The Impact of Performance Variables on Industry in K-Economy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v64.2241Keywords:
Knowledge economy, innovation, performance, collaborationsAbstract
In the knowledge economy, companies are thought to be the experts who develop innovative product or service as per demand and then market it to generate the revenue. The role of industry in a knowledge economy is to search and to promote inter-organizational collaborations for learning and to search linkages to arrange for complementary resources. These interactions improve the performance of industry in the knowledge economy. This research has been conducted to find out the impact of industry associated variables that significantly influence the performance of knowledge economy. Important attributes have therefore, been identified from the studies conducted in the field of knowledge economy. Influence of identified attributes on industry has been measured using structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. Data has been collected using survey questionnaire. Findings of the study confirm that there exist a strong relationship among the industry and it’s identified variables that collectively influence the performance of industry in the knowledge economy.
References
Ali, J. F. Ali, I. Rehman, K., Yilmaz, A. K., Safwan, N. and Afzal, H. 2010. Determinants of Consumer Retention in Cellular Industry of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management. 4(12): 2402–2408.
Altacit Global. 2004. Knowledge Based Economy: Role of IPR. Altacit Global, Strategic Consultants for Intellectual Property. Symposium on Intellectual Property Law in India: Challenges and Promises Symbiosis International Educational Centre (Deemed University) Symbiosis Society’s Law College, November 20th, 2004, Pune, India
Atkinson, R. Andes, S. Ezell, S. Castro, D. Hackler, D. and Bennett, R. 2010. Innovation Policy on a Budget: Driving Innovation in a Time of Fiscal Constraint. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, http://www.itif.org/files/2010-innovation-budget.pdf.
Chan, F. Lee, G. K., Lee, E. J. Kubota, C. and Allen, C. A. 2007. Structural Equation Modeling in Rehabilitation Counseling Research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. Hammill Institute on Disabilities and Sage Publications. 51: 44.
Chen, D. H. C. and Dahlman, C. J. 2005. The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA.
Etzkowitz, H. Schuler, E. and Gulbrandsen. M. 2000. The Evolution of Entrepreneurial University. in The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, edited by Merle Jacob and Tomas Hellstrom. Ballmoor, Buckingham: Open University Press. 40–60
Etzkowitz, H. 1983. Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science, Minerva.
Fong, C. O. 2006. Developing Human Capital-The Way Forward: Managing Human Capital In the Globalized Era.
Hair, Jr, J. F. Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hatzichronoglou, T. 1996. Globalization and Competitiveness. Relevant Indicators, STI
Hollanders H., Arundel A. 2006. Global Innovation Scoreboard (GIS) Report. MERIT – Maastricht Economic and social Research and training center on Innovation and Technology. Retrieved: http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2006/pdf/eis_2006_global_innovation_report.pdf.
Houghton, J. and Sheehan, P. 2000. A Primer on the Knowledge Economy. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University.
Howard, J. 2005. The Emerging Business of Knowledge Transfer: Creating Value from Intellectual Products and Services. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia. ISBN 0 642 77511 7.
Kefela, G. T. 2010. Knowledge-based Economy and Society Has Become a Vital Commodity to Countries. International NGO Journal. 5(7): 160–166. ISSN 1993–8225.
Kitagawa, F. 2005. Entrepreneurial Universities and the Development of Regional Societies: A Spatial View of the Europe of Knowledge, Higher Education Management and Policy. 17(3): 65–89.
Lavén, F. 2008. Organizing Innovation–How Policies are Translated Into Practice. Göteborg University.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., and Van Dick, R. 2006. Social identities and Commitments at Work: Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 27: 665–683.
OECD. 1996. The Knowledge-based Economy. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Trends in International Migration. Paris: OECD.
Penksa, J. 2010. A Triple-Helix within the Triple-Helix. A Case Study of a University.
Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A. and Schartinger, D. 2001. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relations: The Role of Framework Conditions. Final Report to European Commission, Enterprise DG and Federal Ministry of Economy and Labour, Austria by Joanneum Research, Vienna.
Saad M. et al. 2008. The Triple Helix Strategy for Universities in Developing Countries: The Experiences in Malaysia and Algeria. Science and Public Policy, 35(6), July 2008. 431–443. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp.
Schwartzman. 2002. Higher Education and the Demands of the New Economy in Latin America.
Yusof, A. and Parilah, M. S. 2008. Globalization and the Malaysian Sports Industry. Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes. 8: 112–116.
Zehner, A. 2009. Churning Jobs Through 2010. In-Context, Vol. 10, No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2009/jan-feb/article1.html.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Teknologi belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
