Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inter-industry knowledge flows and sectoral networks in the economy of Malaysia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

This research probes the configuration of technological systems in terms of inter-sectoral knowledge and intermediate goods exchanges based on a case study of 21 industry sectors in the economy of Malaysia. The case study draws on a network analysis of sectoral knowledge flows survey data and input–output exchange statistics. The results show that knowledge acquisition and dissemination networks are relatively more intra-sector, denser, and centralized than goods exchange networks, which can affect how innovations spread through the economy. Knowledge networks, however, are more likely to form sub-networks with potentially diverse capabilities and influence on the technological system. This adds new information and value for knowledge-based sectoral investment strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beauchamp MA (1965) An improved index of centrality. Behavioral Science 10(2), 161–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman EM and Feser EJ (1999) Industrial and Regional Clusters: Concepts and Comparative Applications Regional Research Institute. West Virginia University, Morganton, West Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blacker F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16(6), 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R and Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008(10), P10008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocquet R and Mothe C (2010) Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8(3), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni S, Prencipe A and Pavitt K (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4), 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Statistics Malaysia (2005) Input-Output Tables, Malaysia 2005. [WWW document] http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1242&Itemid=111&lang=en (accessed 2 March 2012).

  • Drejer I (1998) Technological Interdependence in the Danish Economy – a comparison of methods for identifying knowledge flows IKE group and DRUID, Department of Business Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

  • Economic Planning Unit (2001) The Third Outline Perspective Plan 2001–2010. Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

  • Edquist C (2006) Systems of innovation, perspectives, and challenges. In Oxford Handbook of Innovation (Fagerberg J, Mowery DC and Nelson RR, Eds), pp 77–95, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust C and Wasserman S (1994) Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman T (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroud A and Mirza H (2006) Factors determining supply linkages between transnational corporations and local suppliers in ASEAN. Transnational Corporations 15(3), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage G and Meeus M (2006) Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • IISC (2008) Study on Knowledge Content in Key Economic Sectors in Malaysia (Phase 2). Final Report. Submitted to the Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia by Intelligent Information Services Corporation, Atlanta.

  • ISIS (2002) Knowledge-Based Economy Master Plan. Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  • Kash DE and Rycroft RW (2000) Patterns of innovating complex technologies: a framework for adaptive network strategies. Research Policy 29(7–8), 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila R and Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke D and Yang S (2008) Social Network Analysis. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kraaijenbrink J and Wijnhoven F (2008) Managing heterogeneous knowledge: a theory of external knowledge integration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6(4), 274–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer KL, Linden G and Dedrick J. (2011) Capturing value in global networks: Apple’s iPad and iPhone. [WWW document] http://pcic.merage.uci.edu/papers/2011/Value_iPad_iPhone.pdf (accessed 9 March 2014).

  • Liebowitz J (2008) ‘Think of others’ in knowledge management: making culture work for you. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6(1), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-AK (2010) National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Anthem, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan R and Grover R (1998) From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing 62(4), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan S and Sawhney M (2011) Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives 25(3), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (1993) National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nold H (2011) Making knowledge management work: tactical to practical. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9(1), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly C and Tushman M (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzelli AM, Albino V and Carbonara N (2009) External knowledge sources and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management 13(5), 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1966) The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rycroft RW and Kash DE (2004) Self-organizing innovation networks: implications for globalization. Technovation 24(3), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (1991) Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sena V (2004) The return of the prince of Denmark: a survey on recent developments in the economics of innovation. Economic Journal 114(496), F312–F332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira P, Youtie J, Yogeesvaran K and Jaafar Z (2006) Knowledge economy measurement: methods, results and insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study. Research Policy 35(10), 1522–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih H-Y and Chang P-L (2010) The application of network analysis to exploring intersectoral innovation flows: an alternative approach. International Journal of Business and Information 5(2), 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (1998) Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 18(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman L, Van Eck NJ and Noyons ECM (2010) A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics 4(4), 629–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff EN and Ishaq Nadiri M (1993) Spillover effects, linkage structure, and research and development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 4(2), 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research draws on work undertaken in the project on Knowledge Content in Key Economic Sectors in Malaysia (Phase II) by Intelligent Information Systems Corporation and the Georgia Tech Technology Policy and Assessment Center for the Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department, Malaysia. Additional support for methodological development and publication of results was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement Numbers 0531184 and 0938099. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Planning Unit or NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, U.S.A.

    Luciano Kay

  2. Georgia Tech Program in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Luciano Kay

  3. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Jan Youtie

  4. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, U.K.

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Luciano Kay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Youtie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciano Kay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kay, L., Youtie, J. & Shapira, P. Inter-industry knowledge flows and sectoral networks in the economy of Malaysia. Knowl Manage Res Pract 14, 280–294 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.30

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.30

Keywords

Search

Navigation