Journal of Knowledge Management

Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge management evolution

Hsiu-Fen Lin

Article information:
To cite this document:
Hsiu-Fen Lin, (2011),"Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge management evolution", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1
pp. 136 - 155
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108747
Downloaded on: 09 March 2015, At: 14:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2227 times since 2011*

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Annette M. Mills, Trevor A. Smith, (2011),"Knowledge management and organizational performance: a decomposed view", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 156-171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108756
J. Ajith Kumar, L.S. Ganesh, (2011),"Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and personalization during product development", Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 118-135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108738
Hsiu-Fen Lin, (2014),"A multi-stage analysis of antecedents and consequences of knowledge management evolution", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 52-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2013-0278

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 226873 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Antecedents of the stage-based

knowledge management evolution
Hsiu-Fen Lin

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose To enhance ones understanding of the evolution of knowledge management (KM), this study
seeks to develop a research model to examine the impact of individual (knowledge self-efficacy, openness
in communication, reciprocal benefits), organizational (top management support, organizational rewards,
and sharing culture), and information technology contexts (KM system infrastructure and KM system
quality) on the KM evolution along three stages (KM initiation, implementation, and institutionalization).
Hsiu-Fen Lin is based in the
Department of Shipping
and Transportation
Management, National
Taiwan Ocean University,
Taiwan.

Design/methodology/approach Survey data from 241 managers (in charge of KM practices in their
companies) in large Taiwanese firms were collected and used to test the research model using the
structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.
Findings The results reveal that the attributes for individual-organizational-technological contexts
have different impacts on three stages of KM evolution. In particular, knowledge self-efficacy, top
management support, and KM system quality have positive effects on all three KM evolution stages.
Research limitations/implications Future research should include structured interviews and case
studies of managers dealing with ongoing or recently completed KM planning projects to help
understand the practical usefulness of the research model.
Practical implications Creating an organizational climate characterized by top management support
and knowledge-sharing culture is likely to assist both management and employees in socializing and
interacting with one another, thus driving KM effectiveness. Managers should strive to enable
employees to propose ideas for new opportunities and foster a positive social interaction culture for
implementing KM initiatives.
Originality/value Theoretically, this study aims to provide a research model that is capable of
understanding the antecedents of the stage-based KM evolution. From a managerial perspective, the
findings of this study provide valuable guidelines to policy-makers and practitioners in implementing KM
and accelerating KM evolution.
Keywords Knowledge management, Individual perception, Organizations,
Communication technologies
Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The author would like to thank

the National Science Council of
the Republic of China, Taiwan
for financially supporting this
research under Contract No.
NSC97-2410-H-019-008.
Received: 5 April 2010
Accepted: 19 July 2010

PAGE 136

In a dynamic, rapidly changing business environment, the ability of an organization to

strategically leverage knowledge becomes its main source of sustainable competitive
advantage. Knowledge management (KM) is widely recognized as evolving into a tool for
strategic management for most organizations (Teece et al., 1997), but failure to widely
promote KM limits its benefits (Anantatmula, 2008). To fully realize value from knowledge
exploitation, the evolution of business knowledge and KM with advancement of
organizations over time becomes an important research topic (Kambil, 2009; Lee and
Kim, 2001; Lin, 2007a). This study focuses on KM practices, which refers to a process
involving the management of all knowledge to meet existing and emerging needs, identify
and exploit existing and acquiring knowledge assets and develop new opportunities (Jarrar,
2002). KM practices aim to see individual knowledge become group and organizational
knowledge over time, which in turn improves the stock of knowledge available to the firm.

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011, pp. 136-155, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673271111108747

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

The development of KM practices is an important undertaking because KM is the business

process of collecting and creating useful knowledge (i.e. knowledge acquisition), storing
that knowledge in the repository to enable employees to access that knowledge easily (i.e.
knowledge conversion), exploiting and usefully applying knowledge (i.e. knowledge
application), and preventing inappropriate knowledge use (i.e. knowledge protection) (Gold
et al., 2001). Moreover, social activities (such as social networks and informal community
networks) are a critical resource to facilitate and improve KM processes within and between
organizations (Widen-Wulff and Ginman, 2004; Rhodes et al., 2008). Kim and Lee (2006)
also argue that without social networks, formal KM processes are insufficient to encourage
employees to share, contribute and reuse knowledge in work environments. These KM
processes highlight the continuous reconfiguration of the firm knowledge-based assets, and
adapt to changing market conditions to achieve organizational renewal and innovativeness.
KM evolution attracts substantial research attention because it involves enhancing
organizational learning capacity and competitive advantage to ensure long-term firm
survival (Cepeda and Vera, 2007; Johannessen and Olsen, 2003).
In this study, KM evolution defines as a series of stages from firm initial evaluation of KM
practices at the pre-implementation stage (KM initiation), to their formal implementation (KM
implementation), and finally to such practices becoming institutionalized as daily activities
throughout the organization and increasing overall organizational effectiveness. The
literature reviewed by Lee and Kim (2001) and Lin (2007a) suggests that a stage-based KM
evolution analysis would provide insight for understanding KM implementation. However,
much existing research focuses on assessing the linkage between the contextual
antecedents and a single stage of KM evolution, such as KM adoption decisions (Bock
et al., 2005; Lin, 2007b), KM implementation (Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2010; Chen and
Huang, 2007), and KM effectiveness (Chen and Huang, 2009; Wu and Tsai, 2005; Zaim et al.,
2007). Researchers rarely examine empirically exactly how contextual factors impact the
various stages of KM.
By sharing individual employee knowledge within an organization, knowledge of individual
employees becomes organizational knowledge, enabling organizational learning (Cabrera
et al., 2006). Thus, successful KM evolution requires individual employees to share a
repository of experiences. Beyond individual-level factors, Bounfour (2003) observed that
an organization must assess its readiness for the KM evolution, including management
support and organizational learning culture. Additionally, influences from information
technology can also affect the KM evolution. For example, Hazlett et al. (2003) found that
information technology can assist organizational employees in performing their KM tasks
more efficiently. However, these contextual factors (individual, organizational, and
information technology) focus on a single-stage of KM evolution and examined separately
in different research models. The literature lacks a unified theoretical research model for
guiding empirical research. The individual-organizational-technological contexts affecting
the multi-stage evolution of KM practices thus need to be identified and understood.
This study develops a research model to examine the impact of three important contextual
factors (individual, organizational, and information technology) on three stages of KM
evolution (KM initiation, implementation and institutionalization). The research model and
hypothesized relationships are empirically tested using the structural equation modeling
(SEM) approach, supported by LISREL 8.8 software. This study has theoretical and
managerial implications. Theoretically, this study aims to provide a research model that
capable of understanding the antecedents of the stage-based KM evolution. From a
managerial perspective, the findings of this study provide valuable guidelines to
policy-makers and practitioners in implementing KM and accelerating KM evolution.

Theoretical background and research model

The stages of KM evolution
KM evolution can be viewed as an administrative innovation, owning to its fundamental role
in generating new ideas and developing new business opportunities through the
socialization and learning process of knowledge workers (Darroch and McNaughton,

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 137

2002; Hall and Andriani, 2003). KM evolution is complex and dynamic, and varies across
time with distinct sets of antecedents and also involves different loci of organizational impact
(Lee and Kim, 2001). To better understand KM evolution problems and their solution,
multi-stage rather than single-stage analysis provides better insight into KM practices (Lin,
2007a). A stage-based KM evolution model helps an organization to assess its relative
progress in implementing KM. Various KM evolution models are proposed and validated with
multiple KM research. These models are developed by different perspectives. For example,
Lee and Kim (2001) propose that organizational capability of KM grows through the following
four stages: initiation, propagation, integration, and networking. Xu and Quaddus (2005)
regard the adoption of KM systems as an innovation diffusion process and proposed a
six-stage model. The six stages are initiation, adoption, pilot implementation, organic
growth, organizational implementation, and diffusion. Arguing that KM is adaptable over
time through the dimensions of KM process, KM effectiveness, and social-technical support,
Lin (2007a) suggests a KM evolution stage model which consists of three stages:
1. KM initiation.
2. development.
3. mature.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

According to the innovation diffusion literature (Rogers, 1995), innovation evolution begins
from initial firm awareness and evaluation of administrative innovation. In the first or the
initiation stage, the firm starts to recognize the importance of KM and prepare for KM efforts.
The KM literature (Kaser and Miles, 2002; Lin and Lee, 2006; Song, 2002) suggests that
when decision makers perceive KM to have clear overall organizational benefits, they are
more likely to promote KM within their organization. Applying this perspective to KM, KM
initiation, the first stage of KM evolution, is defined as the rating assigned to the potential
benefits of KM before the firm began implementing KM.
KM implementation follows KM initiation. Consistent with innovation diffusion and the KM
literature (Gold et al., 2001; Rogers, 1995; Xu and Quaddus, 2005), KM implementation, the
second stage of KM evolution, is defined as the degree to which the activities of knowledge
acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge application, and knowledge protection are
implemented within the organization. During the KM implementation stage, the firm has
successfully implemented KM to facilitate and motivate knowledge activities. The important
concept in KM implementation includes knowledge transfer strategies, human resource
policies, and KM system deployment.
Institutionalization is often characterized as the final stage in an innovation diffusion process
(Goodman and Steckler, 1989). KM institutionalization, the third stage of KM evolution, is
defined as the extent to which KM practices have been successfully implemented to
improve overall organizational effectiveness. The stage of KM institutionalization represents
the steady state in which KM can effectively adapt to change and enhances organizational
performance. During this stage, firms with proficiency in acquiring, converting, utilizing, and
protecting knowledge are more skilled in developing profitable KM effectiveness.
Based on the above theoretical considerations and literature review, this study specifies
initiation, implementation, and institutionalization as three stages of KM evolution. This is
consistent with the KM stage model of Lin (2007a) that analyze the KM evolution by
considering a sequence from initiation to development and then to mature stage. Next, this
study attempts to identify factors influencing the three KM evolution stages, which discusses
below.
Antecedents of KM evolution
KM involves a dynamic capacity of the firm that evolves over time (Easterby-Smith and
Prieto, 2008; Gold et al., 2001; Zahra and George, 2002). KM evolution is a dynamic process
of strengthening organizational effectiveness by maximizing the utilization of knowledge that
is shared among employees (Grant, 1996). KM evolution must begin simultaneously for both
employees and the organization, because individual involvement is essential to
organizational learning and knowledge sharing (Lin, 2007a; Yeh et al., 2006). Davenport
and Prusak (1998) also argue that information technology can be viewed as a key

PAGE 138 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

determinant of the effectiveness of organizational execution of KM. The KM system can

enable rapid knowledge search, access and retrieval, and can facilitate the success of KM
practices. The literature recognizes that KM embeds within the often-complex social and
technical interactions involving individuals, groups, or organizations that are attempting to
create an effective KM environment (Lee and Choi, 2003). Hence, reviewing the above KM
literature, this study investigates that the individual-organizational-technological contexts
are appropriate to study contextual factors that influence the stage-based KM evolution.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

First, referring to the individual context, most authors agree that the success or failure of KM
depends on employee beliefs and attitudes about sharing knowledge (Wasko and Faraj,
2005; Mohamed et al., 2008). Moffett et al. (2003) suggest that individual motivators may
enable employee willingness to participate and engage in the obtaining and sharing of
knowledge. Employees are motivated when they think that KM practices will be worth the
effort and able to maintain good interpersonal relationships with others. Therefore, the
expectation of individual and reciprocal relationships can encourage employees to
participate in KM practices, in turn facilitating the KM evolution.
Second, referring to the organizational context, organizational support is usually made to
capture efficiently the benefits of KM (Alazmi and Zairi, 2003). In the context of KM, the
different aspects of organizational support are critical drivers of KM evolution, such as top
management support (Storey and Barnett, 2000), reward systems linked to KM (Wong,
2005), and knowledge sharing culture (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004).
Finally, referring the information technology context, KM system infrastructure (such as
groupware, online databases, intranet, and virtual communities) can be effectively used to
facilitate the codification, integration, and dissemination of organizational knowledge (Zack,
1999). Kulkarni et al. (2006) proposed that enterprises require a high-quality KM system that
is accessible and capable of easily leveraging KM practices. Firms with greater KM system
readiness and higher KM system quality thus are more likely to create sources of sustainable
growth and pursue KM best practices. In summary, in the research model (see Figure 1),
factors from individual-organizational-technological contexts, were included as antecedents
of three stages of KM evolution.
Individual context. Davenport and Prusaks (1998) definition indicates that knowledge is
personal. Organizations can only begin to effectively manage knowledge resources when
employees are willing to cooperate with colleagues to contribute knowledge to the firm. The
research considered here has focused on individual factors that promote or inhibit the KM
evolution. The three factors that may be proximal determinants of KM evolution are identified:
knowledge self-efficacy, openness in communication, and reciprocal benefits.
Knowledge self-efficacy defines as the judgments of employee regarding their capabilities
to provide knowledge that is valuable to the organization. Researchers find that employees
with high confidence in their ability to provide valuable knowledge are more likely to both
donate and collect knowledge with colleagues (Lin, 2007b). Employees who believe that
they can contribute valuable knowledge will encourage firms to effectively move across
various stages of KM evolution. Knowledge self-efficacy is thus expected to influence the
three stages of KM evolution.
H1.

Knowledge self-efficacy relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

In the context of KM, openness in communication defines as the degree to which employees
are willing to exchange their ideas and knowledge with colleagues, even if those ideas
contradict popular opinion. Studies have shown that openness in communication acts as a
major facilitator in establishing a learning culture (Marquardt and Reynolds, 1994).
H2.

Openness in communication quality relates positively to KM initiation,

implementation and institutionalization.

Blau (1964) highlights reciprocity behavior as a benefit of individuals engaging in social

exchange. Some studies consider the importance of reciprocal benefits to provide an
effective motivation for facilitating knowledge sharing and thus achieving long-term mutual

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 139

Figure 1 Research model

Individual context
Knowledge
self-efficacy

H1(+,+,+)

Openness in
communication

H2(+,+,+)

Reciprocal
benefits

H3(+,+,+)

Three stages of KM evolution

Organizational context
Top management
support

H4(+,+,+)

Organizational
rewards

H5(+,+,+)

KM
initiation

KM
implementation

KM
institutionalization

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

H6(+,+,+)

Sharing culture

Information technology
context
KM system
infrastructure

H7(+,+,+)

KM system
quality

H8(+,+,+)

Control variables
Firm size
Industry type

cooperation (Bock et al., 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Therefore, this study posits a close
relationship between reciprocal benefits and the three stages of KM evolution.
H3.

Reciprocal benefits relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

Organizational context. Organizational characteristics play a strategic and crucial role in

influencing organizational change, innovation, and outcomes, especially in KM areas (Pan
and Scarbrough, 1998; Park et al., 2004). This study chooses three organizational factors as
antecedents of three stages of KM evolution:
1. top management support;
2. organizational rewards; and
3. sharing culture.
In this study, top management support refers to the degree to which top management
understands the importance of KM and the extent to which top management is involved in
KM practices. KM involves a process of wide-ranging organizational change initiatives, not
only a strategic management effort (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Support from top
management is critical in the growth of KM practices since it encourages voluntary
employee participation in donating and collecting important knowledge. Therefore, high
levels of top management support may result in more mature KM practices and facilitate the
KM evolution.
H4.

Top management support relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

PAGE 140 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

Organizational rewards, such as salary incentive, bonuses, promotion incentive, or job

security, indicate what the organization values shape employee behaviors (Cabrera and
Bonache, 1999). Previous researchers suggest that reward systems can encourage
employees to share their knowledge (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Wong, 2005). As such, this study
expects an important relationship between organizational rewards and the three stages of
KM evolution.
H5.

Organizational rewards relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

Sharing culture comprises a set of shared understandings related to providing employees

access to relevant information and building and using knowledge networks within
organizations (Hoegl et al., 2003). A firm can successfully promote KM practices not only by
directly incorporating knowledge in its business strategy, but also by creating a knowledge
sharing culture (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004). Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland
(2004) also suggest that sharing culture is a crucial element to facilitate KM in business
operations.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

H6.

Sharing culture relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

Information technology context. In this study, KM system infrastructure refers to information

technologies that enable KM-related activities, such as groupware, online databases,
intranet, and virtual communities. The capability of KM systems has evolved from merely
being static archives of information and knowledge to being human-machine interfaces for
interactive knowledge transfer and learning. Two factors likely affect the KM evolution: KM
system infrastructure and KM system quality.
A well-developed KM system infrastructure can allow firms to expand available social
networks by overcoming geographical boundaries and thus achieving more effective
collaborative activities (Pan and Leidner, 2003). Zack (1999) believes that KM system plays
the following three different roles in KM activities:
1. obtaining knowledge;
2. defining, storing, categorizing, indexing, and linking knowledge-related digital items; and
3. seeking and identifying related content.
A solid infrastructure for KM increases the knowledge base available to individual
employees and enables employees to work together, in turn promoting the KM evolution.
H7.

KM system infrastructure relates positively to KM initiation, implementation, and

institutionalization.

KM system quality refers to the quality of knowledge provided by the KM system. Knowledge
accuracy, relevance, currency, reliability, and accessibility are examples of qualities valued
by employees (DeLone and McLean, 2003; Nelson et al., 2005). In situations involving high
KM system quality, employees are better able to search for and use knowledge, helping
employees to use KM system to effectively perform KM functions.
H8.

KM system quality relates positively to KM initiation, implementation and

institutionalization.

Control variables
This study includes two control variables to account for contextual differences: firm size and
industry type. First, firm size may be positively related to strategic renewal and innovation
efforts, since large firms are more likely to possess slack resources (Cohen and Levinthal,
1989). Second, industry type is used to control for industry-specific differences that may
affect the KM evolution, as service and manufacturing industries differ in their KM styles
implementation (Choi and Lee, 2003). The use of these variables in the research model helps
control for firm- and industry-level differences that might affect KM initiation, implementation
and institutionalization.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 141

Method
Survey procedure
Data were collected through mail survey of senior executives in Taiwanese companies. A
draft questionnaire was adapted from previous studies and modified for use in the KM
context. With establishing content validity, the questionnaire is refined through rigorous
pre-testing. The pre-testing focuses on instrument clarity, question wording and validity.
During the pre-testing, three doctoral students, two management profession and three
senior executives (in charge of KM practices in their companies) are invited to comment on
the questions and wordings. The comments of these eight individuals then provided a basis
for revisions to the construct measures. The population in this study is the top 1,600
Taiwanese firms (including 1,000 manufacturing, 500 retail/wholesale distribution, and 100
financial service firms), published by 2008 Common Wealth Magazine. Random sampling is
performed to select 50 percent in each type of industry. A total of 800 questionnaires are
distributed among the managers (in charge of KM practices in their companies) of the
sampled firms. To ensure that managers received the questionnaire and maximize response
rate, four research assistants spent two weeks telephoning these 800 firms. The research
assistants sought the name of the managers (currently and directly in charge of KM) to whom
a questionnaire should be mailed.
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Sample
Of the 800 firms, 247 responded, with 241 having complete data available for subsequent
analysis, yielding an effective response rate of 30.1 percent. Table I shows the
characteristics of the responding firms in terms of industry, total assets, number of
employees, and respondent title. All respondents had worked in the firm for an average of
14.6 years. This finding result indicates that respondents are sufficiently knowledgeable to
answer the survey.
Additionally, this study conducts two statistical analyses to ensure the absence of
non-response bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). First, this study compares the
responding and non-responding firms in terms of company assets and employee numbers.
This information is available from the 2008 Common Wealth Magazine, and the independent
Table I Demographic characteristics of the responding firms
Demographic characteristics

Frequency

Percentage

Industry
Manufacturing
Retail/wholesale distribution
Financial services

151
72
18

62.6
29.9
7.5

82
96
27
36

34.0
39.8
11.2
15.0

68
108
33
32

28.2
44.8
13.7
13.3

43
93
35
50
20

17.8
38.6
14.5
20.8
8.3

Total assets (NT$)

Less than $10 billion
$11-$50 billion
$51-$100 billion
Over $100 billion
Number of employees
Fewer than 1,000
1,001-5,000
5,001-10,000
Over 10,000
Respondent title
Chief executive officer
IS manager
Business operation manager
Administration/finance manager
Others
Note: n 241

PAGE 142 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

sample t-test revealed no significant difference between the two groups ( p 0.13 and 0.10,
respectively). The respondents are then divided into two groups based on return dates.
Comparison of the two groups in terms of company assets and number of employees again
revealed no significant differences based on the independent sample t-test ( p 0.11 and
0.23, respectively). Therefore, non-response bias should not be a problem in this study.
Measures

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Measurement items were developed on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature
and modified to suit the KM context. Constructs and associated indicators in the
measurement model, as well as prior research support, is listed in the Appendix (Table II)
and discussed below.
Independent variables. Knowledge self-efficacy was measured by the extent to which
employee judgments of their capability to provide knowledge that is valuable to the
organization (Lu et al., 2006; Spreitzer, 1995). Openness in communication was measured
by five items adapted from Roberts and OReilly (1997). Higher scores indicate that
employees feel free to communicate their ideas and knowledge with colleagues. Reciprocal
benefits were measured using four items taken from Kankanhalli et al. (2005), which focused
on employee beliefs that current knowledge contribution would lead to future requests for
knowledge being met.
Top management support assessed the level of top management commitment to the KM
practices using four items (Tan and Zhao, 2003; Taylor and Wright, 2004). Organizational
rewards define as the degree to which employees believe that they will receive extrinsic
incentives (such as salary incentive, bonuses, promotion incentive, or job security) through
their knowledge contribution (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hargadon, 1998). This study
measures sharing culture with four items referring to the importance of employee interaction
for building knowledge sharing networks, as well as the willingness of employees to share
knowledge and experience (Gold et al., 2001).
KM system infrastructure refers to technologies that enable KM-related activities; a four-item
scale was adapted from Lee and Choi (2003). KM system infrastructure was measured by
whether KM system can facilitate employees to contribute to the knowledge with colleagues.
Finally, KM system quality was measured by five items drawn from both DeLone and McLean
(2003) and Nelson et al. (2005). KM system quality measures the extent to which the
knowledge provided by the KM system is accurate, relevant, up-to-date, reliable, and easy
to access.
Dependent variables. Initially the main task of a potential adopter is to gather relevant
information on an administrative innovation and assess its potential benefits (Rogers, 1995).
Thus, KM initiation was measured by how the potential benefits of KM were rated before the
firm began implementing KM. Five items were used: gain competitive advantage, improve
employee relations and development, innovate new products/services, identify new
business opportunities, and promote organizational innovation culture (Skyme and
Amindon, 1997).
KM implementation was measured by an aggregated index: whether the firm has
implemented the 11 KM practices along four dimensions of KM process. The four
dimensions of KM process, including knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion,
knowledge application, and knowledge protection, were adapted from the works of Gold
et al. (2001). Then, this study aggregates the 11 KM implementation items and converted
them into a five-point scale to form the dependent variable, KM implementation. This
approach has been suggested by the literature to measure technology
adoption/implementation (Grover and Goslar, 1993).
KM institutionalization was measured using four items asking respondents about the extent
to which KM practices have been successfully implemented to improve overall
organizational effectiveness, streamline corporate internal processes, coordinate the
development efforts of different units, and adapt quickly to unanticipated changes. These
items were adapted from Gold et al. (2001) and Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001).

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 143

PAGE 144 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

j
0.61-0.79
0.62-0.88
0.67-0.78
0.79-0.86
0.78-0.92
0.69-0.87
0.62-0.83
0.70-0.80
0.71-0.78
na
0.80-0.90
na
na

0.83
0.88
0.82
0.90
0.94
0.85
0.80
0.86
0.86
na
0.91
na
na

Composite
reliability
0.50
0.36
0.37
0.22
0.21
0.31
0.24
0.35
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.01
0.01

(1)

0.60
0.33
0.24
0.03
0.11
0.50
0.21
0.22
0.13
0.10
0.01
0.01

(2)

0.53
0.35
0.07
0.23
0.46
0.18
0.32
0.08
0.19
0.02
0.01

(3)

0.69
0.10
0.14
0.47
0.17
0.23
0.12
0.12
0.02
0.01

(4)

0.75
0.06
0.21
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01

(5)

0.59
0.25
0.29
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.01
0.01

(6)

0.51
0.37
0.27
0.12
0.31
0.01
0.01

(7)

0.56
0.26
0.16
0.30
0.01
0.02

(8)

Correlation matrix

0.55
0.19
0.24
0.02
0.01

(9)

na
0.08
0.01
0.05

(10)

0.71
0.01
0.01

(11)

na
0.02

(12)

na

(13)

Notes: All standardized loadings are significant at p , 0.01 level. na: loadings, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) are not applicable to the single-item
constructs. Diagonal elements represent the AVE, while off-diagonal elements represent the square correlations. For adequate discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be greater
than corresponding off-diagonal elements
x 2 2376.69; df 1005; normed x 2 236; CFI 0.91; NNFI 0.90; IFI 0.91; RMSEA 0.075

(1) Knowledge self-efficacy

(2) Openness in communication
(3) Reciprocal benefits
(4) Top management support
(5) Organizational rewards
(6) Sharing culture
(7) KM system infrastructure
(8) KM system quality
(9) KM initiation
(10) KM implementation
(11) KM Institutionalization
(12) Firm size
(13) Industry type

Constructs

Range of standardized
loadingsa

Table II Results of the measurement model

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Together, these items reflect the extent to which KM practices have been incorporated into
organizational-level effectiveness.
Control variables. Firm size was measured by the number of employees in the entire
organization, log-transformed to reduce data variance. Industry type contains two
categories, that is, service-oriented (including retail/wholesale distribution and financial
services) and manufacturing industries.

Results
This study used the structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the research model,
supported by LISREL software (version 8.8) (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). LISREL software
was chosen primarily because of its emphasis on the overall variance-covariance matrix and
the overall model fit (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). As the first step of the Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) procedure, the measurement model used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to test reliability and validity of the constructs. Then, the structural model examined the
associations hypothesized in the research model.
Results of the measurement model

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

For the measurement model to have sufficiently good model fit, the overall model fit was
assessed in terms of five common measures: normed x 2 (the ratio of x 2 to the degree of
freedom), comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), incremental fit index (IFI),
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A very good fit is normally deemed
to exist when normed x 2 is smaller than 3 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), CFI, NNFI and IFI are
greater than 0.9 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), and RMSEA is around 0.1 (Browne and Cudeck,
1993).
As Table II shows, all model-fit indices exceed commonly accepted levels, demonstrating
that the measurement model show a good fit with the data collected. The measurement
model was further assessed for construct reliability and validity (see Table II. The composite
reliabilities of the constructs ranged between 0.80 and 0.94, which exceeds the
recommended cut-off level of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). All constructs in the
model satisfied the requirements for convergent validity (standardized loadings greater than
0.5 and significant at p , 0.01) (Hair et al., 1998; Gefen et al., 2000) and discriminant validity
(average variance extracted greater than each square correlation) (Fornell and Larcker,
1981), suggesting adequate reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Results of the structural model
Table III shows the standardized paths in the structural model. Within the individual context,
knowledge self-efficacy has significant and positive paths to KM initiation (path
coefficient 0.32, p , 0.01), implementation (path coefficient 0.13, p , 0.10) and
Table III Results of the structural model
Path from

KM initiation

H1. Knowledge self-efficacy

H2. Openness in communication
H3. Reciprocal benefits
H4. Top management support
H5. Organizational rewards
H6. Sharing culture
H7. KM system infrastructure
H8. KM system quality
Control variables
Firm size
Industry
R 2 (%)

0.32***
0.06
0.21**
0.12*
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.23***
0.01
0.08*
50

Path to
KM implementation
0.13*
0.22**
0.09
0.21***
0.03
0.24***
0.22*
0.19**
0.15***
0.01
32

KM institutionalization
0.15*
0.24**
0.06
0.12*
0.01
0.16**
0.48***
0.23***

Supported?
Supported
Partially supported
Partially supported
Supported
Not supported
Partially supported
Partially supported
Supported

0.02
0.01
46

Notes: *p , 0.10; **p , 0.05; ***p , 0.01

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 145

institutionalization (path coefficient 0.15, p , 0.10). Thus, the results support H1.
Openness in communication has significant and positive paths to KM implementation
(path coefficient 0.22, p , 0.05) and institutionalization (path coefficient 0.24,
p , 0.05), and thus the results partially support H2. Reciprocal benefits has significant
and positive path to KM initiation (path coefficient 0.21, p , 0.05) while it has no
significant paths to KM implementation and institutionalization. Thus, the findings partially
support H3.
Within the organizational context, this study finds significant and positive paths from top
management support to KM initiation (path coefficient 0.12, p , 0.10), implementation
(path coefficient 0.21, p , 0.01) and institutionalization (path coefficient 0.12,
p , 0.10). Accordingly, the result support H4. All three paths associated with
organizational rewards are no significant, so the results do not support H5. Sharing
culture has significant paths to KM implementation (path coefficient 0.24, p , 0.01) and
institutionalization (path coefficient 0.16, p , 0.05), thus the results partially support H6.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Within the information technology context, KM system infrastructure has significant and
positive paths to KM implementation (path coefficient 0.22, p , 0.10) and
institutionalization (path coefficient 0.48, p , 0.01). However, KM system infrastructure
has no significant path to KM initiation. Thus, the results partially support H7. Finally, KM
system quality has significant and positive paths to KM initiation (path coefficient 0.23,
p , 0.01), implementation (path coefficient 0.19, p , 0.05) and institutionalization (path
coefficient 0.23, p , 0.01). Thus, the results support H8. Additionally, the R-square for the
three dependent variables, KM initiation, implementation and institutionalization, are 50
percent, 32 percent, and 46 percent, respectively.
Finally, regarding the control variables, firm size has a significant and positive path to KM
implementation. The results indicate that larger firms have more resources and skills
available to implement KM practices. Next, service-oriented firms (including retail/wholesale
distribution and financial services), while compared to manufacturing firms, are more likely
to perceive potential benefits of KM activities during the initiation stage. A possible reason is
that firms in service industries that face end-consumers directly are more likely to launch KM
initiatives to facilitate more effective service innovation.

Discussion
This study tests the effects of eight individual-organizational-technological factors on three
stages of KM evolution. The empirical results reveal several factors with differential effects at
different KM evolution stages and discusses below.
Individual context
Knowledge self-efficacy is positively correlated with the three KM evolution stages.
Knowledge self-efficacy has been cited to be an important factor for facilitating KM (Kang
et al., 2008). This result implies that employees require competence and confidence to
engage in KM practices. That is, employees who believe in their ability to contribute
organizationally useful knowledge tend to have stronger motivation to facilitate the KM
evolution.
The results show that reciprocal benefits are only significant in their impacts on the KM
initiation stage, but show no significant impact on the other two stages. This result is
consistent with that of Scott (2000), who argues that collaboration ability depends heavily on
trust as open reciprocity, and that information and knowledge sharing will not occur freely
without such reciprocity. By emphasizing organizational social resources such as employee
beliefs regarding mutual or reciprocal benefits, firms are likely to have high absorptive
capacity to employ organizational knowledge in the KM initiation stage. When reciprocal
relationships among employees evolve to become deeper and more stable, the reciprocal
exchange of social benefits will attract less attention and the focus of KM practices will shift
to other important antecedents, such as openness in communication and sharing culture.
Openness in communication significantly influences the latter two KM evolution stages, a
finding that is interesting to practitioners. Open communication among employees is an

PAGE 146 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

evolutionary concept which describes the gradual formation of effective employee

communication of willingness to share knowledge with colleagues. Since organizational
employment of KM is immature during the initial stage, the openness of any communication
climate is waiting to be well established.
Organizational context

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

The results are consistent with the hypothesis that top management support has a positive
effect on three stages of KM evolution. As knowledge is often equated with power since
knowledge can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage for individual employees,
they may sense a threat to their power, importance and job security from sharing knowledge
with colleagues. Therefore, top management support is a key driver of KM evolution. Similarly,
other researchers assert that KM adoption is a type of organizational change, and thus top
management support determines its success or failure (Liebowitz, 1999; Lin and Lee, 2006).
This study reveals that organizational rewards are non-significant at each of three stages of
KM evolution, which is indeed surprising given the widely cited relationship between reward
system and KM (Ruggles, 1998; Wiig, 1997). Knowledge gathering and sharing occurs
mainly in informal interactions, and the difficulty of measuring knowledge utilization process
and outcomes creates difficultly in making organizational rewards contingent on the KM
evolution. Osterloh and Frey (2000) also acknowledge that with intrinsically motivated
employees, the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge is more important than with
extrinsically motivated employees (such as those motivated by monetary compensation).
Sharing culture is a significant antecedent of KM implementation and institutionalization
stages. Organizational knowledge-sharing climate is the key influence of employee
engagement in the KM process or the effectiveness of knowledge sharing activities
(Sondergaard et al., 2007; Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). The findings of this study with
regard to the KM evolution are consistent with these arguments. In fact, KM evolution is
limited when an organization has a complete KM deployment framework, but lacks a strong
sharing culture to supports it. Organizational sharing culture acts as a catalyst stimulating
the KM evolution, and thus to facilitate and motivate KM practices, an organization must
create a knowledge sharing environment that promotes successful KM implementation and
realizes more KM benefits.
Information technology context
Within the information technology context, both KM system infrastructure and KM system
quality are positive factors for KM evolution. However, KM system infrastructure is shown
with no significance at KM initiation stage. This phenomenon might be explained by the fact
that knowledge is embedded in the myriad communities that constitute organizations, as
well as in organizational work practices, values, and systems (DeTienne and Jackson,
2001). Thus, knowledge creation and distribution do not result simply by building KM system
infrastructure at KM initiation stage. During subsequent KM evolution stages, a
well-developed KM system infrastructure and KM practices are closely linked to facilitate
the KM evolution. Additionally, the results also show that KM system quality is a significant
facilitator of all of three KM evolution stages. Higher KM system quality increases the
usefulness of KM by enhancing the fit between KM system output and employee knowledge
requirements (Kulkarni et al., 2006). If the KM system provide accurate, relevant, up-to-date,
reliable, and easy to access knowledge, KM system can result in faster task performance
and more mature KM practices.

Conclusions
As contemporary firms increasingly seek to enhance their business performance by
promoting the KM evolution, KM evolution becomes an important guarantor of sustainable
competitive advantage. Drawing on theoretical perspectives on the process and contexts of
KM practices, this study develops a research model to examine the impact of three
important contextual factors, individual, organizational, and information technology, on the
KM evolution among three stages. The empirical results identify significant factors shaping

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 147

the KM evolution, and reveal their differential effects across different stages. The
implications for practice and the limitations and future research are discussed below.
Implications for practice

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

This study proposes the following implications for managers, especially within the context of
managing KM implementation within organizations. Concerning the individual context,
efforts to foster targeted reciprocal relationships of employees are necessary for the
initiation of a planned and effective KM environment. Hence, managers can improve
employee perceptions of reciprocal benefits and face the important problem of instilling
interpersonal trust into their organizations, which is the main concern in initial KM efforts and
initiatives. This study also demonstrates open communication with employees to be an
important variable to facilitate the success of KM implementation and institutionalization.
Managers must consider that KM can continue to evolve when employees believe that an
organization as offering a safe environment in which express themselves. Openness in
communication helps eliminate resistance barriers to KM implementation, and without open
communication, successful KM evolution might not exist. Knowledge self-efficacy is an
important enabler during KM evolution. This finding suggests that managers should pay
more attention to providing useful feedback to enhance employee knowledge self-efficacy.
For example, a highly self-efficacious staff can be established by recruiting and selecting
employees who are proactive, who have high cognitive attitude and self-esteem, and who
are intrinsically motivated. Managers also can enhance perceptions of knowledge
self-efficacy among valued knowledge workers by indicating to them that their knowledge
contribution significantly impacts the KM evolution.
Regarding the organizational context, creating an organizational climate characterized by
top management support and knowledge sharing culture is likely to assist both management
and employees in socializing and interacting with one another, thus driving KM
effectiveness. Managers should strive to enable employees to propose ideas for new
opportunities and foster a positive social interaction culture for implementing KM initiatives.
Additionally, managers should alter their management style to encourage creativity, sharing,
and utilization of new knowledge among employees. Organizational rewards may provide
temporary incentives for KM initiatives, but are not a fundamental force in organizational KM
evolution. Managers thus should not emphasize organizational rewards (such as salary
incentive, bonuses, promotion incentive, or job security) as a key driver of more mature KM
practices.
Finally, managers should focus on information technology concerns during the development
and establishment of a KM environment. Investing in KM systems can help managers to
enhance employee perceptions of supportive interest in their knowledge acquisition and
management skills. The results also indicate that KM evolution requires managers to invest
time and effort in ensuring that employees are satisfied with KM system quality, since KM
system quality factors are identified as the key contributors to employee job performance
when using KM systems. That is, employees find KM systems to be a useful means of
facilitating the KM evolution when KM systems are a reliable and easy means of system
access that provide accurate, relevant, and up-to-date knowledge content.
Limitations and future research
This study includes several limitations to this study. First, since the dataset are
cross-sectional and not longitudinal, limiting observation of temporal causality in the
proposed model and preventing analysis of longitudinal processes, such as the KM
evolution process in a dynamic context, future research should collect longitudinal data to
provide a clearer basis for the suggestions by the proposed model of temporal causality.
Moreover, by comparing data gathered during different periods, further insights can be
gained regarding the KM evolution in a dynamic environment.
Second, this study proposes a research model for understanding the relationships between
three contextual factors and KM evolution stages, and further empirically validates the
proposed model using a large sample survey. Future research should include structured

PAGE 148 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

interviews and case studies of managers dealing with ongoing or recently completed KM
planning projects to help understand the practical usefulness of the research model.
Finally, this study, however, does not consider all determinants of different KM evolution
stages. Chang and Lee (2008) propose that external environment (e.g. environment
uncertainty, environment change frequency, environment complexity, and environment
change scale) affect the correlation between organization knowledge accumulation and
organizational innovation. Future studies can test whether or not external environment
variables also affect the three stages of KM evolution, thus providing a deepening
understanding of antecedents to the KM theory.

References
Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007), Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.
Alazmi, M. and Zairi, M. (2003), Knowledge management critical success factors, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 199-204.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Anantatmula, V.S. (2008), Leadership role in making effective use of KM, VINE: The journal of
information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 445-60.
Anantatmula, V.S. and Kanungo, S. (2010), Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 100-13.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation model, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2001), Organizational knowledge management:
a contingency perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-55.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2005), Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Bounfour, A. (2003), The Management of Intangibles: The Organizations Most Valuable Assets,
Routledge, London.
Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K.A. and
Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Cabrera, E.F. and Bonache, J. (1999), An expert HR systems for aligning organizational culture and
strategy, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 51-60.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 245-64.
Cepeda, G. and Vera, D. (2007), Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: a knowledge
management perspective, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 426-37.
Chang, S.C. and Lee, M.S. (2008), The linkage between knowledge accumulation capability and
organizational innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2007), How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge
management the social interaction perspective, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-18.
Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2009), Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance
the mediating role of knowledge management capacity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 104-14.
Choi, B. and Lee, H. (2003), An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate
performance, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 403-17.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 149

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1989), Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D, The Economic
Journal, Vol. 99 No. 397, pp. 569-96.
Connelly, C.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2003), Predictors of employees perceptions of knowledge sharing
culture, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), Examining the link between knowledge management
practices and type of innovation, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-22.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,
MA.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-30.
DeTienne, K.B. and Jackson, L.A. (2001), Knowledge management: understanding theory and
developing strategy, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I.M. (2008), Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:
an integrative role in learning?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-49.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.K. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 1105-21.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to
consumer exit-voice theory, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 440-52.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), Structural equation modeling and regression:
guidelines for research practice, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4
No. 7, pp. 1-70.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Goodman, R.M. and Steckler, A. (1989), A framework for assessing program institutionalization,
Knowledge. Technology & Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Grant, R. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter special issue, pp. 109-22.
Grover, V. and Goslar, M.D. (1993), The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications
technologies in US organizations, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 141-63.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.L. and Tatham, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis with Reading,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, R. and Andriani, P. (2003), Managing knowledge associated with innovation, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 145-52.
Hargadon, A.B. (1998), Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous innovation,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 209-27.
Hazlett, S.A., McAdam, R. and Gallagher, S. (2003), Theory building in knowledge management:
in search of paradigms, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P. and Munson, C.L. (2003), Team-level antecedents of individuals
knowledge networks, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 741-70.
Jarrar, Y. (2002), Knowledge management: learning for organizational experience, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 322-8.
Johannessen, J. and Olsen, B. (2003), Knowledge management and sustainable competitive
advantages: the impact of dynamic contextual training, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 277-89.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 Users Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Kambil, A. (2009), Obliterate knowledge management: everyone is a knowledge manager!, Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 66-8.

PAGE 150 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

Kang, Y.J., Kim, S.E. and Chang, G.W. (2008), The impact of knowledge sharing on work performance:
an empirical analysis of the public employees perceptions in South Korea, International Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 31 No. 14, pp. 1548-68.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2005), Contribution knowledge to electronic repositories:
an empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-43.
Kaser, P.A.W. and Miles, R.E. (2002), Understanding knowledge activists successes and failures,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 9-28.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), The impact of organizational context and information technology on
employee knowledge-sharing capabilities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 370-85.
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S. and Freeze, R. (2006), A knowledge success model: theoretical
development and empirical validation, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 309-47.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Lee, J.H. and Kim, Y.G. (2001), A stage model of organizational KM: a latent content analysis, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 299-311.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), Key ingredients to the success of an organizations knowledge management
strategy, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 37-40.
Lin, H.F. (2007a), A stage model of knowledge management: an empirical investigation of process and
effectiveness, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 643-59.
Lin, H.F. (2007b), Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on employee intentions to share
knowledge, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-49.
Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004), Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour,
Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 108-25.
Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2006), Effects of socio-technical factors on organizational intention to
encourage knowledge sharing, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 74-88.
Lu, L., Leung, K. and Koch, P.T. (2006), Managerial knowledge sharing: the role of individual,
interpersonal, and organizational factors, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 15-41.
Marquardt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1994), Global Learning Organization, Irwin, New York, NY.
Moffett, S., McAdam, R. and Parkinson, S. (2003), Technology and people factors in knowledge
management: an empirical analysis, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 215-24.
Mohamed, M.S., OSullivan, K.J. and Ribiere, V. (2008), A paradigm shift in the Arab region knowledge
evolution, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 107-20.
Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A. and Wixom, B.H. (2005), Antecedents of information and system quality:
an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 235.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms,
Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-50.
Pan, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (2003), Bridging communities of practice with information technology in
pursuit of global knowledge sharing, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Pan, S.L. and Scarbrough, H. (1998), A socio-technical view of knowledge sharing at Buckman
Laboratories, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Park, H., Ribiere, V. and Schulte, W.D. Jr (2004), Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote
knowledge management technology implementation success, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 106-17.
Rhodes, J., Lok, P., Hung, R.Y. and Fang, S.C. (2008), An integrative model of organizational learning
and social capital on effective knowledge transfer and perceived organizational performance, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 245-58.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 151

Roberts, K.H. and OReilly, C.A. (1997), Failures in upward communication in organizations: three
possible culprits, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 205-15.
Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York, NY.
Ruggles, R. (1998), The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-9.
Scott, J.W. (2000), Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 81-113.
Skyme, D. and Amindon, D. (1997), Creating the Knowledge Based Business, Business Intelligence Ltd,
London.
Sondergaard, S., Kerr, M. and Clegg, C. (2007), Sharing knowledge: contextualizing socio-technical
thinking and practice, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 423-35.
Song, S. (2002), An internet knowledge-sharing systems, Journal of Computer Information Systems,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 25-30.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65.

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Storey, J. and Barnett, E. (2000), Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 145-56.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F. (2004), Knowledge management in a public organization: a study
on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Tan, H.H. and Zhao, B. (2003), Individual- and perceived contextual-level antecedents of individual
technical information inquiry in organizations, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 597-621.
Taylor, W.A. and Wright, G.H. (2004), Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing:
challenges for public sector managers, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 22-37.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practices, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Widen-Wulff, G. and Ginman, M. (2004), Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the
dimensions of social capital, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 448-58.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), Knowledge management: where did it come from and where will it go?, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Wong, K.Y. (2005), Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 261-79.
Wu, W.Y. and Tsai, H.J. (2005), Impact of social capital and business operation mode on intellectual
capital and knowledge management, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 141-71.
Xu, J. and Quaddus, M. (2005), A six-stage model for the effective diffusion of knowledge management
systems, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 362-73.
Yeh, Y.J., Lai, S.Q. and Ho, C.T. (2006), Knowledge management enablers: a case study, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 793-810.
Zack, M.H. (1999), Enveloping a knowledge strategy, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 125-45.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and
extension, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Zaim, H., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2007), Performance of knowledge management practices: a causal
analysis, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 54-67.

PAGE 152 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

Appendix
Table AI Constructs and indicators
Constructs
Individual context
Knowledge self-efficacy

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Openness in communication

Reciprocal benefits

Organizational context
Top management support

Organizational rewards

Sharing culture

Indicators

Literature support

1. Employees have the expertise required to provide valuable

knowledge for my organization (1 , 5)
2. Employees have confidence in their ability to contribute valuable
knowledge with colleagues (1 , 5)
3. Employees have confidence in their ability to provide knowledge
that would improve work processes in my organization (1 , 5)
4. Employees have confidence in their ability to provide knowledge
that would increase the productivity in my organization (1 , 5)
5. Employees have confidence in their ability to acquire valuable
knowledge from experts or colleagues (1 , 5)
1. In my organization, discussions of difference of opinion are
encouraged among employees (1 , 5)
2. In my organization, top management listens to what employees
have to say (1 , 5)
3. There is a sufficient level of mutual understanding among
employees in job-related discussion (1 , 5)
4. Openness communication among employees is helpful for
job-related tasks (1 , 5)
5. The manner of communication among employees is frank and
candid (1 , 5)
When employees contribute their knowledge with colleagues . . .
1. they strengthen ties between existing colleagues and themselves
(1 , 5)
2. they expand the scope of their association with other colleagues
(1 , 5)
3. they expect to receive knowledge in return when necessary
(1 , 5)
4. they believe that their future requests for knowledge will be
answered (1 , 5)

Lu et al. (2006); Spreitzer

(1995)

1. Top management is highly interested in promoting KM practices

(1 , 5)
2. Top management is aware of the benefits of KM practices (1 , 5)
3. Top management has allocated adequate financial and other
resources for the development and promotion of KM practices
(1 , 5)
4. Top management has a vision to project in my organization as a
leader in the promotion of KM practices (1 , 5)
1. Employees will receive a better work assignment for their
knowledge contribution (1 , 5)
2. Employees will receive a higher salary in return for their
knowledge contribution (1 , 5)
3. Employees will receive a higher bonus in return for their
knowledge contribution (1 , 5)
4. Employees will receive increased promotion opportunities in
return for their knowledge sharing (1 , 5)
5. Employees will receive increased job security in return for their
knowledge contribution (1 , 5)
1. In my organization, high levels of participation are expected in
sharing knowledge (1 , 5)
2. In my organization, benefits of sharing knowledge outweigh the
cost (1 , 5)
3. My organization encourages employee learning and tolerates
their mistakes (1 , 5)
4. The atmosphere of my organization facilitates informal interaction
among employees (1 , 5)

Roberts and OReilly (1997)

Kankanhalli et al. (2005)

Tan and Zhao (2003); Taylor

and Wright (2004)

Davenport and Prusak (1998);

Hargadon (1998)

Gold et al. (2001)

(Continued)

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 153

Table AI
Constructs
Information technology
context
KM system infrastructure

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

KM system quality

KM evolution
KM initiation

KM implementation

KM institutionalization

Indicators

Literature support

My organization . . .
1. uses KM system that allows employees to collaborate with
colleagues (1 , 5)
2. uses KM system that allows employees to communicate with
colleagues (1 , 5)
3. uses KM system to search and access necessary knowledge
(1 , 5)
4. uses KM system to store specific types of knowledge
(1 , 5)
1. The knowledge provided by the KM system is accurate
(1 , 5)
2. The knowledge provided by the KM system is relevant to my job
(1 , 5)
3. The knowledge provided by the KM system is always up to date
(1 , 5)
4. The operation of the KM system is dependable (1 , 5)
5. The KM system makes knowledge easy to access (1 , 5)

Lee and Choi (2003)

At the time your organization was considering to promote KM

practices, what rating did the following potential benefits of KM
receive?
1. To gain competitive advantage (1 , 5)
2. To improve employee relations and development (1 , 5)
3. To Innovate new products/services (1 , 5)
4. To identify new business opportunities (1 , 5)
5. To promote organizational innovation culture (1 , 5)
Check the box to ensure that appropriate KM practices are
implemented in your organization (#):
1. Knowledge acquisition
1-1. Distributing knowledge throughout the organization (Y/N)
1-2. Acquiring knowledge about new products/services within our
industry (Y/N)
1-3. Providing informal procedures for an effective knowledge
sharing (Y/N)
2. Knowledge conversion
2-1. Transferring organizational knowledge resources to employees
(Y/N)
2-2. Codifying and organizing knowledge (Y/N)
2-3. Absorbing new knowledge from research and educational
programs (Y/N)
2-4. Absorbing useful knowledge from customers, suppliers and
other trading partners (Y/N)
3. Knowledge application
3-1. Applying knowledge learned from experiences (Y/N)
3-2. Using knowledge in development of new products/services
(Y/N)
3-3. Quickly links knowledge sources to solve problems and
challenges (Y/N)
4. Knowledge protection
4-1. Knowledge that is restricted is clearly identified (Y/N)
After the implementation of KM, my organization has improved its
ability to. . .
1. Improve overall organizational effectiveness (1 , 5)
2. Streamline corporate internal processes (1 , 5)
3. Coordinate the development efforts of different units (1 , 5)
4. Adapt quickly to unanticipated changes (1 , 5)

Skyme and Amindon (1997)

DeLone and McLean (2003);

Nelson et al. (2005)

Gold et al. (2001)

Becerra-Fernandez and
Sabherwal (2001);
Gold et al. (2001)

Notes: Coding in parentheses is as follows: # continuous variable; Y/N dummy variable; 1 , 5 five-point Likert scale

PAGE 154 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

About the author

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

Hsiu-Fen Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Shipping and Transportation

Management at National Taiwan Ocean University (ROC). She received her PhD degree in
Information Management from National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, in 2004. Her research interests include knowledge management, electronic
commerce, and organizational impact of information technology. Her research has
appeared in Information and Management, Management Decision, Journal of Information
Science, Behaviour & Information Technology, Internet Research, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications and several conference proceedings. Hsiu-Fen Lin can be
contacted at: hflin@mail.ntou.edu.tw

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 155

Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 14:41 09 March 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 114:9, 1415-1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. A multi-stage analysis of antecedents and consequences of knowledge management evolution. Journal of
Knowledge Management 18:1, 52-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Ji Hoon Song, Sang Hoon Bae, Sunyoung Park, Hye Kyoung Kim. 2013. Influential factors for knowledge creation practices
of CTE teachers: mutual impact of perceived school support, transformational leadership, and work engagement. Asia Pacific
Education Review 14, 467-482. [CrossRef]
4. Christine Nya-Ling Tan, Shuhaida Md. Noor. 2013. Knowledge management enablers, knowledge sharing and research
collaboration: a study of knowledge management at research universities in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation
21, 251-276. [CrossRef]
5. Mohamed A.F. Ragab, Amr Arisha. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge
Management 17:6, 873-901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. SALIH YEIL, TUBA BYKBEE, ALAEDDIN KOSKA. 2013. EXPLORING THE LINK BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE
SHARING ENABLERS, INNOVATION CAPABILITY AND INNOVATION PERFORMANCE. International Journal of
Innovation Management 17, 1350018. [CrossRef]
7. Siew-Phaik Loke, Alan G. Downe, Murali Sambasivan, Khalizani Khalid. 2012. A structural approach to integrating total
quality management and knowledge management with supply chain learning. Journal of Business Economics and Management
13, 776-800. [CrossRef]
8. Georg von Krogh. 2012. How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21, 154-164. [CrossRef]
9. Fariza H. Rusly, James L. Corner, Peter Sun. 2012. Positioning change readiness in knowledge management research. Journal
of Knowledge Management 16:2, 329-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Chen Kang Lee, Manjit Singh SidhuComputer-Aided Engineering Education 317-340. [CrossRef]