Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

KM Issues in KIBS Companies
Ettore Bolisani 1 , Marco Paiola 2 and Enrico Scarso 1
1
Department <strong>of</strong> Management and Engineering - University <strong>of</strong> Padua, Vicenza,
Italy
2
Department <strong>of</strong> Economics and Management - University <strong>of</strong> Padua, Padova,
Italy
ettore.bolisani@unipd.it
marco.paiola@unipd.it
enrico.scarso@unipd.it
Abstract: This paper investigates <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> adoption and use <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Management (KM) practices by
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) companies, i.e. private companies whose job consists <strong>of</strong>
collecting, generating, analysing, and distributing knowledge with <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> developing customized services
or solutions to satisfy <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> business clients. KIBS companies rely on highly educated pr<strong>of</strong>essionals,
experts on specific technical disciplines or functional domains, and supply knowledge-based services. Knowledge
is <strong>the</strong>ir major resource that allows developing new competencies and constitutes a precondition for <strong>the</strong> delivery <strong>of</strong>
new services. This is <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> KM applied to KIBS should have a central relevance for
scholars and practitioners. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> research on this topic is still scarce. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, one would expect
that KIBS firms accurately manage <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge base, also by means <strong>of</strong> formal practices, but <strong>the</strong> (few)
empirical studies indicate that KIBS companies <strong>of</strong>ten lack systematic methods for managing <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge.
Consequently, <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong> need to analyse <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> KM in KIBS more thoroughly. In light <strong>of</strong> this, <strong>the</strong> paper
discusses <strong>the</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> a survey involving 471 KIBS located in North-Eastern Italy and operating in three
different subsectors: ICT Services, Design and Communication, Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Services. In particular, <strong>the</strong> study: a)
analyses how internal knowledge is handled by <strong>the</strong> surveyed companies; b) investigates <strong>the</strong> main sources <strong>of</strong>
external knowledge <strong>the</strong> companies make use <strong>of</strong>; c) examines <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> way KIBS companies
manage <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge assets and <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> service <strong>the</strong>y supply. The outcomes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> investigation may have
important implications both from an academic and a managerial viewpoint. Especially, as regards <strong>the</strong> latter, it can
provide KIBS firms with food for though concerning <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> appropriate KM approaches for sustaining <strong>the</strong>ir
business activity.
Keywords: KIBS; knowledge management; survey; Italy
1. Introduction
The term Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) denotes private companies whose job
consists <strong>of</strong> collecting, generating, analysing, and distributing knowledge with <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong>
developing customised service solutions to satisfy <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> business clients (Miles 2005; Freel
2006). KIBS companies rely on highly educated pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, experts on specific technical
disciplines or functional domains, and supply knowledge resources or o<strong>the</strong>r knowledge-based
services to clients. Three core features denote KIBS companies (Strambach 2008; Muller and
Doloreux 2009): a) knowledge is not only <strong>the</strong>ir key production factor, but also <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> “goods” <strong>the</strong>y
sell; b) <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> knowledge-intensive services requires an in-depth interaction between
supplier and client, who are both involved in mutual cumulative learning processes; and c) all KIBS
firms perform activity <strong>of</strong> consulting, under <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a process <strong>of</strong> problem solving in which <strong>the</strong>y adapt
<strong>the</strong>ir expertise and knowledge to <strong>the</strong> specific requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual client firm. To sum up,
knowledge is <strong>the</strong> most important competitive resource <strong>of</strong> KIBS companies especially because it
allows to develop novel competencies and constitutes a precondition for <strong>the</strong> delivery <strong>of</strong> innovative
services (Kock and Strotmann 2008; Doloreux and Sheamur 2010). This is <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong>
management <strong>of</strong> knowledge asset is a crucial matter for KIBS, and <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> KM approaches should
be worthy <strong>of</strong> particular attention by scholars and practitioners. For instance, as underlined by Landry
et al. (2008), KIBS companies are challenged by <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> knowledge form a project to ano<strong>the</strong>r,
and this should induce <strong>the</strong>m to invest resources into KM practices and advanced technologies to
enhance knowledge capturing and sharing both within <strong>the</strong>ir organizations and with <strong>the</strong>ir clients. Thus,
one would expect that KIBS firms accurately manage <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge base, also through <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
formal KM practices. However, not only available empirical evidence is still scarce, but also <strong>the</strong>se
studies reveal that KIBS companies commonly lack proper methods for managing knowledge (Aurum
et al. 2008; Scarso and Bolisani 2009). All this sharpens <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> how such companies can
capitalise and exploit <strong>the</strong>ir cognitive assets, and <strong>the</strong>refore deserves a thorough analysis.
115