Volume 11, Issue 4 (1-2025)
Human Information Interaction 2025, 11(4): 42-63 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shirmohammadi Y, Safa F. The Impact of Information and Communication Technology on the Performance of Start-up Companies in the Tourism Industry: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Integration and Employee Training. Human Information Interaction 2025; 11 (4)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3162-en.html
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3162-en.html
Associate Professor, Department of Business Managment, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran, Iran).
Abstract: (2893 Views)
Tourism is recognized as one of the most dynamic and rapidly growing economic sectors in recent decades, acting as a major driver of economic development, employment generation, and cultural exchange worldwide (Cristó & Sharpley, 2019). Within this broader industry, tourism start-ups play a central role in developing innovative products and services, enhancing destination attractiveness, and increasing stakeholder engagement. The performance of such start-ups, especially in urban tourism ecosystems such as Tehran, is increasingly dependent on their ability to leverage Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), foster knowledge integration, and innovate in both products and services. ICT has emerged as a key enabler of competitiveness in knowledge-intensive and service-oriented industries. It facilitates the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge across organizational boundaries, allowing firms to accelerate internal learning, adopt open innovation practices, and improve overall performance (Harif et al., 2022). Moreover, in the context of start-ups, where agility, adaptability, and resource constraints are often interwoven, strategic application of ICT becomes not just an operational necessity, but a performance catalyst.
Methods and Materoal
The present study employed a descriptive-correlational methodology based on structural equation modeling (SEM) using the SmartPLS 3 software. A total of 280 managers and employees from tourism start-ups based in Tehran were selected through convenience sampling. Standardized questionnaires were used to measure the constructs of interest, including ICT (Azam, 2015), open innovation (Hamed et al., 2018), knowledge integration, knowledge management (Iqbal et al., 2023), service innovation (Hu, 2009), marketing strategy (Koksal & Ozgul, 2007), and firm performance. Validity and reliability of the constructs were confirmed through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity measures. Items with factor loadings below 0.4 were removed to ensure model parsimony. The GoF (Goodness-of-Fit) index was computed and interpreted based on Kline's (2010) thresholds to ensure robustness of the overall model.
Resultss and Discussion
The results reveal that ICT significantly influences three critical mediating variables: external knowledge integration (β = 0.60, t = 18.0), open innovation (β = 0.75, t = 26.55), and knowledge management (β = 0.512, t = 7.17). These findings support prior studies that conceptualize ICT not only as a data processing tool but also as a vehicle for organizational learning and innovation (Scuotto et al., 2017; Bhatt & Grover, 2005).Moreover, the integration of external knowledge has a direct and significant effect on knowledge management (β = 0.40, t = 8.59), underscoring the importance of external inputs in shaping internal learning systems and innovation capacity (Liao & Marsillac, 2015). In contrast, the direct relationship between open innovation and knowledge management was not statistically significant (t = 0.18), suggesting that open innovation may be more effective when coupled with internal absorptive capabilities or organizational culture conducive to knowledge utilization.Knowledge management, as a central construct in this model, demonstrated strong effects on both service innovation (β = 0.70, t = 24.96) and organizational performance (β = 0.389, t = 3.87). This aligns with the existing literature that highlights the strategic role of knowledge systems in enabling innovation and competitive advantage (Darroch, 2005; Harif et al., 2022). Furthermore, service innovation itself has a modest yet significant impact on performance (β = 0.17, t = 2.66), echoing previous studies that link new service development to firm-level outcomes (Aas & Pedersen, 2010; Cheng & Huizingh, 2014).Surprisingly, the direct effect of marketing strategy on performance was not significant (t = 1.62), which contradicts the results of some earlier studies (Kitsios & Kamariotou, 2016). However, a significant moderating effect of marketing strategy was found on the relationship between service innovation and performance (t = 3.10, β = 0.138), indicating that when strategically aligned with innovation initiatives, marketing strategies can enhance the impact of innovation efforts.The structural model exhibited strong explanatory power, with R² values of 0.658 for knowledge management, 0.494 for service innovation, and 0.429 for performance. The global GoF value of 0.638 exceeded the threshold for strong model fit (Kline, 2010), confirming the robustness of the conceptual framework.
Conclusion
This study offers multiple contributions to both academic theory and managerial practice. First, it empirically validates the critical role of ICT as a driver of performance in tourism start-ups, particularly through its impact on knowledge integration and innovation mechanisms. Second, it emphasizes the importance of effective knowledge management systems as a bridge between external knowledge inputs and internal innovation outcomes. Third, it suggests that while marketing strategy may not directly influence performance, it plays a valuable role as a moderator when combined with service innovation.The implications for practitioners are clear: tourism start-ups should invest in ICT infrastructure and training not merely for operational efficiency but as strategic assets for learning and innovation. Knowledge integration systems, such as customer databases, supplier collaboration platforms, and staff training modules, should be prioritized. In addition, marketing strategies should be designed to amplify the value created through service innovation.Given the limited geographic focus of the study, future research should replicate this model in other cities and cultural contexts. Mixed-method approaches incorporating qualitative insights could also enrich the findings. Moreover, examining the role of individual characteristics such as entrepreneurial orientation, digital literacy, or organizational culture may shed further light on the boundary conditions of these relationships.
Methods and Materoal
The present study employed a descriptive-correlational methodology based on structural equation modeling (SEM) using the SmartPLS 3 software. A total of 280 managers and employees from tourism start-ups based in Tehran were selected through convenience sampling. Standardized questionnaires were used to measure the constructs of interest, including ICT (Azam, 2015), open innovation (Hamed et al., 2018), knowledge integration, knowledge management (Iqbal et al., 2023), service innovation (Hu, 2009), marketing strategy (Koksal & Ozgul, 2007), and firm performance. Validity and reliability of the constructs were confirmed through Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity measures. Items with factor loadings below 0.4 were removed to ensure model parsimony. The GoF (Goodness-of-Fit) index was computed and interpreted based on Kline's (2010) thresholds to ensure robustness of the overall model.
Resultss and Discussion
The results reveal that ICT significantly influences three critical mediating variables: external knowledge integration (β = 0.60, t = 18.0), open innovation (β = 0.75, t = 26.55), and knowledge management (β = 0.512, t = 7.17). These findings support prior studies that conceptualize ICT not only as a data processing tool but also as a vehicle for organizational learning and innovation (Scuotto et al., 2017; Bhatt & Grover, 2005).Moreover, the integration of external knowledge has a direct and significant effect on knowledge management (β = 0.40, t = 8.59), underscoring the importance of external inputs in shaping internal learning systems and innovation capacity (Liao & Marsillac, 2015). In contrast, the direct relationship between open innovation and knowledge management was not statistically significant (t = 0.18), suggesting that open innovation may be more effective when coupled with internal absorptive capabilities or organizational culture conducive to knowledge utilization.Knowledge management, as a central construct in this model, demonstrated strong effects on both service innovation (β = 0.70, t = 24.96) and organizational performance (β = 0.389, t = 3.87). This aligns with the existing literature that highlights the strategic role of knowledge systems in enabling innovation and competitive advantage (Darroch, 2005; Harif et al., 2022). Furthermore, service innovation itself has a modest yet significant impact on performance (β = 0.17, t = 2.66), echoing previous studies that link new service development to firm-level outcomes (Aas & Pedersen, 2010; Cheng & Huizingh, 2014).Surprisingly, the direct effect of marketing strategy on performance was not significant (t = 1.62), which contradicts the results of some earlier studies (Kitsios & Kamariotou, 2016). However, a significant moderating effect of marketing strategy was found on the relationship between service innovation and performance (t = 3.10, β = 0.138), indicating that when strategically aligned with innovation initiatives, marketing strategies can enhance the impact of innovation efforts.The structural model exhibited strong explanatory power, with R² values of 0.658 for knowledge management, 0.494 for service innovation, and 0.429 for performance. The global GoF value of 0.638 exceeded the threshold for strong model fit (Kline, 2010), confirming the robustness of the conceptual framework.
Conclusion
This study offers multiple contributions to both academic theory and managerial practice. First, it empirically validates the critical role of ICT as a driver of performance in tourism start-ups, particularly through its impact on knowledge integration and innovation mechanisms. Second, it emphasizes the importance of effective knowledge management systems as a bridge between external knowledge inputs and internal innovation outcomes. Third, it suggests that while marketing strategy may not directly influence performance, it plays a valuable role as a moderator when combined with service innovation.The implications for practitioners are clear: tourism start-ups should invest in ICT infrastructure and training not merely for operational efficiency but as strategic assets for learning and innovation. Knowledge integration systems, such as customer databases, supplier collaboration platforms, and staff training modules, should be prioritized. In addition, marketing strategies should be designed to amplify the value created through service innovation.Given the limited geographic focus of the study, future research should replicate this model in other cities and cultural contexts. Mixed-method approaches incorporating qualitative insights could also enrich the findings. Moreover, examining the role of individual characteristics such as entrepreneurial orientation, digital literacy, or organizational culture may shed further light on the boundary conditions of these relationships.
Keywords: Information and Communication Technology, Open Innovation, Knowledge Management, Tourism, Marketing.
References
1. Aas, T.H., Pedersen, P.E., 2010. The firm-level effects of service innovation: a literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(5), 759-794. [DOI:10.1142/S1363919610002847]
2. Adams, G.L., Lamont, B.T., 2003. Knowledge management systems and developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 142-154. [DOI:10.1108/13673270310477342]
3. Agarwal, R., Selen, W., 2011. Multi-dimensional nature of service innovation: operationalisation of the elevated service offerings construct in collaborative service organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(11), 1164-1192. [DOI:10.1108/01443571111178484]
4. Akhorshaideh, A., Al-Gasawneh, J., Zeglat, D., Nusairat, N., Judeh, M., 2022. The role of operational innovation and external environment on the relationship between service quality and marketing performance in the hotel business. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(2), 448-458. [DOI:10.21511/ppm.20(2).2022.37]
5. Alkalha, Z., Al-Zu'bi, Z., Al-Dmour, H., Alshurideh, M., Masa'deh, R., 2012. Investigating the effects of human resource policies on organizational performance: an empirical study on commercial banks operating in Jordan. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 51(1), 44-64.
6. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., 2009. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339. [DOI:10.1108/00251740910984578]
7. Bharati, P., Zhang, W., Chaudhury, A., 2015. Better knowledge with social media? Exploring the roles of social capital and organizational knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(3), 456-475. [DOI:10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0467]
8. Bhatt, G.D., Grover, V., 2005. Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: an empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(2), 253-277. [DOI:10.2753/MIS0742-1222220209]
9. Bloom, N., Garicano, L., Sadun, R., Van Reenen, J., 2014. The distinct effects of information technology and communication technology on firm organization. Management Science, 60(12), 2859-2885. [DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2013]
10. Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Moedas, C., 2018. Open innovation: research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5-16. [DOI:10.1177/0008125617745086]
11. Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., Moedas, C., 2018. Open innovation: research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5-16. [DOI:10.1177/0008125617745086]
12. Brunswicker, S., Vanhrbeke, W., 2015. Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): external knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241-1263. [DOI:10.1111/jsbm.12053]
13. Brunswicker, S., Vanhrbeke, W., 2015. Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241-1263. [DOI:10.1111/jsbm.12053]
14. Bughin, J., Chui, M., Manyika, J., 2012. Capturing business value with social technologies. McKinsey Quarterly, 4(1), 72-80. [DOI not available]
15. Campos-Soria, J. A., García-Pozo, A., & Marchante-Mera, A. J. (2014). The effects of innovation on hotel performance during economic crisis. Tourism Economics, 20(1), 45-59. [DOI::10.5367/te.2013.0230]
16. Chen, L., Fong, P.S., 2015. Evaluation of knowledge management performance. Information & Management, 52(4), 431-453. [DOI:10.1016/j.im.2015.02.001]
17. Cheng, C.C., Huizingh, E.K., 2014. When is open innovation beneficial? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235-1253. [DOI:10.1111/jpim.12113]
18. Chesbrough, H., 2012. Open innovation: where we've been and where we're going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20-27. [DOI:10.5437/08956308X5504085]
19. Chesbrough, H.W., 2003a. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/4948.003.0004]
20. Chesbrough, H.W., 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press. [DOI:10.1108/sd.2007.05623gae.002]
21. Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2010). Unravelling the process from closed to open innovation: Evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R&D Management, 40(3), 222-245. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00589.x]
22. Davoudi, N., Akbari, M., & Padash, H. (2016). Identifying and prioritizing factors influencing the success of open innovation in ICT companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 9(2), 239-256. [DOI:10.22059/jed.2016.60134 (in Persian)]
23. Ghasemi, M., Beigi Rad, E., Margir, A., & Sheikhi, M. (2017). The role of strategic and open innovation in the performance of companies in Bushehr Special Economic Zone. Journal of Public Management Research, 10(38), 225-249. [DOI:10.22111/jmr.2018.3723 (in Persian)]
24. Grimpe, C., Kaiser, U., 2010. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: the gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. J. Manag. Stud. 47(8), 1483-1509. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00946.x]
25. Harif, M.A.A.M., Nawaz, M., Hamed, W.U., 2022. The role of open innovation, hotel service quality and marketing strategy in hotel business performance. Heliyon 8(1), e08889. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08889]
26. Harif, M.A.A.M., Nawaz, M., Hamed, W.U., 2022. The role of open innovation, hotel service quality and marketing strategy in hotel business performance. Heliyon 8(1), e08889. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08889]
27. Hassan, R., 2003. Network time and the new knowledge epoch. Time Soc. 12(2-3), 226-241. 10.1177/0961463X0301220088. Grimpe, C., Kaiser, U., 2010. Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: the gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. J. Manag. Stud. 47(8), 1483-1509. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00946.x []
28. Hassan, R., 2003. Network time and the new knowledge epoch. Time Soc. 12(2-3), 226-241. [DOI:10.1177/0961463X030122008]
29. Hueske, A.-K., Endrikat, J., Guenther, E., 2015. External environment, the innovating organization, and its individuals. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 35, 45-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.04.006]
30. Hwang, J., Lee, Y., 2010. External knowledge search, innovative performance and productivity in the Korean ICT sector. Telecommun. Pol. 34(10), 562-571. [DOI:10.1016/j.telpol.2010.01.003]
31. Jaw, C., Lo, J.Y., Lin, Y.H., 2010. The determinants of new service development. Technovation 30(4), 265-277. [DOI:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002]
32. Khadiozad, M., Maliki, M., Razmiar, B., 2019. Investigating the effect of open leadership on the marketing performance. New Res. Manag. Account. 28, 203-230.
33. Kitsios, F., Kamariotou, M., 2016. The impact of information technology and the alignment between business and service innovation strategy on service innovation performance. In: International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA) [DOI:10.1109/ICIMSA.2016.7504042]
34. Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation. Strat. Manag. J. 27(2), 131-150. [DOI:10.1002/smj.507]
35. Lee, C.-C., Chang, C.-P., 2008. Tourism development and economic growth. Tourism Manag. 29(1), 180-192. [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.013]
36. Mennens, K., Van Gils, A., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Letterie, W. (2018). Exploring antecedents of service innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 36(5), 500-520. [DOI::10.1177/0266242617749687]
37. Quintas, P. (2001). Managing knowledge in a new century. In Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader (pp. 1-14). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
38. Quintas, P., 2001. Managing knowledge in a new century. In: Managing Knowledge: an Essential Reader. Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp. 1-14.
39. Ramadani, V., Abazi-Alili, H., Dana, L.-P., Rexhepi, G., & Ibraimi, S. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: Findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 299-325. [DOI:10.1007/s11365-016-0403-x]
40. Ramadani, V., Abazi-Alili, H., Dana, L.-P., Rexhepi, G., Ibraimi, S., 2017. The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. Int. Enterpren. Manag. J. 13(1), 299-325. [DOI:10.1007/s11365-016-0403-x]
41. Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Knowledge-driven preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes: An explorative view on small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 640-655. [DOI:10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0506]
42. Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., Meissner, D., 2017. Knowledge-driven preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An explorative view on small to medium enterprises. J. Knowl. Manag. 21(3), 640-655. [DOI:10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0506]
43. Scuotto, V., Ferraris, A., Bresciani, S., 2016. Internet of Things: applications and challenges in smart cities: a case study of IBM smart city projects. Bus. Process Manag. J. 22(2), 357-367. [DOI:10.1108/BPMJ-05-2015-0074]
44. Soto-Acosta, P., & Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G. (2016). New ICTs for knowledge management in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 417-422. [DOI:10.1108/JKM-01-2016-0038]
45. Soto-Acosta, P., Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., 2016. New ICTs for knowledge management in organizations. J. Knowl. Manag. 20(3), 417-422.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2016-0057 [DOI:10.1108/JKM-01-2016-0038]
46. Storey, C., Kahn, K.B., 2010. The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in stimulating service innovation. J. Serv. Res. 13(4), 397-410. [DOI:: 10.1177/1094670510375502]
47. Tidd, J., 2014. Open innovation research, management and practice. London: Imperial College Press. [DOI:: 10.1142/p949]
48. Tsuji, M., et al., 2018. ICT and Two Categories of R&D in the Innovation Process Among Firms in ASEAN Countries. [DOI:10.1108/EJMBE-02-2018-0030]
49. Yang, Y., et al., 2016. Continuous improvement competence, employee creativity, and new service development performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 275-288. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.006]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
