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

net/publication/265849758

Explaining Knowledge-Sharing Intention in Construction Teams in Hong Kong

Article  in  Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · February 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000607

CITATIONS READS
64 1,817

2 authors:

Rita Peihua Zhang F. F. Ng

RMIT University The University of Hong Kong
44 PUBLICATIONS   523 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   581 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rita Peihua Zhang on 13 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Explaining Knowledge-Sharing Intention in Construction
Teams in Hong Kong
Peihua Zhang, M.ASCE1; and Fung Fai Ng2

Abstract: Knowledge sharing among construction team members is important for improving project performance and successful project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

delivery. This study aims to develop an integrative understanding of factors affecting individual knowledge-sharing intention in construction
teams in Hong Kong. Based on the widely accepted theory of planned behavior (TPB), a comprehensive research model and corresponding
hypotheses were developed. To test the research model and hypotheses, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from pro-
fessionals working in construction companies in Hong Kong. Then the data were analyzed by the statistic technique of structural equation
modeling (SEM). The results indicate that professionals’ knowledge-sharing intention is mainly determined by their attitude toward and
perceived behavioral control over knowledge sharing, but weakly influenced by subjective norms regarding knowledge sharing. The research
findings also reveal that professionals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing is positively influenced by perceptions of knowledge self-efficacy
and feedback, while it has no significant relationships with perceptions of economic reward and enhanced personal relationship. In addition,
the results show that information and communication technology (ICT) support has a significant effect on professionals’ perceived behavioral
control over knowledge sharing. This study is one of the first to use the existing theory of social psychology to examine knowledge-sharing
behavior in the construction sector. It provides a new direction for studying knowledge sharing in the construction industry. Based on the
research findings, several implications are suggested for construction companies to manage professionals’ knowledge-sharing behavior in
construction teams. Research limitations and recommendations for future studies are also discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000607. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Information management; Construction management; Hong Kong.
Author keywords: Knowledge sharing; Theory of planned behavior; Construction teams; Hong Kong.

Introduction Construction companies (or contractors) are project-based

In a knowledge-based view of the firm, knowledge is the basis for a
firm’s competitive advantage and long-term success (Grant 1996;
Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Spender 1996, 1998). Effectively
leveraging and managing knowledge become crucial for organiza-
tions to maintain their competitiveness (Davenport et al. 1998).
However, organizations are not able to create knowledge them-
selves, and they rely on their employees to create, share, and apply
knowledge in the work process (Ipe 2003). This is agreed by
Nonaka (1994), who claims that continual interactions and knowl-
edge sharing between individuals within working groups or even
cross working units provide the basis for organizational knowledge
creation. Mutual knowledge sharing enables individuals to jointly
create new knowledge that is beyond what one individually owns
(van den Hooff and Hendrix 2004), thus giving rise to improved
organizational capability of innovation (Choi et al. 2008). There-
fore, individual knowledge sharing is fundamental to any success-
ful knowledge management initiative (Hansen and Avital 2005).
1
Research Assistant, Dept. of Real Estate and Construction, The Univ.
of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong SAR (corresponding author).
E-mail: rita.ph.zhang@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Real Estate and Construction, The Univ.
of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong SAR. E-mail: ng.fung.fai@
hku.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 20, 2011; approved on
May 17, 2012; published online on February 15, 2013. Discussion period
open until August 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1, 2013. © ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9364/2013/3-280-293/$25.00.
organizations. They play an important role in the construction
industry by undertaking construction phases of construction proj-
ects. They organize construction teams to plan and manage on-site
construction works. A typical construction team constitutes profes-
sionals of different disciplines such as project manager, quantity sur-
veyors, electrical and mechanical engineers, and safety engineers.
There is a large amount of core knowledge involved in the construc-
tion teams, in which team members apply their professional knowl-
edge and expertise in planning and managing construction processes
and create new knowledge from their experiences. Effectively lever-
aging individual knowledge in construction teams is crucial for
contractors to improve project performance and deliver a project
successfully. Due to different disciplinary backgrounds, it is impor-
tant for team members to share their diverse knowledge to establish
mutual understanding, achieve collaboration, jointly seek effective
solutions, and improve project-delivery efficiency. Further, a con-
struction team usually dissolves for other projects once the current
project is completed. Important knowledge identified and learned by
team members through knowledge sharing can also be transferred
and applied in other projects, thus avoiding reinventing the wheel
and reducing repetition of previous mistakes in the construction
process (Bresnen et al. 2003; Ma et al. 2008).
Though knowledge sharing has received much attention from
researchers and practitioners of various businesses and industries,
there are few studies examining knowledge sharing within con-
struction teams in the existing literature. Ma et al. (2008) are
the first to empirically investigate the influential factors of knowl-
edge sharing in project teams of construction companies in China.
The factors are analyzed in terms of the nature of the knowledge
(i.e., explicit and tacit knowledge) and team environment (i.e., trust,

280 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 justice, leadership style, and empowerment). In addition, Kivrak
et al. (2008) conducted a survey to evaluate the knowledge-
management practice in leading Turkish contractors. They report
that an organizational supportive culture and top management
support could encourage employees to share knowledge. However,
these studies provide very limited insight into motivations under-
lying individuals’ knowledge-sharing behavior in construction
teams. The aim of this study is to develop an integrative under-
standing of factors affecting individual knowledge-sharing behav-
ior based on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (TPB).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Literature Review
A widely accepted working definition of knowledge is “a fluid mix
of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expertise
insight that provides a framework for evaluating, and incorporating
new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the
minds of knower” (Davenport and Prusak 1998, p. 5). The defini-
tion implies that knowledge is embedded in individuals and it is
difficult to be directly accessed by others. In order to communicate
one’s knowledge to others, a person needs to codify the knowledge
into an explicit form (e.g., action, speech, drawing, and article) that
can be accessed by others (Hendriks 1999). Therefore, knowledge
sharing inevitably entails knowledge owners the costs of time and
codification effort (Kankanhalli et al. 2005). It even leads to loss of
knowledge power, as Gray (2001) argues that when employees
share some of their unique knowledge to others, they are no longer
the sole holders of the knowledge and they become more replace-
able. Thus, individuals may not be willing to share their knowledge
unless they think knowledge sharing is worthwhile and important
(Ryu et al. 2003). Accordingly, it is important for organizations to
understand how to motivate individuals to engage in knowledge
sharing.
Given that knowledge is fundamentally created by individuals,
knowledge could be regarded as personal assets owned by indi-
viduals, and people could exchange knowledge through a market
mechanism to obtain benefits (Wasko and Faraj 2000). Thus, some
researchers consider knowledge sharing as a form of social
exchange [e.g., Bock and Kim (2002), Hall (2001), Huang et al.
(2008), Kankanhalli et al. (2005), Lin (2007a), and Wasko and
Faraj (2005)]. They find that people would evaluate potential costs
(e.g., loss of knowledge power and codification effort) and benefits
(e.g., organizational reward, reciprocal relationship, and sense of
self-worth) associated with knowledge sharing. People are more
likely to engage in knowledge sharing if they perceive that the ben-
efits obtained from knowledge sharing overrides the costs incurred
in knowledge sharing.
Apart from personal motivations, Szulanski (1996) points out
that the contextual factors also have significant shaping force on
employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. Prior studies indicate that
employees are motivated to share knowledge by, e.g., social net-
work (Chow and Chan 2008; Wasko and Faraj 2005), shared goals
(Chow and Chan 2008), trust among colleagues (Choi et al. 2008;
Ma et al. 2008), top management support (Connelly and Kelloway
2003; Lin 2007b), supervisor and peer support (Cabrera et al. 2006;
MacNeil 2003; Sveiby 2007), and organizational climate and
culture (Bock et al. 2005; McDermott and O’Dell 2001).
The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs)
in motivating employees to share knowledge has also drawn atten-
tion from recent researchers (Evangelou and Karacapilidis 2005;
Hall 2001; Riege 2005). ICT can remove temporal and physical
distance, provide access to retrieve information, speed up the
knowledge-sharing process, and quickly locate knowledge carriers
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 281
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
and seekers (Hendriks 1999). With a certain level of quality
(Cabrera et al. 2006), usability, and capability (Lin 2007b), ICT
could be an effective facilitator to knowledge sharing.
Although previous studies have provided much insight into
factors affecting individual knowledge-sharing behavior, there is
little research that integrally considers factors regarding individual
motivations, contextual factors, and facilitation of ICT. Accordingly,
this study goes one step further to develop an integrated model
explaining individual’s knowledge-sharing behavior and empirically
test the research model in the context of construction teams.
Theoretical Background
The TPB is developed as an extension of the theory of reasoned
action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The original TRA sug-
gests that an individual’s behavior is largely predicted by the
individual’s intention to perform the behavior, and the intention
is jointly predicted by the individual’s attitude toward and subjec-
tive norm regarding the behavior. One critical assumption under-
lying TRA is that most social actions are under volitional
control (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Therefore, TRA has limitations
in dealing with behaviors over which people do not have complete
volitional control. When there are certain external constraints on
the behavior, the mere formation of intention is not sufficient to
predict behavior (Armitage and Conner 2001). Later, Ajzen (1991)
extended TRA by incorporating perceived behavioral control
(PBC) as an additional predictor of intention and behavior, and
developed the TPB. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships among
the constructs in TPB. According to Ajzen (1991), individuals
may have many beliefs about a given behavior, but they can only
attend a small number of beliefs at a specific moment. Those
attended beliefs are called salient beliefs. TPB suggests that each
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control is de-
termined by a set of beliefs. Three categories of salient beliefs
are distinguished (Ajzen 1991):
• Behavioral beliefs, which are beliefs about the likely conse-
quences of performing a behavior; they are proposed to influ-
ence attitude toward the behavior;
• Normative beliefs, which constitute the underlying determinants
of subjective norms, concerning the likelihood that important
referent individuals or groups approve or disapprove of perform-
ing a given behavior; and
• Control beliefs, which provide the basis for perceptions of
behavioral control, dealing with the presence or absence of
requisite opportunities, resources, or tools.
Behavioral
Beliefs Attitude
Normative Subjective
Beliefs Norm Intention Behavior
Behavioral Perceived
Control Behavioral
Beliefs Control
Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior
 TPB has been employed to predict and explain a wide range of
behaviors in social psychology [e.g., Ajzen and Driver (1992),
Godin et al. (1992), Hanson (1997), and Pavlou and Fygenson
(2006)]. Recently, it was also employed by researchers to success-
fully examine knowledge-sharing behavior of different professional
groups such as physicians in hospitals (Ryu et al. 2003), employees
in information technology service operations (So and Bolloju
2005), bank employees in Greece (Chatzoglou and Vraimaki
2009), and employees in the oil industry (Tohidinia and Mosakhani
2010). Most of the studies only examine the prediction power of
TPB and do not identify any underlying beliefs to attitude, subjec-
tive norm, and perceived behavioral control. This study advances
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
literature by further examining explanation power of TPB, i.e., in-
augurating TPB with various influential factors and investigating
how the factors influence knowledge-sharing behavior through
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.
Research Model and Hypotheses
TPB is a general model, which does not specify salient beliefs
concerning a particular behavior. Therefore, researchers need to
consider salient beliefs for a specific behavior in a given context
when adopting TPB to explain social behaviors. The salient beliefs
in this study are manifested by factors that are identified to be
effective predictors to knowledge sharing in previous studies.
The factors are incorporated into TPB to form the research model
as shown in Fig. 2. The proposed model uses behavioral intention
as the dependent variable. Behavioral intention is an essential basis
for examining individual knowledge-sharing behavior (Ryu et al.
2003). A number of prior studies have found a significant causal
relationship between behavioral intention and actual behavior
[e.g., Jeon et al. (2011), Tohidinia and Mosakhani (2010), and
Choi et al. (2008)]. Given the strong link between intention and
behavior, it is theoretically reasonable to use behavioral intention
as the dependent variable to examine individual knowledge-sharing
behavior in construction teams.
Antecedents of Intention to Share Knowledge
Attitude toward knowledge sharing refers to the amount of favor
one has for knowledge sharing (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Accord-
ing to Ajzen (1991), an individual will have a higher tendency
to perform a specific behavior if the individual evaluates the
behavior positively. For instance, an engineer in a construction
team is likely to share knowledge to resolve a problem if the
engineer feels that knowledge-sharing behavior is beneficial to
the engineer. Thus:
Behavioral beliefs
Economic rewards
H4 – H7
Knowledge feedback
Enhanced personal relationship
Knowledge self-efficacy
Normative beliefs
Top management support
Team support
Behavioral control beliefs
H10
ICT support
Fig. 2. Research model and hypotheses
282 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
Hypothesis 1: Individuals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing
has a positive effect on their intention to share knowledge in con-
struction teams.
Subjective norm is defined as the perceived social pressure to
or not to perform the behavior (Ajzen 1991). The social pressure
results from expectation of relevant referents. In a construction team,
the referents may include supervisors and peer workers. If a profes-
sional thinks that knowledge-sharing behavior is supported and
applauded by others in the construction team, the professional would
have a higher intention to share knowledge with others. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: Individuals’ subjective norm of knowledge
sharing has a positive effect on their intention to share knowledge
in construction teams.
Perceived behavioral control is the perceived ease or difficulties
one has over performing a behavior (Ajzen 1991). Even a person
who holds favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing and
has positive subjective norm of knowledge sharing may still need
necessary opportunities, resources, or tools to successfully share
knowledge with others. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: Individuals’ perceived behavioral control over
knowledge sharing has a positive effect on their intention to share
knowledge in construction teams.
Factors Affecting Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing
Researchers recommend that economic rewards could be provided
by organizations to overcome costs entailed to knowledge contrib-
utors (Bartol and Srivastava 2002; Cabrera and Cabrera 2005; Hall
2001). Economic rewards range from monetary forms (e.g., higher
salary and bonus) to nonmonetary forms (e.g., award, promotion,
opportunities for continual education, job security, and better
assignment). Economic rewards have been empirically proved
to be useful in motivating individuals to share knowledge. For
instance, Huang et al. (2008) provide evidence that anticipated
extrinsic rewards (i.e., monetary rewards and promotion) positively
affect employees’ attitude toward knowledge sharing in Chinese
organizations. Additionally, the survey conducted by Carrillo et al.
(2004) concerning knowledge management in the construction
industry finds that reward schemes are introduced in 22% of the
organizations being investigated, and the reward schemes include
financial reward, promotion, and peer recognition. Therefore, this
study conjectures that people are more likely to develop a positive
attitude toward knowledge sharing if economic rewards exist. Thus:
Hypothesis 4: Economic rewards have a positive effect on indi-
viduals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing in construction teams.
Knowledge feedback is identified as a motivation for individuals
to share knowledge in Wasko and Faraj’s (2000) investigation in
Attitude toward
knowledge sharing
H1
Subjective norm of H2 Intention to
knowledge sharing share
knowledge
H3
Perceived
behavioral control
over knowledge
sharing
 which respondents report that feedback obtained from answering
others’ questions helps them to refine their thinking and develop
new insights. When professionals share knowledge with teammates
in construction teams, they may also obtain knowledge feedback in
return, e.g., comments, suggestions, and mistakes pointed out by
others. This study hypothesizes that professionals may develop a
more favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing if they would
obtain knowledge feedback from teammates. Thus:
Hypothesis 5: Knowledge feedback has a positive effect on indi-
viduals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing in construction teams.
Constant et al. (1994) assert that when individuals are influ-
enced by their social and organizational context, a social exchange
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
relationship becomes an important determinant of their attitude
toward knowledge sharing. Social exchange emphasizes reciprocal
interdependence, which means that one party’s action is contingent
on the other party’s behavior (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
Specifically, if a person provides a favor to another person but does
not receive any reciprocity from that person, the first person may
cease providing any favor to the other person again. However,
if that person reciprocates with a return, more rounds of exchange
may be initiated. The long-term interdependent transactions in
social exchange have the potential to give rise to high-quality inter-
personal relationships (Blau 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
Many studies suggest that people share knowledge with others
expecting to strengthen their social ties with others and to expand
the scope association (Bock and Kim 2002; Bock et al. 2005; Lin
2007a). Therefore, it is conjectured that professionals in construc-
tion teams, who believe that their personal relationships with others
would be enhanced, are more likely to develop a positive attitude
toward knowledge sharing. Thus:
Hypothesis 6: Enhanced personal relationship has a positive
effect on individuals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing in con-
struction teams.
Self-efficacy is defined as people’s judgment of their capabil-
ities to organize and execute course of action required to attain
designated types of performance (Bandura 1986, p. 391). Self-
efficacy plays an important role in affecting individuals’ motiva-
tions and behaviors (Bandura 1982). Knowledge self-efficacy is
typically manifested in people believing that their knowledge is
useful to colleagues and helps to solve job-related problems and
improves work efficacy (Kankanhalli et al. 2005; Lin 2007a). After
individuals have shared knowledge with others, they may obtain
feedback on their shared knowledge that enables them to under-
stand how their knowledge-sharing behavior have contributed
to the work of others and/or improvement of the organizational
performance (Bock et al. 2005; Cabrera et al. 2006). The under-
standing may increase individuals’ knowledge self-efficacy and
in turn helps them to develop a more favorable attitude toward
knowledge sharing. Thus:
Hypothesis 7: Knowledge self-efficacy has a positive effect
on individuals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing in construction
teams.
Factors Affecting Subjective Norm of Knowledge
Sharing
Top management is the decision maker and strategy planner of an
organization. Its attitude and behavior exert significant normative
pressure on employees. Top management support is empirically
proved to have significant influence on employees’ willingness
to share knowledge (Lin 2007b). Previous studies also claim that
top management support is critical for creating and maintaining a
positive knowledge-sharing culture in organizations (Connelly and
Kelloway 2003; Lin and Lee 2004). Employees form their own
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 283
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
judgments about management’s support for knowledge sharing
by searching relevant symbols (Connelly and Kelloway 2003).
Prior research suggests that organizations should show encourage-
ment toward knowledge sharing and provide adequate resource
regarding knowledge sharing (Lin 2006). In addition, organizations
should support knowledge sharing by creating an innovation sup-
port environment in which changes and creativity are encouraged
and open information flow is emphasized (Bock et al. 2005). Thus:
Hypothesis 8: Top management support has a positive effect on
individuals’ subjective norm of knowledge sharing in construc-
tion teams.
According to Sveiby (2007), a working team forms the nearest
context for individuals. People’s behavior is influenced by super-
visors and coworkers in the working team. This is confirmed by
Cabrera et al. (2006), who found that perceived supervisor support
and peer support play important roles in encouraging employees to
share knowledge in organizations. A previous study also suggests
that supportive supervisors not only encourage and value subordi-
nates’ knowledge contribution but also are good role models.
For example, employees sometimes feel resentful about supervisors
who do not walk the talk, i.e., supervisors talk about the importance
of knowledge sharing, but actually they are not willing to share
their knowledge (Sveiby 2007). Similarly, the perception of
coworkers not sharing knowledge would greatly weaken individ-
uals’ intention to engage in knowledge-sharing activities (Huber
2001; Wolfe and Loraas 2008). Based on prior research findings,
it is conjectured that:
Hypothesis 9: Team support has a positive effect on individuals’
subjective norm of knowledge sharing in construction teams.
Factors Affecting Behavioral Control over Knowledge
Sharing
ICTs provide new methods and applications for knowledge sharing
such as groupware, online databases, intranet, and virtual commun-
ities (Lin 2007b). The new methods and applications increase the
richness of communication channels and provide more opportuni-
ties for individuals to share knowledge. For example, Javernick-
Will and Levitt (2010) report that interactive online platforms
engage people in more social interactions and increase knowledge
sharing. Researchers also suggest that some important attributes
associated with ICTs should be taken into account so that ICTs
can effectively facilitate knowledge sharing. For instance, ICTs
provided should own a certain level of accessibility, ease of use,
and quality (Choi et al. 2008; Connelly and Kelloway 2003; Hall
2001). Cabrera et al. (2006) suggest that a high quality of content
should be maintained in a knowledge management system (KMS)
so as to attract both knowledge contributors and knowledge users.
ICT support with a certain level of quality and complexity could
enhance individuals’ knowledge-sharing network and improve
knowledge-sharing efficiency and effectiveness, hence increasing
individuals’ behavioral control over knowledge sharing. Thus:
Hypothesis 10: ICT support has a positive effect on individuals’
behavioral control over knowledge sharing in construction teams.
Research Method
Measurement Development
Measures for intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control regarding knowledge sharing are developed ac-
cording to Ajzen’s (2002) procedures. Following Bock et al.
(2005), the types of knowledge shared are specified based on Ma
et al.’s (2008) description of knowledge involved in a construction
 team. References are also made to Bock et al. (2005), Taylor and
Todd (1995), Ajzen and Driver (1992), and So and Bolloju (2005)
in selecting the wordings for items to measure intention, attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Existing mea-
sures are employed to measure economic reward, enhanced per-
sonal relationship, and knowledge self-efficacy, and they are
developed by Kankanhalli et al. (2005), Bock et al. (2005), and
Kalman (1999), respectively. Statements from Wasko and Faraj’s
(2000) qualitative study are converted into items for the knowledge
feedback construct. The measure for top management support
is developed based on Schillewaert et al. (2000), Bock et al.
(2005), and Lin (2007b). The measure for team support is designed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
it was supposed that the target sample would have no difficulty in
understanding the questionnaire. In the invitation letter, the purpose
and the significance of the research were explained, the concept of
construction team was carefully explained, and the confidentiality
was ensured. To motivate their participation in the survey, key con-
tact people were promised to receive a summary report of research
findings and recommendations upon the completion of the research.
Reminders were sent twice to those key contact people from whom
no response had been received. When the survey was closed, a total
of 238 questionnaires were collected from 97 key contact people,
producing a response rate of 28.4% concerning key contact people
and 17.4% concerning total sample. Table 1 shows the demographic

based on Cabrera et al. (2006), Maurer and Tarulli (1994), and information of the respondents. It indicates that the respondents have
Sveiby (2007). ICT support mainly addresses the usefulness of a good education background (i.e., 82.7% with bachelor degree or
ICT in facilitating knowledge sharing. It is measured by four items above), and many of them are senior in position (e.g., 30% are
adapted from Davis (1989) and Lin and Lee (2006). Regarding the project managers and 7.4% are site agents). The respondents also
format of scales, items in attitude construct are measured with a have sound working experience (i.e., 65.9% of them have worked
seven-point semantic differential scale in accordance with Ajzen more than 10 years in the construction industry). Through a data
and Fishbein’s (1980) suggestion. Items in other constructs are screening, 7 out of the 238 returned questionnaires were found to
measured by a seven-point bipolar scale following Hanson (1997). be ineligible and they were excluded from data analysis.
Respondents are required to indicate their answers on the seven-
point bipolar scale anchored with scores of −3 to 3 (e.g., −3 =
extremely disagree, 0 = neither, and 3 = extremely agree). The items Data Analysis
and corresponding references are listed in Table 7. All the items are
compiled into a questionnaire to collect data.
Data Analysis Strategy
This study aims to develop an integrative understanding of factors
Data Collection affecting professionals’ knowledge-sharing intention in construc-
The research population includes all professionals working in tion teams. Based on the TPB and existing literature, a research
construction teams in Hong Kong, who are organized by contrac- model has been proposed. A suitable data analysis strategy is
tors to plan and manage on-site construction processes. However, a desired to test the hypothesized multiple causal relationships in
complete list containing the personal contact information is not the research model. In this study, structural equation mode-
available. According to the searching results, only the Hong Kong ling (SEM) is employed to analyze the collected data due to its
Insitution of Engineers (HKIE) Year Book listed its members’ per-
sonal information. However, not all the members were working in
Table 1. Demographic Information of Respondents
construction companies. To ensure that the sample selected meets
the criteria that they work in construction teams and can be ap- Number of Frequency
proached directly, two actions were performed. First, the companies Variable Categories cases (%)
in which the research targets work were identified. Following Gender Female 26 11.3
Neuman’s (2003) recommendation, a sampling frame was developed Male 203 87.9
by searching various sources, including the Hong Kong Special Missing 2 0.9
Administrative Region (HKSAR) government list of approved con- Education High school graduate 5 2.2
tractors for public works, the list of registered general building con- Certificate or associate 33 14.3
degree
tractors from the Hong Kong SAR Buildings Department, and the
Bachelor degree 142 61.5
Hong Kong Builders Directory. Then the HKIE Year Book 2009 Postgraduate 49 21.2
was used to identify the research sample. The HKIE yearbook listed Missing 2 0.9
all members’ basic information (e.g., names, education qualification, Job position Project manager 60 30.0
and membership history) and some members’ additional information Site agent 17 7.4
(i.e., working companies, office telephone numbers, and e-mail ad- Engineer 67 29.0
dresses). Thus members with additional information were selected. Quantity surveyor 28 12.1
The second action was to check their working companies against the Safety manager 4 1.7
sampling frame. Finally, a list of 430 individuals from 172 organ- Other 51 22.1
izations was compiled. Missing 4 1.7
Working experience <5 93 40.3
The sample size of 430 individuals was considered to be small.
in current company 5–10 60 26.0
As a result, the key contact person method was used in this study. (years) 10–15 29 12.6
The 430 individuals were invited as key contact people. They were 15–20 18 7.8
requested to fill in the questionnaire and also asked to find another >20 27 11.7
three people in their teams to fill in the questionnaire as well. The Missing 4 1.7
survey was conducted from March to June 2010. A total of 430 Working experience in <5 33 14.3
packages were mailed to the key contact people. In each package, construction industry 5–10 44 19.0
there was one invitation letter to the key contact person, four ques- (years) 10–15 46 20.0
tionnaires, and four freepost envelopes. Both the invitation letter 15–20 27 11.7
and questionnaire were designed in English. Because the official >20 79 34.2
Missing 2 0.9
language and main teaching instrument in Hong Kong are English,

284 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 Table 2. Construct Validity and Reliability dependent latent variables. Kline’s (2005) two-step modeling
Cronbach’s Factor Composite method is followed in this study, i.e., test measurement model with
Construct Item alpha loading reliability AVE confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) first and then test structural
model with path analysis. The software of AMOS 18.0 is used
Intention to share INT1 0.867 0.837 0.874 0.637
knowledge (INT) INT2 0.825
to process the SEM analysis.
INT3 0.655
INT4 0.860
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Attitude toward ATT1 0.892 0.862 0.897 0.687
knowledge sharing ATT2 0.906
CFA aims to assess construct validity and measurement model fit
(ATT) ATT3 0.852 (Kline 2005). Researchers suggest that construct validity can be
ATT4 0.677 assessed by examining factor loadings of indicators, composite reli-
ability, and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al. 1998; Ryu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Subjective norm of SN1 0.930 0.880 0.933 0.823 et al. 2003). Hair et al. (2010) recommend that factor loading of 0.5
knowledge sharing SN2 0.957
is minimally accepted and factor loading of 0.7 is satisfactory.
(SN) SN3 0.882
Table 2 shows that factor loadings range from 0.564 (KF1) to
Perceived behavioral PBC1 0.927 0.883 0.928 0.720 0.963 (ER3) and most of the factor loadings achieve the satisfactory
control (PBC) PBC2 0.814 level. Additionally, all composite reliabilities are higher than the
PBC3 0.760 cutoff level of 0.7 suggested by Hair et al. (1998) and all AVE
PBC4 0.890 exceed the threshold of 0.5 recommended by researchers (Fornell
PBC5 0.888
and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 1998; Ryu et al. 2003). The results
Economic rewards ER1 0.928 0.746 0.930 0.772 indicate that all the constructs achieve satisfactory validity. In ad-
ER2 0.958 dition, the reliability of constructs is assessed by internal consis-
ER3 0.963 tency measured with Cronbach’s alpha. To improve construct
ER4 0.828 reliability, the negatively worded item ATT5 is removed from
Knowledge KF1 0.842 0.564 0.858 0.607 the construct of attitude toward knowledge sharing. Table 2 shows
feedback (KF) KF2 0.806 that all alpha values exceed the criteria of 0.7 suggested by
KF3 0.924 Nunnally (1978), indicating that all the constructs have adequate
KF4 0.780 reliability.
Enhanced personal EPR1 0.874 0.735 0.875 0.584 The overall measurement model fit is assessed by absolute fit
relationship (EPR) EPR2 0.777 measures [χ2 =df, root mean square error of approximation
EPR3 0.778 (RMSEA)], incremental fit measures [non-normed fix index
EPR4 0.791
(NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI)], and parsimonious fit mea-
EPR5 0.738
sures [akaike information criterion (AIC)] recommended by Hair
Knowledge KSE1 0.870 0.808 0.874 0.637 et al. (1998) and Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003). Table 3 indicates
self-efficacy (KSE) KSE2 0.883
that all the goodness-of-fit indexes achieve the desired levels of
KSE3 0.812
KSE4 0.675
values, indicating that the measurement model fits the data well.
Top management TMS1 0.926 0.856 0.927 0.719
support (TMS) TMS2 0.853 Structural Path Analysis
TMS3 0.743
TMS4 0.892 In order to test the hypotheses, a structural model is proposed as
TMS5 0.886 shown in Fig. 3. However, SEM results suggest that the model
Team support (TS) TS1 0.941 0.875 0.942 0.803 should be rejected because several fit measures fail to achieve
TS2 0.920 the desired values. Accordingly, an alternative structural model
TS3 0.919 should be developed. Modification indexes (MIs) in AMOS text
TS4 0.869 output are used as guidelines in modifying the structural model.
ICT support (ICT) ICT1 0.950 0.843 0.951 0.795 The revised structural model with standardized path coefficients
ICT2 0.872 is illustrated in Fig. 4. Table 4 indicates that all the fit measures
ICT3 0.910 accomplish the acceptable level of values. The revised model is
ICT4 0.911 supported by achieving adequate fit. Table 5 shows the signifi-
ICT5 0.921 cance levels of path coefficients and regression weights before
standardization.
SEM results uncover that among the three determinants of
advantages over multiple regression. First, SEM is able to show the intention to share knowledge, perceived behavioral control has
relationship between each indicator and its corresponding latent the most significant impact on intention (path coefficient 0.62,
variable. However, multiple regression could only deal with ob- p < 0.001). The next one is attitude (path coefficient 0.35,
served variables (Musil et al. 1998). Second, SEM is efficient p < 0.001), and subjective norm has no significant effect on inten-
for a series of multiple-regression equations to be estimated simul- tion (path coefficient 0.07, p-value 0.145). Concerning the anteced-
taneously. Traditional path analysis could only estimate path coef- ents of attitude toward knowledge sharing, knowledge self-efficacy
ficients through a series of separate regressions. SEM integrates (path coefficient 0.40, p < 0.001) and knowledge feedback (path
factor analysis and path analysis. It is regarded as a hybrid model coefficient 0.20, p < 0.01) positively affect attitude. However, eco-
with two components: the measurement model and the structural nomic rewards and enhanced personal relationship have no signifi-
model. The measurement model shows the hypothesized relation- cant relationships with attitude toward knowledge sharing. Both top
ships between latent variables and their indicators. The struc- management support (path coefficient 0.30, p < 0.001) and team
tural model is the path model, which links the independent and support (path coefficient 0.34, p < 0.001) significantly affect the

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 285

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Measurement Model
Type of fit measures Index Calculation of measures
Absolute fit measures χ2 =df 1.809
RMSEA 0.059
Incremental fit measures NNFI 0.908
CFI 0.917
Parsimonious fit measures AIC 2;068.955 < 2;256.000
2;068.955 < 10;662.579
subjective norm regarding knowledge sharing. Additionally, ICT
support imposes significant influence on perceived behavioral con-
trol over knowledge sharing (path coefficient 0.29, p < 0.001). The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
percentage of variance explained for knowledge-sharing intention,
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control are
73%, 21%, 33%, and 8%, respectively. The results of hypotheses
testing are summarized in Table 6.
Significant correlations are found to exist among the three
categories of factors, suggesting that attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control may affect each other as
well. Actually, previous studies have discovered that a strong
knowledge-sharing norm could lead to a more positive attitude
toward knowledge sharing (Bock et al. 2005; Chow and Chan
2008; Ding and Ng 2009; Ryu et al. 2003). Similarly, it is inferred
that a high subjective norm also increases perceived behavioral
control because knowledge sharing becomes easier if people per-
ceive a supportive environment for knowledge sharing. In addition,
if people perceive sufficient resources, tools, and opportunities for
knowledge sharing (i.e., perceived behavioral control), they may
develop more favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing.
Discussion of Research Results
This study focuses on professionals’ knowledge-sharing inten-
tion in construction teams. The results show that professionals’
knowledge-sharing intention is mainly determined by their attitude
toward and perceived behavioral control over knowledge sharing
rather than the subjective norm of knowledge sharing. More
specifically, perceived behavioral control over knowledge sharing
exerts the strongest influence on knowledge-sharing intention. The
finding implies that knowledge-sharing behavior is not solely under
individuals’ volitional control in construction teams. That is, it also
relies on external conditions such as the presence of opportunities,
resources, and tools. It is interesting that the subjective norm
of knowledge sharing has no significant influence on people’s
knowledge-sharing intention in construction teams. The result dis-
cords with findings from many prior empirical studies [e.g., Bock
et al. (2005), Chatzoglou and Vraimaki (2009), Chow and Chan
(2008), and Ryu et al. (2003)], and has discrepancy with research-
ers’ assertion that the subjective norm is crucial in determining
intention in a Confucian cultural background in which collectivism
and social pressure to comply with collective norms are stressed
(Lee and Green 1991). Several plausible explanations are suggested
for the phenomenon by comparing this study with previous studies.
First, the characteristics of respondents may account for the insig-
nificance. Table 1 indicates that a large proportion of the respond-
ents have sound working experience and many of them are senior
in position. With much power in the work place, they may have
less concern about the subjective norm than junior team members
(So and Bolloju 2005). Second, the subjective norm has different
levels of influences on different professional groups. For instance,
the subjective norm has a strong effect on physicians’ intention
to share knowledge due to hospitals’ active organizational
learning mechanisms and physicians’ highly self-regulatory
286 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
Acceptable level Acceptability
≤3 Accepted
≤0.10 Accepted
≥0.90 Accepted
≥0.90 Accepted
Smaller than AIC for Accepted
comparison model
professional characteristics (Ryu et al. 2003). In construction
teams, the knowledge-sharing culture may not be as strong so
as to make professionals feel obliged to share knowledge (Huang
et al. 2008). Third, the collectivism orientation in Hong Kong may
not be as strong as other Asian countries such as Korea. The sub-
jective norm plays an important role in determining knowledge-
sharing intention in the Korean context [e.g., Jeon et al. (2011),
Bock et al. (2005), and Ryu et al. (2003)]. Though both Korea
and Hong Kong are Asian countries influenced by a collective cul-
ture background, Hong Kong has also been influenced by Western
culture due to its history as a British colony. Therefore, people in
Hong Kong may have less concern about others’ expectations than
people in Korea. As a result, for professionals in Hong Kong con-
struction teams, “personal considerations tended to overshadow the
influence of perceived social pressure” (Ajzen 1991, p. 189).
Consistent with prior research (Constant et al. 1994;
Kankanhalli et al. 2005; Lin 2007a, b), knowledge self-efficacy
is identified as a critical motivation for individuals to share knowl-
edge in construction teams. The result indicates that professionals
in Hong Kong construction teams have a high tendency to develop
work-related confidence and competency. In addition, knowledge
feedback also significantly affects attitude toward knowledge shar-
ing. The result is supported by Quinn et al. (1996, p. 8), who sug-
gest that knowledge receivers “feed back questions, amplifications,
and modifications that add further value for the original sender,
creating exponential total growth.” Knowledge feedback leading
to individuals’ favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing implies
that professionals in Hong Kong construction teams keep an open
mind on learning and self-improvement.
An unexpected finding is that economic rewards have no sig-
nificant effect on individuals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing.
Several possible reasons are suggested by researchers to explain
the phenomenon. Kohn (1993, p. 55) argues that “rewards succeed
at securing one thing only: temporary compliance. When it comes
to producing lasting change in attitudes and behavior, however,
rewards, like punishment, are strikingly ineffective. Once the
rewards run out, people revert to their old behaviors.” While eco-
nomic rewards could only secure temporary compliance, why do
many researchers still suggest using economic incentives to reward
knowledge-sharing behavior? Based on Kohn’s (1993) argument,
Bock and Kim (2002) suggest that incentives would only be effec-
tive at the initiation stage of knowledge management, i.e., rewards
only act as a trigger for knowledge sharing rather than as a sustain-
able force to form a person’s attitude. Another possible explanation
is that knowledge-sharing behavior is seldom taken into account
in performance evaluation systems in construction companies.
Osterloh and Frey (2000) argue that sharing tacit knowledge within
teams cannot be observed and measured directly, and the output can
hardly be attributed to a particular person. Without a mechanism
that directly rewards performance of knowledge sharing, people
would not consider how many rewards they would obtain from
knowledge sharing because it does not make sense (Kwok and Gao
2005). In a construction team, rewards would possibly be awarded
to the whole team if the team performance in conducting a project
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Proposed structural model

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 287

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Revised structural model with standardized path coefficients

288 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 Table 4. Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Measurement Model
Type of fit measures Index Calculation of measures Acceptable level Acceptability
Absolute fit measures χ2 =df 1.874 ≤3 Accepted
RMSEA 0.062 ≤0.10 Accepted
Incremental fit measures NNFI 0.900 ≥0.90 Accepted
CFI 0.907 ≥0.90 Accepted
Parsimonious fit measures AIC 2;129.352 < 2;256.000 Smaller than AIC for Accepted
2;129.352 < 10;662.579 comparison model

Table 5. Regression Weights of Revised Structural Model knowledge-sharing activities (Cabrera et al. 2006; Fong and Chu
2006; Oldham 2003; Sveiby 2007; Wolfe and Loraas 2008). At
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Standard Critical the organizational level, top management support is a key enabler
Path Estimate error (S.E.) ratio (C.R.) p
for employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior in organizations
ATT <— KF 0.205 0.073 2.787 0.005 (Kang et al. 2008; Lin 2007b) because employees usually tend
ATT <— EPR 0.011 0.099 0.109 0.913 to perform in accordance with top management direction (Connelly
ATT <— KSE 0.446 0.093 4.782 a
and Kelloway 2003). This result suggests that top management
SN <— TS 0.433 0.101 4.292 a
could show its support of knowledge sharing by providing neces-
SN <— TMS 0.299 0.080 3.760 a
sary resources to facilitate knowledge sharing and encouraging em-
ATT <— ER 0.003 0.027 0.126 0.899
PBC <— ICT 0.236 0.051 4.616 a ployees to share innovative ideas and try new methods.
INT <— PBC 0.569 0.058 9.852 a It is found that ICT support could enhance individuals’
INT <— SN 0.054 0.037 1.457 0.145 perceived behavioral control in construction teams. This result is
INT <— ATT 0.369 0.062 5.954 a consistent with many researchers’ view that ICT acts as an effective
a
p < 0.001.
facilitator to enhance the knowledge-sharing process (Cabrera and
Cabrera 2005; Hendriks 1999; Lee et al. 2006). Carrillo et al.
(2000) specifically identify examples of ICT used for sharing
is improved through team members’ cooperation and active knowl- knowledge in the construction sector, including intranets and other
edge sharing. As a result, economic rewards may be an indirect groupware systems (e.g., shared databases, bulletin boards, and
outcome of knowledge sharing but they are not the main concern electronic mail systems). They claim that these ICT tools can sup-
when members share their knowledge in construction teams. port group work and enable group members to share information
This study also discovers that an enhanced personal relation- and knowledge in their working context. ICT allows individuals to
ship has no significant influence on individuals’ attitudes toward distribute knowledge to a large number of receivers simultaneously.
knowledge sharing. The result discords with other researchers’ It also supports knowledge sharing by enhancing people’s knowl-
findings [e.g., Bock and Kim (2002), Bock et al. (2005), and edge networks. For example, individuals can quickly identify
Tohidinia and Mosakhani (2010)]. It is possible that people in Hong knowledge carriers and knowledge seekers in an electronic forum.
Kong construction teams consider work and personal relationships ICT plays a useful role in supporting knowledge sharing by making
as independent aspects in their working environment. Therefore, it faster, easier, and more effective.
they participate in knowledge sharing mainly for the purpose of
enabling more effective work rather than relationship maintenance
(Huang et al. 2008). Conclusion
It is revealed that both team support and top manage-
ment support are significant predictors of individuals’ subjective This study is one of the first to apply the existing theory of social
norm of knowledge sharing in construction teams. The results psychology to study individual knowledge sharing in construction
confirm Sveiby’s (2007) argument that individuals’ knowledge- teams. Based on the TPB, an integrated research model regarding
sharing behavior is influenced by the perceived behaviors, atti- knowledge-sharing intention is developed and tested. The research
tudes, and atmosphere that characterize the life in the working results show that in the specific context of construction teams in
environment. At the team level, individuals have more tendencies Hong Kong, only attitude and perceived behavior control domi-
to share knowledge if they perceive that their supervisors and nantly determine professionals’ knowledge-sharing intention.
teammates value knowledge sharing and actually participate in The results also indicate that professionals are motivated to share

Table 6. Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results

Hypotheses Path Path coefficient Result
H1 Attitude → intention 0.35a
Supported
H2 Subjective norm → intention 0.07 Not supported
H3 Perceived behavioral control → intention 0.62a Supported
H4 Economic reward → attitude 0.01 Not supported
H5 Knowledge feedback → attitude 0.20b Supported
H6 Enhanced personal relationship → attitude 0.01 Not supported
H7 Knowledge self-efficacy → attitude 0.40a Supported
H8 Top management support → subjective norm 0.30a Supported
H9 Team support → subjective norm 0.34a Supported
H10 ICT support → Perceived behavioral control 0.29a Supported
a
p < 0.001.
b
p < 0.01.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 289

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 knowledge by their expectations of developing work-related con-
fidence and capability (i.e., knowledge self-efficacy) and obtaining
reciprocity on knowledge sharing (i.e., knowledge feedback) in
this particular context. Contrary to expectation, economic reward
and enhanced personal relationship does not make a significant
contribution in motivating professionals to share their knowledge.
However, it is expected that a collective-based reward may have a
certain effect on driving professionals to share knowledge for the
achievement of collective goals. In addition, professionals have
more intention to share knowledge if ICT support and facilitation
are available.
The research findings provide some important managerial im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by providing suitable ICT support, e.g., intranet and electronic
forums. ICT provides a unique space for knowledge sharing,
which goes beyond the traditional face-to-face communication
and collaboration (Ardichvili et al. 2003). In order to motivate
team members to use ICT, management should pay attention to
aspects of accessibility, speed, ease of use, and stability (Lee et al.
2006). Additionally, the ICT facility should also match the user
skills of construction team members and be compatible with their
working process. Management could provide trainings to guide
construction team members on how to use the ICT facility (Riege
2005). ICT should also be designed to successfully enhance
existing human networks (Cabrera and Cabrera 2005; McDermott

plications for practitioners. To promote knowledge-sharing behav- and O’Dell 2001).

ior in construction teams, it is crucial to enhance employees’
positive attitude toward knowledge sharing and perceived behav-
ioral control over knowledge sharing. Management should provide
useful feedback to improve team members’ knowledge self-
efficacy (Husted and Michailova 2002; Lin 2007a; Ye et al. 2006).
For instance, management could notify knowledge contributors that
their knowledge contribution makes a significant difference to
project implementation and even highlight the improvement in
the project as a result of their knowledge sharing. Management
should encourage people to maintain an open mind in knowledge
sharing and provide constructive knowledge feedback to knowl-
edge contributors. The interactive process can add value to the
original knowledge shared by the knowledge contributor, benefit-
ing both the knowledge contributor and receiver. Management
could also encourage knowledge sharing in construction teams
through making rewards contingent on collective performance,
which requires mutual knowledge sharing to achieve success
(Bartol and Srivastava 2002; Dulebohn and Martocchio 1998).
Rewards based on team performance are also beneficial to foster
communication and cooperation among team members and drive
them to focus on team goals. Furthermore, management could en-
hance team members’ behavioral control over knowledge sharing
This study has its own limitations. However, the limitations also
provide directions for future research. Only some factors out of all
potential influential factors are examined in this study, and there-
fore only a portion of variance is explained for the dependent var-
iables in the research model. Future studies could elaborate the
research model with additional factors. Additionally, only individ-
uals in Hong Kong construction teams are investigated in this study,
and therefore the results may not be generalized to other regions
due to different construction practice and different cultural charac-
teristics. Nevertheless, a starting point is provided for researchers to
conduct similar research in other regions. Future studies can also
extend the context to whole project teams in which multiple parties
are involved, crossing the organizational boundaries. Due to limited
resources, a cross-sectional research design is employed, which
limits the extent of causality inferred from the results. Also, con-
structs being measured in the same time frame may contain
common method bias, i.e., producing inflated or deflated covari-
ance independent of the content of the constructs themselves
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). In the future, longitudinal data could be
collected to eliminate the common method bias and to investigate
the causal relationships between the constructs in the research
model.

Table 7. Construct Measures and Sources

Constructs Measurement items Sources
Intention to share 1. I intend to share my technical skills (e.g., construction method) with teammates Taylor and Todd (1995),
knowledge (disagree/agree) Ajzen (2002),
2. I would share my managerial expertise (e.g., progress control) with teammates Bock et al. (2005), and Ma
(disagree/agree) et al. (2008)
3. I would always share official documentations or manuals with teammates (disagree/agree)
4. I would try to share project knowledge (e.g., site conditions, project status or client
requirements) with teammates (disagree/agree)
Attitude toward 1. My knowledge sharing with teammates is (bad/good) Taylor and Todd (1995),
knowledge sharing 2. My knowledge sharing with teammates is (harmful/beneficial) Ajzen (2002),
3. My knowledge sharing with teammates is (worthless/harmful) and Bock et al. (2005)
4. My experience in sharing knowledge with teammates is (unpleasant/pleasant)
Subjective norm of 1. People who are important to me think that I should share knowledge with my teammates Ajzen and Driver (1992),
knowledge sharing (unlikely/likely) Taylor and
2. People who may influence my behavior think that I should share knowledge with my Todd (1995), and Ajzen
teammates (unlikely/likely) (2002)
3. People whose opinions I value think that I should share knowledge with my teammates
(unlikely/likely)
Perceived behavioral 1. I am able to share knowledge with teammates (disagree/agree) So and Bolloju (2005),
control 2. Sharing my knowledge with teammates is within my control (disagree/agree) Taylor and
3. I have the resources to support my knowledge sharing with teammates (disagree/agree) Todd (1995), and Ajzen
4. I have the opportunities to share knowledge with teammates (disagree/agree) (2002)
5. I have the ability to share knowledge with teammates (disagree/agree)

290 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 Table 7. (Continued.)
Constructs Measurement items Sources
Economic reward 1. I would be promoted by sharing knowledge with teammates (unlikely/likely) Kankanhalli et al. (2005)
2. I would get a higher salary by sharing knowledge with teammates (unlikely/likely)
3. I would get bonus by sharing knowledge with teammates (unlikely/likely)
4. I would get more job security by sharing knowledge with teammates (unlikely/likely)
Knowledge feedback 1. Through sharing my knowledge with teammates, my mistakes could be corrected by them Wasko and Faraj (2000)
(unlikely/likely)
2. Through sharing my knowledge with teammates, I could refine my thinking based on their
response and comments (unlikely/likely)
3. Through sharing my knowledge with teammates, I could develop new insights based on their
response and comments (unlikely/likely)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4. Through sharing my knowledge with teammates, I could learn new things from their response
and comments (unlikely/likely)
Enhanced personal 1. My knowledge sharing strengthens the ties between existing team members with me Bock et al. (2005)
relationship (disagree/agree)
2. My knowledge sharing gets me well-acquainted with new team members (disagree/agree)
3. My knowledge sharing expands the scope of my association with team members
(disagree/agree)
4. My knowledge sharing draws smooth cooperation from team members in future
(disagree/agree)
5. My knowledge sharing creates strong relationships with team members who have common
interests with me (disagree/agree)
Knowledge 1. I have the confidence in my ability to provide knowledge that teammates consider useful Kalman (1999)
self-efficacy (disagree/agree)
2. I have the experience needed to provide useful knowledge for the construction team
(disagree/agree)
3. I can provide useful knowledge as well as other teammates (disagree/agree)
4. I am proud of the knowledge that I can be able to share with teammates (disagree/agree)
Top management 1. From top management level there is a strong encouragement toward knowledge sharing Schillewaert et al. (2000),
support (disagree/agree) Bock et al. (2005), and
2. Knowledge sharing is advocated by top management (disagree/agree) Lin (2007b)
3. Top management provides necessary resources (e.g., money, technologies) to facilitate
employees to share knowledge (disagree/agree)
4. Top management encourages employees sharing innovative ideas for new opportunities
(disagree/agree)
5. Top management encourages employees sharing new methods to perform tasks
(disagree/agree)
Team support 1. People in the construction team believe that knowledge sharing is important Cabrera et al. (2006),
2. People in the construction team encourage me to share knowledge with team members Maurer and
3. People in the construction team are supportive to my sharing of knowledge Tarulli (1994), and Sveiby
4. People in the construction team also share their knowledge with team members (2007)
ICT support 1. ICT allow me to share knowledge with team members in construction team (unlikely/likely) Davis (1989) and Lin
2. ICT enable knowledge sharing more quickly in construction team (unlikely/likely) and Lee (2006)
3. ICT enhance the effectiveness of knowledge sharing in construction team (unlikely/likely)
4. ICT make knowledge sharing easier in construction team (unlikely/likely)
5. I find ICT are useful for knowledge sharing in construction team (unlikely/likely)

References Bandura, A. (1982). “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.” Am.

Ajzen, I. (1991). “The theory of planned behavior.” Organiz. Behav. Hum.
Decis. Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). “Constructing a theory of planned behavior question-
naire.” 〈http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf〉 (Feb.
28, 2010).
Ajzen, I., and Driver, B. L. (1992). “Application of the theory of planned
behavior to leisure choice.” J. Leisure Res., 24(3), 207–224.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., and Wentling, T. (2003). “Motivation and barriers
to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice.”
J. Knowl. Manage., 7(1), 64–77.
Armitage, C. J., and Conner, M. (2001). “Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: A meta-analytic review.” Br. J. Social Psychol., 40(4),
471–499.
Psychol., 37(2), 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bartol, K. M., and Srivastava, A. (2002). “Encouraging knowledge sharing:
The role of organizational reward systems.” J. Leadersh. Organiz. Stud.,
9(1), 64–76.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life, Wiley,
New York.
Bock, G. W., and Kim, Y. G. (2002). “Breaking the myths of rewards: An
exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing.” Inf. Resour.
Manage. J., 15(2), 14–21.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., and Lee, J. N. (2005). “Behavioral
intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examine the roles of extrin-
sic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate.”
MIS Q., 29(1), 87–111.

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 291

J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.

 Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. (2003).
“Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environ-
ments.” Int. J. Project Manage., 21(3), 157–166.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., and Salgado, J. F. (2006). “Determinants of
individual engagement in knowledge sharing.” Int. J. Hum. Resour.
Manage., 17(2), 245–264.
Cabrera, E. F., and Cabrera, A. (2005). “Fostering knowledge sharing
through people management practices.” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage.,
16(5), 720–735.
Carrillo, P. M., Anumba, C. J., and Kamara, J. M. (2000). “Knowledge
management strategy for construction: Key IT and contextual issues.”
Proc., of the Int. Conf. on Construction Information Technology,
Reykjavik, Iceland, 155–165.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H., Al-Ghassani, A., and Anumba, C. (2004).
“Knowledge management in UK construction: Strategies, resources
and barriers.” Project Manage. J., 35(1), 46–56.
Chatzoglou, P. D., and Vraimaki, E. (2009). “Knowledge-sharing behav-
iour of bank employees in Greece.” Bus. Process Manage. J., 15(2),
245–266.
Choi, S. Y., Kang, Y. S., and Lee, H. (2008). “The effects of socio-technical
enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination.” Journal
of Information Science, 34(5), 742–754.
Chow, W. S., and Chan, L. S. (2008). “Social network, social trust and
shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing.” Inf. Manage., 45(7),
458–465.
Connelly, C. E., and Kelloway, E. K. (2003). “Predictors of employees’
perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures.” Leadersh. Organiz. Dev.
J., 24(5/6), 294–301.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. (1994). “What’s mine is ours, or is
it? A study of attitudes about information sharing.” Inf. Syst. Res., 5(4),
400–421.
Cropanzano, R., and Mitchell, M. S. (2005). “Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review.” J. Manage., 31(6), 874–900.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C. (1998). “Successful
knowledge management projects.” Sloan Manage. Rev., 39(2), 43–57.
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organ-
izations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology.” MIS Q., 13(3), 319–340.
Ding, Z. K., and Ng, F. F. (2009). “Knowledge sharing among architects in
a project design team: An empirical test of theory of reasoned action in
China.” Chin. Manage. Stud., 3(2), 130–142.
Dulebohn, J., and Martocchio, J. (1998). “Employee perceptions of the fair-
ness of work group incentive pay plans.” J. Manage., 24(4), 469–488.
Evangelou, C., and Karacapilidis, N. (2005). “On the interaction between
humans and knowledge management systems: A framework of knowl-
edge sharing catalysts.” Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract., 3(4), 253–261.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Fong, P. S. W., and Chu, L. (2006). “Exploratory study of knowledge shar-
ing in contracting companies: A sociotechnical perspective.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 132(9), 928–939.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). “Evaluating structural equation mod-
els with unobservable variables and measurement error.” J. Marketing
Res., 18(1), 39–50.
Godin, G., Valois, P., Lepage, L., and Desharnais, R. (1992). “Predictors
of smoking behaviour: An application of Ajzen’s theory of planned
behaviour.” Br. J. Addiction, 87(9), 1335–1343.
Grant, R. M. (1996). “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.”
Strategic Manage. J., 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
Gray, P. H. (2001). “The impact of knowledge repositories on power and
control in the workplace.” Inf. Technol. People, 14(4), 368–384.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
292 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
Hall, H. (2001). “Social exchange for knowledge exchange.” Managing
Knowledge: Conversations and Critiques, 〈http://www.soc.napier.ac
.uk/publication/op/getpublication/publicationid/321908〉 (Feb. 28, 2010).
Hansen, S., and Avital, M. (2005). “Share and share alike: The social and
technological influences on knowledge sharing behavior.” Sprouts:
Working Pap. Inf. Syst., 5(13), 1–19.
Hanson, M. J. S. (1997). “The theory of planned behavior applied to
cigarette smoking in African-American, Puerto Rican, and non-
Hispanic white teenage females.” Nursing Res., 46(3), 155–162.
Hendriks, P. (1999). “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the
motivation for knowledge sharing.” Knowl. Process Manage., 6(2),
91–100.
Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., and Gu, J. (2008). “Impact of personal and
cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China.” Asia Pac. J. Manage.,
25(3), 451–471.
Huber, G. P. (2001). “Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management
systems: Unexplored issues and suggested studies.” Eur. J. Inf. Syst.,
10(2), 72–79.
Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2002). “Diagnosing and fighting
knowledge-sharing hostility.” Organiz. Dyn., 31(1), 60–73.
Ipe, M. (2003). “Knowledge sharing on organizations: A conceptual frame-
work.” Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev., 2(4), 337–359.
Javernick-Will, A., and Levitt, R. E. (2010). “Mobilizing institutional
knowledge for international projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 136(4),
430–441.
Jeon, S., Kim, Y.-G., and Koh, J. (2011). “An integrative model for knowl-
edge sharing in communities-of-practice.” J. Knowl. Manage., 15(2),
251–269.
Kalman, M. E. (1999). “The effects of organizational commitment and
expected outcomes on the motivation to share discretionary information
in a collaborative database: Communication dilemmas and other serious
games (knowledge management).” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Kang, Y., Kim, S., and Chang, G. (2008). “The impact of knowledge
sharing on work performance: An empirical analysis of the public
employees’ perceptions in South Korea.” Int. J. Public Administration,
31(14), 1548–1568.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., and Wei, K. K. (2005). “Contributing
knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investi-
gation.” MIS Q., 29(1), 113–143.
Kivrak, S., Arslan, G., Dikmen, I., and Birgonul, M. T. (2008). “Capturing
knowledge in construction projects: Knowledge platform for contrac-
tors.” J. Manage. Eng., 24(2), 87–95.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling, Guilford Press, New York.
Kohn, A. (1993). “Why incentive plans cannot work.” Harvard Bus. Rev.,
71(5), 54–63.
Kwok, S. H., and Gao, S. (2005). “Attitude towards knowledge sharing
behavior.” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., 46(2), 45–51.
Lee, C., and Green, R. T. (1991). “Cross-cultural examination of the
Fishbein behavioral intentions model.” J. Int. Bus. Stud., 22(2),
289–305.
Lee, J.-H., Kim, Y.-G., and Kim, M.-Y. (2006). “Effects of managerial
drivers and climate maturity on knowledge management performance:
empirical validation.” Inf. Resour. Manage. J., 19(3), 48–60.
Lin, H. F. (2006). “Impact of organizational support on organizational
intention to facilitate knowledge sharing.” Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract.,
4(1), 26–35.
Lin, H. F. (2007a). “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on em-
ployee knowledge sharing intentions.” Journal of Information Science,
33(2), 135–149.
Lin, H. F. (2007b). “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an
empirical study.” Int. J. Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
Lin, H.-F., and Lee, G.-G. (2004). “Perceptions of senior managers toward
knowledge-sharing behaviour.” Management Decision, 42(1), 108–125.
Lin, H. F., and Lee, G. G. (2006). “Effects of socio-technical factors
on organizational intention to encourage knowledge sharing.” Manage-
ment Decision, 44(1), 74–88.
 Ma, Z., Qi, L., and Wang, K. (2008). “Knowledge sharing in Chinese con-
struction project teams and its affecting factors: An empirical study.”
Chin. Manage. Stud., 2(2), 97–108.
MacNeil, C. M. (2003). “Line managers: Facilitators of knowledge sharing
in teams.” Employee Relations, 25(3), 294–307.
Maurer, T. J., and Tarulli, B. A. (1994). “Investigation of perceived
environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship
to voluntoary development activity by employees.” J. Appl. Psych.,
79(1), 3–14.
McDermott, R., and O’Dell, C. (2001). “Overcoming cultural barriers to
sharing knowledge.” J. Knowl. Manage., 5(1), 76–85.
Musil, C. M., Jones, S. L., and Warner, C. D. (1998). “Structural equation
modeling and its relationship to multiple regression and factor analysis.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 11/12/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Res. Nursing Health, 21(3), 271–281.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Nonaka, I. (1994). “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation.” Organiz. Sci., 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company:
How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oldham, G. (2003). “Stimulating and supporting creativity in organiza-
tions.” Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage:
Designing strategies for effective human resource management,
S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, and A. S. Denisi, eds., Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Osterloh, M., and Frey, B. S. (2000). “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and
organizational forms.” Organiz. Sci., 11(5), 538–550.
Pavlou, P. A., and Fygenson, M. (2006). “Understanding and predicting
electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned
behavior.” MIS Q., 30(1), 115–143.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
“Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies.” J. Appl. Psych., 88(5), 879–903.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., and Finkelstein, S. (1996). “Leveraging intel-
lect.” Acad. Manage. Executive (1993-2005), 10(3), 7–27.
Riege, A. (2005). “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must
consider.” J. Knowl. Manage., 9(3), 18–35.
Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., and Han, I. (2003). “Knowledge sharing behavior of
physicians in hospitals.” Expert Syst. Appl., 25(1), 113–122.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 293
View publication stats J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 2013.139:280-293.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H. (2003). “Evalu-
ating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and
descriptive goodness-of-fit measures.” Methods Psychol. Res. Online,
8(2), 23–74.
Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., and Moenaert, R. K.
(2000). “The acceptance of information technology in the sales force.”
No. ISBM Rep. 15-2000, Institute for the Study of Business Markets,
The Pennsylvania State Univ., State College, PA.
So, J. C. F., and Bolloju, N. (2005). “Explaining the intentions to share and
reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations.” J. Knowl.
Manage., 9(6), 30–41.
Spender, J. C. (1996). “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of
the firm.” Strategic Manage. J., 17(Winter Special Issue), 45–62.
Spender, J. C. (1998). “Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge-based
theory of the firm.” Organization, 5(2), 233–256.
Sveiby, K. E. (2007). “Disabling the context for knowledge work: the role
of managers’ behaviours.” Management Decision, 45(10), 1636–1655.
Szulanski, G. (1996). “Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to
the transfer of best practice within the form.” Strategic Manage. J.,
17(Winter Special Issue), 27–43.
Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A. (1995). “Understanding information technology
usage: A test of competing models.” Inf. Syst. Res., 6(2), 144–176.
Tohidinia, Z., and Mosakhani, M. (2010). “Knowledge sharing behaviour
and its predictors.” Ind. Manage. Data Syst., 110(4), 611–631.
van den Hooff, B., and Hendrix, L. (2004). “Eagerness and willingness
to share: The relevance of different attitudes towards knowledge
sharing.” Proc., Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities,
Innsbrick, Austria.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people
participate and help others in electronic communities of practice.”
J. Strategic Inf. Syst., 9(2–3), 155–173.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2005). “Why should I share? Examining
social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of
practice.” MIS Q., 29(1), 35–57.
Wolfe, C., and Loraas, T. (2008). “Knowledge sharing: The effects of
incentives, environment, and person.” Journal of Information Systems,
22(2), 53–76.
Ye, S., Chen, H., and Jin, X. (2006). “Exploring the moderating effects
of commitment and perceived value of knowledge in explaining
knowledge contribution in virtual communities.” Proc., Pacific Asia
Conf. on Information Systems (PACIS), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.