Decision Sciences

Volume 34 Number 2
Spring 2003
Printed in the U.S.A.

Experiential and Informational Knowledge,

Architectural Marketing Capabilities,
and the Adaptive Performance of Export
Ventures: A Cross-National Study
Neil A. Morgan
Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599-3490, e-mail: Neil [email protected]

Shaoming Zou
College of Business Administration, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211,
e-mail: [email protected]

Douglas W. Vorhies
College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-5590,
e-mail: [email protected]

Constantine S. Katsikeas
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF1 3EU, Wales,
e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Knowledge-based view (KBV) theory posits that the acquisition and use of relevant
knowledge is key to understanding organizational performance. However, there is rela-
tively little empirical evidence to support or refute several important propositions under-
lying KBV theory explanations of organizational performance. In particular, the extant
literature has focused on individual technical and scientific components of the knowl-
edge bases of firms in dynamic industries, and largely ignored both different levels of
informational and experiential knowledge relevant to the market environment, and the
increasingly important context of exporting. Our study addresses these knowledge gaps
by developing a framework for export venture knowledge management and empirically
examining relationships between different types of individual-level and organizational-
level knowledge relevant to the market environment, architectural marketing capabilities,
and the adaptive performance of export ventures. Using primary data collected in the
United Kingdom and China, our study indicates that export ventures’ organizational-
level experiential and informational knowledge, and individual-level experiential knowl-
edge relevant to the market environment, is positively associated with export ventures’
architectural marketing capabilities, which are in turn associated with the adaptive per-
formance of export ventures.

Subject Areas: Causal Models, Globalization, Knowledge-Based Systems,

Organizational Theory, Planning/Strategy, Survey Research/Design.

287
288 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

INTRODUCTION
Two fundamental questions in the study of organizations are “Why do firms exist?”
and “Why do some firms perform better than others?” (e.g., Conner, 1991; Helfat
& Raubitschek, 2000). Over the past decade, a new school of thought addressing
both of these questions labeled the “knowledge-based view of the firm” (KBV) has
emerged (e.g., Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). The KBV
posits that firms exist as social communities of knowledge (e.g., Demsetz, 1991;
Kogut & Zander, 1996), with knowledge forming the most strategically signifi-
cant firm resource, and heterogeneity in knowledge resources explaining interfirm
performance variations (e.g., Grant, 1996b; Kogut & Zander, 1992). The KBV
has generated significant scholarly interest across a large number of disciplines
including organization theory, decision sciences, strategic management, manage-
ment information system (MIS), operations, marketing, and international business
(e.g., Basu, 1998; Earl, 2001; Hult, 1998; Inkpen & Dinur, 1998; Sinkula, 1994;
Spender, 1996). Managers have also shown considerable interest in KBV theory, re-
sulting in the creation of knowledge management functions in many organizations
and knowledge management services becoming a significant source of revenue for
consulting firms.
However, despite this widespread scholarly and managerial interest, under-
standing of the KBV theory on which knowledge management practice is based is
limited by three characteristics of the existing literature. First, while a fundamental
KBV premise is that an organization’s knowledge base, comprising different types
of knowledge at different levels of the organization, is linked with business perfor-
mance outcomes, there have been remarkably few direct attempts to empirically
examine this proposition. While the literature reveals a number of studies examin-
ing relationships between individual types of knowledge at particular levels within
organizations, such as corporate-level research and development (R&D) activity
and patents, with performance outcomes (e.g., Henderson & Clark, 1990), there
have been few, if any, studies that simultaneously examine multiple components
of an organization’s knowledge base. Since KBV theory explicitly views a firm’s
knowledge base as comprising different types of knowledge at different levels in the
organization, this is an important gap in existing knowledge. Failing to empirically
examine such a fundamental KBV proposition can lead to questions concerning
the utility of KBV theory, and the validity of resulting knowledge management
prescriptions.
Second, both theoretical and empirical research in the KBV literature has
focused primarily on technology-intensive and dynamic industries such as semi-
conductors, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. As a result, most studies have
emphasized technical and R&D knowledge, largely ignoring knowledge relating
to an organization’s market environment (e.g., Lord & Ranft, 2000; Sinkula, 1994).
Although the notion of external market information as an important resource has
been addressed in the marketing literature (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater
& Narver, 1994), this has not been integrated within a KBV theory framework to
include different types and levels of market knowledge in an organization’s knowl-
edge base, and the use of this knowledge in the development and utilization of
organizational capabilities that allow organizations to adapt to their environment.
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 289

Third, despite the emergence of the KBV school of thought during a period of
unprecedented globalization of economic activity, there have been few theoretical
or empirical studies that reflect this new global reality. While a small number
of empirical studies have examined KBV knowledge transfer propositions in the
multinational and international joint-venture context (e.g., Inkpen & Dinur, 1998;
Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001), the export context has been largely ignored
by KBV researchers. This is an important omission as exporting is an important
and rapidly growing foreign market entry and international sales expansion mode
for firms around the globe (e.g., Peng & York, 2001). In fact, the value of world
export trade now exceeds $5 trillion annually (World Bank, 2001), accounting for
more than 10% of global economic activity (International Monetary Fund, 2001).
Exporting therefore represents an important context for knowledge management
in which we currently have little, if any, theoretical or empirical insight.
Our study addresses these important gaps in existing knowledge and makes
two primary contributions. First, we fill a major gap in the literature by integrating
insights from the KBV, marketing, and international business literature and qual-
itative fieldwork interviews to develop a framework for knowledge management
in export ventures. This extends knowledge management theory into the large and
increasingly important domain of exporting and offers important new insights for
researchers and managers. Second, we provide new empirical insights connecting
important elements of knowledge management with the performance of export
ventures in the United Kingdom and China. Our findings enhance current knowl-
edge by supporting two important but previously untested KBV premises linking
(1) different types and levels of knowledge about the market environment in the
organization’s knowledge base with the organizational capabilities by which the or-
ganization adapts to its market environment, and (2) the organization’s capabilities
with which it adapts to its market environment with its adaptive performance.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we describe the
export venture context for our study. Second, we integrate insights from KBV
theory and the marketing and exporting literature to develop a theoretical frame-
work for understanding export venture knowledge management. Next, we describe
the fieldwork interviews and literature-based insights used to identify particularly
important elements and relationships within our export venture knowledge man-
agement framework and develop specific hypotheses of expected relationships be-
tween export venture knowledge, capabilities, and adaptive performance. We then
describe the research design, measures, and data collection methods employed.
Next, we present our measurement and hypothesis testing results and discuss their
theoretical and managerial implications. Finally, we consider the limitations of our
study and promising directions for future research.

STUDY CONTEXT
There is broad agreement in the KBV literature that knowledge is context-specific
(e.g., Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nonaka, 1994). The context for our study is the
important but previously neglected area of exporting. The exporting literature
suggests that the primary unit of analysis in understanding firms’ export perfor-
mance is the export venture (Ambler, Styles, & Xiucum, 1999; Cavusgil & Zou,
290 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

1994). Export ventures are analogous to strategic business units (SBUs) in that they
represent the individual export product market efforts of the firm, and comprise a
single product or product line exported to a specific foreign market (Cavusgil &
Zou, 1994). In building an export venture knowledge management theory frame-
work, it is therefore necessary to synthesize perspectives from KBV theory with
insights regarding the export venture context. The relevant exporting, international
business, and international marketing literature indicate two key characteristics
of the export venture context that are germane to developing an understanding
of export venture knowledge management. First, export ventures are primarily
marketing-based business units (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Katsikeas, Leonidou,
& Morgan, 2000). Second, the key driver of an export venture’s strategic goal
accomplishment lies in the venture’s ability to adapt its value offerings to meet
the particular requirements of the foreign market targeted (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou,
1994). These characteristics of the export venture context for this study indicate
that knowledge in export ventures related to the ability to effectively and efficiently
perform marketing-related tasks that enable it to deliver value offerings that meet
the requirements of the target export market is of particular importance in under-
standing how knowledge management may contribute to enhancing export venture
performance.

A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPORT VENTURE

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
While the domain of knowledge management is diverse and encompasses many
different disciplines, the KBV is the fundamental theory base on which knowl-
edge management is founded. The KBV represents a synthesis of economic theory
concerning the productive value of intellectual capital (e.g., Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998), organization theory concerning the boundaries and internal organization
of the firm (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992, 1996), and the resource-based view of
the firm in strategic management (e.g., Conner & Prahalad, 1996). Integrating
these different theoretical perspectives, KBV theory broadly posits that knowledge
management concerns an organization’s ability to develop and utilize a base of in-
tellectual assets in ways that impact the achievement of strategic goals (e.g., Grant,
1996b; Spender, 1996). KBV theory indicates that there are two key elements in
understanding knowledge management and its relationship with firm performance:
(1) the knowledge base of the firm, comprising the understanding and know-how
that allow the firm to take actions designed to accomplish strategic goals (e.g.,
Grant, 1996b; Kogut & Zander, 1992), and (2) the capabilities by which the firm’s
knowledge base is developed, maintained, accessed, and deployed in pursuit of
desired strategic objectives (e.g., Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka, 1994).

The Knowledge Base of Export Ventures

The KBV literature reveals many different approaches to conceptualizing and
defining knowledge (e.g., Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Von Krogh, Nonaka, &
Aben, 2001). However, the exporting literature suggests that two types of knowl-
edge may be viewed as particularly important elements of the knowledge base of
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 291

export ventures. First, market information concerning the export venture’s cus-
tomers, competitors, and channels, and the broader environment in the target ex-
port market has been identified as an important export venture knowledge resource
(e.g., Katsikeas & Morgan, 1994; Souchon & Diamantopoulos, 1996). Market in-
formation may be a particularly important knowledge resource because it provides
insights into which value-adding activities the organization should undertake, and
how these should be accomplished in ways that match market conditions (e.g.,
Day, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995). Such export market information knowledge is
consistent with KBV theory conceptualizations of “informational” (also referred
to as “declarative” and “know-what”) knowledge concerning data that have been
organized to give meaning (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992, 1996; Nonaka, 1994).
Second, experience related to performing exporting activities and the venture’s
foreign market context has also been identified as a particularly important export
venture knowledge resource (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Reid, 1981). For exam-
ple, the literature has identified the knowledge gained from experience of overseas
market operations as an important resource for successful export marketing (e.g.,
Albaum, Strandskov, & Duerr, 1998; Ambler et al., 1999; Erramilli, 1991). This is
consistent with KBV theory conceptualizations of “experiential” (also referred to
as “procedural” and “know-how”) knowledge concerning accumulated skills that
allow required tasks to be effectively and efficiently accomplished (e.g., Helfat,
1997; Nass, 1994; Von Hippel, 1988).
Knowledge-based view theory indicates that these two types of knowledge
differ in that experiential knowledge tends to be tacit and generally difficult to
codify and communicate while informational knowledge is generally explicit and
easier to codify and communicate (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992; Polanyi, 1966;
Reed & DeFillippi, 1990). Despite these differences, KBV theory also indicates
that these two types of knowledge are interrelated. Informational “know-what”
understanding impacts choices concerning the selection and performance of needed
tasks and thereby affects the experiential knowledge base of the export venture (e.g.,
Nonaka, 1994), while experiential knowledge shapes what information is attended
to and how it is interpreted in decision making (e.g., Walsh, 1995). This indicates
that experiential knowledge within an export venture is likely to influence the
venture’s informational knowledge base and vice versa.
In addition to identifying different types of knowledge, the KBV literature
also indicates that knowledge exists at different levels within organizations (e.g.,
Brown & Duguid, 1991; Kogut & Zander, 1996). From this perspective, KBV
theorists posit that both informational and experiential components of any organi-
zation’s knowledge base are created, stored, and used at two different levels: the
individual and the organizational (e.g., Matusik & Hill, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). This
is consistent with the exporting literature, which recognizes that both informational
and experiential knowledge relevant to the export market and the performance of
export marketing activities exists at the level of individual personnel as well as at
the export venture level (e.g., Ambler et al., 1999; Reid, 1981). Synthesizing these
insights from the exporting literature and KBV theory therefore suggests that the
knowledge base of export ventures consists of a combination of interrelated in-
formational and experiential knowledge at the individual and organizational levels
(e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992).
292 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Capabilities for Developing and Deploying the Export Venture’s

Knowledge Base
The literature indicates that learning is the primary mechanism by which informa-
tional and experiential knowledge are developed and maintained at both individual
and organizational levels (e.g., Cook & Yanow, 1993; Huber, 1991; March, 1991).
Learning at both levels is viewed in KBV theory as a process involving the acquisi-
tion of information, interpretation of the information to derive meaning, utilization
of the resulting understanding in ways that permit behavior change, and storage
of the resulting knowledge for future use (e.g., Fiol 1994; Hult, 1998). At the
organizational level, KBV theory indicates that in addition to these stages, infor-
mation must be disseminated or shared between individuals for learning to take
place (e.g., Brown & Duguid, 1991; Hurley & Hult, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). Dis-
semination of information takes place from individuals to the organization as well
as vice versa through a number of formal (e.g., sales reporting systems, company
newsletters) and informal (“water-cooler” conversations, company social events)
mechanisms (e.g., Daft & Huber, 1987; Matusik & Hill, 1998). These KBV theory
knowledge development viewpoints are consistent with a number of theoretical
and empirical studies of exporting that have examined environmental information
acquisition and dissemination processes as mechanisms for learning about mar-
kets at the organizational level (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, & de Mortanges,
1999; Souchon & Diamantopoulos, 1996), and studies of foreign market accultur-
ation as a market learning process at the individual level (e.g., Francis, 1991). As
such it is well accepted in the exporting literature that learning and information
dissemination capabilities are valuable sources of competitive advantage that help
determine an export venture’s ability to adapt to its environment (e.g., Albaum et al.,
1998).
In terms of deploying the export venture’s knowledge base, KBV theory
posits that in order to impact performance, the venture’s knowledge base must
be converted into organizational-level capabilities that enable the effective and
efficient accomplishment of tasks that allow the venture to successfully adapt
to its environment (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994). Theoretically,
this conversion process involves the transfer and combination of individual and
organizational-level informational and experiential knowledge through the devel-
opment of the routines on which organizational capabilities are built (e.g., Nelson
& Winter, 1982). Routines develop as individuals and groups draw on available ex-
periential and informational knowledge and apply it to solving the organization’s
problems (e.g., Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Matusik & Hill, 1998). This results in
the sharing and combining of knowledge and the socialization of heuristics in the
form of problem-solving processes (e.g., Cohen, 1991; Kogut & Zander, 1992).
Routines are combined within the organization to develop capabilities that are the
organizational processes by which available resources are combined, transformed,
and deployed in ways that create valuable outcomes (e.g., Makadok, 2001; Teece,
Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The development of organizational capabilities therefore
represents a process of “embedding” the venture’s knowledge base (e.g., Grant,
1996a; Winter, 1987). Consequently, organizational capabilities have been viewed
as a form of “organizational memory” (e.g., Leonard-Barton, 1995). As the ven-
ture’s knowledge base is updated over time, KBV theory indicates that newly
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 293

available knowledge is used to update and adapt its capabilities (e.g., Helfat, 1997;
Nelson & Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997).

The Knowledge Base, Capabilities, and Performance of Export Ventures

Knowledge-based view theory views organizational performance as a function of
an organization’s ability to adapt to its environment (e.g., Cockburn, Henderson, &
Stern, 2000; Grant, 1996a). This is consistent with the exporting literature, which
indicates that the primary determinant of export venture performance is the ven-
ture’s success in adapting to the particular requirements of its target export market
(e.g., Albaum & Tse, 2001; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). In understanding how export
ventures adapt to their foreign market environments, the KBV literature posits that
the ability to embed available informational and experiential knowledge in rele-
vant organizational capabilities is a key theoretical premise (e.g., Kogut & Zander,
1992; Teece et al., 1997). Prior KBV research has identified the ability to leverage
an existing knowledge base by transferring and combining knowledge to develop
superior organizational capabilities as a driver of firms’ success in adapting to their
environments in terms of product and process innovation, managing competitive
and regulatory risk, and utilizing available resources efficiently (e.g., Von Krogh
et al., 2001).
The exporting literature indicates that in ventures’ efforts to adapt to the
export market environment in ways that achieve desired strategic goals, the most
important organizational capabilities that can be created from an export venture’s
knowledge base concern architectural marketing capabilities (e.g., Cavusgil &
Zou, 1994; Katsikeas, Piercy, & Ioannidis, 1996). Architectural marketing capa-
bilities are defined in the literature as the processes by which firms plan appropriate
combinations of available knowledge and other resources to deploy into their mar-
ketplace(s) and execute these planned resource deployments, transforming them
into realized value offerings for target market(s) (e.g., Day, 1994; Madhavan &
Grover, 1998; Vorhies & Morgan, 2003). Our export venture knowledge manage-
ment framework, as depicted in Figure 1, therefore suggests that an export venture’s
knowledge base enables the development and utilization of architectural market-
ing capabilities that determine the extent to which the venture is able to adapt to
the requirements of its target export market in ways that accomplish its strategic
goals.

HYPOTHETICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Our export venture knowledge management framework (Figure 1) draws on the
KBV and exporting literature to provide a broad theory framework for identify-
ing elements in the knowledge base and knowledge-related capabilities of export
ventures that are relevant in understanding how knowledge management may en-
able superior export venture performance. Existing theoretical and empirical un-
derstanding of the various elements of our export venture knowledge management
framework differs widely. For example, market information dissemination has been
an area of considerable theoretical and empirical attention in the marketing litera-
ture (e.g., Maltz & Kohli, 1996). Similarly, learning has been extensively studied
in both the psychology and management fields (e.g., Hult, Hurley, Giunipero,
294 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Figure 1: Export venture knowledge management framework.

& Nichols, 2000). However, the knowledge-level, knowledge-type, and architec-

tural marketing capability elements of our export venture knowledge management
framework have received less research attention. It is on these aspects of export
venture knowledge management that we therefore focus our attention in developing
testable hypotheses.
To develop a hypothetical model concerning relationships involving these
elements of our export venture knowledge management framework, and to help op-
erationalize key constructs, we synthesized our previous literature-based insights
with exploratory interviews with managers involved with export ventures. Our
fieldwork involved 17 interviews with marketing managers, international business
development managers, CEOs, and account development managers in different
firms from a cross-section of industries. The 17 managers interviewed had respon-
sibility for 29 export ventures. The interviews were conducted using an open-ended
format and typically lasted between 1.5 and 2 hours.
Supporting our export venture knowledge management framework, our
interviews indicated that the knowledge base of export ventures comprises both ex-
periential and informational knowledge. Our fieldwork indicated that experiential
knowledge of both the exporting process and the specific market targeted by the
venture is valuable because it enables managers to better understand the particular
requirements of channel members and customers in the export market (e.g., Lord
& Ranft, 2000; Peng & York, 2001). Managers also highlighted the importance
of informational knowledge concerning customers, competitors, channels, and
the broader environment in the export venture’s target market as being a valuable
component of the venture’s knowledge base. Our fieldwork interviews indicated
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 295

that experience relevant to the export market and the accomplishment of exporting
tasks is also viewed by managers as an important export venture knowledge
resource at both the individual and organizational levels. Interestingly, however,
because of the relatively small number of personnel in most export ventures, along
with the central importance of knowledge concerning the target export market in
venture decision making, managers indicated that transferring market information
from the individual to the export venture level was usually quickly and easily
achieved. Our fieldwork therefore suggested that informational knowledge at
the individual level was not a particularly important element in explaining the
relationship between an export venture’s knowledge base and its performance.
From an organizational capability perspective, the fieldwork interviews sup-
ported the exporting literature in indicating that since export ventures are fun-
damentally marketing-based business units, marketing capabilities are important
in determining the venture’s ability to adapt to the requirements of its target ex-
port market. Our fieldwork revealed that the architectural capabilities of market-
ing planning and implementation are seen as being particularly important (cf.
Henderson & Clark, 1990). Managers viewed the export venture’s marketing plan-
ning capability as concerning the processes used to orchestrate the integration of the
venture’s specialized marketing capabilities (such as product development, adver-
tising, channel management, etc.), and the combinations of resources (e.g., brand
equity, channel relationships, etc.) they are designed to leverage, in ways that opti-
mize venture goal achievement (e.g., Day, 1994; Moller & Anttila, 1987). Consis-
tent with the marketing literature, our fieldwork revealed that managers viewed the
export venture’s marketing implementation capability as concerning the routines by
which export ventures transform intended export marketing strategy into realized
actions and resource deployments (e.g., Bonoma, 1985; Noble & Mokwa, 1999).
Consistent with both the KBV and exporting literature, the export venture
managers we interviewed consistently described the ability of their venture to
achieve its particular strategic objectives as being fundamentally determined by
the degree to which the venture understood and responded to the specific and
idiosyncratic requirements of their target export market (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou,
1994; Katsikeas et al., 2000). Managers viewed the experience of the individuals
in the venture, as well as the experience of the venture itself and the export market
information available to it, as critical knowledge resources in enabling the venture
to develop and utilize the architectural marketing capabilities that drive export
venture performance. This is consistent with the exporting (e.g., Katsikeas &
Morgan, 1994; Souchon & Diamantopoulos, 1996) and marketing literatures (e.g.,
Day, 1994; Li & Calantone, 1998), in linking a firm’s market-related knowledge
with responsive marketing capabilities in determining adaptive performance.
To summarize, as depicted in Figure 2, our hypothetical model indicates
that experiential knowledge at the individual and organizational levels, and mar-
ket information knowledge at the organizational level, are particularly important
elements of the knowledge base of export ventures. These knowledge base ele-
ments are important because they allow export ventures to establish and adapt
marketing planning and marketing implementation capabilities that enable them to
transform their available resources into superior adaptive performance outcomes
in their target foreign markets.
296 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Figure 2: Hypothetical model.

Export Venture’s Export Venture’s Environmental

Knowledge Base Organizational Capabilities Adaptation

Experiential Knowledge Marketing

• Individual’s Experience Planning
• Venture’s Experience Capabilities

Informational Knowledge
Marketing
• Venture’s Market Adaptive
Implementation
Information Performance
Capabilities

HYPOTHESES
Knowledge-based view theory posits that knowledge exists as an individual-level
as well as an organization-level phenomenon (e.g., Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cohen,
1991). At the individual level, our fieldwork indicated that experiential knowledge,
concerning the accumulated learning of individuals that allows them to perform
relevant exporting tasks (e.g., Tyre & Von Hippel, 1997), is seen as a particularly
important aspect of export ventures’ knowledge base (e.g., Reid, 1981). The liter-
ature suggests that for such individual-level experiential knowledge to become a
knowledge asset for the firm, it must be transferred to the organization through the
development of organizational routines and capabilities (e.g., Cohen & Bacdayan,
1994; Zander & Kogut, 1995). In the context of export ventures and their ar-
chitectural marketing capabilities, our fieldwork suggested that the experiential
knowledge of export venture personnel was likely to be an important aspect of the
venture’s knowledge base for developing and using both marketing planning and
marketing implementation capabilities. Knowledge-based view theory, exporting
theory, and our fieldwork, therefore suggest that
H1: The individual experiential knowledge of export venture person-
nel is positively related to the venture’s (a) marketing planning
and (b) marketing implementation capabilities.
At the export venture level, experiential knowledge concerns accumulated en-
vironmental learning relevant to doing business in the venture’s focal market (e.g.,
Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). International business theory indicates that such experi-
ential knowledge is key to explaining the firm’s internationalization process (e.g.,
Eriksson, Johanson, Majkgard, & Sharma, 1997; Erramilli, 1991). Experiential
knowledge is particularly important in firms’ international development because
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 297

it enables firms to better match their internal resources with external opportuni-
ties in foreign market environments (e.g., Leonidou & Katsikeas, 1996; Lord &
Ranft, 2000). Supporting KBV theory propositions concerning the embedding of
knowledge in organizational capabilities (e.g., Hult, 1998), our fieldwork indicated
that the creation and updating of the venture’s marketing planning and marketing
implementation capabilities is the primary mechanism by which export ventures’
experiential knowledge relevant to their target market enables better adaptation to
their market environment. We therefore hypothesize that
H2: Export venture experiential knowledge is positively related to the
venture’s (a) marketing planning and (b) marketing implementa-
tion capabilities.
Knowledge-based view theory indicates that organizational-level informa-
tional knowledge consists of acquired facts and data that are explicit and can be
relatively easily stored, accessed, and transferred (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992).
Supporting the exporting literature (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Souchon &
Diamantopoulos, 1996), our fieldwork identified market information concerning
explicit knowledge regarding customers, competitors, channel members, and the
broader business environment in the export venture market, as a key element of
the knowledge base of export ventures. Resource-based theory suggests that for
such informational knowledge to be valuable, it must allow the venture to enhance
its effectiveness or efficiency (e.g., Barney, 1991). From a KBV perspective, ex-
tracting value from informational knowledge involves embedding this knowledge
in the firm’s capabilities (e.g., Nelson & Winter, 1982; Kogut & Zander, 1996).
Our fieldwork suggested that both of these viewpoints are appropriate in the con-
text of an export venture’s market information knowledge. Such knowledge was
considered important by managers as an information input to the venture’s market-
ing planning capability that helps to improve the quality of decision making (e.g.,
Slater & Narver, 1995). Market information knowledge was also viewed as help-
ful in guiding how aspects of the venture’s marketing planning capability should
be designed and managed to align it with the requirements of the export venture’s
market environment (e.g., Day, 1994; Moorman & Slotegraaf, 1999). Interestingly,
managers in our fieldwork did not view market information knowledge as being
directly valuable in building and using marketing implementation capabilities. This
is consistent with perspectives in the strategy and marketing literature that view
implementation as being dependent on external informational knowledge only in-
directly via strategy content decisions and processes (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1993;
Kerin, Mahajan, & Varadarajan, 1990). Theory and our fieldwork therefore lead us
to expect that
H3: Export venture market information knowledge is positively re-
lated to the venture’s marketing planning capabilities.
The marketing literature indicates that marketing planning capabilities con-
cern the ability to conceive strategies that appropriately align available resources
and capabilities with marketplace conditions in ways that enable the firm to achieve
its strategic objectives (e.g., Day & Wensley, 1988; McKee, Conant, Varadarajan,
& Mokwa, 1992). Consistent with this view, our fieldwork suggested that in the
298 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

context of export ventures, marketing planning capability involves both the clear
articulation of export marketing goals and the thoroughness, skill, and creativity
with which strategies are developed to achieve them. Conversely, the marketing
literature indicates that marketing implementation capabilities concern the ability
to translate marketing strategy decisions into consistent, goal-directed resource
deployments (e.g., Bonoma, 1985; Noble & Mokwa, 1999). In the export venture
context, our fieldwork indicated that managers viewed the processes of resource
allocation, monitoring, and organizing activities as fundamental aspects of the ven-
ture’s marketing implementation capability. While the management literature has
often distinguished between strategy formulation and implementation, there is a
broad recognition that planning and implementation are strongly related aspects
of the overall conceptualization of “strategy.” This was supported in our fieldwork
interviews, where most managers expressed the view that “good strategy helps
good implementation.” The literature and our fieldwork therefore suggest that
H4: Export venture marketing planning capabilities are positively re-
lated to the venture’s marketing implementation capabilities.
Our fieldwork indicated that while managers expected marketing planning
capabilities to be related to marketing implementation capabilities, there was a
recognition that the ability to formulate appropriate marketing strategy is a neces-
sary but insufficient condition for enabling export ventures to successfully adapt
to their market environments. This is consistent with the marketing literature in-
dicating that successful firms are distinguished not only by well-conceived mar-
keting strategies, but also by their ability to execute them (e.g., Day & Wensley,
1988; Kerin et al., 1990). Managers in our fieldwork consistently suggested that
marketing planning capabilities were indirectly related to the venture’s success in
adapting to its market environment, with the venture’s ability to successfully im-
plement marketing strategy decisions being the key mediator. These literature and
fieldwork viewpoints are consistent with the concept of “realized” strategy in the
management literature, which recognizes that while “intended” strategy decisions
guide subsequent behavior, it is only the enacted strategy that is actually “realized”
that impacts the firm’s ability to achieve its goals (e.g., Mintzberg, 1994; Pascale,
1984). We therefore expect that
H5: Export venture marketing implementation capabilities are positively
related to the venture’s adaptive performance.

METHODOLOGY
Research Design
To enhance variability and generalizability in the data used for hypothesis test-
ing, we adopted a multicountry cross-sectional research design using data from
export manufacturers located in the United Kingdom and China. Exporting firms
from these two countries generated over $540 billion in export merchandise sales
in 2001, making the United Kingdom and China two of the largest exporting
nations in the world (Economist, 2002). In addition, the United Kingdom and
China have been identified as having significantly different national cultures that
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 299

impact how managers in those countries do business (e.g., Brouthers & Brouthers,
2001; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Collecting data from two such different cultures
should enhance the generalizability of the findings of our study (e.g., Hofstede,
1991). Service firms were excluded because of their idiosyncratic international
expansion patterns and performance characteristics (Berthon, Pitt, Katsikeas, &
Berthon, 1999). Since exporting is a stage of internationalization that is partic-
ularly appropriate for small and medium-sized business, and the overwhelming
majority of global export trade is in manufacturing (e.g., World Bank, 2001), the
target population in each country consisted of manufacturing firms ranging in size
from 50 to 500 employees.

Measurement
In developing measures of export ventures’ knowledge bases, architectural market-
ing capabilities, and adaptive performance, we synthesized perspectives from the
KBV, exporting, and marketing literature, insights from our fieldwork interviews,
and insights obtained from discussions with a number of academic researchers in
the areas of knowledge management, international business, and marketing. Our
initial measures were refined and pretested using face-to-face contexts to enhance
face validity and were further refined through two quantitative data collection exer-
cises. The Appendix contains the measures and their respective sources. In addition
to measures of each of the constructs contained in our hypotheses, we collected
data on competitive intensity to control for differences between the export markets
served by each export venture.
Once finalized, the English version of the questionnaire was independently
translated into Chinese by three native Chinese speakers. Where any differences
were observed between the three translations, a discussion was held involving
all three translators and the differences were resolved. This Chinese version of
the questionnaire was then independently translated back into English by two
different English-Chinese translators. Minor differences between the two back-
translations were resolved by discussions between the two translators. Overall, the
back-translated version matched the original English version very well, suggesting
the quality of the translation (see Douglas & Craig, 1983). Once both the English
and Chinese versions of the questionnaire were finalized, each was printed in a
professionally typeset booklet.

Data Collection
In collecting data to test our hypotheses, our research design choices were guided
by two characteristics of the export venture context revealed in the exporting lit-
erature and our fieldwork. First, firms do not separately report on the performance
and operation of export venture business units in their published reports, and no
other secondary data sources are available that provide indicants of the phenomena
of interest in our study (e.g., Katsikeas et al., 2000). Second, most export ventures
have a relatively small number of employees, usually with a single overall man-
ager. Our interviews strongly indicated that among export venture personnel, only
the export venture manager was knowledgeable concerning all of the knowledge
base, architectural marketing capabilities, and adaptive performance phenomena
300 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

of interest in our study. Further, our interviews suggested that while informants
other than the export venture manager may be able to provide data on individual
constructs of interest in some export ventures, these informants would be unlikely
to be as knowledgeable on these issues as the export venture manager. This indi-
cated that an export venture manager key informant primary data collection design
was appropriate for our study.
While the key informant data collection approach we adopted is the most
widely used in organizational research, potential problems can be associated with
collecting data on organizational phenomena from a single informant. We were
therefore careful to follow accepted methodological guidelines commonly used
to mitigate these potential problems concerning identifying and motivating the
most knowledgeable key informants and designing and pretesting our measurement
scales and survey instrument to maximize the validity of the data collected (e.g.,
Huber & Power, 1985). Following Huber & Power’s (1985) guidelines, we paid
particular attention to identifying appropriate key informants by name and job title.
In line with prior research (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Myers, 1999) and on the
basis of our fieldwork interviews, we identified the most knowledgeable individual
as the export venture manager, the executive directly involved in and responsible
for the particular export venture being studied. Where an appropriate export venture
manager could not be identified through publicly available information sources,
telephone calls were made to individual firms to identify an appropriately knowl-
edgeable export venture manager key informant. Our interviews indicated that the
job titles of such managers in Chinese export ventures varied much more widely
than in the United Kingdom. This made it difficult to identify appropriately knowl-
edgeable key informants in China from public sources. We therefore contacted the
president of each firm in the Chinese sample, who under the Chinese “president
responsibility system” is the most knowledgeable contact concerning strategy and
business operations in Chinese firms (Lukas, Tan, & Hult, 2001). The nature of
the study was explained to each firm’s president, and each was shown a copy of
the survey instrument and asked to identify an appropriately knowledgeable key
informant in one of the firm’s export ventures. We then contacted each identified
informant to explain the purpose of the study, and to solicit participation with offers
of a report on study findings and guarantees of confidentiality.
In the United Kingdom, the data were obtained through a mail survey of 567
exporting firms randomly selected from publicly available sources such as Dun and
Bradstreet directories. A survey packet was mailed to the named export venture
manager we identified in each firm. For firms not responding to the initial mailing,
a second complete mailing was performed. In China, the sampling frame consisted
of export manufacturers listed in the Directory of Jiangsu Manufacturing Firms.
Jiangsu is one of the major exporting provinces of China, and exporting firms in
this province are considered representative of Chinese exporters. Of the export
venture managers identified by company presidents we contacted, 223 agreed to
provide data for our study. Due to particular confidentiality fears concerning pro-
prietary information in China, most Chinese managers are reluctant to complete
mail surveys. Since obtaining high response rates among highly knowledgeable
informants is key to ensuring high-quality data in key informant research designs
(Huber & Power, 1985), we hand-delivered surveys to each of the 223 export
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 301

venture managers identified. The conversations permitted by this personal contact

also enabled us to confirm the knowledgeability of the key informant identified
by the company president, and to mitigate any remaining concerns on the part of
the informant that might have limited the response rate achieved. The completed
surveys were subsequently collected by personal pickups scheduled at the time of
drop-off.
The mail survey in the United Kingdom resulted in 243 completed surveys,
representing a 43% response rate. The onsite survey in China yielded 198 com-
pleted surveys, a response rate of over 88%. In addition to our extensive efforts
to ensure that we identified and motivated appropriately knowledgeable key infor-
mants, we conducted a post hoc check on respondent knowledgeability. We asked
survey respondents to rate their knowledge of their own export venture’s strategy,
resources, and capabilities, and those of their export market competitors, in two
separate questions using 7-point scales ranging from “low knowledge” to “high
knowledge.” To ensure the quality of our dataset, 19 respondents from the U.K.
sample and 25 respondents from the Chinese sample who reported insufficient
knowledgeability levels (i.e., a score of less than 4 on the 7-point scales for either
of these questions) were eliminated from further analysis (e.g., Stump & Heide,
1996). In the final dataset (287 export ventures in the United Kingdom and 173 in
China), the mean informant scores in each sample were above 5.3 on the 7-point
scales for both knowledgeability questions, indicating a high quality of response
from our key informants. Finally, analysis of nonresponse bias was performed us-
ing the extrapolation approach recommended by Armstrong & Overton (1977).
Tests revealed no significant differences between early and late respondents on any
of the constructs in either the U.K. or Chinese dataset, suggesting that nonresponse
bias is unlikely to be present in either sample.

RESULTS
Measurement Assessment
To assess both the measurement properties of our scales and the equivalence of
measures obtained from the U.K. and Chinese samples, we conducted a two-group
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation
procedure in EQS (Bentler, 1995). Specifically, following the recommendations of
Gerbing & Anderson (1988) and Singh (1995), we estimated a measurement model
in which (a) each item was restricted to load only on its a priori factor; (b) the factors
themselves were allowed to correlate with one another; and (c) all item factor load-
ings were constrained to be equal between the U.K. and Chinese samples. Table 1
contains the results of this two-group CFA. To assess the measurement model, we
followed the procedure recommended by Bagozzi & Yi (1988). First, we checked
the summary statistics of the items for both groups and found no evidence to sug-
gest violation of the normal distribution assumption. Next, we looked at the EQS
output and found that the ML procedure converged properly and there was no con-
dition code. We then examined model fit statistics, which showed evidence of good
fit with the data as indicated by a χ 2 = 1050.55, 582 d.f., p >.001, a compara-
tive fit index (CFI) of .92, a normed fit index (NFI) of .84, an incremental fit index
(IFI) of .92, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .05. These
 302

Table 1: Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis for U.K. and Chinese samples.
U.K. Sample Chinese Sample
Standardized Standardized
Constructs and Items Parameter Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value
Individual Experiential Knowledge
Knowledge of export marketing personnel λx11 .797 18.162 .823 18.162
Experience of our export marketing personnel λx12 .919 21.631 .875 21.631
The skills of our export marketing people λx13 .922 21.511 .858 21.511
Venture Experiential Knowledge
Company experience with operating in this export market λx21 .692 11.924 .819 11.924
International orientation of our company’s culture λx22 .789 16.133 .784 16.133
Company’s international experience λx23 .872 17.453 .780 17.453
Venture Market Information Knowledge
Customer knowledge in this export market λx31 .762 17.676 .835 17.676
Knowledge of competitors in this market λx32 .778 16.340 .719 16.340
Information related to doing business in this market λx33 .892 22.143 .951 22.143
Knowledge of distributors in this export market λx34 .810 18.521 .840 18.521
Marketing Planning Capabilities
Export marketing planning skills λx41 .823 18.910 .833 18.910
Setting clear export marketing goals λx42 .831 19.447 .856 19.447
Formulating creative export marketing strategies λx43 .859 19.582 .826 19.582
Thoroughness of export marketing planning process λx44 .883 20.519 .853 20.519
Marketing Implementation Capabilities
Effectively translating planned export marketing λx51 .802 17.868 .800 17.868
strategies into action
Allocating appropriate resources to execute export λx52 .797 18.329 .835 18.329
marketing strategies
Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities
Table 1: (continued) Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis for U.K. and Chinese samples.
U.K. Sample Chinese Sample
Standardized Standardized
Constructs and Items Parameter Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value
Monitoring the performance of export marketing λx53 .798 17.675 .796 17.675
strategies
Organizing to deliver planned export marketing λx54 .841 19.085 .832 19.085
strategies effectively
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas

Competitive Intensity
Competition in this export market is cutthroat λx61 .818 18.582 .880 18.582
There are many “promotion” wars in this export market λx62 .757 16.081 .780 16.081
Price competition is a hallmark of this export market λx63 .697 15.480 .793 15.480
One hears of a new competitive move in this market λx64 .704 14.469 .716 14.469
almost every day
Adaptive Performance
Responding to competitors’ product changes in this λx71 .727 14.763 .700 14.763
export market
Time to market for new export venture products λx72 .784 17.316 .813 17.316
Number of successful new export venture products λx73 .821 18.562 .851 18.562
Revenue from new export venture products (less than λx74 .716 15.321 .751 15.321
three years old)
Overall Fit: Two-Group Model χ 2 1090.545, CFI = .915
582 d.f., p < .001 NFI = .836 IFI = .916
RMSEA = .050
303
304 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

two-group CFA results indicate measurement equivalency for our constructs across
the U.K. and Chinese samples.
To assess the reliability of our measures, we calculated the composite relia-
bility of each scale, following the procedures recommended by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) using the formula
  2
λγi
C R η =   2  , (1)
λγi + εi
where
C Rη = composite reliability for scale η;
λγi = standardized loading for scale item γi , and
εi = measurement error for scale item γi .
Each of our measures exhibited good reliability with composite reliabilities for
the seven scales ranging from .74 to .86 (Table 2), and item factor loadings
(Table 1) ranging from .69 to .95 ( p < .01). We assessed the discriminant validity
of our measures by examining the average variance extracted for each construct and
comparing it to the shared variance for all possible pairs of constructs (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Average variance extracted was calculated
using the following formula:
 2
λγ
Vη =  2 i , (2)
λγi + εi
where
Vη = average variance extracted for η;
λγi = standardized loading for scale item γi , and
εi = measurement error for scale item γi .

The average variances extracted ranged from 50.1% to 64.8% (Table 2), while the
shared variances observed between the constructs ranged from .00% to 46.24%,
indicating good discriminant validity among our measures. Where significant cor-
relations were observed between constructs, we also conducted additional pairwise
discriminant validity assessments. This involved comparing χ 2 statistics in mea-
surement models in which the covariance coefficient between the two constructs
was allowed to vary and then fixed at one (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, Yi,
& Phillips, 1991). Changes in χ 2 were large and significant in each of the pairwise
tests, suggesting discriminant validity in each model. This indicates that each of
our measures has discriminant validity vis-à-vis the other scales in our study.

Hypothesis Testing
Having demonstrated the reliability and validity of our measures and their equiv-
alence across the two samples, we tested our hypotheses using structural equation
models. We first assessed whether the relationships in the U.K. and Chinese samples
Table 2: Descriptive statistics.
U.K. Sample Chinese Sample
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas

Standard Composite Variance Standard Composite Variance

Construct Mean Deviation Reliability Extracted Mean Deviation Reliability Extracted
Individual Experiential Knowledge 4.619 1.419 0.80 57.9% 5.325 0.980 0.85 64.8%
Venture Experiential Knowledge 4.731 1.111 0.74 50.3% 5.357 0.996 0.78 54.3%
Venture Market Information Knowledge 4.329 1.130 0.81 52.3% 5.255 0.992 0.86 60.8%
Marketing Planning Capabilities 4.100 1.091 0.84 57.1% 4.964 0.943 0.86 60.0%
Marketing Implementation Capabilities 4.145 1.345 0.84 56.1% 5.043 0.904 0.80 53.6%
Competitive Intensity 4.390 0.999 0.76 50.1% 4.877 1.368 0.82 54.4%
Export Adaptive Performance 4.809 1.313 0.81 52.2% 4.811 1.024 0.83 55.3%
305
306 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

were the same by examining a two-group structural model in which the measures
were held to be invariant and the parameter estimates for the hypothesized paths
between constructs were constrained to be equal in the two samples. This resulted
in a model with χ 2 = 1173.53, 598 d.f. We then tested for differences in the hy-
pothesized relationships across the two models. This was performed in two ways.
First, the two-group structural model was reestimated allowing all eight parameters
for the paths between constructs to vary (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The
large and significant change in χ 2 (χ 2  = 33, d.f.  = 8) indicated that the paths
representing the hypothesized relationships in the two samples were not the same.
This indicated that structural equation models (SEMs) for testing our hypotheses
should be run on the U.K. and Chinese samples independently (e.g., Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
Second, in a series of two-group models we allowed the model equivalence
parameter for the hypothesized relationships between the constructs to vary one at
a time in eight separate analyses. Five of the hypothesized relationships demon-
strated significant differences between the U.K. and Chinese samples, while three
of the hypothesized relationships were found to be the same across the two sam-
ples. Differences in the hypothesized paths between the two samples concerned
H1b: Individual Experiential Knowledge to Marketing Implementation Capabili-
ties (χ 2  = 3.82, d.f.  = 1); H2b: Venture Experiential Knowledge to Marketing
Implementation Capabilities (χ 2  = 5.52, d.f.  = 1); H4: Marketing Planning
Capabilities to Marketing Implementation Capabilities (χ 2  = 8.46, d.f.  = 1);
H5: Marketing Implementation Capabilities to Adaptive Performance (χ 2  =
14.87, d.f.  = 1); and the Competitive Intensity control variable to Export Adaptive
Performance (χ 2  = 13.17, d.f.  = 1). Hypothesized paths that were observed
to be the same across the two samples concerned H1a: Individual Experiential
Knowledge to Marketing Planning Capabilities (χ 2  = 0.31, d.f.  = 1); H2a:
Venture Experiential Knowledge to Marketing Planning Capabilities (χ 2  = 2.04,
d.f.  = 1); and H3: Venture Market Information Knowledge to Marketing Plan-
ning Capabilities (χ 2  = 0.07, d.f.  = 1). These analyses further indicated that
independent SEM analyses should be performed for the U.K. and Chinese samples
in testing our hypotheses.
To test our hypotheses we therefore examined separate structural models
for the U.K. and Chinese data with paths representing the hypothesized direct
and mediated relationships shown in Figure 2, along with a direct path from our
Competitive Intensity control variable to Adaptive Performance. Since the two-
group CFA indicates our measures are equivalent, the coefficients of the structural
models can be compared across the two samples (Steenkamp & Baumgartner,
1998). The results of these analyses are provided in Figures 3 and 4.
Our hypothesis-testing structural equation model indicated a good overall fit
with the data in the U.K. sample, producing fit indices of χ 2 = 511.87, 285 d.f.,
p < .01, CFI = .93, NFI = .93, IFI = .93, and RMSEA = .06. The estimates of
the standardized path coefficients in Figure 3 indicate support for all of the seven
hypothesized paths. In the Chinese sample, the results of our structural equation
model analysis also indicate a good overall fit with the data, producing fit indices
of χ 2 = 506.78, 285 d.f., p < .01, CFI = .92, NFI = .92, IFI = .92, and RMSEA =
.07. The estimates of the standardized path coefficients in Figure 4 also indicate
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 307

Figure 3: U.K. sample structural model.

Figure 4: Chinese sample structural model.

support for each of the seven hypothesized paths. As seen in Figures 3 and 4, the
strength of several of the hypothesized paths varies between the U.K. and Chinese
samples. For example, the path coefficients in the Chinese sample are stronger
than those in the U.K. sample for the path between the Marketing Planning and
Marketing Implementation Capabilities (path coefficient for China: .70, t = 8.74 vs.
United Kingdom: .45, t = 6.44) and the path between Marketing Implementation
Capabilities and Adaptive Performance (path coefficient for China: .78, t = 8.65
vs. United Kingdom: .46, t = 6.04). However, in terms of hypothesis testing,
all of the path coefficients for the hypothesized paths are significant and in the
hypothesized direction in both samples. The primary difference between the two
models concerns the path between the Competitive Intensity control variable and
308 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Adaptive Performance that was found to be significant and negative in the U.K.
sample (path coefficient −.15, t = 2.51), but insignificant in the Chinese sample
(path coefficient .08, t = 1.37). This may reflect differences in the demand for
exported goods from the two countries, with demand for Chinese export goods
growing much more rapidly than that for U.K. exports (Top exporters, 2002).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In both the U.K. and Chinese samples, our results provide empirical support for
KBV theory predictions and qualitative fieldwork insights concerning the use of the
export venture’s international experiential knowledge, informational export market
knowledge, and the experiential knowledge of individual export venture personnel
in the development and use of the export venture’s marketing planning and market-
ing implementation capabilities. Specifically, we find support for the hypothesized
positive relationships between individual-level experiential knowledge relevant to
marketing products in the target foreign market within an export venture and the
venture’s marketing planning (path coefficients are United Kingdom: .19, t = 2.46;
China: .21, t = 2.36) and marketing implementation capabilities (path coefficients
are United Kingdom: .13, t = 2.08; China: .13, t = 2.21). Our results also support
hypothesized positive relationships between venture-level experiential knowledge
relevant to the foreign market and the venture’s marketing planning (path coeffi-
cients are United Kingdom: .16, t = 2.11; China: .26, t = 2.76) and marketing
implementation capabilities (path coefficients are United Kingdom: .15, t = 2.43;
China: .19, t = 3.05). Supporting both KBV and marketing theory predictions, our
analyses also support the hypothesized positive relationship between possession of
venture-level informational knowledge concerning the target export market and the
level of the venture’s marketing planning capabilities (path coefficients are United
Kingdom: .23, t = 2.77; China: .13, t = 2.00).
In terms of the architectural marketing capabilities and adaptive performance
of export ventures, our results in both the U.K. and Chinese samples also support
dynamic capabilities, marketing, and strategic management theory predictions con-
cerning interrelationships between marketing planning and implementation capa-
bilities and the performance impact of superior marketing implementation capa-
bilities. We find that the marketing planning capabilities of export ventures are
strongly positively related to their marketing implementation capabilities (path co-
efficients are United Kingdom: .46, t = 6.44; China: .70, t = 8.74). In turn, we
find that the marketing implementation capabilities of export ventures are strongly
related to their adaptive performance (path coefficients are United Kingdom: .45,
t = 6.04; China: .78, t = 8.65). Overall, our findings therefore support KBV the-
ory propositions that individual- and organizational-level experiential and infor-
mational knowledge are important and valuable components of an organization’s
knowledge base. These knowledge base elements indirectly drive organizational
performance by enabling the development and use of organizational capabilities
that allow firms to successfully adapt to their environment (e.g., Kogut & Zander,
1992; Grant, 1996a).
While the data used to test our hypotheses are cross-sectional, and there-
fore cannot provide empirical insights into the longer-run adaptive performance of
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 309

the export ventures studied, the literature indicates that export ventures’ knowl-
edge resources and architectural marketing capabilities should be sources of
sustainable competitive advantage for a number of reasons. First, the experien-
tial knowledge components of an export venture’s knowledge base (e.g., Kogut &
Zander, 1992) and its architectural marketing capabilities (e.g., Galunic & Rodan,
1998) are largely tacit in nature and are also path-dependent on the history of indi-
vidual personnel and the organization, hindering rivals’ attempts at imitation (e.g.,
Nelson & Winter, 1982; Zander & Kogut, 1995). Second, the relationship between
an organization’s knowledge base and its organizational capabilities is socially
complex, and often causally ambiguous, forming an “asset interconnectedness”
that hinders competitive imitation (e.g., Teece et al., 1997). Third, theory indicates
that, due to significant learning effects, knowledge resources and knowledge-based
capabilities are enhanced rather than diminished by use, creating “time compres-
sion” problems for would-be imitators (e.g., Grant, 1996a; Teece & Pisano, 1994).
This barrier to competitive imitation may be particularly strong in the context of
architectural marketing capabilities where experiential learning is market based
(e.g., Day, 1991), which is a particularly efficient way of acquiring and upgrad-
ing both organizational-level experiential and market information knowledge and
architectural marketing capabilities (e.g., Day, 1997; Slater & Narver, 1995).
Our study may be viewed as having three major implications for knowledge
management theory development and testing. First, our qualitative fieldwork and
quantitative data analysis results highlight the important role of organizational
capabilities in understanding how an organization’s knowledge base impacts its
performance outcomes. While these indirect effects of knowledge resources on or-
ganizational performance have been theorized in the KBV literature (e.g., Kogut &
Zander, 1992), few studies have empirically examined this important phenomenon
(e.g., Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001). Our findings suggest that empirical
investigations of relationships between the types and levels of knowledge in an
organization’s knowledge base and organizational performance may reveal lit-
tle unless the organization’s capabilities relevant to the environment in which it
operates are also considered (cf. Han, Kim, & Srivastava, 1998). An important
implication of our findings is that efforts to use the organization’s knowledge base
to develop relevant capabilities that enable the organization to better adapt to its
environment should be an important focus of knowledge management strategies. In
the exporting context, our results indicate that such knowledge management efforts
should focus in particular on the development and enhancement of the architectural
marketing capabilities of export ventures.
Second, our findings provide new empirical insights into the concept of or-
ganizational memory. Organizational memory has been conceptualized as an ac-
cessible repository for an organization’s collective knowledge (e.g., Day, 1994;
Sinkula, 1994; Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Despite increasing theoretical attention in
the literature, organizational memory has not been the subject of a much empirical
study (e.g., Hult, 1998; Moorman & Miner, 1997). In operationalizing organiza-
tional memory, the empirical studies undertaken have often used indirect indica-
tors of memory such as the size and age of the organization (e.g., Berthon, Pitt, &
Ewing, 2001). In terms of the logic of the theoretical arguments presented, and the
operationalization of key constructs, our study may be holistically viewed as an
310 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

assessment of organizational memory and its links with performance outcomes.

For example, the experience of the organization, its informational knowledge, and
knowledge embedded in the organization’s capabilities are all phenomena that
have been viewed as important aspects of organizational memory (e.g., Moorman
& Miner, 1997; Sinkula, 1994). As such, our findings offer both insights into how
theoretical organizational memory predictions can be operationalized, as well as
initial empirical support for propositions linking organizational memory with or-
ganizational performance.
Third, while marketing studies have suggested the importance of market-
based informational knowledge (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater & Narver,
1994), our results extend existing knowledge by indicating the importance of
individual- and organizational-level experiential knowledge in developing and us-
ing architectural capabilities that enable organizations to adapt to their environment.
In addition, supporting marketing theory propositions, our findings extend knowl-
edge management theory by indicating that while most previous KBV empirical
studies have focused on scientific and technical knowledge, knowledge concerning
the market environment may be a particularly valuable element of the knowledge
base of the firm. From an exporting perspective, firm-level experiential knowl-
edge of the market environment has been examined in international business as a
driver of strategic choices concerning foreign market selection and foreign market
entry mode (e.g., Eriksson et al., 1997). Our study extends existing knowledge
in this area by examining the role of individual-level as well as organizational-
level experiential knowledge simultaneously, and by linking this knowledge with
adaptive capabilities rather than just market entry choices. Our study therefore
represents one of the first KBV empirical studies to simultaneously combine con-
sideration of both experiential and informational knowledge at the individual as
well as the organizational level. Our findings indicate that, in furthering theoreti-
cal understanding of the relationship between the knowledge base of the firm and
performance outcomes, it is necessary to simultaneously examine both different
levels and different types of knowledge present in the firm’s knowledge base. From
a managerial perspective, this suggests that knowledge management strategies need
to pay particular attention to building the organization’s knowledge base in terms of
the acquisition of both individual- and organizational-level experiential knowledge
and organizational-level informational knowledge.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Three limitations of our study result from trade-off decisions required in research
of this type. First, while we gave particular attention to following methodological
guidelines in locating appropriate informants, ensuring key informant knowledge-
ability, guaranteeing anonymity, and designing our survey to maximize respondent
objectivity, the potential still exists for informant bias in our data. While obtaining
data from secondary sources or multiple informants would have been ideal, the
exporting literature and our fieldwork interviews indicate that this is not a realistic
option in the context of export ventures (Katsikeas et al., 2000). Nonetheless, in
seeking to generalize our findings, future research in different organizational con-
texts may wish to utilize multi-informant primary data collection and secondary
data-based research designs. Second, we test our hypotheses with cross-sectional
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 311

data and are therefore unable to empirically impute causality in the relationships
examined or to empirically assess the sustainability of the adaptive performance
outcomes observed. Having established these linkages using cross-sectional data,
it may be worthwhile utilizing longitudinal research designs in future research to
empirically confirm causality and assess performance outcomes over time. Third,
by focusing specifically on an extensive examination of export venture knowledge
resources and architectural marketing capabilities, we were unable to control for
differences between export ventures in terms of other types of resources and ca-
pabilities and other venture-specific phenomena such as export strategy choices.
As our ability to develop valid and reliable measures of knowledge resources and
organizational capabilities improves, the potential for controlling for a wider range
of factors in future studies should increase.
While a number of potential avenues for future research flow from our results,
we believe two hold particular promise for developing theoretical knowledge and
providing insights for managers. First, our research indicates that the possession of
a knowledge base comprising informational and experiential knowledge relevant
to the market environment of the firm is an important source of competitive ad-
vantage. Marketing studies have examined mechanisms for the acquisition of such
informational knowledge at the firm level. However, we have little understanding of
how firms can best acquire the experiential knowledge elements of their knowledge
base. At the firm level a key unanswered question is how firms should design their
learning processes to maximize the development of relevant firm-level experiential
knowledge. For example, are market experiments a better way of generating expe-
riential knowledge than more traditional market research studies? At an individual
level, a key question for firms concerns the human resource practices that facili-
tate the best mix of individual-level experiential knowledge within the firm. For
example, should experience in a particular marketplace be more heavily weighted
than other factors in staffing an export venture? Are there diminishing returns to
individual experiential knowledge gained in a marketplace over time that suggest
appropriate rotation periods for managers in their exposure to different markets?
Answers to these questions would greatly enhance theoretical development and
managerial practice in knowledge management.
Second, our findings indicate that an important next step in knowledge man-
agement development requires the examination of how different components of a
firm’s knowledge base are transformed into organizational capabilities that enable
an organization to adapt to its environment. This is consistent with recent calls
in management theory for a greater focus on how organizations acquire resources
and develop capabilities that match environmental conditions (e.g., Eisenhardt &
Martin, 2000). In addressing this question, our findings indicate that the pro-
cesses by which environmentally relevant informational and experiential knowl-
edge within the firm are transferred and combined to create organizational capabil-
ities should be an important focus for future research in developing KBV theory.
While our study indicates that individual-level informational knowledge is eas-
ily and quickly shared and transferred in export ventures, this may not be true in
other types of organizations. For example, studies of information dissemination in
the marketing and new product development literature indicate that in more cen-
tralized and formalized organizations (e.g. Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Moenaert &
Souder, 1990), such individual-to-organization knowledge transfers may be less
312 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

effective and efficient. A central question for future knowledge development there-
fore concerns the identification of management processes appropriate for different
organizational, environmental, and strategic contingencies that enable the speedy
and efficient transfer of experiential and informational knowledge between indi-
viduals and the organization. Such research would provide valuable theoretical and
managerial insights in this important knowledge management domain.

CONCLUSION
Drawing on insights from the literature and fieldwork interviews, we contribute
to knowledge management theory and practice by providing the first assessment
of a number of key KBV theory propositions, and extending knowledge manage-
ment theory into the increasingly important context of export ventures. Our results
provide empirical support for KBV theory predictions and qualitative fieldwork
insights concerning the importance in the knowledge base of export ventures of
international experiential knowledge, informational export market knowledge, and
the experiential knowledge of individual export venture personnel. Our findings in-
dicate that such knowledge bases are valuable because they allow export ventures to
develop and utilize marketing planning and marketing implementation capabilities
that enable the venture to adapt to the requirements of its export market. [Received:
March 27, 2002. Accepted: February 3, 2003.]

REFERENCES
Albaum, G., Strandskov, J., & Duerr, E. (1998). International marketing and export
management. Harlow, Essex England: Addison-Wesley.
Albaum, G., & Tse, D. K. (2001). Adaptation of international marketing strategy
components, competitive advantage, and firm performance: A study of Hong
Kong exporters. Journal of International Marketing, 9(4), 59–81.
Ambler, T., Styles, C., & Xiucum, W. (1999). The effect of channel relationships
and guanxi on the performance of interprovince export ventures in the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
16(1), 75–87.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in prac-
tice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103(3), 411–423.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail
surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(3), 396–402.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in
organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 421–458.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 313

Basu, A. (1998). Perspectives on operations research in data and knowledge man-

agement. European Journal of Operational Research, 111(1), 1–14.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles:
BMDP Statistical Software.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., & Ewing, M. T. (2001). Corollaries of the collective: The
influence of organizational culture and memory development on perceived
decision-making context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 135–150.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., Katsikeas, C. S., & Berthon, J. P. (1999). Virtual services
go international: International services in the marketspace. Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 7(3), 84–105.
Bonoma, T. V. (1985). The marketing edge: Making strategies work. New York:
Free Press.
Brouthers, K. D, & Brouthers, L. E. (2001). Explaining the national cultural dis-
tance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 177–189.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-
of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & de Mortanges, C. P. (1999). A measure of
export market orientation: Scale development and cross-cultural validation.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 689–708.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship:
An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of
Marketing, 58(1), 1–21.
Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R. M., & Stern, S. (2000). Untangling the origins
of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1123–
1145.
Cohen, M. D. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging
connections. Organization Science, 2(1), 135–139.
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as pro-
cedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science,
5(4), 554–568.
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five
schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a
new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm:
Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.
Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.
Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. P. (1987). How organizations learn: A communications
framework. In N. DiTomaso & S. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology
of organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1–36.
314 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Day, G. S. (1991). Learning about markets. Marketing Science Institute Report
no. 91-117. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 37–51.
Day, G. S. (1997). Aligning the organization to the market. In D. R. Lehman &
K. E. Jocz (Eds.), Reflections on the futures of marketing. Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnos-
ing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.
Demsetz, H. (1991). The theory of the firm revisited. In O. E. Williamson & S.
Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm. New York: Oxford University Press,
159–178.
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1983). International marketing research. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215–233.
Economist. (2002, May 11). Top exporters section, 97.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(11), 1105–1121.
Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. (1997). Experiential knowl-
edge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International
Business Studies, 28(2), 337–360.
Erramilli, M. K. (1991). The experience factor in foreign market entry behavior of
service firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 479–501.
Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organiza-
tion Science, 5(3), 403–420.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, C. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Francis, J. N. P. (1991). When in Rome? The effects of cultural adaptation on
intercultural business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies,
14(3), 403–428.
Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombination in the firm: Knowl-
edge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(12), 1193–1201.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale de-
velopment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Orga-
nizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4),
375–387.
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 315

Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 109–122.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational
corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organi-
zational performance: Is innovation the missing link? Journal of Marketing,
62(4), 30–45.
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability
accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339–
360.
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-evolution
of knowledge, capabilities, and products. Strategic Management Journal,
21(10/11), 961–979.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfigu-
ration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic level man-
agers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 6(2), 171–180.
Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Managing the international strategic sourcing process as
a market-driven organizational learning system. Decision Sciences, 29(1),
193–216.
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., Giunipero, L. C., & Nichols, E. L. (2000). Organiza-
tional learning in global purchasing: A model and test of internal users and
corporate buyers. Decision Sciences, 31(2), 293–325.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and orga-
nizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of
Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.
Inkpen, A. C., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management processes and inter-
national joint ventures. Organization Science, 9(4), 454–468.
International Monetary Fund. (2001). Directions of trade statistics yearbook.
Washington, DC: IMF Publication Services.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and con-
sequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.
Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, L. C., & Morgan, N. A. (2000). Firm-level export
performance assessment: Review, evaluation, and development. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 493–511.
316 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Katsikeas, C. S., & Morgan, R. E. (1994). Differences in perceptions of exporting

problems based on firm size and export market experience. European Journal
of Marketing, 28(5), 17–35.
Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). Determinants of export
performance in a European context. European Journal of Marketing, 30(6),
6–35.
Kerin, R. A., Mahajan, V., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Contemporary perspectives
on strategic market planning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What do firms do? Coordination, identity, and
learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the
sources of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Leonidou, L. C., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1996). The export development process: An
integrative review of empirical models. Journal of International Business
Studies, 27(3), 517–551.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence
on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination.
Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.
Lord, M. D., & Ranft, A. L. (2000). Organizational learning about new international
markets: Exploring the internal transfer of local market knowledge. Journal
of International Business Studies, 31(4), 573–589.
Lukas, B. A., Tan, J. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2001). Strategic fit in transitional
economies: The case of China’s electronics industry. Journal of Management,
27(4), 409–429.
Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded to embodied knowledge:
New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing,
62(4), 1–12.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-
capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–
401.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across func-
tional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Or-
ganization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Matusik, S. F., & Hill, C. W. L. (1998). The utilization of contingent work, knowl-
edge creation, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review,
23(4), 680–697.
McKee, D. O., Conant, J. S., Varadarajan, P. R., & Mokwa, M. P. (1992). Success-
producer and failure-preventer marketing skills: A social learning theory
interpretation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 17–26.
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 317

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moenaert, R. K., & Souder, W. E. (1990). An analysis of the use of extrafunctional
information by R&D and marketing personnel: Review and model. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 7(2), 213–219.
Moller, K., & Anttila, M. (1987). Marketing capability: A key success factor in
small business? Journal of Marketing Management, 3(2), 185–203.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new
product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1),
91–106.
Moorman, C., & Slotegraaf, R. J. (1999). The contingency value of complementary
capabilities in product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2),
239–257.
Myers, M. B. (1999). Incidents of gray market activity among U.S. exporters: Oc-
currences, characteristics, and consequences. Journal of International Busi-
ness Studies, 30(1), 105–126.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nass, C. (1994). Knowledge or skills: Which do administrators learn from experi-
ence? Organization Science, 5(1), 38–50.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Devel-
oping and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 57–73.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Orga-
nization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Pascale, R. T. (1984). Perspectives on strategy: The real story behind Honda’s
success. California Management Review, 26(3), 47–72.
Peng, M. W., & York, A. S. (2001). Behind intermediary performance in export
trade: Transactions, agents, and resources. Journal of International Business
Studies, 32(2), 327–346.
Piercy, N. F., & Morgan, N. A. (1994). Behavioral planning problems in explaining
market planning effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 29(3), 167–178.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and
sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1),
88–102.
Reid, S. D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry and expansion. Journal
of International Business Studies, 12(2), 101–112.
Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 26(3), 597–620.
318 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning.

Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the
market orientation performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1),
46–55.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organiza-
tion. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Souchon, A. L., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). A conceptual framework of export
marketing information use: Key issues and research propositions. Journal of
International Marketing, 4(3), 49–71.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 45–62.
Steenkamp, J. B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance
in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1),
78–90.
Stump, R. L., & Heide, J. B. (1996). Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial
relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(4), 431–441.
Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (2001). Determinants of transnational new
product development capability: Testing the influence of transferring and
deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4),
359–378.
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduc-
tion. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–535.
Tyre, M. J., & Von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in
organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–83.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Aben, M. (2001). Making the most of your com-
pany’s knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 421–
439.
Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2003). A configuration theory assessment of
marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with
marketing performance. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 100–115.
Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation
of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal
of Marketing, 51(3), 15–33.
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: A trip down memory
lane. Organizational Science, 6(2), 280–321.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 16(1), 57–91.
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 319

Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece

(Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and
renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 159–184.
World Bank (2001). World tables. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imi-
tation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science,
6(1), 76–92.

APPENDIX: MEASUREMENT SCALES

Scale and Source Indicators
Individual Experiential Knowledge of export marketing personnel
Knowledgea Experience of our export marketing personnel
(New Scale) The skills of our export marketing people
Venture Experiential Company experience with operating in this export
Knowledgea market
(New Scale) International orientation of our company’s culture
Company’s international experience
Venture Market Information Customer knowledge in this export market
Knowledgea Knowledge of competitors in this market
(New Scale) Information related to doing business in this market
Knowledge of distributors in this export market
Marketing Planning Export marketing planning skills
Capabilitiesb Setting clear export marketing goals
(Adapted from Piercy & Formulating creative export marketing strategies
Morgan, 1994) Thoroughness of export marketing planning
process
Marketing Implementation Effectively translating planned export marketing
Capabilitiesb strategies into action
(Adapted from Bonoma, 1985) Allocating appropriate resources to execute export
marketing strategies
Monitoring the performance of export marketing
strategies
Organizing to deliver planned export marketing
strategies effectively
Competitive Intensityb Competition in this export market is cutthroat
(Jaworski & Kohli, 1993) There are many “promotion” wars in this export
market
Price competition is a hallmark of this export market
One hears of a new competitive move in this
market almost every day
Adaptive Performancea Responding to competitors’ product changes in
(Adapted from Walker & this export market
Ruekert, 1987) Time to market for new export venture products
Number of successful new export venture products
Revenue from new export venture products (less
than three years old)
a
Seven-point scale with anchors “much worse” to “much better”
b
Seven-point scale with anchors “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”
320 Experiential and Informational Knowledge, Architectural Marketing Capabilities

Neil A. Morgan is assistant professor of marketing at the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill. He received his PhD from the University of Wales in
1996, and holds an MBA from the University of Wales and a BA from the London
School of Economics. He previously served on the faculties of the University of
Wales and Cambridge University. His primary research interests are in the areas
of marketing strategy implementation and resources and capabilities as determi-
nants of firm performance. He has published in Journal of Marketing, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, Journal of Business Research, British Journal of Management, Industrial
Marketing Management, and Long Range Planning, among others. He is a mem-
ber of the Academy of International Business, American Marketing Association,
Academy of Marketing Science, Strategic Management Society, and the Academy
of Management, and serves as a reviewer for Decision Sciences, Journal of Mar-
keting, British Journal of Management, and Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science.

Shaoming Zou is associate professor of marketing and international business at

the University of Missouri. He received his PhD from Michigan State University in
1994, and holds an MBA from Michigan State and a mathematics and statistics de-
gree from the University of Sichuan. He previously served on the faculty of Kansas
State University. His primary research interests are in the areas of global marketing
strategy and international marketing performance. He has published in Journal
of Marketing, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International
Marketing, International Marketing Review, and European Journal of Marketing,
among others. He is a member of the Academy of International Business, American
Marketing Association, Academy of Marketing Science, and serves as a reviewer
for Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Marketing, Journal of
International Marketing, and Journal of International Management.

Douglas W. Vorhies is assistant professor of marketing at Illinois State Univer-

sity. He received his PhD from the University of Arkansas in 1994, and holds an
MBA from Western Illinois University and an industrial administration degree from
Iowa State. Doug previously served on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin,
Oshkosh. His primary research interests are in the areas of marketing resources
and capabilities, and the links between innovation, strategic market management,
and performance. He has published in Journal of Marketing, Journal of Prod-
uct Innovation Management, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Services
Marketing, Journal of Strategic Marketing, and Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, among others. He is a member of the American Marketing Association,
Academy of Marketing Science, and Strategic Management Society, and serves
as a reviewer for Journal of Strategic Marketing and Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science.

Constantine S. Katsikeas is Sir Julian Hodge Professor of Marketing and Interna-

tional Business at Cardiff University. He received his PhD from the University of
Wales in 1989, and holds an MA from Lancaster University, and an undergraduate
degree from Athens University. His primary research interests are in the areas of
Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, and Katsikeas 321

export marketing strategy and performance, and international buyer-seller relation-

ships. He has published in Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
Business Research, Management International Review, Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, and Journal of World Business, among others. He is a member of the
Academy of International Business, American Marketing Association, Academy
of Marketing Science, and serves as a reviewer for Decision Sciences, Journal of
International Marketing, and Journal of International Business Studies.