Human capital in knowledge-based firms: Re-creating value post-pandemic

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:

In today’s volatile business environment, the competitive advantages of firms are temporary. The top management does not, and cannot, have all the answers to increasingly complex and rapidly changing problem situations facing their firms. Since the COVID-19 crisis, organizations have been under pressure to improve their knowledge management practices to continue creating value. Knowledge management capabilities are essential for business performance and competitive advantage. In order to ensure continuous value creation, we conducted research to identify various drivers and dimensions that were revitalized in the ongoing KM practices post-pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

In this study, 81 research papers published between January 2010 and March 2022, have been examined from a knowledge management, human capital, and value creation perspective, aiming to understand how a firm can continue to create value before, during, and after the pandemic.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION:

Our review identifies critical factors in knowledge management and value creation and how companies generate value by leveraging KM during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the research, the authors describe their findings in the form of a conceptual framework which deals with the various drivers and the factors within the KM architecture.

Keywords

Human capital knowledge management value creation value capabilities COVID-19 pandemic

Ms. Janvee Garg is a researcher and management professional with over 7 years of experience in the area of strategy and innovation. She holds an MBA in Marketing and Healthcare Administration. She founded startups across health and wellbeing, consumer internet, and technology products that helped clients in both the public and private sectors to achieve transformational results using digital transformation and analytics. She is also a qualified Independent Director certified by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) under the aegis of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. She researches, writes and speaks about the strategic usage of technology and innovation that are transforming enterprises.

Prof. Anil Kumar Singh is Professor and Area Chair Strategy and Professor-In-Charge Centre for Research and Innovation at Frugal Technology Management (CRIFT) at FORE School of Management, New Delhi. He holds a PhD in Business Administration and for more than 23 years, he has been instructing MBA students in the area of strategy, competitive advantage, change, innovations and disruptive strategies which maps with his research orientation. He is actively engaged in Training through Management Development Programmes in the area of strategy and strategic thinking for Mitsui Chemicals, ONGC, GAIL, NHPC, Sentiss Pharma, Collabra and DGR.

Prof. Ashish Gupta is presently working as a Full-time Faculty in Marketing Area at Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), New Delhi, An Autonomous Institution of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India. His research interests are in Marketing, Customer Relationship Management, Service Quality, Branding and Consumer Behaviour. He has over 10 years of teaching and research experience in the area of Marketing and Management. He has more than 45+ research papers to his credit published in international journals. He conducted / completed several workshops, FDP and MDPs such as Six- Month Online Professional Training Programme on ‘International Business Analytics and Market Intelligence’ during January to June 2022; AICTE- ATAL Sponsored FDP on ‘Leadership and Excellence in Professional Education’ in July 2021; International Faculty Development Program from Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK in August 2019.

1 Introduction

A company’s strategic vision and direction are determined by its top management. As a result, firms must devise a strategy that helps them always gain and maintain a competitive edge. Firms must apply a holistic approach to their plan to survive and thrive in the post-pandemic world. Human capital is defined as the knowledge, skills, innovativeness, and abilities of a company’s individual to accomplish the task at hand [1]. The concept of human capital (HC) has been defined in modern science as a set of economic relations used to invest in forming highly skilled workforces that use a person’s abilities, skills, knowledge, and other qualities to implement them and to create products or services; one needs to understand their professional knowledge and skills, their natural or acquired abilities, motivation, energy, and health [2]. Human capital (HC) is becoming increasingly important in a world where knowledge and communication with stakeholders have become increasingly important. It reflects the knowledge, technical skills, creativity, and experience an organization has acquired. Therefore, employees are viewed as productive assets rather than expensive assets [3]. The value of resources depends on the knowledge, whether from individuals or managers, and HC opens an entirely new view of how technology interacts with economic and social factors [4]. In today’s hypercompetitive environment, human capital has a tremendous and undeniable significance, and for organizations to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and efficiency, human resources remain their most important resource.

Knowledge management has resulted in a “new normal” in the face of this pandemic. Knowledge management is an essential component of performance and one of the most valuable resources to harness [5, 6]. Literature and practice have increasingly addressed the need for knowledge management due to changes in the environment, like globalization, the aging of information, and the dynamic nature of product and process innovation [7]. Parnas (1994), in their study on “Software aging,” mentioned that just like human aging, software aging is inevitable [8]. Similarly, Picot (1998) discusses knowledge aging, and in this study, “the aging of information” also signifies that the information is getting old and inevitable over time [9]. Because knowledge is a critical resource for the organization, it becomes essential to investigate how its management can facilitate the long-term creation of value by directing corporate strategy toward new, innovative business models [10]. Many workers have been dispersed across worksites and homes, necessitating more expertise in knowledge management [11]. In a crisis, employees’ active information and knowledge sharing are even more critical because they can identify and solve problems quickly and efficiently, leading to more significant innovation [12]. Another study discussed a dynamic view of the firm’s competitive advantage that emphasizes collaborative advantage and geographical embeddedness [13]. As human resources contribute to and utilize knowledge in a variety of ways, the knowledge of the firm’s personnel is closely related to its knowledge-based resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic affects all sectors of the economy on a macroeconomic level, while it affects all aspects of the business on a microeconomic level. The significance of this study lies in the fact that it directly addresses the impact of COVID-19 on business-related functions, primarily Knowledge Management (KM), Value Creation (VC), and Human Capital (HC). Since the COVID-19 crisis, organizations have been under pressure to revitalize their human capital to enhance their knowledge management practices. In addition, business performance and survival in crises require knowledge management capabilities to drive value creation. This prompted the decision to research to identify various drivers and dimensions revitalized in the ongoing KM practices post-pandemic to ensure continuous value creation. Understanding the vast literature available in knowledge management and value creation will allow academicians, researchers, and practitioners to evaluate theoretical advances in this area critically over time. Moreover, it will reduce a gap in the literature on the impact of knowledge management on value creation during a crisis by systematizing and integrating knowledge management research.

2 Literature review

2.1 Knowledge management and human capital

A researcher [14] mentioned in his study that only the people in an organization learn, acquire, develop, and use knowledge in groups or individually. A company’s ability is fragmented and specialized among its employees. For a company to generate requisite capabilities, skills, innovation, and expertise, its management must develop, provide, pool, and integrate its people’s specialized knowledge. Ultimately, this is what generates customer-valued performance. As markets become increasingly competitive, enterprises must develop capabilities that will allow them to compete across a wide range of markets. In a rapidly evolving and emerging market, such capabilities provide entry points. Identifying new opportunities, thinking and acting innovatively, exploring and discovering new paths to growth, deploying needed capabilities quickly, addressing today’s challenges, and preparing for an uncertain future are all aspects of survival and success in an organization today. A high degree of knowledge is involved in all of these tasks and activities. A company’s employees constitute its most valuable or ultimate resource as creators, owners, and users of knowledge. In Fig. 1, the author illustrates knowledge’s vital role in an organization, including learning, developing, sharing, and creatively using people. If resources are not replenished, upgraded, enriched, or developed regularly, they tend to decline or diminish over time. On the other hand, capital resources can appreciate over time without being exhausted, even when used intensively and continuously.

Fig. 1

Human Capital as a crucial resource of any organization [14].

2.2 Knowledge, value, and competitive advantage

A company can create value by developing capabilities related to building and renovating routes to competitive advantage. It can capture value by developing capabilities to benefit from value creation [15]. With a knowledge-based view, firms can tailor actions based on their individual customers’ preferences and the patterns of competitive activities that influence their choices, providing them with a sustainable competitive advantage [16]. Using knowledge differentiation, [17] describes how new or existing knowledge can be broken down into specific attributes to capture the collective value created by knowledge emergence. Regarding intellectual capital, talent, skills, abilities, and ideas are considered human capital [18]. Skills, knowledge, experience, creativity, and innovation are the elements that make up human capital [19]. Human capital can also be characterized by genetic inheritance, education, expertise, and attitudes [20]. People in an organization add more excellent market value to businesses when they acquire new knowledge, enhancing their human and intellectual capital [21].

2.3 Knowledge management, value creation, and economic turbulence

As companies strive to achieve competitive advantage and survive, knowledge is viewed as a strategic resource which is accomplished by optimizing the customer experience through knowledge management [22]. In recent years, the role of the customer has changed dramatically in the market. Today’s customers collaborate actively and freely with companies, providing feedback, suggestions, or remarks for the product, marketing, and process improvements. These customers contribute to customer retention and recovery by sharing information and recommendations in their environment. As a result, companies can create value by focusing on their market, managing their knowledge, and customer relationships [23]. Recombining these abilities allows firms to create superior value or, at least, to maintain it despite the current turbulent economic environment.

2.4 Knowledge sharing, social capital, and business performance

The knowledge gained from the team may remain in the minds of those involved if it is not transferred and integrated within the organization for capitalizing in the future. A social network facilitates sharing of information and the integration of knowledge in an organization, both inside and outside [24]. Social capital’s information and control advantages can be enhanced by fostering links between people who would otherwise be disconnected [25]. A study also examined how intra-organizational social capital plays a critical role in exploratory and exploitative learning in organizations in terms of its cognitive dimensions [26]. In addition, the results support the assertion that both a shared vision and social interaction ties contributed to knowledge integration within organizations - directly for a shared vision and indirectly for social interaction ties.

A study provides additional details on how knowledge management-enabled performance can be implemented [27]. The model is founded on two theoretical foundations. Using a knowledge-based approach, the first step is identifying the potential link between KM investments and organizational performance. This study also looks at developing customized solutions for implementing KM-enabled organizational performance based on the knowledge-based business process, which serves as a mediator between knowledge assets and process capabilities for achieving organizational productivity and effectiveness. This study sheds additional light on the importance of knowledge-based approaches for achieving performance. It is important to note that knowledge assets significantly impact business process capabilities mainly because they act as intermediaries rather than directly affecting them.

3 Research methodology

Researchers benefit from the SLR approach because it allows scholars to present systematic, transparent, and reproducible syntheses of prior literature [28]. In accordance with Behera et al. (2019), this SLR consisted of two phases: planning and execution, followed by an assimilated presentation of results [29]. The first phase focused on the development of appropriate search criteria, selection criteria, research objectives, and databases relevant to the research. The second phase involves presenting an overview of current research on knowledge management and value creation following strict protocols. This paper summarizes and discusses review findings to provide an overview of extant knowledge [30].

Research on knowledge management and value creation spans many fields. Therefore, capturing relevant contributions and summarizing the findings in heterogeneous literature is challenging. To address this challenge, we follow the PRISMA approach [32]. A structured review of the literature about knowledge management and value creation, based on the PRISMA framework, is presented in this study. Following the PRISMA framework (See Fig. 3), the decision to include or exclude was initially based on the content of title, abstract and keywords, and subsequently to full-text reading for the eligible articles [33]. As part of the screening process and the full-text reading, articles had to provide evidence relevant to Knowledge Management and Value Creation. Our review draws on the Theory Construct Context Methods (TCCM) framework to provide insightful insights into the data [34]. In addition, the taxonomic classification of research developments in knowledge management and value creation is also presented as a conceptual framework for the research. Figure 2 illustrates the process used to accomplish the study. In the subsequent stages, the created TCCM framework was imported into the Google Data Studio for Visualization [35].

Fig. 2

The Review Process. Source: Adapted from [31].

3.1 Research questions

The research questions were answered by the protocol suggested by Behera et al. (2019) from the selected journals within the scope of the review [29]

RQ1. Which dimensions of knowledge management and value creation are focused on pre-pandemic and during the pandemic that leads to competitive advantage?

RQ2. How is the value configured, delivered, and sustained in the post-pandemic era?

RQ3. How is human capital revitalized to generate value in knowledge-based firms?

3.2 Journal selection

A comprehensive review of knowledge management and value creation literature was conducted in the Web of Science database [36]. The current study has also vigorously searched Emerald, Wiley, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE to extract relevant research articles. The journals have been selected from 2010 to 2022, including early cited publications. In addition, a systematic mapping process of identifying trends, authors, leading journals, and other relevant information was followed when consulting on the research topics.

3.3 Article selection

The search query identifies keywords associated with knowledge management and value creation from titles, abstracts, and keywords cited in their articles and introductions. First, a manual search was conducted through the full-text papers to explore the Human Capital element. A final step was manually sorting references from selected studies to ensure that the study included relevant articles. Specifically, the following search terms were used.

A set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to the literature [37 –39]. Table 3 outlines the criteria for including and excluding articles during the screening process, and Fig. 1 summarizes the structured flow from potential to selected papers.

Table 3
Classification of Journal wise Papers

Name of the Journal Journal Count Percentage (%)

Journal of Knowledge Management 21 25.93

Journal of Business Research 10 12.35

Knowledge Management Research &Practice 9 11.11

Technological Forecasting and Social Change 6 7.41

Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 3 3.70

Journal of Enterprise Information Management 3 3.70

Name of the Journal	Journal Count	Percentage (%)
Journal of Knowledge Management	21	25.93
Journal of Business Research	10	12.35
Knowledge Management Research &Practice	9	11.11
Technological Forecasting and Social Change	6	7.41
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing	3	3.70
Journal of Enterprise Information Management	3	3.70

3.4 Quality assessment

The research papers selected are subjected to a quality check to ensure that their information will satisfy the research questions raised earlier in the research process. The following steps were followed for assessing five research papers selected at random.

Step 1: Knowledge Management, Value Creation, and Human Capital: The paper must be written to adhere to knowledge management, Value Creation and Human Capital.

Step 2: Context: The study’s objectives and results must be described adequately in the paper.

Step 3: Data: The analysis should be based on comprehensive data regarding “how” the data was collected, “what” the constructs were, and “when and where” the results were reported.

Step 4: Drivers: The paper should outline the driving factors or constituents in knowledge management and value creation for answering the research questions.

Table 1
Search String used

Scope String used

Knowledge management “knowledge management"

Value creation “value creation"; “value capabilities"

Pandemic Covid*; crisis

Scope	String used
Knowledge management	“knowledge management"
Value creation	“value creation"; “value capabilities"
Pandemic	Covid*; crisis

4 Analysis and discussion

The analysis of 81 articles indicates that there has been a rise in knowledge management and value creation studies in the past twelve years. The most researched context is knowledge sharing using technology and customer value, and snowball sampling is the most adopted method.

4.1 Classification of articles: Journal-wise

Of the 81 papers, more than 50% are scattered in the top four journals (See Table 2), presenting the concentration of knowledge management literature related to value creation. From the results, most research papers appear to be published in the Journal of knowledge management (21); Journal of Business Research (10); knowledge management Research & Practice (9); Technological Forecasting and Social Change (8).

Table 2
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria

Inclusion Articles Published from 2010 to 2022

Journal articles

Full-text articles

Peer-reviewed articles

Empirical and Conceptual Papers

Exclusion Papers written in a language other than English

Articles from proceedings, conferences &books

Irrelevant articles not discussing the HC element

Criteria
Inclusion	Articles Published from 2010 to 2022
	Journal articles
	Full-text articles
	Peer-reviewed articles
	Empirical and Conceptual Papers
Exclusion	Papers written in a language other than English
	Articles from proceedings, conferences &books
	Irrelevant articles not discussing the HC element

4.2 Classification of articles: Country-wise

It is imperative to distribute articles by country to gain insight into global trends and implications. Therefore, studies on KM and VC have been conducted primarily in countries such as Italy, Spain, China, Korea, Poland, and India (See Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Distribution of articles country-wise.

5 Theories, characteristics, context, and methodologies (TCCM) analysis

Theory (T), Context (C), Characteristics (C), and Methodology (M) are the four components of the TCCM framework. The TCCM framework has been used for a thorough literature review based on theory, context, characteristics, and method to understand the research gap in the field of study [38, 39]. This study has also explored existing research on HC, KM, and VC using this framework. These 81 papers were examined to explore established theories to arrive at a conceptual model. Theories illuminate the motivation and direction of research. The KM characteristics can be viewed through the lens of constructs used to evaluate value creation. This section aims to give way to HC, KM characteristics that play a significant role in creating value. Additionally, the context section refers to a taxonomy of selected research addressing dynamic aspects of Knowledge Management and Value Creation. These studies draw on research methods, sampling techniques, innovative methodologies, and dynamic capabilities adopted in previous studies across geographic boundaries.

5.1 Theory (T)

Researchers have used various theoretical models to conceptualize their knowledge management models. As shown in Fig. 4, the commonly used theories across multiple industries are represented along with the number of papers in which they have been cited. According to the statistics, most authors have incorporated both resource-based and knowledge-based perspectives into their work, as well as the dynamic capabilities theory into their implementations in most industries into their works, as well as the dynamic capabilities theory into their implementations in most industries.

Fig. 4

Overview of Theories. Note: These papers do not specifically discuss any theories, so NA has been mentioned instead.

Fig. 5

Overview of Focus - Theoretical, Geographical, Journal.

Resource-based view (RBV): The RBV regards the firm as a historical collection of assets or resources that have been kept semi-permanently within the firm over time [40]. Based on the resource-based view, competitiveness in the future depends on firms’ ability to develop proprietary and unique capabilities, which may be implicit or intangible [41]. Using the RBV perspective, [42] explored how the RBV approach might influence the nature of talent management. From the standpoint of a resource-based view of the organization, human capital resources represent the employee group’s knowledge, skills, capabilities, intelligence, relationships, and experience [43]. These resources that create value must be heterogeneous to develop a competitive advantage. Therefore, they must be rare, valuable, and non-replaceable [42]. Another researcher advocates that recent innovation in co-opetition has benefited from theoretical perspectives such as the resource-based view of firms, which views resource heterogeneity and interdependence as significant components of competitive advantage [17]. A study shows that the analysis can be used to derive evidence about how customer capital is relevant to competitive positioning following the resource-based view of big data by demonstrating how sentiment analysis and business analytics can be integrated while handling big data from social media [44]. The RBV has proven to be integral to the conceptual and theoretical development of the HC literature.

Knowledge-based view (KBV): An enterprise’s competitive advantage is derived from accumulated knowledge [45]. Scuotto et al. (2022) presented new knowledge management and entrepreneurial contributions from the micro perspective of KBV [46]. The author noted that most of the information used for the company’s development was derived from the participants’ personal experiences. Gangi et al. (2019) examined that accumulated internal CSR knowledge ensures that CSR programs are effective for external stakeholders with a knowledge-based approach. For example, a bank’s CSR performance, as measured by citizenship and its positive reputation, can be positively correlated, which improves its competitiveness when engaged in external initiatives [47]. Verona et al. (2020) points out that sports organizations are knowledge-based enterprises. Leisure and professional organizations make up the two largest groups of sports businesses. In addition, recreational sports organizations are often service providers whose culture and performance are impacted by their trainers and coaches’ entrepreneurial knowledge [48].

Dynamic Capabilities Theory: To transform and renew a firm’s organizational capabilities, the dynamic capabilities concept has renewed focus on processes and routines [41]. By demonstrating how different dynamic capabilities can reduce the tensions within multi-stakeholder networks during various stages of the development of business models and social purpose policies, Moffett et al. (2021) extend the research of Teece et al. (2018), which investigated how dynamic capabilities affect business models [40, 49]. In addition, Martelo (2011) investigated the relationship between knowledge management, customer relationship management, market orientation, and their impact on net customer value, developing the research model that illustrates how these three capabilities are dynamically interrelated within organizations and thereby enhance customer value [23].

Theoretical Underpinnings: The review reveals that the research in KM has focused on human capital, behavioral dimensions, competitive advantage, dynamic capability, innovation, learning, and operational efficiency. The research over the last decade heavily emphasizes dynamic capability, followed by competitive advantage, behavioral dimensions, innovation, learning, and operational efficiency. The journal does not have a specific theoretical orientation. A mix of different orientations provides an unbiased perspective on the domain of Knowledge management. These insights reinforce the value creation domain of knowledge management since the value is a collective manifestation of multiple drivers.

5.2 Characteristics (C)

In order to encourage relationship research, a comprehensive literature review was used to identify the most significant characteristics within the domain. This framework focuses on identifying and utilizing constructs in knowledge management and value creation studies. There have been multiple characteristics identified and grouped into a common construct group. The 81 papers used an array of variables, such as independent, dependent, and control variables, as shown in Fig. 6. In multiple studies, “knowledge management", “value creation,” and “human capital” are the most discussed variables.

Fig. 6

Word Cloud of Variables.

It creates the space for future research to explore how other analytical tools could be utilized to increase value creation. As a result, firms have also been investigating the concept of social capital, another significant dimension of value creation. This research lacks analytical methods such as mathematical analysis, case study, and mixed-methods analysis. A comprehensive and substantial literature review was conducted to assess the potential and identify future research opportunities.

5.3 Context (C)

To provide future research avenues, a classification of contexts helps simplify the interpretation of data. Researchers found that most papers were published in 2021, while the lowest number of papers were related to knowledge management and value creation in 2012. Researchers published their papers in the same year, likely contributing to the irregularity in representation. Though it may not represent the growth of research in this genre, it emphasizes the lack of research on value creation. Combined, value creation and knowledge management represent an emerging concept in management literature and present a significant research gap.

As observed in Fig. 7, most countries have researched Knowledge Management, Organizational Performance, Innovation, and Social Context, and only a few have explored “Value Creation". Therefore, it is crucial to represent data to understand regional trends in knowledge management. Furthermore, the results indicate that future research studies should look at other industries. Most studies in this field are conducted by developed countries, with little contribution from developing nations and little contribution from highly developed nations like the US and the UK. Therefore, exploring the empirical foundations of this topic is critical for future research in developing countries.

Fig. 7

Overview of the context across multiple countries.

Fig. 8

Distribution of articles based on the method of research - year wise

During the current review synthesis, 20 of 81 papers positively impacted innovation and knowledge management, whereas 14 articles focused on organizational performance. As a result of knowledge management literature, various industrial contexts have been analyzed as a result of value creation, such as social context, value creation, business intelligence, and analytics. However, the dominant service logic is the least considered out of the research papers and industrial outcomes.

5.4 Methodology (M)

The research presents a taxonomy of studies based on various data collection methods. There were 81 papers, among which 35 dealt with conceptual studies and 23 dealt with data collection using surveys. This literature synthesis validated several conceptual frameworks with statistical analysis. Most studies used structural equation modeling (SEM) to reach their conclusions.

6 Conclusion

Human capital, knowledge management, and value creation are broad categories of research. Based on the study, we explore that value creation occurs in many industries and contexts. Its applications are diverse because of the authors’ backgrounds, expertise, and domains. A firm that continuously evolves will have a more accurate understanding of behavior, judgment, and communication and be able to perceive trends in markets and society, which will help the organization balance its learning system. By integrating knowledge management with technology, organizations can gain insights into their intellectual assets and respond effectively to crises. The COVID-19 outbreak caused multiple challenges for the industries concerned. When we use knowledge management, one can generate value from knowledge resources to deal with crises more effectively. This paper discussed how knowledge could create continuous value even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each firm and author understand value creation differently regarding employee well-being, continuous innovation, etc. The paper presents an overview of the review’s conceptual framework. As a result, this study (Fig. 9) integrates knowledge-based, technically flexible firms and value creation perspectives while incorporating the human capital elements as key enablers of organizations’ ability to deal with pandemic situations successfully. In a business environment, if the human capital element is continuously strengthened, knowledge is created in the firm, generating value, regardless of any environmental crisis or pandemic. It looks at how firms managed knowledge and generated value during and before the pandemic. Managing knowledge plays an important role in improving business performance. In today’s world, organizations must be able to transform their knowledge domains into profitable products and services and continuously renew their capabilities in order to get ahead in terms of innovation and disruptive innovation. Their knowledge resources must be continuously created, stored, transferred, applied, in order to accomplish these objectives.

Fig. 9

Conceptual framework on Revitalizing Human Capital in a knowledge-based firm to re-invent value. Source: Adapted from [43 , 52].

Consequently, companies that were flexible and open to change during the crisis did not only survive but also contributed value to the market. Furthermore, technology-based firms that have changed their technological platforms to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic created value. Companies have enhanced their ability to create and deliver value over the past few decades due to global competition, the complexity of products, and technological advancements [51]. This study aims to provide an overview of current knowledge management research on value creation.

A company’s wealth and competitive advantage are often created and sustained through the effective management of human capital as an intangible asset [52]. Human capital consists of employees’ occupational and general knowledge, leadership skills, risk-taking capabilities, and problem-solving abilities [53]. In order to gain a competitive advantage in the global business environment, successful companies invest in their employees, and this has a direct impact on the company’s financial results as well [54]. Thus, human capital has a direct relationship with the performance of the firms particularly in knowledge-based environments [55].

7 Research implications

This paper’s comprehensive literature on knowledge management is linked to the value creation dimension from previous literature. Eighty-one articles have been reviewed from 27 journals between 2010 and 2022, which may not be exhaustive but helps draw many implications.

7.1 Theoretical implications

The number of KM research studies is increasing, with most being conducted during 2021, which indicates growth across regions. It is among the few studies to look at the strategic dimensions of knowledge management in conjunction with value creation, which may be a dynamic capability of the company or a competitive advantage. Researchers in this domain can utilize this study as a comprehensive synthesis. Hence, the paper presents a selection of significant constructs relevant to the study of KM concerning VC during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In addition, this study identified a gap in the literature regarding the creation of value within a knowledge management context during the pandemic.

7.2 Practical implication

Knowledge management practitioners will gain new insights from this research regarding various dimensions that affect value creation during crises and normal times, especially the human capital dimension. In addition, managers will gain valuable insights into the constructs matching their strategic priorities through an integrated framework, which combines knowledge management and value creation with technology and flexibility in operations.

8 Limitations and future scope of research

Future research may seek to understand other dimensions of value creation, which may be used to evaluate how knowledge impacts business ecosystems. The regions and their economic status may influence other dimensions. Previous knowledge management literature reveals key factors attributed to ICT during the COVID-19 Pandemic; future studies may highlight the impact of agile technologies on the value created by knowledge-managed firms. Future research could clarify whether CSR studies and social capital topics addressed during the COVID-19 pandemic were considered a temporary consequence of the pandemic or whether they have gathered long-term attention. During crises or pandemic times, the proposed conceptual model may serve as the basis of future research, discussing how organizations have used technology and flexibility to create competitive advantage and sustain.

Future studies can address the limitations of this study. We took several precautions to ensure that our review was thorough and reliable. Nevertheless, some methodological trade-offs were made in that quest. As a first step, only peer-reviewed studies were included in our literature review to ensure our review’s quality, validity, and reliability. We excluded non-peer-reviewed papers, such as conference proceedings, books, and blogs. Further, we may have made unintentional mistakes because this research is subjective, and some manual steps are involved in screening the studies. However, the process used carefully designed inclusion criteria to maximize its reliability.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The infrastructural support provided by the FORE School of Management and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) in completing this paper is gratefully acknowledged.

Author contributions

This manuscript was conceptualized, developed, analyzed, and prepared collaboratively by all authors.

References

Bontis

. Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2001;3(1):41–60.

Janshanlo

, Nurgaliyeva

, Oralbaeva

, Dzhakisheva

, Aktureeva

. The content and role of human capital in the modern economy of Kazakhstan. Human Systems Management. 2020;39(1):81–92.

Hendricks

. How important is human capital for development? Evidence from immigrant earnings. American Economic Review. 2002;92(1):198–219.

Galabova

, McKie

The five fingers of my hand: human capital and well-being in SMEs. Personnel Review. 2013 Sep 16.

Bosua

, Venkitachalam

Aligning strategies and processes in knowledge management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2013 May 24.

Teece

, Pisano

, Shuen

. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 1997;18(7):509–33.

Greiner

, Böhmann

, Krcmar

. A strategy for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2007;11(6):3–15.

Parnas

Software aging. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering 1994. pp. 279-287. IEEE.

Picot

, Reichwald

, Wigand

, Möslein

, Neuburger

, Neyer

The limitless enterprise: information, organization & leadership. Springer-Verlag; 2020 Jul 1.

10.

Friedrich

, Becker

, Kramer

, Wirth

, Schneider

. Incentive design and gamification for knowledge management. Journal of Business Research. 2020;106, 341–52.

11.

Behme

, Becker

The new knowledge management [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/focus/technologyand-the-future-of-work/organizational-knowledgemanagement.html.[Accessed 10 January 2022]

12.

Lee

, Tao

, Li

, Sun

. Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2021;25(6):1526–49. DOI:10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0483.

13.

Molina-Morales

. Human capital in the industrial districts. Human Systems Management. 2001;20(4):319–31.

14.

Rastogi

. Sustaining enterprise competitiveness–is human capital the answer? Human Systems Management2000;19(3):193–203.

15.

Martelo-Landroguez

, Martin-Ruiz

. Managing knowledge to create customer service value. Journal of Service Theory and Practice. 2016;26(4):471–96. DOI:10.1108/JSTP-06-2014-0137.

16.

Hossain

, Akter

, Yanamandram

. Why doesn’t our value creation payoff: Unpacking customer analytics-driven value creation capability to sustain competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research. 2021;131, 287–96.

17.

Carayannis

, Depeige

, Sindakis

. Dynamics of ultra-organizational co-opetition and circuits of knowledge: a knowledge-based view of value ecology. Journal of Knowledge Management.-. 2014;18(5):1020–1035. DOI:10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0249.

18.

Stewart

Capital intelectual: a nova vantagem competitiva das empresas. Rio de Janeiro: Campus; 1998.

19.

Edvinsson

, Malone

Capital Intelectual. Tradução de Roberto Galman. Revisão técnica: PetrosKatalifos.

20.

Bontis

Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital: Framing and Advancing the State of the Field1. InWorld Congress on intellectual capital readings 2007 Jun 7, pp. 13–56. Routledge.

21.

Vidotto

, Ferenhof

, Selig

, Bastos

. A human capital measurement scale. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2017;18(2):316–29. DOI:10.1108/JIC-08-2016-0085.

22.

Martelo-Landroguez

, Cepeda-Carrión

. How knowledge management processes can create and capture value for firms? Knowledge Management Research & Practice2016;14(4):423–33.

23.

Martelo

, Barroso

, Cepeda

. The use of organizational capabilities to increase customer value. Journal of Business Research. 2013;66(10):2042–50.

24.

Gubbins

, Dooley

. Exploring social network dynamics driving knowledge management for innovation. Journal of Management Inquiry. 2014;23(2):162–85.

25.

Sechi

, Borri

, De Lucia

, Celmins

. Social capital as knowledge facilitator: Evidence from Latvia. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2011;9(3):245–55.

26.

Prieto-Pastor

, Martín-Pérez

, Martín-Cruz

. Social capital, knowledge integration and learning in project-based organizations: a CEO-based study. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2018;22(8):1803–25. DOI:10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0210.

27.

, Chen

. Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of business process capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2014;18(6):1141–64. DOI:10.1108/JKM-05-2014-0192.

28.

Tranfield

, Denyer

, Smart

. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management. 2003;14(3):207–22.

29.

Behera

, Bala

, Dhir

. The emerging role of cognitive computing in healthcare: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2019;129, 154–66.

30.

Mehta

, Pandit

. Concurrence of big data analytics and healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2018;114, 57–65.

31.

Tandon

, Dhir

, Almugren

, AlNemer

, Mäntymäki

. Fear of missing out (FoMO) among social media users: a systematic literature review, synthesis and framework for future research. Internet Research. 2021;31(3):782–821. DOI:10.1108/INTR-11-2019-0455.

32.

Moher

, Liberati

, Tetzlaff

, Altman

, Prisma Grou. Reprint— preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementPhysical Therapy2009;89(9):873–80.

33.

Pittaway

, Robertson

, Munir

, Denyer

, Neely

. Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2004;5(3-4):137–68.

34.

Paul

, Criado

. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review2020;29(4):101717.

35.

Kemp

, White

Google Data Studio for Beginners: Start Making Your Data Actionable. A press; 2021.

36.

Chadegani

, Salehi

, Yunus

, Farhadi

, Fooladi

, Farhadi

, Ebrahim

A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0377. 2013 May 2

37.

Tobon

, Ruiz-Alba

, García-Madariaga

. Gamification and online consumer decisions: is the game over? Decision Support Systems2020;128, 113167.

38.

Chauhan

, Akhtar

, Gupta

. Gamification in banking: a review, synthesis and setting research agenda. Young Consumers. 2021;22(3):456–79.

39.

Chauhan

, Akhtar

, Gupta

. Customer experience in digital banking: A review and future research directions. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. 2022;14(2):311–48. DOI:10.1108/IJQSS-02-2021-0027.

40.

Wernerfelt

. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1984;5(2):171–80. DOI:10.1002/smj.4250050207.

41.

Teece

, Pisano

, Shuen

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Center for Research in Management, University of California, Berkeley; 1992 Jun.

42.

Sparrow

, Makram

. What is the value of talent management? Building value-driven processes within a talent management architecture. Human Resource Management Review. 2015;25(3):249–63.

43.

Barney

. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 1991;17(1):99–120.

44.

Del Vecchio

, Mele

, Passiante

, Vrontis

, Fanuli

. Detecting customers knowledge from social media big data: toward an integrated methodological framework based on netnography and business analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2020;24(4):799–821.

45.

Felin

, Hesterly

. The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review. 2007;32(1):195–218.

46.

Scuotto

, Lemaire

, Magni

, Maalaoui

. Extending knowledge-based view: Future trends of corporate social entrepreneurship to fight the gig economy challenges. Journal of Business Research. 2022;139, 1111–22.

47.

Gangi

, Mustilli

, Varrone

. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) knowledge on corporate financial performance: evidence from the European banking industry. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019;23(1):110–34. DOI:10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0267.

48.

Garcia-Perez

, Ghio

, Occhipinti

, Verona

. Knowledge management and intellectual capital in knowledge-based organisations: a review and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2020;24(7):1719–54. DOI:10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0703.

49.

Best

, Miller

, McAdam

, Moffett

. Mission or margin? Using dynamic capabilities to manage tensions in social purpose organisations’ business model innovation. Journal of Business Research. 2021;125, 643–57.

50.

Kay

, Leih

, Teece

. The role of emergence in dynamic capabilities: a restatement of the framework and some possibilities for future research. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2018;27(4):623–38.

51.

Schiuma

, Carlucci

, Lerro

. Managing knowledge processes for value creation. Vine. 2012;42(1):4–14. DOI:10.1108/03055721211207815.

52.

Lim

, Chan

, Dallimore

. Perceptions of human capital measures: from corporate executives and investors. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010;25(4):673–88.

53.

Mehralian

, Akhavan

, Rasekh

, Ghatari

. A framework for human capital indicators in knowledge-based industries: evidence from pharmaceutical industry. Measuring Business Excellence. 2013;17(4):88–101. DOI:10.1108/MBE-10-2012-0053.

54.

Ulrich

Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business Press; 1996 Oct 30.

55.

Bozbura

. Measurement and application of intellectual capital in Turkey. The Learning Organization. 2004;11(4-5):357–67. DOI:10.1108/096964704105382.