See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367408947

Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders: the case of SMEs in China

Article in Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · January 2023

DOI: 10.1108/JBIM-01-2022-0005

CITATIONS READS

2 54

4 authors, including:

Tayyaba Akram Yuxiang Hong

Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management … Hangzhou Dianzi University
27 PUBLICATIONS 1,265 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 303 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tayyaba Akram on 07 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Knowledge co-creation with multiple
stakeholders: the case of SMEs in China
Yue Zhang
School of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China
Shanshan Wang
Centre for Care Research and Consultancy (LUCAS), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Tayyaba Akram
Faculty of Management Sciences, BUITEMS, Quetta, Pakistan, and
Yuxiang Hong
School of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China leverage their strengths to engage
stakeholders in knowledge co-creation processes and get mutual benefit via knowledge-based view (KBV).
Design/methodology/approach – Based on KBV, the authors conduct a multiple-case study of five SMEs in China to embrace the knowledge co-
creation practice using semi-structured interview, organizational documents and onsite observation.
Findings – This study highlights how SMEs leverage their strengths to engage stakeholder to co-create knowledge and practice for the better
capturing and utilization of external and internal knowledge. The authors identify three processes of knowledge co-creation for SMEs based on
knowledge sharing, knowledge integration and knowledge application in the B2B context. This study finds that SMEs engage their stakeholders in
knowledge sharing by building and maintaining trust. The knowledge integration process was driven by the owner’s openness. Mutual learning
facilitates the knowledge application process of SMEs.
Research limitations/implications – This study relies on a limited number of case studies and considers only firms’ perspective to analyze the
SMEs co-create knowledge with their stakeholders. Further studies could examine the challenge of knowledge co-creation in multiple stakeholders’
relationships in B2B contexts, i.e. in relation to product and service innovation with complexity and uncertainly.
Practical implications – Managers need to make choices when designing knowledge co-creation process in collaborative product development
activities. The use of online and offline approaches can help balance requirements in terms of joint problem-solving across firms, the efficiency of
knowledge co-creation and effective of knowledge leakage.
Originality/value – The conceptualization of knowledge co-creation as knowledge sharing and knowledge integration and knowledge application
extends existing perspective on knowledge co-creation as either a transfer of knowledge or as revealing the novel situation of pertinent knowledge
with entirely assimilate it. The findings point to the complexity of knowledge co-creation as a process influenced by stakeholder engagement,
perspectives on knowledge, trust of multiple stakeholders, openness of firm boundaries and mutual learning of SMEs with their stakeholders.
Keywords Knowledge co-creation, Stakeholder engagement, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge integration, Knowledge application
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have long been
regarded as a key economic sector and drivers of employment,
economic growth, wealth creation and social stability (Oke
et al., 2007; Coyte et al., 2012). However, with economic
restructuring and rapid technological changes becoming the
new norm, their viability is severely threatened (Soto-Acosta
et al., 2018). One of the key ways in which SMEs can thrive in
the midst of fierce competition, is how adept they are at creating
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm
new knowledge (Coyte et al., 2012; Durst and Wilhelm, 2012).
Owing to the liability of smallness and resource constraints,
SMEs must establish and maintain cooperative relations with
other firms to overcome the limitations pertaining to
information access (Spraggon and Bodolica, 2008) and thus
The authors thank anonymous referees and the editors of this journal for their
very insightful and constructive comments. This work was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 72204070),
Hangzhou Philosophy and Social Sciences of China (grant number
Z22JC091), China Scholarship Council (file number 202109530056).
Furthermore, the authors also would like to acknowledge the helpful
comments and suggestions of Professor Alton Chua (Nanyang Technological
University), who gives professional guidance for the basic framework and
theoretical foundation of this research.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Received 4 January 2022
38/10 (2023) 2170–2182 Revised 10 June 2022
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 30 November 2022
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-01-2022-0005] Accepted 30 November 2022

2170
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
gain novel knowledge (Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
Accordingly, interorganizational knowledge collaboration is
critical and requires detail co-creation processes for firms (Ruiz-
Alba et al., 2020). Therefore, it is beneficial for SMEs to engage
various stakeholders in the knowledge creation process (Ferasso
and Grenier, 2021).
Knowledge co-creation refers to the multilateral interactions
among heterogeneous stakeholder groups for exchanging ideas,
solving problems, generating alternatives and collectively
producing new knowledge (Zhang et al., 2019; Kazadi et al.,
2016; Amann and Rubinelli, 2017; Mariano and Awazu, 2017;
Abbate et al., 2019; Goyal et al., 2020). Previous research
focuses on identifying a number of institutional enablers for
knowledge co-creation, such as ownership structure (Su et al.,
2015), organizational culture as well as individual factors
(Mariano and Awazu, 2017), partners’ compatibility and
complementarity (Chang et al., 2019) and online settings
(Zhang et al., 2019; Abbate et al., 2019). Interorganizational
collaboration has been found to be pivotal for organizations to
gain access to knowledge, social interactions and physical
resources (Mariano and Awazu, 2017; Abbate et al., 2019;
Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
However, SMEs are excluded from the mainstream
discussion on knowledge co-creation, even though scholars
agree that external knowledge integration and co-development
play an increasingly significant role for SMEs in fulfilling
innovation needs (Van de Vrande et al., 2009; Brunswicker and
Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
Furthermore, previous research suggests that knowledge
creation of SMEs is often strongly embedded in social and
personal ties. However, researchers have hardly explored how
SMEs can purposively make use of these ties to source ideas
and knowledge for innovation. Moreover, scholars have paid
less attention on the strengths of SMEs for co-creation practice,
in particular, the conditions which influence the knowledge co-
creation in B2B market.
In B2B context, co-creation practice is realized through the
interaction between a firm with its surrounding network
composed of multiple stakeholders (Kohtamäki and Partanen,
2016; Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2016; Kazadi et al., 2016). To
address the resource limitations experienced by SMEs, they
would benefit, in particular, from interacting with various
stakeholders, which helps organizations acquire information
and promote growth for SMEs (Lee et al., 2010; Brunswicker
and Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
Although the role of stakeholder engagement in SMEs’
business innovation is recognized (Veronica et al., 2020; Lee
et al., 2010), little attention has been given to the fact that how
to leverage stakeholders along with the objective situation for
SMEs. Thus, it is essential to identify how SMEs purposively
leverage their strengths to gather knowledge from multiple
stakeholders, overcome the interdepartmental conflicts and co-
create knowledge.
Hence, the purpose of this research is to examine the
knowledge co-creation practice of Chinese SMEs, through the
theoretical lens of knowledge-based view (KBV) theory. We
explore the advantage of SMEs which require to be integrated
to fulfill knowledge co-creation in SMEs. Therefore, this
research aims to answer the following research question:
2171
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
RQ1. How do SMEs leverage their strengths to engage
stakeholders in knowledge co-creation processes?
Using an exploratory multi-case study approach, data were
collected from five knowledge-intensive SMEs, located within
the Yangtze River Delta region, a locale entailing a sizeable
proportion of SMEs in China and whose innovative capabilities
are stronger vis-

a-vis other Chinese regions (Chen et al., 2011).
Companies of knowledge-intensive industries seek to overcome
the difficulties by forming interorganizational knowledge
interactions, which facilitates access to various knowledge
resources (Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
This research uses the already established theory of KBV to
analyze the interorganizational knowledge co-creation
processes of SMEs. By doing so, we provide three overarching
theoretical contribution to the literature on knowledge co-
creation. First, the existing KBV research focuses on the
function of internal organizations’ knowledge creation process
(Grant, 1996). Align with Ferasso and Grenier (2021). We
develop the cross-boundary knowledge creation process
between SMEs and their stakeholders, which enrich the
interorganizational perspective of KBV. Second, we explore the
SMEs knowledge co-creation practice in the B2B market with
multiple stakeholders. Our research investigates the B2B
communication strategies of SMEs with their stakeholders to
co-creation knowledge, which enrich the conditions that
influence interfunctional coordination and co-creation in B2B
markets (Ruiz-Alba et al., 2020). Third, we address the
Chinese SMEs knowledge co-creation context to answer the
call for encompassing the interplay among various stakeholders
(i.e. engaged individuals) during co-creation activities (Kazadi
et al., 2016; Abbate et al., 2019).
The paper is structured as follows. The theoretical concepts
underlying the study are reviewed in Section 2, followed by a
description of the multiple case study research method and case
description Section 3. The case analysis is then presented in
Section 4, and the implications for research and practice are
discussed in Section 5.
2. Literature review
2.1 From knowledge creation to knowledge co-creation
KBV assumes that organizations transfer, sequence and routine
the knowledge within their firms to develop a firm’s quality
goods and services (Grant, 1996). Based on KBV, knowledge is
one of the most important strategic resources of SMEs
(Nonaka, 2007; Coyte et al., 2012). Successful SMEs
consistently search for new knowledge, synthesize it with their
existing stock of knowledge (Hutchison and Quintas, 2008)
and embody the resultant knowledge in their products and
services (Coyte et al., 2012). Consequently, they are able to
generate new products, bring in new customers and open up
new markets (Wee and Chua, 2013; Mitchell and Boyle, 2010).
Unlike knowledge creation which usually takes place within
the organization, knowledge co-creation crosses organizational
boundaries and invariably involves different parties including
developers, customers, suppliers, government agencies,
intermediaries and other special interest groups, all of whom
are active nodes in the network that provides complementary
knowledge and experience (Kazadi et al., 2016; Driessen et al.,
2013). Different types of knowledge are gathered to develop
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
such co-creation practice, particularly for the B2B market
(Kohtamäki and Partanen, 2016). In this way, multi-way
interactions among diverse stakeholders allow SMEs to tap into
rich knowledge resources which help them seed ideas, identify
opportunities and solve problems (Abbate et al., 2019; Amann
and Rubinelli, 2017).
Unsurprisingly, new product development among SMEs has
gradually shifted from a knowledge creation model to one of
knowledge co-creation (Kazadi et al., 2016). For one, SMEs
constantly need to look for critical resources found externally to
overcome their inherent problem of resource scarcity and to
improve their speed of innovation (Brunswicker and
Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Lee et al., 2010). Furthermore, the
advent of social media has broken the barriers of time and space
between SMEs and their stakeholders, vastly facilitating
dialogue and collaboration (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2018).
With easy access to diverse stakeholder groups, they become
more attuned to the market and are able to respond more
quickly to consumers’ preferences (Durst and Wilhelm, 2012;
Ruhanen et al., 2021). However, most research focus on the use
the external knowledge to overcome the shortcoming of SMEs,
such as resource scarcity, there are less topic on the maximum
of SMEs’ strengths to create more knowledge and fulfill
innovation.
2.2 Stakeholder engagement as micro-foundation for
knowledge co-creation
Stakeholder engagement refers to organizational practices that
involve different stakeholders in activities such as public
relations, customer service and supplier relations (Greenwood,
2007; Noland and Phillips, 2010). Underpinned by the spirit of
respect and trust, it has been recognized as the micro-
foundation of knowledge co-creation and plays a central role in
idea generation (Storbacka et al., 2016). Recent studies have
conceptualized stakeholder engagement in terms of
dispositions and behaviors (Storbacka et al., 2016; Li et al.,
2017).
Dispositions refer to stakeholders’ internal proclivities or
psychological states (Chandler and Lusch, 2015) toward
interacting with each other (Storbacka et al., 2016). It is rooted
in the desire to attain the sense of achievement and self-
expression or simply to develop new partnerships (Storbacka
et al., 2016; Jonas et al., 2018). Such tendencies are driven by
the extent to which stakeholders are motivated to lean on their
personal and collective ideals to jointly produce something
valuable for themselves and others (Chandler and Lusch,
2015). Customers and suppliers, for example, are committed to
co-create knowledge when they both have vested interests in
the outcomes (Macey and Schneider, 2008; Ramaswamy and
Gouillart, 2010).
Engagement behaviors are observable actions including
providing comments, sharing experience, articulating
requirements and participating in design, testing and diagnosis
(Frow et al., 2015; Storbacka et al., 2016; Secundo et al., 2020).
These spontaneous and discretionary behaviors foster ideas
exchange, improve innovation capabilities and enable new
knowledge to be created (Zhang et al., 2019; Kazadi et al.,
2016). However, if there is perceived inequity or mistrust
among stakeholders, engagement behaviors can quickly turn
negative (Li et al., 2017). These include rumors and boycotts
2172
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
(Van Doorn et al., 2010). The goal is therefore for
organizations to engage their stakeholders in a way that
promotes common interests.
Although it is well recognized that stakeholder engagement
has great potential to significantly improve the efficient of co-
creation, how SMEs’ stakeholders should be leverage along
with the objective situation is poorly understood (Ferasso and
Grenier, 2021). There have also been calls for future search
that examine the broader network of stakeholders to enrich the
co-creation research (Kazadi et al., 2016).
2.3 Processes of knowledge co-creation
While its importance has been unanimously recognized, there is
little consistency among scholars as to what knowledge co-
creation represents. Some conceive it as a social communicative
process (Mariano and Awazu, 2017; Abbate et al., 2019) where
stakeholders from different organizations negotiate to match-
make the demand and supply of ideas (Pera et al., 2016).
Others regard knowledge co-creation to be synonymous with
value co-creation whose outcome can be quantified in terms of
meeting end users’ needs and improving a new product’s
market position (Amann and Rubinelli, 2017; Zhang et al.,
2019). Yet others treat knowledge co-creation as an
interorganizational learning process (Acharya et al., 2018)
through which individuals’ experiential learning and logically
drawn inferences become embedded within their respective
institutional memories and structures.
Informed by the literature, this paper conceptualizes
knowledge co-creation as a set of three overlapping and
interdependent processes, namely knowledge sharing,
knowledge integration and knowledge application involving
multiple stakeholders bound by shared goals and mutual
benefits at the individual and organizational levels. KBV theory
pointed that organizations’ integration of different types of
knowledge could support knowledge features such as,
transferability, aggregation and appropriability. In our
research, we develop the knowledge co-creation processes
compose of knowledge sharing, knowledge integration and
knowledge application to mirror the transferability, aggregation
and appropriability of knowledge. In the context of SMEs,
knowledge co-creation should necessarily include participation
from stakeholders such as suppliers, customers and
government agencies.
Knowledge sharing refers to the exchange and dissemination
of ideas, experience and skills within or across organizations,
which mirrored the process of knowledge transferring
(Cavaliere et al., 2015; De Zubielqui et al., 2015). It entails
cycles of conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge in a shared
space which can be both physical and virtual (Nonaka, 1994;
Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Lopez-Nicolas and Soto-Acosta,
2010). The advent of the internet, social media and mobile
technology has greatly enhanced access to this shared space
(Wee and Chua, 2013). In particular, SMEs can connect easily
to different stakeholders anytime and anywhere and participate
in knowledge sharing.
Mutual trust among SMEs and their stakeholders sets the
stage for stakeholder engagement during knowledge sharing.
Trust is both cognitive-based, which is grounded in one another’s
reliability and competence, as well as relationship-based, which
grows out of care and concern (Wee and Chua, 2013). To foster
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
mutual trust, all parties must ideally share some common topics
of interests (Von Krogh et al., 2003; Foos et al., 2006; Weretecki
et al., 2021), ranging from personal pursuits such as leisure
activities and hobbies to professional subject matters such as
industry trends and consumer preferences. As personal-
professional lines blur, there is a greater willingness and candor to
express views and share knowledge, allowing SMEs to glean
insights into the market which would otherwise be obscured.
Knowledge integration, align with knowledge aggregation,
involves amassing new expertise and practices and thereafter
synthesizing them with the existing stock of knowledge (Cao
et al., 2015; Eslami and Lakemond, 2016). When integrated,
knowledge components can help clarify informational gaps,
identify areas of conflicts or inadequacies and fuel more
creative interactions (Harvey, 2014). Previous research
mentions that the interfunctional coordination of sales, finance,
logistics and marketing activities can increase the effectiveness
of firms (Ruiz-Alba et al., 2020; Auh and Menguc, 2005). It is
accepted that interorganizational collaboration is useful for
effective co-developed innovation (Ferasso and Grenier, 2021).
For SMEs, they must constantly cultivate external relationships
with stakeholders and leverage communication channels such
as social media and face-to-face meetings (Mitchell and Boyle,
2010; van de Vrande et al., 2009). During synthesis, SMEs
invariably go through the process of sorting what is relevant and
useful, and making tweaks to their internal knowledge
structures so that new, valuable knowledge can be integrated
(Berggren et al., 2011; Ohata and Kumar, 2012).
Having a culture of openness at two levels help stimulate
stakeholder engagement during knowledge integration. The
first is personal. Traits such as imaginativeness, curiosity and
open-mindedness predispose the individuals to seek for
different experiences and practices (Tan et al., 2019). Such
personal openness widens social network relations among
stakeholders, which could provide channels for knowledge
flows and necessary coordination (Inkpen and Tsang, 2016).
The second level is organizational. Embracing experimentation
and is undaunted by failures, an organization with an open
culture actively solicit differing viewpoints, including
marginalized voices, and where appropriate, incorporate them
into the process of decision-making (Pless and Maak, 2004).
Furthermore, SMEs which are unshackled by procedural
rigidity are better poised to integrate new knowledge (Van de
Vrande et al., 2009; Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013).
Knowledge application is defined as the process by which
knowledge resources are deployed in the production of outputs,
typically in the form of new products, services and processes
(Kraaijenbrink, 2012), which mainly associated with
appropriation of knowledge. During this process, new
awareness, experiences and insights diffuse across
organizational projects or work processes and become
routinized in the activities of those projects or processes (Hong
et al., 2016; Hakanen, 2014; Purvis et al., 2001). It entails
understanding and interpreting knowledge in the context in
which it was originally used (Hakanen, 2014), and thereafter,
applying it to a fresh situation (Durst and Wilhelm, 2012; Zieba
et al., 2016). In so doing, SMEs enjoy the benefits of the lessons
learned elsewhere and are able avoid repeating past mistakes.
Mutual learning between SMEs and their stakeholders
nurtures the process of knowledge application. On the one
2173
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
hand, as these stakeholders learn more about the products and
services offered, they could provide suggestions on how these
could further be improved for optimal use. On the other hand,
as SMEs learn from their stakeholders on actual usage
experiences or the shift in requirements (Appelbaum et al.,
2017; Cai et al., 2019), they could revise their current offerings
to better meet customers’ needs or develop new lines of
products and services for an emerging market segment. This
leads to the search and creation of novel ideas. Over time, new
insights from various stakeholders become internalized,
embedded and firmly applied into SMEs’ business strategies
and value-chain activities (Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013; Chang
et al., 2019). The resultant products and services inspire a new
round of knowledge co-creation activities. Table 1 summarizes
the interaction between SMEs and their stakeholders.
Although the interaction between SMEs and their
stakeholders are well recognized (Veronica et al., 2020; Lee
et al., 2010), little attention has been given to the fact that the
strength of SMEs may not be equal valued for the knowledge
co-creation processes. Through the lens of the interaction
activities between SMEs and their stakeholders, we develop the
framework to explain how SMEs to leverage their strengths to
engage stakeholders in the knowledge co-creation processes.
3. Methodology
Taking into account the inductive nature of the research
question, this paper adopts multiple exploratory case study
methodology to explore the phenomenon within its context,
using a wide range of data sources (Yin, 2013). In general, case
study which involves rich and contextual data, can shed insights
on the “how” type of research questions (Eisenhardt, 1989)
and are thus appropriate for this paper. The case selected is the
five knowledge-intensive SMEs located within the Yangtze
River Delta region of China, have a good track record of
producing new products and services and have shown evidence
of proactively interacting with a diverse range of stakeholders.
Company A was founded in 2013 as a medical software
design company that develops applications across a breadth of
devices including desktop, mobile and tablet. It currently
employs 32 staff. The owner, who has more than 15 years of
relevant experience, previously worked in Tencent, a huge
Chinese multinational technology conglomerate.
Company B is a mobile applications development company
for the area of medicine. Started in 2013, the company
currently has 27 employees. The owner, who has been in the
mobile applications industry for 10 years, formerly worked for
Alibaba, one of the biggest online commerce companies in
China.
Companies C and D are technical consulting companies
started in 2012 and 2014 with a current staff strength of 21 and
30, respectively. They provide business transformation
solutions and help refresh clients’ legacy systems through
technology and design thinking. The owner of Company D
previously worked for ByteDance, a Chinese multinational
internet company. The owners of both SMEs have been in the
technical consulting industry for 15 years.
Company E designs and deploys video surveillance systems
using mobile cloud computing for enterprises and individual
users. It was established in 2012 and currently employs 35 staff.
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182

Table 1 Interaction between SMEs and their stakeholders retrieved from the literature
Constituent processes of
knowledge co-creation
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge integration
Knowledge application
Stakeholder engagement
 Mutual trust among SMEs and their stakeholders sets the stage for stakeholder engagement during knowledge
sharing
 To foster mutual trust, all parties must ideally share some common topics of interests (von Krogh et al., 2003;
Foos et al., 2006)
 As personal-professional lines blur, there is a greater willingness to share knowledge
 Having a culture of openness at two levels helps stimulate stakeholder engagement during knowledge
integration
 At the personal level, traits such as imaginativeness, curiosity and open-mindedness predispose the individuals to
seek for different experiences and new practices (Tan et al., 2019)
 Such open-mindedness also widens social network relations among stakeholders, which could provide channels
for coordination (Inkpen and Tsang, 2016)
 At the organizational level, SMEs which embrace experimentation, actively solicit differing viewpoints and are
unshackled by procedural rigidity are better poised to integrate new knowledge (Pless and Maak, 2004)
 Mutual learning of SMEs and their stakeholder nurtures knowledge application
 Stakeholders learn more about the products and services offered and provide suggestions for optimal use
 SMEs learn from their stakeholders on actual usage experiences which leads to the search and creation of novel
ideas
 Over time, new insights become firmly assimilated (Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013; Chang et al., 2019) and inspire
a new round of knowledge co-creation activities

The owner has been involved in surveillance systems for almost
20 years.
Five SMEs, which met all the above criteria, expressed
willingness to participate. Established between 2012 and 2013,
they mainly offered software services and hardware design for
corporate and individual users. The SME owners also
introduced their stakeholders with whom they interacted most
frequently and who were also keen to be involved in this
research. This resulted in a total of 28 participants, comprising
owners, employees, end users, government officials, vendors
and intermediaries. Integral to the SME ecosystem in China,
intermediaries are agents who provide information about
potential collaborators and help broker transactions between
two or more parties Table 2 shows the profiles and the details of
the participants.
We collected data via various sources following Yin (2003).
First, interviews and onsite observations, joint meeting were
used to collect primary data. Second, we gathered secondary
data about knowledge creation activities of these five cases from
SMEs websites and reports. Data collection stretched across
11 months from June 2020 to May 2021. Our research team
contains six people, and all of them are involved in this process.
During this period, a total of 28 in-depth semi-structured
interviews were conducted with the participants. Prior to the
interview, participants were contacted by phone and were
assured of anonymity of their participation and that only non-
commercially sensitive data would be collected. They could
bypass a question or terminate the session if they wished. Each
interview lasted between 40 and 70 min and was audio-
recorded with the permission of the interviewee, and
subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Interview questions were designed to be semi-structured to
allow impromptu probing whenever participants raised an
interesting point (Eisenhardt, 1989). Guided by knowledge co-
creation and stakeholder engagement literature, the questions
were structured around three themes, namely, knowledge
sharing, knowledge integration, knowledge application. For
example, participants were asked how they shared knowledge
with SMEs, what was shared and what motivated them to share
(Wee and Chua, 2013). In the case of SMEs owners and
employees, the question would be how they engaged external
stakeholders to share knowledge. On knowledge integration,
participants were asked to describe how they were involved in
helping SMEs gain insights such as spotting a trend or
discovering innovative ideas (Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013). In
the case of SMEs owners and employees, the question would be

Table 2 Summary of participants

Participants
SME Business category O Emp Cus Ven Int Gov City
Company A Software design 1 2 1 1 1 1 Shanghai
Company B Software design 1 1 1 1 –
Company C Technical consulting 1 2 1 – – 1 Ningbo
Company D Technical consulting 1 2 1 – –
Company E Surveillance system 1 2 2 1 1 1 Nanjing
Total number of participants 28
Notes: O: Owner; Emp: employees; Cus: customers; Ven: vendors; Int: intermediaries; Gov: government officials

2174
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
the approach they used to determine if a set of new knowledge
derived from their interaction with their stakeholders was
relevant and useful (Ohata and Kumar, 2012). On knowledge
application, participants were asked whether their interactions
with the SMEs had resulted in any changes to the SMEs’
organizational practices and if they could identify reasons that
led to these changes (Hong et al., 2016; Purvis et al., 2001). In
the case of SME owners and employees, the question would be
how they went about internalizing and embedding a set of new
knowledge into their business strategies and value-chain
activities. At appropriate juncture, participants were also asked
to comment on the extent to which they thought they had a part
to play in the SMEs’ development of new products and
services.
Apart from the interviews, a total of 198 non-commercially
sensitive documents including meeting agendas, planning
documents and news reports from the five SMEs were
collected. These records provided valuable insights into the
SMEs’ cooperation with their stakeholders. Additionally, a
total of 15 onsite observations, three for each SME, were
carried. Lasting for an average of two working days, each onsite
observation afforded a glimpse of the engagement dynamics
between the SMEs and their stakeholders. The interview
transcripts, archival records and onsite observation notes were
translated from Chinese into English. Two Master students
and one lecturer of our research team were involved in the data
translation process and the translated manuscript were check
by each other to improve the translation quality.
Data were analyzed according to systematic combining
approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) and then build
relationships to existing literatures. It is a constant comparison
process that researchers analyze the collected data and imply
the analyzed results compared with the existing theory in an
iterative process. Based on such iterative process, we
interchanged data to theory, to find reasonable explanation of
what were observed and further close theoretical gap. All of our
research team members were involved in the data analysis
process. We identified consistent patterns in the data and
organize them around the themes of how the SMEs leveraged
stakeholder engagement in knowledge sharing, knowledge
integration and knowledge application.
4. Findings
Guided by the research question, we focus our attention on the
SMEs’ strengths during their interorganizational collaboration.
Then, we explored how SMEs leverage their strengths to
engage stakeholders in the knowledge co-creation processes
through online and offline strategies.
4.1 Small and medium-sized enterprises engage their
stakeholders in knowledge sharing by building and
maintaining trust
SMEs used the social networking platform and instant
messaging application to facilitate online knowledge sharing
with various stakeholders. One of the common strategies used
by SMEs to reach out to prospective customers was to appeal to
their inherent interests on technical topics. For example,
Companies A and B actively used Zhihu, a popular community
question-answering platform, to post questions on interface
2175
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
design to draw the attention of anyone who was interested.
Using the threaded online discussion, SME employees were
able to exchange ideas with these users on issues such as the
choice of different color schemes, and the development of light
and dark mode interfaces. Such an approach worked well. Over
time, when a certain level of trust had been built, these users
became regular knowledge sharing partners with the SMEs,
offering invaluable feedback on yet-to-be launched products
and services.
To engage stakeholders such as existing customers, suppliers
and intermediaries with whom the SMEs already had an
ongoing relationship, the popular instant messaging application
WeChat was used. WeChat group has a certain threshold of
entry, and the privacy of such group is higher than that in an
open social network platform such as Zhihu. The topics of
sharing were naturally more contextualized and time-sensitive.
For instance, the customer of Company C would share
problems encountered in an existing project including
compatibility failures and system errors. When resolved
promptly, these issues enabled Company C to earn goodwill
from the customer. As the SMEs developed stronger mutual
trust with their stakeholders, they were also more prepared to
reveal their vulnerability, such as operational challenges. The
owner of Company E explained:
In the WeChat group of employees and supplier, our people would tell
suppliers the problems we encountered. An example was related to
customer after-sales service. Our supplier was nice and quickly offered
appropriate solutions [. . .].
In addition, offline knowledge sharing always occurred through
“face-to-face” discussion or meeting. “Face-to-face”
discussions otherwise known as “standing meetings” were held
on an ad-hoc basis between SME employees and their
customers or suppliers to share perspectives, generate
alternatives and resolve problems. Usually attended by between
two to five persons standing around a table in the office, each
standing meeting lasted no more than 15 min. This open
environment allowed others not involved but were interested to
participate. During an onsite observation at Company D,
participants of the standing meeting showed unbridled
enthusiasm in expressing their opinions and working toward a
consensus. With informal standing meeting, the participate are
likely to communicate the informal and private grapevine which
are more interesting and apriority, to strengthen the sharing
intention and mutual trust. Besides creating the opportunity to
brainstorm ideas, standing meetings greatly promoted an
atmosphere of collaboration between SMEs and their
stakeholders. A customer of Company B disclosed:
The face-to-face setting allowed the employees to better understand my
requirements, while I can better understand their constraints. In this way,
we can jointly find a solution. This is win-win for everyone.
With different level of trust, the online and offline knowledge
sharing have different phenomenon. For online knowledge
sharing, the trust ties between SMEs and their stakeholders
are loose. Besides the competitors, the stakeholders prefer to
share information and knowledge that are not critical to the
core technology, patent and business secret with companies.
For the offline knowledge sharing, because of the high mutual
trust in their collaborations, they tend to contribute to sharing
more professional and critical knowledge and technology to
stronger the partner relationships.
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
4.2 Knowledge integration process was driven by
owners’ openness
Given the small size of SMEs, whatever values held by the
owners are also effectively diffused throughout the
organization. In particular, among the five SMEs interviewed,
the personal openness observed in the owners was also
conspicuously found at the organizational level. Employees also
felt empowered to make decisions, take calculated risks and
explored novel ways of solving problems through the internet.
Based on the online knowledge integration, employees could
effectively and efficiently synergy and gather amount of useful
information through multiple ways. The companies benefit
form online knowledge integration and promote the response
efficiency to the requirements of stakeholders.
During an onsite observation at Company B, their employees
were enthusiastically involved in the selection and make a
decision on the core technologies offered by the suppliers which
has significant commercial value or take short period to realize
value. Along with the flexible and openness of online
integration, the employees also do some continuous
exploitative innovation such as imitation and improvement of
those technologies to fulfill the customized demand of the
customers. An employee of Company D noted:
I appreciate the openness of my boss. This gives me freedom to explore
different possibilities through the Internet when I try to solve customers’
problems.
For the offline knowledge integration, the studied companies
rely on the owners’ personal openness and their social
networking. The SME owners’ personal openness proved to be
invaluable in fostering the process of knowledge integration. In
particular, three of the five owners interviewed were former
employees of technology giants such as Alibaba, Tencent and
ByteDance. Apart from reaping the benefit of forging a wide
network of connections with industry peers, they also
subconsciously developed the value of being flexible, tolerant
and inclusive.
Such personal traits helped them maintain ties with these
business partners even after they ventured out on their own.
Hence, the companies could leverage the previous relationship
networks to access industry resources and to keep a pulse on the
market, including product trends and economic growth
trajectories. However, the companies also need to deal with the
conflicts due to the various demands of stakeholders. The
studied companies try to collaborated with the universities and
laboratories based on the owners’ previous social ties, which
help the companies gain access to scientific discoveries in the
field. Moreover, the external collaborations have an important
role in updating of companies’ exiting technology, resulting in
greater encountering conflicts of intellectual properties. With
their open-mindedness, these SME owners were able to
integrate differentiation strategies to handle the conflicts and
facilitate the establishment of partnerships. As the owner of
Company A commented:
I still maintain contact with several industry partners after I’ve left Alibaba
to start this company. And I’m always open to what they have to say. In fact,
I learned from them the usefulness of frontier technology to develop my
current products offerings [. . .] and we also collaborate with different
stakeholder to handle the conflicts, such as work with suppliers to handle the
conflicts of customers[. . .].
2176
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
Owners of Companies C and E manifested their openness by
embracing the drinking culture. Occurring after office hours,
these owners and their employees met customers or suppliers
over a drink. Acquaintances of customers or suppliers would
sometimes come along, allowing snow-ball relationships to be
cultivated. Along with the expanded social networks and open-
mindedness, the owners were exposed to new knowledge
sources and fresh perspectives. The conversation flowed freely
but could sometimes be steered by the SME owners depending
on the prevailing business needs. For example, the SMEs
owners could solicit opinions on the impact of a new industry
rule or how they could respond to an emerging consumer trend.
The drinking sessions thus became the precursor for SME
owners to evaluate various viewpoints and possibly integrating
them into their work processes. As the employee of Company C
pointed:
Our customers would introduce their friends who need consulting service to
us during the drinking sessions. This expands the network of our
relationships [. . .] I need to pay attention to what was discussed, particularly
new user requirements and feedback. On the next day, I would be expected
to summarize the main points for my boss. Based on the preference or
requirements of potential customers, he would select what is most
appropriate and incorporate the new ideas into our product development
plan [. . .].
Both online and offline knowledge integration acted as
facilitator in easing access to external knowledge based on the
owners’ openness. For online integration, the companies could
ease access to the multiple information and pool the useful
knowledge effectively and efficiently. They might be easier to
meet the various demand based on the online integration.
SMEs are more depend on the owners’ previous social ties and
relationship networking during offline integration. They
usually adopt differentiation strategies to establish partnership
to handle the conflicts.
4.3 Mutual learning facilitated knowledge application
process
Mutual learning among SME employees helps them to get
specialist skills and techniques which could help them to
understanding the requirements clearly and help enterprises
contribute incremental innovation. In particular, organically
formed mentoring learning relationships were prevalent among
all five SMEs. The mentoring program contains experienced
employee, technological experts from huge companies,
professional researchers from universities and newer employees
of the companies.
As role models, mentors were generous with their time and
knowledge. Besides helping their charges adjust to the new
environment and become acquainted with existing suppliers
and customers, they also dispensed valuable advice on how to
perform work-related tasks more effectively. For example, the
mentor of company C teach their new employees to bundling
similar consulting cases to find new inspiration. Such bundling
methods gradually become a new standard for employees to
deal with consulting affairs efficiently and effectively.
Eventually these new insights became routinized into the
regular work processes and bring about permanent change. As
the new employee of Company B mentioned:
I would learn the communication skills with customers from my mentor,
and he guided me to quickly handle the procedure of software design and
effectively respond to the technical problems raised by customers [. . .].
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
Deal with complex and specific knowledge, the studied
companies try to get access to collaboration with experts in the
field. The mentoring program with external experts were
popular in SMEs. The studied companies hire technical
employees worked in technology giants and professional
researchers of university as part-time mentors to guide the inner
employee. SMEs prefer use existing knowledge and technology
to decrease the R&D input and improve their firms’
performance. The hired part-time mentors (experts) use their
rest time to provide advanced scientific discoveries and
methods guidance to the employees of SMEs. In this way,
employees of SMEs could learn to apply the advanced
technology to encounter the customers technical needs to seek
for technical solutions. Influenced with epidemic of Covid-19,
the unnecessary guidance was conducted through online
meetings. While the online mentoring is not as well as efficiency
of offline. As the employees of Company D mentioned:
It is really efficient to get guidance from the external experts [. . .] We could
get advanced negotiation skills and enrich our existing knowledge to
improve the application of novel knowledge [. . .] Though the knowledge
transfer capability is improved, to some extent these external mentoring
program gain stress on our well-being [. . .].
Besides the mentoring program, building supplier-customer
relationships and facilitate the interaction resulted in idea
generation and knowledge application. SMEs encourage
employees to try trial and error for key issues for assimilate and
apply the useful knowledge from customers. They could adjust
the procedure and skills to renew the products and service to
ensure the user experience, improve the service quality. As the
employees of Company C pointed, the customers ask for the
protection of their personal phone information, so they
efficiently add encryption settings in the customer’s archive
materials to protect the individual privacy.
Agility to learn from the government and intermediaries can
help SMEs update their development strategies and help
enterprises contribute to radical innovation. Especially, when
exploring an emerging market for a new product or a service,
SMEs often benefited from having a better understanding of
the regulatory landscape and the range of government schemes
available. For example, Company A and Company B benefit
from their medical software service strategies aligning with the
local regulatory landscape to get financial support from local
governments.
In the knowledge application process, the studied companies
blurred the online and offline application. They prefer to
improve their agility to learn from external experts,
governmental policies and customers’ needs to gain access to
the advanced scientific discoveries, public investments and
technology solutions.
Co-learning, co-diagnosis and co-problem-solving with
stakeholders are turned out to be able to provide an active
contribution. By championing a mindset of continuous
improvement, SME owners encourage their employees to
share, integrate and assimilate/apply various knowledge with
stakeholders to co-create novel knowledge. In this way, SMEs
ease access to a wide range of cooperation resources which
promote the efficiency of product updating and innovation.
With novel knowledge co-creation, SMEs carried out a new
round of knowledge sharing, knowledge integration and
2177
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
knowledge application. The key findings are summarized in the
Table 3.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This research seeks to examine how SMEs leverage their
strengths to engage with stakeholders in the knowledge co-
creation processes through online and offline perspectives. It
supports the main insights embedded in the framework – how
to stimulate knowledge co-creation (Kazadi et al., 2016;
Amann and Rubinelli, 2017; Abbate et al., 2019) and develop
this framework through online and offline perspective.
5.1 Discussion of findings
Trust plays a critical role in the knowledge sharing and co-
creation processes (von Krogh et al., 2003; Foos et al., 2006;
Wee and Chua, 2013). We enrich the dynamic relationship
built on trust, in the online and offline sharing process. SMEs
are flexible to deal with short and tiny business activities
(Brunswicker and Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Coyte et al., 2012;
Ferasso and Grenier, 2021), which could help these SMEs to
be adaptive to the dynamic cooperative relationship and
maintain the mutual trust. Based on KBV, we find that the
knowledge sharing or transferring activities make contribution
to the co-problem-solving and improve the stakeholders
understanding. The trust ties of offline knowledge sharing are
stronger than online, the content shared is more professional,
and the stronger the partner relationships, the more critical the
knowledge shared.
In the knowledge integration process, the empirical findings
are aligned with the existing research on owners’ openness to
helping organizations gain easier access to external knowledge
(Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013; Inkpen and Tsang, 2016).
Although the literature on knowledge integration stresses that
owners’ social ties facilitate access to various resources (Ferasso
and Grenier, 2021; Driessen et al., 2013), the conflict handling
processes of SMEs have not been clearly addressed. We also
found that the SMEs are inclusive to pool the various
information and technology together and then to find
collaborative interaction to co-diagnose the multiple conflicts.
A novel finding from our empirical cases proved that employees
of SMEs were empowered to obtain ready-made and
comparatively professional skills from the internet to meet the
various demands of stakeholders. For the knowledge co-
creation of the B2B context, social media acts mainly as a
“facilitator” for gathering different voices and pieces of
knowledge together, which are required for developing
products, systems and solutions (Aquilani et al., 2016; Eslami
and Lakemond, 2016).
Another strength of SMEs is that their social ties are tight
and informal (Wee and Chua, 2013). SME owners’ openness
to the social networking is what facilitates the partnerships for
SMEs (Inkpen and Tsang, 2016). Our research revealed how
their previous working experiences, and maintaining the social
ties formed through those, allowed SMEs to gain access to the
expert knowledge of their industry peers (De Zubielqui et al.,
2015). During offline knowledge integration, SME owners
adopted different strategies when collaborating with various
stakeholders and handling conflicts (Wee and Chua, 2013). In
China, the drinking culture is a popular avenue through which
 Table 3 SMEs engaging stakeholders in knowledge co-creation processes

Knowledge co- Contribution to knowledge co-

creation processes Strengths Activities Engaging stakeholders creation
Knowledge sharing  Flexible to deal with dynamic  Online: sharing feedback and experience on social networking and  Setting and resetting the  Co-problem-solving
trust between SMEs and their instant messaging application common goal  Strengthen specialist skills and
Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders

stakeholders  Offline: standing meeting for internal and external sharing  Dynamic of trust building techniques
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong

 Stakeholders understanding
Knowledge integration  Owners’ openness and  Online: Effective and efficient knowledge integration; employees  Select valued knowledge  Co-diagnosis
inclusive facilitate informal were empowered to collect information and technology from the based on openness to the  Generate and enrich the professional
social ties building for SMEs internet diversity requirements and practical knowledge pool

2178
 Offline: owners’ social networking; drinking culture  Manage conflicts of the  Strengthen cooperation
various social ties
Knowledge application  The agility of learning potential  Online: online mentoring (interorganizational mentoring); be  Encourage error and trial  Co-analyzing
supportive and fair  New applied situation and  Gain access to advanced scientific
 Offline: offline mentoring (internal and external mentoring); new combination discoveries and update
building supplier-customer relationships to apply the external organizational knowledge structure
knowledge; align with governmental policies  Improve self-efficacy and optimize
organizational process
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
social ties are maintained and contains useful informal
information to help offline problem identification and idea
generation. Depending on the openness of owners, online
knowledge integration is more efficient than offline integration,
while offline integration is better for developing social ties and
helps pave the way for long-term cooperation.
During the knowledge application process of knowledge co-
creation, our research has shown that learning from various
stakeholders facilitates the utilization of existing and advanced
knowledge. This aligned with the research on SMEs learning
from their stakeholders, actual usage experiences and the shift
in requirements (Appelbaum et al., 2017; Cai et al., 2019).
Based on the agility strength of SMEs, we also developed
mutual learning through a mentoring program for SMEs in the
context of China. Mentoring relationship with external experts,
such as part-time technology workers and professional
researchers (Connell and Voola, 2013), facilitates advanced
scientific discoveries, which are then used to improve SMEs
working procedures and technology adoption. During the
knowledge application of B2B context, mentoring as the core
learning method facilitate the co-analyzing the application
situation for SMEs with their stakeholders, which improve the
stakeholders’ self-efficacy and optimize organizational process.
Online platforms only facilitate the information search and
learning, while offline guidance is more efficient for applying
novel knowledge and technology. Moreover, we investigated
the access of SMEs to public funding, based on their
connection with the cluster (Ferasso and Grenier, 2021; De
Zubielqui et al., 2015). It is proven that agility in learning about
government policies and complying with regulatory
requirements, allows SMEs to gain public funding more
conveniently. SMEs who had updated their previous process
and procedures to were favored when making public funding
decisions. Align with Ruiz-Alba et al. (2020), we also find that
the alignment interest, openness culture and the agility of
mutual learning are critical for the SMEs to have
interfunctional coordination with their stakeholders and
facilitate co-create knowledge through the processes of
knowledge sharing, knowledge integration and knowledge
application.
5.2 Theoretical contributions
We contribute to the existing literature in three ways. First, the
existing KBV research focuses on the function of internal
organizations’ knowledge creation process (Grant, 1996).
Aligning with Abbate et al. (2019), we develop a new
perspective around the interorganizational level of knowledge
creation process and enrich the knowledge co-creation
processes with stakeholder engagement through the online and
offline perspectives. We enrich the collaborative knowledge co-
creation processes through knowledge sharing, knowledge
integration and knowledge application in business markets to
answer the call for finding a more in-depth exploration of the
conditions to materialize the co-creation practice (Marcos-
Cuevas et al., 2016).
Second, we investigate the B2B communication strategies of
SMEs to co-create knowledge with its surrounding network
composed of customers, vendors and intermediaries
(Kohtamäki and Partanen, 2016). Based on KBV, this research
finds that SMEs use the common interest and common goals to
2179
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
build interorganizational and individual trust (Von Krogh et al.,
2003; Foos et al., 2006; Wee and Chua, 2013), which engage
more and more stakeholders involve in the internal and external
knowledge transfer or sharing (De Zubielqui et al., 2015).
Owners’ openness is most important for SMEs to expand their
formal and informal ties with stakeholders (Lionzo and
Rossignoli, 2013; Inkpen and Tsang, 2016), which can
continuously strengthen its potential for aggregation and
integration to overcome conflict. This study also develops a
view on the strength of SMEs to be agile regarding mutual
learning (Lionzo and Rossignoli, 2013; Appelbaum et al., 2017;
Cai et al., 2019), which engage the stakeholders involve in the
knowledge application process to co-create useful knowledge
and optimize the knowledge appropriation.
Third, we answer the call for encompassing the interplay
among various stakeholders (i.e. engaged individuals) during
co-creation activities (Pera et al., 2016; Kazadi et al., 2016;
Acharya et al., 2018; Abbate et al., 2019). We address the
Chinese SMEs context to explore their network of stakeholders
to produce new products and services in a highly competitive
environment. The important role of SME owners in the
knowledge co-creation processes were highlighted, which aligns
with the literature regarding the owners’ role in gaining access
to different types of assets in the knowledge creation process
(Ferasso and Grenier, 2021). Our study also aligns with the
research about SMEs purposively interacting with external
sources for new ideas (Van de Vrande et al., 2009; Brunswicker
and Vanhaverbeke, 2015). Through exploring the association
between different types of SMEs and their stakeholders, we
find several mentoring ways for SMEs to take advantage of their
strengths in attracting more stakeholders to be involved in the
knowledge co-creation processes (Connell and Voola, 2013).
5.3 Implications for practice
This research provides useful insights related to the
development of knowledge co-creation for SMEs. First, our
study points to the importance of stakeholders for SMEs for co-
creating knowledge. For SMEs, social media and short
meetings should be used to maintain trusting relationships,
which help with the formal and informal knowledge sharing
with stakeholders. As shown in this research, practitioners need
to improve their tolerance to maintain the different levels of
trust, which could enhance their access to heterogeneous
knowledge and resources. Incentives and common rewards
should be acquired to ensure that knowledge sharing activities
are fruitful, which could help employees gather diverse
knowledge and deal with complicated problems.
Second, our findings provide insights for SMEs to leverage
the owners’ social networks to handle conflicts. It is
recommended to select potential partners and use different
collaborative strategies through informal networking to pool
expert knowledge together and then solicit useful viewpoints to
match needs. In addition to potential partner selection, owners
of SMEs should keep an open mind when it comes to
professional knowledge, which helps with gaining in-depth
industry expertise and interaction skills to handle business
conflicts (Wee and Chua, 2013). In fact, regarding the excess of
information, it was discovered that stakeholders always get
confused with the mass flow of information and find it difficult
to process the relevant knowledge integration of knowledge co-
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
creation to complete collaboration. Thus, we suggest that
owners of SMEs elaborate on the target and ensure that the
SMEs have an open-minded culture, before interorganizational
knowledge integration, to avoid information overload and help
co-diagnosis during the co-creation processes.
Third, we also suggest that SMEs leverage their strengths of
agility and flexibility to develop their mentoring programs by
consulting with internal and external experts to co-create
knowledge with multiple stakeholders (Connell and Voola,
2013). In this way, they would gain access to advance scientific
discoveries in the field more easily. Managerial efforts should
be concentrated on optimizing mentoring and empowering the
employees to help knowledge application during knowledge co-
creation (Connell and Voola, 2013). Thus, it is necessary for
SMEs to nurture their agile culture and provide full support for
the implementation of mentoring strategies. This approach can
help SMEs focus on the most value-adding application
processes by narrowing down the options to the appropriate
ones. Moreover, owners of SMEs could establish professional
guidance policies which facilitate discussion with internal and
external experts and professionals to guide employees of SMEs
to co-analyze the firms’ situation and subsequently guarantee
the application of novel skills and knowledge.
5.4 Limitations and directions for future research
Building on the multiple case studies, this research provides
significant insights into how SMEs can leverage their situations
to engage with stakeholders to co-create knowledge; however, it
cannot claim generalizability given its qualitative research
method. While our findings are limited to the specific context,
we suggest that future researchers carry out quantitative data
analysis to test the dynamic relationship among knowledge
sharing, integration and application of knowledge co-creation
in other settings. To generalize the findings to all SME
practices, future research can collect data from a variety of
different industries, which can help analyze different kinds of
knowledge co-creation practices in SMEs. Studies using
different methods may contribute to testing and expanding the
results of our study.
Furthermore, this research focuses on the knowledge co-
creation processes and the activities, without considering the
internal procedures used when stakeholders engage in
knowledge co-creation processes. Further research on the
function of SMEs innovation development in regards to
knowledge co-creation processes could be considered.
Moreover, research can be undertaken to examine
organizational rules and how the workplace environment can
influence teamwork activities effect on the knowledge co-
creation processes of SMEs (Mariano and Awazu, 2017). Such
line of inquiry is likely to be of growing interest, given that the
role of SMEs within the economy is increasingly gaining
recognition.
References
Abbate, T., Codini, A.P. and Aquilani, B. (2019), “Knowledge
co-creation in open innovation digital platforms: processes,
tools and services”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 33-45.
2180
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
Acharya, A., Singh, S.K., Pereira, V. and Singh, P. (2018),
“Big data, knowledge co-creation and decision making in
fashion industry”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 90-101.
Amann, J. and Rubinelli, S. (2017), “Views of community
managers on knowledge co-creation in online communities
for people with disabilities: qualitative study”, Journal of
Medical Internet Research, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1-16.
Appelbaum, S.H., Calla, R., Desautels, D. and Hasan, L.
(2017), “The challenges of organizational agility (part 1)”,
Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Aquilani, B., Abbate, T. and Codini, A. (2016), “Co-Creation
in small-medium enterprises and open innovation
intermediaries: the case of mercatodellinnovazione.it”,
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the EuroMed
Academy of Business (EMAB), Warsaw, September 14-16.
Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2005), “Top management team
diversity and innovativeness: the moderating role of
interfunctional coordination”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 249-261.
Berggren, C., Bergek, A., Söderlund, J., Bengtsson, L. and
Hobday, M. (Eds) (2011), Knowledge integration and
Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-
Based Firms, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brunswicker, S. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015), “Open
innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs):
external knowledge sourcing strategies and internal
organizational facilitators”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1241-1263.
Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q. and Liang, L. (2019), “Developing
organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of it
capability, km capability, and innovative climate”, R&D
Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 421-438.
Cao, X., Guo, X., Liu, H. and Gu, J. (2015), “The role of
social media in supporting knowledge integration: a social
capital analysis”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 351-362.
Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S. and Giustiniano, L. (2015),
“Knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive manufacturing
firms. An empirical study of its enablers”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1124-1145.
Chandler, J.D. and Lusch, R.F. (2015), “Service systems: a
broadened framework and research agenda on value
propositions, engagement, and service experience”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Chang, J., Wang, J.J. and Bai, X. (2019), “Good match
matters: knowledge co-creation in international joint
ventures”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 48-61.
Chen, J., Chen, Y. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011), “The
influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external
technology sources on the innovative performance of
Chinese firms”, Technovation, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 362-373.
Connell, J. and Voola, R. (2013), “Knowledge integration and
competitiveness: a longitudinal study of an industry cluster”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 208-222.
Coyte, R., Ricceri, F. and Guthrie, J. (2012), “The
management of knowledge resources in SMEs: an Australian
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
case study”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16
No. 5, pp. 789-807.
De Zubielqui, G.C., Jones, J., Seet, P.S. and Lindsay, N.
(2015), “Knowledge transfer between actors in the
innovation system: a study of higher education institutions
(heis) and smes”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 436-458.
Driessen, P.H., Kok, R.A. and Hillebrand, B. (2013),
“Mechanisms for stakeholder integration: bringing virtual
stakeholder dialogue into organizations”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1465-1472.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2002), “Systematic combining:
an abductive approach to case research”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-560.
Durst, S. and Wilhelm, S. (2012), “Knowledge management
and succession planning in SMEs”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 637-649.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study
research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Eslami, M.H. and Lakemond, N. (2016), “Knowledge integration
with customers in collaborative product development projects”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 889-900.
Ferasso, M. and Grenier, C. (2021), “Fostering SME’s co-
development of innovative projects in biotech clusters:
extending the sets of enablers for the knowledge creation
process”, Technology in Society, Vol. 67, p. 101729.
Foos, T., Schum, G. and Rothenberg, S. (2006), “Tacit
knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-18.
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A. and Storbacka, K. (2015),
“Managing co-creation design: a strategic approach to
innovation”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 463-483.
Goyal, S., Ahuja, M. and Kankanhalli, A. (2020), “Does the
source of external knowledge matter? Examining the role of
customer Co-Creation and partner sourcing in knowledge
creation and innovation”, Information & Management,
Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1-14.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the
firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 109-122.
Greenwood, M. (2007), “Stakeholder engagement: beyond the
myth of corporate responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 315-327.
Hakanen, T. (2014), “Co-creating integrated solutions within
business networks: the KAM team as knowledge integrator”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 7,
pp. 1195-1203.
Harvey, S. (2014), “Creative synthesis: exploring the process of
extraordinary group creativity”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 324-343.
Hong, J.F., Snell, R.S. and Mak, C. (2016), “Knowledge
assimilation at foreign subsidiaries of Japanese MNCs
through political sense giving and sensemaking”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1297-1321.
Hutchison, V. and Quintas, P. (2008), “Do SMEs do
knowledge management? Or simply manage what they
2181
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
know?”, International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 131-154.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2016), “Reflections on the
2015 decade award-social capital, networks, and knowledge
transfer: an emergent stream of research”, The”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 573-588.
Jonas, J.M., Boha, J., Sörhammar, D. and Moeslein, K.M.
(2018), “Stakeholder engagement in intra-and inter-
organizational innovation: exploring antecedents of
engagement in service ecosystems”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 399-421.
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A. and Mahr, D. (2016), “Stakeholder co-
creation during the innovation process: identifying
capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple
stakeholders”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 525-540.
Kohtamäki, M. and Partanen, J. (2016), “Co-creating value
from knowledge-intensive business services in manufacturing
firms: the moderating role of relationship learning in
supplier–customer interactions”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 7, pp. 2498-2506.
Kraaijenbrink, J. (2012), “Integrating knowledge and
knowledge processes: a critical incident study of product
development projects”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1082-1096.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. and Park, J. (2010), “Open
Innovation in SMEs – an intermediated network model”,
Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 290-300.
Li, L.P., Juric, B. and Brodie, R.J. (2017), “Dynamic multi-
actor engagement in networks: the case of united breaks
guitars”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 738-760.
Lionzo, A. and Rossignoli, F. (2013), “Knowledge integration
in family SMEs: an extension of the 4I model”, Journal of
Management & Governance, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 583-608.
Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2010), “Analyzing
ICT adoption and use effects on knowledge creation: an
empirical investigation in SMEs”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 521-528.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of
employee engagement”, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Nätti, S., Palo, T. and Baumann, J. (2016),
“Value co-creation practices and capabilities: sustained
purposeful engagement across B2B systems”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 56, pp. 97-107.
Mariano, S. and Awazu, Y. (2017), “The role of collaborative
knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts:
influencing factors and propositions”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 779-795.
Mitchell, R. and Boyle, B. (2010), “Knowledge creation
measurement methods”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-82.
Noland, J. and Phillips, R. (2010), “Stakeholder engagement,
discourse ethics and strategic management”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 14-37.
 Knowledge co-creation with multiple stakeholders
Yue Zhang, Shanshan Wang, Tayyaba Akram and Yuxiang Hong
Nonaka, I. (2007), “The knowledge-creating company”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 7, pp. 162-171.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of ‘Ba’:
building a foundation for knowledge creation”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Ohata, M. and Kumar, A. (2012), “Big data: a boon to business
intelligence”, Financial Executive, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 63-65.
Oke, A., Burke, G. and Myers, A. (2007), “Innovation types and
performance in growing UK SMEs”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 735-53.
Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N. and Clarke, J. (2016), “Motives and
resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder
ecosystem: a managerial perspective”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4033-4041.
Pless, N. and Maak, T. (2004), “Building an inclusive diversity
culture: principles, processes and practice”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 129-147.
Purvis, R.L., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (2001), “The
assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: an
empirical investigation”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 117-135.
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010), “Building the co-
creative enterprise”, Harvard business Review, Vol. 88 No. 10,
pp. 100-109.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2018), “What is, co-creation?
An interactional creation framework and its implications for
value creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 84 No. 11,
pp. 196-205.
Ruhanen, L., Saito, N. and Axelsen, M. (2021), “Knowledge
co-creation: the role of tourism consultants”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 87, pp. 1-11.
Ruiz-Alba, J.L., Guesalaga, R., Ayestaran, R. and Morales
Mediano, J. (2020), “Interfunctional coordination: the role
of digitalization”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 404-419.
Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Simeone, L. and Schiuma, G.
(2020), “Creativity and stakeholders’ engagement in open
innovation: design for knowledge translation in technology-
intensive enterprises”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 119
No. 8, pp. 67-86.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018),
“Information technology, knowledge management and
environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation
ambidexterity: a study in SMEs”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 824-849.
Spraggon, M. and Bodolica, V. (2008), “Knowledge creation
processes in small innovative hi-tech firms”, Management
Research News, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 879-894.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R.J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P.P. and
Nenonen, S. (2016), “Actor engagement as a microfoundation
for value co-creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 8, pp. 3008-3017.
Su, C.Y., Lin, B.W. and Chen, C.J. (2015), “Technological
knowledge co-creation strategies in the world of open
innovation”, Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 485-507.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
2182
View publication stats
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 38 · Number 10 · 2023 · 2170–2182
Tan, C.S., Lau, X.S., Kung, Y.T. and Kailsan, R.A.L. (2019),
“Openness to experience enhances creativity: the mediating
role of intrinsic motivation and the creative process
engagement”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 109-119.
Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J.P., Vanhaverbeke, W. and De
Rochemont, M. (2009), “Open innovation in SMEs: trends,
motives and management challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 29
Nos 6/7, pp. 423-437.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research
directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 253-266.
Veronica, S., Alexeis, G.P., Valentina, C. and Elisa, G. (2020),
“Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business
innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence
from Italy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 119 No. 6,
pp. 131-141.
Von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S. and Lakhani, K.R. (2003),
“Community, joining, and specialization in open source
software innovation: a case study”, Research Policy, Vol. 32
No. 7, pp. 1217-1241.
Wee, J.C. and Chua, A.Y. (2013), “The peculiarities of
knowledge management processes in SMEs: the case of
Singapore”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 958-972.
Weretecki, P., Greve, G., Bates, K. and Henseler, J. (2021),
“Information management can’t be all fun and games, can it?
How gamified experiences foster information exchange in
multi-actor service ecosystems”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 61, pp. 1-12.
Yin, R.K. (2003), “Designing case studies”, Qualitative
Research Methods, Vol. 5 No. 14, pp. 359-386.
Yin, R.K. (2013), Case study Research: Design and Methods,
Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Luo, N., Wang, Y. and Niu, T. (2019),
“Understanding the formation mechanism of high-quality
knowledge in social question and answer communities: a
knowledge co-creation perspective”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 48, pp. 72-84.
Zieba, M., Bolisani, E. and Scarso, E. (2016), “Emergent
approach to knowledge management by small companies:
multiple case-study research”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 292-307.
Further reading
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2020), “National
Bureau of statistics of China”, available at: http://data.stats.
gov.cn/
Corresponding author
Yuxiang Hong can be contacted at: hongyx@hdu.edu.cn