Excellence management practices, knowledge management and key business results in large organisations and SMEs: A multi-group analysis

Depósi o de In es igación de la Uni e sidad de Se illa h ps://idus.us.es/ This is an Accep ed Manusc ip o an a icle published by Else ie in Eu opean Managemen Jou nal, 2016 Volume 34, Issue 6, on Decembe , a ailable a : h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.005 Copy igh 2016 Else ie . En idUS Licencia C ea i e Commons CC BY-NC-ND EXCELLENCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND KEY BUSINESS RESULTS IN LARGE ORGANISATIONS AND SMEs: A MULTI-GROUP ANALYSIS ABSTRACT Following he To al Quali y Managemen (TQM) philosophy and he knowledge managemen (KM) app oach, his con ibu ion aims o s udy he in luence o p ocess me hodology and pa ne managemen on knowledge managemen , and he ela ionships be ween his a iable wi h key business esul s. We also analyse he mode a ing ole o o ganisa ional size on hese p e ious ela ionships. The hypo heses p oposed in ou esea ch model a e es ed on a sample o 225 Spanish companies wi h expe ience in TQM h ough e alua ions by means o he EFQM Excellence Model. The pa ial leas squa es s uc u al equa ions modelling (PLS-SEM) app oach was used o es he esea ch model. In o de o assess he mode a ing e ec s o o ganisa ional size, we adop a mul i-g oup app oach using wo subsamples wi h la ge i ms and small and medium-sized en e p ises (SMEs). Ou indings indica e ha he use o p ocess me hodology and he in ol emen o pa ne s a e key ac o s o KM o ha e a signi ican impac on he key esul s o he business, bo h s a egic and ope a ional. Mo eo e , he o ganisa ional size is de e minan when analysing he e ec o p ocess me hodology and pa ne managemen on KM. In his sense, p ocess me hodology has a g ea e e ec on KM in he SMEs. On he con a y, he ela ionship be ween pa ne managemen and KM is mo e in ense in la ge i ms. Finally, i is co obo a ed ha KM can be e ec i e and imp o e he key business esul s independen ly o he size o he o ganisa ion. Key wo ds: Knowledge managemen , TQM, EFQM Model, o ganisa ional size, PLS-SEM, mul i-g oup analysis, mode a ing e ec s. 1. INTRODUCTION The li e a u e con ibu es e idence o ela ionships and syne gies be ween o al quali y managemen (TQM) p ac ices and knowledge managemen (KM). In his sense, he mo e s udied opics e e o how quali y managemen a ou s knowledge c ea ion (Asi e al., 2013; Linde man e al., 2004), knowledge ans e (Molina e al., he 2007) and he comple e p ocess o c ea ion, ans e , sha ing and applica ion o knowledge (Ooi, 2009). In addi ion, esea ch shows how he in eg a ion o bo h managemen app oaches can s eng hen lea ning (Choo e al., 2007; Loke e al., 2012), inno a ion (Hona pou e al., 2012), as well as a ec o he a iables ela ed mo e di ec ly o o ganisa ional pe o mance such as cus ome sa is ac ion, e enue g ow h, employee p oduc i i y o p o i g ow h (Ta í and Ga cía-Fe nandez, 2013). Va ious s udies (Bou-Llusa e al., 2009; Cal o-Mo a e al., 2014; Kim e al, 2010) show how excellence models o e a sui able e e ence amewo k o he implemen a ion o TQM. Al hough, as Gómez e al. (2015) indica e, Excellence Models and TQM a e no he same amewo ks, bu ollow a simila pa h, and i can be expec ed ha a company wi h high sco es in Excellence Models will ha e high odds o being a TQM company. Bo h sys ems p o ide a means o imp o e pe o mance and o gua an ee con inuous imp o emen and compe i i eness. Wi h ime, Excellence Models ha e become mo e comple e managemen amewo ks, wi h inc easingly g ea e scope. In addi ion o aspec s ypical o TQM philosophy, hey app oach o he aspec s such as co po a e social esponsibili y, knowledge managemen , human esou ces managemen and s a egic planning. Bena ides and Quin ana (2005), Ma ín-Cas illa and Rod iguez-Ruiz (2008) and Wes e eld (2003) main ain ha simila i ies exis be ween KM ac i i ies and he e alua ion c i e ia o he EFQM Model o o he Excellence Models. Thus, Bena ides and Quin ana (2005) make a heo e ical p oposal, on how he ‘agen s’ c i e ia o he EFQM Model a ou he KM p ocess, and how he ‘ esul s’ c i e ia enable he e alua ion o his p ocess. In addi ion, hey conclude how he EFQM Model cons i u es an ideal ins umen o suppo o KM, explici ly ecognising ha o each maximum pe o mance, o ganisa ions need o manage and o sha e hei knowledge in he con ex o a cul u e, o ien ed owa ds lea ning, inno a ion and con inuous imp o emen . Ma ín-Cas illa and Rod iguez-Ruiz (2008) y o show how he EFQM Model o e s a s a egic amewo k o knowledge managemen and inno a ion, which ocuses on a concep ual analysis o he ela ionships be ween excellence and in ellec ual capi al. The s udy shows ha in ellec ual capi al is aken in o accoun in he o e a ching amewo k o he EFQM Model. In his ega d i is possible o de ine ela ionships be ween each componen o he in ellec ual capi al na iga o s, and hose coming om he model. The au ho s conside ha he in ellec ual capi al pe spec i e is a key elemen ha uns ho izon ally ac oss he c i e ia o he EFQM Model. Wes e eld (2003) main ains ha he EFQM model cons i u es an elemen o s imulus and undamen al suppo o KM, and ha impo an co espondences exis , be ween he ac i i ies o KM, and he undamen al concep s and c i e ia o he EFQM model. Howe e , he e is a lack esea ch ha empi ically analyses he sui abili y o he EFQM Model as a e e ence amewo k o a KM implemen a ion in SMEs and la ge o ganiza ions and how i can posi i ely in luence he key esul s o he o ganisa ion. Resea ch s udies ha use a ho izon al eading o he EFQM Model o analyse ques ions ela ed o TQM and KM. The ho izon al eading o he EFQM Model h ough he ans e se axes is a powe ul ool o analysing impo an concep s o he o ganisa ion (Fe nández-San os, e al., 2010), al hough i is no as ob ious as he adi ional h ough he c i e ia and he sub-c i e ia. Thus, he EFQM Model is no a se o unconnec ed c i e ia. On he con a y, i p esen s a se ies o in e - ela ed p ac ices ha o e g ea e con inui y and cohe ence (Ma ín-Cas illa and Rod iguez-Ruiz, 2008). The in e p e a ion o he ela ionships be ween he c i e ia and sub-c i e ia lies in he so-called ans e se axes, o ho izon al eading o he model, as opposed o i s adi ional e ical eading. The exis ence o hese axes implies adop ing a sys emic app oach o managemen (Rusjan, 2005). This is o say, we will no be able o each global imp o emen s in he o ganisa ion, i we do no simul aneously app oach he di e en aspec s o he c i e ia o he model as in e dependen elemen s (Cal o-Mo a e al., 2015). In his s udy, he ans e se analysis o he EFQM Model allows KM o be analysed in hose o ganisa ions which ha e been subjec ed o he assessmen p ocess, aking in o accoun ha KM is no con empla ed in any speci ic c i e ion o he model. On he con a y, he aspec s ela ed o knowledge a e conside ed in di e en sub-c i e ia h oughou he EFQM Model. Mo e speci ically, i will be a emp ed o analyse wo impo an aspec s o he e ec i eness o KM: p ocess managemen me hodology (Asi e al., 2013; Hsu and Shen, 2005) and he managemen o pa ne s (Ju e al., 2006). In his ega d, he alue o p oduc s and se ices o he cus ome s should be op imised, h ough p ocess managemen me hodology. Thus, documen ed in o ma ion (p ocedu es, echnical ins uc ions and eco ds) is gene a ed, which is a way o sys ema ising he wha , who, how and when, e c., o wha is done in he o ganisa ion (a o malisa ion o he o ganisa ional epo ). In addi ion, his documen ed in o ma ion cons i u es a means o con ibu ing e idence o he esul s ha a e being eached. This sou ce o in o ma ion and knowledge mus be known by he managemen o imp o e he decision making p ocess and by he wo ke s o unde ake hei wo k mo e e icien ly (in e nal knowledge). On he o he hand, he managemen o pa ne s is c ucial o ob ain a sus ainable p o i ; mo e speci ically, we e e o he need o es ablish ne wo ks o iden i y oppo uni ies o po en ial alliances wi h pa ne s. This ype o knowledge is also necessa y o compe e, which is why i is necessa y o a ou he ans e o knowledge be ween o ganisa ions. In addi ion, he e ec i eness o KM will be analysed h ough i s impac on he key esul s o he business. The esul s a e a basic elemen o he knowledge accumula ed in he o ganisa ion, which no only se e o ma k he s a e, speed and cou se eached by he con inuous imp o emen o he quali y in he o ganisa ion, bu also, and e en mo e impo an ly, guides us owa ds he desi ed u u e o des ina ion in pe manen adap a ion o he con ex o each momen . Finally, he p e ious p ac ices and esul s can be seen o ha e been condi ioned by he size o he o ganisa ion. Thus, he o ganisa ional cha ac e is ics o SMEs, such as in o mal p ocesses, pe son- o-pe son con ac , limi ed human esou ces, limi ed inancial asse s, limi ed access o echnology o sho age o ime, could encou age he managemen o hei knowledge (Du s and Ed a dsson, 2012; McAdam and Reid, 2001). Desouza and Awazu (2006), Hu chinson and Quin as (2008) and Wong and Aspinwall (2005) iden i y a se ies o peculia i ies o KM in SMEs: (1) P edominance o socialisa ion ac i i y wi hin he p ocess o knowledge c ea ion. In SMEs, mos o he knowledge is held in he mind o he p op ie o and some key employees, ins ead o s o ing i o mally. In addi ion, managemen and employees main ain mo e di ec and cons an con ac wi h each o he , which acili a es knowledge ans e ; (2) In he SMEs, hei membe s ha e b oad and deep le els o common knowledge. I is knowledge ha is assumed and in e io ised by he employees and managemen . I helps ma k he beha iou in he wo kplace and p o ides a common e e ence amewo k ha ensu es communica ion, ans e and applica ion o he knowledge; (3) The companies mus acqui e and apply new knowledge wi h he pu pose o eaching a sus ainable compe i i e ad an age. A o m o ob aining i is o c ea e, gene a e, de elop and cons uc he knowledge in e nally. Howe e , mos o he SMEs p esen limi a ions when pu ing hese ypes o p ocesses in o p ac ice. The e o e, he al e na i e is o cap u e he knowledge om ex e nal sou ces, wo king di ec ly and co-ope a ing wi h he cus ome s, supplie s, compe i o s, p o essional associa ions and pa ne s; (4) In en i onmen s o high compe i i eness and mobili y o employees, he loss o knowledge can be a se ious p oblem. Howe e , in SMEs his is no seen as a eal p oblem, due o hei high lexibili y, hei common knowledge base o o hei capaci y o e ain employees, hanks o he close social bonds be ween hem; (5) In SMEs, KM is ca ied ou h ough wo k mee ings, obse a ion, in aining cou ses o in o mal mee ings, which is o say, ha hey manage knowledge om a mo e pe son- ocused app oach han a echnological aspec . In his way hey a e able o sa e ime and esou ces. Fo ha eason, he p esen esea ch a emp s o each he ollowing objec i es: 1. To e i y he eliabili y and alidi y o he ho izon al eading o he EFQM Model o s udy key aspec s o quali y managemen and KM. 2. To analyse he ela ionships be ween h ee ans e se axes o he EFQM model (p ocess managemen me hodology, pa ne managemen and knowledge managemen ) wi h key business esul s. 3. To s udy he mode a ing e ec ha o ganisa ional size can play be ween he ela ionships ha exis be ween he p e ious a iables. In o de o answe he p oposed ques ions, his pape is o ganised as ollows. Fi s ly, he li e a u e on QM and KM is analysed. Secondly, he esea ch model and he hypo heses a e p esen ed. This is ollowed by he esea ch me hod and esul s. Finally, he conclusions a e p esen ed and he limi a ions and u u e esea ch o he s udy a e desc ibed. 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. To al quali y managemen and knowledge managemen To al quali y managemen is a comp ehensi e managemen philosophy o ien ed owa ds achie ing excellen esul s in ela ion o s akeholde s (P ajogo and McDe mo , 2005). The p inciples and p ac ices o TQM o p oduce he desi ed e ec s on an o ganisa ion’s pe o mance a e called c i ical ac o s. Among hose mos s udied in he li e a u e a e: leade ship and op managemen commi men , s a egic planning, con inuous imp o emen , cus ome ocus, da a-based managemen , human esou ces managemen , p ocess managemen and con ol and supplie managemen (Sila and Eb ahimpou , 2003). Mo eo e , he e is e idence in he li e a u e on he posi i e e ec o his managemen philosophy on o ganisa ional pe o mance (Flynn e al., 1995; Kaynak, 2003; P ajogo and Sohal, 2006; Rahman and Bullock, 2005; Sila, 2007). Bou-Llusa e al. (2009), Cal o-Mo a e al. (2014) and Kim e al. (2010) show how excellence models o e a sui able e e ence amewo k ha acili a es he implemen a ion and imp o emen o TQM. In Eu ope, he EFQM model is he bes -known and mos widesp ead e e ence when in oducing and imp o ing a TQM sys em. Bou-Llusa e al. (2009) and Gómez e al. (2015) poin ou how he use o he EFQM model gua an ees ha he TQM p ac ices employed, o m a cohe en sys em. Wi h espec o KM, i has been gaining impo ance in he ield o s a egic managemen . Acco ding o he knowledge based app oach, i is he mos impo an s a egic esou ce o companies. This is because he knowledge based esou ces a e gene ally di icul o imi a e and socially complex (Den o d and Chan, 2011; Hel a and Win e , 2011; Teece, 2014). This app oach sugges s companies exis o c ea e, sha e and ecei e bene i om hei knowledge (Ipe, 2003). Thus, companies ha a e success ul a e hose ha can iden i y, alue, c ea e and de elop hei knowledge asse s (Spende and Sche e , 2007; Kiessling e al., 2009). In he same way ha knowledge is conside ed a s a egic esou ce, knowledge managemen is conside ed a c i ical capaci y o o ganiza ional success (Chou, 2005; Chen and Huang, 2009; Van den Hoo and Huysman, 2009). This ac has mean aking a quali a i e and quan i a i e s ep in he managemen o o ganisa ions, which see he need o implemen knowledge managemen sys ems o inc ease hei compe i i e capaci y. The knowledge managemen sys ems a e a se o in as uc u es and ools ha suppo he ac i i ies o knowledge managemen (Ala i and Leidne , 2001), ha is o say, hey p o ide a con ex ha acili a es he c ea ion, s o age, ans e and applica ion o knowledge. Meso and Smi h (2000) di e en ia e be ween echnical in as uc u e (in o ma ion echnologies) and ha o a social and cogni i e na u e (leade ship, o ganisa ional s uc u e, human esou ces and he cul u e). In addi ion, he e is no one sole alid model o managing knowledge, bu i depends on he heo e ical ision adop ed and he con ex in which i is applied. In ag eemen wi h exis ing li e a u e, TQM and KM sha e ac o s conside ed as key o he success in he implemen a ion o bo h managemen app oaches. Fo example, mo i a ed wo ke s (Alazmi and Zai i, 2003; Da enpo e al., 1998), employee aining, in ol emen and empowe men , eamwo k (Mo e e al., 2003; Ryan and P ybu ok, 2001), leade ship and senio managemen suppo and commi men (Conelly and Kelloway, 2003; Da enpo e al., 1998; Mo e e al., 2003; Yeh e al., 2006), iendly and open o ganisa ional cul u e (Mo e e al., 2003; Ryan and P ybu ok, 2001; Yeh e al., 2006), p ocesses and pe o mance measu emen (Alazmi and Zai i, 2003; Hung e al., 2005), benchma king (Hung e al., 2005; Mo e e al., 2003) and in o ma ion sys ems s uc u e (Alazmi and Zai i, 2003; Hung e al., 2005). Linde man e al. (2004) go u he , by conside ing ha TQM and KM seek he same objec i e: o c ea e and use aci and explici knowledge mo e e icien ly, a indi idual and collec i e le el, o con inuously imp o e and o ob ain be e esul s. Molina e al. (2007) emphasise he impo ance o echnical and social aspec s o quali y and KM so ha he knowledge ans e p ocess is e icien . Asi e al. (2013) show how a se ies o TQM p ac ices (con inuous imp o emen , s a is ical con ol o quali y, managemen o clien sa is ac ion, p ocess imp o emen echniques, indi idual lea ning and he me hods o new p oduc de elopmen ) a ou s he p ocess o knowledge c ea ion. In sho , knowledge managemen p ocesses do no make sense i hey a e no de eloped sys ema ically. To be compe i i e, o ganisa ions need con inuously o gene a e and assimila e knowledge and new capabili ies. The e o e, TQM as a managemen philosophy based on con inuous imp o emen , inno a ion and lea ning can se e as a con ex and suppo o he s a -up and la e de elopmen o a knowledge managemen p ocess. 2.2. Ve ical and ho izon al in e p e a ion o he EFQM model The aim o he EFQM Model is o suppo o ganisa ions o achie e business excellence h ough con inuous imp o emen , lea ning and inno a ion. The model p esen s a non-p esc ip i e wo king amewo k which analyses he ela ionships be ween wha an o ganisa ion does and he esul s ha i is able o a ain, assuming ha he e a e di e en app oaches o a aining excellence (EFQM, 2013). The EFQM Model se s ou he managemen o excellence om a concep ual s uc u e, based on a se ies o Fundamen al P inciples o Excellence upon which all he la e de elopmen o he elemen s o he Model is based. Ne e heless, when making a de ailed desc ip ion o he implica ions o excellen managemen , he Model conside s h ee le els o de ail:  C i e ia (Enable s and Resul s): These ep esen essen ial cons uc s o be able o desc ibe he ac ions and consequences ha mus de i e om an au hen ic excellen managemen in a comp ehensible manne and adjus ed o he eali y o he o ganisa ions. These c i e ia a e leade ship, policy and s a egy, pa ne ships and esou ces, people and p ocess, and he ou emaining c i e ia e lec he esul s which he o ganisa ion a ains, conce ning hei cus ome s, employees, socie y and o he key esul s.  Sub-c i e ia: In each c i e ion, he Model se s ou a se ies o sub-c i e ia which de ail he elemen s ha shape he cons uc on which hey depend. Thei pu pose is o p o ide a mo e speci ic and p ac ical guide ha ansla es wha each c i e ion de ines a mo e ope a ional le els. I we unde s and ha a c i e ion ep esen s an impo an cons uc in managemen e ms, he sub-c i e ia can be unde s ood as componen s o he said cons uc which allow a g ea e applicabili y o he p oposals o he Model.  Elemen s o conside : In i s maximum le el o de ail, he Model gi es examples, wi hou p e ensions o being exhaus i e, o wha each c i e ion and i s co esponding sub-c i e ia mean in e y speci ic e ms o ac ions o consequences ha should be seen i we we e obse ing an o ganisa ion which applies an excellen managemen . Two immedia e conclusions can be d awn om he desc ip ion o he gene al s uc u e o he Model: Fi s ly, he c i e ia, on which he de elopmen o he Model is based, canno be conside ed in a compa men alised manne , and i should ce ainly no be unde s ood ha a desc ip ion o he ull complexi y in ol ed in he managemen o an o ganisa ion could be made solely wi h hose c i e ia. Only hose bes sui ed o se e as a concep ual amewo k o he desc ip ion o excellence a e conside ed. I could be said ha hese 9 c i e ia, ep esen “a e ical” pe spec i e om which o app oach excellence in managemen . Secondly, he conside a ion o o he possible cons uc s impo an o managemen oblige a ho izon al eading o he Model, based on he meaning o each o i s 32 sub-c i e ia. Each o hese ho izon al eadings (“ ans e se axes”) allows he conside a ion o new ac o s ha allow managemen excellence o be app oached om o he pe spec i es (Fe nández-San os e al., 2010). In compa a i e e ms, he e ical s uc u e o he model would be he equi alen o ha used o desc ibe an o ganisa ion on he basis o i s o ganisa ional uni s o depa men s. On he con a y, he analysis o o he possible managemen componen s, h ough axes, would be equi alen o he p ocesses execu ed daily in an o ganisa ion and which connec he ac i i ies o unc ions o depa men s. Thus, i is easy o all in o he simpli ica ion o seeing he Model as he sum o nine c i e ia wi hou appa en connec ion be ween hem. Ne e heless, i is impossible o app oach he whole complexi y o managemen wi hou analysing o he cons uc s o axes (Ma ín-Cas illa and Rod iguez-Ruiz, 2008). These axes in ol e a mo e e ined eading o he di e en sub-c i e ia, seeking in each hose ideas ha could be ex ac ed o a be e knowledge o he componen s o he cons uc ha is a emp ed o be app oached. Figu e 1 shows h ee o hese axes: knowledge managemen , p ocess managemen me hodology and pa ne managemen . ---------------------- Figu e 1 --------------------- I we assumed ha he conside a ion o each and e e y one o he possible elemen s in ol ed in excellen managemen would be unapp oachable, we mus conclude ha he analysis o he Model on he basis o ans e se axes supposes a c ea i e esea ch wo k ha obliges a esponse o he ollowing ques ions: (a) In each case, which sub-c i e ia o he model ela e o he new cons uc o be s udied (axis), and wha knowledge is con ibu ed wi h espec o ha ques ion? (b) Fo a mo e co ec unde s anding o he new cons uc unde s udy, how is each o hese sub-c i e ia in e connec ed wi h he o he s? 2.3. Using ans e se axes o he EFQM model o knowledge managemen Bena ides and Quin ana (2005), Cal o-Mo a e al. (2015), Ma ín-Cas illa and Rod íguez-Ruiz (2008) and Wes e eld (2003) main ain ha he EFQM Model cons i u es an elemen o s imulus and undamen al suppo o KM, and ha he e a e impo an ela ionships be ween he undamen al ac i i ies o KM and he undamen al concep s o excellence and c i e ia and sub-c i e ia o he EFQM Model (Table 1). ---------------------- Table 1 --------------------- Ne e heless, he e is no c i e ion ha app oaches KM h ough he e ical eading o he Model, al hough a ans e se axis can be iden i ied o KM. In addi ion, o he axes can be ound, such as communica ion, social esponsibili y, c ea i i y and inno a ion, human esou ces, p ocess managemen me hodology o pa ne managemen (EFQM, 2003). Indeed, hese las wo axes (p ocess managemen me hodology and pa ne managemen ) a e p ac ices cha ac e is ic o excellen managemen ha can a ou and s eng hen he e ec o knowledge managemen on he esul s (Cal o-Mo a e al., 2015). P ocess managemen me hodology (PMM) is a c i ical ac o o KM, because he knowledge o he o ganisa ion becomes o malised and mo e explici h ough p ocesses, which a ou s i s c ea ion, ans e and di usion (Asi e al., 2013; Hsu and Shen, 2005; Molina e al., 2007; Ooi, 2009). Pa ne managemen (PM), apa om he in o ma ion de i ed om he in e nal p ocesses, he managemen o he in o ma ion and knowledge which comes om hem is inc easingly impo an (Ju e al., 2006; Molina e al., 2007). These wo axes con empla e di e en aspec s, al hough complemen a y o he P ocess and Pa ne ships and Resou ces c i e ia. Thus, he P ocess c i e ion makes wo essen ial s a emen s o he desc ip ion o excellen managemen : (1) independen ly o he depa men al s uc u e o an o ganisa ion, he iden i ica ion and managemen o hei p ocesses become key elemen s o excellence; (2) wi hin he whole spec um o p ocesses ha un old daily in an o ganisa ion, hose ha ha e di ec in ol emen wi h he p oduc s and se ices p o ided o he cus ome s mus ha e special a en ion, as hey a e conside ed o be key p ocesses. Howe e , he e is no exhaus i e desc ip ion o he comple e de elopmen o all he ac i i ies o an excellen p ocess managemen in he P ocess c i e ion i sel , bu i is ex ended o o he s. Fo example, i e e ing o he es ablishmen o owne s (leade s) as an essen ial phase o p ocess managemen , his ac i i y appea s among he sub-c i e ia o he Leade ship c i e ion. In sho , o a comple e analysis o p ocess managemen , an axes based analysis becomes necessa y, ha is o say, apa om conside ing some sub-c i e ia o he P ocess c i e ion ( hose o a mo e gene al cha ac e ), i is also necessa y o conside o he s included in di e en c i e ia o he model, such as in he case men ioned o “Leade ship”. On he o he hand, c i e ion 4 (Pa ne ships and Resou ces) shows ha , when using he e m “Resou ces” wi h excellence c i e ia, we mus ex end ou ield o ision o unde s and ha no only mus he angible elemen s linked o he ac i i y o he o ganisa ion ha e space wi hin he cons uc , bu also hose o an imma e ial cha ac e , undamen ally hose associa ed wi h in o ma ion and he bonds, con ac s, in luences o o mal alliances wi h hi d pa ies. Bo h elemen s need excellen managemen in consonance wi h he s a egy and policies o he o ganisa ion. Al hough mos o he ques ions ela ed o he excellen managemen o he ma e ial esou ces o an o ganisa ion a e included in he sub-c i e ia o c i e ion 4, he e a e many which conce n imma e ial elemen s and, especially he heme o alliances, a e dispe sed h ough he emaining c i e ia o he Model. 3. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES The esea ch model is based on he ex en o which he o ganisa ion can imp o e i s key business esul (KBR) h ough KM, o which i will ha e o apply PMM, as well as ha ing he pa icipa ion and in ol emen in he p ocess o i s s a egic supplie s and pa ne s (PM). The KBR a e analysed as a dependen a iable. This a iable a emp s o de e mine wha bene i s he o ganisa ion is eaching in ela ion o he planned economic- inancial, ma ke and p ocess esul s and he e iciency in he managemen o he angible and in angible esou ces. Mo eo e , he ela ionship be ween hese a iables may be a ec ed by o ganisa ional size. ---------------------- Figu e 2 measu emen in a iance”. ---------------------- Table 5 --------------------- Table 6 shows he esul s o he s uc u al model assessmen . Consis en wi h Hai e al., (2013), boo s apping (5000 esamples; one- ailed S uden dis ibu ion wi h (n-1) deg ees o eedom) was used o gene a e s anda d e o s, -s a is ics, and pe cen ile 95% con idence in e als. This analysis was ca ied ou bo h o he o al sample and o he wo subsamples. The h ee main pa hs a e signi ican , excep o he PMM and KM ela ionship in he la ge companies subsample. The endogenous cons uc s achie e R2 alues be ween 0.392 and 0.536 o KBR, conside ing hose alues o mode a e cha ac e (Chin, 2010). In he case o he knowledge ac o , R2 a ies be ween 0.785 and 0.848. In his case, his is highe han he subs an ial le el indica ed by Chin (2010). Fo he h ee conside ed models ( o al sample, SMEs and la ge companies), he esul s e lec ha nei he he sec o , no he owne ship, ha e a di ec signi ican e ec on KBR, hus con i ming he obus ness o he p oposed model and he solidi y o he ob ained esul s (Table 6). The p edic i e ele ance o he heo e ical/s uc u al model is assessed wi h he c oss- alida ed edundancy index (Q2) o endogenous cons uc s. Since all Q2 alues a e g ea e han 0, e idence was ound ha ou model has p edic i e ele ance (Chin, 2010). In addi ion, Table 6 shows he amoun o a iance ha each an eceden a iable explains on each dependen a iable, he g ea e alue being ob ained in he case o he supplie s/pa ne s a iable when explaining he explained a iance o he KBR (67%). ---------------------- Table 6 --------------------- Also, Table 6 shows ha he indi ec e ec s a e signi ican o he whole sample, wi h signi ican di e ences being gene a ed, acco ding o he size o he company, in he e ec gene a ed by PMM on KBR h ough KM. The e o e, in small companies, designing a good PMM om he poin o iew o he applica ion o he EFQM model can be i al o knowledge gene a ion and ob aining good esul s. In he PM-KM-KBR ela ionship, he size did no gene a e signi ican di e ences (Table 6). Once he me ic in a iance was gua an eed in he measu emen model and he s uc u al model es ed, he mul i-g oup analyses we e pe o med o he hypo heses 4–6, allowing he es ing o he mode a ing ole o o ganisa ional size on he ela ionships included in he esea ch model. Fo his, he pe mu a ion es was mainly used (5,000 pe mu a ion un; wo- ailed 0.05 signi icance le el), showing he exis ence o signi ican di e ences (p- alue<0.05) gene a ed by he size in he PMM-KM (H4) and PM-KM (H5) ela ionships, he e being no signi icance in he KM-KBR (H6) ela ionship (Table 7). Also, and in a complemen a y manne , a pa ame ic app oach is applied. The mode a ing e ec is examined using a - es wi h pooled s anda d e o s. This app oach equi es he da a o be dis ibu ed no mally and/o ha he a iances o he wo samples a e no oo di e en om one ano he ( Pa am {EV}). In he case o assuming he e a e di e en a iances o he wo samples, a Welch-Sa e hwai es ( Pa am{NEV}) can be applied (Sa s ed e al., 2011). Bo h es s ha e been applied in he compa ison, ob aining simila esul s (Table 7). ---------------------- Table 7 --------------------- The same esul is de i ed om he applica ion o he non-pa ame ic app oaches ( he bias –co ec 95% con idence in e als). In his case, i he pa ame e es ima e o a pa h ela ionship o one g oup (Table 6) does no all wi hin he co esponding con idence in e al o ano he g oup (Table 7) and ice e sa, he e exis s no o e lap and i can be assumed ha he g oup-speci ic pa h coe icien s a e signi ican ly di e en wi h ega d o a signi icance le el α (Sa s ed e al., 2011). This condi ion is ul illed o H4 and H5, bu no con i med o H6. Finally, he o e all model was measu ed h ough s anda dized oo mean squa e esidual (SRMR) composi e ac o model (Hensele e al., 2014). Thus, he alues ob ained o he comple e model (0.075) o la ge companies model (0.073) and SMEs model (0.079) gi e below he limi ecommended alue o 0.08 (Hu and Ben le , 1999). 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The esul s suppo he eliabili y and alidi y o he measu emen model (Tables 2 and 3), bo h o he model ha ep esen s he whole sample o companies and o he subsamples ha ep esen he SMEs and he la ge companies. In addi ion, he p ope y o me ic in a iance is e i ied, ha is o say, he measu emen model does no change when di iding he o iginal sample in o wo subsamples (Tables 4 and 5). This esul suppo s he uni e sal cha ac e o he Excellence Models ha can be used as e e ence o e alua ion and imp o emen by bo h la ge o ganisa ions and by SMEs (EFQM, 2013). Mo eo e , he esul s con i m he high p edic i e powe (R2) and high p edic i e alidi y (Q2) o he EFQM model as a amewo k o he implemen a ion and in eg a ion o TQM and KM p ac ices. As can be seen in Table 6, he KM and KBR a iables display subs an ial R2 alues (R2 > 0.67) acco ding o Chin (2010), bo h o he whole sample and o he wo subsamples ep esen ing he SMEs and la ge companies. Mo eo e , he endogenous a iables p esen Q2 coe icien alues abo e 0, speci ically, hey display alues o Q2 > 0.34. Wi h espec o he di ec e ec s ep esen ed by he H1, H2 and H3 hypo heses, i s ly i is highligh ed (Table 6) ha PMM plays a cen al ole in he comple e model, and in ha ep esen ing he SMEs, whe e he e is a signi ican di ec e ec on KM (H1). In addi ion, PMM is used wi h mo e in ensi y in he SMEs (0.344) han in la ge o ganisa ions (0.113). In his sense, in he model ha ep esen s la ge companies, he ela ionship be ween PMM and KM, al hough posi i e, is no s a is ically signi ican . In addi ion, his causes he indi ec e ec be ween PMM, KM and KBR o lack s a is ical signi icance. This may be due o PMM being ocused mainly on he key p ocesses, which a e hose ha ha e a di ec in ol emen wi h he p oduc s and se ices supplied o he cus ome s. Thus, he SMEs ha e g ea e p oximi y, con ac and knowledge wi h cus ome s, which is why hei e ec on KM will be s onge and mo e di ec han in he la ge companies (Desouza and Awazu, 2006; Wong and Aspinwall, 2005), Mo eo e , his esul may be due o g ea e collabo a ion and coope a ion be ween employees in he SMEs when pu ing key p ocesses in o p ac ice (Du s and Ed a dsson, 2012), and because he SMEs a e mo e ocused on con inuous imp o emen in hei ac i i ies and p ocesses. In his ega d, la ge companies can dedica e mo e esou ces o p oduc inno a ion, se ices, p ocesses o echnology han he SMEs (McAdam and Reid, 2001). Con inuous imp o emen is based on he human ac o and supposes small bu cons an changes ha do no equi e hea y in es men s o mone a y expendi u e. On he o he hand, inno a ion in ol es d as ic changes in he p ocesses and ac i i ies o he o ganisa ion, which equi es ime and an impo an amoun o esou ces, which is mo e easible o la ge o ganisa ions. The impo ance o his ac o is also e lec ed in he high pe cen ages o a iance (R2) o he KM a iable in bo h he comple e model (20.4%) and in ha ep esen ing he SMEs (28.28%). Secondly, he managemen o he main pa ne s o he o ganisa ions is also a c i ical a iable o KM wi hin he amewo k o he EFQM model. Thus, he di ec e ec be ween PM and KM (H2) is s a is ically signi ican bo h in he model ha ep esen s all he companies and in he models segmen ed acco ding o size (Table 6). In addi ion, managemen in la ge companies emphasises he impo ance o PM o KM (0.826). This alue is a beyond ha ob ained o his same ela ionship in he SMEs (0.581). Fo ha eason he indi ec e ec be ween hese a iables and KBR is s a is ically signi ican (Table 6). This c ucial ole in he model is also obse ed when analysing he pe cen age o a iance accoun ed o by he endogenous KM a iable in he comple e sample (54.13%), as well as in hose o SMEs (46.71%) and la ge companies (67.65%). Thi dly, i is necessa y o emphasize how he speci ic e o s ha companies make o manage hei knowledge ha e a di ec and signi ican e ec on he KBR (H3). This e ec is con i med bo h o he whole sample and o he subsamples ha ep esen he SMEs and la ge companies (Table 6). In addi ion, no impo an di e ences exis in he alues o he indi ec e ec s in his case (PMMKMKBR and PMKMKBR), al hough he ela ionship be ween KM and KBR is mo e in ense in he SMEs (0.722) han in la ge companies (0.611), explaining up o 52.13% o he a iance o he KBR a iable. Finally, i he esul s o he mode a ing e ec ha he size a iable exe s on he di ec ela ionships be ween he a iables o he model a e analysed, i is seen ha he e a e signi ican di e ences (Table 7) in he ela ionships be ween PMM and KM (H4) and be ween PM and KM (H5). These di e ences co obo a e ha indica ed in he li e a u e on he dis inc i e ea u es p esen ed by he managemen o SMEs wi h espec o la ge companies. Mo e speci ically, PMM has a g ea e e ec on KM in he SMEs. This may be due o he smalle size and he lowe le el o specialisa ion o he wo k o ce, causing a g ea e p obabili y o collabo a ion and coope a ion be ween he employees, which o a la ge ex en a ou s he p ocesses o c ea ion, ans e and applica ion o knowledge. In addi ion, as no ed p e iously, he SMEs a e mo e ocused on con inuous imp o emen h ough p ocesses and no as much owa ds echnological inno a ion (McAdam and Reid, 2001). On he con a y, he ela ionship be ween PM and KM is mo e in ense in la ge companies. In his sense, he la ge companies ha e g ea e nego ia ing powe o e hei main pa ne s (G ay and Mabey, 2005) and ha e mo e inancial means o know he mo emen s and ac ions o compe i o s and o he s akeholde s. Finally, i is co obo a ed ha KM can be e ec i e and imp o e he KBR independen ly o he size o he o ganisa ion, when he e a e no signi ican di e ences be ween bo h samples. Manage ial and p ac ical implica ions O ganisa ions can use he e ical eading o he EFQM Model wi h he objec i e o iden i ying a eas o imp o emen in each o he nine es ablished c i e ia. Ne e heless, his is no he excellence managemen philosophy o he EFQM Model. On he con a y, we can iden i y he exis ence o an ob ious i s ho izon al eading among he agen s' c i e ia and he esul s c i e ia. Fo example, when we analysed he People c i e ion, we mus simul aneously analyse he Resul s in he people c i e ion. Ne e heless, he e a e many o he ho izon al eadings, which a e no so ob ious, and which es ablish ela ionships be ween he sub- c i e ia o he Model ( ans e se axes). F om he poin o iew o managemen , he use o he axes can be conside ed a powe ul managemen and imp o emen ool, as i allows us o analyse impo an concep s o excellen managemen using di e en sub-c i e ia o he c i e ia ha compose he EFQM Model. Thus, i an o ganisa ion ies o analyse how i is managing i s knowledge, in he con ex o an excellen managemen , i mus s udy h ee axes: he me hodology o p ocesses, he managemen o pa ne s and he managemen o knowledge. In addi ion, he ho izon al eading o he Model allows an analysis om he pe spec i es o leade ship, policy and s a egy, people, alliances and esou ces and p ocesses (Figu e 1). Speci ically, we will be able o iden i y he a eas o imp o emen o knowledge managemen , wi h espec o conc e e aspec s (sub-c i e ia) o policy and s a egy (2b), people (3b), and he alliances and esou ces o he o ganisa ion (4e). Wi h espec o p ocess managemen me hodology, we mus analyse he a eas o imp o emen in leade ship (1b), policy and s a egy (2b), and p ocesses (5a and 5b). In o de o iden i y he a eas o imp o emen in Pa ne Managemen , we mus ocus ou a en ion on leade ship (1c), policy and s a egy (2a and 2c) and he alliances and esou ces (4a). Finally, he p oposed model adds he ela ionships and syne gies be ween hese h ee key elemen s o excellen managemen and esul s, ha is o say, we can also analyse he e ec i eness o he ac ions unde aken. In addi ion, he mul i-g oup analysis allows us o o ien he KM based on whe he he o ganisa ion is small, medium o la ge in size. Thus, in bo h ypes o o ganisa ions (SMEs and la ge), he de elopmen o alliances and coope a ion wi h pa ne s is impo an o KM, al hough his aspec is mo e de e minan in la ge companies. Ne e heless, in he SMEs, he managemen o in e nal knowledge (PMM) is mo e impo an han in la ge companies. Finally, sui able KM is going o ha e a posi i e and signi ican e ec on he ope a ional and s a egic esul s o he o ganisa ion, independen ly o he size o he o ganisa ion. Limi a ions and u u e esea ch lines The in e p e a ion o he esul s and conclusions o his s udy a e subjec o a se ies o limi a ions, p incipally o a me hodological cha ac e . The i s limi a ion is due o he echnique used o he p oposed model: s uc u al equa ion modelling, which assumes he linea i y o ela ionships be ween he la en a iables. The second is ela ed o he no ion o causali y. Ou s udy conside ed a so modelling app oach o ien ed mo e owa ds p edic ion han causali y. The hi d, due o he eclec ic na u e o knowledge, i s managemen is a ec ed by a mul i ude o ac o s, and no all o hem could ha e been conside ed in he esea ch. The ou h is ha , when in e p e ing he esul s, i is necessa y o ake in o accoun ha he sample co esponds o Spanish companies, o a speci ic cul u e o excellence and knowledge managemen , and he e o e canno be gene alised. Finally, he esea ch design is c oss-sec ional ins ead o longi udinal. In his case, wi h a longi udinal s udy i would be possible o analyse he e ec s o excellence p ac ices and knowledge managemen on he esul s in mo e de ail. Some o hese limi a ions allow us o open u u e lines o esea ch: (1) To in oduce new ela ionships be ween he excellence p ac ices in he concep ual model, as well as be ween hose and he esul s; (2) To analyse he in luence o o he possible ans e se axes o he EFQM Model, such as communica ion, c ea i i y and inno a ion, human esou ces o co po a e go e nance on knowledge managemen ; (3) To s udy he possible ela ionship o excellence p ac ices and knowledge managemen in o he ypes o esul s, o example ela ed o people, cus ome s o he company; (4) To analyse, acco ding o company size, he in luence o KM on he di e en ypes o esul s (ope a ional and s a egic), ha o m he KBR cons uc . REFERENCES A onso, A., Roldán, J.L., Sánchez-F anco, M.J., & González, M. (2012). The mode a o ole o Gende in he Uni ied Theo y o Accep ance and Use o Technology (UTAUT): A s udy on use s o Elec onic Documen Managemen Sys ems. 7 h In e na ional Con e ence on Pa ial Leas Squa es and Rela ed Me hods, A Hous on, Texas, USA Ala i, M., & Leidne , D.E. (2001). Re iew: Knowledge managemen and Knowledge managemen sys ems: concep ual ounda ions and esea ch issues. MIS Qua e ly, 25 (1), 107-136. Alazmi, M. & zai i, M. (2003). Knowledge managemen c i ical success ac o s. To al Quali y Managemen , 14(2), 199-204. A agón-Sánchez, A. & Rubio-Bañon, A. (2005). Fac o es asociados con el éxi o compe i i o de las PYMES indus iales en España. Uni e sia Business Re iew, cua o p imes e, 36-49. Asi , M., de V ies, H.J., & Ahmad, N. (2013). Knowledge c ea ion h ough quali y managemen . To al Quali y Managemen & Business Excellence, 24 (5-6), 664-677. Bena ides, C., & Quin ana, C. (2005). P ocesos y sis emas o ganiza i os pa a la ges ión del conocimien o. El papel de la calidad o al. Bole ín Económico del ICE. 2838, 37-52. Bou-Llusa , J.C., Esc ig-Tena, A.B., Roca-Puig, V., & Bel án-Ma ín, I. (2009). An empi ical assessmen o he EFQM Excellence Model: E alua ion as a TQM amewo k ela i e o he MBNQA Model. Jou nal o Ope a ions Managemen , 27 (1), 1-22. Cal o-Mo a, A. Picón, A. Ruíz, C. & Cauzo, L. (2014). The ela ionships be ween so -ha d TQM ac o s and key business esul s. In e na ional Jou nal o Ope a ions & P oduc ion Managemen , 34 (1), 115-143. Cal o-Mo a, A., Na a o-Ga cía, A., & Pe iañez-C is obal, R. (2015). P ojec o imp o e knowledge managemen and key business esul s h ough he EFQM excellence model. In e na ional Jou nal o P ojec Managemen , 33(8), 1638-1651. Chen, C.-J. & Huang, J.-W. (2009). S a egic human esou ce p ac ices and inno a ion pe o mance-The media ing ole o knowledge managemen capaci y. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 62(1), 104-114. Chin, W.W. (2000). Mul i-g oup analysis wi h PLS. Re ie ed om h p://disc-n .cba.uh.edu. Chin, W.W. (2010). How o w i e up and epo PLS analyses. In Esposi o Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Hensele , J., & Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook o pa ial leas squa es: Concep s, me hods and applica ions (pp. 655–690). Be lin, Ge many: Sp inge -Ve lag. chin/pls aq/mul ig oup.h m. Chin, W. W., Mills, A. M., S eel, D. J., & Schwa z, A. (2012, May). Mul i-g oup in a iance es ing: An illus a i e compa ison o PLS pe mu a ion and co a iance-based SEM in a iance analysis. In 7 h In e na ional Con e ence on Pa ial Leas Squa es and Rela ed Me hods. Choo, A. S., Linde man, K. W., & Sch oede , R. G. (2007). Me hod and con ex pe spec i e on lea ning and knowledge c ea ion in quali y managemen . Jou nal o Ope a ions Managemen , 25, 918-931. Chou, S.-W. (2005). Knowledge c ea ion: abso p i e capaci y, o ganiza ional mechanisms, and knowledge s o age/ e ie al capabili ies. Jou nal o In o ma ion Science, 31(6), 453-465. Da , R.L. (2010). O ganisa ion Theo y and Design, Ten h Edi ion. Sou h-Wes e n, Cengage Lea ning. OH: USA. Da enpo , T.H., & P usak, L. (1998). Wo king knowledge, Ha a d Business School P ess, Bos on, MA. Da enpo , T.H., De Long, D.W. & Bee s, M.C. (1998). Success ul knowledge managemen p ojec s. Sloan Managemen Re iew, 39 (2), 43-57. Den o d, J.S. & Chan, Y.E. (2011). Knowledge s a egy ypologies: de ining dimensions and ela ionships. Knowledge Managemen Resea ch & P ac ice, 9(2), 102-119. Desouza, K.C., & Awazu, Y. (2006). Knowledge managemen a SMEs: Fi e peculia i ies. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 10(1), 32–43. Du s , S., & Runa Ed a dsson, I. (2012). Knowledge managemen in SMEs: a li e a u e e iew. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 16(6), 879-903. EFQM. 2003. EFQM Excellence Model. Eu opean Founda ion o Quali y Managemen , B ussels, Belgium. EFQM. 2013. EFQM Excellence Model. Eu opean Founda ion o Quali y Managemen , B ussels, Belgium. Fawce , S. E., Wallin, C., All ed, C., Fawce , A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). In o ma ion echnology as an enable o supply chain collabo a ion: a dynamic‐capabili ies pe spec i e. Jou nal o Supply Chain Managemen , 47(1), 38-59. Fe nández-San os, J., Lo enzo-Ma ínez, S., Na a o-Royo, C., Alguacil-Pau, A.I., Mo ón-Me chan e, J., & Pa do-He nández, A. (2010). U ilización de los ejes ans e sales del modelo EFQM en el ámbi o sani a io público. Re is a de Calidad Asis encial, 25 (3), 120-128. Flynn, B.B., Sch oede , R. G., & Sakakiba a, S. (1995). The impac o quali y managemen p ac ices on pe o mance and compe i i e ad an age. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-691. Fo nell, C., & La cke , D.F. (1981). S uc u al equa ion models wi h unobse able a iables and measu emen e o : Algeb a and s a is ics. Jou nal o Ma ke ing Resea ch, 382-388. Gómez Gómez, J., Má inez Cos a, M. & Ma ínez Lo en e, A.R. (2015). EFQM Excellence Model and TQM: an empi ical compa ison. To al Quali y Managemen & Business Excellence, doi.o g/10.1080/14783363.2015.1050167. G ay, C., & Mabey, C. (2005). Managemen De elopmen Key Di e ences be ween Small and La ge Businesses in Eu ope. In e na ional Small Business Jou nal, 23 (5), 467-485. Hai J , J.F., Hul , G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sa s ed , M., (2013). A p ime on pa ial leas squa es s uc u al equa ion modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica ions, Inco po a ed. Hai , J. F., Sa s ed , M., Ringle, C.M., & Mena, J.A. (2012). An assessmen o he use o pa ial leas squa es s uc u al equa ion modeling in ma ke ing esea ch. Jou nal o he Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 40(3), 414-433. Hel a , C.E. & Win e , S.G. (2011). Un angling dynamic and ope a ional capabili ies: s a egy o he (n)e e -changing wo ld. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 32(11), 1243-1250. Hensele , J. (2014). Common ac o models, composi e models, and o ma i e measu emen : Thei na u e, applica ion, and es ing. Lec u e a Uni e si y o Se ille, No embe 20. Hensele , J., & Fasso , G. (2010). Tes ing mode a ing e ec s in PLS pa h models: An illus a ion o a ailable p ocedu es. In Handbook o pa ial leas squa es (pp. 713-735). Sp inge Be lin Heidelbe g. Hensele , J., Dijks a, T. K., Sa s ed , M., Ringle, C.M., Diaman opoulos, A., S aub, D.W., Ke chen, D.J., J ., Hai , J.F., Hul , G., Tomas M., & Calan one, R J. (2014). Common belie s and eali y abou PLS: Commen s on Rönkkö & E e mann (2013), O ganisa ional Resea ch Me hods, 17 (2), 182-209. Hensele , J., Ringle, C.M., & Sa s ed , M. (2015). A new c i e ion o assessing disc iminan alidi y in a iance-based s uc u al equa ion modeling. Jou nal o he Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 43 (1), 115-135. Hensele , J.; Ringle, C. M.; & Sa s ed , M. (2016). Tes ing measu emen in a iance o composi es using pa ial leas squa es. In e na ional Ma ke ing Re iew. Fo hcoming. Hensele , J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinko ics, R.R. (2009). The use o pa ial leas squa es pa h modeling in in e na ional ma ke ing. Ad ances in In e na ional Ma ke ing, 20, 277–320. Hona pou , A., Jusoh, A., & No , K.M. (2012). Knowledge managemen , o al quali y managemen and inno a ion: a new look. Jou nal o Technology Managemen & Inno a ion, 7 (3), 22-31. Hsu, S.H., & Shen, H.P. (2005). Knowledge managemen and i s ela ionship wi h TQM. To al Quali y Managemen , 16 (3), 351–361. Hu, L.T., & Ben le , P.M. (1999). Cu o c i e ia o i indexes in co a iance s uc u e analysis: Con en ional c i e ia e sus new al e na i es. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling: A Mul idisciplina y Jou nal, 6 (1), 1-55. Huang, P.S., & Shih, L.H. (2009). E ec i e en i onmen al managemen h ough en i onmen al knowledge managemen . In e na ional Jou nal o En i onmen al Science and Technology, 6 (1), 35-50. Hung, Y.C., Huang, S.M., Lin, Q.P., & Tsai, M.L. (2005). C i ical ac o s in adop ing a knowledge managemen sys em o he pha maceu ical indus y. Indus ial Managemen & Da a Sys ems, 105(2), 164- 183. Hu chison, V., & Quin as, P. (2008). Do SMEs do knowledge managemen ? O simply manage wha hey know? In e na ional Small Business Jou nal, 26, 131-151. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sha ing on o ganiza ions: a concep ual amewo k. Human Resou ce De elopmen Re iew, 2(4), 337-359. Ju, T.L., Lin, B., Lin, C., & Kuo, H.J. (2006). TQM c i ical ac o s and KM alue chain ac i i ies. To al Quali y Managemen & Business Excellence, 17 (3), 373-393. Kaynak, H. (2003). The ela ionship be ween o al quali y managemen p ac ices and hei e ec s on i m pe o mance. Jou nal o Ope a ions Managemen , 21(4), 405-435. Kiessling, T.S., Richey, R.G., Meng, J. & Dabic, M. (2009). Explo ing knowledge managemen o o ganiza ional pe o mance ou comes in a ansi ional economy. Jou nal o Wo ld Business, 44(4), 421-433. Kim, D., Kuma , V., & Mu phy, S.A. (2010). Eu opean ounda ion o quali y managemen business excellence model: an in eg a i e e iew and esea ch agenda. In e na ional Jou nal o Quali y & Reliabili y Managemen , 27 (6), 684-701. La o e , S. (2013). O ganisa ional inno a ion ou comes in SMEs: E ec s o age, size, and sec o . Jou nal o Wo ld business, 48 (4), 490-502. Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge managemen enable s, p ocesses and o ganisa ional pe o mance: an in eg a i e iew and empi ical examina ion. Jou nal o Managemen In o ma ion Sys ems, 20 (1), 179-228. Linde man, K., Sch oede , R.G., Zahee , S., Lied ke, C., & Choo, A.S. (2004). In eg a ing quali y managemen p ac ices wi h knowledge c ea ion p ocesses. Jou nal o Ope a ions Managemen , 22 (6), 589- 607. Loke, S.P., Downe, A.G., Sambasi an, M., & Khalid, K. (2012). A s uc u al app oach o in eg a ing o al quali y managemen and knowledge managemen wi h supply chain lea ning. Jou nal o Business Economics and Managemen , 13 (4), 776-800. Ma ín-Cas illa, J.I., & Rod íguez-Ruiz, O. (2008). EFQM model: knowledge go e nance and compe i i e ad an age. Jou nal o In ellec ual Capi al, 9 (1), 133-156. McAdam, R., & Reid, R. (2001). SME and la ge o ganisa ion pe cep ions o knowledge managemen : compa isons and con as s. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 5 (3), 231-241. Meso, P. & Smi h, R. (2000). A esou ce-based iew o o ganiza ional knowledge managemen sys ems. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 4(3), 224-234. Mo e , S., McAdam, R. & Pa kinson, S. (2003). An empi ical analysis o knowledge managemen applica ions. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen . 7 (3), 6-26. Molina, L.M., Llo éns-Mon es, J., & Ruiz-Mo eno, A. (2007). Rela ionship be ween quali y managemen p ac ices and knowledge ans e . Jou nal o Ope a ions Managemen , 25 (3), 682-701. Ooi, K.B. (2009). TQM and knowledge managemen : li e a u e e iew and p oposed amewo k. A ican Jou nal o Business Managemen , 3 (11), 633-643. Panni sel am, G.P., & Fe guson, L.A. (2001). A s udy o he ela ionships be ween he Bald ige ca ego ies. In e na ional Jou nal o Quali y & Reliabili y Managemen , 18(1), 14-37. P ajogo, D.I., & McDe mo , C.M. (2005). The ela ionship be ween o al quali y managemen p ac ices and o ganisa ional cul u e. In e na ional Jou nal o Ope a ions & P oduc ion Managemen , 25 (11), 1101-1122. P ajogo, D.I., & Sohal, A.S. (2006). The ela ionship be ween o ganiza ion s a egy, o al quali y managemen (TQM), and o ganiza ion pe o mance–– he media ing ole o TQM. Eu opean Jou nal o Ope a ional Resea ch, 168(1), 35-50. Rahman, S.U., & Bullock, P. (2005). So TQM, ha d TQM, and o ganisa ional pe o mance ela ionships: an empi ical in es iga ion. Omega, 33(1), 73-83. Riege, A. (2005). Th ee-dozen knowledge-sha ing ba ie s manage s mus conside . Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 9(3), 18-35. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. & Becke , J-M. (2015). Sma PLS, 3. Sma PLS GmbH. Boennings ed , Ge many. URL: www.sma pls.com Roldán, J.L., & Sánchez-F anco, M.J. (2012). Va iance-based s uc u al equa ion modeling: guidelines o using pa ial leas squa es in in o ma ion sys ems esea ch. In M. Mo a, O. Gelman, A. S eenkamp, & M. Raisinghani (Eds.), Resea ch Me hodologies, Inno a ions and Philosophies in So wa e Sys ems Enginee ing and In o ma ion Sys ems (pp. 193-221). Rusjan, B. (2005). Use ulness o he EFQM excellence model: Theo e ical explana ion o some concep ual and me hodological issues. To al Quali y Managemen & Business Excellence, 16(3), 363-380. Ryan, S.D. & P ybu ok, V.R. (2001). Fac o s a ec ing knowledge managemen echnologies: a disc imina i e app oach. Jou nal o Compu e In o ma ion Sys ems, 41 (3), 31-7. Saeed, K. A., & Abdinnou -Helm, S. (2008). Examining he e ec s o in o ma ion sys em cha ac e is ics and pe cei ed use ulness on pos adop ion usage o in o ma ion sys ems. In o ma ion & Managemen , 45(6), 376-386. Sa s ed , M., Hensele , J., & Ringle, C.M. (2011). Mul ig oup analysis in pa ial leas squa es (PLS) pa h modeling: Al e na i e me hods and empi ical esul s. Ad ances in In e na ional Ma ke ing, 22 (1), 195-218. Sila, I. (2007). Examining he e ec s o con ex ual ac o s on TQM and pe o mance h ough he lens o o ganiza ional heo ies: An empi ical s udy. Jou nal o Ope a ions managemen , 25(1), 83-109. Sila, I., & Eb ahimpou , M. (2003). Examina ion and compa ison o he c i ical ac o s o o al quali y managemen (TQM) ac oss coun ies. In e na ional Jou nal o P oduc ion Resea ch, 41 (2), 235-268. Simonin, B., 1997. The Impo ance o Collabo a i e Know-how: An Empi ical Tes o he Lea ning O ganisa ion. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 40 (5), 509-533. Spekman, R.E., Spea , J., & Kamau , J. (2002). Supply chain compe ency: lea ning as a key componen . Supply Chain Managemen : An In e na ional Jou nal, 7( 1), 41-55. Spende , J.C. & Sche e , A.G. (2007). The philosophical ounda ions o knowledge managemen : edi o s' in oduc ion. O ganiza ion, 14(1), 5-28. Tang, J. & Tong, J.Y. (2007). A wo-phase Knowledge managemen sys em o he quali y s anda d ISO 9001. In e na ional Jou nal o Managemen , 24 (1), 184-197. Tan i e di, H. (2005). In o ma ion echnology ela edness, knowledge managemen capabili y. MIS Qua e ly, 29 (2), 311-334. Ta í, J.J., & Ga cía Fe nández, M. (2013). ¿Puede la ges ión del conocimien o in lui en los esul ados emp esa iales? Cuade nos de Ges ión, 13(1), 151-176. Teece, D.J. (2014). The ounda ions o en e p ise pe o mance: dynamic and o dina y capabili ies in an (economic) heo y o i ms. Academy o Managemen Pe spec i es, 28 (4), 328-352. Van den Hoo , B. & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sha ing: eme gen and enginee ing app oaches. In o ma ion & Managemen , 46(1), 1-8. Weske, M. (2007). Business P ocess managemen - Concep s, Languages, A chi ec u es. Sp inge -Ve lag, Be lin Heidelbe g. Wes e eld, E., (2003). The P ojec Excellence Model®: linking success c i e ia and c i ical success ac o s. In e na ional Jou nal o P ojec Managemen , 21, 411–418. Wong, K.Y., & Aspinwall, E. (2005). An empi ical s udy o he impo an ac o s o knowledge-managemen adop ion in he SME sec o . Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 9(3), 64-82. Yeh, Y.J., Lai, S.Q. & Ho, C.T. (2006). Knowledge managemen enable s: a case s udy. Indus ial Managemen & Da a Sys ems, 106 (6), 793-810. Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. (2009). Knowledge managemen and o ganisa ional pe o mance: an explo a o y analysis. Jou nal o Knowledge Managemen , 13 (6), 392-409. Zá aga-Rod íguez, M., & Ál a ez, M.J. (2014). Does he EFQM model iden i y and ein o ce in o ma ion capabili y? P ocedia-Social and Beha io al Sciences, 109, 716-721. Table 1. EFQM Model and knowledge managemen issues. Sou ce: Own p oduc ion. Fundamen al Concep s o Excellence KM issues De elopmen and in ol emen o people Excellen o ganisa ions ecognise he inc easing impo ance o he in ellec ual capi al o hose who comp ise hem and use hei knowledge o he bene i o he whole o ganisa ion Con inuous p ocess o lea ning, inno a ion and imp o emen Excellen o ganisa ions, h ough benchma king ac i i ies, mus con inuously lea n, and ga he and sha e he knowledge o he people who comp ise hem, o maximise he lea ning in he whole o ganisa ion De elopmen o alliances Pa ne s mus wo k oge he o each common objec i es, each helping he o he s wi h hei expe ience, esou ces and knowledge EFQM C i e ia KM issues Leade ship Re e s o p ac ices ha help knowledge c ea ion: he p omo ion o empowe men , c ea i i y and inno a ion, o es ablishing incen i es so people and g oups pa icipa e in imp o emen ac i i ies. Policy and s a egy Re e s o he need o base policy and s a egy upon in o ma ion on pe o mance indica o s, esea ch and lea ning. People I is necessa y o assess: (1) How he knowledge and he compe ences o he pe sonnel a e iden i ied, classi ied and adap ed o he needs o he o ganisa ion. (2) How aining and de elopmen plans a e de eloped and implemen ed which con ibu e o gua an eeing ha he abili ies o he pe sonnel a e adjus ed o he p esen and u u e needs o he o ganisa ion. (3) How lea ning oppo uni ies a e designed and p omo ed a he indi idual, g oup and o ganisa ional le el. Pa ne ships and Resou ces I analyses how he o ganisa ion: (1) Manages in o ma ion and knowledge in suppo o policy, s a egy and objec i es. (2) Iden i ies he cu en in o ma ion and knowledge. (3) P o ides sui able access o impo an in o ma ion and knowledge. (4) Uses in o ma ion echnology o suppo in e nal communica ion and in o ma ion and knowledge managemen . (5) Cul i a es, de elops and p o ec s he in ellec ual p ope y o maximise i s alue o he cus ome . (6) T ies o acqui e, inc ease and use knowledge e ec i ely. (7) Gene a es a clima e o inno a ion and c ea i i y in he o ganisa ion by means o sui able in o ma ion and knowledge esou ces. P ocess managemen Iden i ies aspec s ela ed o he applica ion o knowledge when he need is men ioned o manage he in o ma ion ha comes om he cus ome s o he de elopmen o new p oduc s and se ices.