JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

33

Understand Knowledge Workers in Using KMS for Knowledge Sharing

Setiawan Assegaff, Ab Razak Che Hussin and Halina Mohamed Dahlan
AbstractThis study contributes to enrich our understanding of knowledge workers' behavior in continuing knowledge sharing through Knowledge Management System (KMS). We extended Xu and Quaddus post-adoption model by proposing a new perspective on how to understand knowledge workers' behavior by considering different belief and expectation of them. Existing KMS adoption have not thoroughly explored the different belief and expectation of knowledge workers in knowledge sharing (KS). Most of previous model provides limited information in understanding of how the knowledge worker sharing their knowledge through KMS. This study will provide a model to understand knowledge workers' behavior in sharing their knowledge through KMS. Index TermsKnowledge Management, Knowledge Management System, Knowledge Worker, KMS Adoption.

1 INTRODUCTION

ompanies attentions toward the value of knowledge have been dramatically increased in todays business. They realized that knowledge should be effectively and efficiently managed in order to gain competitive advantages from it. To be a champion in competition and remain innovative in meeting their customers demands, companies use KM in supporting their activities. Davenfort and Grover [23] note the way companies manages their knowledge becomes a vital integral business functions. Information Technology (IT) has become popular and has been recognized as a potential tool to increase companies' performances. IT has been considered as a platform in supporting KM implementation. Many organizations are at the least considering to adopting and implement KMS in their organization. Unfortunately KMS implementation is not fully successful as yet. Studies and research in the implementation of KM found various factors hindering KM implementation. Research by KPMG in 2000 founded only 7 percent of companies admitted technology as a barrier to successful implementation of knowledge management. Other barriers are related to non-technological problem. In relation to a previous research study conducted by Dyer [12] found out people and culture as the main barriers in KMS implementation. Organizations now pay more attention on

why people and culture became barriers to KMS implementation. Several studies have been conducted in order to un

Setiawan Assegaff is with the Program MSI, STIKOM Dinamika Bangsa, Jambi, Indonesia. Ab Razak Che Hussin is with the Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor. Halina Mohamed Dahlan is with Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor.

derstand how people and culture contributed to the KM implementation. Understanding people and culture is important for companies because it would lead to the development of appropriate policies and strategies to deal with KMS implementation. Understanding and creating conditions under which IT will be accepted and used in organization remains a high priority within the IT research community [25]. The aim of this study is to increase our understanding of how peoples behaviour can contribute to the success of KMS implementation. We consider people as our focus because they are the key factor in applying KMS. In KM initiative, people who interact with KMS are known as a knowledgeable worker. There are two categories of knowledgeable workers, known as contributors and seekers. A contributor is people who contribute knowledge to KMS while a seeker is the one who looks for knowledge through KMS. Studies on knowledge workers behaviour in using KMS have been conducted using the general perspective of knowledge worker. It has made our understanding of knowledge behaviour much better. Unfortunately contributor and seeker have different belief and expectation when using KMS [15]. Understanding of knowledgeable worker in general perspective could bring companies the lack of appropriate strategy and policy to deal with their belief and expectation. To get comprehensive information about the contributor and seeker belief, we need to construct and predict the behaviour of knowledgeable worker He and Wei [15] propose to redefine our understanding about perceived usefulness; they come with question, Does perceived usefulness always mean improved work performance?

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

34

If the answer is no for knowledge contributor circumstances, what are the factors we should adopt to predict the continuous usage intention of knowledge contributor? It is important for us to understand the role of the people or the employee as actors in KS. This study considers Xu and Quaddus [28] model as a basis of the post-adoption model. We enhanced the model by integrating three theories to existing models. First theory, is called time, interaction, and performance (TIP), second is social exchange theory (SET), and the third theory is motivation theory. We came up with a new model in understanding the contributor and seeker behaviour in KMS. The rest of this paper proceeds as follows, the next section describes the current state of research on KMS adoption and identified common gaps underlying contemporary KMS adoption research. The third section presents potential extensions to the KMS adoption model. The paper ends with our agenda for the next stage of the research.

2) 3)

4)

The organization should consider the way it presents the knowledge To make knowledge applicable to individual use, the organization should manage how knowledge is to be disseminated. The organization should have an effective strategy in order to distribute the knowledge; knowledge can be distributed if there is an interaction between people, technology, and techniques. Bhatt found there are two common barriers in distributing knowledge; organizational structure and supervision and fixed channel of knowledge distribution. Once knowledge is applied in an organization, it will embed in organizational procedures, norm, daily activities, products or services. Knowledge is replicated if it creates value in the organization.

2 CHALLENGE AND ISSUES IN KM AND KMS

ADOPTION

2.1 Knowledge Management in Organization Companies around the world put much attention on how KM can be developed and implemented in their companies. They believe knowledge is the only one strategic asset that can bring sustainable competitive advantages for companies. Knowledge in an organization needs to be managed effectively; how the organization manages their knowledge is known as knowledge management. Bhatt [4] defined KM as a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution, and application. How organization views knowledge, has an impact on how knowledge is to be managed. Carlson noted different perspectives of knowledge and its implication in ways of how an organization manages them, such as: First, if companies view the knowledge as an object, the companies should store knowledge in repositories. Second, if companies view the knowledge as a continuous process, the companies should seriously consider in the KM process such as, on knowledge flow and the processes of creating, sharing, and distributing of knowledge, And if companies the knowledge as a capability, the companies should focus on building core competencies. Bhatt [4] highlight four factors for the organizations focus of KM initiatives: 1) It is important for organizations to continuously monitor, testing, and refining the knowledge. The reason is to always keep the knowledge up-to-date and fulfill organization requirement.

2.2 Knowledge Sharing KS is the main function of KM process, without KS organization would not be able to leverage the knowledge and mission of KM would not be successful. Berthold and Rivastava [3] defined KS as individuals sharing organizationally relevant information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with one another. In general KS to mean both contributing and using available knowledge. The knowledge sharing by individual can be explicit or tacit. Explicit and tacit knowledge sharing is different; explicit can be shared via verbal communication, while tacit through socialization, observation and apprenticeship. Sometime tacit knowledge can be communicated by metaphors, stories, analogies or slogan. Berthold [4] proposed four mechanisms for knowledge sharing in organizations: 1) The employee contributes his/her knowledge trough organization database/repositories 2) Employee share their knowledge in formal interactions with members of communities 3) Employee shares their knowledge in informal interactions among individual, group or team works. 4) Sharing knowledge within communities of practices. For decades, scholar and practitioners in various fields have turned their attention to knowledge management system, as modern processes and systems enable the sharing of organizational knowledge in new ways [2], [14]. When KMS uses to capture and distribute knowledge, KMS often requires individuals to invest considerable effort.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

35

It is important to understand the role of people in KS. They are two categories of people in KS. First, we called as knowledge contributor. Knowledge contributor is people who contributed to knowledge. Second is knowledge seeker, knowledge seekers are people who use or reuse the knowledge. Each type of knowledge workers has unique characteristics as shown in table 1. TABLE 1 KNOWLEDGE CONTRIBUTOR AND SEEKER HABITS

Perceived usefulness is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that knowledge seeking in KMS would enhance his or her work performance. Knowledge growth is defined as the knowledge seekers perceived benefit of enchanting his or her learning experiences. Furthermore, there are some factors are influenced both of knowledge worker. Figure 1 presents some factors that have influenced both knowledge contributor and a seeker.

Knowledge contributors have special characteristics, such as: have good motivation to help others, and are expert in one area. Knowledge seekers also have unique characteristics in KM activities. Such characteristics include having good motivation to learn something new, has good motivation in exploring the new method or procedure [6]. TABLE 2 KNOWLEDGE SEEKER AND CONTRIBUTOR BELIEF IN
KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Fig.1. Factors influence knowledge workers in KS.

According to studies by He and Wei [15], knowledge workers' beliefs are contextually different. When they are acting as knowledge contributor, they would influenced by imaged, enjoyment in helping, and reciprocity. Image is defined as the perception of increase positive reputation due to contributing knowledge. Enjoyment in helping others is defined as the perception of pleasure obtained from helping others through knowledge contribution. Reciprocity is defined as the benefit expectancy of feature request for knowledge being met as a result of the current contribution. But when they act as knowledge seeker, the factors influencing them are, perceived usefulness, and knowledge growth.

First, Organizational reward is defined as the importance of economic incentives provided for knowledge contributors. Second, a Management influence is defined as the degree to which an employee perceived that the management believes he or she should contribute or seek knowledge via KMS. Third, Effort is defined as degree of energy associated with knowledge contributor or seeking behaviour in term of time and exertion required. Fourth, Social relationship is defined as individual perception of other KMS users (supervisor, subordinates, and peers) with whom the person has contact. Each factor that influences the knowledge worker builds their own beliefs in KS as the main activities of KM.

2.3 Knowledge Management System Alavi and Leidner defined KMS as a class of information systems applied for managing organizational knowledge, another definition of KMS comes from Ericsson and Avdic [13] defined KMS as a system that increases organizational performance by the better decision made by employee when they use knowledge in their daily work activities. In general KMS would not have differences from other information systems, except that of content and activities by users.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

36

The resources-based view (RBV) of the firm believes KMS should adapt socio-technical perspective when managing and implementing KMS to gain advantages of KMS. It is relevant to other researchers finding that KMS should consider the social aspect to achieve KM mission [8], [9], [13]. Socio-technical perspectives consider at least four components; technology, organizational infrastructure, the organizational culture, people, and knowledge [24]. 1) Technology Infrastructure - In order to support KM initiative, an organization needs to consider IT implementation. IT comprises the hardware, software, middleware and protocols that allow for the encoding and the electronic exchange of knowledge. IT system supports KM initiatives in an organization known as KMS. System quality has become an important issue in this component. System quality is related to technological resources, level of KMS and form of KMS [17]. 2) Organizational Infrastructure- Organizational infrastructure - defines as the organizations management style and philosophy. In General results of the studies suggest that the organization should create opportunities for employee interactions to occur and employee rank, position in the organizational hierarchy, and seniority should be de-emphasized to facilitate knowledge sharing. 3) People - People highlight as main barriers in KM initiative. Cabrera and Cabrera [ ] noted organization can encourage people in the organization to participate in KS by creating knowledge sharing culture and making an intervention to maximize benefit and minimize cost of using KS. 4) The organizational Culture - Organization should create environment that support knowledge sharing culture in KMs success. The organization must apply appropriate strategy to maximize the benefit of using KS and minimize cost of doing so. 5) Knowledge - issues in knowledge in KM initiative are related to knowledge quality. Knowledge quality consists of: first, knowledge strategy related with organizational process about planning, formatting and context the knowledge to be stored. Second richness is about knowledge and topic maps and or listings of expertise available in the organization. Third linkages are related with the amount of context surrounding captured knowledge as well as its accuracy and timeliness [17].

2.4 Knowledge Management System Adoption Implement the KMS has been considered as an important part of the KM project. It is believed that KMS give huge opportunities to break down barriers by making the information presented at every level and units in organization hence it will help to enhance organization becomes more effective. Moreover, by understanding the reason why people use or do not use KMS is important, which was suggested by previous researches related in KMS adoption. KMS adoption became an important research agenda because adoption is one part of KMS success. KMS is useless if there is no user implementing KMS. Some researchers give their attention in KMS adoption research, but the many research agenda should be done in the future to give better understanding in KMS adoption. Some theories are used in understanding of peoples' behavior in KMS adoption. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was more widely applied in KMS adoption research. The TAM originated from Davis et al [10]. The core concepts and structure of TAM are illustrated in figure below, and is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness which is defined as the prospective users subjective probability that using the specific application system will increase ones job performance within an organizational context and perceived ease of use which refers to the degree to which the prospective user expect the target system to be free of effort. TAM postulates that actual technology usage is determined by intention to use, which in turn, is viewed as being jointly determined by the persons attitude toward using the technology and perceived usefulness. Other theories used in KMS adoption for understanding people behaviour is Theory Reason of Action (TRA) [1]. This theory provides a framework to study attitudes toward behaviour. According to the theory, the most important determinant of a person's behaviour is behaviour intent. The individual's intention to perform behaviour is a combination of attitude toward performing the behaviour and subjective norm. The individual's attitude toward the behaviour includes; behavioural belief, evaluations of behavioural outcome, subjective norm, normative beliefs, and the motivation to comply. Previous researches in KMS adoptions have been done by many researchers, but there is limited study conducted that focus on KMS post-adoption. Most of the studies discuss KMS adoption as a general term of adoption. Some of the important studies conducted in KMS adoption are listed in Table 3.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

37

Studies that have been done noticed that TAM is used widely by researchers to predict user behaviour. They found perceived usefulness as main factors influencing users in implying TABLE 3 RESEARCH IN KMS ADOPTION

Five elements have been considered an influence knowledge worker in continuing KS trough KMS. The five elements describe bellows: 1) Organizational Facilitation - The construction of organizational facilitation is represented by creating imperatives; cutting of old man's; having rigor; monitoring system usage; promoting success stories and best practices; satisfying the users need continuously; making KMS a part of business; making use of KMS a part of an end users life in the organization; KMS personalization; KMS customazation; and KMS invention. Realized Benefits - This construct is presented by six dimensions of potential benefit and driving forces of KMS. The six dimensions are: (1) effectiveness, (2) creativity, (3) productivity, (4) cost and time reduction (5) knowledge building, and (6) avoiding the same mistake. Realized User Friendliness This construct of perceived user friendliness reflect the perspectives of end-user focus on the KMS and is made up of simple to learn and use, cheap to learn and use, speed, accessibility, quality of knowledge, security, complexity, and risk of knowledge. Continued Used of KMS - The construct of continued use of KMS is represented by future uses of KMS in the areas of knowledge and expert information search; communication with knowledge holders; knowledge sharing; contribution to the system; codifying and storing knowledge; knowledge creation; and KMS habit. Perceived Voluntariness - Perceived voluntariness is the degree to which the use of KMS is perceived as being voluntary, or free will. The construct of perceived voluntariness is reflected in three dimensions: (1) voluntary use, (2) superior request, and (3) job description. Subject Norm - Subject norms refer to the persons perception that most people who are important to him/she thinks he/she should or should not use KMS to perform a task [1]. End users use of KMS can be influenced by others, such as leader, peers, respected people, superiors and subordinates.

2)

3)

4)

Xu and Quaddus [28] proposed KMS post-adoption model. The model was developed by innovation stage model built on Rogers and with two other most widely apply theory from Ajzen and Fishbeins [1] Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Davis [10] Technology Adoption Model.

5)

6)

Fig.2. Xu and Quaddus post-adoption model.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

38

3 DISCUSSION
There is a lack in KMS user adoption research in considering different belief and expectation of knowledge workers. Most of the KMS adoption research has been done in the general perspective of knowledge worker. Existing KMS adoption model provides limited information to examine contributor and seeker behaviour. We need to provide a method that can be applied in KMS adoption model to predict both contributor and seeker behaviour. It is relevant to Dennis and Reineke [11], Japerson, et al. [16] And He and Wei [15] argues that we need to consider complete better understanding to predicting user behaviour. In previous research on KMS adoption perceived usefulness is found as main factors influencing user intention using KMS. In previous research perceived usefulness found as main construct in predicting the user intention of using KMS. Perceived usefulness is mainly defined in term of work performance. In the specific environment like KM, the researcher still ambiguous in question is the work performance the only characteristic in perceived usefulness? In general IS context, the answer may be yes, however in KMS context we should consider the unique environment of KM. In the KM environment there are two actors with different belief and expectation during use KMS, namely seekers and contributors. First, when the KMS utilized by the seekers, in this scenario may be work performance could be assumed as seeker value when using KMS, but when contributor became the actor, value or benefit that they expect from using KMS would be different. It is mean work performance could be not relevant if we consider as the only element in perceived usefulness in term of contributor environment. It is expected that to understand both knowledge worker behaviors in the use of KMS in KM initiative is critical. The ability to identify, predict and manage both knowledge workers of KMS will facilitate implementation efforts, as adoption of KMS by knowledge workers are necessary for its ultimate success. We have argued that to understand both of knowledge workers' behaviour, we should pay attention to some of the aspects below: 1) Benefit and cost of KS are becoming main motivation and barriers in KM initiatives. It is important for us to explore different expectations of benefit and cost from the knowledge contributor and seeker. 2) KMS is a socio-technical system in a social environment using KMS by user will impact user itself, group and community belonging to the environment.

Realized benefit and cost of KS is becoming main barriers in KM initiative, understand the different expectations of benefit and cost from the seeker and the contributor is critical. Social exchange theory has been widely used to understand phenomenon related with benefit and cost. Social exchange theory view benefits act as a motivator to human behavior. Cabrera-Cabrera [6] noted people who intend to contribute their knowledge would consider two factors; first benefit and second cost. In ideal condition people would contribute if they get maximum benefits with minimum cost when contributing their knowledge. The motivation can be extrinsic or intrinsic [5]. Extrinsic benefits are sought after as means to ends desired by people. For example knowledge contributor may receive organizational rewards for their contributions to KMS through which they can obtain a better lifestyle. As a result of the contribution, knowledge contributors may also enhance their image or reputation in the organization [5], [18]. This is relevant to what we discuss in the previous section. The cost of using KMS consists of two types: first, opportunity cost and second, the actual cost of resources [19]. Opportunity costs are reward foregone from alternative behaviour not chosen. In this case for example, time and effort required to contributing or seeking knowledge [6] can act as opportunity cost that knowledge contributor and seeker for performing alternative tasks at the time and accruing the corresponding rewards. Actual loss is the loss of power or unique value within the organization associated with the task performed. Loss of knowledge power can be considered as an actual loss of resources during the knowledge contribution. The description of cost elements are shown in table 4. TABLE 4 COST OF USING KMS

a)

b)

KMS is a socio-technical system in a social environment, using KMS by user will impact user itself, group and community belonging to the environment In this research we argue KMS is not a simple taskoriented software package. It is important to make analysis that KMS is not categorized as simple task-oriented software package (single task-oriented result software).

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

39

KMS has been designed to support the process that exists in one group, department or organization. Member of the organization could have different goals and expectations, competing technologies, and preexisting organizational cultures, norms, and expectations. Furthermore we need to consider all the factors in the wider ecosystem that contribute to adoption of KMS by the user. To understand this phenomenon we use Time Interaction and Performance (TIP) theory. TIP could use to understand task performance in wider ecosystem, TIP developed by McGrath in 1991 [20]. TIP theory - Time, Interaction and Performance - argues that groups are embedded into their surrounding social and organizational systems that they work, and while working, groups simultaneously perform three functions that contribute to the organization, the group and the individual members; 1) Production function/performing the assigned taskwhich consist actions that contribute to overall organization or system within which group embedded, such as, knowledge sharing and making decisions. 2) Groups well-being function - which consist of actions that make contributions to the group itself as an intact and continuing social structure, such as, member assume roles and develop behaviour norms 3) Member support function - which consist of actions that make contributions to the individual member, such as relationship with others, individual growth and development. Related to this study we argue, the benefit of KMS is not limited to task performance. Another potential benefit could be valuable for knowledge workers in a social environment. Studies in KM have identified the factors that motivated people in KS [5], [6], [8], [15], [18], and [27]. They categorized the factors in two types: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. TABLE 5 INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

People share their knowledge may do so because of prosocial attitudes [27] that they do because they enjoy to helping each other. 1) Economic reward - studies conduct in KM shows that economic reward (e.g. Money) scheme has a positive influence in encouraging contributors in KS [5], [18]. 2) Reputation - some study notes that people doing KS because they believe they can establish and improve their reputation by doing so [27]. 3) Reciprocity - the norms of reciprocity have positive impact to encourage contributors in KS. In the proposed model, we enhance perceived usefulness using TIP. The mapping of TIP and benefit of KS consists of groups well-being function and member support function as shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 TIP AND BENEFIT OF USING KMS

We propose perspective of cost and benefit of enhanced Xu and Quaddus [28] post-adoption model. We apply the propose cost and benefit by enriched two elements known as realized benefit and realized user friendliness as described in Table 7,8 (for seeker) and Table 9,10 (for contributor). In our enhanced model we differentiate based on the seeker and contributor role. The model as shown in Figure 7 and 8 describes each seeker and contributor behaviour in KMS post-adoption.

Enjoy helping as show in Table 5 is about individual attitude in helping others regardless of whether they are getting or not anything in return.
Fig.3. Seeker KMS post-adoption model.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

40

1)

2)

Seeker Realized Benefits - This construct is presented by six dimensions of potential benefit and driving forces of KMS. The six dimensions are: (1) effectiveness, (2) creativity, (3) productivity, (4) cost and time reduction (5) knowledge building, and (6) avoiding the same mistake. Seeker Realized User Friendliness - This construct of perceived user friendliness reflect the perspectives of end-user focus on the KMS and is made up of simple to learn and use, cheap to learn and use, speed, accessibility, quality of knowledge, security, complexity, and risk of knowledge. TABLE 7 SEEKER REALIZED BENEFIT

1)

2)

Contributor Realized Benefits - This construct is presented by four dimensions of potential benefit and driving forces of KMS. The four dimensions are: (1) Enjoy in helping, (2) Reputation (3) Reciprocity (4) Economic rewards. Contributor Realized User Friendliness - This construct of perceived user friendliness reflect the perspectives of end-user focus on the KMS and is made up of simple use, cheap to use, speed, security and loss of knowledge power. TABLE 9 CONTRIBUTOR REALIZED BENEFIT

TABLE 10 CONTRIBUTOR REALIZED USER FRIENDLINESS

TABLE 8 SEEKER REALIZED USER FRIENDLINESS

4 CONCLUSION
This paper enhanced KMS post-adoption model from Xu and Quaddus [28] by enriching benefit element with perceived cost and apply TIP, SET, and motivation theory as a lens to understand user behavior. This model integrates two different perspectives of knowledge worker. The perspective was based on their different belief in KS benefit. Understanding the behaviour of the contributor and the seeker would lead the organization in development and implementation of appropriate strategies to deal with knowledge workers belief and expectation. The further work is to test the model in real practices.

Fig. 4. Contributor post-adoption model.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

41

REFERENCES
[1] [2] M. F. Ajzen, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior EnglewoodCliffs NY Prentice Hall, Prentice-Hall, 1980. V. Anand, et al., "Thriving on the Knowledge of Outsiders: Tapping Organizational Social Capital," The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), vol. 16, pp. 87-101, 2002. K. M. Bartol and A. Srivastava, "Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems," Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 9, pp. 64-76, Summer 2002 2002. G. D. Bhatt, "Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people," Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. Vol. 5 pp. pp.68 - 75, 2001. G.-W. Bock, et al., "Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate," MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, pp. 87-111, 2005. A. Cabrera and E. F. Cabrera, "Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas," Organization Studies, vol. 23, pp. 687-710, September 1, 2002 2002. O. Chorng-Shyong, et al., "An Understanding of Power Issues Influencing Employees' Acceptance of KMS: An Empirical Study of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Companies," in System Sciences, 2005. HICSS '05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 2005, pp. 269a269a. P. F. Clay, et al., "Factors Affecting the Loyal Use of Knowledge Management Systems," in System Sciences, 2005. HICSS '05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 2005, pp. 251c-251c. B. Cristof, et al., "Assessing User Acceptance of a Knowledge Management System in a Global Bank: Process Analysis and Concept Development," in System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 2007, pp. 203c-203c. F. D. Davis, et al., "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, vol. 35, pp. 982-1003, 1989. A. R. Dennis and B. A. Reinicke, "Beta versus VHS and the Acceptance of Electronic Brainstorming Technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 1-20, 2004. J. N. Dyer, Kentaro, "Creating and Managing a High Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: The Toyota Case," 2002-07-10. F. Ericsson, & Avdic, A, " Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance," In E. Coakes (Ed.), Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges, pp. (pp. 39-51), (2003).

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14] M. T. Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, "What s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review,". Taylor \& Francis, vol. 77(2), 106-116, 187, (1999). [15] W. He and K.-K. Wei, "What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and seeking beliefs," Decision Support Systems, vol. 46, pp. 826838, 2009. [16] J. Jasperson, et al., "A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems," MIS Q., vol. 29, pp. 525-557, 2005. [17] M. a. O. Jennex, Lorne "A Knowledge Management Success Model: An Extension of DeLone and McLean's IS Success Model," AMCIS 2003 Proceedings, vol. Paper 330, (2003). [18] A. Kankanhalli, et al., "Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation," MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, pp. 113-143, 2005. [19] G. P. a. N. T. Linda D. Molm, "Power in Negotiated and Reciprocal Exchange," American Sociological Review, Published by: American Sociological Association . Vol. 64. pp. 876-890, Dec., 1999. [20] J. E. Mcgrath, "Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP)," Small Group Research, vol. 22, pp. 147-174, May 1, 1991 1991. [21] W. Money and A. Turner, "Assessing knowledge management system user acceptance with the Technology Acceptance Model," International Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 1 pp. 8-26. 2008. [22] O. F. a. S. O. Ogunseye, "Applying an Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model to Knowledge Management in Agricultural Extension Services" Data Science Journal . Vol. 7. pp.31-45, 2008. [23] H. G. Peter, "The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace," Information Technology & People, vol. 14, pp. 368-384, 2001. [24] M. Peter and S. Robert, "A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems," Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 4, pp. 224-234, 2000. [25] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, vol. 46, pp. 186-204, 2000. [26] S. C. Voelpel, et al., "Five Steps to Creating a Global Knowledge-Sharing System: Siemens' ShareNet," The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), vol. 19, pp. 9-23, 2005. [27] M. M. Wasko and S. Faraj, "Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice," MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, pp. 35-57, 2005. [28] J. Xu, & Quaddus, M "Exploring the Factors Influencing End Users' Acceptance of Knowledge Management Systems: Development of a Research Model of Adoption and Continued Use," Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), vol. 19(4), pp. 57-79, (2007).

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4, APRIL 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

42

Setiawan Assegaff is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Computer Science and Information System, University Teknologi Malaysia. His education includes BS and MS in Information System, University of Gunadrma, Indonesia in 2000 and 2003. His research interests focus on Knowledge Management, Technology Adoption and Computer and Society. Ab Razak Che Hussin is a senior lecture in Faculty of Computer Science and Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He received his PhD from University of Manchester in 2006 on the field of Trust in E-commerce. His research interests focus in web application and trust and privacy in e-commerce. Halina Mohamed Dahlan is a senior lecture in Faculty of Computer Science and Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She received his PhD from University of Manchester in 2008 in the field of Intelligent Decision Support. Her research interests focus on business intelligence, evolutionary computing, and fuzzy logic.