chapter examines why, what, how, when, where we preserve, and who preserves to understand the transition in progress today. The authors make the case that shifting the traditional focus from preserving for the past and evidentiary reasons to preserving for the future to support business challenges is crucial. The authors also tie the need to refocus on historical impediments and challenges to knowledge use and reuse in practical business environments.

This chapter focuses on organizational preservation and curation capabilities. The authors define capabilities and explain how they pertain to an enterprise architecture. The authors describe preservation as it is currently practiced in relation to information and data. They also explain how preservation should be expanded to cover knowledge assets. Knowledge preservation exists today as a support capability, aligned with information and data management. Curation is described as an emerging but fragmented practice. It is modeled as a new business capability.

This chapter defines channels and explains their role in creating and exchanging knowledge assets. Channels are where many of today’s knowledge assets live. Knowledge is increasingly bundled with communication technologies in the chaotic and dynamic channel market. It challenges the preservation and curation of an organization’s knowledge assets. We cannot ignore channels because they are essential to knowledge exchange and flows and engaging in business. At the same time, knowledge preservation and curation strategies mandate that organizations make wise channel choices and manage knowledge assets in a channel-agnostic way. The chapter reviews the evolution and range of channels active today. It explains how channels create complex knowledge environments in scale and scope.

In this chapter, the authors make the case that preserving and curating knowledge for the future involves more than changing methods and tactics or extending our current applications and technology to support knowledge capital. It means changing the way we think about the future. It means envisioning multiple futures where various elements may be known or unknown – a four-future quadrant. First, the authors explain what it means to think strategically in multiple known and unknown futures. Next, the chapter presents ideas for strategic thinking about future knowledge preservation and curation. Finally, the authors consider using the four futures to develop a flexible and relevant knowledge preservation and curation strategy.

This study aims to determine the contributing factors to technical knowledge valuation at the related quadruple levels of commercialisation, including the idea, benchtop technical knowledge, prototype technical knowledge and commercialised technical knowledge, and then classify the factors by the valuation objectives.

The study method is descriptive-causal, and documentation tools of published scientific research articles in authentic local and international journals were used to extract the contributing factors to technical knowledge valuation. Moreover, the Likert spectrum-based questionnaire is used to determine the weight of each determined component. On the other hand, hierarchical analysis is used based on the extracted results from the distributed classification questionnaire among scholars to determine the allocable weight of each component.

The results indicate that at the idea step, the highest ranks among the contributing factors to technical knowledge valuation are for the indicators of innovation rate enhancement, novelty, creation of new products, profitability growth and dependence decline. In the benchtop technical knowledge step, the indicators of profitability growth, product quality enhancement, novelty, production risk drop, innovation rate enhancement, production costs drop, product price competitiveness and independence from rare machinery have the highest impact coefficients on valuation. Moreover, the prioritisation of factors in prototype technical knowledge shows that the indicators of productive risk decline, infrastructure, decrease in product delivery time, productivity growth and profitability growth are the most critical factors in technical knowledge valuation. Finally, profitability growth factors, production cost drop, productive risk drop, creating a new product, product price competitiveness and dependence decline determine the most valuable technical knowledge in the commercialisation phase.

The most salient innovation of the study involves the development levels of technical knowledge in the commercialisation cycle for determining the contributing factors to technical knowledge valuation and using multivariate decision-making methods to classify the so-called factors. The major limitation can be the context of the study because the paper was carried out by Iranian assessors and specialists using the experiences, opinions and approaches of opinion leaders based on the dominant social, cultural and accounting background of a developing country, not a developed one.

This paper is applicable because it elucidates the technical knowledge valuation factors for managers and owners of technological and knowledge-based companies to facilitate value determination and register the technical knowledge of innovative products in financial statements for the logical presentation of available intangible assets in the economic unit. Besides, in the high-tech area, collecting information from the contributing factors to technical knowledge valuation provides an opportunity to support intellectual property rights and facilitate transaction processes. Finally, in legal areas, in cases of breaching intellectual property rights relative to technical knowledge, the determination of technical knowledge value provides a solid basis for estimating the damage rate.